Author Topic: Bert's Family Feud (Read 16006 times)

pownster · « **on:** February 13, 2006, 06:34:23 AM »

Fresh off the press - "Bert's Family Feud" made its premiere appearance on Aussie TV, and it's rather more spectacular than previous versions.

It pretty much follows the standard format - but for American viewers, it only features 4 members in each family. The first two rounds are for normal points, and the third round offers up double points. However - for the fourth round - if required - it's a "sudden death" round with only two answers on the board. Only two players - one from each family - play for it at the podium, and the player with the highest scored answer claims triple points and the right to play in the final round.

As always - the final round consists of two players from the winning family - working in turn to accumulate a total score of over 200 points. First player is given 20 seconds, and the second player 25 seconds to come up with their five answers. The real challenge is to determine what prize they will play for - and the pressure is applied to the first player on deck. The prize money on offer (in hard cash) is determined by the number of top answers given by the first player - ranging from $10,000 for 1 top answer to $100,000 for all 5 top answers.

The set is spectacular, glitzy and Bert Newton seems to have slotted in nicely to his new role - after hosting a mid morning, advertainment program for 12 years.

I will try and get some clips up on my site in the next day or so.

Chris.

vtown7 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2006, 06:41:58 AM »

Chris - are the questions designed that you will probably get at least one top answer in the final round?

Ryan

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2006, 05:28:22 PM »

[quote name=\'pownster\' date=\'Feb 13 2006, 06:34 AM\']The first two rounds are for normal points, and the third round offers up double points. However - for the fourth round - if required - it's a "sudden death" round with only two answers on the board. Only two players - one from each family - play for it at the podium, and the player with the highest scored answer claims triple points and the right to play in the final round.[/quote]

So, they've basically taken the Karn format, which has often been regarded as a "fix" for the Anderson format often making early rounds pointless, and removed the first triple round--thus often making the double round pointless. Congrats, guys.

(I'm assuming they're playing to 300 points. If not, well, fool me once.)

clemon79 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2006, 05:48:13 PM »

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Feb 13 2006, 02:28 PM\'](I'm assuming they're playing to 300 points. If not, well, fool me once.)

[snapback]110063[/snapback]

[/quote]
If they are, that's really bizarre, because except in the case of a family sweeping the first three questions, you'd need the sudden-death question every time to decide the game. And you thought Go had irrelevant rounds.

pownster · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2006, 07:27:20 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Feb 13 2006, 05:48 PM\'][quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Feb 13 2006, 02:28 PM\'](I'm assuming they're playing to 300 points. If not, well, fool me once.)

[snapback]110063[/snapback]

[/quote]
If they are, that's really bizarre, because except in the case of a family sweeping the first three questions, you'd need the sudden-death question every time to decide the game. And you thought Go had irrelevant rounds.

[snapback]110064[/snapback]

[/quote]
To clarify - they play for 200 points.

clemon79 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2006, 07:32:03 PM »

[quote name=\'pownster\' date=\'Feb 13 2006, 04:27 PM\']To clarify - they play for 200 points.

[snapback]110068[/snapback]

[/quote]
That makes a *bit* more sense.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2006, 08:50:26 PM »

Ah. Won't get fooled again, etc. It's basically the first Dawson format with a speedier fourth round, then.

pownster · « **Reply #7 on:** February 14, 2006, 05:36:34 AM »

I now have a clip from the premiere edition. It features the intro and first round of play. It on my "Video Moments" page:

Australian Game Show Home Page - Video Moments

Quote

QUOTE(pownster @ Feb 13 2006, 06:34 AM)
The first two rounds are for normal points, and the third round offers up double points. However - for the fourth round - if required - it's a "sudden death" round with only two answers on the board. Only two players - one from each family - play for it at the podium, and the player with the highest scored answer claims triple points and the right to play in the final round.

I also place an addenda to my original show description. In the final round - if the first player doesn't pick up any highest scoring answers, the family ultimately plays for $5,000.

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #8 on:** February 14, 2006, 11:42:32 AM »

[quote name=\'pownster\' date=\'Feb 14 2006, 05:36 AM\']I now have a clip from the premiere edition. It features the intro and first round of play. It on my "Video Moments" page:

Australian Game Show Home Page - Video Moments
[/quote]
Bert seems ill at ease, but I'm sure he'll get better. I hope he doesn't take after Richard Karn who unfortunately hasn't gotten any better in four years. I sure like the Aussie set though.

Brandon Brooks

tvmitch · « **Reply #9 on:** February 14, 2006, 12:14:23 PM »

Very nice. That's the first Australian set I've seen in a long while that I like. It's functional and good to look at. Also the first time in awhile that the Copperplate font is absent from any set piece or graphic of a game show. (About time!)

The American version can learn something from the contestant split-screens with the answer board as well as a lot of the basic graphics. I think our version should be past trying to play to the "vintageness" of 30-year old Feud.

clemon79 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 14, 2006, 04:10:34 PM »

Okay, NOW you can say that the set shows promise.

Holy. Is it just me, or are the Australians completely and totally pwning us when it comes to game show production in the last couple years? They're killing us with this one, too.

JasonA1 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 14, 2006, 04:30:07 PM »

Would you care to explain a bit more Chris? I can certainly agree in some respects, but what of the new $ale offering $100,000 a night? And this show as well? That's like offering $75,000 here, and I think you'd be one of the first to pummel our "Feud" for putting up that sort of scratch.

-Jason

clemon79 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 14, 2006, 04:55:52 PM »

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM\']Would you care to explain a bit more Chris? I can certainly agree in some respects, but what of the new $ale offering $100,000 a night? And this show as well? That's like offering $75,000 here, and I think you'd be one of the first to pummel our "Feud" for putting up that sort of scratch.

[snapback]110152[/snapback]

[/quote]
It seems that the current crop of Australian shows likes to throw a big number out there for promotional purposes while making it damned near impossible to win. In order to get that $100K, the first player in Fast Money (or whatever they call it) needs to nail all 5 #1 answers. In order to get the $100K on Temptation, they have to nail ten questions in a row. There are TWO WEDGES on the Wheel Of Fortune for the car, which isn't even a luxury car.

Note that of the three Lot winners so far on Temptation (and this assumes that the grand totals in Wikipedia are correct, though I have no reason to believe they wouldn't be), the LARGEST TIAR haul (and this ALSO doesn't take into account ANY winnings in the front game) would be no higher than ~$50K. Total. For six nights. And the other two didn't even win $25K.

Mo' Money doesn't seem to be a problem here.

JasonA1 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 14, 2006, 05:09:42 PM »

I kind of took the question in a different direction, so my apologies. I was asking in general why you feel Australia is trumping us so supremely, throwing out the money as a potential case against them. Once again, I can certainly agree in some respects that they're doing better. I'll save any more comments until after you, and maybe some others, weigh in.

-Jason

clemon79 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 14, 2006, 05:17:15 PM »

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Feb 14 2006, 02:09 PM\']throwing out the money as a potential case against them. Once again, I can certainly agree in some respects that they're doing better.
[/quote]
Right. Which I just refuted.

Their sets look better, they don't seem to be afflicted with the Millionaire-itis in their design that we suffer, and their games look and sound and feel like, well, game shows. What more do you want?