The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: GSFan on June 12, 2012, 01:34:35 PM
-
Did the new Pyramid pilot tape on 6/11? If yes, did anyone attend the taping?
-
It did not. It's moved dates a few times since the publishing of that Craig's List ad.
-Jason
-
Just found on Onset's website :
The Pyramid Pilot tapes Saturday (6/16), in Los Angeles. Tickets can be obtained here : http://www.onsetproductions.com/calendar/tickets.aspx?showID=204&eventID=524
No word on the host yet, but we should know shortly. I hope someone in the LA area attends the Pilot taping, and will report back. Thanks !
-
Buzzerblog says on Facebook that Executive Producer of The Price is Right, Mike Richards is the host of the pilot of The Pyramid.
-
Buzzerblog says on Facebook that Executive Producer of The Price is Right, Mike Richards is the host of the pilot of The Pyramid.
Bizarre news - but I'm not going to panic until we hear about the Pilot shoot tomorrow.
According to Buzzerblog, the show is called "The Pyramid"
-
Here's (http://"http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2928/pyrn.jpg") the new logo. Works for me.
I'm in the camp of mostly enjoying the current production of Price so I don't automatically hate this choice because of that. I've never seen any of his work, but at least he's someone with hosting on his resume. It could/ve be another random 80s celebrity, y'know.
EDIT: And I never knew this before I guess, but Mike's had a lot of experience working with/for Dick Clark: GSN points this out in their release (http://corp.gsn.com/press/releases/gsn-inks-deal-with-mike-richards-host-pyramid).
-
Here's (http://"http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2928/pyrn.jpg") the new logo. Works for me.
I think I want to see it in context. I can't say I care for it in a still form like that; looks too five-second-Photoshop. I have hopes for it in context with the clear nod (OMG, I just called something a "nod", shoot me) to the iconic tetrahedron, though.
Having watched him on Beauty and the Geek (and, like Chad, not having nearly the hatred for the current Price regime as some), I actually think Richards would be a perfectly reasonable host; he'd be pretty low key and I think he could keep the game rolling. Not my first choice, of course, and this could also be an issue of keeping pilot production costs down, but it certainly doesn't get me hopping from one foot to the other.
(I have zero problems with the actual title, seeing as I've already been referring to it as "the Pyramid" for a solid 25 years.)
-
Did Pat Kiernan stop answering his phone?
-
As Arte Johnson would say - Verrry interesting.
-
(Copy/layout editor rant) The bottom line under the word "PYRAMID" slightly bugs me in a dead-space kinda way (I did yearbook in college). A very, very minor nitpick, like less than 0.05%.
As for Mike, I'm not the biggest fan of his producing style, but it would be foolish to count him out as a capable host. I'm fine with it.
I like the more casual title, since that's how I've commonly heard it referred to in the media. Gives it a "party game" atmosphere. Am I the only one who thought the logo and background would make a nice board game cover?
-
(Copy/layout editor rant) The bottom line under the word "PYRAMID" slightly bugs me in a dead-space kinda way (I did yearbook in college). A very, very minor nitpick, like less than 0.05%.
I noticed that too. It looks like something belongs there. I would say it is nicely evocative of the 1980s series, without being a complete carbon-copy, but it don't mean a thing if it don't got that swing. Give me a good game that is hosted competently and I can forgive a whole lot.
(Brandon also covered this: I think Mike has dropped the ball a lot of times when producing TPIR, but that doesn't mean anything about hosting. However, when hosting Geek I thought he was competent at best, and Geek didn't have a whole lot going on for hosting.
-
Mikey will be the next Dick Clark -- NOT!!!
-
Mikey will be the next Dick Clark -- NOT!!!
Next John Davidson? Definitely.
-
Next John Davidson? Definitely.
Really? We're already gonna do this?
-
Well, you'd think it wouldn't bode well for Mike that he lost hosting TPIR to Drew Carey, but maybe since those are two different beasts, he actually auditioned well this time with this format.
Count me as one who has not been pleased with some production decisions on Price, but still enjoys the show. I hope Mike does well here.
In a completely unrelated hypothesis, could Mike's involvement with GSN bring Price back to GSN? It would probably be only Drew Price, but it'd be nice to have it back in some form. Now that I think about it however, Drew's involvement with GSN didn't do anything.
-
Well, you'd think it wouldn't bode well for Mike that he lost hosting TPIR to Drew Carey, but maybe since those are two different beasts, he actually auditioned well this time with this format.
I'm not following. Hosts lose gigs to other hosts all the time. CBS wanted a big name, so they went with Drew.
-
(I have zero problems with the actual title, seeing as I've already been referring to it as "the Pyramid" for a solid 25 years.)
Also, this being GSN, there's a good chance that they'll be cheaper than even ol' skinflint Stewart; and calling it, say, The $5,000 [or even $10,000] Pyramid wouldn't look so good when previous versions have gone as high as $100,000. I don't mean this as a criticism; I understand cable budgets and don't expect them to be able to pay out $25K per show. The game is what really counts anyway. I just thought it might explain the choice of title.
-
Well, you'd think it wouldn't bode well for Mike that he lost hosting TPIR to Drew Carey, but maybe since those are two different beasts, he actually auditioned well this time with this format.
I'm not following. Hosts lose gigs to other hosts all the time. CBS wanted a big name Dave Price, so but they went with Drew.
Fixed 4 u.
-
(I have zero problems with the actual title, seeing as I've already been referring to it as "the Pyramid" for a solid 25 years.)
Also, this being GSN, there's a good chance that they'll be cheaper than even ol' skinflint Stewart; and calling it, say, The $5,000 [or even $10,000] Pyramid wouldn't look so good when previous versions have gone as high as $100,000. I don't mean this as a criticism; I understand cable budgets and don't expect them to be able to pay out $25K per show. The game is what really counts anyway. I just thought it might explain the choice of title.
Now see, I haven't understood this. They have no problem offering up $100k on every episode of Lingo, so why not Pyramid once every 10 weeks?
-
and $50,000 on every ep of their version of 1 vs. 100
-
Piggybacking on Mike's point, with them airing the $25/100K versions, I'm thinking one of two things:
a) they felt it would look cheap to brand the new version with a dollar amount, when they're airing 25-year-old episodes offering a top prize of $100,000, or...
b) they don't want to confuse viewers who are wondering why there's two episodes of "The $25,000 Pyramid" or "The $100,000 Pyramid", esp. if they air close to the same time of day, i.e. 1982 $25K at 6, 1985 $100K at 6:30, 2012 $25/100K at 7.
Of course, that could all be fixed by calling it "The New $XX,000 Pyramid", but maybe they don't even wanna confuse themselves. Hell, I'm confusing myself! :-P
-
There's nothing wrong with calling it "The Pyramid" IMO. What I'm getting at is I don't understand why everyone is assuming that the new Pyramid is gonna be sooooooo much cheaper just because it's GSN. It might wind up being true, but to me, the argument that it will happen just because it's GSN holds zero water.
-
It might wind up being true, but to me, the argument that it will happen just because it's GSN holds zero water.
Does A cause B? No. Is there a precedent for A, then B? Oh hell yes.
-
So, about The Pyramid, at least what's set for the pilot.
According to my source, who probably doesn't give a rat's rear about the goings-on at Price, Mike Richards is good. This person says he knows the game very well after extensively studying the old Pyramid games and when hosting, is knowledgeable, friendly and witty. The game set is described as somewhat retro. It looks similar to the old set only with the pyramid being screens. No scaffolding. There are "big monitor looking boxes" that "push back and forth like the old game."
