Match Game 1990-91 thoughts

[wdm1219inpenna]

While I do remember watching it on ABC during its original run, I know Buzzr has been airing mini marathons in the late afternoon/early evening hours and I found myself really enjoying it much more than I remembered.

My only 2 gripes with Match Game '90:

1. The Star Wheel with that pointer, it's more fun watching the actual wheel spin than a pointer, especially since the contestant always starts off with the pointer in the same general spot on the wheel itself.

2.  If a player won the big money in the Head To Head match, they did not also win the Audience Match money won (different from the Rayburn versions).

I thought the Match-Up rounds really helped to spice up the game and loved that all six celebrities got to play all of the comedy questions in both rounds too.

I know Brett Somers was on at least one week of episodes and that Charles was on a bit more frequently as a celebrity player.  I also know that Gene Rayburn had been in line to get the gig until I think it was Entertainment Tonight made mention of Gene's age at the time due to a Happy Birthday announcement and that ultimately cost him getting the job in favor of a younger host in Ross Schaefer (who I felt did a really great job as host by the way!).

I could not help but wonder, since Gene was still alive and well in the early 1990s if Gene ever watched the ABC version of Match Game and if he ever felt angry or betrayed by Brett and Charles appearing on the updated version without Gene at the helm.  I suppose on the one hand the prevailing attitude was "Well, that's show biz!" with respect to how the celebs may have felt.  On the other hand I would like to think that Gene would have said to Brett and Charles "It's a paycheck!  You would be dingbats to turn down being on the show!".  I was wondering what you all think about these notions and if perhaps anybody may have some inside info about what I discussed here.

Thank you!

[TLEberle]

Really? You're bent out of shape because the multiplier was 20x and not 21x and that the winner is pushing an arrow instead of grabbing a peg?

OK then.

As to your question about Gene's feelings of betrayal I would happily point you to a tome titled "The Matchless Gene Rayburn."

[TimK2003]

^^ Was it really just Gene's age that cost him the MG'90 gig, or might it have been possibly his performance(s) on MGHS and his brief time on Break The Bank that played a part of it as well? 

[aaron sica]

Might be wrong here, but I remembered the ET revealing his age thing killing the 1987 Match Game version (there were ads for it in Broadcasting & Cable).

[JasonA1]

Really? You're bent out of shape because the multiplier was 20x and not 21x and that the winner is pushing an arrow instead of grabbing a peg?

To be fair, I know some game show fans who aren't happy with the modern trend of awarding you $X for winning the game, but when you win the bonus round, you're actually playing for Grand Prize minus $X. (In other words, you "increase your winnings" to the amount the host says, as opposed to winning Grand Prize + $x.) MG90 deciding to hold onto the Super Match money feels like an offshoot of that.

That said, I actually never noticed this until the most recent run of the show on Buzzr. It's a curious choice, given it's Goodson, and that so few shows of the '70s/'80s did that sort of thing. But it didn't make MG90 any worse for me, now that I know that.

And I liked the 1990 Star Wheel! It was even bigger than the previous one, and spinning a pointer vs. spinning the wheel is right up there in innovation-land with Wheel of Fortune making their wheel horizontal, and Price is Right making theirs a thicker contraption that you view from the side.

My broader thoughts on the series were in the hot takes thread.

-Jason

[wdm1219inpenna]

^^ Was it really just Gene's age that cost him the MG'90 gig, or might it have been possibly his performance(s) on MGHS and his brief time on Break The Bank that played a part of it as well?

I would have answered sooner but I was busy bending myself back into shape again

I think Gene was every bit as good on MG/HS Hour as his other version of Match Game but I agree, his Break The Bank hosting was pretty sub-par for Gene, but then it seemed to be a sub-par game too.

[Otm Shank]

Really? You're bent out of shape because the multiplier was 20x and not 21x and that the winner is pushing an arrow instead of grabbing a peg?

OK then.

Well, I read it that the only quibble was a few minor points, compared with the other offering of the decade. And to be fair, spinning that pointer was a little weird and the follow-shot of the last half-revolution was an unusual choice.

If we are quibbling (because it is what we do here), the neon and strobes were a little overdone. It may have been my TV at the time, but the neon glow would "smear" a little.

I did like the Match-Up as a new wrinkle to solve the "do not write" problem posed by early round matching in the 70s. It didn't get rid of all the goofy responses, but in general it promoted earnest attempts to match without having celebrities sit out most of the episode. I thought the writing was done well, and they generally had good celebrities (recognizing they often had to sacrifice Seat 6 to ABC Daytime promotion). I was in my first year of college, and I was able to run home to catch it every day, so some of the nostalgia is taking me back to a certain era.

