The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: tvrandywest on June 22, 2011, 12:30:31 PM
-
While I have to give the show an "A" for effort in energizing a Q&A game show for the new millenium, apparently there's a disconnect between what audiences want to see and what network programmers THINK will work. Every creator and producer I talk with has told me that the networks have zero interest in a traditional studio-based game, but are open to high-concept, big-production, high-energy mega-concepts for games.
But few (or none) of them seem to work, such as dropping prizes from a rooftop, and now over-the-top stunts. It was pretty much exactly the kind of thing that networks have been asking for, and it was well executed, but the audience yawned:
101 Ways to Leave a Game Show opened with a third-place 3.2/ 5 in the overnights at 9 p.m. It did build by 7 percent from the 8:30 p.m. portion of an original episode of its lead-in Wipeout (fourth-placed 3.0/ 5).
Thoughts?
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
I may be old school ... but I, too, prefer a TV game that I could actually play at home with a group of friends. Most of the greatest game shows in history were televised versions of parlor games. Unfortunately, today's audiences apparently need sparks to fly out of various orifices, with appropriate (or not) sound effects, and 30 seconds' worth of suspenseful music every time a number is called. All this, plus a shot change between all 36 cameras every 3/8ths of a second, in order to maintain the interest of their fickle, caffeine-laden, Sesame Street/MTV brains.
-
apparently there's a disconnect between what audiences want to see and what network programmers THINK will work.
I suggest this has been the case for a solid decade now.
-
I don't necessarily think foreboding music and rapid cuts are bad in and of themselves. Rather it's a case of TV's usually short-sighted way of copying what's popular with no regard for how it applies to the property at hand. Take Deal or No Deal. Audiences responded to the show. They were engaged with the game and Howie and whatever else, and took with it the pauses, the crazy contestants, etc. Rather than try to counter-program with a game that could compel as much as DOND, the other shows slapped all the same veneers on whatever format they had. It's equivalent to saying Big Bang Theory is successful, so let's revive The Brady Bunch with science jokes, and cast a hot chick as Alice. There's a hot chick on that show! Let's put it on this show!
-Jason
-
There's a hot chick on that show! Let's put it on this show!
You have to admit, this isn't the worst policy, as a general rule.
-
There are certainly plenty of studio-bound game shows that have had some degree of success in the past decade, probably a lot more than the "high-concept, big-production, high-energy mega-concepts" represented by Wipeout (certainly a success) and 101 Ways.
For more than 60 years now, anyone who's ever packaged a successful game show has known that the key to that success is getting the audience to play along. There are voyeuristic exceptions like Wipeout and Fear Factor, but while 101 Ways is clearly cut from the Fear Factor template, it adds a quiz element that isn't enough for a Q&A fan to enjoy but still manages to take a huge bite out of the time we could be spending with the high-energy mega-concept part. With apologies to a dear friend who worked on it, I'm at a loss as to where they thought the appeal would lie.
-
The more these half-baked concepts get on the air and crash, the less chance ANY game shows will be considered. Net result-bad for the genre.
-
While I have to give the show an "A" for effort in energizing a Q&A game show for the new millenium, apparently there's a disconnect between what audiences want to see and what network programmers THINK will work. Every creator and producer I talk with has told me that the networks have zero interest in a traditional studio-based game, but are open to high-concept, big-production, high-energy mega-concepts for games.
Thoughts?
Network execs are either a) really, really persistent, or b) really, really stupid?
I agree with what others have said in this thread...game shows work best when they have some play-along value. I can't stand most of the shows that premiered since NBC's Deal or No Deal, but I will admit the ones that remain on TV one way or another (1 vs 100, 5th Grader*, Singing Bee) have reasonable play-along value.
I have no problem with incorporating physical stunts into a trivia game (see Double Dare), but the networks are so hellbent on making the next outrageous, over-the-top game show that they're forgetting to incorporate the game. At least the physical challenges on DD still had something to do with the game. It's almost as if Endemol took the idiotic cheesiness of D/ND and replaced it with what you have now. In the end, your game still takes a backseat to the chrome.
/Really misses the primetime shows of 1999-2000
//Overblown budgets and all
*///Not much longer but you get the point
-
Please allow me to offer some valuable free advice to the producers of certain recent prime time game shows. Say you've reached a critical moment in your game and you want to delay the moment of truth until after a commercial break in order to maintain viewership and please your sponsors. That's completely understandable. As a viewer...
...if I see the emcee turn to the camera and say words to the effect of, "We'll find out if the contestant wins after this break," then I may moan a little at the delay, but I will most likely wait through the commercial.
...if I see you act as if the moment of truth is about to happen, but abruptly go to commercial, then unless your game is really compelling, I'm going to start channel surfing, because I don't like being jerked around.
-
I don't necessarily think foreboding music and rapid cuts are bad in and of themselves.
No, but if you're using the gloomy music as a crutch to say "this is a tense situation, you should be paying attention!" then I think you're doing it wrong. I say this as someone who puts a premium on the soundtrack because of my particular issues, but there's no need to use a heartbeat as the bass line. When used correctly, you can add to the atmosphere, like Millionaire. Do it wrong and it becomes trite (Stump the Schwab)
With apologies to a dear friend who worked on it, I'm at a loss as to where they thought the appeal would lie.
