-
Just got word that in a few months, ill be finally getting digital cable. Finally after so many years of hearing people talk about GSN on here and the old atgs, i finally get to see it regularly. I just looked at the schedule at www.gsn.com...all my excitement of wanting gsn all these years is now gone. The big hoopla about having the 70s HS...gone, TPIR...long gone, Pyramid... gone, even one of the shows that is owned by sony... WOF....gone. No TTTT; no TattleTales.... did they loose all connection with G-T except for 3 or 4 games? Even Bob Stewart shows are few and far between if any. I know years ago when they lost G-T shows, it was considered the Dark Period... this is much worse. Yes some of the new shows are not too bad, but where is the raft of game shows they had before. Not even password is on the schedule. Wish there was a way to bring something back atleast. Even if it was just for TPIR, id watch more, but i mean ..... im sorry but in my open onion WOF is far more exciting than J!
Not impressed GSN.
If only TVLand had a game show channel.
Where have all the flowers gone,
Long time passing.
~~~
Mark
-
A Naturally Stoned game show host named Chuck. Opposite of "Right." Spinning Object. Dissect that if you can.
But seriously, GSN pretty much branched out of being a Round-the-clock game show channel and is now known as "GSN: The Network for Games," putting emphasis on all types of games.
-
did they loose all connection with G-T except for 3 or 4 games? Even Bob Stewart shows are few and far between if any. I know years ago when they lost G-T shows, it was considered the Dark Period
No Stewart shows on GSN since $100K Pyramid left the air in June. They air only Feud(one Dawson, one Combs episode) and MG(one each of 1990-91, 1973, 1976, Syndie 79-80, and PM) among GT shows during the day, two black and white shows from 3-4AM EST each night, and a 90 min block of Perry CS, Eubanks CS, and Blockbusters on weekends.
-
They air only Feud(one Dawson, one Combs episode) and MG(one each of 1990-91, 1973, 1976, Syndie 79-80, and PM) among GT shows during the day, two black and white shows from 3-4AM EST each night, and a 90 min block of Perry CS, Eubanks CS, and Blockbusters on weekends.
Which makes seven G-T shows (eight, if you count Perry and Eubanks CS separately) and 25% of all the programming hours. Sounds like a decent representation of the G-T library to me. I know some G-T fans might want 100% of the programming hours, but fans of other shows might want a little time, too.
If only TVLand had a game show channel.
Bingo, as Frank Drebin once said. No other network in this country's TV universe shows decades-old game shows for grownups. There's a reason for that. It's called Nielsen Media Research.
Instead of complaining about GSN, you might want to watch the dozens of hours of classic game shows on the network each week. Because you sure aren't going to see twenty, thirty, forty, fifty-year-old game shows for non-kids anywhere else.
-
Which makes seven G-T shows (eight, if you count Perry and Eubanks CS separately) and 25% of all the programming hours. Sounds like a decent representation of the G-T library to me. I know some G-T fans might want 100% of the programming hours, but fans of other shows might want a little time, too.
When GSN first went on the air, they were probably 75% G-T shows. While I'm grateful that they still run the amount of game shows they do (even if it does pale in comparison to when they first went on the air), right now I'd settle for even *one* Barry-Enright show. Nothing from them has been seen in over three years.
-
I'd stick around. When some of the fad shows start to fade, GSN will have to plug the holes with something and I would bet the tried and true library programming will come back.
-
...right now I'd settle for even *one* Barry-Enright show. Nothing from them has been seen in over three years.
This is the famous matter of taste, about which there is no arguing. I don't like any of the B&E quizzers - TJW, TTD, Bullseye - so I don't care if they're not on the network. I would like to see Scrabble and IGaS on the network, but you can't always get what you want. There are certainly plenty of game shows on GSN that I like to watch.
When some of the fad shows start to fade, GSN will have to plug the holes with something and I would bet the tried and true library programming will come back.
I've seen many versions of this complaint here and on the GSN board. It strikes me as really odd. Haven't you noticed that you've gotten your wish? The reality series and trashdateries (or whatever the Prof calls 'em) are all gone. The network is now about 90% game shows.
