[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'146667\' date=\'Feb 22 2007, 01:42 PM\']
Even if "Give 'n' Take" wasn't much of a game, if Fremantle wanted something for the screaming Type As that "DOND" thinks we want as contestants, they could look at it.
You're suggesting a revival of a game show that was NOT EVEN 13 weeks and out.[/quote]
I recently learned that Carruthers actually DID take a stab at reviving the fundamental concept of Give 'n' Take sometime in the eighties. Instead of a giant spinner, though, a giant die (excuse me, a giant 'regular hexahedron') determined which of
three contestants had control of a given prize. (In this version, you could improve your odds by answering a toss-up question.) The object was still to give and take prizes to reach a target amount without going over.
This version had a fundamental flaw in it that I can't remember whether Give 'n' Take had, in that the prizes kept getting nicer and more expensive, so a player who had gone over really didn't have much of a way to get back under the target amount. Winning a round meant you GOT that prize, making your score go even higher, and you typically wouldn't have anything
more expensive to give away. Coming from the man who made a game that worked as well as Press Your Luck did, that little catch-22 was surprising to see.
[gentle-prod]I'm hoping you'll see a more complete writeup about this on the Game Show Pilot Light soon.[/gentle-prod]
