Author Topic: joker... Joker... and Syndication (Read 10276 times)

Strikerz04 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 01, 2006, 11:09:13 PM »

[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'125900\' date=\'Aug 1 2006, 10:43 AM\']

KW's first natural target would be the CBS-owned stations. Since WBBM's still quadruple-pumping (yes, I said quadruple-pumping) "Judge Judy" every afternoon--and they haven't announced any pickups for this coming season--there's room for new shows in the afternoon and "TJW" and "Lock" could do it.
[/quote]

If all else fails, MyTv50/WPWR can always take out that extra block of "Springer" (unless that'll be replaced this fall)

Joe Mello · « **Reply #31 on:** August 02, 2006, 12:51:18 AM »

[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'125900\' date=\'Aug 1 2006, 11:43 AM\']
I'm hoping that Friedman will keep the basic format and just pretty it up to make it look 2006. I suspect that the major tweaking will be to have a game play out in a half-hour, so they can avoid straddling. (I have doubts about whether there'll be returning champs, but that could still happen.)[/quote]

I think between DoND, H2, and Millionaire, straddling has been made cooler again. I expect that champions will be used, at least for awhile (I think the champions dropped from Wheel because of the newer presentations of the show and that the show is just too damn popular).

From the minimal amount of shows I've seen, I'm thinking you could easily fit a game and a half of classic TJW in a half-hour. I'm willing to believe the straddling (if any) will parallel Millionaire and syndie Match Game in that there will be some carryovers, but never on the day's last taping (Friday shows).

TLEberle · « **Reply #32 on:** August 02, 2006, 01:44:49 AM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'125993\' date=\'Aug 1 2006, 09:51 PM\']I think between DoND, H2, and Millionaire, straddling has been made cooler again. I expect that champions will be used, at least for awhile (I think the champions dropped from Wheel because of the newer presentations of the show and that the show is just too damn popular).
[/quote]I have never understood how a show's popularity has had Thing One to do with whether it had returning champions. The Price Is Right has been number one for years, and the last time it had a returning champion was when Bill Cullen was host. I'm not entirely sold on "We canned returning champions because so many people were trying out" either, because if you have a three-day limit on winners, you're still going through 12 contestants a week. So three more people get a chance to spin the wheel. Yee haw.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #33 on:** August 02, 2006, 11:34:20 AM »

*shrug* I don't know. It's just my opinion. I also think now that theme weeks are such a big part of Wheel now that a returning champion seems clunky. And, I don't know about everyone else, but having a Friday Finals every week just seemed weird.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #34 on:** August 02, 2006, 12:47:51 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'125997\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 01:44 AM\']I have never understood how a show's popularity has had Thing One to do with whether it had returning champions. [/quote]
See: Jennings, Ken
See also: McKee, Thom

There is certainly something to be said for home viewers having a rooting interest (one way or the other) in a defending champion. It's not the be-all-end-all answer to everything, but neither is it completely meaningless.

Also "returning champions" and "straddling" are not necessarily the same thing. A lot of game shows would work better as games if they were allowed to play out to their natural conclusions instead of to a time limit. Whether doing that would make them better shows is certainly open to debate; there are plenty of pros and cons either way.

TLEberle · « **Reply #35 on:** August 03, 2006, 01:39:21 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'126039\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 09:47 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'125997\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 01:44 AM\']I have never understood how a show's popularity has had Thing One to do with whether it had returning champions. [/quote]
See: Jennings, Ken
See also: McKee, Thom[/quote]These are certainly special cases. While "Wheel of Fortune" would be a damn lot more interesting if you could watch someone rack up twenty or more wins, I was talking about comparing a show where there are returning champions at all (Jeopardy) or not (Wheel of Fortune). A show being popular and a show having returning champions are exclusive.

Quote

There is certainly something to be said for home viewers having a rooting interest (one way or the other) in a defending champion. It's not the be-all-end-all answer to everything, but neither is it completely meaningless.

Absolutely. I was a big fan of "Hollywood Squares" going to the five-day limit in 1999, for many of the reasons that you mentioned, but I will boldly claim that the show would have gone on just as long as it did if you had two new players every night.

Neumms · « **Reply #36 on:** August 03, 2006, 01:11:12 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'126039\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 11:47 AM\']
A lot of game shows would work better as games if they were allowed to play out to their natural conclusions instead of to a time limit. Whether doing that would make them better shows is certainly open to debate; there are plenty of pros and cons either way.
[/quote]

There's no reason to think that Friedmann is against returning champs--on "Pyramid," the appeal of switching the celebrities everyday outweighed the appeal of returning champs. "Hollywood Squares," in my view, watching them currenly on GSN, is that 2-out-of-3 matches aren't as good as playing until time runs out, because the show isn't as good that way. (And especially on the Squares, the show is more important than the game.)

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #37 on:** August 03, 2006, 02:00:20 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'126162\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 01:11 PM\']
on "Pyramid," the appeal of switching the celebrities everyday outweighed the appeal of returning champs.
[/quote]
I could get behind that if there had been any reason at all to care about the celebrities that played. Honestly, and I think I mentioned this before, I once tuned in to see four attractive people playing, and I had NO IDEA which two were the celebrities. And I consider myself pretty up on pop culture.

