The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: grimmte on September 21, 2003, 11:37:23 AM
-
Greetings,
Been watching the marathon this morning, and a couple of questions have popped into my mind. Forgive me if they have already been asked.
1. When a player got a question right, the audience clapped. Sometimes the oppenent's booth came on the air before the audience stopped clapping. Is it possible that a person could tell his or her opponent got the question right or wrong based on hearing the audience clap?
2. When a player was given their money on a silver platter, what happened to them next? Escorted to a bank? Producers converted it to a cheque? Did they get to keep the bag it was given to them in?
Thanks for the info. Looking forward to seeing the Lieutenant's big win later today.
-
[quote name=\'grimmte\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 10:37 AM\'] 1. When a player got a question right, the audience clapped. Sometimes the oppenent's booth came on the air before the audience stopped clapping. Is it possible that a person could tell his or her opponent got the question right or wrong based on hearing the audience clap? [/quote]
Somebody on here, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that a contestant alleged the same scenario you asked about. I believe she said she could tell if the opponent got a question correct when Maury began talking to her and she heard clapping and even to a degree hear the inflection in Maury's voice. Also, I believe she said she could still see completely out of the booth.
-
[quote name=\'grimmte\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 10:37 AM\'] 2. When a player was given their money on a silver platter, what happened to them next? Escorted to a bank? Producers converted it to a cheque? Did they get to keep the bag it was given to them in? [/quote]
IIRC, nowadays, game shows do not give winners on their shows straight cash. More than likely, those bundles were just for show, and they would take them back from them backstage, and issue them a check after their appearance.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'grimmte\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 10:37 AM\'] When a player was given their money on a silver platter, what happened to them next? Escorted to a bank? Producers converted it to a cheque? Did they get to keep the bag it was given to them in?
Thanks for the info. Looking forward to seeing the Lieutenant's big win later today. [/quote]
Each tape day an armored truck delivered exactly two million dollars in real cash to NBC several hours before taping. The money was brought in via the artists entrance, stored and unwrapped (plastic shrink wrap contains blocks of one hundred dollar bills) in one of the Studio 1 dressing rooms. It remained guarded by armed serious security guys in plain clothes.
When it was time for an on-camera presentation the correct amount of cash was escorted by half of the guards to one of the stage managers about 50 feet away, just behind the set, stage left. The money was displayed, presented to the contestant and immediately taken back by the guards and returned to the dressing room. The tote bag was returned to the contestant.
All game show winners receive their cash winnings in the form of a check approximately 90 to 120 days subsequent the episode's airing. The full two million dollars was picked up by armored truck at the completion of each taping day.
I have no comment regarding your other question except to say that the view from the booth was regulated by lighting conditions and reviewed at the beginning of each tape day. I can personally assure you that, at most, you cannot see past the first row of the audience's center section. That section of the audience was populated by future contestants who were closely monitored for any innappropriate attempts to communicate, and who were instructed and supervised so as not to applaud during the competition.
Maury was a pleasure to work with; nobody wanted to see the money won more than the producers; Lt. Legler and dad were very cool - perfect contestants!
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
[quote name=\'grimmte\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 11:37 AM\']1. When a player got a question right, the audience clapped. Sometimes the oppenent's booth came on the air before the audience stopped clapping. Is it possible that a person could tell his or her opponent got the question right or wrong based on hearing the audience clap?
[/quote]
Sure looks like it.
But that's only half the puzzle. If you know they got a question right, you don't know how many points they have won. I think that's worse than not knowing if they got it right at all (at least suspense wise)
I didn't catch this the 1st time it aired. It's not bad, but I love the comment somebody left on imdb.com:
Perfect substitute for a tranquilizer!
-
Is it possible that a person could tell his or her opponent got the question right or wrong based on hearing the audience clap?
According to a statement made my Maury at the top of some of the shows, the sounds of laughter and applause are heard in the contestant's headphones, so they don't know how the real audience is reacting to the ON THE AIR player's progress.
I believe she said she could still see completely out of the booth.
You're talking about Jennifer Perfect--the attorney/caterer. I believe NBC investigated, found no wrong-doing, end of story.
-
Am I the only one who thinks Maury sounds a lot like Jack Barry?
21's a neat little show. Should have lasted longer.
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 03:38 PM\'] Am I the only one who thinks Maury sounds a lot like Jack Barry?