The game is played in two identical halves just like the 80s version. In both cases, the base prize for the Winner's Circle starts is $10,000. Each contestant can add up to $15,000 in their own personal bank to it for a total of $25,000 per visit. Each time a contestant gets 7 out of 7 in the main game, they get $500 cash to keep and add $5,000 to their own Winner's Circle bank. This makes the maximum for a contestant to leave with $53,000. No bonuses like the 7-11 or Mystery 7. The $500 is this version's bonus. No changes to speak of in the Winner's Circle.
I won't divulge anything specifically, but a couple of possible celebrities for series taping included supporting cast members on popular still-airing network programs. Not so many "Coolio was available"-style names from what I was provided.
-
Not so many "Coolio was available"-style names from what I was provided.
It would not break my heart for a second if Coolio...was available.
-
Mikey will be the next Dick Clark -- NOT!!!
Next John Davidson? Definitely.
But keep playing!
-
Chad, that building your WC bank wrinkle is an interesting one. For the first time, a dominating main game player can have more to show for it in winnings. One thing, however, is that the final category will always be a "But Keep Playing" situation.
-
Piggybacking on Mike's point, with them airing the $25/100K versions, I'm thinking one of two things:
a) they felt it would look cheap to brand the new version with a dollar amount, when they're airing 25-year-old episodes offering a top prize of $100,000, or...
b) they don't want to confuse viewers who are wondering why there's two episodes of "The $25,000 Pyramid" or "The $100,000 Pyramid", esp. if they air close to the same time of day, i.e. 1982 $25K at 6, 1985 $100K at 6:30, 2012 $25/100K at 7.
Of course, that could all be fixed by calling it "The New $XX,000 Pyramid", but maybe they don't even wanna confuse themselves. Hell, I'm confusing myself! :-P
Well if they called it "The New $XX,000 Pyramid" in the case of the $25,000, would it be "The new-New $25,000 Pyramid". But Indeed I think taking the amount out of it is a good idea. If they don't use the amount in the title, it doesn't have the same ring as with it, just calling it Pyramid, but it's probably safer.
Mark
-
Mikey will be the next Dick Clark -- NOT!!!
Next John Davidson? Definitely.
But keep playing!
They hold up a sign that says but keep playing. Keep playing, but! When you come out here we need to watch more Davidson episodes.
Based on what I am reading here I can definitely say I have high hopes for it. If the payouts are as Chad described then the name The Pyramid seems very appropriate because of the ability to play for more money in the winner's circle based on how well you do in the main game.
-
Well, you'd think it wouldn't bode well for Mike that he lost hosting TPIR to Drew Carey, but maybe since those are two different beasts, he actually auditioned well this time with this format.
I'm not following. Hosts lose gigs to other hosts all the time. CBS wanted a big name Dave Price, so but they went with Drew.
Fixed 4 u.
This story still makes me smile. It was Dave's to lose...and he lost it.
-
Forgot all about Dave. I remember reading he was bad, but I can't remember how. Did he fumble his way through everything, or just have no personality?
-
Chad, that building your WC bank wrinkle is an interesting one. For the first time, a dominating main game player can have more to show for it in winnings. One thing, however, is that the final category will always be a "But Keep Playing" situation.
It takes an idea I'd had for a long time and cuts out a lot of the keep-playing time. I wanted the prize to be $1,000 times your main-game score, augmented to $25K for a perfect game. Their way, if you need two to win and give an illegal clue when you've got three, you don't need to keep playing. (It's debatable whether the game is more interesting that way, but from the standpoint of leaving commercial time open, it's huge!)
-
And one more addition for the minutiae fans. Winner's Circle boxes are valued at $100, $200, $300, $400, $500 and $750.
-
It takes an idea I'd had for a long time and cuts out a lot of the keep-playing time. I wanted the prize to be $1,000 times your main-game score,
No, I'm okay with this. I like multiples of $5,000. (Not fond of but-keep-playing, though.)
And one more addition for the minutiae fans. Winner's Circle boxes are valued at $100, $200, $300, $400, $500 and $750.
So four-nine-a thousand-twelve-fifteen hundred dollars. Got it. :)
-
Here's what's great about that matrix:
1) You're starting off with a decent prize anyway, so even if you don't build the bank (and really, how often did someone win the front game without a 7-for-7?) that's $10,000 anyhow.
2) It rewards good front game play further than just getting to play the bonus
3) It gives an asthetically pleasing amount, and it could be handled easily: "You had two category sweeps in your victory, which means we add $10,000 to your bank. For $20,000, here is your first subject..."
The thing about $1,000 per point is the same issue with Bullseye on Family Feud; it gives you TV un-friendly numbers, like a $19,000 bank.
-
So on those rare occasions when the front game ends after four categories, do the winners still get to play their third category to keep building their bank? For that matter, do the losers get to play their third category so they can at least try for another $500?
The only thing I've read that I really don't like is that $750 for the top box in the Winner's Circle, because it's going to create unnecessarily wacky addition when someone gets the top box but misses one of the other ones. On top of that, making it $600 would have made the jackpot score twenty-one hundred dollars, which would have provided a neat bit of congruity with the front game.
-
As long as the feel of the gameplay and judging is right...
For consolation money, I'd make it so each *row* is worth the same amount, with each box being a third of that on the bottom and half in the middle. And at least they're not calling it "The $53,000 Pyramid," because that sounds awful.
-
And one more addition for the minutiae fans. Winner's Circle boxes are valued at $100, $200, $300, $400, $500 and $750.
Same values as the pilot from 3 years ago - which is unncecessary - if there are no returning champions, there's no point to having that strattled of a scoring system.
$250 lower, $500 middle, $1000 top. Most you get is $2500 if you miss one lower box.
-
So on those rare occasions when the front game ends after four categories, do the winners still get to play their third category to keep building their bank? For that matter, do the losers get to play their third category so they can at least try for another $500?
That's a very good question, all the more so if it turns out that they have returning champions. Flashing back to Double Talk: If one player won both games, that player was the champion. If they split the games, the person who won more money came back. But, in the main game, there was a bonus clue available if you solved all four of the puzzles in a set, and if you didn't need the fourth puzzle to win, you didn't get the opportunity. That meant that it was possible for someone to lose the day because he lost a close game and won a blow-out.
ETA: CLemon, I agree with you. My point was that they had an idea similar to mine, but theirs works even better from a production standpoint.
-
And one more addition for the minutiae fans. Winner's Circle boxes are valued at $100, $200, $300, $400, $500 and $750.
Same values as the pilot from 3 years ago - which is unncecessary - if there are no returning champions, there's no point to having that strattled of a scoring system.
Strattled?
Of all the things to think about, the value of the WC boxes is probably pretty far down the list. The only thing that surprises me is the $750 box, which screws with the math unnecessarily. I think 1-2-3-4-5-6 would have been just fine.
The thing that surprises me most, though, and the thing that will probably be addressed if/when this becomes a series, is that they are throwing a LOT of money around. Cash bonus for every perfect-seven PLUS a larger jackpot to play for? In the 80s version, getting sevens was commonplace. Unless they deliberately aim for attractive but incompetent contestants (See: Reaction, Chain) this could quickly become a budget-busting problem.
-
Unless they deliberately aim for attractive but incompetent contestants (See: Reaction, Chain) this could quickly become a budget-busting problem.
And if they *do*, that will be a problem of a different sort.
-
Unless they deliberately aim for attractive but incompetent contestants (See: Reaction, Chain) this could quickly become a budget-busting problem.
And if they *do*, that will be a problem of a different sort.
Easy fix for that, put in incompetent celebrity partners.
