Author Topic: CBS Cancels Guiding Light (Read 44119 times)

calliaume · « **Reply #135 on:** April 02, 2009, 07:35:22 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'211926\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 06:11 PM\']
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'211917\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 03:07 PM\']
I don't think this is as difficult in terms of gameplay, since you can do or say whatever you want for most of the game, but it's certainly a pending issue.[/quote]
It's only a pending issue if they let it be. With some notable exceptions, celebrities have not gotten stupider since the 1980s. Finding a decent stable of celebrities who can play the game, just like they did before, is doable, pending the hiring of competent wranglers.
[/quote]
It's doable, but you're back to the starting point.

By the mid-1980s, Stewart had a stable of semi-regulars whose claim to "celebrity" was dubious (Mary Cadorette and The Smiths -- who are now pretty much out of show business [dance studio owner, realtor, marriage/family therapist]). But they kept appearing because the show clearly worked better with old hands in the celeb chairs. Whenever they had new kids on the block, they were paired against *other* new kids (Gladys Knight & Smokey Robinson) so that you didn't have the occasional '70s-era train wreck week. ("Your wife didn't win the first time in the Winner's Circle? Ooh, better make some room in the station wagon for those cases of Turtle Wax.")

Now, 20 years later (and five years after Donny's version), there's really no backlog of celebs to work with (Betty White can't be on every week), so they'll have to begin again. That can yield some fun weeks (the few eps surviving from the first CBS era are certainly enjoyable), but I would think the novelty will wear off. And I'm not sure how many A-level (or even B-level) celebs are going to dedicate 20 or 30 hours with a coordinator until they can play the game passably.

Me, I'm thinking couples instead of celebrities, which dodges the issue nicely, and means you have no one to blame but yourselves if you're one-and-done.

clemon79 · « **Reply #136 on:** April 02, 2009, 07:36:02 PM »

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'211924\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 04:06 PM\']
That's a point I wouldn't concede so quickly. Straddling gives the format so much more freedom.[/quote]
I agree with you. The state of television production in 2009 does not agree with either of us.

Quote

They can still have the downstage recap, say "Bye" to the loser and immediately say "Hi" to the newbie.

I fail to see a way to do that that isn't horribly awkward. You're suggesting that you recap, shoo off the loser on camera, and bring in the new player, all in one segment? That looks horrible on TV. Looked horrible in the '50s on What's My Line, looked horrible in the '70s on Gambit, would look horrible here.

Quote

The average daytime Price is Right runs about 37 1/2 to 39 minutes.

...or somewhere between 18:45 and 19:30 per half-hour. As opposed to the 22:30 that the Clark show had in the '80s. Those three-plus minutes are exactly what begat the whole 6-in-30-holy-shiat-we'd-better-move-fast-we-don't-even-have-time-for-a-recap-segment Donnymid.

Quote

For Pyramid, that's 12 1/2 to 13 per segment for 3 WCs.

From that initial number, take back a minute for the end-of-show recap, bye-bye, and credits. 30 seconds for the open. I'll take back a second minute for the hour show because you're getting to know two extra contestants. That puts this hypothetical hour show at 11:30-12:15 per front game / WC combination. The '80s show, using those same (admittedly wholly ex-rectum) estimates 10:30 per block. 60-90 seconds of stretch time, particularly on days when there are tiebreakers, is not a bad thing. In the least.

Quote

I could get behind 6-in-20 before I'll ever get behind one-and-done.

6-in-20 was crap. Period. Gave players NO chance to recover from the slightest stumble.

I didn't say I was terribly fond of the notion of one-and-done, only that assuming a) three games and b) the need for a self-contained hour, that's a way they could do it, and that a two-of-three match is just as unfair for the same reasons.

Quote

First new daytime game show in 15 years or not, one-and-done would be The Dealbreaker for me.

Oh noes, one less viewer. How will they cope.

Quote

Especially with the caliber of celebrities they're likely to get, at least for the first couple years.

Again, this is a solvable problem. Levar Burton, for example, is still alive and based on what I've heard from him lately (he's been a guest on This Week In Tech a couple times recently), would jump at the opportunity.

clemon79 · « **Reply #137 on:** April 02, 2009, 07:41:33 PM »

[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'211929\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 04:35 PM\']
Now, 20 years later (and five years after Donny's version), there's really no backlog of celebs to work with (Betty White can't be on every week), so they'll have to begin again.[/quote]
Why not? For every Bill Shatner there is a Neil Patrick Harris, and you know NPH would be there in a plug second. I remember us saying that Aisha Tyler didn't blow on MDP. Debra Jo Rupp was brilliant on Donnymid. Levar, above, is still out there.

Boom. I just booked ten shows in about thirty seconds.

Quote

Me, I'm thinking couples instead of celebrities, which dodges the issue nicely, and means you have no one to blame but yourselves if you're one-and-done.

...and also brings back into sharp relief the makes-sense-to-nobody-but-us clue. Folks at home can't play along with "This is what we had for dinner at John and Mary's house last week." That's the precise reason you have celebrities on these communications shows in the first place.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #138 on:** April 02, 2009, 08:00:33 PM »

How many Y&R stars did the show in the 80s...is Melody Thomas Scott still there? Jack Wagner (actually on B&B)? Dunno if the latter is any good, but you have at least one more competent contestant, and cross-promotion for CBS Daytime.

