Through this lovely WIKI site about Mark Goodson
Jim Perry\'s version of Card Sharks was going to have a weekly nighttime counterpart? Would it have been the same as the future (now past) Bill Rafferty version?
http://markgoodson.wikia.com/wiki/Card_Sharks
No way to know as Firestone didn\'t drum up enough interest.
Damn that Firestone. They could syndicate Barris shows (yeah I knew some of them had no daytime counterparts) but couldn\'t do the Goodson-Todman shows.
Damn that Firestone. They could syndicate Barris shows (yeah I knew some of them had no daytime counterparts) but couldn\'t do the Goodson-Todman shows.
How exactly would you have conducted a weekly Card Sharks series? It\'s kind of a pain in the ass to make the show self contained under the original format, no?
I\'m sure some gameplay could have been cut to make it fit....Perhaps a maximum of 3 questions in each round instead of 4 would do it...I think it would be quite possible for it to be self-contained.
How exactly would you have conducted a weekly Card Sharks series? It\'s kind of a pain in the ass to make the show self contained under the original format, no?
I\'m sure some gameplay could have been cut to make it fit....Perhaps a maximum of 3 questions in each round instead of 4 would do it...I think it would be quite possible for it to be self-contained.
How exactly would you have conducted a weekly Card Sharks series? It\'s kind of a pain in the ass to make the show self contained under the original format, no?
I\'m sure some gameplay could have been cut to make it fit....Perhaps a maximum of 3 questions in each round instead of 4 would do it...I think it would be quite possible for it to be self-contained.
Bet there would have been tons of editing of the contestant\'s justifying their answers to the high/low questions...
Ummmm...Jim...I believe...<JUMP CUT>..maybe 47...
Well, I dunno...probably...<JUMP CUT>...higher...
Stimulating television to be sure...:)
JakeT
This article and this ad both say it would have been a \"strip\" (meaning five a week) for prime access, so the gameplay would likely have been the same. I\'m wondering if they planned on treating it the same way as syndicated \"Match Game,\" with no returning champions, and pacing and editing the show so that each week would be self-contained.
This article and this ad both say it would have been a \"strip\" (meaning five a week) for prime access, so the gameplay would likely have been the same. I\'m wondering if they planned on treating it the same way as syndicated \"Match Game,\" with no returning champions, and pacing and editing the show so that each week would be self-contained.
I could see that happening...I was going to mention in my post something about it being treated like MG if it were to be a strip....I could also see, to round out the week, perhaps an audience member playing the money cards but for much smaller values...
That makes me curious...were the B&E shows the only syndies with returning champs before Wherl and Jeopardy hit the scene?
They very well may have been.......the only \"strip\" game shows I can think of pre-TTD and TJW were TTTT and WML?.....Any others were weekly game shows which definitely did NOT have returning champs, and AFAIK the Dawson syndie Feud didn\'t have returning champs either, even when it went to a 5-day strip.
Not returning champs, per se, but $128,000 Question had returning contestants,
Not returning champs, per se, but $128,000 Question had returning contestants,
And in a similar \'gray area\' were players on The $100,000 Name That Tune, specifically the ones who qualified for either the $100,000 Mystery Tune, or the tournaments later on.
Did Cross-Wits or the Vegas Squares have returning champs? I\'m pretty sure the \'81 version of Treasure Hunt did.
Brucie\'s Play Your Cards Right was always a 30 or 35 minute self contained show. They would have needed to cut a bit to make it work here in a 22-24 minute format but it could be done. Perhaps adding the car to the end game like Bruce\'s version as well.
Did Cross-Wits or the Vegas Squares have returning champs? I\'m pretty sure the \'81 version of Treasure Hunt did.
Neither one did. I believe that Vegas Squares had a big tournament at the end of the season, but I\'m not sure what you had to do to qualify.
Did Cross-Wits or the Vegas Squares have returning champs? I\'m pretty sure the \'81 version of Treasure Hunt did.
Neither one did. I believe that Vegas Squares had a big tournament at the end of the season, but I\'m not sure what you had to do to qualify.
From what I read, you merely had to win your game.
I would counter with the eventual syndicated edition initially having three questions per game and still not being self contained. I don\'t think you could do it with just that.
Maybe instead of 2-of-3, 3-of-five?
For the past few years, I had an idea of what a future Card Sharks revival should be like. The idea would be the old format, two rows of cards, and survey questions, mixed with a few elements of the 2001 format that were actually tolerable. Have two contestants play each other, two out of three match. Then have two other contestants play each other. The two winners would then face each other in a final showdown, where it\'s a one game match. In the Money Cards, you bet the $2,100 you won in the front games, $700 starts each line. Traditional money cards, must bet at least $50 until you get to the big bet, where you must bet at least half. And the push rule applies, if the next card is of equal value, you win nothing, but you also lose nothing. Like in the Eubanks version, you can change any one card per line. But I\'m not sure that would\'ve fit a half hour self contained show, the only way you could\'ve done something like that is if all matches were one game, something, IMO, would have left way too much time left over after all was said and done.
I would counter with the eventual syndicated edition initially having three questions per game and still not being self contained. I don\'t think you could do it with just that.
Maybe instead of 2-of-3, 3-of-five?