-
The thing that surprises me most, though, and the thing that will probably be addressed if/when this becomes a series, is that they are throwing a LOT of money around. Cash bonus for every perfect-seven PLUS a larger jackpot to play for? In the 80s version, getting sevens was commonplace. Unless they deliberately aim for attractive but incompetent contestants (See: Reaction, Chain) this could quickly become a budget-busting problem.
$6,000 in bonus money is possible per episode if both games ended in 21-21. In the 80s, this scenario would be $11,100. The $25,000 possible prize for every WC can add up quickly, but I think the fix for that is to put in harder categories when the budget starts to get thin.
-
And one more addition for the minutiae fans. Winner's Circle boxes are valued at $100, $200, $300, $400, $500 and $750.
Same values as the pilot from 3 years ago - which is unncecessary - if there are no returning champions, there's no point to having that strattled of a scoring system.
Strattled?
I just meant different values for each box...I don't think it's necessary if you're not using score in the WC to determine the winner of the day.... Straddled is clearly not the right word there.
-
Straddled is clearly not the right word there.
Nor the right spelling, which I think was Matt's point.
-
Assuming there's no tournament here nor returning champions (and I'm guessing no returning celebrities either), just how do you handle the player with the highest score in the end? A trip? Sony electronics? Nothing?
/Likely option C
-
/Likely option C
Why do anything else? "My goodness, what a big day! Bob, you're leaving us with $21,000 and Joe, you had a great finish too - $26,500! Two big winners tongiht on The Pyramid, we'll see if we can do it again tomorrow."
-
/Likely option C
Why do anything else?
It's not a deal-breaker or anything. To me, it just seems weird to have two contestants compete and at the end of the day, no incentive for having the higher score. Again, no biggie, seeing as how Cullen's version made it work for 5 years.
-
/Likely option C
Why do anything else?
It's not a deal-breaker or anything. To me, it just seems weird to have two contestants compete and at the end of the day, no incentive for having the higher score. Again, no biggie, seeing as how Cullen's version made it work for 5 years.
For a primetime hour, I'd have one more trip to the WC for the higher score. Three trips to the WC per show.
-
According to my source, who probably doesn't give a rat's rear about the goings-on at Price, Mike Richards is good. This person says he knows the game very well after extensively studying the old Pyramid games and when hosting, is knowledgeable, friendly and witty.
We can rule out Adam N. as your source. Sorry, Adam.
If your source's analysis is on the mark, it sounds like they could have done worse by going with a hack comedian or a washed-up sitcom supporting actor. Can I see Richard Karn hosting Pyramid? Can I see Richard Karn hosting anything? Um, no.
-
Here's a picture of a portion of the set. From what I see from that little bit, I liiiiike it. It's like the 2009 set design with bright colors.
Edit: Link removed at the request of the originator.
-
I know it's not much, but not too shabby. It has the look of a show you'd see in the late-80s/early-90s, although the yellow is a bit much. From that angle, I'm reminded a bit of Super Password.
Interesting that Embassy Row is finally moving past the dark sets phase...
-
Not a huge fan of the lucite, but then I didn't think the $50K Pyramid podium was worthy of Dick Clark, either.
-
Encouraged about the set. Is it the new trend that warm-up guys dress like slobs?
-
It's a Polo shirt and jeans. Since when is that being a slob? And if it is, then I need a new wardrobe. :-P
-
I know it's not much, but not too shabby. It has the look of a show you'd see in the late-80s/early-90s, although the yellow is a bit much. From that angle, I'm reminded a bit of Super Password.
Interesting that Embassy Row is finally moving past the dark sets phase...
But I would bet not past their "audience is in the backdrop" phase....which is what they did for 2009.
I'd still like to see what they did 2 years ago with the second try.
-
I know it's not much, but not too shabby. It has the look of a show you'd see in the late-80s/early-90s, although the yellow is a bit much. From that angle, I'm reminded a bit of Super Password.
Interesting that Embassy Row is finally moving past the dark sets phase...
But I would bet not past their "audience is in the backdrop" phase....which is what they did for 2009.
I'd still like to see what they did 2 years ago with the second try.
I'd also love to see the 2 CBS Pilots taped at Kaufman Astoria Studios in 2009. Looks like that's as close as Pyramid will get to NY for now, if ever. It would be great if it tapes were made available, but I wouldn't count on it.
-
Pilot report is up at Hollywood Junket (http://"http://hollywoodjunket.com/2012/06/17/the-pyramid-classic-game-show-look-set-report-exclusive/"). Methinks there's one slight monetary faux-pas in the report.
Ryan :)
-
Still have the time trial tiebreaker, that's good.
-
Interesting reports...I don't think Mike Richards is the anti-Christ as much as other people do, then again I still like Price and LMAD. Hopefully he's a good host, but whoever got the job has a MAJOR handicap against them, of course. Moreso now that Dick Clark is even fresher in our thoughts with his passing being not too long ago. Plus, only one man (Bill Cullen) in 29 years was able to match him as master of the Pyramid.
The cash bonuses and progressive WC bank sound interesting and would make the front game even more suspenseful. Having grown up with the '80s version mostly, the absence of bonus cards will be jarring, but hey, there was a Pyramid before the Big 7. Also, I assume (hope?) that "five categories" in the front game is a typo.
Liking the description of the set, glad that they made up for the "Pyramid without pyramids" idea from the second CBS pilot.
-
According to my source, who probably doesn't give a rat's rear about the goings-on at Price, Mike Richards is good. This person says he knows the game very well after extensively studying the old Pyramid games and when hosting, is knowledgeable, friendly and witty.
We can rule out Adam N. as your source. Sorry, Adam.
If your source's analysis is on the mark, it sounds like they could have done worse by going with a hack comedian or a washed-up sitcom supporting actor. Can I see Richard Karn hosting Pyramid? Can I see Richard Karn hosting anything? Um, no.
What, you didn't want to see if there was anything he could DOUBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111JHGJHYKF
/Seriously, I don't think the Karn era of Feud was as bad as some people say, catchphrases aside.
//In fact, it served as a good bridge between Louie's Feud and the current version's peak starting with O'Hurley.
-
Pilot report is up at Hollywood Junket (http://"http://hollywoodjunket.com/2012/06/17/the-pyramid-classic-game-show-look-set-report-exclusive/"). Methinks there's one slight monetary faux-pas in the report.
Ryan :)
Seems like there's a couple of mistakes in there (assuming game play is "roughly" the same as it's always been)
-
but whoever got the job has a MAJOR handicap against them, of course.
I don't think so, necessarily. I don't need the new host of the Pyramid to be Dick Clark, nor do I need them to be a carbon copy of Dick Clark, nor will I compare their hosting to Dick Clark. What I WANT them to do is know something about the job, know how it was done well, and do that: be relatively laid back and low key, but know when there is an exciting moment and sell it appropriately. Honestly, if they went to series and did end up going with Mike Richards, I think he would be capable of those things. I'd RATHER see Bob Goen, just because I have heard him compared to Dick Clark for the last 20 years and am curious as hell to see what he could do with it, but who knows if he even wants the gig.
The problem with the hosts in between Clark and today is not that they were not Dick Clark, it's that they simply weren't great hosts, full stop.
-
The warm-up guy should be dressed better, that's all.
Are you willing to stock his closet?
-
The warm-up guy should be dressed better, that's all.
Are you willing to stock his closet?
Sure. I work in a hotel as well as my radio job and have to have the appropriate clothing. Never wear jeans in front of guests or listeners.
-
Never wear jeans in front of guests or listeners.
