The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: clemon79 on August 01, 2006, 09:57:28 PM
-
Sorry. That betting round thing was the final straw. That round is SO broken. It encourages teams to bet low and then not get rewarded if they pull the answer out, and bet high when it's a gimme. It forces players to bet when they don't even want to guess. And more often than not it's going to set up anticlimactic situations like we had tonight.
And they actually found a way to get me not to care about Instant Reaction.
I really wanted to like it. The Cullen version of the show is one of my very favorite shows ever. This blows.
-
I'm sure it's predominately accepted that the 1986 USA version was far inferior to the original Cullen version.
20 years later, they've somehow managed to do worse. Astounding.
Even Blake Emmons had more of a personality on the USA premiere than Dylan did tonight.
Gamewise, the Speedchains didn't do anything for me at all. The revelation of the last letter of the word bugs the hell out of me as did the whole dance around "Chain Smoke" with the contestants having to supply every form of the freaking word.
I share the same sentiment as Chris; I too really wished that I'd come to like it. So much for that idea.
I don't hate this show, and I'll watch it for at least the rest of the week and hope that I warm up to it.
--Jamie
-
I now take back all the bad things I ever said about how they're doing Lingo wrong.
Well, actually I don't, but at least now I know how much worse it could have been.
What's next? Eye Guess without hiding the answers? Three on a Match with two columns?
Pass the Buck with...well, actually, maybe I WOULD like to see how they'd change Pass the Buck.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'125955\' date=\'Aug 1 2006, 08:57 PM\']
Sorry. That betting round thing was the final straw. That round is SO broken. It encourages teams to bet low and then not get rewarded if they pull the answer out, and bet high when it's a gimme. It forces players to bet when they don't even want to guess. And more often than not it's going to set up anticlimactic situations like we had tonight.
And they actually found a way to get me not to care about Instant Reaction.
I really wanted to like it. The Cullen version of the show is one of my very favorite shows ever. This blows.
[/quote]
I'm with you on that, Chris. I'm also with you on the fact it just plain sucks.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'125967\' date=\'Aug 1 2006, 11:20 PM\']Pass the Buck with...well, actually, maybe I WOULD like to see how they'd change Pass the Buck.
[/quote]
Give an unacceptable answer, and a buck tramples you.
-
It's a C+ at best for me...
I agree with those who say they shouldn't be given the last letter of the words. That is just not right to do in a game like this.
The betting round makes no sense, as it forces a team that's behind to bet big early, and if they don't get the first word or two right off, they're done (I think I would have at least been OK with it if the final chain was just higher money for each word, like $400-$500-$600-$800-$1000...at least it makes the last few words important even if a team is way behind)..
The Speedchain makes a little sense, but you could done something like a betting round there to improve it (say, give the top and bottom word,then offer them the choice of going for $300 if they can get it with no extra letters, $200 for the first letter of one of the words (their choice), or $100 for the first letter of both words- and for the last one, double the money)
Now I always liked the bonus round format, but for just double or triple the money? They couldn't have made it $100 a correct answer, $15,000 for 10?
On the positive side, I do like the graphics, especially the "railroad station message" letters....and the host doesn't want to make me throw something at the TV....
Let's just hope some of the problems were just early taping bugs, and they ironed them out...I don't know though...
-
Haha, I called it. It definitely doesn't translate well on television. Man, what a terrible game show. Dylan Lane is too hyper, the edits were terrible, the contestants were terrible, and I love the crowd shots. Did you notice? Not one smiling or laughing face. Basically, we all wanted to just leave at that point.
StarFace is so much better.
-
[quote name=\'weaklink75\' post=\'125975\' date=\'Aug 1 2006, 11:55 PM\']
On the positive side, I do like the graphics, especially the "railroad station message" letters....
[/quote]
It's nice to see how far game show technology has come. Computer-generated Solari boards.
-
[quote name=\'PYLW\' post=\'125976\' date=\'Aug 1 2006, 09:12 PM\']
StarFace is so much better.
