Outrageous Game Show Moments 3

[tvrandywest]

The Most Outrageous Game Show Moments 3: NBC, Sat., Nov. 6, 8 p.m.

They refuse to die! NBC has scheduled yet another airing of the third of those three Scott Satin specials in a prime time slot during November sweeps. I can't remember any series of specials airing as many times, especially when you factor in the fact that they were licensed for a bunch of runs on VH1 before they returned to NBC. Bob Eubanks is seeing more primetime exposure than ever.

It does show amazing love for classic game shows. Too bad no network has had success with any attempts to create a new classic. Has the audience changed, or have the networks over-tweaked and over-trashed the formats in attempts to be relevant to today's audiences? Discuss   ;-)


Randy
tvrandywest.com

[cmjb13]

Isn't the basic demographic of game shows these days either people over 55 (who probably wouldn't give something new a chance) or college kids (who have a short attention anyways)?

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Oct 26 2004, 12:42 PM\']It does show amazing love for classic game shows. Too bad no network has had success with any attempts to create a new classic. [/quote]
Well, the obvious exception would be Millionaire, but I see your point.  Thing is, it's the some old argument.  Networks say game shows don't work, but that's just because they've not given us one that we like.  Just like networks say no one wants to watch sitcoms, when the truth is they're not giving us sitcoms we like.  

The general public can be interested in a wide variety of things, we just have to be given something that's done well.  Most reality shows are crap, and not surprisingly, most of them crap out in the ratings.  As with anything, the ones that are done well will tend to be the ones that do well. (Masters of the Obvious!)  That also includes shows like The Bachelor and Fear Factor, which may have questionable content but are executed successfully.

The right format, done the right way, and what do you know?  Networks have another game show hit.

[Tony]

[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Oct 26 2004, 11:42 AM\']Too bad no network has had success with any attempts to create a new classic. Has the audience changed, or have the networks over-tweaked and over-trashed the formats in attempts to be relevant to today's audiences? Discuss   ;-)


Randy
tvrandywest.com
[/quote]
I think it's a little of both.  As I see it, the Big Three are still on because they've become a habit of many people for so long that they can't seem to break away even if/when the show becomes unwatchable (especially, IMO, in the case of Wheel, less so in the case of Price; no slam on you, Randy;D). Otherwise, the genre is in serious remission.
Generally speaking, I have observed that the "excitement threshold" for most people has been raised to the point that a "traditional" game show doesn't do it for them anymore.  On the other hand, when a "traditional" game show (especially a revival) is "tweaked" to be relevant to the MTV generation, the effort often winds up backfiring by turning off both the fans of the genre (or the show's previous incarnations) and people in the young demographics (who generally realize the end product as being inauthenic or untrue to what it should be).  Hence why "reality TV" has spread like a drug addiction to the TV industry.

[tvrandywest]

Isn't the basic demographic of game shows these days either people over 55 (who probably wouldn't give something new a chance) or college kids (who have a short attention anyways)?

Chris, you are right on with the common belief about the demographic appeal of classic game shows skewing 55+. I've learned lately just how sought after that population is by some businesses. It's the bread and butter demo for the casino industry; folks with time and money who have an affinity for playing games. And that industry has been exploiting game shows' appeal in recent years to the tune of hugely increased profits.

BUT I disagree with the cliche that people over 55 aren't open to new ideas and purchases. As evidence: among my over-the-hill relatives and friends I can't think of a single over-55-er who hasn't purchased and learned how to use a computer. I just think that crowd is more discerning in their purchases. But show them a true benefit and they will part with their money. We will all find out the truth about those over-55 consumers pretty soon as the vast population of baby boomers all move into that category. Madison Avenue will be re-focusing on that market.

And if college kids have a short attention span, I assume none have read this far!

