Author Topic: Game Show Marathon Commercial during Survivor Reunion Show (Read 58822 times)

clemon79 · « **Reply #105 on:** May 27, 2006, 04:43:42 PM »

I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that we're gonna have a few folks (and in THIS case the word "otaku" probably applies) who are gonna race to their keyboards to bitch about any "inconsistencies" they may find in the set designs. I can think of two reasons they might do this:[list=1]

They want to show off how much they know about the original show.
They're utter morons.

And there really isn't a lot we can do about it, aside from hope that the producers of this project know the same thing that the Star Trek folks have to: any niche interest has an ample supply of complete jackholes who are never gonna be satisfied unless you can read their mind and reproduce the exact vision they are expecting. And that's impossible.

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #106 on:** May 27, 2006, 04:47:41 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'119609\' date=\'May 27 2006, 01:43 PM\']
I can think of two reasons they might do this:[list=1]

They want to show off how much they know about the original show.
They're utter morons.

[/quote]

3. They are trolls.

joshg · « **Reply #107 on:** May 27, 2006, 05:27:17 PM »

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'119603\' date=\'May 27 2006, 09:09 AM\']
[quote name=\'WhammyPower\' post=\'119600\' date=\'May 27 2006, 08:29 AM\']
Oh great, it's modeled from the Eubanks set.
[/quote]
Think of it instead as the Rafferty set.
[/quote]

Not meaning to spoil the fun of the trhead, but it ain't the Eubanks set, believe me. You notice these things when you actually go to the taping. Also, the Perry neon "Card Sharks" sign was reproduced in the same font as the original. So, I wish you would step back from that ledge my friend... You could cut ties with all the lies, that you've been living in.

Hoping not to spoil another outcome, anyone wonder why they are calling the MG show "Match Game 73"?

Jeremy Nelson · « **Reply #108 on:** May 27, 2006, 06:16:29 PM »

Let me take a stab...

1. The writers are so horrible that they weren't even good enough to produce any questions which modeled the racy, edgy, yet laugh worthy material from 74-79. In turn, they came up with the "plain vanilla" 4 word questions from 1973 (John saw Mary's BLANK).

2. Don't tell me that they're going to pull a '98 and try to pass $5000 off as "big money"

3. Or, on the practical side, maybe just because the best incarnation of the show began in 73, hence the name.

clemon79 · « **Reply #109 on:** May 27, 2006, 06:22:55 PM »

[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'119615\' date=\'May 27 2006, 03:16 PM\']
1. The writers are so horrible that they weren't even good enough to produce any questions which modeled the racy, edgy, yet laugh worthy material from 74-79. In turn, they came up with the "plain vanilla" 4 word questions from 1973 (John saw Mary's BLANK).
[/quote]
Are you basing this off of any truth whatsoever, or is this entirely ex rectum?

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #110 on:** May 27, 2006, 06:26:21 PM »

I don't believe he was attempting to state a fact...

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #111 on:** May 27, 2006, 06:39:19 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'119616\' date=\'May 27 2006, 03:22 PM\']
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'119615\' date=\'May 27 2006, 03:16 PM\']
1. The writers are so horrible that they weren't even good enough to produce any questions which modeled the racy, edgy, yet laugh worthy material from 74-79. In turn, they came up with the "plain vanilla" 4 word questions from 1973 (John saw Mary's BLANK).
[/quote]
Are you basing this off of any truth whatsoever, or is this entirely ex rectum?
[/quote]
Is speculation considered ex-rectum if it is acknowledged as such?

clemon79 · « **Reply #112 on:** May 27, 2006, 06:52:11 PM »

[quote name=\'whoserman\' post=\'119618\' date=\'May 27 2006, 03:39 PM\']
Is speculation considered ex-rectum if it is acknowledged as such?
[/quote]
Whether it's speculation or not, it strikes me that he's making an assumption that the writers for this thing are gonna blow. I'm asking if he knows something I don't, or if he's just guessing.

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #113 on:** May 27, 2006, 07:04:42 PM »

I think he's just throwing it out as a possibility.

Jeremy Nelson · « **Reply #114 on:** May 27, 2006, 10:42:54 PM »

I work as an intern for ABC Chicago, so I don't know anymore than any of you...just throwing out a very improbable suggestion. I'd be just as surprised as any of you if I was right.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #115 on:** May 27, 2006, 10:44:40 PM »

I can say with firsthand knowledge that at least one of the writers is a former Usenetter who totally "gets" whatever classic format they'd care to throw at him.

Whike I saw Coaster's speculation as just that, it is somewhat disheartening that with no knowledge one way or the other, the first instinct is to go for the most negative possibility. It's also ludicrous speculation. This show is being produced for the masses, and the masses are going to expect humorous questions. In fact, there are probably only a few fringe dwellers like us who even remember that the questions were ever any other way.

If they really are using the '73 nomenclature (and again, I haven't seen the spots) it's probably because nostalgia is a big part of the draw here, people are going to remember the '7X business, and it would be preposterous to call the show "Match Game '7X", so they went with the first-season title.

Jeremy Nelson · « **Reply #116 on:** May 27, 2006, 11:06:36 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'119624\' date=\'May 27 2006, 09:44 PM\']
Whike I saw Coaster's speculation as just that, it is somewhat disheartening that with no knowledge one way or the other, the first instinct is to go for the most negative possibility. It's also ludicrous speculation.
[/quote]
Alright, so it WAS a jackass remark. I just hope nobody actually took it seriously. I mean, since when have I ever been the go-to person for breaking game show news?

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'119624\' date=\'May 27 2006, 09:44 PM\']
In fact, there are probably only a few fringe dwellers like us who even remember that the questions were ever any other way.
[/quote]
True. Besides, it would be silly for them to use a question format that worked for one year, rather than the format that kept them on the air for the next eight years.

tvwxman · « **Reply #117 on:** May 28, 2006, 06:11:52 AM »

[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'119626\' date=\'May 27 2006, 11:06 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'119624\' date=\'May 27 2006, 09:44 PM\']
Whike I saw Coaster's speculation as just that, it is somewhat disheartening that with no knowledge one way or the other, the first instinct is to go for the most negative possibility. It's also ludicrous speculation.
[/quote]
Alright, so it WAS a jackass remark. I just hope nobody actually took it seriously. I mean, since when have I ever been the go-to person for breaking game show news?
[/quote]

Never.

Here's a clue kid. Since you work in a newsroom (and a decent one at that), ask the reporters there how often they've done a live shot where they've speculated facts?

Read more, type less, learn lots. Type more, learn less, irritate more, join Adam Kliest.

Don Howard · « **Reply #118 on:** May 28, 2006, 10:44:53 AM »

Show of hands, please. How many of us are simply going to watch these shows and bask in the game glow without critiquing the flow of the chase lights, et. al.?

SRIV94 · « **Reply #119 on:** May 28, 2006, 11:55:27 AM »

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'119634\' date=\'May 28 2006, 09:44 AM\']
Show of hands, please. How many of us are simply going to watch these shows and bask in the game glow without critiquing the flow of the chase lights, et. al.?
[/quote]
Ask Mr. Owl.