The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: gshowguy on August 17, 2004, 05:49:10 PM
-
Here's how I think I could use for a new version of "$ale of the Century" (hopefully, StinkMantle is reading this and ISN'T screwing this up!):
Three players, each starting with $20 (or $200 on on my proposed prime-time version). Players may ring-in during the question, and each right answer is worth $5 ($50 prime-time, note all values are 10x higher on prime-time), while a wrong answer loses that amount. After five, six, or seven questions, the player with the most cash is offered an "In$tant Bargain", like a 13" television worth $145 for $8. There is also a "Fame Game" round, where a really long question is asked about a famous (or infamous) someone, and the player who gets it right chooses one of nine numbers on the "Fame Game" board, which could be from $5-$15, or a cash jackpot starting at $1,000 and rising up by $500 each day until won. After three "In$tant Bargains" and two "Fame Games", we culminate with a 60-second lightning round (which I call the "Fast 60 Seconds of TV"), this time, with each right answer worth $10, and a wrong answer losing $10. The highest score after this round goes to play a two-part bonus round. If there's a tie, a sudden-death tie-breaker question is asked, or, if time is allowed, one final "Fame Game" question to determine the winner.
In the first part of the bonus round, I use the same word puzzle game we know and hate, but this time, the clues are to answers that are actually related to the prizes on the stage. It's only 15 seconds long, and each right answer adds $15 to your final score. When time runs out...
"Let's go shopping!" Now, comes the shopping part that builds up the suspense, whether or not you want to take this prize, or discard it in an attempt to build up more money to win the lot (you need at least $1,000 total in score money to win the lot). If you lose the game on your second day (and subsequent days) everything goes bye-bye, but if you score $1,000 total (again, in score money), you win everything plus a jackpot that starts at $100,000 and goes up by $25,000 each time it isn't won (on prime-time, it's $1,000,000 and goes up by a quarter-million each time it isn't won, and you need $10,000 in score money to claim it).
That's the game.
Here's what I'd use:
Set: Same as the one on the more recent Australian version (only difference is that the podiums' score displays are in EggCrate font, and they use red buttons on yellow stands like on most US game show podiums)
Host: I'd get Jim Perry back, but if he can't make it, I could use Peter Tomarken, or I could use some Aussie flair from Tony Barber or Glenn Ridge.
Hostess: Definitely Summer Bartholomew.
Announcer: Burton Richardson or Charlie O'Donnell comes to mind, maybe even Pete Smith from the Aussie version (I could picture Charlie-O giving a long emphasis on 100 THOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSAND DOLLARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSS!!! on this show).
Where to put it: Syndication for daytime, NBC for prime-time
What do you think?
-
I'm curious, why the inflated values for primetime? I mean, they're the same values on Sale, whether $5 or multiplied ten fold.
David
-
[quote name=\'gsgalaxy82\' date=\'Aug 17 2004, 04:17 PM\'] I'm curious, why the inflated values for primetime? I mean, they're the same values on Sale, whether $5 or multiplied ten fold.
[/quote]
Because our new poster is obviously rather unclear on the concepts behind Mo Money Syndrome.
-
I may as well tell you that this is purely a case of "Mo Money Syndrome." My thing is, a seven-figure jackpot is not needed for a show such as $ale. Add some semblance of difficulty to the show, and the jackpot will build on itself. (Watch some of the Aussie episodes or the early episodes of our version to see what I mean.)
As I have said before, the essence of $otc needs not be changed. If it were to be revived, make it a hybrid of the Aussie and American versions. Add the colors of the Aussie set with the design of the American version; the third Instant Bargain can serve as both a prize offering and a cash offering (I saw this in an episode of the Aussie version from 1990; it is still rather confusing for me).
If the Shopping Round is completely repulsed, mix the elements of Shopping with the elements of the Winner's Board. There are six prizes on the board, with the car only being won on the wild card match. After the prize is won, he or she can either (a) Take the prize and go, or (b) risk every prize won on the board at that point in order to try and come back tomorrow. Clearing the board results in an additional $10,000 bonus.
