Backpedaling

[TheInquisitiveOne]

Hello everyone!

Deal or no Deal.

What the Blank?

The Dating/Newlywed Game.

These shows, as many of you know, were publicly approved and supposedly set to air on ABC, FOX, and NBC, respectively. However, the networks balked just before the trigger was to be pulled (at least, as far as I know).

My question to my fellow board members is this: why do the networks seem to be keen on these shows, make this totally aware, and then seem to be adamant about it at the last minute? I would like the general consensus of the board...thanks for the responses.

By the way, I did not come close to covering the scope with these three shows...anybody else have some shows in mind? Don Howard's "Top Secret" thread shed a little light on that.

The Inquisitive One

(By the way, I like the new digs. Way to go, Chris and Matt!)

[adamjk]

I know about the first two shows you mentioned, but never heard anything on the Dating/Newlywed Game. When was this? Also, whatever happened to that revival of the old 64 grand slam show ABC was planning?

[TheInquisitiveOne]

[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Sep 30 2004, 08:56 PM\']I know about the first two shows you mentioned, but never heard anything on the Dating/Newlywed Game. When was this? Also, whatever happened to that revival of the old 64 grand slam show ABC was planning?

[snapback]59088[/snapback]

[/quote]


Actually, Adam, I remember seeing a news crawl about DG/NG on MSNBC in 2003...not too long before the LMAD abortion. I guess that is what made NBC turn tail on that aspiration.

Also, thanks for mentioning 64 Grand Slam. There was a furor about that show, then it went into a puff of smoke...for now. I guess having 25 skanks (thank you Jim Rome) pick two mop-topped losers in the next great breakup makes for better ratings...and ABC wonders why they are the cellar-dwellers of the big four.

The Inquisitive One

(Sorry for the tangent rant.)

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Sep 30 2004, 10:19 PM\']I guess having 25 skanks (thank you Jim Rome) pick two mop-topped losers in the next great breakup makes for better ratings...and ABC wonders why they are the cellar-dwellers of the big four.

[snapback]59091[/snapback]

[/quote]
Even when they're doing something right, they're doing something wrong.  I'm trying to enjoy Lost, one of the most intense and gripping original dramas on television.  At least it would be, if during some of the most intense moments, we weren't subjected to a distractingly large, opaque red box in the corner letting us know that the skanks...uh, The Bachelor was coming up next.

[Fedya]

Am I the only person here who thinks of the awful NBC reality show on hearing the title "Lost"?

Of course, every time there was an ad for Push, Nevada, I kept thikning of Push....

[tommycharles]

[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Sep 30 2004, 10:18 PM\']Am I the only person here who thinks of the awful NBC reality show on hearing the title "Lost"?

Of course, every time there was an ad for Push, Nevada, I kept thikning of Push....

[snapback]59098[/snapback]

[/quote]

You're not the only one (except I actually liked Lost).

As for the other questions - Dating/Newleywed came about around the time of MOGSM #3 - they figured Eubanks was recognizable again, I guess, and wanted to put him to work.

Oh, and for the record, I think 64 Grand Slam has as much chance of surviving over here as Prime Time 100% with Maria Menudos would.

[pianogeek]

I gone to Price Live show in Atlantic City with my cousin tonight and met in person our very own Randy West*.  (Spendid announcer and warm-up talent, personally!  After our picture, I brought up What the Blank and he basically said it's not a firm go.

* = (http://www.yosanman.com/pictures/2004/sep/JoeRanSan.jpg for picture proof, promising Mr. West that I post!)

[adamjk]

[quote name=\'tommycharles\' date=\'Sep 30 2004, 11:16 PM\']As for the other questions - Dating/Newleywed came about around the time of MOGSM #3 - they figured Eubanks was recognizable again, I guess, and wanted to put him to work.

[snapback]59104[/snapback]

[/quote]

Is it safe to assume then that had the Dating and Newlywed Games came back, that Chuck Woolery would have hosted the Dating Portion then?

[zachhoran]

Is it safe to assume then that had the Dating and Newlywed Games came back, that Chuck Woolery would have hosted the Dating Portion then?


One couldn't assume either Woolery or Eubanks would return to host Dating/Newlywed hour if NBC did return them to the air last year. Odds are they'd pick a younger host for the shows.