[/quote]
Holy damning with faint praise, Batman. :)
-
It's a great game, but I wish the chains were like when Bob Stewart produced the show. I have to agree, the betting element is out of place. To take something from the USA episode, the last round would have the teams working together and deciding whether to take or give a letter to their opponents for $500 a word. The host is too stiff, this show should be a party atmosphere. I'll watch it but if nothing else is on, and I am trying to find better shows.
As an off topic thought, When the chain CRACK and MONSTER came up, I would have said a plumber.
-
[quote name=\'PYLW\' post=\'125976\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 12:12 AM\']
the contestants were terrible
[/quote]
After the show was over I couldn't help but think (and seriously, there's no hidden agenda based on my CR audition) "The team from Texas couldn't play worth a dime, but they look good so that's all that matters"
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Fiono Coyne\' post=\'125958\' date=\'Aug 1 2006, 10:18 PM\']
Even Blake Emmons had more of a personality on the USA premiere than Dylan did tonight.
[/quote]
Further proof of how underrated he was. It's time to honor Blake!
As for this opening episode, I'll hold comment until a few more shows play to see how things fare when the host and crew are off their learning curves.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'126013\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 08:06 AM\']
Further proof of how underrated he was. It's time to honor Blake!
As for this opening episode, I'll hold comment until a few more shows play to see how things fare when the host and crew are off their learning curves.
[/quote]
I also will watch a few more shows and then review when ready. But, two problems I see...
\ Without spoiling for anyone who may have recorded CR and haven't watched, there was at least one instance where players guessed forms of a particular word and no second chances were offered. (For those who regularly watched the Canadian-based revival on Global or USA Network, you'll remember if a player guessed a form of the word, the judge would sound the Stewartian cuckoo bird and then Geoff/Blake would give the affected player a second chance. I'm sure the judge in the original series was just as lenient; I just can't remember an instance right now.) In other words, you had to be right on the money with a guess on CR 2K6 -- or it's nothing.
\ Other problem -- what happened to the days when a player called for a letter over/under (insert word here) and then the host would say something to the effect of "we can't give you the last letter"? When four letters are properly placed in a Lingo word and control goes to another team, Chuck and Shandi do not give the players a bonus letter.
-
[quote name=\'dmota104\' post=\'126026\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 11:17 AM\']
\ Without spoiling for anyone who may have recorded CR and haven't watched, there was at least one instance where players guessed forms of a particular word and no second chances were offered. (For those who regularly watched the Canadian-based revival on Global or USA Network, you'll remember if a player guessed a form of the word, the judge would sound the Stewartian cuckoo bird and then Geoff/Blake would give the affected player a second chance. I'm sure the judge in the original series was just as lenient; I just can't remember an instance right now.) In other words, you had to be right on the money with a guess on CR 2K6 -- or it's nothing.
[/quote]
Just to clarify again, plural will be accepted for the singular, and vice versa...forms of the word must be exact.
FS
-
[quote name=\'FlashStash\' post=\'126035\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 10:50 AM\']Just to clarify again, plural will be accepted for the singular, and vice versa...forms of the word must be exact.[/quote]But only when the plural is formed by adding 's' or 'es' to the end of the word. Book and books are considered interchangable, but mouse and mice are not.
-
[quote name=\'rialtus\' post=\'126058\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 03:20 PM\']
[quote name=\'FlashStash\' post=\'126035\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 10:50 AM\']Just to clarify again, plural will be accepted for the singular, and vice versa...forms of the word must be exact.[/quote]But only when the plural is formed by adding 's' or 'es' to the end of the word. Book and books are considered interchangable, but mouse and mice are not.
[/quote]
Correct.
FS
-
Well guys, after watching the first 8 or so minutes of tonight's ep, I just had to turn it off. I just could not believe the level of idiocy of these contestants and the host being too stiff up there.
