The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: wdm1219inpenna on May 14, 2012, 05:15:10 PM
-
If Price is Right has pricing games, did Time Machine have timing games?
This show seemed to have a really good possibility at doing well, but it tanked after just 15 or 16 weeks on NBC. The first format was pretty good, except only the winner got to keep the prize in their prize bank. This had the chance to be a lot like "Price is Right", potentially adding new "timing games". It was somewhat educational too, but mostly pop culture.
That they changed formats about 5 or 6 weeks into the run probably didn't help matters much either. Price is Right kept pretty much the same format always, with a slight exception for Two Player Bullseye as a pricing game, and of course expanding from 30 to 60 minutes.
What did you think of this program? Are you even old enough to remember it? What changes would you make to it if you were given the green light to bring it back into production again?
-
What did you think of this program?
It was an utterly shameless rip-off of The Price Is Right's formula. Not as bad as Bargain Hunters, but pretty close.
Are you even old enough to remember it?
Yes.
What changes would you make to it if you were given the green light to bring it back into production again?
I would change the format thusly: Two players compete. They face a board divided into a number of rectangles, and in turn select two of them in an effort to match the prizes hidden behind them. When successful, two parts of a rebus puzzle the size of the overall board are revealed, which resolves to the title of something, a well-known phrase, or something you know. Whoever manages to solve that puzzle first wins the game and whatever prizes they have accumulated to that point.
-
In 1985, I was crapping in my diaper.
-
In 1985, I was crapping in my diaper.
Hey, so was I! Unfortunately, I was 14 at the time. :)
-
Hey, so was I! Unfortunately, I was 14 at the time. :)
WTMI. :)
BTW, that concept you wrote as a fix doesn't have a chance of selling. It'll never work.
/Unless you hire Alex Trebek and add a couple of wild-cards.
-
BTW, that concept you wrote as a fix doesn't have a chance of selling. It'll never work.
That's fine. There's this verbal charades thing I'm working on, with a neat twist for the endgame. Maybe that has a shot.
-
BTW, that concept you wrote as a fix doesn't have a chance of selling. It'll never work.
That's fine. There's this verbal charades thing I'm working on, with a neat twist for the endgame. Maybe that has a shot.
To really spruce this up, you should offer a car as the grand prize. No wait...TWO cars! Nothing fancy, just some Chevettes or some rustbox like that.
As for Time Machine, I saw an episode on Youtube, and didn't find it anything to write home about. I'd make the format less like TPiR and maybe more of a straight history quizzer, with each round focusing on something different (i.e. round 1-entertainment, round 2-presidents, round 3-name that year). You could still do the variety of games, but make it so the two or three contestants compete against each other.
With more cable channels today, it could possibly work on the History Channel (that is, if you can find a slot in between the reruns of Pawn Stars) or maybe GSN. Then again, History IQ worked a lot better. However, there's quite a few interactive elements that could be integrated into the show as well.
This aired at, what, 10am? 10:30? If it's 1985 and I have my options, I'm likely watching Pyramid or Press Your Luck.
-
The game had a sterile and cold ambiance. A nostagia-like atmosphere should have been generated. The producers should have taken a good look at Family Feud instead of Space: 1999.
-
The game had a sterile and cold ambiance. A nostagia-like atmosphere should have been generated. The producers should have taken a good look at Family Feud instead of Space: 1999.
Well, I get the reason for the set (chromakeying it onto the light show during commercial bumps was pretty awesome)...IMO, it would be weird to watch a show called Time Machine without some sort of futuristic look. Kinda like with Battlestars.
/Would love to get the TM theme song in the clear
-
This aired at, what, 10am? 10:30? If it's 1985 and I have my options, I'm likely watching Pyramid or Press Your Luck.
10. $otC followed it.
-
This aired at, what, 10am? 10:30? If it's 1985 and I have my options, I'm likely watching Pyramid or Press Your Luck.
10. $otC followed it.
Gracias. Definitely Pyramid at 10, flipping back and forth at 10:30. :-P
-
It was TPIR but without any excitement. The games were complicated and boring. The contestants were boring and/or bored. Also, on TPIR, the basic element is prices of stuff they can display on the stage. On Time Machine, it was historical facts, so you got a lot of typeset cards and badly blown-up photos and prizes that had nothing to do with anything. Mount it today and you'd put monitors all over and could make it look cool.
"In what year did these things happen?" is kind of a fun game, as on the Dateline NBC "Timeline" bumpers or in the card game Chronology, something more cerebral than Plinko but not as woefully dull as the History IQ front game.
Of course, it also gave John Davidson his first attempt at game-show hosting. It was doomed from the start.
-
In 1985, I was crapping in my diaper.
Better yours than someone else's.
-
I enjoyed the concept of this show. I'll cut Davidson some slack since this was his first hosting gig, but I think a more experienced host like Tom Kennedy or Wink Martindale would've been better for this show. The different games definitely reminded me of TPIR.
