Celebrity Sweepstakes...

[SamJ93]

Before I start, I must disclaim that I had never seen the show until Jaime posted clips at his site.  So, if one wishes to dismiss my opinions as bunk, feel free...

I really do like the basic concept of Celebrity Sweepstakes.  It has that simple, yet very engaging quality that everyone looks for in a good game show.  Also, the gambling element might prove popular with audiences who enjoy poker shows and their ilk.  So...if the show were to come back, would you see it working?

I would say it would, but I'd like to fix what I believe is the show's main problem: the celebs themselves.  Like HS, they need to be funny and crack jokes, but unlike HS, they're on their own as far as real answers to the questions go.  When the celebs have to worry about both aspects, the game really tends to drag in spots (not to mention poor Jim McKrell, who looks very uncomfortable in these spots trying to shut the panel up and keep the game moving).  

My solution?  Replace celebrities with a panel of "experts"--Ken Jennings, Kevin Olmstead, and any other folks (not necessarily game show contestants) who are known for having a head for knowledge.  Yes, some of the humor might go out the window, but the game aspect would become stronger, and--after cranking up the difficulty of the questions considerably--the enjoyment of seeing so much brainpower tackling extraordinarily tough material might make up for it.  (And yes, I know the name would need to be changed.  Perhaps "Scholarly Sweepstakes?")

Just an idea...

--Sam

[Dbacksfan12]

If I wanted to listen to a dissertation, I'd go to college.

I dont' think the show will work without celebs, but that's just my opinion. For me, that's 3/4 of the fun--listening to the witty responses they come up with.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'SamJ93\' date=\'May 23 2005, 09:44 PM\']My solution?  Replace celebrities with a panel of "experts"--Ken Jennings, Kevin Olmstead, and any other folks (not necessarily game show contestants) who are known for having a head for knowledge.
[/quote]
Ooh! Let's take Celebrity Sweepstakes, and gut it of all of the star power and entertainment factor!

<Samir Nagheenanajar> That is a terrible, terrible idea. </SN>

[SplitSecond]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 23 2005, 10:45 PM\']Ooh! Let's take Celebrity Sweepstakes, and gut it of all of the star power
[/quote]
Hey, maybe we could get Frank Nicotero to host.

[Jimmy Owen]

Carol Wayne was the biggest draw for me, but it was interesting when a player took a chance on a long shot and it paid off.  The audience setting the odds was a nice touch and the sound of those Solari boards.  

An evenly matched panel of experts would make for a game in which there would be no wild fluctuation of odds, and since "the experts" would know all the answers, there is no risk.

While "Street Smarts" borrows the same premise, the pre-taped stuff can lead the contestants down the garden path where all of a sudden an airhead becomes a genius.

[Ian Wallis]

This was one of my favorite shows when I was a kid, and I'm just sorry that so little of it seems to exist.  

There were at least two formats to the show - the first had three contestants competing, each celebrity wrote down their answer, each correct answer was kept track of, and the final question odds were based on how many correct answers each celebrity got.  After a few months there were only two contestants.

A major change was made in early summer 1976, where the celebrities just stated their answer without writing it down, and the final odds were pre-determined.  For the record, I preferred the first format.  Oddlly enough, the very first week of the new format was one of the few weeks where regular Carol Wayne wasn't there.  Carol became a regular about three months into the show, and only missed about three weeks of the daytime version until the show's end.  TV Guide listings indicate she missed several of the nighttime episodes.  Joey Bishop was also a regular for about a year.

It was reported that there was a pilot for a new version done several years ago.  I'm not sure they could ever recapture the charm of the original - with the different technology today it probably wouldn't look and feel the same - but I guess that's true of anything.

[JasonA1]

I agree with Ian. I've seen both the pilot and the clips on Jamie's site and I find the first, earlier format to be better. While I have heard some people saying two contestants are better than three on this show, I can stay firm that having the answers written is better. I do like the clever "tip sheets" though.

It must've been a bit more hell to produce in that era. Not withstanding constant camera hogging by the celebs (as seen in the clips) what happens if nobody has a correct answer? On the pilot, if nobody had the right answer written down, a horn would sound and they would "scratch" the question. And what's with odds on category only? Boo.

-Jason

[TimK2003]

The problem with remaking the show today is that based on the general knowledge questions they used back then, most of your B and C-list celebs that would do the show today fall under the Carol Wayne category -- Longshot Dummies -- and very few have the same amount of knowledge as those who played the game 30 years ago.  