They tried to get the quiz fans and the people who like watching people getting pwned on Wipeout, and unfortunately there's not enough of either, while there's an enormous amount of downtime. Either have one person ejected at the end of a thick-and-fast speed round, or allow players a way to buy-in back to the game after one ejection, but what they're doing now doesn't cut it for either.
-
Network execs are either a) really, really persistent, or b) really, really stupid?
The same can be said about the fools who run terrestrial radio nowadays. What made stations memorable and compelling in the glory days of radio (prior to the mid 90's) was personality and originality. Then the Clear Channels, Citadels, CBS's and the Cumulus' of the world bought out all the successful old-school broadcasters, reduced the playlists, dumbed down their audience participation, and made all their stations sound the same cookie-cutter copycats across the country. And yet, they still think a "Jack FM" is the next best thing in radio.
-
/Really misses the primetime shows of 1999-2000
//Overblown budgets and all
Same here :)
-
/Really misses the primetime shows of 1999-2000
//Overblown budgets and all
Same here :)
I don't know if I really miss those shows now, but it was probably the last time I was really excited for the prospects for the genre as a whole. The decade since then has, for reasons that have been discussed amongst this group ad nauseum, drained all but the tiniest spark of hope for the genre's future from me.
-
I don't know if I really miss those shows now, but it was probably the last time I was really excited for the prospects for the genre as a whole. The decade since then has, for reasons that have been discussed amongst this group ad nauseum, drained all but the tiniest spark of hope for the genre's future from me.
When I look at how the shows were produced (not taking the budgets into consideration), compared to many of the post D/ND shows, I definitely miss them. IMO they were more competently-produced and actually focused on the game play. The contestants came across as normal people, not actors in between gigs as "Maitre'D" on one of the CSI shows. The hosts actually had some form of hosting experience, which helped them come across smoother. It's a shame that that crop of shows didn't last longer.
My only complaint would be that it started the trend of dark sets with spotlights and/or neon.
-
IMO they were more competently-produced and actually focused on the game play. The contestants came across as normal people, not actors in between gigs as "Maitre'D" on one of the CSI shows. The hosts actually had some form of hosting experience, which helped them come across smoother. It's a shame that that crop of shows didn't last longer.
Ditto. Plus, they were actual studio game shows that were mainly produced in a "traditional" way. Once Deal or No Deal hit big, everything had to be edited to death to get the exact dramatic reaction the director/producer were looking for, and most of these shows had to rely on gimmicks, such as The Chamber or Downfall.
-
Once Deal or No Deal hit big...most of these shows had to rely on gimmicks, such as The Chamber
Que? Chamber aired in 2002.
-Jason
-
Que? Chamber aired in 2002.
God, that was that long ago already?
-
Had a phone conversation with one of our astute members several years ago, and some of the things he said really rang true and stayed with me. Like some of us, I used to have a feeling of embarrassment over liking game shows while growing up. He mentioned that one of the attractions of most early game shows was entering a world of civility. People got together, looked good, were polite, won with excitement, losers were good losers...at least on screen, anyway. The games and the hosts knew they were guests in your home and wanted to keep making themselves welcome. By keeping the game simple and the stakes moderate, competition was friendlier. Now granted, in many ways it was like a fantasy world, but it was one a lot of us used to (and some of us still do) wish existed outside our front doors. And back in the day, you could still find some of that if you (a) looked, and (b) was proactive (greeting and acknowledging people, helping as you could). We all have a dark side brewing under the skin, and it takes effort to keep it under control. Since today control doesn't seem to be worth the effort or isn't as entertaining, producers tapped into it to create "excitement" television. Take Survivor. Being able to take pride in sabotaging others' efforts and eliminating your enemies/competitors was seen as good. Then transfer that concept to The Weakest Link, Greed, Friend or Foe and many others. Being able to put the hurt on others kinda took some of the fun out of watching. To screw people just for the sake of screwing them. You could be a lousy game player, but if you get lucky enough to get the vote to eliminate those who threaten you or are better than you (current political discourse, anyone?), what's the message there? Losers win. That's just one of the reasons most new shows sour me (along with the fake suspense and padding to turn a 10-minute game into an hour show). Note to those producers: Jeopardy, Wheel, Price and Feud have maintained those classic values and have run longer than any of these high-concept, raw emotion-driven, race to the bottom of civility projects. Or just plain silly ones. That's my vent for the day. Now I gotta air out the room. Thanks for the insight, Mr. T.
-
I was going to respond to this thread a couple of days ago. Rather than rail against any particular network which may or may not employ me, I will simply point out that two of the highest-rated shows in all of syndication have been on the air literally for decades. They have succeeded without gratuitous gimmicks. They have succeeded without pushing a single contestant into a tank of water, without pushing a single prize off the roof, without having a single contestant fall through a trap door, and without flushing the better part of a million dollars down a faux toilet. They have succeeded without the law of gravity playing a central role in the game.
It says something when a game show has been on for more decades than other game shows have been on for weeks.