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'126162\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 01:11 PM\']
"Hollywood Squares," in my view, watching them currenly on GSN, is that 2-out-of-3 matches aren't as good as playing until time runs out, because the show isn't as good that way. (And especially on the Squares, the show is more important than the game.)[/quote]
I grudgingly go along with this. Certainly it worked for years with Marshall and the "tacky buzzer". Still, I'm not seeing how the show part is particularly hurt by straddling. Seems with a more relaxed pace, there would be even more opportunity for wacky celebrity hijinks.

Casey · « **Reply #38 on:** August 03, 2006, 03:11:48 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'126119\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 12:39 AM\']
While "Wheel of Fortune" would be a damn lot more interesting if you could watch someone rack up twenty or more wins <snip>
[/quote]
I submit Wheel would be a damn lot more interesting if they had more gameplay and less graphics and in-game ads (tonight's $350 space is brought to you by IKEA)... but that's another topic.

I do think returning champs makes a game much more interesting, particularly if you have a compelling contestant to follow like Ken Jennings. It seems rather obvious that the ratings for Jeopardy! bore that out. People like having someone to root for. TPiR is a bit of an anomaly, though it's become such a part of Americana that with or without champs, people would watch it.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #39 on:** August 03, 2006, 03:29:28 PM »

The way Price is set up, there's no place for a returning player. Where would you put them? In fact, very few of the "pick from the audience" shows had returning players (Tresure Hunt being an odd exception)

Remember how all those 70's and early 80's shows had daytime versions with champs and nighttime versions without? Did you think there was a significant difference in the quality between them?

Neumms · « **Reply #40 on:** August 03, 2006, 03:34:50 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'126171\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 01:00 PM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'126162\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 01:11 PM\']
on "Pyramid," the appeal of switching the celebrities everyday outweighed the appeal of returning champs.
[/quote]
I could get behind that if there had been any reason at all to care about the celebrities that played. Honestly, and I think I mentioned this before, I once tuned in to see four attractive people playing, and I had NO IDEA which two were the celebrities. And I consider myself pretty up on pop culture.
[/quote]

No doubt. But that's why they did it, not because they had an axe to grind over carry-over champions.

uncamark · « **Reply #41 on:** August 04, 2006, 05:10:24 PM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'126185\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 02:29 PM\']
The way Price is set up, there's no place for a returning player. Where would you put them? In fact, very few of the "pick from the audience" shows had returning players (Tresure Hunt being an odd exception)

Remember how all those 70's and early 80's shows had daytime versions with champs and nighttime versions without? Did you think there was a significant difference in the quality between them?
[/quote]

And the main reason for that difference was that no one wanted to bicycle the syndicated shows like they did the daytime talk shows like Mike Douglas or Phil Donahue--until B&E did exactly that for "TJW." Also, the syndicated strips or twice-a-weeks were designed so that they could be played as once-a-week shows, which precluded having continuing champions. When satellite distribution took over, the last logistical barriers were dropped and syndicated shows were free to have continuing champions--and did.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #42 on:** August 05, 2006, 12:05:26 AM »

You missed the point, and so I'll make it clearer: Which version was better, daytime or nighttime, or was there no appreciable difference?

Jay Temple · « **Reply #43 on:** August 05, 2006, 01:12:16 AM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'126185\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 02:29 PM\']
The way Price is set up, there's no place for a returning player. Where would you put them?[/quote]
That's not difficult. You put them in as one of the four players on the first IUFB. (You could make a good case for giving them either the first or the last bid.)

Quote

Remember how all those 70's and early 80's shows had daytime versions with champs and nighttime versions without? Did you think there was a significant difference in the quality between them?

Here are the main shows that I remember:
FF Advantage daytime, because Richard could make jokes about things that a contestant on the winning team did the day before.
10/20K v. 25K Pyramid Hard to say. On the daytime version, once you won the big money, you left, so it was hard to root for a defending champion. Worse, on the 20K, I found myself rooting for the winner not to take it all in the 10/15K attempts. OTOH, on both Cullen 25KP and Donnymid, when the two games were split, there was little to root for in the second Winner's Circle.
MG Any difference here would not have been attributable to the defending champions, because that's not what made the show popular.

One thing I never hear discussed about how defending champions affect the show: On syndie Feud, a Fast Money loss meant that a winning family went home with about a grand, end of story. But on any show with defending champions, prior winnings create the illusion of giving away more money. On the 25KP daytime and 100KP, a new player could win his first game and $10,000, appear five days and not hit you up again, but you'd have five days where the recap includes a $10K+ winner.

I suppose the biggest down side of returning champions is coming up with multiple days' worth of small talk.

tjhornikel · « **Reply #44 on:** August 05, 2006, 01:12:31 AM »

First of all, I am celebrating for two reasons. First, is that one of my all time favorite shows is returning. (Duh!) Second, a really good old school ATGSer is getting his reward. Props to you, John!!!

I am liking the fact that Mr. Friedman will be at the reigns. Hopefully, the maingame rules will remain intact. As for the bonus game, how about some inspiration from the current Vegas-like slots we are seeing these days? Would that be too complicated, or could it be done in a fun and slick way?

As far as Combo Lock is concerned, John...I wish you all the best. I also wish you wisdom in balancing the integrity of your awesome game, with the realistic commercial "updates" KW and Sony may wish to bestow upon your game.

In any event, this looks like a potential win/win for we, the starving game show fans.