Don Howard · « **Reply #139 on:** April 02, 2009, 08:00:51 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'211931\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 07:41 PM\']
Boom. I just booked ten shows in about thirty seconds.
[/quote]
Thinking with 2009 programming "smarts", you may have only booked two shows.

bwood · « **Reply #140 on:** April 02, 2009, 09:06:37 PM »

I hope everything comes together, they do it right and that it gets picked up by CBS. We don't need another talk show. It would be great to have another daytime network game show, especially one like Pyramid.

I seriously thought GSN would try to revive this show before any other network (I know, celebrity factor). That, and with the success of Catch 21 I could see them trying to revive High Rollers (deserves a revival IMHO).

clemon79 · « **Reply #141 on:** April 02, 2009, 09:14:31 PM »

[quote name=\'bwood\' post=\'211936\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 06:06 PM\']
That, and with the success of Catch 21 I could see them trying to revive High Rollers (deserves a revival IMHO).[/quote]
Wholly concur. But it MUST have pink and blue monitors for the numbers.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #142 on:** April 02, 2009, 09:50:35 PM »

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'211924\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 06:06 PM\']

Quote

and b) the desire to not have to explain in the middle of the show that because Person A won $500 and Person B won $750 (and not necessarily on this episode, even) that Person B is the champion and will be facing a new challenger even though Person A won the most recent game. It worked on the '80s show because it *didn't* straddle and Dick was able to cover it all in the recap at the end.

Again, I don't see the problem. If the host explains that before the Winners' Circle, like Dick did before the second WC most days, there will be no place to be confused. They can still have the downstage recap, say "Bye" to the loser and immediately say "Hi" to the newbie.[/quote]
Just to be clear, in my concept of straddled matches, the WC scores wouldn't decide the winner; winning two games out of three would decide the winner. So, while this situation wouldn't occur:

Friday, Game 3, John wins $750.
Monday, Game 1, Mary wins $500.
John is the winner and continues against a new opponent in Game 2 on Monday's show.

this situation could:

Friday, Game 3, John wins $750.
Monday, Game 1, Mary wins $10,000.
Monday, Game 2, John wins $500.
John is the winner and continues against a new opponent in Game 3 on Monday's show.

But this would be explained as they went to commercial after John wins Game 2.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #143 on:** April 02, 2009, 09:51:40 PM »

[quote name=\'bwood\' post=\'211936\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 08:06 PM\']I seriously thought GSN would try to revive this show before any other network (I know, celebrity factor).[/quote]
This ... is the Five Thousand Dollar Pyramid!

bwood · « **Reply #144 on:** April 02, 2009, 10:36:08 PM »

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'211942\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 09:51 PM\']
[quote name=\'bwood\' post=\'211936\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 08:06 PM\']I seriously thought GSN would try to revive this show before any other network (I know, celebrity factor).[/quote]
This ... is the Five Thousand Dollar Pyramid!
[/quote]

I actually saw it as The $10,000 Pyramid ($5,000 each trip) but to each their own

Probably would have called it Pyramid again anyway....

clemon79 · « **Reply #145 on:** April 02, 2009, 10:36:17 PM »

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'211941\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 06:50 PM\']
Just to be clear, in my concept of straddled matches, the WC scores wouldn't decide the winner; winning two games out of three would decide the winner.[/quote]
No, I followed. Whether that's viable, though, I guess, depends on your confidence in consistent celebrity booking. Otherwise, we get the following:

Game 1: Bob wins with Neil Patrick Harris over Mary with William Shatner.
Game 2: Mary wins with NPH over Bob with Teh Shat.
Game 3: Mary's screwed.

I suppose there are ways to make it a LITTLE better - player who wins more in the WC, or the 10K in less time if they both do it, gets to pick their celebrity for Game Three, but all of those scenarios don't change the fact that someone has to play with the dud twice.

And I still really really feel like any modern production of the show is going to want to avoid both straddling and potential continuity issues if at all possible. Us purists don't have to like it, of course, but that's a reality.

CarShark · « **Reply #146 on:** April 02, 2009, 11:37:39 PM »

I don't like the idea of someone winning $10K and not being declared champion.

If the Powers That Be were to be so dead set against straddling, they need to come up with a way to not have one bad round screw a person, and the only way I can see of doing that is Classic Concentration-style. Losing a round counts as a strike, three and you're out. Now I recognize that with three rounds a day, this will lead to many short of the best champions not lasting very long, on average, but I think this mitigates the effect of a bad celebrity because you'll still play against them every other match.

clemon79 · « **Reply #147 on:** April 02, 2009, 11:42:46 PM »

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'211957\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 08:37 PM\']
I don't like the idea of someone winning $10K and not being declared champion.[/quote]
Huh what? One has nothing to do with the other.

CarShark · « **Reply #148 on:** April 02, 2009, 11:43:05 PM »

I meant Jay's second hypothetical. Mary won more in the Winners' Circle in the two-out-of-three match, but since John won two games, he's the champion. That seems off to me.

Jumpondees · « **Reply #149 on:** April 02, 2009, 11:50:29 PM »

[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'211850\' date=\'Apr 2 2009, 12:11 PM\']

Am I the only who didn't like Donny-Mid simply because of its judging policy ("why you swim in a lake" not acceptable for "why you jump in a lake", as I'm pretty sure it would have been acceptable on the Clark/Cullen/Davidson versions)?
[/quote]

I tried to live with the change from 7 in 30 to 6 in 20 on the front game, but it was the judging on the show that got it banned from my DVR record list.

There were way too many times when I'd hear a clue, look at the word/subject and cringe like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard when I didn't hear the "illegal clue" sounder.

If this show comes back, they better bring the damn cuckoo with them and someone that will flaunt that bird every time it's needed.