21's a neat little show. Should have lasted longer. [/quote]
I was not fond of Maury Povich as a host. However, 21 was a great show and should have had a longer life on NBC.
Tim :-)
-
I was not fond of Maury Povich as a host. However, 21 was a great show and should have had a longer life on NBC.
Agreed on both counts. In fact, if you were watching the reruns on GSN today, you probably caught the episode in which a player struck out and Maury made that fact known to his opponent before he selected his question value for his turn of play. Of course, he went for the easiest 1-point question and won the game. (As I recall, the old $64,000 Challenge quiz show of the 1950s ended up changing hosts after their first choice of hosts ending up doing poorly in his role.)
Sadly, what ultimately killed the revived Twenty-One was NBC's overly ambitious effort to make it a really big-money show. They later did cut the prize amounts, but still ended up with someone who won over $1.7 million on the show -- too much for the network's budget!
In retrospect, I think the show would have been better if they had awarded the really big money in its end game, rather than its main game. Indeed, the show's end game was poorly executed, in my opinion, with a contestant getting its first three questions right (for $60,000) having to risk it all just for another $40,000 payoff on the fourth question, then for only another $50,000 on the fifth question, and $60,000 on the sixth.
A better prize structure for that show, in my opinion, and which I once proposed, would be the following:
Main game: $25,000 (all wins by all players).
End game: 1 question right, $5,000.
2 questions right, $15,000.
3 questions right, $30,000.
4 questions right, $50,000.
5 questions right, $75,000.
(Note that these amounts are one-half of the end-game payoff amounts the show had when it aired originally on NBC.)
6 questions right: $75,000 plus the end-game's \"21 Jackpot,\" which starts at $150,000.
As on the NBC version, a player who tries for and misses a question in the end-game would lose any money won in the game up to that point. However, that money would be added to the \"21 Jackpot,' conceiveably giving that player a chance to win it all back if he or she was successful in winning the next main game. Thus, if a player answered the first three questions in the end game and then tried for and missed the game's fourth question, his forfeited $60,000 would be added to the jackpot for the next end game, making it worth $210,000, etc. Of course, a player can also elect to stop playing the end-game at any time after a correctly answering any question, and keep the money won up to that point -- in which case the next end game would be played with the same jackpot. Also, the player retains all main-game winnings (at $25,000 per win), regardless of any result in his subsequent end game.
Michael Brandenburg
(Well, maybe if NBC decides to bring the show back again after another 42 years…)
-
I personally think they skewed a bit too far from the original format. I personally think it should have been $2500 per point lead over opponent, with an extra $2500 added for every tie game...
Ex.: Both players tie 4 games= $10,000 per pt. lead for winner...
Final score: Player 1: 14, Player 2: 21...
Player 2 receives $70,000.
But it was an OK show, it got a bit dry on me after the 3rd episode, however.
-
[quote name=\'whampyl03\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 03:29 PM\'] I personally think it should have been $2500 per point lead over opponent, with an extra $2500 added for every tie game...
[/quote]
We went over the whole \"per-point\" thing on ATGS when these first aired. I said then, and I stand by it, that today's generation would be way WAY confused by the \"per point\" system, because kids these days simply don't play card games like gin and cribbage and such where they would be introduced to the \"per-point\" concept.
I am also firmly of the opinion that 21 didn't work because , while it might have been enthralling in the 1950s, forty and change years later it really is a fairly mediocre game, and NBC tried to make it interesting by throwing money at it. Hell, 21 is the damn POSTER-BOY for Mo' Money Syndrome. :)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 07:07 PM\'] I am also firmly of the opinion that 21 didn't work because , while it might have been enthralling in the 1950s, forty and change years later it really is a fairly mediocre game, and NBC tried to make it interesting by throwing money at it. Hell, 21 is the damn POSTER-BOY for Mo' Money Syndrome. :) [/quote]
In honor of the marathon, I watched a tape of Quiz Show last night, and it said people watch for the money. As we have seen the last four years, that is not always the case. While Survivor, Fear Factor, and Big Brother perservere, countless others (especially lately) have come and gone.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 07:33 PM\'] In honor of the marathon, I watched a tape of Quiz Show last night, and it said people watch for the money. [/quote]
As you know, Quiz Show says a lot of things. Some of them are even accurate. ;)
-
[quote name=\'Michael Brandenburg\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 04:35 PM\']In fact, if you were watching the reruns on GSN today, you probably caught the episode in which a player struck out and Maury made that fact known to his opponent before he selected his question value for his turn of play. [/quote]
And the game with Chris Franciosa in the booth, where Chris had 8 and his opponent had 19 points. Chris chooses 10, which means he can't even tie her. Instead of stopping the game and awarding it to the opponent, Maury reads the question.