-
I didn't like how the contestants were assigned whatever game they played. Why not make it a buzzer beater with the three games of the day?
-
I'll cut Davidson some slack since this was his first hosting gig
I wouldn't. As HSq and $100KP proved, he never got the hang of it.
-
I didn't like how the contestants were assigned whatever game they played. Why not make it a buzzer beater with the three games of the day?
Because honestly, who cares? It's not like the contestants know one game from the other anyhow, and since they are properly-cast game show contestants of the 1980s, they are going to be happy to play any game thrown at them. I'd rather they give Davidson a little more mic time.
-
Sometime in the run, though, they changed the format to a 2 player format. They had the same games as the first format, but each game was modified. They still played 3 games per show, but now both players played against each other, and whomever won the most games got to play against the champion.
In that round, the winner played against the champion and tried to guess the exact year 4 events happened. Whichever contestant was the closest got to play for a car (no more showcase of prizes... just a car)
In the bonus round, the player was given a year, and had to answer whether 2 given events happened before or after that year.
Anyone have thoughts on the second format? I'm not sure it was so much an improvement, but rather, perhaps GT or somebody pressured Reg Grundy to alter the format to not resemble TPIR.
If anyone's seen the finale, it's further evidence that the wrong host was chosen for a format that COULD'VE worked. So I don't spoil anything, let's just say that Davidson's antics during the bonus game were off the wall. You'd NEVER see any other host do what he did.
-
What did you think of this program?
It was an utterly shameless rip-off of The Price Is Right's formula. Not as bad as Bargain Hunters, but pretty close.
Are you even old enough to remember it?
Yes.
What changes would you make to it if you were given the green light to bring it back into production again?
I would change the format thusly: Two players compete. They face a board divided into a number of rectangles, and in turn select two of them in an effort to match the prizes hidden behind them. When successful, two parts of a rebus puzzle the size of the overall board are revealed, which resolves to the title of something, a well-known phrase, or something you know. Whoever manages to solve that puzzle first wins the game and whatever prizes they have accumulated to that point.
When I read the answer to "What changes would you make?", I swear I haven't laughed THIS hard in months!!!! Truly classic!!!!
Thank you all for your feedback & replies, especially yours Clemon! Truly made my week!!!
Not a match, the board goes back...
-
When I read the answer to "What changes would you make?", I swear I haven't laughed THIS hard in months!!!! Truly classic!!!!
Thank you all for your feedback & replies, especially yours Clemon! Truly made my week!!!
Not a match, the board goes back...
Gee, I think I sense some sarcasm in that...
/Chris actually did match, since he's right. Two pieces of the puzzle will now be revealed...
-
Put the emphasis on nostalgia. Dates are just dull numbers without any sentiment behind them.
-
Anyone have thoughts on the second format? I'm not sure it was so much an improvement, but rather, perhaps GT or somebody pressured Reg Grundy to alter the format to not resemble TPIR.
a) On what grounds do you make this claim, and b) when did something like that ever stop Reg Grundy?
If anyone's seen the finale, it's further evidence that the wrong host was chosen for a format that COULD'VE worked.
I see absolutely no reason why this format could have worked.
-
I think there's plenty that can be done with history and dates, but I don't think treading too near to The Price is Right is the way to go. Something nearer to Times to Remember, Chronology or Chronicle would be a huge improvement. I don't think that having the answers as years makes the show any less interesting or more cold. If you're playing a game like that, the point is to trigger the nostalgia and pleasant thoughts. The means to getting there just has to look good on TV and be fun.
-
Anyone have thoughts on the second format? I'm not sure it was so much an improvement, but rather, perhaps GT or somebody pressured Reg Grundy to alter the format to not resemble TPIR.
a) On what grounds do you make this claim, and b) when did something like that ever stop Reg Grundy?
I wasn't making a claim, I was speculating.
If anyone's seen the finale, it's further evidence that the wrong host was chosen for a format that COULD'VE worked.
I see absolutely no reason why this format could have worked.
Maybe you don't, but sometimes the right host can save what might otherwise be a weak format for a game show. Gene Rayburn had said in numerous interviews that he did so many goofy things on MG (as did the panel) because "it was a rotten format" and "a dumb game."
I remember playing Hot Potato at GSC9 a while ago, and honestly I found the game a bit dull after playing it and watching it be played. This may be why Bill Cullen was as good as he was. While some of his shows were short lived, you can't argue that he wasn't entertaining to watch or blame him for not making the game work.
Another example is Beat the Odds. The original show was watchable IMO, but only because the host (whose name escapes me) made it enjoyable. The pilot that some of us may have seen, hosted by Chuck Henry, IMO, was dreadfully boring. It's a "no brainer" game, and we played it at GSC9 as well. I also found Beat the Odds quite dull to play because each word was a toss up, and I had great difficulty buzzing in first.