The risk is then huge (and is common knowledge to us fellow board members): he or she can take everything and run, or risk all Winner's Board prizes to play game number 7. Losing results in losing everything; winning results in all the prizes plus the cash jackpot (starting at - of course - $50,000 + $1,000 for each day that it is not hit).
Syndication would be a good home for it, since the show does not have to be worried about being mangled and cheapened like the last US version was.
Remember, if it is not broke, then do not fix it. $otC was a good example of that.
The Inquisitive One
EDIT: In case you did not know, Mo Money Syndrome is a phrase coined by this community which represents the false analogy that more money would rake in more viewers. Welcome to the board!
-
OK... that works.
-
IIRC, Joe Garagiola hosts the current slot machine version of the show. I think he would still be game to host the revival. I'd make it a four-week primetime tournament with the fourth week being a final with the top three money earners coming back for the final show.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 17 2004, 08:49 PM\'] IIRC, Joe Garagiola hosts the current slot machine version of the show. I think he would still be game to host the revival. I'd make it a four-week primetime tournament with the fourth week being a final with the top three money earners coming back for the final show. [/quote]
I don't know. When "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" got changed from a series of prime-time specials to a daily series, they were a BIG HIT with the audience.
BTW, what did you think of my idea for host, hostess, and announcer?
-
The best way for Sale to be revived is to leave it the way it was. Leave shopping format alone and everything. Only thing that should be changed is the Cash Jackpot (Start it at $100,000).
-
[quote name=\'DJDustman\' date=\'Aug 17 2004, 09:03 PM\'] The best way for Sale to be revived is to leave it the way it was. Leave shopping format alone and everything. Only thing that should be changed is the Cash Jackpot (Start it at $100,000). [/quote]
This is one revival that shouldn't require the "Mo' Money Syndrome". Leave it at $50,000.
-
[quote name=\'DJDustman\' date=\'Aug 17 2004, 07:03 PM\'] Only thing that should be changed is the Cash Jackpot (Start it at $100,000). [/quote]
*sigh.*
-
[quote name=\'DJDustman\' date=\'Aug 17 2004, 09:03 PM\'] The best way for Sale to be revived is to leave it the way it was. Leave shopping format alone and everything. Only thing that should be changed is the Cash Jackpot (Start it at $100,000). [/quote]
As one other board member says, starting it at $50,000 would suffice. Also, even though we may enjoy the shopping format, the general audience may not be in the same boat. There was a reason why the Shopping Round was dumped in the syndicated version of our version of $ale. I can't see budget cuts as a possibility.
The Aussie Winner's Board was that perfect hybrid of the "win the big prize anytime" element of the Winner's Board with the risk of the Shopping Round. That is why that, if a revival is to ever take place, that bonus round should be implemented.
The Inquisitive One
-
I posted my version ages ago, but after some encouragement from Chris Lemon, i have tweaked some things.
Here's how I'd do it:
Round 1: Questions worth $5 each
Instant Bargain
Round 2: Questions worth $5 each
Instant Bargain
Fame Game-played same as before, except it's back to faces. if the show were on a network, it would use the faces of stars from that network. If it were syndicated, it could be any stars.
Round 3: Questions worth $10 each
Instant Bargain
Fame Game
Speed Round: Questions worth $10 each.
All contestants recive their scores in cash and the prizes they won on stage.
The end Game: The $ale of the Century
Contestants win it all if they reach a score of $750. This makes it so that better players can win in shorter amounts of time. Here's the prize chart. As before, they "buy" these prizes at greatly reduced prices.
Day #1- A trip, valued at 7-9K
Day #2- 3 rooms of furniture, valued at 15K
Day #3- A $20,000 shopping Spree
Day #4- A Trip Around the World, valued at 30K or so
Day #5- A Boat, valued at 40 K
Day #6- A luxury Car, valued at at least 50K
At this part of the game, they buy the prize-but can walk at anytime.