Curious, what format is your station? At KMBY (AOR) I'm not sure they would have cared if we wore pants at all. :)
-
Some places do have quirks. I worked at a TV station that required the control room staff to wear business casual. However, after the news was done at 6:00, it was outside of "regular business hours" and thus the dress code did not apply. Everyone off camera was dressed down for the 10:00 news, and the sportscoat-and-shorts look for one guy behind the anchor desk.
-
According to my source, who probably doesn't give a rat's rear about the goings-on at Price, Mike Richards is good. This person says he knows the game very well after extensively studying the old Pyramid games and when hosting, is knowledgeable, friendly and witty.
We can rule out Adam N. as your source. Sorry, Adam.
Why can't idiot-boy be knowledgeable, friendly, and witty when the cameras are turned OFF, exactly?
Does this answer your question? http://knightstemplar.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Napoleon.jpg
If you click on that Hollywood Junket link, be prepared to see Mikey with an ear-to-ear grin -- like he just fired someone.
-
Chris, when was the last time you liked anything? '84, '85-ish?
-
This looks good. I think anything can be better than 6 words in 20 seconds, so I'm glad the original format it is back.
I like the celebrities. I still watch Grey's Anatomy, always been a fan of Yvette Nicole Brown, and I haven't seen Horatio Sans in ages (I have no problem with Ms. Cora, just indifferent). It looks like they shouldn't have a problem on the celebrity front, which is great.
I hope this gets picked up. I'd hate to see Pyramid get another door closed in its face.
And Mike doesn't look like he's fired anyone, he looks like he just finished giving the "It's not you, it's me" speech.
-
Chris, when was the last time you liked anything? '84, '85-ish?
Which Chris are you addressing?
-
As for host... I wouldn't mind if they got John Davidson back.
To me, it just seems weird to have two contestants compete and at the end of the day, no incentive for having the higher score.
No incentive for having a higher score? Did they decide not to play for real money or something?
-
As for host... I wouldn't mind if they got John Davidson back.
Rest assured, you're the ONLY one.
-
As for host... I wouldn't mind if they got John Davidson back.
Rest assured, you're the ONLY one.
Yeah, be careful what you wish for.
-
As for host... I wouldn't mind if they got John Davidson back.
Rest assured, you're the ONLY one.
Yeah, be careful what you wish for.
Is it set in stone that Mike Richards is gonna do the show? They could bring in the Michael Richards who played Kramer on Seinfeld.
-
As for host... I wouldn't mind if they got John Davidson back.
That's incredible.
-
Is it set in stone that Mike Richards is gonna do the show? They could bring in the Michael Richards who played Kramer on Seinfeld.
...and then wonder why the show's minority demographics are in the toilet. :-)
-
They could bring in the Michael Richards who played Kramer on Seinfeld.
I'd watch that, actually. Especially if he did it in character.
-
To me, it just seems weird to have two contestants compete and at the end of the day, no incentive for having the higher score.
No incentive for having a higher score? Did they decide not to play for real money or something?
It's not so much whether the player has an "incentive" to get all the money they can, but whether the viewer has a reason to watch all of the second round. Once it's clear, because of either time elapsed or an illegal clue, that there's not going to be a win, having a score to beat makes the round more interesting.
-
but whether the viewer has a reason to watch all of the second round.
I can tell you that in all of the years I have watched Pyramid, I barely (if ever, really) gave a crap about who was coming back tomorrow. I strongly suspect most viewers don't, really.
I cannot remember a instance where I've aborted an episode for the reason you cite.
-
As for host... I wouldn't mind if they got John Davidson back.
Rest assured, you're the ONLY one.
He might not be the only one. I can think of one other person (http://"http://www.librarising.com/astrology/celebs/images2/J/johndavidson.jpg") who might like the idea.
-
I bet Bob Stewart regretted ever hiring John Davidson to host Pyramid.
-
I bet Bob Stewart regretted ever hiring John Davidson to host Pyramid.
Who said he had anything to do with it?
-
Who said he had anything to do with it?
Erm, for a syndicated show, who else would have the ultimate call over that decision? It's not like the network came in and said "we want John Davidson dammit!" because there was no network to come in.
-
Who said he had anything to do with it?
Erm, for a syndicated show, who else would have the ultimate call over that decision? It's not like the network came in and said "we want John Davidson dammit!" because there was no network to come in.
Well no, but at the same time how much actual decisionmaking was Stewart doing? Wasn't his son basically in charge at that point?
And even if he wasn't I'd figure with his original host hosting his own production, his other Pyramid host resting in peace, and others he could've tried to pry from other gigs or from the unemployment line I'm sure someone had to talk him into the pick. I mean, you still had Lange and Eubanks and the Winkster wasn't doing anything...
not to say any of them might have done better but those are three to consider off the bat. Plus Stewart still had Geoff Edwards in his employ too.
Hell, they coulda seen what Chuck Woolery had to offer before he shot that pilot in '96(?).
Maybe I'm over complicating things but Davidson probably would be pretty far down on the totem pole to be a first consideration, no?
-
As far as John Davidson, he was coming off a pretty successful HS run and later worked for Stewart on "Lucky Day USA." Face it, he's a popular guy. Check the stats on the number of times he filled in for Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show.
-
Wasn't his son basically in charge at that point?
I have absolutely no idea. But you prove my point: an executive producer would make that call, and it's not at all unreasonable that the Big Guy would have a say in the decision.
-
Wasn't his son basically in charge at that point?
I have absolutely no idea. But you prove my point: an executive producer would make that call, and it's not at all unreasonable that the Big Guy would have a say in the decision.
I never said you didn't have a point but I figured there might've been a little more cajoling than there might've been
before...? Just a notion.
-
They could bring in the Michael Richards who played Kramer on Seinfeld.
I'd watch that, actually. Especially if he did it in character.
All of a sudden I have an image of Kramer walking the contestants to the Winner's Circle and promptly bumping into it himself...
-
They could bring in the Michael Richards who played Kramer on Seinfeld.
I'd watch that, actually. Especially if he did it in character.
All of a sudden I have an image of Kramer walking the contestants to the Winner's Circle and promptly bumping into it himself...
"Here is your first subject....Giddyup."
-
Isn't he still in hiding, Michael Richards?
-
Isn't he still in hiding, Michael Richards?
He appeared on the Seinfeld reunion on Curb Your Enthusiasm a few years ago.
-
As for host... I wouldn't mind if they got John Davidson back.
Rest assured, you're the ONLY one.
Amen to that. I could never stand to watch anything that had J.D. in it.
-
As for host... I wouldn't mind if they got John Davidson back.
That's incredible.
Don't you mean, "That's Incredible!"? :)
As for host... I wouldn't mind if they got John Davidson back.
Rest assured, you're the ONLY one.
He might not be the only one. I can think of one other person (http://"http://www.librarising.com/astrology/celebs/images2/J/johndavidson.jpg") who might like the idea.
Thank you, seriously, for not linking to the horrifying shirtless/nearly-naked John Davidson picture. For some reason that's what I thought I might get when I clicked.
-
As for host... I wouldn't mind if they got John Davidson back.
That's incredible.
Don't you mean, "That's Incredible!"? :)
There's a thing called subtlety.
-
As far as John Davidson, he was coming off a pretty successful HS run and later worked for Stewart on "Lucky Day USA." Face it, he's a popular guy. Check the stats on the number of times he filled in for Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show.
That and I think what they might have been going for was to have someone else with a "teenybopper connection," for lack of a better term. You had Dick from American Bandstand, and later Donny Osmond, nuff said. John had the boyish looks that made you think he fit that mold. Plus the multimedia fame.
Now, if you could go with someone "better" for Pyramid '91, Donnymid, and the GSN pilot...who would your ideal hosts be, given the time periods and etc?