For the past few years, I had an idea of what a future Card Sharks revival should be like. The idea would be the old format, two rows of cards, and survey questions, mixed with a few elements of the 2001 format that were actually tolerable. Have two contestants play each other, two out of three match. Then have two other contestants play each other. The two winners would then face each other in a final showdown, where it\'s a one game match. In the Money Cards, you bet the $2,100 you won in the front games, $700 starts each line. Traditional money cards, must bet at least $50 until you get to the big bet, where you must bet at least half. But I\'m not sure that would\'ve fit a half hour self contained show, the only way you could\'ve done something like that is if all matches were one game, something, IMO, would have left way too much time left over after all was said and done.
Perhaps have the play-in games be one-and-done, and the championship match be two-out-of-three, maybe?
Just do what Scrabble did: go into sudden death after the first question of game two.For the past few years, I had an idea of what a future Card Sharks revival should be like. The idea would be the old format, two rows of cards, and survey questions, mixed with a few elements of the 2001 format that were actually tolerable. Have two contestants play each other, two out of three match. Then have two other contestants play each other. The two winners would then face each other in a final showdown, where it\'s a one game match. In the Money Cards, you bet the $2,100 you won in the front games, $700 starts each line. Traditional money cards, must bet at least $50 until you get to the big bet, where you must bet at least half. But I\'m not sure that would\'ve fit a half hour self contained show, the only way you could\'ve done something like that is if all matches were one game, something, IMO, would have left way too much time left over after all was said and done.
Perhaps have the play-in games be one-and-done, and the championship match be two-out-of-three, maybe?
I like that. And if there\'s still a bit of time, do one of the two post-Money Cards car games. I will admit, I should\'ve thought of your suggestion before. But thank you. :-)
Something that just occurred to me... if you want it self-contained, and using just two players, do it sort of like how the 1975-1976 syndicated High Rollers did... after each game, the winning player gets a shot at the Money Cards, then plays another main game against the other player... if time runs out with a game in progress, have the last question be Sudden Death, with the winner of that round getting one last crack at the Money Cards to close out the show, and have two new players every day.
- My thought for game play: first game, $25 for each card turned successfully (and kept by freezing or winning the game), $100 for winning the game itself. Second game and beyond, $50 and $200, respectively. High scorer when time is called goes to the Money Cards.
- There were plenty of syndicated strips beside the ones mentioned here: Truth or Consequences, Beat the Clock, He Said She Said, Dealer\'s Choice, Diamond Head Game come to mind. But you\'re right; I don\'t remember any with returning champs until The Joker\'s Wild.
To answer Chris P.\'s question, Pitfall also had returning champions.
As for Card Sharks, I like the idea of having two rounds, then a third championship match. Problem is, making each round a best-of-three would take too long, and a single elimination will prolly leave the host tap dancing for a few minutes. I like Curt\'s idea of each player accumulating a bank, and playing to a time limit (say 5 minutes).
I think you could still make round three a \"championship\" round...a best-of-three match, but with 3 cards instead of five.
Damn that Firestone. They could syndicate Barris shows (yeah I knew some of them had no daytime counterparts) but couldn\'t do the Goodson-Todman shows.
Not quite. Didn\'t (Len) Firestone (the syndicator, not the tire company) distribute the Garry Moore/Joe Garagiola version of TTTT?
I think you are right about that. Firestone did syndicate TTTT for their syndicated version.
... if you want it self-contained, and using just two players, do it sort of like how the 1975-1976 syndicated High Rollers did... after each game, the winning player gets a shot at the Money Cards, then plays another main game against the other player...
This could be cool. Play two main games, not matches. Winner of each plays Money Cards. For a finale, the higher money winner gets to play for a car at the end. Instead of Eubanks\' versions, make it a row of four cards, call them perfectly (allowing one change) to win the car.
I think you are right about that. Firestone did syndicate TTTT for their syndicated version.
Didn\'t they also do BtC (the Montreal version)?
They also syndicated Tattletales according to Wiki.
I think you are right about that. Firestone did syndicate TTTT for their syndicated version.
Didn\'t they also do BtC (the Montreal version)?
I thought that was 20th Century Fox...or maybe they worked together.
I think you are right about that. Firestone did syndicate TTTT for their syndicated version.
Didn\'t they also do BtC (the Montreal version)?
I thought that was 20th Century Fox...or maybe they worked together.
According to Wikipedia, 20th Century Fox originally syndicated it from 1969 to 1972, and changed to Firestone in 1972 (roughly around the same time Gene Wood took over hosting duties)
Is it possible the 1988-1989 3rd round tie breaker (one question sudden death) come from was supposed to have been Perry\'s nighttime version?
Damn that Firestone. They could syndicate Barris shows (yeah I knew some of them had no daytime counterparts) but couldn\'t do the Goodson-Todman shows.
\"To Tell The Truth\" would like a word with you.
Damn that Firestone. They could syndicate Barris shows (yeah I knew some of them had no daytime counterparts) but couldn\'t do the Goodson-Todman shows.
\"To Tell The Truth\" would like a word with you.
Actually, someone brought that up about a week ago. :)
/Not me--I brought up BtC.
So I guess Hal Erickson wasn\'t totally off his rocker when he wrote his Syndicated Television book.
/Now, the part about the surveys being added to the \"syndicated\" version...
//Still not as bad as calling Cyril Sneer a pink wolf in his animation book.