-
[quote name=\'cacLA8383\' post=\'126082\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 09:11 PM\']
Well guys, after watching the first 8 or so minutes of tonight's ep, I just had to turn it off. I just could not believe the level of idiocy of these contestants and the host being too stiff up there.
[/quote]
Instant Reaction (bonus) was downright painful to watch.
-
No joking. Day two and I don't even know if I can give the show until Friday to stop sucking.
I've pretty much consigned myself to the fact that the golden era of game shows is long gone, and it ain't never coming back. We'd do much better to preserve the old on a widespread scale.
-
[quote name=\'catnap1972\' post=\'126083\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 08:30 PM\']
[quote name=\'cacLA8383\' post=\'126082\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 09:11 PM\']
Well guys, after watching the first 8 or so minutes of tonight's ep, I just had to turn it off. I just could not believe the level of idiocy of these contestants and the host being too stiff up there.
[/quote]
Instant Reaction (bonus) was downright painful to watch.
[/quote]
Yeah I bet Bill Cullen was rolling in his grave.....god that sucked.
-
I'm really longing for the Cullen version now. The contestants are incredibly dumb; today's Instant Reaction was downright pathetic. Chris already pointed out the problems with the betting round, and I don't like the fact you could get at least six right answers in the bonus round and win nothing to show for it. Surely a little extra hundred won't hurt the prize budget.
The graphics are nice, but that's about the only good thing I can say about it.
-
[quote name=\'Allstar87\' post=\'126086\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 09:47 PM\']
I don't like the fact you could get at least six right answers in the bonus round and win nothing to show for it. Surely a little extra hundred won't hurt the prize budget.
[/quote]
Although the show's problems are numerous and troubling, I think this isn't one of them. A team's already won more in the front game than Cullen-era players got ($100 or $250).
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Fiono Coyne\' post=\'125958\' date=\'Aug 1 2006, 10:18 PM\']
Even Blake Emmons had more of a personality on the USA premiere than Dylan did tonight.
[/quote]
I was in the "Come on, give the guy a chance" line of thinking until tonight.
"You have 5 seconds to answer each question." What question? There are no questions in the front game!
-
[quote name=\'Adam Nedeff\' post=\'126101\' date=\'Aug 2 2006, 11:09 PM\'] [quote name=\'Jimmy Fiono Coyne\' post=\'125958\' date=\'Aug 1 2006, 10:18 PM\']
Even Blake Emmons had more of a personality on the USA premiere than Dylan did tonight.
[/quote]
I was in the "Come on, give the guy a chance" line of thinking until tonight.
"You have 5 seconds to answer each question." What question? There are no questions in the front game! [/quote]
He did a lot of those kinds of errors during our taping. Might've been first time jitters, but come on. You'd expect that they'd hire someone with a little more of a background than doing fuse network...
-
I wasn't a fan of the Cullen version--I couldn't get past the D-level celebs and meagre production values--but it surprises me how everyone thinks this one blows. I don't think it's a disaster (a la Card Sharks and Donny-mid) at all.
The puzzles under the new format were more challenging than I thought, and the problems are fixable: call Mark Wahlberg, fix the last letter and form-of-the-word rules, and maybe do something with the betting round (I sort of liked it, but maybe you scrap it and make the speed rounds a bigger thing).
They've changed Lingo over time and made it better. Let's be optimistic.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'126165\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 10:29 AM\']
I couldn't get past the D-level celebs and meagre production values--but it surprises me how everyone thinks this one blows.
[/quote]
Wait, you couldn't get past the meager production values of the Cullen show, but the grand extravagance that is CS2K6 is fine? Are you kidding me?
The puzzles under the new format were more challenging than I thought, and the problems are fixable
Donnymid was fixable, too. Yet you call it a disaster. What's the difference?
call Mark Wahlberg, fix the last letter and form-of-the-word rules, and maybe do something with the betting round (I sort of liked it, but maybe you scrap it and make the speed rounds a bigger thing).
So you're saying: switch the host, change the rules, and tweak the format. What does that leave?
