101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show

[tvrandywest]

While I have to give the show an "A" for effort in energizing a Q&A game show for the new millenium, apparently there's a disconnect between what audiences want to see and what network programmers THINK will work. Every creator and producer I talk with has told me that the networks have zero interest in a traditional studio-based game, but are open to high-concept, big-production, high-energy mega-concepts for games.

But few (or none) of them seem to work, such as dropping prizes from a rooftop, and now over-the-top stunts. It was pretty much exactly the kind of thing that networks have been asking for, and it was well executed, but the audience yawned:

101 Ways to Leave a Game Show opened with a third-place 3.2/ 5 in the overnights at 9 p.m. It did build by 7 percent from the 8:30 p.m. portion of an original episode of its lead-in Wipeout (fourth-placed 3.0/ 5).

Thoughts?


Randy
tvrandywest.com

[geno57]

I may be old school ... but I, too, prefer a TV game that I could actually play at home with a group of friends.  Most of the greatest game shows in history were televised versions of parlor games.  Unfortunately, today's audiences apparently need sparks to fly out of various orifices, with appropriate (or not) sound effects, and 30 seconds' worth of suspenseful music every time a number is called.  All this, plus a shot change between all 36 cameras every 3/8ths of a second, in order to maintain the interest of their fickle, caffeine-laden, Sesame Street/MTV brains.

[clemon79]

apparently there's a disconnect between what audiences want to see and what network programmers THINK will work.

I suggest this has been the case for a solid decade now.

[JasonA1]

I don't necessarily think foreboding music and rapid cuts are bad in and of themselves. Rather it's a case of TV's usually short-sighted way of copying what's popular with no regard for how it applies to the property at hand. Take Deal or No Deal. Audiences responded to the show. They were engaged with the game and Howie and whatever else, and took with it the pauses, the crazy contestants, etc. Rather than try to counter-program with a game that could compel as much as DOND, the other shows slapped all the same veneers on whatever format they had. It's equivalent to saying Big Bang Theory is successful, so let's revive The Brady Bunch with science jokes, and cast a hot chick as Alice. There's a hot chick on that show! Let's put it on this show!

-Jason

[clemon79]

There's a hot chick on that show! Let's put it on this show!

You have to admit, this isn't the worst policy, as a general rule.

[Matt Ottinger]

There are certainly plenty of studio-bound game shows that have had some degree of success in the past decade, probably a lot more than the "high-concept, big-production, high-energy mega-concepts" represented by Wipeout (certainly a success) and 101 Ways.

For more than 60 years now, anyone who's ever packaged a successful game show has known that the key to that success is getting the audience to play along.  There are voyeuristic exceptions like Wipeout and Fear Factor, but while 101 Ways is clearly cut from the Fear Factor template, it adds a quiz element that isn't enough for a Q&A fan to enjoy but still manages to take a huge bite out of the time we could be spending with the high-energy mega-concept part.  With apologies to a dear friend who worked on it, I'm at a loss as to where they thought the appeal would lie.

[Jimmy Owen]

The more these half-baked concepts get on the air and crash, the less chance ANY game shows will be considered.  Net result-bad for the genre.

[BrandonFG]

While I have to give the show an "A" for effort in energizing a Q&A game show for the new millenium, apparently there's a disconnect between what audiences want to see and what network programmers THINK will work. Every creator and producer I talk with has told me that the networks have zero interest in a traditional studio-based game, but are open to high-concept, big-production, high-energy mega-concepts for games.

Thoughts?

Network execs are either a) really, really persistent, or b) really, really stupid?

I agree with what others have said in this thread...game shows work best when they have some play-along value. I can't stand most of the shows that premiered since NBC's Deal or No Deal, but I will admit the ones that remain on TV one way or another (1 vs 100, 5th Grader*, Singing Bee) have reasonable play-along value.

I have no problem with incorporating physical stunts into a trivia game (see Double Dare), but the networks are so hellbent on making the next outrageous, over-the-top game show that they're forgetting to incorporate the game. At least the physical challenges on DD still had something to do with the game. It's almost as if Endemol took the idiotic cheesiness of D/ND and replaced it with what you have now. In the end, your game still takes a backseat to the chrome.