[BrandonFG]

I know Brett Somers was on at least one week of episodes and that Charles was on a bit more frequently as a celebrity player.  I also know that Gene Rayburn had been in line to get the gig until I think it was Entertainment Tonight made mention of Gene's age at the time due to a Happy Birthday announcement and that ultimately cost him getting the job in favor of a younger host in Ross Schaefer (who I felt did a really great job as host by the way!).

Was this ever confirmed or is it game show urban legend, kinda like Alex being drunk on the High Rollers finale? Gene wasn't only a few years older than Barker and TPiR didn't seem to suffer.

On the other hand I would like to think that Gene would have said to Brett and Charles "It's a paycheck!  You would be dingbats to turn down being on the show!".  I was wondering what you all think about these notions and if perhaps anybody may have some inside info about what I discussed here.

Never really thought about it until now but I doubt Gene would've had bad blood over Brett or CNR doing a few weeks. I'm sure he realized the two were just as synonymous with the show as he was.

[Sodboy13]

I was 11-12 when this version was on, so it was the first version of Match Game I had regular exposure to (though I did get to see some MGHS as a tyke.) Watching it as an adult with too much knowledge about how shows are made and built, I've formed some opinions:

- The game structure is better than MG '7x.
- The comedy is better and more consistent than MGHS.
- Ross is a better host than Gene was at any point during the 1980s.
- The editing is done really well to fit in the whole game without making the show feel chopped or rushed, as happened a lot during syndie MG.
- Not my money, but glad they figured out they could afford to up the stakes a little from the original for Super Match, even if the front game now gave a decent handful of money to the winner.
- My one structural critique: Once they figured out how to block the game as Round 1/Match-Up/Round 2 + Final Match-Up/Super Match, that second segment was just so short. Make the first go-round for :45 at $50, and make the second for :30 at $100. Doing that, you balance out the blocks a little better, and you still have the last round of the game worth the most money, but it's no longer weighted so heavily that it feels like it outweighs everything before it.

[JasonA1]

- My one structural critique: Once they figured out how to block the game as Round 1/Match-Up/Round 2 + Final Match-Up/Super Match, that second segment was just so short. Make the first go-round for :45 at $50, and make the second for :30 at $100.

Before I get into the rest, can I ask why it's a detriment to you as a viewer to have one segment disproportionately short? Maybe I'm missing something.

-Jason

[Sodboy13]

Before I get into the rest, can I ask why it's a detriment to you as a viewer to have one segment disproportionately short? Maybe I'm missing something.

-Jason

I compare it to a common gripe in sports: Those moments in football where it's an ad break, kickoff, touchback, and then right to another ad break. I just like a little more meat in that particular sandwich. Honestly, the weight of the scoring is more important to me than the timing of the segments, but I just thought of a way that could have addressed both in one move without really messing with everything I feel worked just fine.

[Joe Mello]

Make the first go-round for :45 at $50, and make the second for :30 at $100. Doing that, you balance out the blocks a little better, and you still have the last round of the game worth the most money, but it's no longer weighted so heavily that it feels like it outweighs everything before it.

I would argue that you actually do want a fairly robust catch-up mechanic, especially when each person is effectively playing their own game with little way to affect the other. While modern game shows seem to visibly overbalance for their final round, I don't think MG '90 has that problem.

[JasonA1]

You don't want the last round to be just 30 seconds (ask Temptation: The All-New $ale of the Century). You want the perception of a comeback possibility. Even if they flipped the timing to 45/30 instead of 30/45, Match-Up would still be more important to the score than the longer, main rounds of Match Game, where all the real entertainment of the show is supposed to come from. If we end up in the weeds of scoring on what's supposed to be a comedy show, we have a problem of a different kind.

-Jason

[MSTieScott]

I haven't been watching much of the Buzzr run, but revisiting just a couple of episodes, I don't like that there are two sets of Match-Up. There's no comedy, and each prompt goes by too quickly for the viewer to think about whether the contestant or celebrity are picking the "better" of each pair.

One set wouldn't bother me, but when they keep interrupting the fun with Match-Up, and when Match-Up often pays better than the fun questions, it feels like the focus is on the wrong part of the show.

[jage]

Totally agree. It's a cute round once per show. If you want something that will help determine a winner better than the 2nd question, could do some form of the tiebreaker match as a 4th round. Or just drop the 2nd matchup and have more time for banter.