Back from the UK

[inturnaround]

The problem with vacations is that doing things gets in the way of watching game shows. Nonetheless, I did get to watch a few and there was only one I didn't much like.

I saw Countdown and I agree that it really wouldn't work in America. Lingo is the limit...and even then people can't spell. But Carol Vorderman...yum.

I saw the premiere (and two subsequent episodes) of a new panel show called \"No One Likes a Smartass\". It's a bit like \"Beat the Geeks\" in that they have 4 people with specific areas of expertise. They have 4 \"lives\" that they have to protect.  A category is chosen and an audience member (the audience for some reason all being from the same town) chooses the victim from the 4 panelists to answer it. They may confer with their fellow panelists, but to do so would risk 2 lives instead of 1 if they get it wrong. Another life is lost if the audience gets it right after a panelist gets it wrong (they vote Millionaire-style on keypads). When you lose all 4 lives, you are dismissed \"Weakest Link\" style. The panelists remaining after a certain period of time have to answer \"tough\" questions from the audience and they have to get 10 right in 90 seconds.

The problem is that there really is no point. The panelists aren't playing against anyone or for anything. The audience doesn't seem to have any reason to boo the panelists (and they do frequently) other than they probably told them to. The questions are really tough, so there is little play-along factor. The host is this hideous-looking man-woman who tries to make jokes, but fails miserably.

On the other side of the coin, \"The Vault\" has a very attractive host named Melanie Sykes. The problem? Well, it was tedious game play. I watched for 20 minutes and then had to turn it off for reasons out of my control, but I don't regret that I had to do it. I watched what seemed to be a preliminary round of 10 questions where a contestant could choose to share their winnings with people of various professions. If they were stumped, they'd choose someone, haggle for the price of the answer and if the \"broker\" was right, they kept the money previously agreed upon. 10 right nets 5000 pounds as a bonus.

The problem was that I didn't much enjoy the massive amount of time given to the contestant. I think it was like 2 or 3 minutes for 10 questions. I know there must have been more to the gameplay (involving home viewers as it was a live game), but this initial segment did not impress me.

Sadly, that's all I saw (unless you count me seeing the end credits for \"No Win, No Fee\"-the UK WBSM)...but some is better than none, right?

[Matt Ottinger]

I saw Countdown and I agree that it really wouldn't work in America. Lingo is the limit...and even then people can't spell.

Nothing against you or your wonderful observations, but every once in a while I feel compelled to say that I just don't understand this attitude.  Are we really saying that Americans are so much more stupid than Brits that an intelligent game which has enjoyed great longevity over there can't possibly find an equivalent audience over here?  

We've got just about five times the population of the UK and a much more splintered TV universe where smaller audiences are expected.  The second most popular program in U.S. syndication for nearly twenty years has been a quiz game which tries not to insult the intelligence of its viewers.  It seems to me that an intelligent word game -- and there are any number of examples that would cost practically nothing to produce -- would reach a literate, affluent population that certain advertisers would crave.

[inturnaround]

No, that's fine...it's just that contestant coordinators seem to pick beauty over brains sometimes. A US version of Countdown may attract some people that the evil corporate overlords may not want to put on TV.

Sure, you can't fix the game after it started, but you can still pick who goes up against who.

But, I agree, I was being a bit too hard on the country. Its just that some of the people they cast on these shows aren't the best players. It seems that to get on some game shows, you need to have some supernatural level of excitement. (WWTBAM and Pyramid seem to cast well, as does Jeopardy!, IMO)

Countdown would take a bit to find an audience in the US, but I'm sure that if a channel stuck with it, it would work. Does GSN have the guts to localize it?

[Matt Ottinger]

Does GSN have the guts to localize it?

Nope, and that's certainly one of the problems.  I know of several excellent word game formats (some of them as yet unproduced) that would work perfectly well and attract an upscale audience that would be attractive to advertisers if the game itself were allowed to be the draw rather than pretty contestants.

To use the closest example we actually HAVE on the air right now, it's fairly obvious that the Lingo wranglers are casting attractive twenty-somethings regardless of their talent for the game.  (That is, in fact, a cookie-cutter issue with all the GSN originals.)  For those other originals, though, having the young, exuberant goombas doing the bouncy-bouncy makes sense for the shows.  I suggest to you (and any GSN exec who's reading) that the sliver of a rating that Lingo gets would not be affected at all if instead of \"pretty\" you get contestants that are \"good\".  And as a bonus, you've got yourself a better game.

Match that version of Lingo up with a few other similar shows featuring game players who know what they're doing (Countdown being one of many examples).  Air them in the late afternoon (leave prime time for the bouncy-bouncy) and throw out the whole notion that the competitors are doing it for money.  A thousand a day, tops.   Don't even start with me on the \"cheap\" shows like Inquizition, which was a flawed production to begin with.  If your game is good enough, it's completely insignificant how much money you give away.

Before long, you start picking up a smart, hard-to-reach demographic of people who've touched a book one or twice in the last week.  And you're doing it for a fraction of what your current originals cost.

Sorry to take over your thread like this, it's something I've had on my mind for a long time.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 03:37 PM\'] If your game is good enough, it's completely insignificant how much money you give away.
 [/quote]
 OH CAN I GET A WITNESS FROM THE CONGREGATION!

