Cognitive Dissonance

[TLEberle]

Maybe you all can help me work this out.  Or some of you might fall under the same umbrella as me.

I grew up watching (and enjoying) Tic Tac Dough, Joker's Wild, and to a lesser extent, Bullseye.  I'm not really sure why, but I did.

Fast Forward, as it were, to 1998.  Tic Tac and Joker are on the GSN schedule, and I watch both of them, mostly out of nostalgia.  At this point, I'm trying to figure out "What Was I Thinking?"

The questions on all three shows are drop-dead easy, mostly by design from the production company.

All three games have rather inane bonus games, where all you do is push a button/pull the lever/pick a box, and pray everything turns out right.  No strategy as such.  

Out of the three hosts, Wink Martindale was far and away the best host of the three.  Jack Barry's voice irritates me from beyond the grave, and Jim Lange hosted as if he was a couple of D-cells short.

Aside from the theme music, there's not really anything 'outstanding' about any of them, which leaves me to wonder why I watched, and why other people did too.  Were the big flashy sets and nifty music enough to carry pedestrian formats and games?  And if they were, was that the best out there, enough that the two flagship games lasted eight years each?

(If anyone needs clarification, just ask, but I think I laid it out as plain as can be.)

[clemon79]

Aside from the theme music, there's not really anything 'outstanding' about any of them, which leaves me to wonder why I watched, and why other people did too.  Were the big flashy sets and nifty music enough to carry pedestrian formats and games?  And if they were, was that the best out there, enough that the two flagship games lasted eight years each?

Yes!

The Joker Machine was _fun_! I would go so far as to say that if TJW 90's Joker Machine wasn't badly computer animated, and more closely resembled the old one in both style and function, the show wouldn't have sucked as badly.

(Okay, it would have. I tried.)

Not NEARLY enough spinning in TJW'90, and what their was didn't have as much affect on the play of the game.

Seriously, the Joker Machine was what did the old show for me. Ditto Bullseye's cool-ass set. Tic Tac Dough's set or theme never exited me as much as it does some of our members, so I was never a big a fan of that one as I was the other two.

[tyshaun1]

IMO, Joker was far and away the best of the B-E canon. All their shows basically had the same format (shuffle category, pick a category, answer question, reach objective, play luck-based bonus round w/ animated character as recognizance of loss), but Joker had the sense of not knowing what's going to happen, due to the randomness of the slot machine, which made it seem like the contestants had  fate in their hands.
Plus, I still don't understand why everyone hates on Jack Barry. I think he did a decent job on the show, kept it moving, occasionally funny, explained everything clearly, pretty much what you ask for in a host.

Tyshaun

[Ian Wallis]

It's possible that those three shows were "more than the sum of their parts".  I liked all three, and other Barry-Enright creations such as "Break the Bank", which I wish would have lasted a lot longer.

It's likely that if you were to take all of those games and put them in a different setting, they might not have been as well-liked.  Can you imagine "Bullseye" without the set and theme, for example?  It's the whole package that can sometimes draw you in.  Take "Millionaire" - would the show have been as compelling if it had it just been Regis sitting in a chair asking the questions with no music, no darkened set, etc?

Although the questions on those shows were fairly easy, they didn't start out that way.  Witness the first season CBS "Joker's Wild" episodes which GSN ran a few years ago.

Overall, I still like watching the old B-E shows, and hope that GSN can find places on the schedule for them again in the future.

[Jimmy Owen]

For me, the shows have stood the test of time.  My opinions: Strong play-a-long, you could get attached to the contestants.  If you happened to be just tuning in, one glance at the screen would get you up to speed; as mentioned by others, great music and sets. Hosts were good too. They haven't diminished for me.

[The Ol' Guy]

I'm with the crew here. Simple but solid games, almost throw-away end games that didn't undermine the value of the prelims, and good sets. Even Play The Percentages wasn't too bad at first. I still rank JOKER as one of the best games ever, as it did break the typical B&E mold somewhat. Instead of just "you know the answer or you don't", the wheels leveled the playing field. If you were a genius but the wheels went against you, too bad. If you were strong in only one category and you got the jokers, you could forge ahead. The more you're making me think about it...if you have a very intense end game - it could make the prelim game - which is on screen longer - seem tedious if all you want to see is the bonus. It's justified in Pyramid, because there's no cash value in the prelims. With a cheesy, simple end game, you can create a hunger for the better preliminary game where the real action is. Not a bad strategy.

[Don Howard]

In addition to the lights and music and watching the totals climb presentation, the big draw for me with those three was the unlimited winnings potential. Mark Gluckman winnning 13 times and exceeding $25K was exciting. Then, along came Thom McKee with that winning streak I thought would never be topped, much less dwarfed. And being a big fan of the genre since the days of Video Village, just the fact that they were game shows got me into the tent in the first place.
I must say Play The Percentages turned into a colossal disappointment in the third month of its run as it bungee jumped from being one of my favorite shows with the couples and jackpot format to one of the dullest with that category randomizer and switching to solo contestants. "80% of the people surveyed missed this question". I found myself not caring.

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Nov 3 2004, 09:02 AM\']For me, the shows have stood the test of time.  My opinions: Strong play-a-long, you could get attached to the contestants.