-
Now, if you could go with someone "better" for Pyramid '91,
Bob Goen.
Donnymid,
Bob Goen.
and the GSN pilot...
Bob Goen.
-
Matt Ottinger works well with teens.
-
Matt Ottinger works well with teens.
Creepy sentence in the wrong context.
-
Matt Ottinger works well with teens.
Creepy sentence in the wrong context.
I'm not sure that sentence is devoid of skeezy even in the right context. Sir. :)
(Do you have any youngsters/students on the QB staff?)
-
[quote name='TLEberle' post='288050']
[quote name='Matt Ottinger' post='288047'][quote name='Fedya' post='288043']Matt Ottinger works well with teens.[/quote]Creepy sentence in the wrong context.[/quote]I'm not sure that sentence is devoid of skeezy even in the right context. Sir. :)
(Do you have any youngsters/students on the QB staff?)
[/quote]
Creepy sentence in the wrong context.
-
I would have thought "Matt Ottinger plays well with teens" was the creepier sentence.
-
Creepy sentence in the wrong context.
"See entry at: recursion."
-
Just a thought on tournaments ... (I'm not checking this whole thread. I've seen the topic raised in at least one of the places where I'm following the story.)
The fact that they were calling it The $100,000 Pyramid at one point pretty well means that they're not going to have more than that as a top prize. The trouble is, with a potential $53,000 on every show, just playing two additional days could net you $106,000, so you don't want to call it a $100,000 tournament. However, daytime Password had an interesting twist. They might have called it a "tournament" or a "championship," but all they did is have a week of play under the same conditions and the same prize structure as every other week, with players who had done well. That could work with this format as well. Password brought back people who (I think) won the full $500 in their original appearances; The Pyramid could simply bring back the top ten winners for a week of really good games.
-
Call it "All-Stars." Take away the $500 per category. Reduce the $10,000 base to $5,000 for normal play. Take a page from Classic Concentration and award a bonus prize for the fastest win.
-
Call it "All-Stars." Take away the $500 per category. Reduce the $10,000 base to $5,000 for normal play. Take a page from Classic Concentration and award a bonus prize for the fastest win.
"Hey Brandine, what's on that Judge Judy?"
-
"Hey Brandine, what's on that Judge Judy?"
Beg pardon? Do you have something substantive, or are you going to throw cliched memes at me in lieu of content?
$100,000 Pyramid jettisoned the bonus cards during the tournaments. If you reduce the starting bank for regular play, you save $5,000 per ascent, and can have a "$100,000 Tournament." You can award $25,000 for an ascent during the tournament and a further $75,000 for the fastest to do so.
I am really getting tired of the idea that game shows have to be designed for the lowest common denominator, because that's how you get Minute To Win It and Who's Still Standing.
-
"Hey Brandine, what's on that Judge Judy?"
Beg pardon? Do you have something substantive, or are you going to throw cliched memes at me in lieu of content?
$100,000 Pyramid jettisoned the bonus cards during the tournaments. If you reduce the starting bank for regular play, you save $5,000 per ascent, and can have a "$100,000 Tournament." You can award $25,000 for an ascent during the tournament and a further $75,000 for the fastest to do so.
I am really getting tired of the idea that game shows have to be designed for the lowest common denominator, because that's how you get Minute To Win It and Who's Still Standing.
"Hey Brandine, what's on that Judge Judy?"
Beg pardon? Do you have something substantive, or are you going to throw cliched memes at me in lieu of content?
I figured it was more tactful than to tell you your idea is bad.
Why are you going to water down what we've been used to from Pyramid? Even if you take away the $500 per category bonus, playing for a combined $10K with a sweep is just anticlimactic. And anticlimactic finishes translate to bad television.
$100,000 Pyramid jettisoned the bonus cards during the tournaments. If you reduce the starting bank for regular play, you save $5,000 per ascent, and can have a "$100,000 Tournament." You can award $25,000 for an ascent during the tournament and a further $75,000 for the fastest to do so.
First off, there's no need to "save" anything. The producers here obviously are being given a decent size budget and I see no reasons to make cuts when all they do is smack of skinflinting on their part.
Second of all, regarding the tournament, why does it need to be so unnecessarily complicated? If someone goes up early in the tourney and no one else does, there's the anticlimax again.
-
Why are you going to water down what we've been used to from Pyramid? Even if you take away the $500 per category bonus, playing for a combined $10K with a sweep is just anticlimactic. And anticlimactic finishes translate to bad television.
I think you misunderstood. If you reduce the starting bank to $5,000, and increase it with $5,000 for each 7-for-7, that makes a potential $20,000 try, and two of 'em in a show makes forty grand.
Second of all, regarding the tournament, why does it need to be so unnecessarily complicated? If someone goes up early in the tourney and no one else does, there's the anticlimax again.
What is "unnecessarily complicated" about "the player who completes our marquee event in the fastest time wins the jackpot"?
I think that it is terrific that GSN is finally devoting some money to their prize budget, as opposed to the days where you'd either win $500 or $5,000. I don't think that throwing money at every opportunity is going to make or break the show, and if you want to have a championship week, that this is certainly miles better than "hey, you were selected for our sweeps week of episodes so you're facing the mob for $100,000."
I notice that while you were right quick to take a big steamy dump all over my back-of-the-envelope ideas, you haven't put up anything yourself.
-
I am really getting tired of the idea that game shows have to be designed for the lowest common denominator, because that's how you get Minute To Win It and Who's Still Standing.
To be fair, Who's Still Standing required SOME knowledge. Not much, but some.
Bringing this back on topic, do we know where they did the Pyramid pilot, as in what studio and complex?
-
Travis, in response.
1) I must've missed that part and apologize. However I'm not a fan of the "category sweeps jack up WC prize" thing in general, so you could start the pot at $100K per trip and it wouldn't sit as well.
2) but why do you have to make that adjustment in the first place? Why can't you just have it like the original $100K Pyramid did? And what happens if no one goes up in your format? No matter what you decide no one will be satisfied with how it ends.
-
1) I must've missed that part and apologize. However I'm not a fan of the "category sweeps jack up WC prize" thing in general, so you could start the pot at $100K per trip and it wouldn't sit as well.
Well, if you don't like a thing, I can talk until Skittles fly out my pooper and it won't make any difference, but at least now I know that you're operating from that, and even though I disagree and dig it, know how to approach this. The intriguing bit for me is that you could win far more money in a single episode than at any other time in the show's history, but you have to work for it.
2) but why do you have to make that adjustment in the first place? Why can't you just have it like the original $100K Pyramid did?
Because I'm working under the assumption that they have a fixed number of episodes to work with, and finishing the order with a big horkin' event is better than limping to the finish line with regular episodes or worse, having an event but nobody wins it. If there was assurance that the thing would run indefinitely, yeah, make it like the old days.
The solution to "what if no one wins" is you have the clock count up, and the money is awarded for completing the job in under :60. It worked on Concentration, it would work here.
-
1) I must've missed that part and apologize. However I'm not a fan of the "category sweeps jack up WC prize" thing in general, so you could start the pot at $100K per trip and it wouldn't sit as well.
Well, if you don't like a thing, I can talk until Skittles fly out my pooper and it won't make any difference, but at least now I know that you're operating from that, and even though I disagree and dig it, know how to approach this. The intriguing bit for me is that you could win far more money in a single episode than at any other time in the show's history, but you have to work for it.
Well, I suppose the old "to each their own" applies, right? I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it would play out once it would hit air. But at least we're back on the same page, I hope. :)
And don't let Mars Inc. see this post. I've seen enough disturbing Skittles commercials over the last decade without them getting any other ideas.
