Author Topic: Family Feud news for the new season (Read 57631 times)

TonicBH · « **Reply #15 on:** May 28, 2009, 01:21:48 AM »

[quote name=\'whewfan\' post=\'216713\' date=\'May 27 2009, 05:06 PM\']Having Bullseye means sacrificing one round of a regular game... on the Combs version and later Dawson version, they played single, double, triple, and one more triple. With today's timing, they'd probably play 3 rounds a la the "Celeb Family Feud", but with single, double, and triple to be sure that the game is decided on the 3rd round.[/quote]

I don't know, Chad gave a possible solution that could work where you have four maingame rounds and a Bullseye round. Perhaps instead of having it so that each family member faces off, just have the captains. Shaves a few seconds off.

/I watched Bert's Family Feud and thought the "How many #1 answers determined your Fast Money winnings" concept was dumb. If you get a putz up there who gets 36 points for the team, they're not gonna be happy campers when they find out they're only playing for $5,000.

CarShark · « **Reply #16 on:** May 28, 2009, 01:59:55 AM »

[quote name=\'TonicBH\' post=\'216732\' date=\'May 28 2009, 01:21 AM\']/I watched Bert's Family Feud and thought the "How many #1 answers determined your Fast Money winnings" concept was dumb. If you get a putz up there who gets 36 points for the team, they're not gonna be happy campers when they find out they're only playing for $5,000.[/quote]
That's kind of why I like the way the British version does it. One cash prize for getting to 200. A bigger cash prize for getting all five top answers between the two players.

Chelsea Thrasher · « **Reply #17 on:** May 28, 2009, 02:09:23 AM »

So, exactly where's this assumption coming from that the $30,000 won't just be a direct "Score 200 points, win $30,000". I interpret the "up to" to simply mean that "If they do win they won't have won more, and if they don't win they'll have earned less". Seems that a direct prize bump is the simplest explanation.

chad1m · « **Reply #18 on:** May 28, 2009, 02:29:58 AM »

[quote name=\'Seth Thrasher\' post=\'216736\' date=\'May 28 2009, 02:09 AM\']So, exactly where's this assumption coming from[/quote]Nowhere in particular. It's just fun to speculate.

Jeremy Nelson · « **Reply #19 on:** May 28, 2009, 09:59:59 AM »

[quote name=\'TonicBH\' post=\'216732\' date=\'May 28 2009, 12:21 AM\']/I watched Bert's Family Feud and thought the "How many #1 answers determined your Fast Money winnings" concept was dumb. If you get a putz up there who gets 36 points for the team, they're not gonna be happy campers when they find out they're only playing for $5,000.[/quote]
I remember a thread on here about 2 years back when the show went on- that was one of the complaints, coupled with the fact that the way the $100,000 was earned was quite anticlimactic, A player who racks up 186 and has all top answers leaves their teammate simple work, and leaves the audience only wondering which answer they're gonna collect on. But yeah, the prize ladder on Bert's FF was fine- it was the execution that left the concept broken.

MSTieScott · « **Reply #20 on:** May 28, 2009, 01:35:58 PM »

If they're implementing Bullseye, then they're going to have to eliminate a regular round, and eliminating the need for the sudden-death, not-always-used round five isn't going to save enough time. What format did they use on Celebrity Family Feud last year? Was it single-single-triple-sudden death? If it was, then I'd wager that that's what they'd do to accommodate Bullseye.

(Then again, I've seen a couple of episodes this season where the show ran short and they had to pad things out with thirty to sixty seconds of clips from previous episodes. So maybe they're not hurting for time.)

chad1m · « **Reply #21 on:** May 28, 2009, 02:02:19 PM »

[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' post=\'216768\' date=\'May 28 2009, 01:35 PM\'](Then again, I've seen a couple of episodes this season where the show ran short and they had to pad things out with thirty to sixty seconds of clips from previous episodes. So maybe they're not hurting for time.)[/quote]That's what I'm saying. I think my previous method would work just fine, as long as you make round four quick and painless.

clemon79 · « **Reply #22 on:** May 28, 2009, 02:07:36 PM »

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'216735\' date=\'May 27 2009, 10:59 PM\']That's kind of why I like the way the British version does it. One cash prize for getting to 200. A bigger cash prize for getting all five top answers between the two players.[/quote]
But that's broken too. What if the second player doesn't need all five of their answers to cross 200, and one of the answers they didn't need was a #1? They would either need to jigger the game such that you can't win without all 5 #1's (which sucks), tell them in advance that they HAD all five #1's (which makes the reveal pretty much anticlimactic), or tell them after the fact "oh, by the way, that last answer you didn't need was also a #1, you've won eleventy billion dollars!" (Which is just as anticlimactic.)

