12/06 Schedule Changes

[CaseyAbell]

You take the contrarian view when you're reasonably certain that you can get a rise out of people.

I'm sorry (and I'm not being dishonest) but you're just on the wrong trail here. I really don't care about getting a rise out of people on this board. Otherwise, I'd start tossing around intemperate language about other posters like Dsmith used (and to his credit, apologized for.)

I don't deny that I have opinions, and I try to defend them. If this constitutes "trying to get a rise out of people," I'll have to plead guilty. But there are a lot of other posters on this board and thousands of other Internet boards who would be equally guilty by that criterion.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 01:17 PM\']

You take the contrarian view when you're reasonably certain that you can get a rise out of people.

I'm sorry (and I'm not being dishonest) but you're just on the wrong trail here. I really don't care about getting a rise out of people on this board. Otherwise, I'd start tossing around intemperate language about other posters like Dsmith used (and to his credit, apologized for.)

I don't deny that I have opinions, and I try to defend them. If this constitutes "trying to get a rise out of people," I'll have to plead guilty. But there are a lot of other posters on this board and thousands of other Internet board who would be equally guilty by that criterion.

[snapback]61890[/snapback]

[/quote]
I don't think I'm on the wrong trail at all.  But I also don't think we're going to get anywhere here as long as mindreading is impossible and I can't prove definitively whether you're being truthful or not.  I'll simply let the facts -- one, that you're in a minority of one (or, in the case of the usefulness of the GSN boards, two) on at least a half-dozen points; and two, that you've distorted what I've said twice in this thread alone in order to make your argument -- speak for themselves.

That ends my comments on the matter.  And I'm sure you'll disagree, but that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 12:11 PM\']I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just pointing out what's actually on GSN's current schedule. [/quote]
No, that's no longer what you're doing.  You're taking the schedule and making your own subjective evaluation based on opinions you hold.  Not the same thing.

We're all entitled to do that.  Your opinions, at least on this subject, are drifting further and further into the minority, which isn't a problem either.   But when you make your own definition of what constitutes a traditional game show -- and somehow find a place for Celebrity Blackjack within it -- and when you decide that the rest of us are arbitrary because we have an understanding for what constitutes a classic that somehow you lack, then your "just the facts" defense doesn't hold up any more.

[CaseyAbell]

I don't see how I've distorted your arguments, and I don't see how you can be sure that I'm in a minority of one on any issue unless you've polled the entire membership of the board...which I doubt that you've done. So as you suggest, we'll just leave the discussion where it stands.

[SplitSecond]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 10:12 AM\']

Pray tell, what do you mean by "heavily... manipulated"?

"The areas of questioning designed for each celebrity and possible bluff answers are discussed with each celebrity in advance. In the course of their briefing, actual questions and answers may be given or discerned by the celebrities."

If this stuff was happening on a reality show, the Prof would be, well, very interested. In fact, he got upset with similar briefings of the celebs on Donny Pyramid. And I agree with him (I said in my best non-contrarian voice).

[snapback]61888[/snapback]

[/quote]

First off, the briefings on Pyramid and the briefings on Squares are not at all similar.  The briefings on Pyramid were essentially sneak peeks at actual game material for the purpose of helping the celebrity communicate to the contestants - thereby likely affecting the outcome of the game.  The celebrities on Squares were briefed with a topic, a joke, and a bluff for each question.  Celebrities ultimately get the final say - on the spot, after hearing the actual question for the first time - on what their responses are, and from there, the contestant still has to decide whether to agree or disagree.

The jokes were certainly scripted - a trip down MG/HS Hour Lane should serve as enough of a reminder as to what happens when they're not.  But the show was far from "heavily scripted and manipulated."

[CaseyAbell]

But when you make your own definition of what constitutes a traditional game show...

We've gone around and around this issue many times, and the best definition I've heard is the "I know it when I see it" criterion. Which allows a great deal of subjectivity into the definition, and which I think is the right way to go.

Obviously, people have many ideas on the topic. The editors of EOTVGS somehow got Home Run Derby into their definition of "game show." I don't agree, and I doubt that I would be in the minority on this board in my disagreement. But that's their view and I can't absolutely disprove it, because there's no universally agreed-on definition of "game show."

As for the proposed definitions of a "classic" or "old" game show, well, yes, they also seem to run into subjective and arbitrary requirements. We may just have to use the "I know it when I see it" definition here, too.

Which is probably just another way of saying we'll have to agree to disagree.

[CaseyAbell]

The briefings on Pyramid were essentially sneak peeks at actual game material for the purpose of helping the celebrity communicate to the contestants - thereby likely affecting the outcome of the game.

The H2 celebs got sneak peeks at actual game material - "actual questions and answers" to use the disclaimer's wording - and this certainly helped in communicating to the contestants. Did this affect the outcome of the game? I don't know, and we'll never know because you can't rerun the game without the peek at the game material and see how it would have turned out. But it's hard to see how it could affect outcomes on Pyramid but not on H2.