They've changed Lingo over time and made it better. Let's be optimistic.
I love the format. I'd love to see it get fixed.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'126167\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 12:37 PM\']
So you're saying: switch the host, change the rules, and tweak the format. What does that leave?
[/quote]
The train station flippy letters!
Seriously, I do think it's tweaking the format, not major changes. While the set isn't breathtaking, it does look reasonably current, as opposed to Cullen's set, which could have been blown away by "Three on a Match."
With Donny-mid, they took what wasn't broken and broke it. To me, Chain Reaction always needed help, so I'm not as aghast by what they did. Hell, there's no Ron Maysack or JoAnne Worley. That alone makes it a vast improvement.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'126172\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 02:07 PM\']The train station flippy letters![/quote]
I like the flippy letters. Not sure why, but I do.
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'126172\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 02:07 PM\']With Donny-mid, they took what wasn't broken and broke it.[/quote]
Aside from removing Dick Clark and making the front game harder, what the heck are you talking about?
-
The Cullen version was so superior to this that it will never see the light of day again for fear of embarrassing the current production. Heck, Emmons was miles better. Give me Masak and Worley any day.
-
The Cullen version was so superior to this that it will never see the light of day again for fear of embarrassing the current production.
In my eyes, it would seem monumentally daft to revive a show outclassed by Three's a Crowd and $1.98 Beauty Show and stick it in primetime.
Perhaps the superiority of the original 'Chain' why GSN didn't include it in the Top 50. Viewers wouldn't be able to compare the 2 and say, "wow, the new one sucks!"
My mom and I were watching the show last night, and even she remarked on a number of the flaws...not to mention some of the inept players.
--Jamie
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'126187\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 02:36 PM\']
Aside from removing Dick Clark and making the front game harder, what the heck are you talking about?
[/quote]
Harder? Nice try, Joe.
I can't fathom any other reason it was done except to add commercial time (saved 2 minutes).
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'126187\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 02:36 PM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'126172\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 02:07 PM\']With Donny-mid, they took what wasn't broken and broke it.[/quote]
Aside from removing Dick Clark and making the front game harder, what the heck are you talking about?
[/quote]
Butchering the end game with bad writing and briefed celebrities, lousy set when the most recent one had been pretty nice, lousy direction, lousy music, pretty much everything.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'126196\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 06:45 PM\']
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'126187\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 02:36 PM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'126172\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 02:07 PM\']With Donny-mid, they took what wasn't broken and broke it.[/quote]
Aside from removing Dick Clark and making the front game harder, what the heck are you talking about?
[/quote]
Butchering the end game with bad writing and briefed celebrities
[/quote]
You forgot destroying its atmosphere. I don't know how you can make the Winner's Circle seem mundane, but they did it.
Seriously, Joe, you have to be kidding.
-
And once again tonight's episode starts out quite painfully. I couldn't sit in the audience at a taping of this bollocks - I'd be screaming my head off at these idiots.
-
At this point, I have stopped playing the game and started playing "How much of a better host can I be?"
I think if you are a smart, beautiful person and want to try out for a GSN game show, act a little dumb. You will probably have a better chance of getting on the show.
-
[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'126217\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 09:24 PM\']
At this point, I have stopped playing the game and started playing "How much of a better host can I be?"[/quote]
I think there are very few people on Earth who would not fit that requirement.
-
It's okay...that's about it. Not horrible, but not the Cullen version, like everyone else said. It's something to watch when nothing else is on.
The ending of the maingame was pretty awkward in declaring a winner.
Tonite's female contestants were pretty damn clueless...and had no betting strategy. It's the last word, you're down $900, and you bet $500?! The men were a little better, but not by much, esp. in the bonus round. And my gracious, can we stick to one camera movement during the bonus round?! Why not just stick to the 3-box setup.
Theme song is interesting...somewhat catchy, but that's about it. Set isn't as bad as I expected, but it's still too much leftover Millionaire effect.