Many of those shows have serious age on them: MG, Feud, CS, Blockbusters, PYL, Love Connection, Name's the Same, WML, BtC. Others are younger but certainly no spring chickens: Newlywed Game, Jeopardy, WBSM, WL, Millionaire, Greed. The tried and true library programming looks to be back big time to me. In fact, the only non-GS offerings anywhere on the network are a sports/stunt show, a talent contest, and a rehash of Candid Camera.
Why not celebrate? You've gotten what you wanted. I hate to dump on the Prof right now because of his family problems, but he's the most obvious of the pay-no-attention-to-that-schedule-in-front-of-your-eyes folks. For some reason - well, the reason is Boden's departure - he continues to pretend that GSN is going away from game shows when they hardly show anything else.
-
[quote name=\'Statboy\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 08:42 AM\']I've seen many versions of this complaint here and on the GSN board. It strikes me as really odd. Haven't you noticed that you've gotten your wish? The reality series and trashdateries (or whatever the Prof calls 'em) are all gone. The network is now about 90% game shows.
[/quote]
[quote name=\'Guide_Angel\']Instead of complaining about GSN, you might want to watch the dozens of hours of classic game shows on the network each week. Because you sure aren't going to see twenty, thirty, forty, fifty-year-old game shows for non-kids anywhere else.[/quote]
This is the famous matter of taste, about which there is no arguing. I don't like any of the B&E quizzers - TJW, TTD, Bullseye - so I don't care if they're not on the network.
People should be able to express their opinions without you dumping f****** statistics down our throats every time.
Of course, you're the #1 GSN kissa**, so your usual defense of them doesn't come as a surprise. Did it EVER occur to you people might not like whats on GSN? You don't like Tic Tac Dough or Bullseye. Big damn deal. Some people probably don't care for "Press Your Luck" or "Card Sharks". No one throws criticism your way for not liking B/E shows; you shouldn't throw critcsm at others for not liking GSN. But your views come from the interior of your posterior; so this post probably doesn't make much of a difference.
-
Why use asterisks? Your post would look just as intelligent without them.
I know you have trouble with numbers over two. But 25% and 90% are actually less than one, so even you should be able to handle them. I guess "dozens" is too much for you. It means "groups of twelve." As for "twenty," "thirty," "forty," and "fifty," well, I realize those are way out of your range of understanding. Sorry.
Been married for eighteen years. Don't date. I doubt that you do, either.
Oops, "eighteen" is pretty hard for you. I keep forgetting.
Halfway seriously, you can't refute any of the facts or numbers I give. So you just rant. Very convincing.
-
As opposed to your posts, which lack any intellegence at all.
My posts give facts. Your posts give rants. Enough said.
NOTE: Some of the stuff I'm replying to has been edited out, for folks who might be wondering. There was a comment about my wife and another about Guide Angel. Real "interior of the posterior" stuff that either the moderators or Dsmith himself thought better of.
I'm not an employee of GSN. I have no financial interest in GSN. I don't do any consulting or other work for them. I am interested in trying to be as factual and objective as possible in discussing the network...or any other topic, for that matter.
I fail to see how comments like "dumping f****** statistics down our throats" or "you're the #1 GSN kissa**" or "your views come from the interior of your posterior" add anything constructive to the discussion. This is the a.t.g.s. garbage we were supposed to be getting away from.
I'm no saint. Sometimes I get a little heated in my replies to other posters. I try to be as respectful as possible. Did I ridicule Dsmith a little harshly in my comments about his number sense? Maybe, and I'm sorry for that. But it's hard to let language like the quotes (and even more personal comments about my wife and Guide Angel, which have now been removed) just roll off my back.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 08:25 AM\']People should be able to express their opinions without you dumping f****** statistics down our throats every time.
[snapback]61669[/snapback]
[/quote]
Actually, Casey's dead right here, whereas you look like a petulant child.
Casey doesn't whip out the stats until Yet Another Schmuck comes around and bitches about how "GSN doens't show game shows anymore", at which point he calmly and correctly gives proof that yes, they do. The gripe is never that "GSN doesn't show stuff I like to watch", as he said, that's a personal preference. The argument is that "GSN is dead", which is flat wrong.
Me and Casey might not agree on a lot of aesthetic issues, but he's right here.