/seriously, I drew the line at this one (http://"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG0zDltjL_o")
-
And don't let Mars Inc. see this post. I've seen enough disturbing Skittles commercials over the last decade without them getting any other ideas.
/seriously, I drew the line at this one (http://"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG0zDltjL_o")
This. I'm beyond tired of these random, quirky commercials that go out of their way to be odd, to the point to where you can't figure what it has to do with the product. I think Skittles is one of the worst offenders.
-
Rest assured, you're the ONLY one.
No particular affinity for him, it's just that the game is good enough when done right,and the host's part small enough (or at least can be) that it would still be (and was) better than most of what's on TV. I'm not saying I'd *prefer* they get him back, only that it wouldn't ruin the show if they get everything else right.
Would you honestly not want the 1991 version to have had a longer run?
It's not so much whether the player has an "incentive" to get all the money they can, but whether the viewer has a reason to watch all of the second round. Once it's clear, because of either time elapsed or an illegal clue, that there's not going to be a win, having a score to beat makes the round more interesting.
If there are viewers leaving during the Winners Circle round, even after a win is no longer possible, then the show is doing something very, very wrong.
Now, if you could go with someone "better" for Pyramid '91,
Bob Goen.
Was he available?
-
Bob Goen was still doing NBC WOF until the fall of 91. Both he and Dick Clark would have been available for the second season of Pyramid.
-
Would you honestly not want the 1991 version to have had a longer run?
It wasn't going to with that ninny at the helm, is my point. The host's role on that show is a little more important than you've giving it credit for.
Was he available?
Even while doing Entertainment Tonight, he was no less available that Meredith Vieira, and she managed things quite well for a while.
-
Bob Goen was still doing NBC WOF until the fall of 91.
Alex Trebek shot that argument to hell the second he stepped onto the set of Classic Concentration.
-
Bob Goen was still doing NBC WOF until the fall of 91.
Alex Trebek shot that argument to hell the second he stepped onto the set of Classic Concentration.
And the coup-de-grace, Wheel didn't leave Television City to return to NBC. So he could stay in the same studio.
...right?
-
And the coup-de-grace, Wheel didn't leave Television City to return to NBC. So he could stay in the same studio.
Heh. Honestly didn't even think of that part, but you're right. Dunno about the same STUDIO, necessarily, but certainly he'd still only need to carry one security badge.
-
Would you honestly not want the 1991 version to have had a longer run?
It wasn't going to with that ninny at the helm, is my point. The host's role on that show is a little more important than you've giving it credit for.
True dat...case in point: TTD90 actually didn't really change much (outside of the reset pot on a tie, and the modified CBS era bonus game). But what will most people remember it for? Two words: "YOU WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN!"
A good game can do a lot of the carrying of the show, but cheesy elements, host included, do distract.
/Yeah, I know, two more words: RAPPING DRAGON.
-
Would you honestly not want the 1991 version to have had a longer run?
It wasn't going to with that ninny at the helm, is my point. The host's role on that show is a little more important than you've giving it credit for.
True dat...case in point: TTD90 actually didn't really change much (outside of the reset pot on a tie, and the modified CBS era bonus game). But what will most people remember it for? Two words: "YOU WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN!"
A good game can do a lot of the carrying of the show, but cheesy elements, host included, do distract.
/Yeah, I know, two more words: RAPPING DRAGON.
Not to mention the a) possibility a player couldn't win the bonus round with the symbol they chose, b) the resetting of the pot basically rendering ties useless, and c) the cheapness of the bonus round in comparison to the front game (IMO).
-
Not to mention the a) possibility a player couldn't win the bonus round with the symbol they chose,
Which is untrue, because you always had a 1/x chance of winning the game on the next turn. Yes, there were times when you could not win the game in the more pleasing (and bank building) tic-tac-dough way, but you could always win.
b) the resetting of the pot basically rendering ties useless, and
Increasing the value of each symbol isn't quite "useless."
c) the cheapness of the bonus round in comparison to the front game (IMO).
I have a harder time quibbling this point, especially after a tie game.
-
Not to mention the a) possibility a player couldn't win the bonus round with the symbol they chose,
Which is untrue, because you always had a 1/x chance of winning the game on the next turn. Yes, there were times when you could not win the game in the more pleasing (and bank building) tic-tac-dough way, but you could always win.
I shall rephrase then. The layout of the bonus round itself wasn't good. The shuffling of the boxes was unnecessary, choosing the symbol was unnecessary, and turning the bonus round into a dragon slayer hunt was just not good execution.
b) the resetting of the pot basically rendering ties useless, and
Increasing the value of each symbol isn't quite "useless."
No, but working to build up $4,000 in a pot only to have it suddenly disappear is useless, wouldn't you say? At least the original series let you continue to build the pot for each tie (which, although the stakes didn't increase, IMO is a better way to do it).
c) the cheapness of the bonus round in comparison to the front game (IMO).
I have a harder time quibbling this point, especially after a tie game.
There ya go. I mean, the most you could've won in the bonus round cashwise was what, eight large? Add that to the prize and it just barely put you over ten grand- and that's only if you can manage to find all of your alloted symbols while making the tic-tac-dough or finding the dragon slayer.
At least with TJW from that year things were somewhat consistent- you could win over $2K in the front game and your prize haul would usually come in around the same amount unless you hit the Joker Jackpot. Not that it made things better, but still.
-
It wasn't going to with that ninny at the helm, is my point. The host's role on that show is a little more important than you've giving it credit for.
It wasn't going to beginning in that year, regardless of host. Look at all the shows (and versions of them) that died in the 1990-2 range... and the few (none at all, that I can think of) that *began* in that timeframe that lasted longer than 1991 Pyramid did.
-
Looks like GSN approved of the pilot (http://"http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/tlg/3090133061.html")
But then again, wasn't there a casting call after the New York CBS pilot in 2009 as well?
-
Looks like GSN approved of the pilot (http://"http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/tlg/3090133061.html")
But then again, wasn't there a casting call after the New York CBS pilot in 2009 as well?
This is the second posting, so fingers crossed.
-
It wasn't going to with that ninny at the helm, is my point. The host's role on that show is a little more important than you've giving it credit for.
It wasn't going to beginning in that year, regardless of host. Look at all the shows (and versions of them) that died in the 1990-2 range... and the few (none at all, that I can think of) that *began* in that timeframe that lasted longer than 1991 Pyramid did.
That's not a good example to use as:
-2 were crappy revivals of previous hit series (TJW and TTD)
-1, unfairly, was labeled as a Jeopardy! clone (Challengers)
-1 had a host who was so unprofessional he sucked the meat missile harder than Patrick Wayne and that's saying something (Quiz Kids Challenge)
-1, unfairly just didn't have much in the way of luck (Trump Card)
-1 was Ruckus
-The last was Freaking Studs (sorry), which really wasn't a game show
And that's only if you count the syndicated adult series. Let's not forget about the revival of LMaD, the last licks of daytime Wheel, Monopoly, the last year and change of Fun House, and whatever was on Nickelodeon at the time. (Also TTTT, forgot)
Out of all of those series, only two may have had capable hosts throughout (that being The Challengers and Wheel; TTTT really didn't pick up any steam until Trebek came in and by that time it was too late). You could say what you want about JD Roth but once they made the move to Fox it sort of screwed everything up, and wasn't Marc Summers knee deep in his OCD problem by then?
-
wasn't Marc Summers knee deep in his OCD problem by then?
What? What does that have to do with anything? As far as game show fan knowledge is concerned, there's plenty of sources you could find that would surely refute whatever logic you want to apply with that, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with a reply before I do.
