The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: TimK2003 on July 25, 2007, 10:16:48 AM
-
This past season may have flown under the radar for this factoid:
For all of the primetime game shows that appeared on TV this season (short-lived, returning and special editions), does anyone know how this season compared with years past?
It seems to me that if you include the "summer-replacement" series that have/are coming out, that we were pretty close to the average # of different primetime shows in the 50-60s era seasons, no? Definitely, this was the biggest year in recent history.
What primetime season had the most game shows?
-
As always, the answer to your question depends on how you're going to define a game show. (Oh boy, THIS again!)
A quick check of Alex McNeil's Total Television says that the 1956-57 season began with fifteen game shows on the prime time schedule, and there were almost certainly more summer replacements. (I didn't check other seasons, that one just felt like a good guess.) So if you're going to count every "reality" show that features some sort of competition, then yeah, this current season probably had that or more. But if you're just counting traditional, studio-bound games, then I doubt there have been nearly that many.
-
By my count:
-D/ND*
-1 vs. 100*
-Identity
-Rich List
-Show Me the Money
-National Bingo Night*
-Smarter Than a 5th Grader*
SUMMER:
-Set for Life
-Singing Bee*
-Don't Forget the Lyrics*
-Power of 10
*returning for 2007-08 season
Well, if you include the summer shows, that makes 11. Otherwise, I counted seven traditional game shows, not reality shows like American Idol or America's Got Talent. And despite what NBC says, D/ND is a game show, not "reality" like they want people to believe.
From what I remember, there were four in 1999-2000 (Millionaire, Greed, Winning Lines, and 21).
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'158577\' date=\'Jul 25 2007, 02:19 PM\']Well, if you include the summer shows, that makes 11. [/quote]
What's impressive to me about that total is the success rate these shows are enjoying. Six out of eleven scheduled to return, and it's possible we haven't seen the last of Identity. I know the marketplace has changed, and inexpensive shows like this are easy to keep, but that's still pretty good odds.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'158555\' date=\'Jul 25 2007, 10:16 AM\']
For all of the primetime game shows that appeared on TV this season (short-lived, returning and special editions),
[/quote]
Given the nature of his question and including "special editions" wouldn't The Price is Right Million Dollar Speculars count as 12?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'158577\' date=\'Jul 25 2007, 01:19 PM\']
-1 vs. 100*
*returning for 2007-08 season
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Remember NBC revamped their fall sked and 1V100 is on the shelf for now.
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'158605\' date=\'Jul 25 2007, 04:17 PM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'158577\' date=\'Jul 25 2007, 01:19 PM\']
-1 vs. 100*
*returning for 2007-08 season
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Remember NBC revamped their fall sked and 1V100 is on the shelf for now.
[/quote]
And "Lyrics" doesn't have a fall time slot yet, although I seemed to hear something about that "Great American Band" project being delayed, so it may go into whatever time slot that was down for.
-
1 VS 100 is doing casting calls for Mob and Ones starting in August, so it looks like they're finally plugging away which is a good sign. So we'll see how long until it comes back. I don't see Friday Night Lights or Chuck lasting that long, so maybe it can fill those holes.
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'158702\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 11:50 AM\']
1 VS 100 is doing casting calls for Mob and Ones starting in August, so it looks like they're finally plugging away which is a good sign. So we'll see how long until it comes back. I don't see Friday Night Lights or Chuck lasting that long, so maybe it can fill those holes.
[/quote]
Oh, Ben Silverman is probably going to be bombarded with footballs if he tries to cancel "FNL." The fans for that show are almost as rabid as the "Jericho" nuts.
-
I got word back from someone who was at a play test for Power of 10 two days ago. He said that both the $1,000,000 and $10,000,000 question gives you 10% to play with, or 5 points up and down. If you miss, you go back down one level. So you're risking $900,000 to go for $9,000,000. I was hoping for something more creative, but it's better than the exacto gamble that was supposedly in the pilot. Also, you can see how the audience voted for each question and you can ask your companion for their advice before you lock in your answer. $50 says they zoom through the 0 in "10"
CBS also has a page up for Do You Trust Me (http://\"http://www.cbs.com/primetime/do_you_trust_me/\"). I'm not entirely sure if you build your bank through questions about yourself or through trivia questions. $50 also says they zoom through the O in "You".