-
Most of what I was going to say about Mark's comments has already been expressed quite well by Casey and Chris. (I assume that some of Casey's comments are responses to statements that Mark edited out; they seem a bit out of context otherwise. :-)
But I will add one thing here... reposting nonsense from the GSN boards wasn't appreciated when Adam was doing it, and I'm no more a fan of it now than I was then. If you're using it to make a point, here's a hint: it usually doesn't work. If you're using it to show how stupid you think people are over there, here's a suggestion: DON'T HANG OUT THERE.
-
Hang on a second, guys......
I think what Mark was trying to say (and I don't have the benefit of the edited out comments) is that he is sick and tired (as am I) of Casey trying to justify what GSN does on their board and this board. The way Casey posts, he acts like he is on GSN's payroll whether he is or not. He tries to say that because the ratings are up 28 percent over a time period full of reruns, that means that GSN is getting better. I wholeheartedly disagree. He says that the schedule is about 90 percent game shows. The only first runs right now are the crappy shows like "Celebrity Blackjack" and "Extreme Dodgeball". No new "Lingo"s, or "Russian Roulette"s, or "Whammy"s. And if I'm to believe the Prof ('cause he published it at his website), a fourth season of "Lingo" was either canned or pushed back in favor of a small time poker tournament. GSN is the absolute epitome of progam mismanagement. I don't watch it much now (except for some weekend mornings when there's decent shows.) RIP, Game Show Network 1994-2004.
-
What was a repost? I haven't seen any of these id's on the GSN board...except my own, and I didn't repost anything from there in this thread. I've been a little lazy about that in the past. From now I'll try to "rephrase," as the lawyers say, when I crosspost.
Anyhoo, I just glanced at the GSN schedule starting RIGHT NOW!, as the Fox baseball broadcasts like to shout. Right now (removing the caps lock) we've got Love Connection. Then it's Friend or Foe. Then it's Whammy, MG, Feud, RR, Lingo, WBSM, WL, Millionaire, Dog Eat Dog, Celeb Blackjack, WBSM, Millionaire, Street Smarts, MG, Name's the Same, WML, [okay, infomercials], CS, Blockbusters, H2, MG, PYL, Whammy, Jeopardy, Love Connection, Lingo, MG, Feud, Dog Eat Dog.
Then we finally get to something that Zap2it identifies as not a game show: Dodgeball. Then it's Civvie Blackjack, Celeb Blackjack, WL, Greed, Lingo, Millionaire...
You get the idea. In the next eighteen hours or so you can see many of the best shows the genre has to offer on GSN. And here's the kicker: if GSN went kaput this minute, you could kiss all or almost all of these shows good-bye. If you think that USA and TNT would suddenly start a bidding war for Lingo or WBSM, your thinking is chemically impaired.
Am I kissing GSN's ass? No, I'm seeing what's in front of my face...which is not GSN's ass. This network is the only outlet for many of the classic and original game shows I really like to watch.
Fortunately, the network is probably safer now from going kaput than it's ever been. After the shaky financial times of two-three years ago and the rocky news from Nielsen for much of last year, the network looks to be on pretty firm ground.
And for one more reminder of matters of opinion...
The only first runs right now are the crappy shows like "Celebrity Blackjack" and "Extreme Dodgeball".
I like both those shows. In fact, Celeb Blackjack is one of the best, if not the best original game shows that GSN has ever aired. Interesting and complex gameplay, lively contestants, one competent host and one entertaining host, a nice pace and plenty of humor.
I'll admit that Dodgeball isn't a game show. But it's a closely related competition show that's energetic, fast-paced, funny, and surprisingly athletic.
You're welcome not to like these shows. I'm welcome to enjoy them.
The way Casey posts, he acts like he is on GSN's payroll whether he is or not.
Absolute garbage and provably wrong. Do a search on my posts here or on the GSN board about All New 3's a Crap, Extreme Gag, Love Buttock, Friend or Fart or some of the other abominations GSN has excreted on its audience. For that matter, check my less than favorable comments about oldies like Card Sharks and H2 that GSN continually regurgitates.
But again, these are only my opinions and your mileage may vary.
What I haven't done is constantly and indiscriminately dump on the network. If GSN does something I like, I say so. If they do something I don't like, I say so.