Lots of awkward moments.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'126220\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 06:30 PM\']
It's the last word, you're down $900, and you bet $500?!
[/quote]
That's the max bet. Which is the problem, the ending most of the time is gonna be completely anticlimactic.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'126220\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 09:30 PM\']
Lots of awkward moments.
[/quote]
Like what in the HELL Dylan is doing providing answers. I CLEARLY heard her say "ALEXAND" TWICE as well as the captioning saying the same (obviously she had no clue), yet she was obviously thinking like "yeah yeah, that's what I meant" when he provided "ALEXANDER".
edit: I watched it again, and she appears to have said it but either the audio/mic dropped the "er" twice (as the captioning showed it as "ALEXAND--") or she did. So I take my lynching back (show still sucked though!)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'126222\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 09:34 PM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'126220\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 06:30 PM\']
It's the last word, you're down $900, and you bet $500?!
[/quote]
That's the max bet. Which is the problem, the ending most of the time is gonna be completely anticlimactic.
[/quote]
Gotcha...makes more sense, but from re-reading this thread, now I see exactly where you're coming from. To me, it would've made more sense to have a producer put a bug in Dylan's ear, to ad-lib what could happen.
"Okay, Dylan, tell the ladies they NEED to get this word to tie and stay in the game. Otherwise, the men win."
/But that's just me.
-
In this "down $900, bet $500" situation--was $500 bet on the first guess, or on the "I know it!" guess? If you're starting out the last word that way, yeah, that's very dumb. Get it wrong and you've lost all hope. Get it right, and you lose by $400 and don't get the money. Keep betting $100 and hope you come into range via some bad bets by the leading team. Of course, if the word is almost entirely revealed, bet $500 to at least save a little face while you're losing.
There's another bad wrinkle, by the way. The end of the betting round will often encourage, at least for smart players (cough cough), intentional misses, due to a need to hopefully whittle down the opponents' score by letting *them* miss it some more. Have any of the contestants strangled their teammates during this round yet?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'126220\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 09:30 PM\']
It's okay...that's about it. Not horrible, but not the Cullen version, like everyone else said. It's something to watch when nothing else is on.
[/quote]
That's how I would put it. Still I'm suprised no one appears to glad to see the three person bonus round is on tv again. Its probably as close as your going to seeing 'Go!' on GSN again.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'126227\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 07:00 PM\']
There's another bad wrinkle, by the way. The end of the betting round will often encourage, at least for smart players (cough cough), intentional misses, due to a need to hopefully whittle down the opponents' score by letting *them* miss it some more. Have any of the contestants strangled their teammates during this round yet?
[/quote]
But if you ARE that leading team, and you have even the SLIGHTEST bit of intelligence (yes, herein lies my fallacy, I know), why aren't you just betting $100 each time and running out the clock? So long as I have a $700 lead going into that last word, the game is OVER.
-
I didn't mean to suggest anything else should happen there, Chris. I was just looking at that specific subset of "broken game elements" that is "players can be rewarded by intentionally not playing their best". The temptation (foolhardy though it might be) to throw your first two Winner's Circles on $20K Pyramid, for instance.
If you're ahead by $700 going into the final word, yes, you should win. But if you're behind $700, your only hope--and therefore your only decent strategy--is to do everything you can to get the leaders to fall back to a $500 or less lead. This requires A) dumb opponents (as you said), but also B) intentionally giving the opponents more opportunities for a dumb bet. Hence, not answering even when you know the answer.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'126260\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 08:57 PM\']
If you're ahead by $700 going into the final word, yes, you should win. But if you're behind $700, your only hope--and therefore your only decent strategy--is to do everything you can to get the leaders to fall back to a $500 or less lead. This requires A) dumb opponents (as you said), but also B) intentionally giving the opponents more opportunities for a dumb bet. Hence, not answering even when you know the answer.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Your only hope is to bet $100, do a little soft-shoe, and then hope your opponents suddenly have an aneurysm.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'126220\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 09:30 PM\']
It's okay...that's about it. Not horrible, but not the Cullen version, like everyone else said. It's something to watch when nothing else is on.