[snapback]62847[/snapback]

[/quote]
I think Jimmy hit on the key, especially if you were a young'un when these shows first aired.  As a youngster of that era, I was still naive enough to feel good if I knew an answer while playing along at home--therein lies a great deal of the appeal (especially on TTD).  Personally, I never really liked Jack Barry (I thought at times he was rather obnoxious), but I still watched--again, the false sense of pride if I got a question right.  No one in Chicago ever cleared BULLSEYE (I think I've seen maybe five episodes tops--two of them from last year's FoF), and I don't recall seeing PLAY THE PERCENTAGES here--although I did see scattered episodes on USA while I was in college, so I really can only speak for TTD and TJW.

Doug

[Ian Wallis]

Pesonally, I never had a problem with Jack Barry, although I can see why some people wouldn't like him.

Interesting story -- I remember watching an episode of "Joker's Wild" as a youngster, and telling my mother about it.  She didn't seem too interested and I asked why - she stated "all those shows are fixed anyway".  I was really surprised by that statement, but she then told me a little about the '50s scandals and I guess she never really watched game shows after that.  It certainly made curious to find out more about the '50s scandals, and I had to convince her that the current shows WEREN'T fixed!

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Nov 3 2004, 10:50 AM\'][quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Nov 3 2004, 09:02 AM\']For me, the shows have stood the test of time.  My opinions: Strong play-a-long, you could get attached to the contestants.

[snapback]62847[/snapback]

[/quote]
I think Jimmy hit on the key, especially if you were a young'un when these shows first aired.  As a youngster of that era, I was still naive enough to feel good if I knew an answer while playing along at home--therein lies a great deal of the appeal (especially on TTD).  Personally, I never really liked Jack Barry (I thought at times he was rather obnoxious), but I still watched--again, the false sense of pride if I got a question right.  No one in Chicago ever cleared BULLSEYE (I think I've seen maybe five episodes tops--two of them from last year's FoF), and I don't recall seeing PLAY THE PERCENTAGES here--although I did see scattered episodes on USA while I was in college, so I really can only speak for TTD and TJW.

[snapback]62852[/snapback]

[/quote]

WFLD carried "PTP" for the entire run--at 7:30 p.m. in between "TJW" and "TTD."

And the reason we watched the B&E shows?  Because they were the only Q&As around for most of their run--everybody else was doing shows driven by everything but quiz questions.  They were already starting to run out of steam by the time "J!" returned, but the (IMHO) superior material and production and faster pace of "J!" and some of the other Q&As that started to pop up in response rendered the B&E shows unneccessary.

Could they be revived, if there is even a market for traditional game shows?  Yes, but the material and production values have to be better, not to mention the hosts (and more challenging end games).  In particular, "TTD" to me could work very well as a head-to-head intellectual battle of wits--[Dave Foley] it's a simple format, really [DF], but it could still work.

[BrandonFG]

Could they be revived, if there is even a market for traditional game shows?  Yes, but the material and production values have to be better, not to mention the hosts (and more challenging end games).  In particular, "TTD" to me could work very well as a head-to-head intellectual battle of wits--[Dave Foley] it's a simple format, really [DF], but it could still work.

[snapback]62864[/snapback]

Only if they keep the rappin' dragon. That way, you can get that youth demo.

[alfonzos]

Sure, the questions were easy but watching the slot machine spin was the one of the most satisfying rituals of this fanaticism. That and watching the Concentration board reveal the entire rebus.

[mystery7]

Jack Barry did something nobody else did. He used the same basic concept for three different shows. Like every producer, yes. But what made Jack different was that all three of his shows were on the air at the same time. His logic was, "If they don't like vanilla ice cream, maybe they'll go for chocolate...or strawberry." Or they could enjoy one flavor one day, another the next, and so on. Voila. Instant vartiety.

Yes, the questions on all three shows were way too easy. Yes, the formula was pathetically transparent (answer question in random categories to build up pot, then go on to bonus game and build another pot by avoiding _______). But the atmospheres and hosts set the shows apart from each other. John C. Mula's sets were the best out there in the early '80s (especially Bullseye's) and Hal Hidey's music fit each show to a T.

Jack Barry as a host did have his moments. He was an acquired taste for sure - not much to look at and highly un-suave, but he did have a sharp wit sometimes. I think that was his saving grace.

Any of the Barry & Enright shows can make a comeback (individually, not all together) but yes, they have to be done right. Harder questions, bigger payoffs, and the right atmosphere (music, host, set). It'd be a challenge for someone to outdo the original Bullseye set, but I'd be willing to bet someone can.

[chris319]

the formula was pathetically transparent (answer question in random categories to build up pot, then go on to bonus game and build another pot by avoiding _______).

This is one way of saying that B&E were barren of innovative ideas. Their specialty was Q&A on top of a thin membrane of a game (Joker and Bullseye) and an end game based on Russian roulette. When they tried to break out of this rut they borrowed liberally from a certain competing packager (Hot Potato and Play the Percentages). What's more, in their post-scandal incarnation they no longer had Bob Noah contributing ideas; he was coming up with High Rollers and Gambit for H-Q.

It could also be said that G-T was long stuck in a rut of panel shows, and that the '70s and '80s were largely spent recycling shows from the '50s and '60s. I give Jay Wolpert credit for at least trying to innovate and break new ground. Unfortunately for him he never had the success other packagers had.

[chris319]

Can you imagine "Bullseye" without the set and theme, for example? It's the whole package that can sometimes draw you in. Take "Millionaire" - would the show have been as compelling if it had it just been Regis sitting in a chair asking the questions with no music, no darkened set, etc?

You've never been to an office run-thru. Imagine playing Millionaire under fluorescent office lighting with no eerie music, no prize money and the producer emceeing the show. That's how scores of game shows have been launched, and if a format doesn't come across in that environment, chances are it won't come across on the air.