/Really misses the primetime shows of 1999-2000
//Overblown budgets and all
*///Not much longer but you get the point

[MSTieScott]

Please allow me to offer some valuable free advice to the producers of certain recent prime time game shows. Say you've reached a critical moment in your game and you want to delay the moment of truth until after a commercial break in order to maintain viewership and please your sponsors. That's completely understandable. As a viewer...

...if I see the emcee turn to the camera and say words to the effect of, "We'll find out if the contestant wins after this break," then I may moan a little at the delay, but I will most likely wait through the commercial.

...if I see you act as if the moment of truth is about to happen, but abruptly go to commercial, then unless your game is really compelling, I'm going to start channel surfing, because I don't like being jerked around.

[TLEberle]

I don't necessarily think foreboding music and rapid cuts are bad in and of themselves.

No, but if you're using the gloomy music as a crutch to say "this is a tense situation, you should be paying attention!" then I think you're doing it wrong. I say this as someone who puts a premium on the soundtrack because of my particular issues, but there's no need to use a heartbeat as the bass line. When used correctly, you can add to the atmosphere, like Millionaire. Do it wrong and it becomes trite (Stump the Schwab)

With apologies to a dear friend who worked on it, I'm at a loss as to where they thought the appeal would lie.

They tried to get the quiz fans and the people who like watching people getting pwned on Wipeout, and unfortunately there's not enough of either, while there's an enormous amount of downtime. Either have one person ejected at the end of a thick-and-fast speed round, or allow players a way to buy-in back to the game after one ejection, but what they're doing now doesn't cut it for either.

[TimK2003]

Network execs are either a) really, really persistent, or b) really, really stupid?

The same can be said about the fools who run terrestrial radio nowadays.  What made stations memorable and compelling in the glory days of radio (prior to the mid 90's) was personality and originality.  Then the Clear Channels, Citadels, CBS's and  the Cumulus' of the world bought out all the successful old-school broadcasters, reduced the playlists, dumbed down their audience participation, and made all their stations sound the same cookie-cutter copycats across the country.  And yet, they still think a "Jack FM" is the next best thing in radio.

[Ian Wallis]

/Really misses the primetime shows of 1999-2000
//Overblown budgets and all

Same here

[Tony Peters]

/Really misses the primetime shows of 1999-2000
//Overblown budgets and all

Same here

I don't know if I really miss those shows now, but it was probably the last time I was really excited for the prospects for the genre as a whole.  The decade since then has, for reasons that have been discussed amongst this group ad nauseum, drained all but the tiniest spark of hope for the genre's future from me.

[BrandonFG]

I don't know if I really miss those shows now, but it was probably the last time I was really excited for the prospects for the genre as a whole.  The decade since then has, for reasons that have been discussed amongst this group ad nauseum, drained all but the tiniest spark of hope for the genre's future from me.

When I look at how the shows were produced (not taking the budgets into consideration), compared to many of the post D/ND shows, I definitely miss them. IMO they were more competently-produced and actually focused on the game play. The contestants came across as normal people, not actors in between gigs as "Maitre'D" on one of the CSI shows. The hosts actually had some form of hosting experience, which helped them come across smoother. It's a shame that that crop of shows didn't last longer.

My only complaint would be that it started the trend of dark sets with spotlights and/or neon.

[Ian Wallis]

IMO they were more competently-produced and actually focused on the game play. The contestants came across as normal people, not actors in between gigs as "Maitre'D" on one of the CSI shows. The hosts actually had some form of hosting experience, which helped them come across smoother. It's a shame that that crop of shows didn't last longer.

Ditto.  Plus, they were actual studio game shows that were mainly produced in a "traditional" way.  Once Deal or No Deal hit big, everything had to be edited to death to get the exact dramatic reaction the director/producer were looking for, and most of these shows had to rely on gimmicks, such as The Chamber or Downfall.