Randy
tvrandywest.com

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 26 2004, 12:07 PM\'][quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Oct 26 2004, 12:42 PM\']It does show amazing love for classic game shows. Too bad no network has had success with any attempts to create a new classic. [/quote]
Well, the obvious exception would be Millionaire, but I see your point.  Thing is, it's the some old argument.  Networks say game shows don't work, but that's just because they've not given us one that we like.  Just like networks say no one wants to watch sitcoms, when the truth is they're not giving us sitcoms we like.  

The general public can be interested in a wide variety of things, we just have to be given something that's done well.  Most reality shows are crap, and not surprisingly, most of them crap out in the ratings.  As with anything, the ones that are done well will tend to be the ones that do well. (Masters of the Obvious!)  That also includes shows like The Bachelor and Fear Factor, which may have questionable content but are executed successfully.

The right format, done the right way, and what do you know?  Networks have another game show hit.

[snapback]62019[/snapback]

[/quote]


Exactly.

Another point--one might think that with the success of the Eubanks specials, CBS would trot out a full TPIR clip show sometime, not just shoehorn in a clip or two around a primetime game. I would think a one-hour or 90-minute "Match Game" special would do well in prime time on the network. Match Game was funny, and if it's funny, people of all ages, even young ones, will watch.

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Oct 26 2004, 11:42 AM\']The Most Outrageous Game Show Moments 3: NBC, Sat., Nov. 6, 8 p.m.

They refuse to die! NBC has scheduled yet another airing of the third of those three Scott Satin specials in a prime time slot during November sweeps. I can't remember any series of specials airing as many times, especially when you factor in the fact that they were licensed for a bunch of runs on VH1 before they returned to NBC. Bob Eubanks is seeing more primetime exposure than ever.

[snapback]62012[/snapback]

[/quote]
I wonder if it'll actually air as scheduled.  This past Saturday, a listing for MOGSM appeared in my newspaper TV grid.  My on-screen guide suggested otherwise--a rerun of "The Biggest Loser" (but enough about the Chicago Bears <rimshot>).  Turns out that's what NBC wound up airing.

It is possible that the same scenario could occur on 11/6, especially since we are talking sweeps.

Doug

[cmjb13]

Another point--one might think that with the success of the Eubanks specials, CBS would trot out a full TPIR clip show sometime, not just shoehorn in a clip or two around a primetime game

Great idea, but too much work.

[Game Show Man]

[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Oct 26 2004, 09:42 AM\']Has the audience changed, or have the networks over-tweaked and over-trashed the formats in attempts to be relevant to today's audiences? Discuss   ;-)

[snapback]62012[/snapback]

[/quote]

I for one think the producers have the right idea in trying to attract the younger audiences, but I think they're going about it the wrong way.  More recent shows come off as if they're trying to pander to the younger audience.   I think the trick is to balance the classic format with a modern attitude (younger host, modern set, and new music with updates of classic themes whenever possible).  It's just a matter of convincing development guys and station managers that such balance would work, IMHO.

BTW, in case you're wondering, there ARE younger hosts out there who are capable of matching the talent of the old-school guys (Todd Newton, Mark L. Walberg and yes, even Ryan Seacrest come to mind), and there ARE younger people just getting started (Mandel Ilagan and Caleb Nelson to name a few) or who are not yet "full members" of the industry (John Ricci, Jr, Alex Davis and myself for instance) who are ready, able and willing to breathe new life into the genre.

[TonicBH]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Oct 26 2004, 01:06 PM\']I would think a one-hour or 90-minute "Match Game" special would do well in prime time on the network. Match Game was funny, and if it's funny, people of all ages, even young ones, will watch.

[snapback]62030[/snapback]

[/quote]

I'm having bad flashbacks of the 1998 revival... I think we've come to the foregone conclusion that Match Game doesn't work on modern TV unless you bleep every answer and make every question about Bill Clinton or some sexual joke.

Did they ever even do the familiar characters on MG98, like Dumb Dora or Fat Frieda? I wouldn't be surprised if they removed them in our currently PC world.

