The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: JMFabiano on August 23, 2012, 06:28:36 PM
-
For me, the Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour comes on top of the list, full stop. Yes, I know it paled in comparison to its separate parts, and I know all the ways the game was "broke" by heart. But I don't think it was a bad show, nor a bad idea. MG and HS fit together as shows driven by celebrity humor, after all. Had Mark Goodson not made HS more SRS Business (compared to the Marshall run), it would have clicked better. But to this day I still like the show and watching any "undiscovered" episodes on YouTube. And Jon Bauman wasn't awful...I've seen worse...
As for overrated opinions...
- Family Feud with Richard Karn mocking. Not that I don't find the DOUBLE THE POINTS meme funny or rooted in truth, not that I think it was the BEST version of FF. But that particular chapter of the 1999+ series helped shape its high points, starting with the O'Hurley run. The set started looking like a mix between the Anderson one and the classic one, and they brought back a semblance of the classic rules.
- Mike Richards hate. Then again, I like TPIR and LMAD all right and think the core of both games still exist.
- TTD '90 ruined EVERYTHING about Tic-Tac-Dough. OK, if there was a better host and NO RAPPING CHARACTERS*, maybe people wouldn't be so hard on it. But the game didn't really change save for altered shuffling, the pot reset, and altered bonus game.
* - I admit it, though, the Rapping Dragon is a guilty pleasure...
-
An opinion can be overrated?
-
There's a difference between hating something/someone and having a strong opinion against it. I don't think anyone here "hates" Mike Richards...they might not like the direction he's taken with his two shows, but "hate" is a bit much.
Same for the other examples; there is some disdain for TTD90 and the "Double The Points!" thing, but it's always looked like ridicule for what were, IMO, pretty silly gimmicks.
-
Beyond a few changes in the chrome of TTD'90, I also didn't think Patrick Wayne was the worst host.
Karn actually had moments of competence. I've seen a few episodes not long after the reversion to single-single-double-triple where Karn was actually fairly smooth and able to get in a few decent ad-libs. Later on, he would just stiffly repeat stuff, stammer, and laugh awkwardly as he floundered about in a futile attempt to make a funny.
Also, it seems nearly aspect of Wheel lately has its hatred. Toss-Ups. Jackpot. Prize Puzzle. +$1000 on Final Spin. Eleventy zillion categories. But I'm fine with all of that. The Toss-Ups mean more puzzles per game, and they determine who starts Rounds 1 and 4 — and I think that helps level the playing field instead of the red player always having the slight advantage by pretty much getting guaranteed to start two rounds. Pretty much the only problem I have with the show is that sometimes the writing is a little off. (Even Pat made fun of this when the answer was I LOVE MY PASSPORT PHOTO.)
There's also a lot of Clue Crew hatred, but I don't mind them. Sometimes their clues ramble a little, but overall, I like having the occasional visual aid on a clue.
(However, I do agree that they should generally stop having celebs read the clues. Some of them, such as Oprah, are ungodly slow readers.)
-
There's a difference between hating something/someone and having a strong opinion against it. I don't think anyone here "hates" Mike Richards...they might not like the direction he's taken with his two shows, but "hate" is a bit much.
Same for the other examples; there is some disdain for TTD90 and the "Double The Points!" thing, but it's always looked like ridicule for what were, IMO, pretty silly gimmicks.
OK maybe "hate" is a strong word, as our parents told us countless times.
And with the examples you named, my point was that some things that weren't so bad otherwise WERE done in by cheesy gimmicks and elements. But without those elements they wouldn't have been so bad.
Maybe I should rephrase my topic: what show(s)/etc. did you like, but it seemed like not many others do?
-
As a child, I enjoyed Peer Pressure and Pressure 1.
-
"Merv Griffin's Crosswords" isn't the piece of crap that everyone claims it to be. Was it the perfect game show format? No, it wasn't. Did it have its flaws just like every beloved classic has but no one wants to admit to? Of course it did. I don't see the hate for it at all. I loved it, and Ty Treadway was not as terrible a host as a lot of people would say.