Day #7- The contestant has the option of walking away with all the loot (at least 100K) or playing an additional puzzle (like in the last few years) for a cash jackpot starting at 100K and increasing 5K each day it is not won. (I think a 100K jackpot start is not a severe case of mo' money syndrome, but could you imagine a jackpot after a month? The pot would be big, but not oversized.) Sounds easy right? Wrong. These are going to be a little harder, making for a big risk. If the contestant loses, they lose all prizes, except any instant bargain/fame game wins and the $750 won.
Set: A cross between the latter-day aussie years, with some american flair. The contestant podiums would have glass block behind it, staying blue-tinted during the question round, green during the IB/FG parts, and Red during the Speed Round. Geographically, everything would be set up exactly as it was before in the 80s, but the center "pit" would have the logo on it-it would also have a rising podium to display prizes, opening very similar to the James Bond movies (twisting open). The doors would also be used for some prizes, but wouldn't open fully until the end of the game (when they split apart). In the $ale round, the only prize on screen would be-the car, and a gratuitous 100,000+ sign. The rest of the prizes would be on flat screen TV's and slide out on stage (like Name that Video) and would be purplely-blue when not won, and would turn red with a red "SOLD" sign on it.
Theme: I like the Aussie theme-it's a hair faster than ours.
Announcer: Burton Richardson
Host: I once heard John O'Hurley being tossed around. I think he'd do well.
-
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 08:16 AM\'] I posted my version ages ago, but after some encouragement from Chris Lemon, i have tweaked some things.
Here's how I'd do it:
Round 1: Questions worth $5 each
Instant Bargain
Round 2: Questions worth $5 each
Instant Bargain
Fame Game-played same as before, except it's back to faces. if the show were on a network, it would use the faces of stars from that network. If it were syndicated, it could be any stars.
Round 3: Questions worth $10 each
Instant Bargain
Fame Game
Speed Round: Questions worth $10 each.
All contestants recive their scores in cash and the prizes they won on stage.
The end Game: The $ale of the Century
Contestants win it all if they reach a score of $750. This makes it so that better players can win in shorter amounts of time. Here's the prize chart. As before, they "buy" these prizes at greatly reduced prices.
Day #1- A trip, valued at 7-9K
Day #2- 3 rooms of furniture, valued at 15K
Day #3- A $20,000 shopping Spree
Day #4- A Trip Around the World, valued at 30K or so
Day #5- A Boat, valued at 40 K
Day #6- A luxury Car, valued at at least 50K
At this part of the game, they buy the prize-but can walk at anytime.
Day #7- The contestant has the option of walking away with all the loot (at least 100K) or playing an additional puzzle (like in the last few years) for a cash jackpot starting at 100K and increasing 5K each day it is not won. (I think a 100K jackpot start is not a severe case of mo' money syndrome, but could you imagine a jackpot after a month? The pot would be big, but not oversized.) Sounds easy right? Wrong. These are going to be a little harder, making for a big risk. If the contestant loses, they lose all prizes, except any instant bargain/fame game wins and the $750 won.
Set: A cross between the latter-day aussie years, with some american flair. The contestant podiums would have glass block behind it, staying blue-tinted during the question round, green during the IB/FG parts, and Red during the Speed Round. Geographically, everything would be set up exactly as it was before in the 80s, but the center "pit" would have the logo on it-it would also have a rising podium to display prizes, opening very similar to the James Bond movies (twisting open). The doors would also be used for some prizes, but wouldn't open fully until the end of the game (when they split apart). In the $ale round, the only prize on screen would be-the car, and a gratuitous 100,000+ sign. The rest of the prizes would be on flat screen TV's and slide out on stage (like Name that Video) and would be purplely-blue when not won, and would turn red with a red "SOLD" sign on it.
