Game Show Network

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 01:34 PM\']I think what Mark was trying to say (and I don't have the benefit of the edited out comments) is that he is sick and tired (as am I) of Casey trying to justify what GSN does on their board and this board.[/quote]
You don't seem to get it either.  Casey is just as entitled to his opinion as you and Mark and anyone else here.  The only difference that I see is that your argument (and Mark's and others) are based on emotional reactions to what GSN is doing, and Casey's arguments are based on statistics and facts.  

Here are some more facts.  GSN started in 1994.  Since 1996, we've seen hundreds of messages talking about how GSN is going downhill, or dying altogether.  THAT'S what is getting old.  GSN is stronger now than it ever was.  

If you don't like the station as much as you used to, that's perfectly understandable.  If you wish they'd show even more old reruns than they're doing already, I can understand that too.  If you don't like their originals, that's your personal preference as well.  But to say that they're NOT showing classics, or that they're "getting away" from game shows is simply, provably wrong.

I will not tolerate any more name calling, nor any more typed swearing (regardless of how many asterisks you stick in) just because anyone's opinion is different than that of another poster.  I remain incredulous that Casey's opinions set you guys off so much, but any independent audit of this thread would clearly see which responses are rational and which ones are not.

[CaseyAbell]

In fact, I appreciate the honesty of a time requirement before the nirvana of "classic-ness" is reached. Trouble is, as has been pointed out so often, any time requirement is completely arbitrary. There's no more reason to put the requirement at "ten years or so" than there is at "five years or so" or "twenty years or so" or "8.4572 years or so."

So I tend to distrust any definition of "classic." My infamous and cynical definition of a classic is "any old game show that's not on GSN right now." This always allows people to complain that GSN doesn't show enough classics, even if every show on the network is forty-plus years old.

ESPN Classic has been rerunning its 2003 ALCS special to death. That's a one-year-old "classic."

What GSN does do is run a lot of game shows I like to watch (and a few I could do without). Is every show I want on the network? No, but GSN is not my personal property. Still, it's a pretty good deal for game show freaks like me.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 01:53 PM\']My differing points of view with Casey, with all due respect, are his definitions of "classic game shows". I consider shows like MG, FF, NG, Press Your Luck, Blockbusters, and Card Sharks to be "classic game shows", along with the B&W overnight offerings.[/quote]
Yes, definitions are tricky and I too get the difference between what we generally consider "classics" and more recent fare that's...well, merely reruns.

So the bottom line is that GSN is currently "only" airing nine or ten series that we would consider "classic".  Casey's point is that this is still nine or ten more than we're getting anyplace else.  GSN started out as a classics channel because they didn't have a choice.  Some people, quite rightfully, still prefer that to the "new" GSN.  The bigger point is that those other reruns -- WBSM, Squares, GSN's own repeats -- are game shows too.  Just because they're not the ones you personally want to see doesn't make them any less valid a programming option on GSN.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 01:37 PM\']What was a repost? I haven't seen any of these id's on the GSN board...except my own, and I didn't repost anything from there in this thread. I've been a little lazy about that in the past. From now I'll try to "rephrase," as the lawyers say, when I crosspost.

[snapback]61680[/snapback]

[/quote]
I was referring to the quotes in Mark's message, not yours.

That said, if there is legitimate news posted there, or if someone there makes a good point that you'd like to debate here, I obviously don't have a problem with a short quote or a rephrasing... if we were to have a rule that nothing discussed there can be discussed here as well, we'd be pretty limited in our subject matter!

However, when I've seen GSN-board material quoted here, it's typically been either speculation that someone tries to pass off as news (Adam), or a gratuitous "Hey-look-what-someone-posted, isn't-this-ridiculous" comment (Mark).  That's the kind of garbage that we really don't need or want here.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 01:57 PM\']I remain incredulous that Casey's opinions set you guys off so much.

[snapback]61682[/snapback]

[/quote]
Hey, Matt... you've been here HOW long?  Some people will be set off by just about anything when it comes to game shows. :-)

I'm just waiting for someone to accuse Casey of conspiring with Guide_Angel, Ralph Nader and the Trilateral Commission to keep Tic Tac Dough and The Joker's Wild off GSN's schedule.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 10:37 AM\']I'll admit that Dodgeball isn't a game show. But it's a closely related competition show that's energetic, fast-paced, funny, and surprisingly athletic.

[snapback]61680[/snapback]

[/quote]
That said (and I may be getting off on a bit of a tangent here, but frankly, I think we need to)

...I saw the premier of Extreme Dodgeball Season Two the other day, and noticed five changes that improve the show (and the game) dramatically in my eyes:

1) The teams were traditional uniforms. Not goofy Spandex, not racing silks, not cut-off suits. Regular, plain ol' uniforms. Do you know how much easier it is to take the show a LITTLE more seriously when you don't have to explain away those dumb-ass outfits?

2) The five-second rule. Any team with any two balls can be issued a five-second warning by the ref if they are judged to be delaying the game, with a player to be called out if they don't put a ball over the line by throw or placement during that time. (I saw some games where a player on a team had to walk to the line and put the ball down over it, then pick it up quickly, to reset the clock.)

3) The regeneration target has been replaced by a one-time regeneration clock. Now to get the team back a single player needs only to survive 20 seconds without being eliminated. (Again, I have to wonder if catching a thrown ball (which would get you a teammate back naturally) stops the clock and keeps it available to be used later. I would think it would.)