I thought "Taboo" was a great show. It was the closest thing to "Pyramid" we had at the time, and if you strip away the crazy presentation along with the cracked-out host, there was a pretty good word game there. Call it the word-game enthusiast in me but there you have it.
I could go on and on...
/One for the road: Drew Carey era > Bob Barker era.
-
I'm with Ernie on "Taboo". The game was there, but the presentation was awful. Why not a cuckoo or simple buzzer like in the actual game, instead of a loud "TABOO!" and people throwing things at you?
-
I'm with Ernie on "Taboo". The game was there, but the presentation was awful. Why not a cuckoo or simple buzzer like in the actual game, instead of a loud "TABOO!" and people throwing things at you?
Because that wouldn't fit with the Spike demography.
-
"Merv Griffin's Crosswords" isn't the piece of crap that everyone claims it to be. Was it the perfect game show format? No, it wasn't. Did it have its flaws just like every beloved classic has but no one wants to admit to? Of course it did.
Do those "beloved classics" also have flaws so big that a person with a one-word vocabulary can win the game simply by speaking that one word at the right moment?
-
And with the examples you named, my point was that some things that weren't so bad otherwise WERE done in by cheesy gimmicks and elements. But without those elements they wouldn't have been so bad.
If they were done properly, yes, they wouldn't be so bad. But Richard Karn decided that his three squares a day were going to be the set, Set For Life forgot to include a game, et al. I don't judge based upon what might have been, but based on what did happen. Tic Tac Dough had laughable music, lousy host, stupid theme weeks, and they cheaped up on the money. If you fix all those things, then yes in an alternate universe we're amazed that Tic Tac Dough is about to go into their 25th year. But they didn't.
-
Here's mine.
*The 1994 New Price is Right. Sure, no contestants' row, but the Pricing Games were still there. I also liked The Price WAS Right for a Showcase Showdown.
*TJW '90. While I am a big fan of the classic version that enjoyed two runs between 1972 and 1986, and the format was different from its predecessor, it was still an enjoyable game. When they brought the categories back, I thought it was a neat little merger between old school Joker's Wild and the new version.
*John Davidson. Some were annoyed by some of his mannerisms, but when it came to Squares, at least he wasn't as obnoxious as Bowzer was.
-
"Merv Griffin's Crosswords" isn't the piece of crap that everyone claims it to be. Was it the perfect game show format? No, it wasn't. Did it have its flaws just like every beloved classic has but no one wants to admit to? Of course it did.
Do those "beloved classics" also have flaws so big that a person with a one-word vocabulary can win the game simply by speaking that one word at the right moment?
So a Spoiler who spends the entire game trying to break through to the front finally manages to do so on what happens to be the last question of the game and all of a sudden the whole show is ruined? I still don't understand how timing and a bit of luck sprinkled into an otherwise straight-forward quiz game completely destroys the format.
-
As a child, I enjoyed Peer Pressure and Pressure 1.
Meh...I liked "Shop 'til You Drop" a lot as a kid, too. When I watch it now...well, it's not as bad as its reputation suggests, but it's still a cheesy cable game show from the '90's...with all the elements that such a description implies.
/One for the road: Drew Carey in Seasons 39-40 > Bob Barker in Seasons 32-35.
Fixed that for you.
Do those "beloved classics" also have flaws so big that a person with a one-word vocabulary can win the game simply by speaking that one word at the right moment?
I dunno..."Joker's Wild" had built-in potential for a similar situation, Wheel has it quite frequently, and one could even argue that J! does as well (think a trailing contestant betting the farm on a lucky Daily Double). I'm not saying Crosswords was less flawed than that--in fact, I've never seen the show--but even the most cerebral game shows usually have some elements of luck and unpredictability thrown in. If it's a pure test of knowledge you want, watch quiz bowl.