Theme: I like the Aussie theme-it's a hair faster than ours.
Announcer: Burton Richardson
Host: I once heard John O'Hurley being tossed around. I think he'd do well. [/quote]
Here's something to add in color blocks:
If a player wins "the lot" (as Tony Barber and Glenn Ridge called it on the Aussie version), balloons and confetti don't drop. Instead, the color glass blocks (which are dark blue in the "shopping" portion) rapidly morph colors from a VERY BRIGHT sky blue to a VERY BRIGHT pink, a la "Make the Grade" when someone won the "Honors Round" during Lew Schneider's later episodes, and the prize screens each reveal the number and dollar sign of the jackpot won, and the lights would chase very fast.
As for host, John O'Hurley's a fine choice to use if Jim Perry didn't return, but I think I would try a veteran of the game show element, like Peter Tomarken. As I said earlier, I also think one of the two hosts of the Aussie version could try to host "$ale" in the USA (remember when Anne Robinson was a big hit in the UK on "The Weakest Link" and later hosted an American version on NBC?), preferably Glenn Ridge (though Tony Barber is really good, too).
And announcer? Burton Richardson is a good choice. He seems to announce a lot of DisMantle's shows a lot (there's a reason why I used "DisMantle" instead of "Fremantle", hmm... I wonder why...?) I also think Charlie O'Donnell (or Pete Smith from the Aussie version) could work, as I said earlier.
-
I would use that effect at the end of the game. Good idea tho.
And please...that DisMantle phrase is getting really old.
-
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 09:48 AM\'] I would use that effect at the end of the game. Good idea tho.
And please...that DisMantle phrase is getting really old. [/quote]
OK. Would F-Mantle work? Or would you prefer DumbMantle?
-
[quote name=\'gshowguy\' date=\'Aug 17 2004, 04:49 PM\'] Three players, each starting with $20 (or $200 on on my proposed prime-time version). Players may ring-in during the question, and each right answer is worth $5 ($50 prime-time, note all values are 10x higher on prime-time) [/quote]
Okay, there's Mo Money Syndrome, then there's the simply ridiculous.
On another note, the Shopping Round on the syndicated version may not have been wildly popular because it tended to be anticlimactic. People didn't seem to have much trouble passing on the pool table or dining room set to keep playing. It does need another element. Could somebody explain the Aussie version? Maybe it could be a chance to gamble some of your shopping money, maybe a rapid-fire round (like "Trump Card" without the board) for +/-$25 a question to build your kitty.
Of course, that would be $250 a question in the super prime-time version.
-
[quote name=\'gshowguy\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 06:59 AM\'] but I think I would try a veteran of the game show element, like Peter Tomarken. [/quote]
Peter reads "just OK". He's not a fast reader, and he trips over his tongue when he tries to be. You HAVE to have a fast question reader on that show, which is why it worked so well with Jim Perry. O'Hurley is both fast and clear. As is our own Matt Ottinger. :)
(there's a reason why I used "DisMantle" instead of "Fremantle", hmm... I wonder why...?)
'Cuz it's been done to death? It's freakin' annoying? I dunno, you tell us.
OK. Would F-Mantle work? Or would you prefer DumbMantle?
How about "Fremantle"?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 11:24 AM\']
(there's a reason why I used "DisMantle" instead of "Fremantle", hmm... I wonder why...?)
'Cuz it's been done to death? It's freakin' annoying? I dunno, you tell us.
[/quote]
I thought you knew it was because they screwed up the formats to the 1998 Match Game revival and the 2001 Card Sharks revival.
And I can't used "F'd up", right?
