-
A person who tried out for season 5 just told me that Lingo will be adding a rolling jackpot this season. If you draw a Lingo on your first ball, you get $10,000 PLUS $1,000 for each day not won. Shandi and everything will return for the new season. They also have some special weeks lined up because of the Lingo Online ToC. Everthing is here. (http://\"http://buzzerblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/lingo-adds-rolling-jackpot.html\")
-
[quote name=\'buzzerblog.com\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 3:39 AM\']I think Lingo finally found it's set image and can easily turn away doubters that it is the best original of GSN's history.[/quote]
Most successful original? Without a doubt.
Best? I'll be a doubter of that one for a *long* while....
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 07:08 AM\']A person who tried out for season 5 just told me that Lingo will be adding a rolling jackpot this season. If you draw a Lingo on your first ball, you get $10,000 PLUS $1,000 for each day not won. Shandi and everything will return for the new season. They also have some special weeks lined up because of the Lingo Online ToC. Everthing is here. (http://\"http://buzzerblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/lingo-adds-rolling-jackpot.html\")
[snapback]104700[/snapback]
[/quote]
They won't be having returning champions I take it? Won't this become the first show in the modern era to have a progressive jackpot but no returning champions.
-
You think if this flies, they might (finally) consider returning champions? I remember a lot of people bitching about Whammy not having returning champs.
-
This was unnecessary, but at least they can attempt to run shows in order now.
But this will not make me watch Lingo religiously. There are still a few problems (mostly cosmetic) with the game that need to be fixed. I'm surprised for a show that's been on for several years that by now they'd realize something's wrong.
-
What would you change, cosmetically or otherwise?
-
From a business model , i'd be curious to know two things...
1. What does another run cost GSN to do? In today's world of producing cable programming cheaply, the overhead can't be too much.
And if so....then
2. Why doesn't GSN use this business model to create other inexpensive (cheap) productions. Play a game, knock out 65 eps over 10 days, develop a relatively inexpensive prize budget, and program their early evening dayparts with em?
They were doing so well with RR/FoF/Whammy/Wintuiition.... granted, they were flawed game shows, but they were inexpensive to produce....
-
Yeah, looking back, I should have put "easily the most successful", because I still feel that Russian Roulette was the best. I'll find out about returning champs today. Other than that, Lingo is seriously about set for me. Money in the front game and an updated graphic package would be nice, but beyond that, it's finally good for me.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 07:53 AM\']They won't be having returning champions I take it? Won't this become the first show in the modern era to have a progressive jackpot but no returning champions.
[/quote]
You mean you don't know? And just what is "the modern era"? Anyhow...
What would you change, cosmetically or otherwise?
Well, you asked...
The set is unfriendly. It's hard on the eyes.
I discussed this at length, off-board with another member, and we both agreed that they need scoreboards on the set; having to show those graphic overlays is a waste of time.
I would also erase the 18-34 age restriction, as well as get rid of the good looking chumps; replacing them
While from a viewers standpoint, I see why they have a model, but I don't see how this adds anything to the game, besides a pair of boobs.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 10:57 AM\']2. Why doesn't GSN use this business model to create other inexpensive (cheap) productions. Play a game, knock out 65 eps over 10 days, develop a relatively inexpensive prize budget, and program their early evening dayparts with em? [/quote]
When they change the name to "Matt's GSN", you and I can be co-owners because we're on exactly the same page. That and, you know, the whole "Matt" thing.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 07:53 AM\']Won't this become the first show in the modern era to have a progressive jackpot but no returning champions.
[snapback]104703[/snapback]
[/quote]
Nay. Greed did it for a month or so during its mini-series period as did Who Wants To Be A Millionaire for a few months.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 03:54 PM\']
What would you change, cosmetically or otherwise?
Well, you asked...
The set is unfriendly. It's hard on the eyes.
I discussed this at length, off-board with another member, and we both agreed that they need scoreboards on the set; having to show those graphic overlays is a waste of time.[/quote]
I agree that having on-set score displays would be a good idea, but other than that, the season 4 set is A-OK in my book, as is the music.