-
My differing points of view with Casey, with all due respect, are his definitions of "classic game shows". I consider shows like MG, FF, NG, Press Your Luck, Blockbusters, and Card Sharks to be "classic game shows", along with the B&W overnight offerings.
To me, classic is something more than, about 10 years old, give or take a bit, on the schedule. WBSM and Street Smarts are not classic game shows to me, and neither are Lingo, Russian Roulette, Whammy, or Friend or Foe. Even "Jeopardy" to me is not a classic on GSN's schedule, as it's fairly new. Neither is Hollywood Squares.
I guess it all depends on your definition of what a "classic game show" is. I'm not treading into the "what is a game show", because I would imagine Casey and I *would* agree on something with that: that it's been beaten to death.
-
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 01:34 PM\']I think what Mark was trying to say (and I don't have the benefit of the edited out comments) is that he is sick and tired (as am I) of Casey trying to justify what GSN does on their board and this board.[/quote]
You don't seem to get it either. Casey is just as entitled to his opinion as you and Mark and anyone else here. The only difference that I see is that your argument (and Mark's and others) are based on emotional reactions to what GSN is doing, and Casey's arguments are based on statistics and facts.
Here are some more facts. GSN started in 1994. Since 1996, we've seen hundreds of messages talking about how GSN is going downhill, or dying altogether. THAT'S what is getting old. GSN is stronger now than it ever was.
If you don't like the station as much as you used to, that's perfectly understandable. If you wish they'd show even more old reruns than they're doing already, I can understand that too. If you don't like their originals, that's your personal preference as well. But to say that they're NOT showing classics, or that they're "getting away" from game shows is simply, provably wrong.
I will not tolerate any more name calling, nor any more typed swearing (regardless of how many asterisks you stick in) just because anyone's opinion is different than that of another poster. I remain incredulous that Casey's opinions set you guys off so much, but any independent audit of this thread would clearly see which responses are rational and which ones are not.
-
In fact, I appreciate the honesty of a time requirement before the nirvana of "classic-ness" is reached. Trouble is, as has been pointed out so often, any time requirement is completely arbitrary. There's no more reason to put the requirement at "ten years or so" than there is at "five years or so" or "twenty years or so" or "8.4572 years or so."
So I tend to distrust any definition of "classic." My infamous and cynical definition of a classic is "any old game show that's not on GSN right now." This always allows people to complain that GSN doesn't show enough classics, even if every show on the network is forty-plus years old.
ESPN Classic has been rerunning its 2003 ALCS special to death. That's a one-year-old "classic."
What GSN does do is run a lot of game shows I like to watch (and a few I could do without). Is every show I want on the network? No, but GSN is not my personal property. Still, it's a pretty good deal for game show freaks like me.
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 01:53 PM\']My differing points of view with Casey, with all due respect, are his definitions of "classic game shows". I consider shows like MG, FF, NG, Press Your Luck, Blockbusters, and Card Sharks to be "classic game shows", along with the B&W overnight offerings.[/quote]
Yes, definitions are tricky and I too get the difference between what we generally consider "classics" and more recent fare that's...well, merely reruns.
So the bottom line is that GSN is currently "only" airing nine or ten series that we would consider "classic". Casey's point is that this is still nine or ten more than we're getting anyplace else. GSN started out as a classics channel because they didn't have a choice. Some people, quite rightfully, still prefer that to the "new" GSN. The bigger point is that those other reruns -- WBSM, Squares, GSN's own repeats -- are game shows too. Just because they're not the ones you personally want to see doesn't make them any less valid a programming option on GSN.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 01:37 PM\']What was a repost? I haven't seen any of these id's on the GSN board...except my own, and I didn't repost anything from there in this thread. I've been a little lazy about that in the past. From now I'll try to "rephrase," as the lawyers say, when I crosspost.
[snapback]61680[/snapback]
[/quote]
I was referring to the quotes in Mark's message, not yours.
That said, if there is legitimate news posted there, or if someone there makes a good point that you'd like to debate here, I obviously don't have a problem with a short quote or a rephrasing... if we were to have a rule that nothing discussed there can be discussed here as well, we'd be pretty limited in our subject matter!