4) The canned teams from the Original Six were the idiotic ones with the jockeys and the Sumo wrestlers. Everyone on the court has some modicum of athleticism now. No gimmicks.

5) No more Jerri Manthey. 'Nuff said.

At any rate, the show is getting much better, and is definitely worth my time to seek out now.

[GS Warehouse]

Now that others have admitted it: Extreme Dodgeball has grown on me, too.  And I agree with Lemon on the season two changes.  Regarding the five-second rule:
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 03:16 PM\']I saw some games where a player on a team had to walk to the line and put the ball down over it, then pick it up quickly, to reset the clock.

[snapback]61688[/snapback]

[/quote]
Armed Response captain David Benedetto had that rule licked with that maneuver where he sets down the balls just past the center line.  Once an opponent runs for one, he picks it up and takes him out.  It really slows down the game, though, and starting next week, he can't do that anymore (the refs will be cracking down on such acts).

Some of the camp is still there, but I agree that the show has greatly improved.  I'm just hoping we see interdivision play soon.  And as for Celebrity Blackjack, I didn't see the first tournament, but the second is funnier than most of today's sitcoms.

[TimK2003]

Not that I condone all the decisions and programming that GSN has done in recent years, but for those of you who think that GSN is not airing game shows properly, take note.

Back in the mid 80's there were 2 cable channels, CBN & USA.  Both had aired blocks of game show reruns.  And both channels were not "all game shows all the time".

The majority of those reruns fit into one of the following 2 categories:

1)  The shows had recently aired as first run shows elsewhere within the past 5 years.
2)  The shows were new shows that were created by the cable channel that aired them.


If you look at the way GSN is running now. The majority of their daily game show programming still fits into one or both of the aforementioned categories.

So for the most part GSN is using the same formula that CBN and USA used back then, except the ingredients are 15 to 20 years newer.  

While it might be nice to have things as they were at GSN ten years ago, it probably won't happen there for quite a while -- if ever.  However, when game shows were running thin on USA & CBN, a new network took up the slack and went even further into the genre.  

Nobody ever thought in 1990 that there would/could be an all-game show channel, but it happened.  The same could be said in 2004 -- "There never would/could be *another* game show channel".  However, unless you took a ride with Christopher Lloyd in a stainless steel DeLorean recently, who's to say that it can't/won't happen again?

And most people never thought that the Bosox could/would sweep the last 4 games versus the Yanks to take the pennant either!

Tim K.

[Jimmy Owen]

Just checked the Saturday sked for 10/23.  Out of 48 half-hour slots only 18 different series are shown.  The point about lack of variety is proven valid.

[ITSBRY]

Haven't you noticed that you've gotten your wish? The reality series and trashdateries (or whatever the Prof calls 'em) are all gone. The network is now about 90% game shows.

The old GSN is gone and yes, it's sad.  I know it's not coming back, but I still wish they'd give the die hard fans SOMETHING more than MG, FF, CS and BB (which all have been rerun to death).  I think bringing back a 'game of the week' would be awesome.  One half hour a week can't possibly affect the ratings and good grief, they have an ENORMOUS library of shows to pick from.

Just my opinion.

ITSBRY
itsbry@juno.com

[CaseyAbell]

A network shows 18 different shows in a day, and there's not enough variety?

Sampled the schedules of a few other cable networks today (10/23)...

Discovery's showing 15 different series, Spike 20, Court TV 13, History 20, USA 8.

I don't know, 18 different series looks pretty average. I'd crunch through every cable network, but I don't have five hours to spend.

By the way, Dsmith posted an apology on the Behind the Scenes board. So I'll consider that matter closed.

[aaron sica]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 02:39 PM\']A network shows 18 different shows in a day, and there's not enough variety?

[snapback]61764[/snapback]

[/quote]

GSN putting double-runs of its shows isn't too bad, compared to what FX does.....They have quadruple-runs of M*A*S*H for example - 4 episodes in 2 hours.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 03:05 PM\']GSN putting double-runs of its shows isn't too bad, compared to what FX does.....They have quadruple-runs of M*A*S*H for example - 4 episodes in 2 hours.[/quote]
Seriously old news.  FX hasn't had M*A*S*H reruns in over a year.  Since September, 2003, it's the Hallmark Channel that's been running four-episode blocks -- and they do it twice a day!

[aaron sica]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 04:08 PM\']
Seriously old news.  FX hasn't had M*A*S*H reruns in over a year.  Since September, 2003, it's the Hallmark Channel that's been running four-episode blocks -- and they do it twice a day!

[snapback]61772[/snapback]

[/quote]

My bad there......In any case, though, the logic still applies - no variety!

[CarShark]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 02:16 PM\']1) The teams were traditional uniforms. Not goofy Spandex, not racing silks, not cut-off suits. Regular, plain ol' uniforms. Do you know how much easier it is to take the show a LITTLE more seriously when you don't have to explain away those dumb-ass outfits?

[snapback]61688[/snapback]

[/quote]
That's one thing I don't like. I don't think that the show should be taken so seriously. I think the loss of the specialized uniforms takes a little bit of each teams' personality away with it. Last season, you knew who was playing whom. This year, you just see a red team against a gray team. The expansion teams' uni's look good (like the Reef Sharks and their tank tops), but the classic teams look...odd. Their "regular, plain old uniforms" look... well, regular and plain. Not a good thing.