-
How do you feel about letting ANY of the three players buy an Instant Bargain? I believe that's the way it was on the '69-73 version of the show. I like that format because it gives each player a chance to win *something*. If you happen to get on a show with a runaway champ, you may never get a chance if you have to be in the lead to be able to buy it.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 11:48 AM\'] How do you feel about letting ANY of the three players buy an Instant Bargain? I believe that's the way it was on the '69-73 version of the show. I like that format because it gives each player a chance to win *something*. If you happen to get on a show with a runaway champ, you may never get a chance if you have to be in the lead to be able to buy it. [/quote]
It may not have originated this way, but it seems like the best aspect of Instant Bargains is that they prevent runaways by enticing the leading player to give up all or some of their lead. "$ale" was at its best when it's a horse race at the end. Seeing some sap who can't answer the questions buy a stair-stepper for $7 doesn't add to the game.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 11:24 AM\'] O'Hurley is both fast and clear. As is our own Matt Ottinger. :)
[/quote]
I'd let their wives be the judge of that. ;-)
Seriously tho... O'Hurley or Bergeron are the only people I see that would have the reading skills necesssary for the job (Bergeron wasn't great at it when the Big Money Minute was introduced, but boy did he get better quickly).
-
[quote name=\'gshowguy\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 09:44 AM\'] I thought you knew it was because they screwed up the formats to the 1998 Match Game revival and the 2001 Card Sharks revival.
[/quote]
Yes, we're painfully aware of that, mainly because 472 people have used the same gag and Won't. Let. It. Go.
We're just trying to encourage you not to be the 473rd.
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\' Aug 18 2004, 09:48 AM\']How do you feel about letting ANY of the three players buy an Instant Bargain? I believe that's the way it was on the '69-73 version of the show.[/quote]
Horrifyingly bad idea. Neumms hit the nail on the head, if the scores are 65-60-15 going into the second Instant Bargain, who do you think is gonna make a beeline for the buzzer the second the price is announced?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 12:33 PM\'] [quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\' Aug 18 2004, 09:48 AM\']How do you feel about letting ANY of the three players buy an Instant Bargain? I believe that's the way it was on the '69-73 version of the show.[/quote]
Horrifyingly bad idea. Neumms hit the nail on the head, if the scores are 65-60-15 going into the second Instant Bargain, who do you think is gonna make a beeline for the buzzer the second the price is announced? [/quote]
It was also that way in Great Britain's version.
-
[quote name=\'gshowguy\' date=\'Aug 17 2004, 04:49 PM\'] Here's how I think I could use for a new version of "$ale of the Century" (hopefully, StinkMantle is reading this and ISN'T screwing this up!):
Three players, each starting with $20 (or $200 on on my proposed prime-time version). Players may ring-in during the question, and each right answer is worth $5 ($50 prime-time, note all values are 10x higher on prime-time), while a wrong answer loses that amount. After five, six, or seven questions, the player with the most cash is offered an "In$tant Bargain", like a 13" television worth $145 for $8. There is also a "Fame Game" round, where a really long question is asked about a famous (or infamous) someone, and the player who gets it right chooses one of nine numbers on the "Fame Game" board, which could be from $5-$15, or a cash jackpot starting at $1,000 and rising up by $500 each day until won. After three "In$tant Bargains" and two "Fame Games", we culminate with a 60-second lightning round (which I call the "Fast 60 Seconds of TV"), this time, with each right answer worth $10, and a wrong answer losing $10. The highest score after this round goes to play a two-part bonus round. If there's a tie, a sudden-death tie-breaker question is asked, or, if time is allowed, one final "Fame Game" question to determine the winner.
In the first part of the bonus round, I use the same word puzzle game we know and hate, but this time, the clues are to answers that are actually related to the prizes on the stage. It's only 15 seconds long, and each right answer adds $15 to your final score. When time runs out...
"Let's go shopping!" Now, comes the shopping part that builds up the suspense, whether or not you want to take this prize, or discard it in an attempt to build up more money to win the lot (you need at least $1,000 total in score money to win the lot). If you lose the game on your second day (and subsequent days) everything goes bye-bye, but if you score $1,000 total (again, in score money), you win everything plus a jackpot that starts at $100,000 and goes up by $25,000 each time it isn't won (on prime-time, it's $1,000,000 and goes up by a quarter-million each time it isn't won, and you need $10,000 in score money to claim it).