However, when I've seen GSN-board material quoted here, it's typically been either speculation that someone tries to pass off as news (Adam), or a gratuitous "Hey-look-what-someone-posted, isn't-this-ridiculous" comment (Mark). That's the kind of garbage that we really don't need or want here.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 01:57 PM\']I remain incredulous that Casey's opinions set you guys off so much.
[snapback]61682[/snapback]
[/quote]
Hey, Matt... you've been here HOW long? Some people will be set off by just about anything when it comes to game shows. :-)
I'm just waiting for someone to accuse Casey of conspiring with Guide_Angel, Ralph Nader and the Trilateral Commission to keep Tic Tac Dough and The Joker's Wild off GSN's schedule.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 10:37 AM\']I'll admit that Dodgeball isn't a game show. But it's a closely related competition show that's energetic, fast-paced, funny, and surprisingly athletic.
[snapback]61680[/snapback]
[/quote]
That said (and I may be getting off on a bit of a tangent here, but frankly, I think we need to)
...I saw the premier of Extreme Dodgeball Season Two the other day, and noticed five changes that improve the show (and the game) dramatically in my eyes:
1) The teams were traditional uniforms. Not goofy Spandex, not racing silks, not cut-off suits. Regular, plain ol' uniforms. Do you know how much easier it is to take the show a LITTLE more seriously when you don't have to explain away those dumb-ass outfits?
2) The five-second rule. Any team with any two balls can be issued a five-second warning by the ref if they are judged to be delaying the game, with a player to be called out if they don't put a ball over the line by throw or placement during that time. (I saw some games where a player on a team had to walk to the line and put the ball down over it, then pick it up quickly, to reset the clock.)
3) The regeneration target has been replaced by a one-time regeneration clock. Now to get the team back a single player needs only to survive 20 seconds without being eliminated. (Again, I have to wonder if catching a thrown ball (which would get you a teammate back naturally) stops the clock and keeps it available to be used later. I would think it would.)
4) The canned teams from the Original Six were the idiotic ones with the jockeys and the Sumo wrestlers. Everyone on the court has some modicum of athleticism now. No gimmicks.
5) No more Jerri Manthey. 'Nuff said.
At any rate, the show is getting much better, and is definitely worth my time to seek out now.
-
Now that others have admitted it: Extreme Dodgeball has grown on me, too. And I agree with Lemon on the season two changes. Regarding the five-second rule:
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 03:16 PM\']I saw some games where a player on a team had to walk to the line and put the ball down over it, then pick it up quickly, to reset the clock.[snapback]61688[/snapback]
[/quote]
Armed Response captain David Benedetto had that rule licked with that maneuver where he sets down the balls just past the center line. Once an opponent runs for one, he picks it up and takes him out. It really slows down the game, though, and starting next week, he can't do that anymore (the refs will be cracking down on such acts).
Some of the camp is still there, but I agree that the show has greatly improved. I'm just hoping we see interdivision play soon. And as for Celebrity Blackjack, I didn't see the first tournament, but the second is funnier than most of today's sitcoms.
-
Not that I condone all the decisions and programming that GSN has done in recent years, but for those of you who think that GSN is not airing game shows properly, take note.
Back in the mid 80's there were 2 cable channels, CBN & USA. Both had aired blocks of game show reruns. And both channels were not "all game shows all the time".
The majority of those reruns fit into one of the following 2 categories:
1) The shows had recently aired as first run shows elsewhere within the past 5 years.
2) The shows were new shows that were created by the cable channel that aired them.
If you look at the way GSN is running now. The majority of their daily game show programming still fits into one or both of the aforementioned categories.
So for the most part GSN is using the same formula that CBN and USA used back then, except the ingredients are 15 to 20 years newer.
While it might be nice to have things as they were at GSN ten years ago, it probably won't happen there for quite a while -- if ever. However, when game shows were running thin on USA & CBN, a new network took up the slack and went even further into the genre.
Nobody ever thought in 1990 that there would/could be an all-game show channel, but it happened. The same could be said in 2004 -- "There never would/could be *another* game show channel". However, unless you took a ride with Christopher Lloyd in a stainless steel DeLorean recently, who's to say that it can't/won't happen again?
And most people never thought that the Bosox could/would sweep the last 4 games versus the Yanks to take the pennant either!