-
They have succeeded without the law of gravity playing a central role in the game.
There's an argument that one of them does. You'd be waiting a loooong time for the Wheel to stop spinning otherwise. :)
-
They have succeeded without the law of gravity playing a central role in the game.
There's an argument that one of them does. You'd be waiting a loooong time for the Wheel to stop spinning otherwise. :)
Huh? The WOF wheel isn't gravity operated; it stops by friction. You're thinking of Wheel of Cliffhangers.
Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries and can be summarized as follows:
1. First law: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force. This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant velocity.
-
Huh? The WOF wheel isn't gravity operated; it stops by friction. You're thinking of Wheel of Cliffhangers.
Without gravity pulling the wheel down (which creates friction on the hub), the lone source of friction are those three tiny-ass pointers trying to stop that big-ass wheel. Eventually it would stop, but you'd be there for a while.
-
Huh? The WOF wheel isn't gravity operated; it stops by friction. You're thinking of Wheel of Cliffhangers.
Without gravity pulling the wheel down (which creates friction on the hub), the lone source of friction are those three tiny-ass pointers trying to stop that big-ass wheel. Eventually it would stop, but you'd be there for a while.
This assumes that compression isn't being applied to the wheel bearing, say to regulate the speed of the wheel.
Ultimately, gravity plays a role in all game shows or else the cameras would float around the studio. It doesn't play a major role in the WOF game, though.
-
Ultimately, gravity plays a role in all game shows or else the cameras would float around the studio. It doesn't play a major role in the WOF game, though.
Fair point.
-
The game board on the original Double Dare relied a great deal on gravity to reveal the clues, and look where it is today.
-
The game board on the original Double Dare relied a great deal on gravity to reveal the clues, and look where it is today.
Bob Boden's garage? ;-P
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
The game board on the original Double Dare relied a great deal on gravity to reveal the clues, and look where it is today.
Bob Boden's garage? ;-P
Mr. West, I don't see the need for a question mark at the end of that sentence. Now pick up your set of Town & Country tableware from Washington Forge, with Fleetwood handles and dishwasher safe, on your way out of the studio. Thank you.
/Despite having once been an ubiquitous fixture on daytime television, a Google search turns up very little on the former Washington Forge cutlery company, except for someone mentioning that they won a set on Split Second. Calling Art Alisi ...
-
without having a single contestant fall through a trap door,
No, but I've been hoping Jeopardy! would institute this for contestants who fail to reach Final for years now.
-
I'd rather Jeopardy! contestants in a deficit situation after Double Jeopardy! be sucked off the set through pneumatic tubes. :-)
Unrelated, but I noticed during the most recent episode of 101 Ways... that the local ABC affiliate uses a much-too-big notification for Severe Thunderstorm Warnings: a giant blue bar at the bottom of the screen that's on screen the entire time, big enough for the entire row of answers to be hidden. (It also blocks out the score displays on Jeopardy![/i)
-
I'd rather Jeopardy! contestants in a deficit situation after Double Jeopardy! be sucked off the set through pneumatic tubes. :-)
Certainly it would be more appropriate, considering their performance.
-
And I assume, Mr. Lemon, you'd be in charge of consolidating the efforts necessary to achieve such an exit? :-)
-
And I assume, Mr. Lemon, you'd be in charge of consolidating the efforts necessary to achieve such an exit? :-)
I suppose that would fall under my jurisdiction, wouldn't it? :)
-
I just watched an episode of 101 Ways on demand and my mind went back to this thread. Being among those who bemoaned the initial theme of this thread - that game show producers have little to no interest in a classic in-studio format - I guess I have to say I see their point. First, the most logical place a traditional-style format would find a possible home would be network daytime. That's pretty much out of the question for now. 5-a-week syndication hasn't been a breakthrough location for new formats, and most of the ones reigning now were birthed in net daytime. Cable nets? Nothing's setting the world on fire there. So it looks like net primetime is about the last place left - and they're not going to look at formats that are 5 nights a week. Off the wall would have to be part of the draw, since it appears that being outrageous in one way or another is what keeps eyeballs coming back to prime time. I liked 101 Ways a bit better than I thought I might - but I'd rather watch it as an occasional one-shot vs. weekly. It's really a traditional game show at heart (ala Russian Roulette), but the overblown drama and action bores me quickly.
-
Off the wall would have to be part of the draw, since it appears that being outrageous in one way or another is what keeps eyeballs coming back to prime time.
Are you joking? Look at all of the gimmick-based prime-time games in recent years that have done things such as pushing prizes off the roof or having showgirls unfurl banners with dollar amounts. What percentage of those shows have lasted as many as 26 weeks? Hint: the percentage is quite low.
-
None of these prime-time shows are built to last. Six weeks and out and if they're initially successful they go to a second "season." We've become more like Great Britain in that way. I liked it better when shows weren't measured in "seasons." There were 260 shows a year with nary a rerun.