That's the game.
Here's what I'd use:
Set: Same as the one on the more recent Australian version (only difference is that the podiums' score displays are in EggCrate font, and they use red buttons on yellow stands like on most US game show podiums)
Host: I'd get Jim Perry back, but if he can't make it, I could use Peter Tomarken, or I could use some Aussie flair from Tony Barber or Glenn Ridge.
Hostess: Definitely Summer Bartholomew.
Announcer: Burton Richardson or Charlie O'Donnell comes to mind, maybe even Pete Smith from the Aussie version (I could picture Charlie-O giving a long emphasis on 100 THOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSAND DOLLARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSS!!! on this show).
Where to put it: Syndication for daytime, NBC for prime-time
What do you think? [/quote]
Sounds like a good proposal to me. I don't think inflating to ten times the normal amount on the prime-time version would work; perhaps double the value (start with $40 and each question is worth $10).
There are other ideas. Start with $20 and the value of the questions increase like it did during the original version (hosted by the late Jack Kelly and Joe Garagiola).
The fame game idea I like. The way it should always be actually by having the player pick a number instead of stopping a flashing light like it did before.
The speedround of course has to be in there.
And of course the grandaddy of them all... the shopping part. Its been a part of this game show for years; and yeah the winner's board was fun to watch during the Jim Perry days.
Egg-crate displays? Absolutely. Its the best known game show display around.
Jim Perry as host -- not sure if he would do it... he is retired now. Peter Tomarken, sure; I like him. Todd Newton, absolutely. Bob Goen, yes.
Summer Bartholomew as hosted, you betcha. Of course there are others like Stacey from Lingo, any of the Price Is Right models would work out too.
Burton Richardson and Charlie O'Donnell are good choices. Charlie I think should've been the voice of $OTC instead of Don Morrow after Jay Stewart left. You certainly can't rule out Randy West or even Rich Fields.
NBC, yes. Syndication, if there's room for it to compete with Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy!, yes.
-
[quote name=\'gshowguy\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 10:38 AM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 12:33 PM\'] [quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\' Aug 18 2004, 09:48 AM\']How do you feel about letting ANY of the three players buy an Instant Bargain? I believe that's the way it was on the '69-73 version of the show.[/quote]
Horrifyingly bad idea. Neumms hit the nail on the head, if the scores are 65-60-15 going into the second Instant Bargain, who do you think is gonna make a beeline for the buzzer the second the price is announced? [/quote]
It was also that way in Great Britain's version. [/quote]
Doesn't make it a good idea. Perhaps there is a REASON that wasn't adapted for the US show.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 12:40 PM\'] [quote name=\'gshowguy\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 10:38 AM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 12:33 PM\'] [quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\' Aug 18 2004, 09:48 AM\']How do you feel about letting ANY of the three players buy an Instant Bargain? I believe that's the way it was on the '69-73 version of the show.[/quote]
Horrifyingly bad idea. Neumms hit the nail on the head, if the scores are 65-60-15 going into the second Instant Bargain, who do you think is gonna make a beeline for the buzzer the second the price is announced? [/quote]
It was also that way in Great Britain's version. [/quote]
Doesn't make it a good idea. Perhaps there is a REASON that wasn't adapted for the US show. [/quote]
Don't forget about the Aussie version. Even they didn't use the idea of all three contestants buying the IBs. I don't think the concept of all three players buying an IB was also used on the German and New Zealand $otCs. I'm not sure about very rare versions from Greece, Hong Kong, and Paraguay, however.
-
I've pointed this out before, since I was around back then, but I can point it out again: In the original Kelly/Joe G. version, all three contestants could buy any Instant Bargain at any time if they could afford it--they didn't have to be in the lead. The rule that you had to be in the lead to buy an Instant Bargain was part of the changes that Grundy made for his 70s unauthorized version of "$OTC" called "Temptation" and stayed in after he bought the show and revamped it in the 80s.