-
Here is one for me.
I had a liking to Match Game '98 after watching Match Game '90 that many years ago. To me, MG98 had a bright and fresh look and feel to it, despite having one less panelist. In addition, with a channel change, it was my lead-in from Price. Also, I had a liking to all the panelists, including Judy. She made me laugh and smile when it was her turn to joke around and such.
Then a year or so of discovering the internet, I basically read a lot a negativity about this version, saying [any post-'73-'82 version] was not as good as the Rayburn '73-'82 version in terms of panelists, hosts, and payouts. As a result, I gave in a little to the opinions and understood why they were bad, until GSN and YouTube reminded me of the Shafer and Burger versions. Still the MG90 and MG98 versions were decent for me.
Match Game-Hollywood Squares Hour, besides the awesome theme, though...
-
Meh...I liked "Shop 'til You Drop" a lot as a kid, too. When I watch it now...well, it's not as bad as its reputation suggests, but it's still a cheesy cable game show from the '90's...with all the elements that such a description implies.
Me too. I guess that being a kid at the time, I enjoyed the stunts. Nowadays, I like the set, the bonus round, the music [too bad the dude that stole the "Legends" cues from TVPMM ruined our chances of hearing it!]. And Pat Finn wasn't all that bad. As for the JD Roberto revamp---I'll pass!
I've recently mentioned elsewhere on this board that I liked TNPiR '94 back in the day. Most everything about the show was a breath of fresh air compared to Bob's show.
Speaking of Pat Finn----I didn't mind TJW '90 all that much. Then again, it was my introduction to the format.
And I'd stand firm on declaring "Supermarket Sweep" the best game show of the 90s.
-
As a child, I enjoyed Peer Pressure and Pressure 1.
Same here. I actually wanted to be a contestant, seeing as how they actually gave away some pretty cool prizes.
-
I will back Joker 90, particularly when they brought the categories back. I always liked the idea of running a bunch of questions if you really knew your subject. Also made for good comebacks sometimes. And I have always preferred the Match 3 bonus game to Face the Devil. Only thing that was a trouble after they converted was their constantly getting stuck in bonus game straddling. I have a fix to that, though.
I don't know if this has ever gotten flak, but I also like the short-lived first bonus game from the CBS Tic-Tac better. I like puzzles, so the find the 3-in-a-row is fun for me. TTD 90 messed it up a little by making you decide which symbol to play (and we know the rest). I did like 90's ability to let you stop the category shuffle, though.
And while we know that PYL was superior to Whammy!, I will always hold my stance that it was as great a revival as we could have asked for. I admit that GSN going so prize-heavy was odd, but I still love it.
-
And while we know that PYL was superior to Whammy!
Who is this "we" you speak of?
-
It's no secret that I liked GONG (the original--not the Bleu, "Extreme" or Attell versions). A lot. Hard for me to tell whether that opinion is shared by the majority--it seems those who love it are very vocal, and those who hate it are just as vocal.
-
And while we know that PYL was superior to Whammy!
Who is this "we" you speak of?
Are you suggesting that your favor is with Team Whammy?
I'll be honest, if there is anyone out there who actually did prefer Whammy! to PYL, I've never been around at the right time to see them speak up. Not that I've heard anyone say Whammy! was junk, just that PYL was always better.
-
So a Spoiler who spends the entire game trying to break through to the front finally manages to do so on what happens to be the last question of the game and all of a sudden the whole show is ruined? I still don't understand how timing and a bit of luck sprinkled into an otherwise straight-forward quiz game completely destroys the format.
Then I suspect you won't.
Are you suggesting that your favor is with Team Whammy?
No, he's suggesting you shouldn't speak for the rest of the world, even when you think it's obvious.
-
I 'love' topics like this one. They never go bad. Ever.
-
Well, I liked Second Chance better than PYL. The focus was on the winning the game rather than losing.
-
I know there are others who agree with me, but it seems to be the majority opinion that Password Plus/Super Password was preferred to the original CBS/ABC Password.