Jeremy Nelson · « **Reply #23 on:** May 28, 2009, 02:14:07 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'216772\' date=\'May 28 2009, 01:07 PM\'][quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'216735\' date=\'May 27 2009, 10:59 PM\']That's kind of why I like the way the British version does it. One cash prize for getting to 200. A bigger cash prize for getting all five top answers between the two players.[/quote]
But that's broken too. What if the second player doesn't need all five of their answers to cross 200, and one of the answers they didn't need was a #1? They would either need to jigger the game such that you can't win without all 5 #1's (which sucks), tell them in advance that they HAD all five #1's (which makes the reveal pretty much anticlimactic), or tell them after the fact "oh, by the way, that last answer you didn't need was also a #1, you've won eleventy billion dollars!" (Which is just as anticlimactic.)
[/quote]
Well, what they did on the most recent version of Family Fortunes would work- if the team goes over 200, they just reveal the rest of the unneeded answers with their survey tallies and go down the line for each set asking "Is that the number one answer?", followed by the appropriate sound effect.
Of course, when it does come down to that, you can build tension by going out of question order and starting with the answers that garnered 40-50 points.

clemon79 · « **Reply #24 on:** May 28, 2009, 02:24:33 PM »

[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'216774\' date=\'May 28 2009, 11:14 AM\']Well, what they did on the most recent version of Family Fortunes would work- if the team goes over 200, they just reveal the rest of the unneeded answers with their survey tallies and go down the line for each set asking "Is that the number one answer?", followed by the appropriate sound effect.[/quote]
Right. Considering they've already won *something*, anticlimactic.

Quote

Of course, when it does come down to that, you can build tension by going out of question order and starting with the answers that garnered 40-50 points.

And rearrange the questions from the order the first player had them revealed in? Yeah, that won't confuse the hell out of the home viewer or anything.

CarShark · « **Reply #25 on:** May 28, 2009, 02:39:22 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'216772\' date=\'May 28 2009, 02:07 PM\'][quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'216735\' date=\'May 27 2009, 10:59 PM\']That's kind of why I like the way the British version does it. One cash prize for getting to 200. A bigger cash prize for getting all five top answers between the two players.[/quote]
But that's broken too. What if the second player doesn't need all five of their answers to cross 200, and one of the answers they didn't need was a #1? They would either need to jigger the game such that you can't win without all 5 #1's (which sucks), tell them in advance that they HAD all five #1's (which makes the reveal pretty much anticlimactic), or tell them after the fact "oh, by the way, that last answer you didn't need was also a #1, you've won eleventy billion dollars!" (Which is just as anticlimactic.)
[/quote]
I don't think it would be that huge a problem. Just reveal the answers as normal. If they are close to 200, just say they need x points for $20K, but if they hear y sound, that means that they could still win the jackpot. Have the family celebrate winning the $20K regardless. If they are still eligible for the jackpot, have them gather center stage for any more reveals. If it doesn't pan out, remind them that they've won the $20K (cue audience cheers) and are coming back next time.

clemon79 · « **Reply #26 on:** May 28, 2009, 02:59:39 PM »

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'216781\' date=\'May 28 2009, 11:39 AM\']If it doesn't pan out, remind them that they've won the $20K (cue audience cheers) and are coming back next time.[/quote]
Which now makes winning $20K feel like a loss. Fail.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #27 on:** May 28, 2009, 04:57:43 PM »

"The $30,000 Lollipop," anyone?

BrandonFG · « **Reply #28 on:** May 28, 2009, 05:30:27 PM »

Part of me likes the idea a Bullseye round, with a $15,000 start up, then $1,000-5,000, thus allowing all five to play and win up to $30,000.

But then, I thought about it.

JOHN: Okay, Jackson family, you will play for $17,000!
JACK JACKSON: But last year, the families played for $20,000!
JOHN: Recession. Now shut up and get me two family members!

However, a $20,000 base bank, with $1,000-4,000 works, with just four players. Perhaps everyone but the captain, then when the first survey round starts, start with the captain?

aaron sica · « **Reply #29 on:** May 28, 2009, 06:02:15 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'216798\' date=\'May 28 2009, 05:30 PM\']Part of me likes the idea a Bullseye round, with a $15,000 start up, then $1,000-5,000, thus allowing all five to play and win up to $30,000.

But then, I thought about it.

JOHN: Okay, Jackson family, you will play for $17,000!
JACK JACKSON: But last year, the families played for $20,000!
JOHN: Recession. Now shut up and get me two family members!

However, a $20,000 base bank, with $1,000-4,000 works, with just four players. Perhaps everyone but the captain, then when the first survey round starts, start with the captain?[/quote]

I thought about this type of scenario back when "The New Family Feud"had Bullseye. The longtime prize for "Fast Money"was $10,000 but the bankrolls started at $5,000..