H2 Changes, for its last season

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 08:50 AM\'] But hey, at least they still managed to last twice as long as Davidson's version!
 [/quote]
 And if this should be the last year, they have the satisfaction of knowing that aside from the original, theirs was easily the best version of the show to date. All you can ask for is the knowledge that they produced the best show they could, and they certainly did that.

(jesus, that sounds like a eulogy, and the rumors of the show's death are still awfully premature...)

[TheInquisitiveOne]

Let me put my two cents in...

Final season or not, King World should not be ashamed by any stretch. They ran for six years, which is remarkable. Like Mr. Donegan said, they ran twice as long as the Davidson version; though not close to Marshall's version, they are the second longest running version of the venerable game. This show just proves that there is room for game shows to come back in the not-too-distant future. Great job by all who made H-squared possible. I am optimistic for a seventh year, but I will not get too excited.

As for the show changes, I am all for it, despite the budget slashing. I am glad that a game show art that was once thought to be frowned upon (save for Millionaire) has returned. That will make for some excellent gameplay. One downside to this is the fact that the \"eliminate one key for each return to the bonus round\" rule is abolished. However, if that final tier is, in fact, $50,000, it may be worth it.

I will watch this season with great intent.

The Inquisitive One

(By the way, a tabloid may be cheaper to produce, but we have too many of them.)

[tommycharles]

H2 has had a teriffic run, and I think that it will continue to do so - in the Whoopi years, the show seemed only appropriate in that 6:30 (I live in Colorado) time slot, but now, it seems like it wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb in the afternoon. I disagree with WWTBAM, though, as the show airs at 3:00 PM here, and looks out of place.

The budget cutting measures seem to be exactly that - budget cutting measures. They will not affect the show either positively or negatively, but personally I don't think that it will be an improvement, by any means - would those who have said that it will make the show better offer an explaination without using \"behind the squares\"? (then again, I haven't seen Marshall daytime - maybe straddling adds something I'm not aware of).

Mull deserves his shot at the middle box, but I agree with Matt - the center needs to be someone who probably wouldn't be in one of the other squares.

WWTBAM is coming back with not-too-distant-from-H2's ratings. I would figure WWTBAM to have a higher budget than squares (if not last season, then now especially), and Vierra can't cost less than Tom (or Tom has one hell of an agent). Not that he's worth less, but ask someone on the street who Bergeron is and who Vierra is, and more people will identify the host of The View, I guarantee it.

Ok, I'm done now.

Thomas
Who didn't want to write several short replies in convenient places

[Matt Ottinger]

then again, I haven't seen Marshall daytime - maybe straddling adds something I'm not aware of

It's not so much that straddling adds something.  It's that arbitrarily stopping in the middle of a game that hasn't finished just because we're out of time takes something away.  Without getting into a lot of detail (most of which we've gotten into before) I think it's a much bigger deal than most producers seem to realize.

[urbanpreppie05]

Ok...H2 has had a great run. I am hopeful that it will make it to a 7th season...but it isn't looking good. America seems to be more interested in seeing Jen/Ben/Ashton/Demi/Justin/Cameron...type of shows. The new changes this year are good..even though I was never a fan of straddling games (i'm not getting into an argument about that now...) It seems that even though the payment scale is down (yet still impressive- I take it that, even w/o the $50K which may or may not be the final prize, the payouts would still be in the 50-60K range...) nothing else has been sacrificed. Now, if only a cleveland station would pick it up....

[tommycharles]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 11:56 AM\'] It's not so much that straddling adds something.  It's that arbitrarily stopping in the middle of a game that hasn't finished just because we're out of time takes something away.  Without getting into a lot of detail (most of which we've gotten into before) I think it's a much bigger deal than most producers seem to realize. [/quote]
 Does this go back to the \"playing bingo to time is boring\" thing? In which case, I see what you mean - although I would argue that it applies more to Lingo (which is based on game play) than H2 (which is based on comedy).

[Ian Wallis]

Without getting into a lot of detail (most of which we've gotten into before) I think it's a much bigger deal than most producers seem to realize.

Although I'm not a huge fan of straddling games on this version, maybe the producers figure that they'd keep the viewing audience for the next show if the game didn't finish when time ran out(?)

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 09:28 AM\'] One downside to this is the fact that the "eliminate one key for each return to the bonus round" rule is abolished. [/quote]
 Why would it be? It's the same concept as a progressive jackpot on any other show, or the 5 extra seconds a Classic Concentration got per run at the cars. I see no reason at all the bonus game has to change.

[TheInquisitiveOne]

Why would it be? It's the same concept as a progressive jackpot on any other show, or the 5 extra seconds a Classic Concentration got per run at the cars. I see no reason at all the bonus game has to change.

It is not the essence of the bonus game that changed, per se. You may recall that whenever a contestant goes for the same prize on the next show, one bad key is automatically removed from the picture. So instead of 9 keys to choose from, you have 8...and that is before the game begins.

Now, however, that benefit is eliminated (according to the account that I read). That sucks too, because that means that the contestant has to know the stars and may end up being stuck at the same tier for the entire run. That is a bit unfair, in my honest opinion.

The Inquisitive One

(If I totally misunderstood the stament that you have made, I sincerely apologize in advance.)