I would also erase the 18-34 age restriction, as well as get rid of the good looking chumps; replacing them
While it would be nice to mix it up and have older contestants on the show, I understand that they're trying to go for a youthful image. And in my opinion, this method is much more effective and less annoying than resorting to shock value or "DOUBLE THE POINTS"-type schtick. I do think they should make more of an effort to find smarter contestants in this age group, however, and I know that wouldn't be an impossible task.
While from a viewers standpoint, I see why they have a model, but I don't see how this adds anything to the game, besides a pair of boobs.
[snapback]104740[/snapback]
Again, this goes along with the youthful vibe they're going for, and while I agree that Shandi doesn't add much to the game, I don't think she really detracts from it either.
I really think that the show is near perfection at this point. The rolling jackpot is a great idea and I can't wait to see it executed. Returning champions and dollars in the main game would be great, but Lingo as it stands is still a very solid show all the way in my book.
-
A rolling jackpot would be completely against the way they do reruns of the show currently. They'd have to do the 65 shows in specific order over and over like they do with classics. I think this would create a lot more noticeable rerun abuse since they'll be airing the shows in the same order over and over.
-
[quote name=\'FeudDude\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 03:46 PM\']Returning champions and dollars in the main game would be great
[snapback]104745[/snapback]
[/quote]
I can cope with the main game being played for points, but I'd rather (since the shows will be playing in order with the top prize now being escalated for each non-win of it) that the victory point be a set amount. That way Chuck and Shandi can do their rehearsed spontaneity routine and it doesn't take away from potential catch-up time. If it straddles, it straddles and two new teams are brought on at mid-show the next day following Bonus Lingo.
While returning champs would please me, if a pair like Ben and Josh were to come along compared to the usual contestant ilk, they'd posssibly go on to break Ian Lygo's winning streak record.
-
With an escalating jackpot causing the show to air in order, this seems like the best opportunity to straddle the show. Maybe make it a best of three matchup. I mean, why complain about continuity when you have the continuing jackpot?
As for the Pair-O-Matt's idea, I likes.
-
Maybe make it a best of three matchup.
Oop. Why didn't I think of that? I always figured you play to one card or to a point goal, but this works. Now, do you give both teams a new card after one Lingos, or do you let the losing team keep theirs and have the other work for the second victory off a new board?
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 04:26 PM\']
Maybe make it a best of three matchup.
Oop. Why didn't I think of that? I always figured you play to one card or to a point goal, but this works. Now, do you give both teams a new card after one Lingos, or do you let the losing team keep theirs and have the other work for the second victory off a new board?
-Jason
[snapback]104751[/snapback]
[/quote]
Hmmm...I think to be fair, sweep the board and have both teams start over. If you were only one ball from a Lingo, oh well what the hell. ;-)
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 01:26 PM\']Oop. Why didn't I think of that? I always figured you play to one card or to a point goal, but this works. Now, do you give both teams a new card after one Lingos, or do you let the losing team keep theirs and have the other work for the second victory off a new board?
[/quote]
The only reason to make it best-of-three is to lengthen the game, right? Wiping the board would make the game, on average, take one length of time, while allowing the "losing" team to keep theirs would take it a different (shorter) amount of time.
So there's no right answer here, save to say that it would depend on how long you want your front game to take. One is a true best-of-three match, and the other is a sprint to two Lingos. Frankly, and with no idea how long either system would take, I like the idea of the sprint to two better, because I think it would keep both teams in the game and competitive longer. And it's easier to hack for time. You need a little longer game? Make it a sprint to three. Playing best-of-X makes it harder to gauge the average length of a game, where I think you will get more meaningful data using a straight sprint system.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 03:09 PM\'][quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 10:57 AM\']2. Why doesn't GSN use this business model to create other inexpensive (cheap) productions. Play a game, knock out 65 eps over 10 days, develop a relatively inexpensive prize budget, and program their early evening dayparts with em? [/quote]
When they change the name to "Matt's GSN", you and I can be co-owners because we're on exactly the same page. That and, you know, the whole "Matt" thing.