Call me old, or maybe it's the fact that I've worked with words all my life, but the original versions to me were more challenging. With the puzzles, the words are, if not predictable, at least aimed toward a common theme, which leads to a smaller universe of possible correct answers. In the original, the words were random, and required a much wider vocabulary. The words also seemed a bit more challenging by themselves - try thinking up clues for "flail."
(An aside - that's one reason why "no opposites" may be a better rule for the puzzle vs. nonpuzzle versions. If, say, the first two puzzle words were "cat" and "dog", after getting "cat" on the first, the obvious choice for the next one would be "cat.....")
I understand that going through 10 clues when it's clear nobody is getting anywhere near the word can be a slog, and I once proposed (back in the ATGS days, I think) just having three clues each, going from 6 points to 1, and playing to 15.
Ab out the only change I liked was the bonus - the Lightning Round (5 words in 60 seconds) was a nice little bonus for $250, but with players used to the format, it became disappointing when the contestant didn't get all five. In Alphabetics/Super Password, 10 in 60 worked, especially with the "start with M, end with V" format giving you at least a handle on the first word to get going.
Anyway, long opinion is long.
-
So a Spoiler who spends the entire game trying to break through to the front finally manages to do so on what happens to be the last question of the game and all of a sudden the whole show is ruined? I still don't understand how timing and a bit of luck sprinkled into an otherwise straight-forward quiz game completely destroys the format.
Then I suspect you won't.
Funny, I thought I was going to get an actual reply to my comment. I mean, if you don't have an answer and that's the best you can come up with, I understand.
-
Allow me.
So a Spoiler who spends the entire game trying to break through to the front doing nothing finally manages to do so win on what happens to be the last question of the game and all of a sudden the whole show is ruined?
Correct.
-
Allow me.
So a Spoiler who spends the entire game trying to break through to the front doing nothing finally manages to do so win on what happens to be the last question of the game and all of a sudden the whole show is ruined?
Correct.
By that logic, "Wheel" is ruined then because a player can stand there and do nothing for almost three rounds, knock off the Prize Puzzle and cruise to the bonus round. It sucks when that happens but it doesn't kill the whole format. Same thing for "Crosswords". You call it a big deal that messes up everything, I call it "how the game works". Not every format is going to be perfect.
-
By that logic, "Wheel" is ruined then because a player can stand there and do nothing for almost three rounds, knock off the Prize Puzzle and cruise to the bonus round. It sucks when that happens but it doesn't kill the whole format. Same thing for "Crosswords". You call it a big deal that messes up everything, I call it "how the game works". Not every format is going to be perfect.
Given Wheel, Jeopardy, Monopoly and Crosswords you could make the case that Merv didn't care overmuch about having an exciting, dramatic or even interesting finish to the game.
-
By that logic, "Wheel" is ruined then because a player can stand there and do nothing for almost three rounds, knock off the Prize Puzzle and cruise to the bonus round. It sucks when that happens but it doesn't kill the whole format. Same thing for "Crosswords". You call it a big deal that messes up everything, I call it "how the game works". Not every format is going to be perfect.
The Prize Puzzle is my absolute least favorite part of the show because it turns the risk/reward factor of the show on its ear. A major appeal is the "risk your luck" element, and element damaged by the prize puzzle. And yeah, frankly, it kills the format for me.
-
Not to mention Sajak's final spin--he lands on $5000 and the game pretty much gets decided right there.
-
And I'd stand firm on declaring "Supermarket Sweep" the best game show of the 90s.
I'm just the opposite. Supermarket Sweep just isn't my cup of tea.
/One for the road: Drew Carey in Seasons 39-40 > Bob Barker in Seasons 32-35.
Fixed that for you.
Seconded.