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'158720\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 01:35 PM\']
I got word back from someone who was at a play test for Power of 10 two days ago. He said that both the $1,000,000 and $10,000,000 question gives you 10% to play with, or 5 points up and down. If you miss, you go back down one level. So you're risking $900,000 to go for $9,000,000. I was hoping for something more creative, but it's better than the exacto gamble that was supposedly in the pilot. Also, you can see how the audience voted for each question and you can ask your companion for their advice before you lock in your answer. $50 says they zoom through the 0 in "10"
CBS also has a page up for Do You Trust Me (http://\"http://www.cbs.com/primetime/do_you_trust_me/\"). I'm not entirely sure if you build your bank through questions about yourself or through trivia questions. $50 also says they zoom through the O in "You".
[/quote]
Just read the application for that show--talk about wanting to know every little thing about you! All I recall from when I tried out for shows was nothing more than "What are your hobbies?" And reading the release form on the last two pages is very eye-opening--they threaten you with a minimum $5M lawsuit if you disclose anything about your taping--if you're selected as a contestant.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'158725\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 03:06 PM\']
And reading the release form on the last two pages is very eye-opening--they threaten you with a minimum $5M lawsuit if you disclose anything about your taping--if you're selected as a contestant.
[/quote]
Not including "plus reasonable attorneys' fees"
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'158725\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 03:06 PM\']
they threaten you with a minimum $5M lawsuit if you disclose anything about your taping--if you're selected as a contestant
[/quote]
Of course. CBS wants the privilege of doing the spoiling themselves in their promos.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'158705\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 11:59 AM\']
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'158702\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 11:50 AM\']
1 VS 100 is doing casting calls for Mob and Ones starting in August, so it looks like they're finally plugging away which is a good sign. So we'll see how long until it comes back. I don't see Friday Night Lights or Chuck lasting that long, so maybe it can fill those holes.
[/quote]
Oh, Ben Silverman is probably going to be bombarded with footballs if he tries to cancel "FNL." The fans for that show are almost as rabid as the "Jericho" nuts.
[/quote]
(Off topic)
Speaking. You bet.
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'158720\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 01:35 PM\']CBS also has a page up for Do You Trust Me (http://\"http://www.cbs.com/primetime/do_you_trust_me/\"). I'm not entirely sure if you build your bank through questions about yourself or through trivia questions. $50 also says they zoom through the O in "You".
[/quote]
If the latter, I liked it better the first time I saw it ... when it was called Friend or Foe.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'158778\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 06:59 PM\']
If the latter, I liked it better the first time I saw it ... when it was called Friend or Foe.
[/quote]
My PRECISE reaction.
Do we know if this is indeed another pathetic attempt to make the Prisoner's Dilemma interesting?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'158779\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 10:02 PM\']
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'158778\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 06:59 PM\']
If the latter, I liked it better the first time I saw it ... when it was called Friend or Foe.
[/quote]
My PRECISE reaction.[/quote]
As long as we're on the subject, who'd have thought back in 1978 that thirty years later, we'd be playing the least interesting part of Card Sharks -- the part that merely decides who gets to actually play the game -- for TEN MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'158783\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 10:30 PM\']
As long as we're on the subject, who'd have thought back in 1978 that thirty years later, we'd be playing the least interesting part of Card Sharks -- the part that merely decides who gets to actually play the game -- for TEN MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!
[/quote]
The same folks who thought that an hour-long game show would be created by something Jack Barry would've created on the toilet.
"Hmm...Star Wars is popular...how about pulling light sabers...FOR A WHOLE HOUR!"
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'158783\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 10:30 PM\']As long as we're on the subject, who'd have thought back in 1978 that thirty years later, we'd be playing the least interesting part of Card Sharks -- the part that merely decides who gets to actually play the game -- for TEN MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!![/quote]
I humbly offer that "least interesting" is a matter of opinion on that subject. I certainly liked the Card Sharks main game more than the Money Cards, seeing as how it involved something other than blind luck.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'158783\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 10:30 PM\']
As long as we're on the subject, who'd have thought back in 1978 that thirty years later, we'd be playing the least interesting part of Card Sharks -- the part that merely decides who gets to actually play the game -- for TEN MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!