-
A good host saving a weak format is not the same as a format that works.
-
Maybe you don't, but sometimes the right host can save what might otherwise be a weak format for a game show. Gene Rayburn had said in numerous interviews that he did so many goofy things on MG (as did the panel) because "it was a rotten format" and "a dumb game."
Are you really trying to compare Match Game and Time Machine?
I also found Beat the Odds quite dull to play because each word was a toss up, and I had great difficulty buzzing in first.
So in other words, you found it to be dull because you were bad at it.
-
When I read the answer to "What changes would you make?", I swear I haven't laughed THIS hard in months!!!! Truly classic!!!!
Thank you all for your feedback & replies, especially yours Clemon! Truly made my week!!!
Not a match, the board goes back...
Gee, I think I sense some sarcasm in that...
/Chris actually did match, since he's right. Two pieces of the puzzle will now be revealed...
One of the drawbacks of message board communications is sometimes an individual might perceive something that was not intended, or was not the case. I can see why you might have thought I was being sarcastic, but in all honesty, clemon's post was genuinely awesome and it really did make me laugh too. My apologies for any misunderstandings that my reply created.
-
Maybe you don't, but sometimes the right host can save what might otherwise be a weak format for a game show. Gene Rayburn had said in numerous interviews that he did so many goofy things on MG (as did the panel) because "it was a rotten format" and "a dumb game."
Are you really trying to compare Match Game and Time Machine?
I realize they're both completely different games. I also agree with you that Time Machine, in both formats, just didn't work for various reasons, besides John Davidson's hosting skills. TLEberle made a good point about a weak format vs. a format that doesn't work that I didn't consider. It would be unrealistic to think that a good host could save a format that doesn't work... for example Gene Rayburn and Break the Bank... bringing on Joe Farago didn't help.
I also found Beat the Odds quite dull to play because each word was a toss up, and I had great difficulty buzzing in first.
So in other words, you found it to be dull because you were bad at it.
I was terrible at the buzzing in aspect, yes. However, the Chuck Henry pilot was about as much fun to watch as it is to watch paint dry.
-
Please match up the quote tags, Matt.
-
One of the drawbacks of message board communications is sometimes an individual might perceive something that was not intended, or was not the case. I can see why you might have thought I was being sarcastic, but in all honesty, clemon's post was genuinely awesome and it really did make me laugh too. My apologies for any misunderstandings that my reply created.
Well, my fault there. I apologize for taking your reply as a slam and responding as such.
-
Whether it would have worked or not, I envisioned changes to a straight quiz with a Time Machine device (not too unlike the George Pal movie of the same name). A "spin" of the device would bring up a randomized year, connected with optional categories, such as politics, fashion, sports, movies, and the like. Think Joker or Bullseye. Plenty of film, newsreel and video clips, along with stills and occasional objects and special guests. Perhaps the first of the three contestants to correctly nail a question from each of six decades 20s to 70s would win. It might not have been spectacular, but with a strong nostalgia stage design and questions written in such a way to connect the past with the present ( 1933 - Entertainment: "Still one of today's best selling board games, Parker Brothers first rejected it, claiming it had over 50 fundamental game errors. Name this depression-era hit."), it might have been more interesting. Several styles of game play come to mind. But just questions would be dull. Plenty of visuals and audio. The Generation Gap did a nice job with that.
-
I liked the show for what it was. For me, it was a curiosity to see pricing games transformed into knowledge exercises (however thin the veil might have been in re-formatting them). And I'm always a sucker for those noisy, big 80s game shows. I don't think any amount of tinkering could have made it last longer than a year.
For my money, I would have wanted them to ape Price even more. Have the players qualify somehow, and play their game for things they can keep. Make the Time Capsule always a play-in for the endgame, rather than the initial format where you had to match the year exactly. Had the show stuck around, I could see more clever gimmicks like As Time Goes By become their Plinko and Punch-a-Bunch. There was only so much you could do with questions anyway, so less-game-more-fun activities like that were bound to develop.
Re: Matt, Davidson's "antics" were helping an otherwise dry show. Certainly for that audience at that time, a "straight" history quiz would have been worse.
-Jason
-
Re: Matt, Davidson's "antics" were helping an otherwise dry show. Certainly for that audience at that time, a "straight" history quiz would have been worse.
Davidson really could have lightened up the extremely sterile atmosphere of "History IQ", which was about as exciting as watching water run down the drain.
-
One of the drawbacks of message board communications is sometimes an individual might perceive something that was not intended, or was not the case. I can see why you might have thought I was being sarcastic, but in all honesty, clemon's post was genuinely awesome and it really did make me laugh too. My apologies for any misunderstandings that my reply created.
Well, my fault there. I apologize for taking your reply as a slam and responding as such.
Not a problem at all sir! :)