The ending of the maingame was pretty awkward in declaring a winner.
Tonite's female contestants were pretty damn clueless...and had no betting strategy. It's the last word, you're down $900, and you bet $500?! The men were a little better, but not by much, esp. in the bonus round. And my gracious, can we stick to one camera movement during the bonus round?! Why not just stick to the 3-box setup.
Theme song is interesting...somewhat catchy, but that's about it. Set isn't as bad as I expected, but it's still too much leftover Millionaire effect.
Lots of awkward moments.
[/quote]
Actually, when I saw that it was down to one word, men up $600... once they missed it, the women were in for a dilemma. I think they should have fished once and bet $100, and clam. No help of a wrong answer, and you're assured that if you get another shot, you have the shot to tie/win on your next guess. In any case, it's very hard to make up a substantial lead in that round.
EDIT: My thoughts on Chain Reaction, and how it might be fixed...
(1) Judging needs to be a lot better. No last letter and forms of the word should be permitted
(2) I'd do chains of eight words, instead of seven, and make the last word played worth half again.
(3) Four rounds of chains, play for points. 10-15 points, 20-30 points, 40-60 points, 60-90 points. No Speedchains.
(4) Losing team splits $3 a point for consolation, winning team splits $3,000 for the maingame.
(5) Bonus Round: Similar to the 80s version; give the team 2 free letters plus 1 for each 100 points the team earned in the main game (minimum 5 free letters, maximum 9 free letters). Should the team complete the chain, their winnings would be augmented to $30,000 total. Should they fail, they would receive an additional $300 for each word they managed to complete.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'126263\' date=\'Aug 4 2006, 12:11 AM\']
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'126260\' date=\'Aug 3 2006, 08:57 PM\']
If you're ahead by $700 going into the final word, yes, you should win. But if you're behind $700, your only hope--and therefore your only decent strategy--is to do everything you can to get the leaders to fall back to a $500 or less lead. This requires A) dumb opponents (as you said), but also B) intentionally giving the opponents more opportunities for a dumb bet. Hence, not answering even when you know the answer.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Your only hope is to bet $100, do a little soft-shoe, and then hope your opponents suddenly have an aneurysm.
[/quote]
Ok, now I understand...I was mulling this over on the drive into work this morning, because I just assumed if a team was up by $700 on the last word, they'd be smart enough to realize how to make sure they win. After seeing a couple of these teams, I see why this is a viable strategy. :)
Also, I noticed something...even when it is the last letter, you are not told it's the last letter. Any bets as to when we see the person have the full word, and STILL guess a longer word and miss it? Then I'm sure they'l be mention that there are no more letters to give.
After seeing a few episodes, I still like the show, but it can be cleaned up. I agree with just about everyone here...don't give the last letter, and let the contestants know that it's a form of the word. The compound word chains are fine, speed chains are fine. The betting idea is ok (you know it's there because it's a gambling element which is big now (Joker's Wild '07, big slot machine?)), but it does need to be re-worked somehow since the game has been decided every time before the last word was completed.
FS
-
At the end of the game, both teams are at $1000
What's the tiebreaker?
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'126299\' date=\'Aug 4 2006, 08:49 AM\']
At the end of the game, both teams are at $1000
What's the tiebreaker?
[/quote]
They told us, but I can't remember!
FS
-
I'm starting to feel bad for all this incremental piling on I'm doing . . . but not too much. I just saw the first bonus round on YouTube, and good Lord. I have no problem with the blindfold, or even a whole lot with the multitude of camera shots they keep cutting to. But having to rely on the sound effects person to tell you when you're right or wrong, when there's a host *right there* who ought to have the answers on his card? And that two-second delay before the sound effect? And not playing a sound effect for that last miss, with about :05 left? And . . . and . . . bleargh.