-
I'm in agreement with you guys - I'm just saying that if the only type of time slot a game show producer is left with is one that has his product up against a proceedural cop show with two slasher murders per episode and a sitcom where horny 20-somethings are trying to boink each other 24/7, the producer has to find some way to pull those eyeballs away to his show - and 4 panelists wearing blindfolds isn't going to do it. So we increase the action, do something outrageous. Just as the shows he's competiting against are, in their own way, outrageous. The producer's just trying to make a living, the nets are looking for the cheapest way to gather some ratings. So we get crap - and a high failure rate- as a result. Part of it is societial change. Remember when Mark Goodson said What's My Line was at one point, in his opinion,"too feminine" a format to survive in the then-current media world? A new generation raised on XBox violence, instant gratification communication and saturated with Red Bull is going to want to watch something more than just a clever challenge to the intellect.
-
A new generation raised on XBox violence, instant gratification communication and saturated with Red Bull is going to want to watch something more than just a clever challenge to the intellect.
Right, and the only reason that Jeopardy, probably the show that offers the most challenge is still so popular, is that TV watchers are still so used to it. If any show wants to make a debut, or even a comeback, they have to be unique, or even "extreme".
-
A new generation raised on XBox violence, instant gratification communication and saturated with Red Bull is going to want to watch something more than just a clever challenge to the intellect.
That's why game show demos skew older.
-
Because it happens to be on, I decided to give an episode of this a shot to see if it really is as foul as everyone is saying it is.
And it's not.
It's WORSE.
This blows more than a hundred Moby Dicks at a Captain Ahab convention. Or something.
-
This blows more than a hundred Moby Dicks at a Captain Ahab convention. Or something.
It must be really, REALLY bad if it warrants a metaphor like that.
Frankly, based on the promos I've seen, I can't be bothered. Pushing prizes off the roof or contestants into a tank of water or through a trap door or flushing money down a faux toilet -- it's enough to make me want to give up on the genre. I'd rather watch B&W kines of WML? than this merde any day.
-
This blows more than a hundred Moby Dicks at a Captain Ahab convention. Or something.
It must be really, REALLY bad if it warrants a metaphor like that.
Frankly, based on the promos I've seen, I can't be bothered.
Same here...I saw maybe 3 minutes of the first episode. I don't have short attention span, but it did nothing to hook me. Interestingly enough, I loved Russian Roulette, so you'd think I could enjoy something along these lines. Maybe RR didn't take itself as seriously...maybe the biggest gimmick was falling through the trapdoors...maybe there was still a game that required strategy...who knows?
Pushing prizes off the roof or contestants into a tank of water or through a trap door or flushing money down a faux toilet -- it's enough to make me want to give up on the genre. I'd rather watch B&W kines of WML? than this merde any day.
When I watch shows of the 60s-early-90s on Youtube or sites like Jamie's, I weep on the inside because it doesn't seem like it was that long ago when I watched many of those shows firsthand (or in very recent reruns). As much as I have complained about shows like TTD90, I would watch and enjoy that before so many of the primetime dreck we've been handed in the last 5 years.
-
Not a fan of today's brand of game shows. The only one that shows promise is "It's Worth What?"
-
Maybe RR didn't take itself as seriously...maybe the biggest gimmick was falling through the trapdoors...maybe there was still a game that required strategy...
Maybe it allowed you to see more than one question play out if you turned it on with 17 minutes left.
-
Using the search tool, it claims there's been nothing posted about Spike TV's Repo Games. My first thought upon hearing about the show was it was pretty bizarre. Having watched a couple of episodes, it does seem to have some timely elements. Compared to being dumped off a high-speed truck or thrown into a shark tank, the producers of this show seem to have a good balance between outrageousness and classic game. When you think about a person getting their car, motorcycle, truck or whatever repoed, your first impulse (at least mine was) is "The jerks have it coming." But now and then, you see some people who couldn't make their car payments due to layoffs, kids' needs, illness or other unfortunate setback. When you lose a car, you really lose a lot of your personal freedom - and I think that's something a lot of people can relate to. Even if the person is a jerk, I know I feel good when they answer the questions and get their wheels back. But for the grace of God it could be my car taken from me. Maybe the contestants can use that second chance as a stepping stone to straightening out their lives. But as stated, I can see 20-somethings and 50-somethings relating to the game. And that's pretty good.
-
Last night's rating: 4th place 2.9/ 5
But it's 36th with 4.92 million total viewers,
and tied for 11th place with adults 18-49 with 1.9/ 5
Too soon to call it a hit or a flop.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
the producers of this show seem to have a good balance between outrageousness and classic game. When you think about a person getting their car, motorcycle, truck or whatever repoed, your first impulse (at least mine was) is "The jerks have it coming." But now and then, you see some people who couldn't make their car payments due to layoffs, kids' needs, illness or other unfortunate setback. When you lose a car, you really lose a lot of your personal freedom - and I think that's something a lot of people can relate to. Even if the person is a jerk, I know I feel good when they answer the questions and get their wheels back. But for the grace of God it could be my car taken from me. Maybe the contestants can use that second chance as a stepping stone to straightening out their lives. But as stated, I can see 20-somethings and 50-somethings relating to the game. And that's pretty good.
To me this is worse than simple pandering; it is exploiting human misery. It exploits people's desperation to get their car back by creating a public spectacle and humiliating them on national television. I'm not going to feel very good if a person doesn't get their car back because they didn't know the most popular flavor of Jell-O or the middle name of Napoleon's second cousin. If this is where reality television is headed then deal me out.
