Morning Schedule Change

[urbanpreppie05]

I've already said that I'm glad Perry CS is coming back...but I never thought Eubanks was bad either.
-I thought the set for Eubanks CS was always better...why? I thought the lack of those cards at the turntable (which, IMHO were a bit garish), and when the turntable changed, it didn't shake like the Perry set's did.
-I know this is sacreliege, but I really have never been a fan of the CS 78 theme. It sounds so...70's. The 86 theme to me sounded more mainstream.
-Even if Bob was a bit of a jerk sometimes, I also liked the models in his version better-especially Susannah!
-I thought the 10-person questions and educated guesses were a nice twist to the format, which helped cut the monotony of the gameplay.

[JerrysFeudinAgain]

Bob or Jim who's the best?
Can we please give it a rest!
Onnnnnnnnnnnnnn Card Sharks!
<dunking>

[JerrysFeudinAgain]

Why can't this board agree?
Jim and Bob gives away the money!
Onnnnnnnnnnnnn Card Sharks!
<dunking>

[GS Warehouse]

[quote name=\'JerrysFeudinAgain\' date=\'Aug 2 2004, 04:31 AM\'] <dunking> [/quote]
 [throws donuts at Jerry]

[uncamark]

*Bruce Forsyth* was better.  There.  

Seriously, I personally feel that Eubanks got the job for the revival indirectly because Bruce's UK version played the game more for laughs than the Perry version.  MGP wanted the revival to reflect this and brought in Eubanks, who has a reputation for getting laughs out of oridinary people.  Rafterty was also known as a comedic host who would work with contestants and get laughs, so he was an obvious choice for the syndie version.

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Aug 2 2004, 03:57 PM\'] Rafferty was also known as a comedic host who would work with contestants and get laughs, so he was an obvious choice for the syndie version. [/quote]
 And in his case, it worked. Too bad the clearances and ratings weren't there.

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Aug 2 2004, 03:57 PM\'] Seriously, I personally feel that Eubanks got the job for the revival indirectly because Bruce's UK version played the game more for laughs than the Perry version. [/quote]
Wasn't it rumored that he wanted to bring Bruce to the states to host this; but Bruce hosted "Hot Streak" instead?
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Jul 30 2004, 08:31 AM\'] We all have game shows we dislike, but I haven't come across too many people who don't like CS.
 [/quote]
Straight from my website...a review:

Personalities:  Jim Perry’s hosting style is perfect for the show.  He seems to be able to create suspense when flipping the cards.  Models do little more than stand there, and hand the host cards.  Total points: 27/30

Game format: A game of basically luck, which I have never really cared for.  And the survey part of the game really seemed irrelevant except to determine who got control.  .    Total points: 14/30

Set/Music: The music is now classic among fans of TV themes.  Nice audience-participation with the “clap” pattern in the opening.  The set is a totally different story.  It looks like it was constructed in a hour, and could topple over at a moment’s notice.  Total points: 11/20

Prizes: A $28,800 maximum win in the bonus round could be done-which it was-if you were lucky enough.  The $200 win in the bonus game was awful tiny though.  Towards the end of the run, they added bonuses as a last-ditch effort to “save” the show.  Total points: 7/10

Playibility: Very easy to yell out “Higher” or “Lower”, with the contestant predicting the cards.  Total points: 10/10

My notes-Sorry, I never really have seen the compelling factor in this show.

Grand total:  69/100-D+

[Ian Wallis]

Game format: A game of basically luck, which I have never really cared for. And the survey part of the game really seemed irrelevant except to determine who got control. . Total points: 14/30

True, there is a lot of luck involved, but there also is a certain amount of skill....or maybe we should say common sense.  If you freeze at the right times and force your opponent to play in tough situations, then you can still end up winning even if the cards might have been against you.  In other words, you call a couple of cards right and have a 5 or 6 showing, Freeze immediately rather than gambling.  If your opponent gains control on the last question, they'll have a tough time deciding whether to pass or not if you have only one or two cards to go and they have four.  I've seen people in this situation decide to play, and end up losing because it's tough to call four in a row.

For the record, I preferred Eubanks' version of the show.  As for Eubanks himself, most of the accounts I've read of him indicate he was actually one of the nicest hosts.  I know he sometimes came across as a jerk on "Newlywed Game", but that was all part of the "act" for that show.  I thought he was OK on "Card Sharks".