It is rather like seeing Sonny Fox stumble through The $64,000 Challenge...
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 07:07 PM\'] Hell, 21 is the damn POSTER-BOY for Mo' Money Syndrome. :) [/quote]
When I'm asked what I think about \"Twenty One\" this is my answer:
Maury: \"For 6 points: What is 4 + 3 ?\"
Contestant: \"7\"
Maury: \"YOU WON $300,000 !!!!\"
'nuff said.
-Joe R.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 07:07 PM\'] I am also firmly of the opinion that 21 didn't work because , while it might have been enthralling in the 1950s, forty and change years later it really is a fairly mediocre game, and NBC tried to make it interesting by throwing money at it. Hell, 21 is the damn POSTER-BOY for Mo' Money Syndrome. :) [/quote]
Regardless of why the show didn't work, it's not the reason it was cancelled. TwentyOne met all the criteria for a successful show at the time it aired. It revitalized a Monday night line up, it was a top twenty show on more than one occasion, and it was obvious that people were watching DESPITE the number of changes the made to the payout format.
It was cancelled because NBC didn't want to recognize that a large portion of the population wanted to watch it.
-
[quote name=\'tomobrien\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 11:05 PM\'] And the game with Chris Franciosa in the booth, where Chris had 8 and his opponent had 19 points. Chris chooses 10, which means he can't even tie her. Instead of stopping the game and awarding it to the opponent, Maury reads the question.
It is rather like seeing Sonny Fox stumble through The $64,000 Challenge... [/quote]
The game wouldn't have been over at that point. Chris was the challenger, which meant the champ would have gone after him. And the only time they stop the champion before a question is asked is if the declared point value wasn't going to bring them up to 21, because the challenger already hit it.
So who was stumbling?
-
There's another element in Quiz Show that helped explain why Twenty-One and other related shows in that era made such an impact - with threats to our lifestyle around us - especially the fear of becoming a \"second-rate\" nation to Russia, we had to prove to the world and ourselves that America had the strongest army, the best education system, and the smartest people - I think somehow we translated the fact that if someone knew a lot about art or boxing or anything else, it helped us continue a feeling of superiority - or at least the feeling that we have the people with the brains to beat any problem that comes along. TV shows with people smarter than anyone else in the world helped us feel better. The clips of the first program showed Twenty-One had the potential to be a disaster. The \"problem\" was solved by rigging. That was also part of the great disillusionment - we didn't have all the answers, and we were tricked into thinking we did. The premise of the original Twenty One had potential - bright people battling it out, gladiator-style. If you felt it was honest, it would be somewhat entertaining. The remake could have been entertaining as well, if they hadn't so eagerly tried to copy MILLIONAIRE. It seemed every recent big-money quiz was a multiple-choice fest, and that got old fast. Straight questions about one IQ notch above Jeopardy and slightly smaller stakes could have made this one stand out from the pack.
-
[quote name=\'bttritle\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 09:33 PM\'] It was cancelled because NBC didn't want to recognize that a large portion of the population wanted to watch it. [/quote]
Yeah, because NBC is ALL ABOUT shunning the largest potential audience they can.
This is the stupidest argument I've heard in a long time. And I'm involved in a pretty stupid argument elsewhere on this very board.
Ol' Guy: Those are some excellent points, and a perspective on the issue I hadn't heard before. Please post more. :)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 12:38 AM\'] [quote name=\'bttritle\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 09:33 PM\'] It was cancelled because NBC didn't want to recognize that a large portion of the population wanted to watch it. [/quote]
Yeah, because NBC is ALL ABOUT shunning the largest potential audience they can.
This is the stupidest argument I've heard in a long time. And I'm involved in a pretty stupid argument elsewhere on this very board.
Ol' Guy: Those are some excellent points, and a perspective on the issue I hadn't heard before. Please post more. :) [/quote]
Keep in mind he won a large sum of money from this show...