Another one: I didn't think that Rich Jeffries or M.G. Kelly were bad announcers, and Daniel Rosen was actually less sucky than I recalled. (I still think he was a poor fit for TPIR, but I think he could've done well on a mellower game show.) On the flipside, I think that Joe Cipriano sounds like Rich Fields after drinking a gallon of NyQuil.
Not to mention Sajak's final spin--he lands on $5000 and the game pretty much gets decided right there.
Believe it or not, I've actually seen that backfire at least once. One guy had something like $30,000 in the Speed-Up thanks to Pat hitting $5,000 on the Final Spin… but one of his opponents had over $38K.
-
By that logic, "Wheel" is ruined then because a player can stand there and do nothing for almost three rounds, knock off the Prize Puzzle and cruise to the bonus round. It sucks when that happens but it doesn't kill the whole format. Same thing for "Crosswords". You call it a big deal that messes up everything, I call it "how the game works". Not every format is going to be perfect.
In a broad sense, you're absolutely right. Family Feud is usually won by the team that gets the weighted final bank. Even Jeopardy can go to the lesser player (paging Nancy Zerg) under the right set of circumstances.
Still, personally, when I watch a game whose centerpiece is a big giant wheel, I'm going in thinking that luck and random chance is going to have a lot to do with the game. When I watch a game that's all about questions and answers, in general I expect to see the reward go to the person who's done the best job at answering those questions. Crosswords had a lot of good stuff in it, but the idea that a person could theoretically answer one question and win the game was not part of that good stuff.
Before this gets any more heated, keep in mind that the whole point of this thread is that people are voicing their minority opinions. It's amusing enough to a point, but when you take it personally and try to convince everybody else that they're wrong and you're right, you're probably not going to get very far.
-
Not to mention Sajak's final spin--he lands on $5000 and the game pretty much gets decided right there.
I always had the opposite objection. Before the "+1000", Pat would say, "Vowels are worth nothing and consonants are worth ..." and I'd say, "Next to nothing."
Caesar's Challenge was worse, though, because only the winner kept their score, so it could reach a point where there was no point in anyone else trying to solve it.
-
Believe it or not, I've actually seen that backfire at least once. One guy had something like $30,000 in the Speed-Up thanks to Pat hitting $5,000 on the Final Spin… but one of his opponents had over $38K.
Never said it was always the case--just pretty much the case. Exceptions will happen. Such is life.
-
By that logic, "Wheel" is ruined then because a player can stand there and do nothing for almost three rounds, knock off the Prize Puzzle and cruise to the bonus round.
Yes, that is incredibly solid logic.
It sucks when that happens but it doesn't kill the whole format.
Oh, I assure you it does. It doesn't kill the *mechanic*, true, but Wheel's game structure has been worthless for years now. I watch it for one reason and one reason only and that is to see how quickly I can guess the puzzle, and I could give a frog's fat ass what those numbers are in front of the players because the overall result is randomized 95% of the time anyhow as a result of Mo' Money.
Same thing for "Crosswords". You call it a big deal that messes up everything, I call it "how the game works".
Okay, but again, you haven't yet refuted the argument that it's a grossly flawed game structure for what is supposed to be a fairly straightforward quiz. So maybe you like the mechanic, and that's fine. I like that mechanic, too. Fortunately, I can engage in it every day by buying a newspaper.
Not every format is going to be perfect.
Life is too short to watch badly flawed formats.
-
Life is too short to watch badly flawed formats.
I've really been enjoying Steve Harvey on Family Feud lately. It's getting me back into the show again for the first time since enjoying the classic episodes on GSN for the first time with Richard Dawson and then Ray Combs. One thing that has always irked me about the format (and I know it's been used previously on this version as well) is the Sudden Death. In it, a team that won three puzzles can lose to a team that previously won one puzzle by responding quickest to what is usually a fairly easy question to get the #1 answer to. While my enjoyment of the game is not wholly adversely affected by this, it can be distracting when it occurs, for sure. So, I'm on the fence here. I definitely understand what you're saying, but I also feel that there are sometimes other things that might enhance a flaw such as this.