If you should purchase something on credit I hope you never find yourself facing repossession because you can't make the payments because you lost your job, and there is a lot of that going around lately.
-
Last night's rating: 4th place 2.9/ 5
But it's 36th with 4.92 million total viewers,
and tied for 11th place with adults 18-49 with 1.9/ 5
Too soon to call it a hit or a flop.
If recent history is any guide, it won't last. If it was in 4th place, I don't think it's too early to conclude that it's not a hit.
-
the most popular flavor of Jell-O or the middle name of Napoleon's second cousin.
1. Pineapple
2. Jerome
-
1. Pineapple
2. Jerome
You sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Bonaparte
OK now, which is the most popular ingredient in a Jell-O salad?
A. Rubber bands
B. Ground paper clips
C. Castrol GTX motor oil
D. Giblets
Answer incorrectly and Mike Klauss will personally repossess your car.
-
Can I use my mobile shoutout?
-
Last night's rating: 4th place 2.9/ 5
But it's 36th with 4.92 million total viewers,
and tied for 11th place with adults 18-49 with 1.9/ 5
Too soon to call it a hit or a flop.
If recent history is any guide, it won't last. If it was in 4th place, I don't think it's too early to conclude that it's not a hit.
Agree, Chris. It won't last in terms of it being a continuing series on ABC. It's summer fluff.
But when the smoke clears, it has the potential to be a "hit" in the sense that it may return for a limited run again in the future and/or the format is further licensed in other countries.
I do like your idea of flushing money down a faux toilet. Quick - type it up and get it the the Writers' Guild ;-)
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
Can I use my mobile shoutout?
C. Always go with C.
-
Last night's rating: 4th place 2.9/ 5
But it's 36th with 4.92 million total viewers,
and tied for 11th place with adults 18-49 with 1.9/ 5
Too soon to call it a hit or a flop.
If recent history is any guide, it won't last. If it was in 4th place, I don't think it's too early to conclude that it's not a hit.
Agree, Chris. It won't last in terms of it being a continuing series on ABC. It's summer fluff.
But when the smoke clears, it has the potential to be a "hit" in the sense that it may return for a limited run again in the future and/or the format is further licensed in other countries.
I do like your idea of flushing money down a faux toilet. Quick - type it up and get it the the Writers' Guild ;-)
Randy
tvrandywest.com
The "host" has already moved on to other projects, so no, this won't go too much further.
-
Can I use my mobile shoutout?
C. Always go with C.
I have another question. Whose car am I repo-ing--Brandon's or Chris'? ;-)
-
The "host" has already moved on to other projects, so no, this won't go too much further.
The host is resuming his previous project, Nickelodeon's Brain Surge.
(Remember when someone could have three projects simultaneously and no one would bat an eye?)
-
(Remember when someone could have three projects simultaneously and no one would bat an eye?)
And a pronounced limp, too!
-
(Remember when someone could have three projects simultaneously and no one would bat an eye?)
And a pronounced limp, too!
Damn straight.
-
apparently there's a disconnect between what audiences want to see and what network programmers THINK will work.
I suggest this has been the case for a solid decade now.
I would have to agree with you on this. When I was younger, I used to love watching new game shows and I couldn't wait. Recently, a lot of new shows have been a flop. I actually have almost no interest in watching 101 Ways, I just find it boring.
I long for the days when a good old intellectual quiz game in studio returns. I guess you could say 101 is a quiz show, but in the format present, there isn't a big suspense factor for me - no way to "root for the champ".
-Ryan
-
I long for the days when a good old intellectual quiz game in studio returns.
Apropos to almost nothing, $ale as it was in the 80s had a real good mix with its trivia. Lots of accessible stuff coming at you quickly, with the occasional bit of real heady material, and of course, the I-didn't-know-that-about-that-thing during the Fame Game. I think there's room for more of that type of mix in our game shows. I think Jeopardy will remain as the most successful "intellectual" game show. Hard to travel that ground as a new show anymore, up against audience tastes, current trends in hiring writers, etc.
-Jason
-
"To me this is worse than simple pandering; it is exploiting human misery. It exploits people's desperation to get their car back by creating a public spectacle and humiliating them on national television. I'm not going to feel very good if a person doesn't get their car back because they didn't know the most popular flavor of Jell-O or the middle name of Napoleon's second cousin. If this is where reality television is headed then deal me out."
Point and opinion accepted, but if that is the criteria for bad tv, then we shouldn't be watching Criminal Minds,
Law And Order SVU, House, The Biggest Loser, Judge Judy, Dr. Phil, or any network's evening news. We try to deny it, but misery IS the human condition. That's one thing we all like about the classic game show - it takes us away from reality for a little while with some happy music, bells, whistles, laughs, applause and a few thousand dollars thrown around. Is human misery - death, disease, poverty, bad life choices - any more sanitized just because it's fictional on a tv drama? How fast do you think some "ripped from the headlines" drama show will come up with a plot about an 8-year-old boy getting chopped up and hauled around in a suitcase? And what kind of ratings do you think it will get? Man is born to misery as sure as sparks fly upward. That's why some cope with drugs and alcohol, some with sex, some with God, and others crossing over into a fantasy land to escape. TV people know it and pander to our morbid curiosity about it. If we are going to get indignant about one show, maybe we should feel the same about a lot of others. With the recent passing of my mother-in-law, who was helping with our finances, my mom in the final stages of cancer, work hours getting cut, facing the fact that our beloved 14-year old pain-filled dog will have to be put down, and a recent miscarriage for my son and daughter-in-law, I don't treat tragedy lightly. But I have hope. And I'll cheer when somebody gets a break, dammit!