[The Ol' Guy]

how about this for a discussion spring? With the glut of "poor me guest" talk fests and court shows with people suing their neighbors over a dog peeing on their new tree - could an expanding sense of Americans feeling they are victims instead of achievers be part of the problem? You can reach the emotions a lot faster than the brains, and the people with little better to do in the day than watch tv and whine about how they'd do things different if they ran the world - this is their kind of entertainment. No brains necessary. Life isn't fair - help me, Dr. Phil! My husband looked at another woman - help me, Maury! Next Oprah - "I was beaten by Ken Jennings on Jeopardy! Now my kids think I'm stupid!" Programmers are looking at who's left in the audience and think this is what works best. True, Queen For A Day and Strike It Rich tapped into this vein - misery programming works - but boy, do we seem to eat it up. When you can't wear a witch costume to your school halloween party because you might upset a Wiccan - the PC programming of America into a nation of oversensitive victims marches on. Possible?

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'TonicBH\' date=\'Oct 27 2004, 02:03 AM\']
I'm having bad flashbacks of the 1998 revival... I think we've come to the foregone conclusion that Match Game doesn't work on modern TV unless you bleep every answer and make every question about Bill Clinton or some sexual joke.

Did they ever even do the familiar characters on MG98, like Dumb Dora or Fat Frieda? I wouldn't be surprised if they removed them in our currently PC world.

[snapback]62111[/snapback]

[/quote]


They definitely can't do questions where the obvious answer is a certain part of the male anatomy, then assume everyone will write down something else. You're right there. But most questions weren't like that. I'd imagine Dumb Dora and Weird Willie would be okay even though Confusius and Fat Frieda questions aren't. Besides, it's the interaction of witty drunk show-people that made the show work.

I get the impression that the panel on the '98 revival wasn't witty or drunk enough. And lots went into making that show crap out.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'The Ol' Guy\' date=\'Oct 27 2004, 06:09 AM\']When you can't wear a witch costume to your school halloween party because you might upset a Wiccan - the PC programming of America into a nation of oversensitive victims marches on. Possible?

[snapback]62128[/snapback]

[/quote]
Just to aside ('cuz that's a somewhat local story to me), I just have to say that by blind happenstance, I happen to have more than a few friends back home in CA of the Wiccan faith, and the Halloween party they throw (which is in no way different than any other Halloween party you've ever seen) is the biggest and best blowout bash of the year.

So yeah, let's not offend any o' them Wikkans. <cue guitar lick from "Dueling Banjos">

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 27 2004, 11:43 AM\']So yeah, let's not offend any o' them Wikkans. <cue guitar lick from "Dueling Banjos">[/quote]
I can't tell, but I hope this line isn't accusing Roger of being, oh, I don't know, "wiccaphobic" or something.  He was commenting on a very real news story.  

I have no doubt that there are tons of open-minded wikkans like your friends who couldn't care less what the rest of us do on Halloween, but the very real societal issue is that a small number of them -- or a small number of just about anybody -- with sufficient energy and organization behind them really can influence policy if they target groups that are just scared of offending people, regardless of the merits of their arguments.

[The Ol' Guy]

Thanks to both of you, guys. I heard the story today on a local station and shook my head like many people did. I took Chris' comment as positive, as if he is saying that probably 98% of Wiccans let other peoples' costumes roll off their backs and go on enjoying life anyway(and even have a sense of humor about themselves), why live in fear and be a victim over the 2%? I just grabbed the Wiccan story as one of the latest examples for our intelligent group. So we're on the same page. With that in mind, if this is how America works these days, can I start my petition drive to have All In The Family taken off the air? I want to take away everyone else's enjoyment of the show because I don't like how they portrayed old, white, chubby GOP supporters... ;-)

Bless ya' both.

Oh - and to show I could be capable of an evil snicker, I was cleaning games out of the basement and grabbed my Milton Bradley version of 13 Dead End Drive. Look at the old gardener character...then look at the Prof's preferred photos of Ken Jennings. Then think of how Ken might look in another 45 years, just kicking around on the ol' farm he buys for fun with his millions....