[Jimmy Owen]

On "Squares," the celeb really doesn't have to partner with a player, the player somewhat controls his or her destiny.  Wasn't it just Winner's Circle material that was given to the celebs?  If they gave out main game material, the game would be reduced to how quickly a celeb can recite a list, since there was no telling in what order the main game categories were picked.  It would be, in effect, like "Dotto," a test of the powers of memorization.

[CaseyAbell]

Was it only Winner's Circle material? I thought I read on this board that WC material was not given to the celebs in the second season of Donny Pyramid. That's why the contestants had the choice to give or receive in the second season WC.

In any event, the peek at the game material was widely, sharply and (IMO) correctly criticized on this board. Another example of where I agreed with the apparent consensus.

I'll admit that the advance peek at the game material might have been necessary for entertainment value on H2, as the sorry history of the MG/H2 hour indicates. A poster gave a link to an actual MG/H2 episode on the Big Board, and the H2 segment really dragged without the prepping. Too many celebs just scratched their heads and said, "gee, I really don't know."

But I'm still not a big fan of the practice.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 01:37 PM\']

But when you make your own definition of what constitutes a traditional game show...

We've gone around and around this issue many times, and the best definition I've heard is the "I know it when I see it" criterion. Which allows a great deal of subjectivity into the definition, and which I think is the right way to go.[/quote]
It's almost extraordinary how you managed to excerpt the one phrase out of my post that suggests I somehow have a problem with subjective opinions, when the expression of opinions as opposed to facts was, in fact, my entire point.

[CaseyAbell]

It's almost extraordinary how you managed to excerpt the one phrase out of my post that suggests I somehow have a problem with subjective opinions, when the expression of opinions as opposed to facts was, in fact, my entire point.

It seems we agree on the subjectivity involved in all the attempted definitions of "game shows" and "classic game shows" and "old game shows." I wasn't trying to excerpt anything from your post to make you look like you have a problem with anything. I only used that phrase to begin the discussion about how subjective the definitions can be, and how this may actually be a good thing. (Martha said I can use that line until she gets out.)

If somebody tried to impose THE OFFICIAL DEFINITION of game shows on us game show fans, my guess is that there would be a lot of vigorously dissenting game show fans. So I have no problem at all with avoiding such a fiat, and I don't think you have a problem with avoiding it, either.

Which means there will always be roon for disagreement on what is and is not a "game show" or a "classic game show" or an "old game show."

Now that doesn't mean that I can't state an opinion that the Prof, for instance, is using restrictive definitions of "game show" or "classic game show" to exclude as much of the post-Boden GSN from those categories as possible. I don't think that's unfair to the Prof at all. In fact, I think he'd agree with me that it's exactly what he is doing in his frequent criticisms of the current GSN.

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 11:10 AM\']Was it only Winner's Circle material? I thought I read on this board that WC material was not given to the celebs in the second season of Donny Pyramid. That's why the contestants had the choice to give or receive in the second season WC.

[snapback]61902[/snapback]

[/quote]
If the material wasn't given to the celebs, then there was a 10-to-15-minute delay in the studio before each WC for no reason.

And, although the first four frontgame category selections are made in advance, I saw no evidence of anyone receiving any of this material before the game. (And if it were happening, I would've seen evidence of it.)

[CaseyAbell]

If the material wasn't given to the celebs, then there was a 10-to-15-minute delay in the studio before each WC for no reason.

Oh, I don't doubt that some WC material was given in advance. It helped make the Winner's Circle too easy to win, as many pointed out. I just thought that things might have changed in the second season, but I wasn't there and I don't know for sure.

Still don't like the practice. Maybe I'm naive, but the appeal of game shows for me has always been spontaneous competition. Yes, Donny Pyramid disclaimed the sneak peek, which got them off the legal hook. But it always bugged me a little. Still does.

[melman1]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 09:00 AM\'][Dsmith's comments] must have given Dsmith something to think about, because he apologized for his intemperate language on the Behind the Scenes board.[/quote]
He did not apologize for what he said, but for the way that he said it.  I think you know that.

You might have noticed my mention of "All New 3's a Crap."

Crud, Crap, Crapper, etc.   Yawn.

Said it on the other thread, and I'll say it here. If GSN does something I like, I say so. If GSN does something I don't like, I say so.

That's not the point, and I think you know that too.  The problem is that if someone says something about GSN that you don't like, you go off the deep end - ratings, the schedule, Perfesser rants - as if from a checklist.  God, can you even compose a post without mentioning "the Prof" and whether you agree with him, or he agrees with you?  Give it a rest.

[CaseyAbell]

In fact, many (probably most, but I don't have time to check) of my posts don't mention Steve Beverly at all. But he's certainly relevant to this discussion because of his frequent criticisms of the current GSN.

And if GSN's ratings and schedule aren't relevant to a discussion of GSN, what is? Rich Cronin's office decor?

As for Dsmith's apology, I've congratulated him for it. The subject is closed as far as I'm concerned.