-
Roger, you offer a very interesting insight...my prayers and condolences to you and your family.
I think the difference between most (past) game shows and the shows you listed are that game shows are supposed to be the escape, the feel-good types of shows. I don't mind a down-on-their-luck family get a new car or money to get their lives on track. I just hate the way so many recent shows go about it by milking the faux drama.
-
Point and opinion accepted, but if that is the criteria for bad tv, then we shouldn't be watching Criminal Minds,
Law And Order SVU, House, The Biggest Loser, Judge Judy, Dr. Phil, or any network's evening news.
The first three are fictional TV shows, and comparing them to exploitation of the misery of an actual real person in the name of ratings is utterly an apples and oranges situation.
That said, the last four shows you mention are absolutely valid arguments, which is why I don't watch them.
-
My reasons for adding the first three were based on the fact that even though they are fictional, the producers, directors and writers have to generate the same emotional hooks - someone has been seriously hurt, murdered, whatever - often in the darkest kind of way - as a real life situation. If, for example, we watched an episode of Criminal Minds where there has been no tragedy, no personal loss, and the actors are just spending the hour in their offices catching up on e-mails, cleaning their weapons, and talking sports, there wouldn't be much of a reason to watch. If we weren't drawn to the show by the event of a tragedy of some kind, and we know these agents are going to try to give the survivors some sort of closure or justice (relief), there would be no draw. The horror of the acts is the pandering hook, and without the pain, we can't experience the satisfying payoff at the end when the cell door slams shut or the psycho is gunned down. Tragedy is drama. Perhaps I stretched things a bit, but that's where I was coming from. We are drawn to pain and tragedy, if only for the hope that something or someone can or will stop it before it reaches us. The other shows are obvious - people willing to prostitute or shame themselves for 15 minutes of fame, a cash payoff, or hopes Dr. Phil will give them 10 free weeks of rehab. The Biggest Loser is inspiring, but we wouldn't watch if we saw players who only needed to lose 20 pounds instead of 200. They have (pardon the term) guts to parade themselves before us viewers and sharing their shame with us, but they're willing to endure that as we cheer on their determination. I'm off the subject now, but thanks for your thoughts and understanding.
P.S. - "I was thinking Sinbad." You crack me up, Mr. L.
-
If we weren't drawn to the show by the event of a tragedy of some kind, and we know these agents are going to try to give the survivors some sort of closure or justice (relief), there would be no draw.
That's fine, but are you suggesting that because tragedy in general appeals to the prurient nature of people, then fictional and real tragedy are equivalently distasteful? 'Cuz if so, I really couldn't disagree with that opinion more. I certainly agree with that first statement (I'm pretty sure a fellow by the name of Shakespeare figured that out a bunch of years ago), but I would absolutely argue that satisfying that urge in fictional form is FAR FAR superior than parading actual pain and suffering across my TV screen.
(Really, this doesn't seem all that far afield from the violence-in-video-games argument. Would you rather I rip Scorpion's spine out with Raiden or would you rather I take an AK-47 across the street to the cafe here at work? :))
-
Okay. I see your point. I guess if fictional violence were equal to real violence, we'd be equally appalled by Criminal Minds and Nazi concentration camp films. Perhaps it's the hope of justice that is the scripted show's appeal. Thanks.
Oh..and before I answer your question....what's the food and service like at the cafe across the street? You may have grounds for using the rifle.
-
Oh..and before I answer your question....what's the food and service like at the cafe across the street?
Since it's a Microsoft cafe, the service varies depending on time of day (good luck trying to get a burger at the grill during the lunch rush in any kind of expedient manner), but generally the food itself is pretty good, especially on Tandoori Tuesdays. :)
-
Tragedy and misery are part of the human condition, and the news is doing its job in reporting it. For TV producers to artificially exploit someone's misery by putting a person in a contrived situation purely for the entertainment of a mass audience does not sit well with me at all. The producers clearly do not have altruistic motives or they would simply make that person's misery go away. Their motives are exploitive; all they care about is audience draw. Getting a person's car back for him because he knows the date Post-It notes went on sale nationally, or not, is far more exploitive than straight reportage.
-
I'm surprised to say that my wife really enjoys 101, and is liking it better as the weeks go on. (Last week's hotel-themed episode, particularly.) I'll watch it with her on DVR, because speeding through the replays, teases, and assorted nonsense means there's really about 20 minutes of "content" (defined loosely here as question-answer gameplay and ejection stunts)--and if I've got 20 minutes to spare, why not? The quiz portion has interesting playalong, and some of the stunts are clever. If we do rewind and watch something again, it's to see how the stunt is designed to be safer than it looks. Sure, it's possible that something could go tragically wrong, but there's a chance a fresnel could fall on a Jeopardy! contestant's head. I don't think the stunts are significantly more dangerous than the challenges Amazing Race contestants have to face--but I'm willing to bet that 101's contestant pool is coached to scream like there's no tomorrow.