-
[quote name=\'bttritle\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 11:33 PM\']Regardless of why the show didn't work, it's not the reason it was cancelled. TwentyOne met all the criteria for a successful show at the time it aired. It revitalized a Monday night line up, it was a top twenty show on more than one occasion, and it was obvious that people were watching DESPITE the number of changes the made to the payout format.
[/quote]
Yes, but how much money was all that worth to NBC? Because 21 was not a low-budget show.
It was cancelled because NBC didn't want to recognize that a large portion of the population wanted to watch it.
Replace \"didn't want\" with \"failed\" and I might buy it. Maybe.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 10:54 PM\'] Keep in mind he won a large sum of money from this show... [/quote]
Which has nothing to do with his excellent insight into the temprement of the country in the 50's and how it might have affected the scandals.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 12:59 AM\'] [quote name=\'bttritle\' date=\'Sep 21 2003, 11:33 PM\']Regardless of why the show didn't work, it's not the reason it was cancelled. TwentyOne met all the criteria for a successful show at the time it aired. It revitalized a Monday night line up, it was a top twenty show on more than one occasion, and it was obvious that people were watching DESPITE the number of changes the made to the payout format.
[/quote]
Yes, but how much money was all that worth to NBC? Because 21 was not a low-budget show.
It was cancelled because NBC didn't want to recognize that a large portion of the population wanted to watch it.
Replace "didn't want" with "failed" and I might buy it. Maybe. [/quote]
To be honest, I thought NBC cancelled it because the Top 20 ratings didn't satisfy them; that they wanted to be in the same league as Millionaire?
-
I saved tapes of about 8 episodes from when it originally ran, which I don't think I've watched since then. I tuned into a few hours of the marathon last night and thoroughly enjoyed it - despite the \"dumbed down\" factor, I thought it was a good show and deserved a longer life.
I had one thought while watching this - if GSN is in the need for more original programming, maybe they should give this one a shot (for lower stakes, of course).
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 08:33 AM\']
I had one thought while watching this - if GSN is in the need for more original programming, maybe they should give this one a shot (for lower stakes, of course). [/quote]
Keep in mind that GSN was fairly close to a deal for a lowered stakes revival of Greed last year, but the deal fell through. I think resurrecting Syndie Weakest Link(with George Gray as host preferably) would be a better idea, as they wouldn't have to lower the payouts much if at all(payouts on Syndie Link were often less than one-day totals on WHammy!)
-
But don't forget Zach, one day totals on Whammy are normaly mostly prizes provided for free or less then retail.
-Joe Kavanagh
Edit to fix typo
-
[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 10:50 AM\'] But don't forget Zach, one day totals on Whammy are normaly mostly prizes provided for free or less then retail.
-Joe Kavanahg [/quote]
If the budget would hurt GSN that bad, they could do Link as a weekly show(presumably what they were going to with a Greed revival if it came to fruition)
-
Well, one thing to consider in the economics of any game is the amount of money the producers/networks get in plugging prizes. With Whammy - or any show that offers prizes as part of the take - anything the producers get either as straight trade or a fee for plugging small items like Rice A Roni - helps keep moolah in the till for the cash prizes. If a show has a pure cash outlay, like Greed or Twenty-One, it has to have the backing from somewhere, and most cable networks don't have that much cash. A lot of you make good points - the networks were so blinded by visions of ratings they thought would follow giant giveaway sums that they didn't think through the quality of the mechanics of the game itself. Enright himself said later on in life that Twenty-One was actually a pretty dull game. He mentioned Disney asked him to offer a proposal for a new version before he passed, and he was trying to work out ideas such as stacking categories and other gimmicks to add dazzle to the game. The point I'm working on is - if some of these games were to come back on a cable budget, would the mechanics of the game be strong enough to keep viewers glued to the set, since the money won't be there? Big money did nothing for the horrid $1,000,000 Chance Of A Lifetime game. If the programs were repositioned as challenges of contestant strategy vs. big money games, they might have a better shot.
-
Pardon my redundancy - Cyberjoek's post wasn't on board before I wrote.
-
IMO, (I am probably wrong so feel free to correct me), 21 was rigged in the 50's because the show didn't work well without it being rigged. It is no wonder to me why the modern version didn't work either.