-Jason
-
wasn't Marc Summers knee deep in his OCD problem by then?
What? What does that have to do with anything? As far as game show fan knowledge is concerned, there's plenty of sources you could find that would surely refute whatever logic you want to apply with that, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with a reply before I do.
-Jason
Thank you. That was a far better response to that than I would have given him to that completely asinine remark.
-
wasn't Marc Summers knee deep in his OCD problem by then?
What? What does that have to do with anything? As far as game show fan knowledge is concerned, there's plenty of sources you could find that would surely refute whatever logic you want to apply with that, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with a reply before I do.
-Jason
Thank you. That was a far better response to that than I would have given him to that completely asinine remark.
Agreed. Part of me still wants to say "0/10. Jason, don't feed the trolls," but let's see where this goes.
-
-1 had a host who was so unprofessional he sucked the meat missile harder than Patrick Wayne and that's saying something (Quiz Kids Challenge)
Got some sad news: Peter Tomarken could have hosted that dog and it would still have eaten a Bowl'a'Dicks. It just wasn't that good.
-1, unfairly just didn't have much in the way of luck (Trump Card)
Sorry, what? What does this even mean? Either you get a primo clearance or you don't. And if you do, the game had better be good, and Trump Card wasn't all that great a game.
and wasn't Marc Summers knee deep in his OCD problem by then?
If he was, he didn't know it yet, but what does that have to do with anything.
-
-1 had a host who was so unprofessional he sucked the meat missile harder than Patrick Wayne and that's saying something (Quiz Kids Challenge)
Got some sad news: Peter Tomarken could have hosted that dog and it would still have eaten a Bowl'a'Dicks. It just wasn't that good.
I don't fully agree with that- maybe it could've used a tweak or two but I thought the format was at least decent enough to get it to one full season.
Besides, Tomarken never really hosted a straight quiz, right?
-1, unfairly just didn't have much in the way of luck (Trump Card)
Sorry, what? What does this even mean? Either you get a primo clearance or you don't.
Hence my point.
And if you do, the game had better be good, and Trump Card wasn't all that great a game.
Again, I don't agree, but to each their own.
and wasn't Marc Summers knee deep in his OCD problem by then?
If he was, he didn't know it yet, but what does that have to do with anything.
...because it might have affected his ability to conduct the game, perhaps? Rest assured I'm not just making this remark off the cuff, no matter what certain people's responses may have led them to believe. I'm saying it because when I was watching the Double Dare series during this time it seemed like he wasn't as sharp as he had been just a few years earlier. Then again it also could've been just being burned out from doing it for so long. I don't know.
-
Besides, Tomarken never really hosted a straight quiz, right?
I'd call HIT MAN a straight quizzer, even if it involved Tomarken narrating two stories that would serve as the basis for the questions.
-
Besides, Tomarken never really hosted a straight quiz, right?
I'd call HIT MAN a straight quizzer, even if it involved Tomarken narrating two stories that would serve as the basis for the questions.
Which is why I lean more toward memory-based game than straight quiz.
-
Besides, Tomarken never really hosted a straight quiz, right?
I'd call HIT MAN a straight quizzer, even if it involved Tomarken narrating two stories that would serve as the basis for the questions.
Which is why I lean more toward memory-based game than straight quiz.
Is there anything at all to indicate he wouldn't have done a good job with a straight quiz if he'd happened to be cast in one?
-
Besides, Tomarken never really hosted a straight quiz, right?
I'd call HIT MAN a straight quizzer, even if it involved Tomarken narrating two stories that would serve as the basis for the questions.
Which is why I lean more toward memory-based game than straight quiz.
Is there anything at all to indicate he wouldn't have done a good job with a straight quiz if he'd happened to be cast in one?
Did I say that there was anything?
-
Which is why I lean more toward memory-based game than straight quiz.
Isn't any straight quizzer memory-based, when you think about it? Whether the answers are provided in the actual gameplay, or you're studying the hell out of every reference book before a taping so you can give the correct answer on MILLIONAIRE or J! (or in the case of the latter, the correct question :) ).
Granted, this is all semantical.
-
Alright; to quote Mr. "Dude" would be giving his replies too much credit. Seriously, outright dismissing "Hit Man" as a quiz show? What is Concentration, a "puzzle lifestyle program?" Outside of quiz bowl, does anything qualify as a "straight" quiz? Because Paranoia was just questions, but I suppose having the online element and the lifelines made it...a technologically-based competition series?
Marc Summers didn't know what OCD was until around 1995 when they did the segment on it on his talk show. To suggest that had anything to do with the show ending a year after the period in question, after they ordered 40 more "Family" episodes, would be downright silly. Marc had said in his book, and other interviews, that by 1992, they had enough episodes to rerun "forever." Certainly by Nickelodeon standards, where they can order a cartoon once or twice and run it five-days-a-week because kids don't really care as far as the ratings go.
There's a lot of muck to slog through in this thread, but that's as much as coverage as this seems to warrant.
-Jason
-
Of course. Which is not what I suggested. What I DID suggest was that it seemed to me that he wasn't as sharp as he had been before and I was suggesting the OCD, regardless of whether he knew what the problem was or not, might or might not have been a mitigating factor in why that might have been. I also conceded that it may just have been simple burnout as well and that I might have been overthinking things. Facts and all that.
Your suggestion was not as apparent as you'd like to think. It was a provocative statement put on the very end of the initial post, which required clarification from others. Your opinion was that he wasn't as sharp as he was before. Fine. It doesn't seem to apply to the question of "why did the show end?" Whether intended or not, to me, your post listing the shows came across as if you were talking with some authority, rather than your own opinion.
I didn't set out to make you my punching bag. I'm not so full of myself that I think I have a reputation known widely by the board, but I happen to think I keep myself out of bickering for bickering's sake around here. But your ignorant comment about Marc Summers got at least three of us (myself, Matt and Kevin) to reply with not-so-favorable remarks. I hate reading these drawn-out quote-ridden arguments. But for once I found myself compelled to reply because the remark was just so short-sighted.
-Jason
-
Which is why I lean more toward memory-based game than straight quiz.
As opposed to something you'd see on Logo.
-
Which is why I lean more toward memory-based game than straight quiz.
As opposed to something you'd see on Logo.
Did I leave myself open for that one?
-
Which is why I lean more toward memory-based game than straight quiz.
As opposed to something you'd see on Logo.
Did I leave myself open for that one?
Whether you did or didn't, I went for it. (Plus it happens to be Pride Weekend here in Seattle, so that's a bonus.) The whole "straight quiz," "memory quiz" pigeonholery is just silliness.
-
Of course. Which is not what I suggested. What I DID suggest was that it seemed to me that he wasn't as sharp as he had been before and I was suggesting the OCD, regardless of whether he knew what the problem was or not, might or might not have been a mitigating factor in why that might have been. I also conceded that it may just have been simple burnout as well and that I might have been overthinking things. Facts and all that.
Your suggestion was not as apparent as you'd like to think. It was a provocative statement put on the very end of the initial post, which required clarification from others. Your opinion was that he wasn't as sharp as he was before. Fine. It doesn't seem to apply to the question of "why did the show end?" Whether intended or not, to me, your post listing the shows came across as if you were talking with some authority, rather than your own opinion.
I'll concede that maybe I wasn't as clear. However, I didn't use it as a reason why the show would have come to an end (or at least wasn't intending to). I was adding a second series of points for some of the shows that had been established (i.e. airing at least two years by 1990) and how it seemed that on Fun House and Double Dare, JD and Marc seemed to just be going through the motions for whatever reason. Then again, I look back at Fun House now and to me it didn't seem much like JD enjoyed his job that much anyway, so there's that.