-
The producers clearly do not have altruistic motives or they would simply make that person's misery go away. Their motives are exploitive; all they care about is audience draw.
I can't help but think that a reviewer might have written those same words to describe Strike it Rich or Queen for a Day back in the fifties.
-
The producers clearly do not have altruistic motives or they would simply make that person's misery go away. Their motives are exploitive; all they care about is audience draw.
I can't help but think that a reviewer might have written those same words to describe Strike it Rich or Queen for a Day back in the fifties.
Yes, the sub-genre has been there since the radio days. Even as a kid, though, I didn't really like QFAD, but I did think Jack Bailey was a very good host. We've come full-circle without the kids running TV programming knowing they did. I read a blurb about Byron Allen coming out with a show for fall called "We the People." I wonder if he realizes Phillips Lord had a show with the same title back in the radio days, for which General Tire paid a great deal for format rights back in the late '50's? Prolly not.
-
I've just gone through the thread this morning, and I personally have no desire to see this "101 ways" show..My thoughts, probably mirroring what others have said to some degree, I've gotten to really dislike the shows that rely on "gimmicks" more than a game to succeed..The problem, as I see it, is that producers think that people want the instant gratification, rather than having to think for themselves,,It's that way in most genres of entertainment..I've looked at some old Mike Douglas Variety Show clips on YouTube from the 60's and 70's recently..It's stiking how really in depth the Interviews were..A good 10-12 minutes long before a commercial break..These days, "talk shows" are a lot more fast-paced, with celebrity plugs galore, again because people have such short attention spans..
-
It is sad that it's over-gimmicked. The main game play - a fastest-finger/who's closer style prelim to determine a picking order for the main questions -- the main multiple choice questions having 3 out of 4 correct, 2 out of 4, and eventually 1 out of four correct, eliminating players along the way until you get to a big showdown - is a sound and fun game. With the right staging, it would be a pleasant, passable half-hour, in-studio game. But, nooooooo. The nets want to fill an hour cheap, and it has to get the Nintendo demos. So there ya go. I still love the mechanics of Show Me The Money. The girls, the dancing, and the dramatic stretches to make it an hour show made it oh, so tedious. With writers complaining that too many game and reality shows are costing them jobs - note to networks: give us some solid half-hour games, and give the other half-hours to desperate sitcom writers. You could wind up with two solid hits instead of one mediocre hour show.
-
Saw the first episode of 101 Ways. I didn't anything super offensive about the show. As stated before, at its core it is a quiz show. Unfortunately the quiz has been overshadowed by the gimmick of how the contestant exits the show for a wrong answer. I saw one episode of the UK version and didn't make it through the full hour because it moved too slow, however I find the US version moves as a decent pace (maybe due to the host's ad libs between answers and the reveal but I digress...). Is it Jeopardy! quality as far as the actual game is concerned? Of course not. Is it an inoffensive way to kill an hour compared to the rest of trash that pollutes the airwaves? Sure it is. Call it me lowering my standards over the past decade due to the crap networks have determined qualifies as good game shows or me not expecting to see another old-school caliber game show ever again but 101 Ways turned out a lot better than I thought it would and...I actually liked it.
-
I saw one episode of the UK version and didn't make it through the full hour because it moved too slow, however I find the US version moves as a decent pace
Are you freaking kidding me? They spread five questions out over the course of an hour.
Call it me lowering my standards over the past decade due to the crap networks have determined qualifies as good game shows
If you think one question every TWELVE MINUTES qualifies as a "decent pace"...yeah, that's exactly what I'm gonna call it.
-
The producers clearly do not have altruistic motives or they would simply make that person's misery go away. Their motives are exploitive; all they care about is audience draw.
I can't help but think that a reviewer might have written those same words to describe Strike it Rich or Queen for a Day back in the fifties.
I'm sure many such reviews have been written about those shows. There is a book about television in which the producer of QFAD describes their M.O. and what they went through to get the show on the air. Part of the folly of QFAD was that an Amana refrigerator or whatever prize they had booked would solve a contestant's dilemma, no matter what the dilemma was.
QFAD didn't focus on the pathos of the losers. They took readings of the applause meter and crowned the queen, and the losers faded away with their consolation prizes. QFAD also didn't test the contestants. You didn't lose if you didn't know the answer to a question; all you had to do was have a story that the audience judged the most pathetic of the bunch.
I've never seen an episode of Strike It Rich, but there is a story where the producer instructed the director to take a close-up of a disabled contestant's crutches. The director, Matt Harlib, took off his headset and quit in disgust, right in the middle of a live network broadcast, leaving A.D. Ken Whelan to finish the show. (At one time Strike It Rich was directed by the late G-T vet Lloyd Gross.)
Legend has it that Jack Bailey was the biggest lush in Hollywood until he joined A.A. in 1948.