Tim K.
-
Just checked the Saturday sked for 10/23. Out of 48 half-hour slots only 18 different series are shown. The point about lack of variety is proven valid.
-
Haven't you noticed that you've gotten your wish? The reality series and trashdateries (or whatever the Prof calls 'em) are all gone. The network is now about 90% game shows.
The old GSN is gone and yes, it's sad. I know it's not coming back, but I still wish they'd give the die hard fans SOMETHING more than MG, FF, CS and BB (which all have been rerun to death). I think bringing back a 'game of the week' would be awesome. One half hour a week can't possibly affect the ratings and good grief, they have an ENORMOUS library of shows to pick from.
Just my opinion.
ITSBRY
itsbry@juno.com
-
A network shows 18 different shows in a day, and there's not enough variety?
Sampled the schedules of a few other cable networks today (10/23)...
Discovery's showing 15 different series, Spike 20, Court TV 13, History 20, USA 8.
I don't know, 18 different series looks pretty average. I'd crunch through every cable network, but I don't have five hours to spend.
By the way, Dsmith posted an apology on the Behind the Scenes board. So I'll consider that matter closed.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 02:39 PM\']A network shows 18 different shows in a day, and there's not enough variety?
[snapback]61764[/snapback]
[/quote]
GSN putting double-runs of its shows isn't too bad, compared to what FX does.....They have quadruple-runs of M*A*S*H for example - 4 episodes in 2 hours.
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 03:05 PM\']GSN putting double-runs of its shows isn't too bad, compared to what FX does.....They have quadruple-runs of M*A*S*H for example - 4 episodes in 2 hours.[/quote]
Seriously old news. FX hasn't had M*A*S*H reruns in over a year. Since September, 2003, it's the Hallmark Channel that's been running four-episode blocks -- and they do it twice a day!
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 04:08 PM\']
Seriously old news. FX hasn't had M*A*S*H reruns in over a year. Since September, 2003, it's the Hallmark Channel that's been running four-episode blocks -- and they do it twice a day!
[snapback]61772[/snapback]
[/quote]
My bad there......In any case, though, the logic still applies - no variety!
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 22 2004, 02:16 PM\']1) The teams were traditional uniforms. Not goofy Spandex, not racing silks, not cut-off suits. Regular, plain ol' uniforms. Do you know how much easier it is to take the show a LITTLE more seriously when you don't have to explain away those dumb-ass outfits?
[snapback]61688[/snapback]
[/quote]
That's one thing I don't like. I don't think that the show should be taken so seriously. I think the loss of the specialized uniforms takes a little bit of each teams' personality away with it. Last season, you knew who was playing whom. This year, you just see a red team against a gray team. The expansion teams' uni's look good (like the Reef Sharks and their tank tops), but the classic teams look...odd. Their "regular, plain old uniforms" look... well, regular and plain. Not a good thing.
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 03:42 PM\']Their "regular, plain old uniforms" look... well, regular and plain. Not a good thing.
[snapback]61784[/snapback]
[/quote]
Yeah, because cut-off suits, racing silks, and Shobuns were SO dignified.
This ain't Comedy Central. It's not meant to be funny.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 06:34 PM\'][quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 03:42 PM\']Their "regular, plain old uniforms" look... well, regular and plain. Not a good thing.
[snapback]61784[/snapback]
[/quote]
Yeah, because cut-off suits, racing silks, and Shobuns were SO dignified.
This ain't Comedy Central. It's not meant to be funny.
[snapback]61790[/snapback]
[/quote]
That's funny. I thought the show was supposed to be funny and goofy, especially since it's based on a playground game.
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 10:16 PM\']That's funny. I thought the show was supposed to be funny and goofy, especially since it's based on a playground game.
[snapback]61817[/snapback]
[/quote]
"funny and goofy" <> "light".
Obviously there are some comedy aspects, because as you say, they are doing a serious sports broadcast of a playground game.
But there's "light comedy" and then there is "beating you over the head with it". Obviously GSN has decided they can be intelligent while still being funny, and be more respectful of the athletes, instead of relying on the visual comedy of a Sumo throwing a ball at a midget.
I like it, you don't. Hardly surprising.