[snapback]104742[/snapback]
[/quote]
See...Now we're offseting the costs by splitting them...Any other Matt's out there so that we can go third-sies?
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 12:54 PM\']While returning champs would please me, if a pair like Ben and Josh were to come along compared to the usual contestant ilk, they'd posssibly go on to break Ian Lygo's winning streak record.
[snapback]104747[/snapback]
[/quote]
Our streak would not have lasted too long... I would of lost the game by spelling "ZESTY"
A smidge off-topic... anyone know why they haven't shown a few episodes yet? But my highly unofficial count, they still have 5 "new shows" to air.
Josh
-
"Lingo" has been fixing non-problems for years, as well as not dealing with the problems it has as a game. I can understand the latter, since Lingo isn't aimed at people who pay more attention to things like game mechanics and the like.
But what does a progressive jackpot do? Just like on "Super Password," a team can swoop in one day, claim a $25,000 jackpot, and leave afterward. (And since Lingo doesn't have returning winners, that's precisely what will happen.) The next two teams get to play for $10,000, not having had a chance at the big money. Additionally, I assume they're basing the jackpot on a one-ball Lingo, which is all about luck, and nothing about skill. Blech.
They haven't played for cash ever, and they still do the 'scoreboard' overlay, so that doesn't tick me off. And it's their show, they can put on sorority girls and surfer dudes who will win $400 in the bonus round; obviously that's what GSN's audience wants to see. I just don't get the reasoning behind the jackpot, is all.
-
[quote name=\'matchgame\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 07:32 PM\']A smidge off-topic... anyone know why they haven't shown a few episodes yet? But my highly unofficial count, they still have 5 "new shows" to air.
[/quote]
Something to do with a promotion/sweepstakes that is Hawaiian based...the original sponsor pulled out on them, so GSN is waiting until something comes through to do it...this was told to me by a reputable source.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 05:16 PM\']See...Now we're offseting the costs by splitting them...Any other Matt's out there so that we can go third-sies?
[snapback]104762[/snapback]
[/quote]
I'm known more as Matthew, but I can make an exception here. I'm in! ;-)
-
I would have liked to have seen them do another ToC instead, this time for $50,000 in cash. But this suits me just fine.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 05:00 PM\'][quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 01:26 PM\']Oop. Why didn't I think of that? I always figured you play to one card or to a point goal, but this works. Now, do you give both teams a new card after one Lingos, or do you let the losing team keep theirs and have the other work for the second victory off a new board?
[/quote]
The only reason to make it best-of-three is to lengthen the game, right? Wiping the board would make the game, on average, take one length of time, while allowing the "losing" team to keep theirs would take it a different (shorter) amount of time.
So there's no right answer here, save to say that it would depend on how long you want your front game to take. One is a true best-of-three match, and the other is a sprint to two Lingos. Frankly, and with no idea how long either system would take, I like the idea of the sprint to two better, because I think it would keep both teams in the game and competitive longer. And it's easier to hack for time. You need a little longer game? Make it a sprint to three. Playing best-of-X makes it harder to gauge the average length of a game, where I think you will get more meaningful data using a straight sprint system.
[snapback]104756[/snapback]
[/quote]
If they wanted, they could go back to the original format.
For the uninitiated, they started with 7 covered numbers instead of 10. That made it a little long there. Then there's the prize balls. Takes a little longer.
Worth a thought, anyway.
Okay, back to my post at G&B.
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' date=\'Dec 14 2005, 11:27 PM\']I would have liked to have seen them do another ToC instead, this time for $50,000 in cash. But this suits me just fine.
[snapback]104793[/snapback]
[/quote]
You should try out. You and your buddy from Brunswick Lanes. I'll warrant you're exactly what they're looking for.
-
To elaberate on the promotional thing, those shows had a Hawiian theme to it. According to what I saw at buzzerblog.com, 10 episodes from this season were "held over" not 5. We'll see what happens if & when they decide to show those.
-
Actually, I do believe six episodes have yet to be seen in the current season.
-
There's either 5 or 10. There is a special Hawaiian week(s) that are waiting a bit before airing. They are showing them at the tryouts for series 5, however.