-
people have such short attention spans
That's debatable. They can sit through episodes of J! and WOF which have basically the same pacing as they did in the '60s and '70s. I wonder if that statement is reality, a myth, or a self-fulfilling prophecy.
-
Something else that also came to mind - Mr. West spoke in a past thread about broadcasters eventually dumping the National Association of Broadcasters guidelines we grew up with in the 50s and 60s (oh, us old people...). One tenet was to limit the amount of commercial time. I'm doing a show on public access cable called Yestervision, similar to Avery's The Golden Years of Television, except that where the commercial breaks are, I get to share trivia about the show, the actors, the production, whatever. Since most half-hour shows had their after intro commercial, their mid-break spot, and one toward the end of the show, I just have to prepare roughly 3 minutes worth of material for each show.
Going back to Tim L.'s comment on segments on shows like Mike Douglas, shows back then still kept the amount of commercial time down. As networks, stars and syndicators demanded more money, the only source was sell more commercials. It might be that we don't necessarily have shorter attention spans, but show segments are getting shorter and shorter to accomodate the glut of commercials and promos. The trick now is for producers to make each short segment attractive and interesting enough to keep us from tuning out in disgust over the obscene amount of commercials we're stuck with in between them. I'm sorta torn when I watch - I wrote radio and local theater on-screen commercials for years, and I love a good commercial. But by the third in a row with three more to go, I say to heck with it.
By the way, Tim, this has been quite the thread. You posted at 10:33 am. Did you start reading at 4:45 am? :-)
-
By the way, Tim, this has been quite the thread. You posted at 10:33 am. Did you start reading at 4:45 am? :-)
I should say I scanned through it, only really reading the last several pages through..To be honest, unless I'm interested in the subject at the beginning, I don't pay attention to a lot of the threads unless they become kind of long..Then I figure I might have missed something interesting..
-
Call it me lowering my standards over the past decade due to the crap networks have determined qualifies as good game shows or me not expecting to see another old-school caliber game show ever again...
I suppose one could, in the alternative, choose to take my approach: stay with the few old-school-style shows which are still on the air while they last (or until they are no longer of interest), and then find something else to occupy one's time/interests (TV, internet, hobby, whatever) not related to game shows. As I have little to no faith in the TV industry's ability, much less desire, to create an excellent, enjoyable game show (as most of us know/knew them) anymore, I have gradually turned my time to other interests, mainly on the internet since TV at large is becoming less and less engaging to me (likely due to may of the issues discussed in this thread by others).
-
Call it me lowering my standards over the past decade due to the crap networks have determined qualifies as good game shows or me not expecting to see another old-school caliber game show ever again...
I suppose one could, in the alternative, choose to take my approach: stay with the few old-school-style shows which are still on the air while they last (or until they are no longer of interest), and then find something else to occupy one's time/interests (TV, internet, hobby, whatever) not related to game shows. As I have little to no faith in the TV industry's ability, much less desire, to create an excellent, enjoyable game show (as most of us know/knew them) anymore, I have gradually turned my time to other interests, mainly on the internet since TV at large is becoming less and less engaging to me (likely due to may of the issues discussed in this thread by others).
Agreed, apart from Animation Domination on FOX, I rarely ever feel the urge to watch TV much anymore, I only don't even watch GSN that often as there's alot of stuff on there that I have little to no interest in(The Newlywed Game, Improve-A-Ganza, etc)
-
Almost forgot, I am looking forward to the US version of The Cube, Neil Patrick Harris could be a terrific host and it sounds pretty exciting, it better air soon though, CBS hasn't had anything worth watching in quite awhile("Million Dollar Password" was the last time I regularly tuned in)
-
Almost forgot, I am looking forward to the US version of The Cube, Neil Patrick Harris could be a terrific host and it sounds pretty exciting...
AFAIK, CBS hasn't greenlighted this one yet.
t better air soon though, CBS hasn't had anything worth watching in quite awhile("Million Dollar Password" was the last time I regularly tuned in)
Quite a few million people would disagree with you there. (http://"http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2011/05/24/cbs-wins-2010-2011-season-for-8th-victory-in-9-years-network-again-finishes-ahead-of-abc-and-nbc-in-adults-18-49-409414/20110524cbs02/")
-
Almost forgot, I am looking forward to the US version of The Cube, Neil Patrick Harris could be a terrific host and it sounds pretty exciting...
AFAIK, CBS hasn't greenlighted this one yet.
t better air soon though, CBS hasn't had anything worth watching in quite awhile("Million Dollar Password" was the last time I regularly tuned in)
Quite a few million people would disagree with you there. (http://"http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2011/05/24/cbs-wins-2010-2011-season-for-8th-victory-in-9-years-network-again-finishes-ahead-of-abc-and-nbc-in-adults-18-49-409414/20110524cbs02/")
Good ratings dosen't always mean good quality, The Bachelor/Bachelorette and Jersey Shore get high ratings, and they're about as far from "quality" as you can possibly get. That said, I do hope The Cube is succesful ratings wise, as CBS hasn't had a very good track record with game shows lately, and it would be nice to see them succeed.