-
Caesar's Challenge was worse, though, because only the winner kept their score, so it could reach a point where there was no point in anyone else trying to solve it.
But here's the difference: the final word on Caesar's Challenge is meant to be played quickly because there's about a minute left. Ditto the final spin of the day. Time's almost up so let's get this round done and dusted and declare a winner. Back when $5000 was a great total for a day, sure, spinning $800 means the game is in the balance, for better or worse. Trying to equate the spoiler snipe with Final Jeopardy or the final spin or the last word doesn't work because they're all means to different ends, and you can't judge them as similar.
-
I happen to like Rolf Benirschke on Wheel of Fortune, even before I read his autobiography (which only increased my respect for the man).
As for the ongoing discussion on Crosswords, it's not like Jeopardy! where you not only have to be knowledgeable but also anticipate your opponents' moves in Final and know math so you don't screw yourself over; on Crosswords, you only have to look at the timer and jump in at the last possible moment to win stuff through almost no effort. There was also the fact that if second place was behind by a considerable margin, s/he had to deliberately give wrong answers to maybe become a Spoiler.
And Travis, Jay does have a point regarding Caesars Challenge, and Neil Bines is a good example of that.
Another one: I didn't think that Rich Jeffries or M.G. Kelly were bad announcers
Honestly, I have to second these. Kelly in particular could ad-lib around his script pretty well.
The Prize Puzzle is my absolute least favorite part of the show because it turns the risk/reward factor of the show on its ear. A major appeal is the "risk your luck" element, and element damaged by the prize puzzle. And yeah, frankly, it kills the format for me.
This, this, many times this. Not just because it's a guaranteed prize (I've seen contestants solve it for little to no money), but also because the puzzle writing generally sucks because it always has to be a trip. There's also the fact that some contestants have won solely through the guaranteed prize.
-
And Travis, Jay does have a point regarding Caesars Challenge, and Neil Bines is a good example of that.
How so? The game was well and truly over at the horn. Would you have it be instead that the player who solves that last word wins the game? Or maybe for each word solved a bingo ball with their name goes into the enormous hopper and whosever ball pops out goes for the car?
And an aside to Dan: we know about the strategery of Crosswords. Not only don't you need to repeat it, but certainly not with the bolding.
-
I have to agree on Benirschke... he wasn't exactly horrible, and was getting better by the end of his short tenure. Of course, the fact that he and I have had some of the exact same medical challenges sways my opinions a bit. His story (even returning to football after everything that happened) was a big part of what helped me, as a scared teenager, get through it all.
Here's an opinion I've not seen many share... I liked TPIR better as a half hour show. Yes, the Showcase Showdown evens out the chances of getting into the Showcase round, but I thought the show had a better feel and pace during the half hour days. Maybe my attention span is just too short.
-
And Travis, Jay does have a point regarding Caesars Challenge, and Neil Bines is a good example of that.
How so? The game was well and truly over at the horn. Would you have it be instead that the player who solves that last word wins the game? Or maybe for each word solved a bingo ball with their name goes into the enormous hopper and whosever ball pops out goes for the car?
Since I'm the one who raised the issue, I'll answer for myself. I would have preferred the WOF set-up (keep everything you solve) to the J! set-up (no cash for non-winners). I would have preferred even a minor tweak, where you get anything you solve in the last XX seconds of play.
-
By that logic, "Wheel" is ruined then because a player can stand there and do nothing for almost three rounds, knock off the Prize Puzzle and cruise to the bonus round. It sucks when that happens but it doesn't kill the whole format.
It's also highly mitigated by the fact that everybody on Wheel gets to keep whatever they earn, as opposed to the person who spoils last taking the whole pot. If I have $22,000 going into Final Spin and someone gets $24,000 off Pat's 'lucky' spin, oh well, at least I get to keep my twenty-two large. If I have $5,000 before I get spoiled with two clues left, some bozo's walking off with 'my' $5k.