Eric
-
[quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 12:25 PM\'] IMO, (I am probably wrong so feel free to correct me), 21 was rigged in the 50's because the show didn't work well without it being rigged. It is no wonder to me why the modern version didn't work either. [/quote]
Actually, Eric, that's pretty much it exactly. No amount of tinkering and simplifying the questions and magnifying the payouts and unnecessary flourishes (a live band?) could change the fact that this was a format that didn't work in the FIFTIES! They did what they could with what they had, but I'm pretty sure that NBC saw the writing on the wall that this wasn't going to be engaging over the long run.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 11:56 AM\'][quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 12:25 PM\'] IMO, (I am probably wrong so feel free to correct me), 21 was rigged in the 50's because the show didn't work well without it being rigged. It is no wonder to me why the modern version didn't work either. [/quote]
Actually, Eric, that's pretty much it exactly. No amount of tinkering and simplifying the questions and magnifying the payouts and unnecessary flourishes (a live band?) could change the fact that this was a format that didn't work in the FIFTIES! They did what they could with what they had, but I'm pretty sure that NBC saw the writing on the wall that this wasn't going to be engaging over the long run.[/quote]
And most importantly--it didn't kill \"WWTBAM.\" NBC didn't put \"Twenty-One\" back on the air to perpetuate the big money quiz show. They put it on to kill the reinstigator of the genre--and it didn't do that, so they quickly discarded it. I'm sure that neither Phil Gurin nor (despite some of the things said about him on these forums) Fred Silverman had that in mind, and the NBC suits didn't say that to them, but considering the general contempt for the genre from the execs, I'm pretty sure that's what they were thinking.
Meanwhile, some will argue that \"WWTBAM\" a year or so later killed itself in prime time--or should we say was assisted by the policies of certain ABC programming execs.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 12:56 PM\'] [quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 12:25 PM\'] IMO, (I am probably wrong so feel free to correct me), 21 was rigged in the 50's because the show didn't work well without it being rigged. It is no wonder to me why the modern version didn't work either. [/quote]
Actually, Eric, that's pretty much it exactly. No amount of tinkering and simplifying the questions and magnifying the payouts and unnecessary flourishes (a live band?) could change the fact that this was a format that didn't work in the FIFTIES! They did what they could with what they had, but I'm pretty sure that NBC saw the writing on the wall that this wasn't going to be engaging over the long run. [/quote]
IMO, it looked bad then because the games could theoretically be endless with 2 players tossing incorrect answers back and forth for a half hour [didn't the 1st ep. have something like this happen?] When it came back, the \"3 Strikes\" rule, although kinda out of place, was a fair enough remedy for it.
I also think this could possibly be revived on GSN [with the second payoff structure, cut in 10 to make it $2,500, $5,000, $10k, $25k, $50k, $75k, and $100k]
Didn't the 2000 series actually do pretty well?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 12:38 AM\'] Yeah, because NBC is ALL ABOUT shunning the largest potential audience they can.
This is the stupidest argument I've heard in a long time. And I'm involved in a pretty stupid argument elsewhere on this very board.
[/quote]
What's stupid is pointing and laughing...what's smart is making an attempt at explaining why.
Your argument stated correctly that they took a show concept that was by all means flawed, tried to infuse it with a bunch of cash. The thing is that people bought into the show. The ratings the show received even after it moved into Monday nights is what the networks kill for during summer programming these days. I just don't agree that the death of the show had anything to do with the show.
-
[quote name=\'bttritle\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 03:51 PM\'] What's stupid is pointing and laughing...what's smart is making an attempt at explaining why.
I just don't agree that the death of the show had anything to do with the show. [/quote]
So instead you're going to claim that it's some kind of conspiracy theory? Because when you say:
It was cancelled because NBC didn't want to recognize that a large portion of the population wanted to watch it.
...that's exactly what you are doing.
So if you don't mind, until you can succesfully explain why NBC would \"not want\" to recognize a show's success, which is pretty much diametrically opposed to how ANY television network does business, I'm gonna get back to pointing and laughing.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 07:46 PM\'] So if you don't mind, until you can succesfully explain why NBC would "not want" to recognize a show's success, which is pretty much diametrically opposed to how ANY television network does business, I'm gonna get back to pointing and laughing. [/quote]
This is just my opinion, but any game show with Fred \"Hacksaw\" Silverman involved is pretty much doomed from the beginning. We all know what he did to HS when it was still getting a 20 rating and a 27 share.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 06:46 PM\'] [quote name=\'bttritle\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 03:51 PM\'] What's stupid is pointing and laughing...what's smart is making an attempt at explaining why.