And all three players could buy an Instant Bargain any time it was offered back in the original UK version.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 03:50 PM\'] And all three players could buy an Instant Bargain any time it was offered back in the original UK version. [/quote]
Yup. We all know that they could do that, even if they did have the 2nd-greatest open to any version of $OTC from around the globe:
(cue drumroll, and John Benson): "And now, from Norwich... it's the Quiz of the Week!"
The greatest open? "Today, on the world's richest quiz...", from the Australian version, as spoken by Pete Smith (and Ron Neate in the first ten episodes).
I would actually use "The world's richest quiz!" in the open to my revival of $OTC for US television.
-
Maybe I am wrong, but wasn't the US version from the 80's, the only one to have the echo in the open? If so, that's my favorite.
-
Don't forget about the Aussie version. Even they didn't use the idea of all three contestants buying the IBs.
I've got the 15th-anniversary show of the Aussie "Sale" on tape, and I'm sure there's another rule they had/have: if the two players in the lead are TIED at the end of the game, then the third place player wins.
For those of you who also have that on tape, am I seeing things - or were those the actual rules?
-
76 lines of worthless minuate removed
Talk about bandwith waste. Good grief.
Anyhow, here's my idea for "Sale"
Use the 1985 rules, complete with swingers--to get those younger demographics. As for a host, I think this would be good for someone like Kenny Mayne--but I doubt he'd ever leave ESPN.
Maybe I am wrong, but wasn't the US version from the 80's, the only one to have the echo in the open? If so, that's my favorite.
Echo's don't make a gameshow better. Just ask Doug Davidson.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Aug 20 2004, 11:57 AM\'] I've got the 15th-anniversary show of the Aussie "Sale" on tape, and I'm sure there's another rule they had/have: if the two players in the lead are TIED at the end of the game, then the third place player wins.
For those of you who also have that on tape, am I seeing things - or were those the actual rules? [/quote]
I think you're just daydreaming. If there was a tie for first place between two people at the end, I would assume Tony (or Glenn in the later years) would read a sudden-death tiebreaker question, and the first to ring-in with the correct answer would win. The third place player winning is just bogus.
-
You could say the same about letting everyone buy instant bargains on the UK run. Doesn't change the fact that it happened. Don't know about the rule mentioned though.
EDIT: I have contacted Chris Powney about the rule, and I will let you guys know what he says. If anyone is wondering BTW, I happen to know him because the two of us are in the process of a tape trade.
-
The word puzzle game does not make me uncomfy. Besides, it ain't got as much anti-climanticism as much as the orginial final-three question set that was used on the premire episode. Not to mention more at-home playability than the Instant Bargains.
-
The WBMG was the only bonus round I really remember, but I don't think it really fit in.
BTW, is $OTC going to return to the Nine Network in Australia soon? If so, then I know who might host it. It's either John Burgess or Daryl Somers. I'm not sure who's going to be hostess, though. I think Pete Smith might return to the announcer's booth, but if not, hopefully someone like Simon Watt (announcer on the Aussie Double Dare) doesn't replace him.
-
Got a response from Chris, here is what he said:
I've never heard of that rule before. In the case where there was a tie
between the two leading players at the end of the game - they used to
play a
"Who Am I" question to break the deadlock. The first with the correct
answer
would win (or in the case of an incorrect answer - the other player
would
take the title).
There you go. Hope that gets rid of the confusion.
-
Thanks! I knew a 3rd place player winning the game was a silly rule, and that would've never happened on any game show.
Also, here's another idea I'd use (keeping the rules)
Set: Someone had the idea of combining the '80s US set with the recent Aussie set. I think that's a better idea.
Host: Now that I look at him, maybe John O'Hurley isn't such a bad idea after all for a host. After all people have mentioned him as a good host.