[PeterMarshallFan]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 05:56 PM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 03:37 PM\'] If your game is good enough, it's completely insignificant how much money you give away.
 [/quote]
OH CAN I GET A WITNESS FROM THE CONGREGATION! [/quote]
OBJECTION! A game show is only good if it gives away $100000000000000000 per show!

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 03:59 PM\'] OBJECTION! A game show is only good if it gives away $100000000000000000 per show! [/quote]
 Overrulled. Patrick Wayne, what do we have for our failed attorney?

[PeterMarshallFan]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 06:04 PM\'] [quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 03:59 PM\'] OBJECTION! A game show is only good if it gives away $100000000000000000 per show! [/quote]
Overrulled. Patrick Wayne, what do we have for our failed attorney? [/quote]
 Patrick:\"A collection of the rapping dragon's 20 biggest hits including \"You Light my Fire!\"

[Brig Bother]

[QUOTE}The host is this hideous-looking man-woman who tries to make jokes, but fails miserably.{/QUOTE]

Ha ha! Jo Brand can be quite funny on occasion.

And yes it's pointless and played for no other reason than entertainment value. We do that over here sometimes.

Although the show isn't particularly entertaining, no.

On the other side of the coin, \"The Vault\" has a very attractive host named Melanie Sykes. The problem? Well, it was tedious game play.

For more on The Vault, I can heartliy recommend the review of it here. Because I wrote it.

The Vault

The jackpot's up to £600,000 this week and I think it's actually quite a good show, certainly more subtle and clever than your average show. And yet not quite clever enough.

You'd have liked Grand Slam.

[inturnaround]

[quote name=\'Brig Bother\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 06:55 PM\'] Ha ha! Jo Brand can be quite funny on occasion.

And yes it's pointless and played for no other reason than entertainment value. We do that over here sometimes.

Although the show isn't particularly entertaining, no.
 [/quote]
 Yes, I'm still wondering why they chose to have the audience all from the same town. It added nothing to the game and it was certainly more difficult to arrange that.

With a few tweaks, it could be interesting...but as it stands, it is not.

I'm sure the Brits were saying, \"They preempted The Simpsons for this?\"

[uncamark]

I'm sure the Brits were saying, \"They preempted The Simpsons for this?\"

Those in the know in the UK already know that BBC2's losing the broadcast rights for \"The Simpsons\" completely this fall to Channel 4 (and that 6 p.m. airing is the only broadcast channel U.S.-style rerun strip in the UK--the Sky One cable/sat/digital channel airs the first-run episodes first in the UK before BBC2).  They've tried out a few shows in various formats in that time slot for a week or two off and on the last several months, most notably a revival of UK \"Treasure Hunt\" (which has nothing to do with boxes or Clunks, but an adventure game shot both in the studio and on location--this page from the UK Game Show Page will explain the show in detail), but nothing has seemed to take off.  I'm afraid \"Smartass\" may be one of them.

[dickoon]

I have a strong suspicion that Countdown's success in the UK is largely due to historical accident and that, whisper it, Countdown is not necessarily all that good a show.

Specifically, Countdown benefits from one traditional anomaly. For a very long time, Channel 4 (the channel which has always broadcast it, local pilot aside) did not start programming until 4:30pm each afternoon, which was Countdown's traditional starting time for about fifteen years. \"Fifteen-to-One\" may have acted as a preceder and these days the show, lengthened to 45 minutes, starts at 4:15, but Countdown has been traditional teatime fare, more firmly established in the TV schedules than the news.  Throughout the 1980s, Countdown's only opposition were childrens' shows on BBC 1 and on ITV, with possibly something not-too-accessible on BBC 2. New shows don't get that sort of incredibly soft competition any more.

Furthermore, I suspect its viewer demographics would generally be regarded as awful. British game shows tend to skew female, skew old and skew low-income; I opine that Countdown skews particularly old compared to most (pensioners tuning in for the gentle banter between Richard Whiteley and Carol Vorderman) and also that it simultaneously skews particularly student-y compared to most. The ratings these days are not really all that good any more.

Nobody Likes A Smartass isn't showing this week - we're back to the Simpsons instead. I wonder if they only made five shows?

You would have enjoyed Grand Slam, yes.

[PeterMarshallFan]

[quote name=\'dickoon\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 09:48 PM\'] You would have enjoyed Grand Slam, yes. [/quote]
ObUSAGameShows: We had a Grand Slam. It aired in 1976 and was multiplied 50 times, making it the 50 Grand Slam. :P

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 07:06 PM\'] [quote name=\'dickoon\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 09:48 PM\'] You would have enjoyed Grand Slam, yes. [/quote]
ObUSAGameShows: We had a Grand Slam. It aired in 1976 and was multiplied 50 times, making it the 50 Grand Slam. [/quote]
 And the two shows are as remotely the same as that was a funny joke.

[davidbod]

[quote name=\'dickoon\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 02:48 AM\']Nobody Likes A Smartass isn't showing this week - we're back to the Simpsons instead. I wonder if they only made five shows?[/quote]
They only made 5 pilot shows, yes.