[SplitSecond]

[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 12:55 PM\']

Why would it be? It's the same concept as a progressive jackpot on any other show, or the 5 extra seconds a Classic Concentration got per run at the cars. I see no reason at all the bonus game has to change.

It is not the essence of the bonus game that changed, per se. You may recall that whenever a contestant goes for the same prize on the next show, one bad key is automatically removed from the picture. So instead of 9 keys to choose from, you have 8...and that is before the game begins.

Now, however, that benefit is eliminated (according to the account that I read). That sucks too, because that means that the contestant has to know the stars and may end up being stuck at the same tier for the entire run. That is a bit unfair, in my honest opinion.

The Inquisitive One

(If I totally misunderstood the stament that you have made, I sincerely apologize in advance.) [/quote]
 I'll try to address Mr. Lemon's point as succinctly as possible: $

And Mr. Inquisitive... hasn't the point of this particular end game all along been using the contestants' knowledge of the stars (albeit sometimes coupled with dumb luck) to help the contestants improve their odds in a game of chance?  After all, the same people who have been getting 8 and 9 squares in the end game are still going to be set up for automatic wins.

Frankly, if budget is the watchword at Squares this season, I'd rather see the end game prizes take a slight dent and have the end game have some of its crutches taken out than see the end game stay the same and have the prizes really hit bargain basement level.  Of course, ideally I'd like to see the crutches remain and the prizes get even bigger... but the economics of a show in the position that Squares is in really don't justify it.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 12:55 PM\'] Now, however, that benefit is eliminated [/quote]
 Now I understand. I hadn't read that article about the guy attending the taping. I thought you were extrapolating that the one-less-key-per-return-trip rule was going to be removed simply because games straddle, I didn't realize that it was announced in the report.

I agree with you, I think that rule should remain, because a champion should get an advantage in the bonus game for repeat wins.

(If I totally misunderstood the stament that you have made, I sincerely apologize in advance.)

Nono, it was I who misunderstood you.

[TheInquisitiveOne]

And Mr. Inquisitive... hasn't the point of this particular end game all along been using the contestants' knowledge of the stars (albeit sometimes coupled with dumb luck) to help the contestants improve their odds in a game of chance?

Duly noted. I have seen times where a contestant ran 7 of 9 and STILL lost $25,000. You are totally correct in that statement.

Frankly, if budget is the watchword at Squares this season, I'd rather see the end game prizes take a slight dent and have the end game have some of its crutches taken out than see the end game stay the same and have the prizes really hit bargain basement level. Of course, ideally I'd like to see the crutches remain and the prizes get even bigger... but the economics of a show in the position that Squares is in really don't justify it.

Once again, you have made an excellent point. Even if the budget takes a hit, it still would be fair to give the contestant the benefit of one less bad key should he or she go for the same prize a second time. I would like your ideal situation too, but it just will not happen this time.

I feel that the dent in the budget would justify that the \"Key Elimination\" rule stay into place. Now, if there was an actual INCREASE in the budget, then by all means...drop the crutch.

The Inquisitive One

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'tommycharles\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 05:20 PM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 11:56 AM\'] It's not so much that straddling adds something.  It's that arbitrarily stopping in the middle of a game that hasn't finished just because we're out of time takes something away.  Without getting into a lot of detail (most of which we've gotten into before) I think it's a much bigger deal than most producers seem to realize. [/quote]
Does this go back to the "playing bingo to time is boring" thing? In which case, I see what you mean - although I would argue that it applies more to Lingo (which is based on game play) than H2 (which is based on comedy). [/quote]
 I would agree with you completely.  As I've said many times, people are not watching Hollywood Squares because they want to see which contestant gets more tic-tac-toes.  The arbitrary stop is MUCH more of a problem for a show like Lingo where the game is the thing.

But I still believe it's more of an issue for a show like Squares than you might think.  When you stop playing because a horn sounds -- and you haven't finished your game -- you're sending a signal to your viewers, subtle though it might be, that the game just doesn't matter.  To a degree, this is the same argument that people make about Family Feud and how heavily weighted it is to the final question.

I realize the obvious differences, but notice for example that Wheel of Fortune doesn't just stop playing when their sound goes off.  They finish the game that they're on.  In Jeopardy, the time's-up signal is more logically a part of the game -- and it still bothers me a bit when they leave unplayed material behind.  For TPIR it's a non-issue.

If you go down a list of the truly classic games -- or even the ones we consider great games that never became classics -- you'll find they either straddle, are structurally self-contained or at least have a logical speed-up round.  The arbitrary stop is simply wrong.

[tommycharles]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 07:03 PM\'] But I still believe it's more of an issue for a show like Squares than you might think.  When you stop playing because a horn sounds -- and you haven't finished your game -- you're sending a signal to your viewers, subtle though it might be, that the game just doesn't matter.  

 [/quote]
 ...and situations like the Marshall hosted show where they get through 1.5 games, and one player got more money than the game would have been worth had the buzzer not gone off - that was weird.

[JasonA1]

If you go down a list of the truly classic games -- or even the ones we consider great games that never became classics -- you'll find they either straddle, are structurally self-contained or at least have a logical speed-up round.

\"Whew\" popped into mind because it always fits the bill around here of \"great game, short run.\" What else?

-Jason