Hostess: Gotta bring Summer Bartholomew back.
Announcer: I was going to say Burton Richardson, but he seems to be busy with announcing the Feud. I'd stick with Charlie-O on that one (I could just picture him giving a long emphasis on the cash prize and introducing John).
And here's my proposed opening spiel:
"Today, on the world's richest quiz, we're offering a (car make and model) worth $xx,xxx for $385! A (just-as-expensive prize) worth $x,xxx for $31! And a trip to (vacation name) worth $xx,xxx for $103! Three of the biggest bargains on...
(echo) $ALE OF THE CENTURY!!!!!!
And now, here's the host of our show, John O'Hurley!!!"
And for special weeks (there will be few):
Over 65 Challenge - Seniors over the age of 65 compete on this show
Teen/College week - Teenagers (16-19) and college students compete
Lovebirds week - Dating and married couples compete
International Tournament - This would have contestants from all over the countries that have aired $otC before (USA, Australia, UK, New Zealand, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, and Paraguay). They take part in this tournament over a month, and the last person standing wins a check for $100,000 and a new car (like a new Corvette). And who should present the check but someone like Reg Grundy, for example.
-
[quote name=\'gshowguy\' date=\'Aug 23 2004, 09:51 AM\'] International Tournament - This would have contestants from all over the countries that have aired $otC before (USA, Australia, UK, New Zealand, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, and Paraguay). They take part in this tournament over a month, and the last person standing wins a check for $100,000 and a new car (like a new Corvette). And who should present the check but someone like Reg Grundy, for example. [/quote]
Assuming he's still alive, last thing I heard about Reg Grundy is that he is enjoing total retirement in the Bahamas. He stopped producing game shows here in the US after the raging success of 1996's "Small Talk".
Your revival idea is totaly stupid, but that shouldn't surprise me if it's comming from you.
-Joe R.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 11:24 AM\'] [quote name=\'gshowguy\' date=\'Aug 18 2004, 06:59 AM\'] but I think I would try a veteran of the game show element, like Peter Tomarken. [/quote]
Peter reads "just OK". He's not a fast reader, and he trips over his tongue when he tries to be. You HAVE to have a fast question reader on that show, which is why it worked so well with Jim Perry. O'Hurley is both fast and clear. As is our own Matt Ottinger. :)
[/quote]
Good points. Would Split Second, for example, have worked with Bill Cullen or Pat Sajak at the helm?
Re: Joe Garagiola -- the man's 78 years old, and has hosted precisely one game show in the last 30 years (for a single season).
-
[quote name=\'calliaume\' date=\'Aug 23 2004, 09:27 PM\'] Re: Joe Garagiola -- the man's 78 years old, and has hosted precisely one game show in the last 30 years (for a single season). [/quote]
Two--To Tell the Truth and Strike it Rich.
-
[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Aug 23 2004, 08:49 PM\'] [quote name=\'calliaume\' date=\'Aug 23 2004, 09:27 PM\'] Re: Joe Garagiola -- the man's 78 years old, and has hosted precisely one game show in the last 30 years (for a single season). [/quote]
Two--To Tell the Truth and Strike it Rich. [/quote]
What about HE SAID SHE SAID? Not to mention the ever popular JOE GARAGIOLA'S MEMORY GAME? Not to also mention succeeding Jack Kelly on the original $otC?
EDIT: Oh, they said last 30 years. Gosh, I gotta get these glasses fixed.
Doug -- and the countdown to 600 continues (<Magenta> not for very much longer <end/Magenta>)
-
Is there anything DECENT you'd like to see in my revival?
-
[quote name=\'gshowguy\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 11:18 AM\'] Is there anything DECENT you'd like to see in my revival? [/quote]
Yes. Plenty of commercials to drown out the show.
-
[quote name=\'gshowguy\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 08:18 AM\'] Is there anything DECENT you'd like to see in my revival? [/quote]
O'Hurley. But that's pretty much it.