'Feud' blocks

[The Pyramids]

As much as I like John O'Hurley I've never become used how the show presents the 3rd. and usually final fourth round in two segements with a commercial in between. I'll always be used to seeing the final 2-3 rounds played in one segment with suspense gradually building up. Anyone think it makes a difference how the rounds are presented?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'PaulD\' post=\'142176\' date=\'Jan 4 2007, 03:33 PM\']
Anyone think it makes a difference how the rounds are presented?
[/quote]
No.

[Hastin]

[quote name=\'PaulD\' post=\'142176\' date=\'Jan 4 2007, 03:33 PM\']
Anyone think it makes a difference how the rounds are presented?
[/quote]

Not really.

[MSTieScott]

If it would get them to stop using 60-point boards in the third round, then yes.

--
Scott Robinson

[JasonA1]

As far as I could tell from a handful of O'Hurley shows, they largely stopped the practice of forcing the game to complete itself in round 4 or later. Teams have been able to theoretically win by question 3, and at least one family did so this season. I want to be an optimist and say it's because of a confidence in O'Hurley's ability to stretch, but it could be totally unrelated.

-Jason

[MSTieScott]

If each team has earned some points in the first two rounds, then the third round will feature a question with a healthy board. But if one team wins the first two questions, it's still usually the case that the third question will have too few points for that family to win the game (a couple of times, I've noticed that they've gambled on a board in which the leading family could win the game, but only with a complete sweep). Whether they're more confident in O'Hurley's ability to ad-lib, I'm not sure, but it's my opinion that it's more related to the fact that playing Fast Money over the course of two acts feels too drawn-out.

--
Scott Robinson

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' post=\'142257\' date=\'Jan 5 2007, 09:03 AM\']Whether they're more confident in O'Hurley's ability to ad-lib, I'm not sure, but it's my opinion that it's more related to the fact that playing Fast Money over the course of two acts feels too drawn-out.[/quote]That feels really ticky-tacky, almost to the point of an S&P violation. Jeopardy! doesn't change the categories of the Double round based on the amount of the lead, and Feud shouldn't be doing that. If they're worried about a game only taking three rounds, they should play single-single-single-double-breakneck speed triple like on the CBS show.

Alternatively, if there's ever been a show since Go that could have executed the Double Jackpot round, Family Feud is it. Out of all of the times I've seen the show, only once have I seen the Painfully Drawn Out Fast Money. I think the only pieces of scenery that did NOT have Karn's teeth-marks on it were the load-bearing walls.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'142259\' date=\'Jan 5 2007, 09:50 AM\']
I think the only pieces of scenery that did NOT have Karn's teeth-marks on it were the load-bearing walls.
[/quote]
I always thought the load on that show was Richard Karn.

[aaron sica]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'142261\' date=\'Jan 5 2007, 01:06 PM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'142259\' date=\'Jan 5 2007, 09:50 AM\']
I think the only pieces of scenery that did NOT have Karn's teeth-marks on it were the load-bearing walls.
[/quote]
I always thought the load on that show was Richard Karn.
[/quote]

Brandon, I hope you don't mind.....I took one of your gold stars and gave it to Chris.

[mmb5]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'142259\' date=\'Jan 5 2007, 12:50 PM\']
That feels really ticky-tacky, almost to the point of an S&P violation. Jeopardy! doesn't change the categories of the Double round based on the amount of the lead, and Feud shouldn't be doing that. If they're worried about a game only taking three rounds, they should play single-single-single-double-breakneck speed triple like on the CBS show.
[/quote]

How is it any different than on Press Your Luck when the fourth question's difficulty was based how many spins were given in the first three questions?  Not disagreeing, just giving another example of monkeying.


--Mike

[Mike Tennant]

[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'142270\' date=\'Jan 5 2007, 03:59 PM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'142259\' date=\'Jan 5 2007, 12:50 PM\']
That feels really ticky-tacky, almost to the point of an S&P violation. Jeopardy! doesn't change the categories of the Double round based on the amount of the lead, and Feud shouldn't be doing that. If they're worried about a game only taking three rounds, they should play single-single-single-double-breakneck speed triple like on the CBS show.
[/quote]

How is it any different than on Press Your Luck when the fourth question's difficulty was based how many spins were given in the first three questions?  Not disagreeing, just giving another example of monkeying.[/quote]
I can see why some people would be uncomfortable with this, and it even bugs me a little, but technically it's not changing the outcome of the game, just the length of time it takes for that outcome to occur.  It's sort of like the celebrity briefings on The Hollywood Squares.  The celebs can be given the questions and answers if the producers so desire.  It's still up to the contestants to determine whether the celebs' answers are right or wrong, which is what determines the outcome of the game.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' post=\'142272\' date=\'Jan 5 2007, 01:33 PM\'] it's not changing the outcome of the game, just the length of time it takes for that outcome to occur. [/quote]But it is. If the Smiths are leading 199-0 after two rounds, their reward for kicking ass after that should be the chance to win the game with that next round. By reducing the amount of points possible, the producers are negating that advantage. The other team should have to fight back to win, and not just win two fluke rounds. If it's 89-85 after two rounds, it really doesn't matter whether the next question has 200 or 100 points, because there's no chance to win the game.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' post=\'142272\' date=\'Jan 5 2007, 03:33 PM\']
I can see why some people would be uncomfortable with this, and it even bugs me a little, but technically it's not changing the outcome of the game, just the length of time it takes for that outcome to occur.  It's sort of like the celebrity briefings on The Hollywood Squares.  The celebs can be given the questions and answers if the producers so desire.  It's still up to the contestants to determine whether the celebs' answers are right or wrong, which is what determines the outcome of the game.
[/quote]

Nothing says that the producers can't adjust the material for general game situations (or for staying on budget, etc.).  It's only when they're giving material in advance to contestants--or consciously preparing material to give specific contestants advantages or disadvantages, whether knowingly or unknowingly--that they can get into trouble.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'142275\' date=\'Jan 5 2007, 01:45 PM\']
But it is. If the Smiths are leading 199-0 after two rounds, their reward for kicking ass after that should be the chance to win the game with that next round.
[/quote]
But it isn't, since the Joneses (ostensibly; as others have said, if this isn't the case, then it's full-on tampering) would get the same treatment if THEY were up 199-0.

The overall effect is merely that a lead isn't as big as someone thinks it is, and a deficit isn't as hard to overcome. And on a game like Feud you should be trying like hell to win every question anyhow, so I'm just not sure who this hurts.

Does it make the production more disingenuous? To the viewer at home who doesn't know of this practice, absolutely. Welcome to game-show production in 2007. Is it patently unfair? No.

[Don Howard]

I've never understood the need to double YAY! or triple YIPPEE! the points anyway.
Why is it all the rounds can't be just for a maximum of 100 points?