There needs to be a good mix of smart & stupid people on the show.  The problem is finding enough smarter people.

As far as writing down the answers, they should include a monitor on the podiums that would reveal their answers (ala J! & Weakest Link) instead of a simple light to indicate who got the answers right or wrong at the end of each question.  And perhaps instead of a tote board, just show at the bottom of the monitor a running tally of correct questions (i.e. Brad Garrett -- 3 for 6) before posting the odds.

[uncamark]

The out that "Celeb Sweepstakes" had in the actual series was that the celebs were briefed on subject matter before taping, as stated in that long disclaimer that run in the credits and in Jim McKrell's daily "Our stars were briefed before the show on the subject matter--let's see if they did their homework."  (Race track starting gate bell rings.)  (Of course, the jokes were supplied on cards hidden in their podia, just like "Squares"--and Gabe Kaplan became apologetic of having to read the lame jokes provided to him when he went on the show.)  That could be done today.

To answer the question, what they did in the pilot is how it was done in the series--if no one had a correct answer, the horn went off and the question was "scratched."  (And yes, Bill Armstrong or Alan Thicke had to rattle off sometimes over the credits "Two questions in the second round were scratched due to no celebrities giving correct answers and the tape edited.")  And if one celeb only had the correct answer in the Home Stretch round, where a player who made one correct bet could go double-or-nothing with another celeb, a bell would ring to indicate that and then whoever picked the one celeb got double their payout.

And in the be-careful-what-you-say-when-the-mike's-on department, Anne Meara once objected to having Mother MacKenzie piped through the stage monitors and everyone at home got to hear her complaining about the canned laughter.  (She and Jerry Stiller once recorded a comedy album called "Laugh When You Like," because it was recorded without an audience or laugh track.)

[byrd62]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'May 24 2005, 01:53 PM\']The out that "Celeb Sweepstakes" had in the actual series was that the celebs were briefed on subject matter before taping, as stated in that long disclaimer that run in the credits and in Jim McKrell's daily "Our stars were briefed before the show on the subject matter--let's see if they did their homework."  (Race track starting gate bell rings.)  (Of course, the jokes were supplied on cards hidden in their podia, just like "Squares"--and Gabe Kaplan became apologetic of having to read the lame jokes provided to him when he went on the show.) 

[snapback]86365[/snapback]

[/quote]

To which could be added, as Jim himself did, "...but they're hearing the actual questions for the very first time."

[Ian Wallis]

I was always curious exactly how the odds worked on that show.  The audience voted and odds for each celebrity were determined between 1:1 and 99:1 for each question.  Sometimes you could get three celebrities with 99:1 odds; other times the highest odds might only be 15:1 or 20:1.  Sometimes the favorite would be 1:1, sometimes 2:1 or 3:1.  Sometimes there'd be two favorites, sometimes a celebrity might be 23:1, and another 24:1 on the same question.

I wonder if they had some sort of chart they followed and if a celebrity got a certain number of votes from audience members they were automatically those odds.  There had to have been some criteria for how the odds were determined...or maybe the voting was tabulated by a computer and the computer figured it out.   Anybody have any idea?

[Brakus]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'May 24 2005, 03:13 PM\']I was always curious exactly how the odds worked on that show.  The audience voted and odds for each celebrity were determined between 1:1 and 99:1 for each question.  Sometimes you could get three celebrities with 99:1 odds; other times the highest odds might only be 15:1 or 20:1.  Sometimes the favorite would be 1:1, sometimes 2:1 or 3:1.  Sometimes there'd be two favorites, sometimes a celebrity might be 23:1, and another 24:1 on the same question.[/quote]

As a horseplayer, I'd think the odds calculations would work similarly to the toteboard at the racetrack. The formula for win odds is [(1/x)-1]:1, where x is the percentage of people voting for a specific star expressed as a decimal. This means if there was an even-money (1:1) favorite, that means at least half the audience thinks that star will be correct. There might have been some simple math involved, or at least some quick calculations, because it seems the odds seemed to come up shortly after the voting concluded.

Technically, if more than half of the audience voted for one star, the payout would be less than even money. To my knowledge, no payout was ever less than even money on that show.

[TLEberle]

I've wondered about this, and Jeremy did succinctly describe the win pool thing.

(That would explain how you could have four people at 1:1, and the two dummies at 99:1, actually.  If no one votes for a person, ta-da, instant longshot.)

Sadly, no minus pools were involved.  THAT would have been a minor pain in the ass.  "You bet $2 on Nipsey, you win $2.10."  Yah hoo.