[/quote]
I know what your point is, but calling it uninteresting...human nature's always fun! Whenever it comes on around here, we always play along with the questions. The card calling, more of a "you stupid moron!" sort of yelling, but the questions are fine. In fact, when I saw the initial promos for "Power of 10" I was intrigued because I always liked polls. And besides, we saw what the game was like without the questions...eew. You'd have to admit an hour of "higher/lower" for millions would be at least as bad if not worse.
We'd be in full agreement if this were a big money edition of the "Money Maze" preliminary.
-Jason
-
At least CBS is smart enough to incorporate a main game for Power of 10 that seems to be watchable compared to the drivel of Set For Life's non-showing of the "qualifying round". Kudos to them for offering a glimpse at what the game might look like based on the promo I saw on its site.
As for Do You Trust Me?, I see some problems here. How will they deciide how much bank money will be divided up? At least they have a host which isn't saying much because that's really what we got: not much details so far. Still, it sounds like Friend or Foe all over again.
-
OK, details on the $10,000,000 question changed from the test game to the taped episode. The $1,000,000 question is same as the $10,000,000 question. If you get the $1,000,000 question right, obviously the exact answer is one of those ten percentage points. You have to find the exact percentage from the ten you chose.
And Do You Trust Me is essentially Friend or Foe for assloads more money. It's not the exact format, but if you're familiar with Friend or Foe you'll be familiar with Do You Trust Me.
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'158804\' date=\'Jul 27 2007, 04:50 AM\']
At least they have a host which isn't saying much because that's really what we got: not much details so far.
[/quote]
Ah, the mind-blowing logic rears it's ugly head once again. I missed you.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'158795\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 10:59 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'158783\' date=\'Jul 26 2007, 10:30 PM\']As long as we're on the subject, who'd have thought back in 1978 that thirty years later, we'd be playing the least interesting part of Card Sharks -- the part that merely decides who gets to actually play the game -- for TEN MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!![/quote]
I humbly offer that "least interesting" is a matter of opinion on that subject. I certainly liked the Card Sharks main game more than the Money Cards, seeing as how it involved something other than blind luck.
[/quote]
And polls and surveys these days is how I make my living, so they're a little more interesting to me than the average person.
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'158817\' date=\'Jul 27 2007, 11:30 AM\']
OK, details on the $10,000,000 question changed from the test game to the taped episode. The $1,000,000 question is same as the $10,000,000 question. If you get the $1,000,000 question right, obviously the exact answer is one of those ten percentage points. You have to find the exact percentage from the ten you chose.[/quote]
Well, at least it's different, and a little easier than having to answer a new question from scratch with a miniscule percentage.
Would I think people are crazy/ballsy/whatevery enough to risk giving up the mantle of being a millionaire to answer? No, but at least it's moderately interesting.
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'158817\' date=\'Jul 27 2007, 11:30 AM\']
OK, details on the $10,000,000 question changed from the test game to the taped episode. The $1,000,000 question is same as the $10,000,000 question. If you get the $1,000,000 question right, obviously the exact answer is one of those ten percentage points. You have to find the exact percentage from the ten you chose.
[/quote]
So you'd be risking a million dollars for a one-tenth chance to decuple it, rather than a one-hundredth chance? With that, I think, we may see a few more people willing to take that risk, though not *that* many. It does make the possibility of a 10-million dollar payout that much greater, though, if my mental maths are right.
-
[quote name=\'Gus\' post=\'158833\' date=\'Jul 27 2007, 10:26 AM\']
So you'd be risking a million dollars for a one-tenth chance to decuple it, rather than a one-hundredth chance? With that, I think, we may see a few more people willing to take that risk, though not *that* many. It does make the possibility of a 10-million dollar payout that much greater, though, if my mental maths are right.
[/quote]
It depends greatly on what the fallback level is (i.e. how much you still take home if you're wrong), but I think they would have to cast utter friggin' idiots with the luck of the Irish to see that attempted.
-
No matter what level you're on, you go back one level. So if you have $100,000 and go for the million dollar question and lose, you drop to $10,000. Meaning the final question is a $900,000 risk to go for $9,000,000 more ($100,000 guarantee).