[tvwxman]

Is it safe to assume then that had the Dating and Newlywed Games came back, that Chuck Woolery would have hosted the Dating Portion then?

[snapback]59129[/snapback]

[/quote]

No, its' not. But go ahead anyways. You're usually right.

[starcade]

Reality and rigged competitive television.

This is one of the reasons why I wonder for the future of any version of ABC Millionaire.  Scripted rigged "reality"/"talent" shows can give a producer an opportunity to create fake enthusiasm or real controversy, generating interest and ratings.  A game show, which definitely has to answer to "Prohibited Practices in Games of Skill or Chance" (no word from the FCC whether that would apply to "reality television -- and yes, I did complain), can't compete on a level playing field with that, regardless of the prize.

[uncamark]

IIRC, "Deal or No Deal" did get to series stage, but the results were so bad ABC didn't air the show.  (I recall Jim talking about captioning an episode and how bad it was, particularly with the quiz element taken out.)

And I'm sorry, but rigging's a serious charge to make.  Do you have proof that Nigel Lythgoe and Ken Warwick were screening every vote call on "Idol" and only taking the ones for the contestants they liked?

[CaseyAbell]

The actual wording of the law doesn't use the phrase "game show" anywhere. Of course, the phrase "reality TV" doesn't appear in this 1960 legislation, either. The key phrase is "a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance."

Kinda slippery phrase that some lawyer could argue doesn't apply to talent contests or reality shows, though these seem to have some elements of intellectual skill and/or chance. I doubt that such a strained, legalistic argument would carry the day if a talent contest or reality show was discovered to have been rigged outright.

As to why networks or cable outlets are reluctant to greenlight game shows, three words: Millionaire killed ABC. Lots of people in the business really seem to believe this. That's why the traditional studio game show is in deep disfavor now. Well, there's also the problem with those pesky demos from the Nielsen folks.

Of course, elements of game shows are smuggled into reality shows and poker tournaments. (No, I won't argue Blackjack again.) But programming honchos seem really wary of anything that looks too game-showy.

Stick around, though. Genres come and go....talking of Michelangelo.

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Oct 1 2004, 07:36 AM\']Is it safe to assume then that had the Dating and Newlywed Games came back, that Chuck Woolery would have hosted the Dating Portion then?

[snapback]59129[/snapback]

[/quote]

Since the Chucker joined Bob for the last Outrageous (or was it the last two?) specials, I figured NBC was putting them both on in preparation for the allegedly imminent Dating/Newlywed Game revivals. But, alas, nay.

[starcade]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 1 2004, 12:25 PM\']The actual wording of the law doesn't use the phrase "game show" anywhere. Of course, the phrase "reality TV" doesn't appear in this 1960 legislation, either. The key phrase is "a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance."
[/quote]

It was clear that that was what they had in mind (which see Dotto, Question/Challenge, etc.)

Kinda slippery phrase that some lawyer could argue doesn't apply to talent contests or reality shows, though these seem to have some elements of intellectual skill and/or chance. I doubt that such a strained, legalistic argument would carry the day if a talent contest or reality show was discovered to have been rigged outright.

Matt and others, in answering me on this subject, have basically come up with the argument of "Who really gives a ---?"  That might be what saves this from coming up.  There is a serious problem with this kind of television, and it is choking out not only game shows, but much of the rest of television as well.

I firmly believe there is much evidence that "American Idol" has been discovered to at least be shady as all get-out -- the slam voters invalidating the voting process which the AI producers refuse to change...

As to why networks or cable outlets are reluctant to greenlight game shows, three words: Millionaire killed ABC. Lots of people in the business really seem to believe this. That's why the traditional studio game show is in deep disfavor now. Well, there's also the problem with those pesky demos from the Nielsen folks.

Of course, this is ignorance on their part.  Regis was right on the money when he said that ABC had nothing else of any real stature on their schedule, so he really had to save them from themselves!

But, as time went on and this became five or six years worth of a problem, it's problematic for a lot more than just game shows, but ABC as a whole as well...

Of course, elements of game shows are smuggled into reality shows and poker tournaments. (No, I won't argue Blackjack again.) But programming honchos seem really wary of anything that looks too game-showy.

Then the genre is dead.  And, this time, no amount of top prize will save it.