I just don't agree that the death of the show had anything to do with the show. [/quote]
So instead you're going to claim that it's some kind of conspiracy theory? Because when you say:
It was cancelled because NBC didn't want to recognize that a large portion of the population wanted to watch it.
...that's exactly what you are doing.
So if you don't mind, until you can succesfully explain why NBC would \"not want\" to recognize a show's success, which is pretty much diametrically opposed to how ANY television network does business, I'm gonna get back to pointing and laughing. [/quote]
Conspiracy theory? No...I'm saying it was dead in the water.
Grant Tinker was on record saying he wished the whole game show craze would go away quickly. As others have pointed out here, NBC's reason for putting the show on were not so much to jump on the bandwagon, but to dillute the field enough to give cause for its removal from the schedule.
When Tinker left/was relieved of his duties, take your pick, it was believed that that attitude had lightened a little bit, especially when NBC had created a specific division related to reality programming at roughly the same time.
The only reason why NBC went as long with it as it did is because a large audience found it. It was only supposed to last four episodes, two in each of two weeks on Wednesdays and Sundays. However, despite the press release stating as such, NBC knew they would have to fit the show around the Golden Globes. After the initial shows did well by NBC, but not Millionaire numbers, they ordered two more. When those two shows did well, they ordered thirteen more, figuring it to be a sweeps tentpole. Yet, when sweeps ended, they still preempted the next two weeks worth of shows for a low rated miniseries that did half the ratings. The results? Rather than put it back where it was to bolster the night, they put it on what was commonly seen as a graveyard shift...only to be a tentpole again.
However, it appeared that NBC chose to kill Twenty One in spite of the ratings when they pulled the very final episode of the show, which would have aired early in the Spring sweeps period, for alternate programming that never acheived the ratings that Freaks and Geeks/TwentyOne/Third Watch did in the previous months.
NBC's actions were no better than FOX's at the time, when they chose to cancel Greed on the heels of the cancellation of Chance of a Lifetime.
A show's success is based on its ratings...a network's success is based on its profit.
So to answer your question...any network would not want to recognize a show's success when it isn't successful with who the network wants it to be successful.
-
Oh, what do you know about Twenty One anyway, Tritle? **insert twinkle in the eye icon**
By the by, oh Benjamin one, how many taping sessions did you attend before you were chosen to go into the booth?
-
[quote name=\'bttritle\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 08:08 PM\']
However, it appeared that NBC chose to kill Twenty One in spite of the ratings when they pulled the very final episode of the show, which would have aired early in the Spring sweeps period, for alternate programming that never acheived the ratings that Freaks and Geeks/TwentyOne/Third Watch did in the previous months.
[/quote]
However, as Ben Tritle himself will tell you, unlike the case of the Bush LMAD which has two unaired episodes and Winning Lines which has six unaired episodes IIRC, the final episode of Twenty One did air on SUnday Night of Memorial Day weekend 2000 at 7PM with essentially no promos by the network.
When the episode was taped two months earlier, Maury and Co. were not sure if the show would be renewed, so there was no goodbye.
-
When the episode was taped two months earlier, Maury and Co. were not sure if the show would be renewed, so there was no goodbye.
Not to mention that it ended w/a game in progress...the champ had just won a game and hadn't yet played the bonus round.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Sep 23 2003, 06:04 PM\'] \
Not to mention that it ended w/a game in progress...the champ had just won a game and hadn't yet played the bonus round.
[/quote]
Play the Percentages' last show ended with a lack of time to play a bonus round, too(and PtP's later format was sort-of based on 21, minus the isolation booths, and with a different scoring system, and of course not rigged)
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Sep 23 2003, 04:12 PM\'] Play the Percentages' last show ended with a lack of time to play a bonus round, too(and PtP's later format was sort-of based on 21, minus the isolation booths, and with a different scoring system, and of course not rigged) [/quote]
Yer REALLY reaching, Zach. :)
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Sep 23 2003, 06:04 PM\'] Not to mention that it ended w/a game in progress...the champ had just won a game and hadn't yet played the bonus round.
[/quote]
Technically, there was no game in progress. This is why it was a bonus round. The only time the show ended with a game in progress was the first show, when a game that ended at 21-21 tie straddled to the next show to play the tie breaker.