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'158838\' date=\'Jul 27 2007, 10:41 AM\']
No matter what level you're on, you go back one level. So if you have $100,000 and go for the million dollar question and lose, you drop to $10,000. Meaning the final question is a $900,000 risk to go for $9,000,000 more ($100,000 guarantee).
[/quote]
Hmm. I can MAYBE see that happening, then. I still think they would be idiots, but I can see it.
-
If we calculate expected value, it comes out that over a large number of attempts, the net return will be +$90,000, so it would seem like it's an acceptable risk despite this being for the shortest-term.
For "poker odds", you're taking a 1/10 chance of getting a 10:1 payout, which seems fair, but you're also risking 9/10 of your stake on it, which would probably force me to balk on the chance.
If we try put this into context of the game, let's think about this. Chances are, the 10% range that you set is half above and half below what you think the actual percentage is. If you're right, then the natural assumption is that your hunch is correct, eliminating some of the "outlier" values, narrowing your range of guesses from 10 to about 5 or 6, provided you're still confident about your original estimate and you aren't so bullheaded as to think you were exactly right all along. This bumps up your "chance" of winning to a more tolerable level, and almost akin to answering a question on Millionaire.
What does this all mean? Well, probably squat because humans aren't calculators, but it shows just how difficult the final question still is.
-
Ha, I kinda just realized that not only do we have the main game question format from Card Sharks, but we now have the car game for the final question as well.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'158840\' date=\'Jul 27 2007, 10:53 AM\']
If we calculate expected value, it comes out that over a large number of attempts, the net return will be +$190,000, so it would seem like it's an acceptable risk despite this being for the shortest-term.
[/quote]
Don't ever change.
/citing "pot odds" on a single-trial situation is the best way to be dismissed as an idiot.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'158840\' date=\'Jul 27 2007, 01:53 PM\']If we try put this into context of the game, let's think about this. Chances are, the 10% range that you set is half above and half below what you think the actual percentage is. If you're right, then the natural assumption is that your hunch is correct, eliminating some of the "outlier" values, narrowing your range of guesses from 10 to about 5 or 6, provided you're still confident about your original estimate and you aren't so bullheaded as to think you were exactly right all along. This bumps up your "chance" of winning to a more tolerable level, and almost akin to answering a question on Millionaire.[/quote]
This really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If all you're being told is that you're within the range you've selected, then that's all you know. There's nothing "bullheaded" about going with the exact figure you had in mind all along. The question hasn't changed, and it's therefore as good a choice as any.
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'158804\' date=\'Jul 27 2007, 03:50 AM\']
As for Do You Trust Me?, I see some problems here. How will they deciide how much bank money will be divided up? At least they have a host which isn't saying much because that's really what we got: not much details so far. Still, it sounds like Friend or Foe all over again.
[/quote]
But the host they have is incredibly dislikable, so they have even less.
Still, I think the Prisoner's Dilemma thing could be interesting. This sounds better than Friend or Foe in that with one pair playing at a time, we can get to know them. And perhaps it could be structured so that there is risk action along the way. Maybe there are chances to bail out early and take half of a smaller pot or keep playing and building cash until the final Prisoner's Dilemma.
The original British take on this, "Trust Me" still sounds like the most interesting. No quiz at all, just pairs of people against (or for) each other sequestered in separate rooms, the whole game being a series of decisions.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'158863\' date=\'Jul 27 2007, 01:28 PM\']
Still, I think the Prisoner's Dilemma thing could be interesting.
[/quote]
And why you continue to harbor that belief continues to baffle me.
The reason the Prisoner's Dilemma sucks as a game show has not one thing to do with what you surround it with.
You could surround it with Pyramid, have the teammates play the Prisoner's Dilemma after the Winner's Circle, and it would still suck.
Because the Prisoner's Dilemma, by itself, no matter what's packaged in with it, is HORRIBLE TELEVISION.
-
I tried this element as a variant of CS's Audience Car Game. It will probably work close to this.
The contestant makes a guess. I then give the contestant five points on either side. If the answer falls within that range (+5 to -5), the contestant wins. Same concept with PO10.