In regards to Marc Summers, I'm fairly certain that around the time it came out that he had OCD I saw at least one interview where he said that as the years went on, it became harder and harder for him to get through taping sessions because of that. I know that I didn't hear him say that it had any effect on the show itself as to when it ended, so maybe I am putting a little more stock than I should in that.
-
Which is why I lean more toward memory-based game than straight quiz.
As opposed to something you'd see on Logo.
Did I leave myself open for that one?
There's an obvious joke in there, somewhere, I'm sure.
-
In case it isn't clear, I'm not doing this for sport, Mr. Palmer. I'll cop to poking fun at "memory based" and your username, but I understand how that sarcasm could be lost in textual form. Throughout, I've given you the benefit of the doubt, and await a reasonable, calm reply. I still feel that's possible, but you've responded in this thread so quickly. So quickly, that you've replied to the quick bursts of invective from others, rather than my couple of paragraphs addressing your points. And when you said this:
I've said some pretty off the wall things. But that doesn't give you carte blanche to act like a douchebag toward me when you see fit. Save it for a time when I actually WILL deserve it.
It seemed to imply you know you're acting as a provocateur in a sense. I hope I'm wrong. That would be the message board equivalent of a radio or cable TV pundit, and as somebody who posts and reads here in my free leisure time, that doesn't sound very fun.
(Edited to add: your reply above this was much more on-point. Thank you.)
-Jason
-
Besides, Tomarken never really hosted a straight quiz, right?
Look, over there; behind all those trees. That's the forest.
I just picked a random name, it doesn't matter which. You could find the greatest host of all the land and it wouldn't matter because while the idea was there they didn't do anything creative with the format.
-
(Plus it happens to be Pride Weekend here in Seattle, so that's a bonus.)
It is in Chicago as well (and I think also in NY). Not sure about the rest of the country.
-
In Cleveland as well, dear SRIV.
Thank you, oh dandy one, but you didn't need to hijack your thoughts to reply to little ole me. The first part merited full exclusivity.
-
Besides, Tomarken never really hosted a straight quiz, right?
Look, over there; behind all those trees. That's the forest.
I just picked a random name, it doesn't matter which. You could find the greatest host of all the land and it wouldn't matter because while the idea was there they didn't do anything creative with the format.
To be fair (still playing Devil's Advocate here), how creative can you be with a kids vs. adults format? I ask both facetiously and seriously, because I'm both unsure there was much else that could've been done, but I would like to see someone at least try to come up with something better than what they had- I sure as hell don't know what I could add to this case.
Now Jason, your post and the post in question I made came out around the same time...so if you would like a response I'll give it to you.
It seemed to imply you know you're acting as a provocateur in a sense. I hope I'm wrong. That would be the message board equivalent of a radio or cable TV pundit, and as somebody who posts and reads here in my free leisure time, that doesn't sound very fun.
I'm not out and out trying to act like a provocateur, trust me. Granted, I may have some opinions that you may disagree with- and I'll be the first to admit that I've got some off the wall opinions (fortunately for everyone involved, at least most of the time, I keep 'em to myself). And I have no problem with people telling me they don't agree with what I've got to say. And editing to add, we've all got things we feel passionately about.
And I'm also aware I've earned whatever reputation I have over the eight years since I joined the GSF. Sometimes things get a little heated, though, and they shouldn't (which is as much on me, maybe more, than it is on anyone else).
Maybe I shouldn't take it as personally as I can sometimes but when it seems that at times no matter what I say it's out and out dismissed, don't I at least have a little reason, however miniscule, to think that maybe there's more going on? I know it's crazy, but...
-
Chris, a year ago I noted that (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21972&st=30&p=264550&#entry264550") "you've often been less than pleasant in your return to these parts." You decided to respond to that by telling me via forum messaging that you "actually HAVE been making an effort to be more civil and dodging the crapslinging where possible," that "whatever preconceived notions you've got about me really need to be deleted from your memory" and that you're "trying not to fall into the same behaviors I have in the past and I really would appreciate it if you respected that."
I figured if you would be this moved to send me an email that maybe I should give you another chance. But aparently, any of those things you listed for me have went out the window. You continue to prove that, more often than not, first instincts will never fail you. And I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks this.
When two people say it, it's probably a coincidence. When twelve say it, it's probably the truth.
-
Chris, a year ago I noted that (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21972&st=30&p=264550&#entry264550") "you've often been less than pleasant in your return to these parts." You decided to respond to that by telling me via forum messaging that you "actually HAVE been making an effort to be more civil and dodging the crapslinging where possible," that "whatever preconceived notions you've got about me really need to be deleted from your memory" and that you're "trying not to fall into the same behaviors I have in the past and I really would appreciate it if you respected that."
I figured if you would be this moved to send me an email that maybe I should give you another chance. But aparently, any of those things you listed for me have went out the window. You continue to prove that, more often than not, first instincts will never fail you. And I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks this.
When two people say it, it's probably a coincidence. When twelve say it, it's probably the truth.
Can't we just let this die already? I'm sorry I even mentioned Marc Summers and his OCD and set if off- I had no idea it was going to touch off such a shitstorm. I really don't want to talk about this anymore. I had one big slip up. I admit it. I'm human. Can we move on from it?
-
Can't we just let this die already?
It will die when you stop making absurdities or incendiary remarks then follow it up with pressing the "Wah, why is everyone ganging up on me?" button.
-
Can't we just let this die already?
It will die when you stop making absurdities or incendiary remarks then follow it up with pressing the "Wah, why is everyone ganging up on me?" button.
I'm trying to...it's not easy when people are responding in a fashion like that.
I did something I shouldn't have, I'm owning it. All I ask in return is that you either acknowledge it or accept it and we move on from it.
-
All I ask in return is that you either acknowledge it or accept it and we move on from it.
But this is exactly the thing you're either not getting or choosing to not get. You can't keep kicking someone in the head and expect them to want to forgive you or "accept it and move on" the 17th time you do it.
It.
Gets.
Old.
-
I'm trying to...it's not easy when people are responding in a fashion like that.
I can help you with letting the issue die. DON'T HIT THE DAMN REPLY BUTTON. That or unplug your computer.
-
All I ask in return is that you either acknowledge it or accept it and we move on from it.
But this is exactly the thing you're either not getting or choosing to not get. You can't keep kicking someone in the head and expect them to want to forgive you or "accept it and move on" the 17th time you do it.
It.
Gets.
Old.
Alright then, don't accept it. That's your prerogative. And that's my last word on this.
-
To be fair (still playing Devil's Advocate here), how creative can you be with a kids vs. adults format? I ask both facetiously and seriously, because I'm both unsure there was much else that could've been done, but I would like to see someone at least try to come up with something better than what they had- I sure as hell don't know what I could add to this case.
If I was being paid to come up with something, I would do so. But I'm not getting paid for it and I don't work for free. Off the top of my head: you have kids vs. adults and you're playing Jeopardy. Nobody says "hey, maybe we should have adults answering questions about kid stuff and t'other way around." You could have the kids taking on adults in the style of Three for the Money or 1 vs. 100. Nobody looks at the question material and says "Golly, these questions are impenetrable. The viewers won't be able to play along." You have a boring game being played by boring people and answering questions that your home audience won't get.
Joker, Joker, Failburger.
-
So, I hear Pyramid might be coming back soon?
-
Didn't they tap that Richards guy from Price to host?
-
And isn't GSM casting for a series even though it shot a pilot?
-
Folks -
Please take your bickering and associated psychodrama to the appropriate forum:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/alt.tv.game-shows
This thread will be unlocked when y'all are ready to discuss game shows.