I surrender. Bring me the terms, GSN. I'll sign.
-
I just got back from the beach, and was disappointed on Friday night when our show was supposed to air. We all were huddled around the TV, while waiting to see ourselves, and ended up watchiing someone else's show. We felt like idiots when we had everyone over to watch the show when ours didn't even air. When I got home today, I got an email saying that the shows are being shifted around, and our show will air Thursday, August 10. Well... That's subject to change, so check out the show that day!
-
And you felt compelled to tell us this in two different threads?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'126465\' date=\'Aug 6 2006, 02:08 PM\']
And you felt compelled to tell us this in two different threads?
[/quote]
Considering the caliber of crap we've seen, someone that hopefully has the faintest clue how to play would be a welcome change.
-
Yes, I felt compelled, since I felt bad for telling people to watch on a certain night, and the show didnt even air!
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'126480\' date=\'Aug 6 2006, 01:59 PM\']
Yes, I felt compelled, since I felt bad for telling people to watch on a certain night, and the show didnt even air!
[/quote]
Which is great, you're absolutely welcome to pass that information along, but one thread would have been sufficient, is all I'm saying.
-
Some thoughts after watching a week's worth of shows:
- The host is perfectly adequate. His job is minimal in this game, and he's not obtrusive. I'll take him over Bonaduce any day.
- I have mixed feelings about the consistent compound word structure of the chains. On the one hand, they're more elegant and easier to play. On the other hand, they're less fun to play at home because they're easier. Given the caliber of contestants, however, I can't imagine what the game would be like with free associations in the chains as well.
- Revealing the last letter of the word is absurd.
- My only complaint about the speed chains is the inconsistency of their difficulty. Sometimes they're absurdly simple because there's only one reasonable choice to pair one of the words with. Others are hard for the opposite reason-- too many choices to narrow down in the time allotted.
- I hate, Hate, HATE the Chyroned board. A game show should have a set piece at its center. I understand it may be cheaper to throw things up on the computer, but some kind of central on-set display would provide much-needed anchoring for this game, which currently feels disembodied. Take a cue from Wheel of Fortune, which could have canned Vanna and gone Chyroned ages ago. A physical board enhances the game.
- Forcing players to bet $100 in the last round means that, in practice, teams earn very little in that round. That seems backwards to me. There are gazillions of different options here-- always getting $100 for a correct answer, but being allowed to make an additional, optional wager, for example-- but given the show's overall scoring system, nothing short of a no-limit wager will eliminate the possibility that the outcome of the match will be decided well before the final answer. And frankly, I'm OK with that. I have no problem with the better team being rewarded for being better, and not giving a weaker team the chance to luck into victory at the end.
- By far-- and I'm talking not-even-in-the-same-league-- the biggest problem with the game is the caliber of contestants. These people have been, almost to a one, idiots. They don't play strategically, they miss the most obvious answers, and when they reach the bonus round they have no clue (with the notable exception of the winning team from the first episode, who played the bonus round well). I watch the show because the format is one of my all-time favorites and it has great play-along value. But the stupidity of the contestants may ultimately make me lose interest and drive me away. It makes me glad that my friends and I decided not to fly across the country to audition, because we'd have played too well to get on the show.
Contestants aside, the show is watchable, and my girlfriend likes it so she'll watch with me, which is worth something. I love that they kept the Cullen endgame, which is the best part of the show. And it's definitely got more energy than Lingo, a show that is now covered under many major medical plans as a remedy for insomnia. If they'd just make a couple of small rules changes and move their contestant coordinator to the deep end of the gene pool...
-
[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' post=\'126486\' date=\'Aug 6 2006, 06:49 PM\']
Forcing players to bet $100 in the last round means that, in practice, teams earn very little in that round. That seems backwards to me. There are gazillions of different options here-- always getting $100 for a correct answer, but being allowed to make an additional, optional wager, for example-- but given the show's overall scoring system, nothing short of a no-limit wager will eliminate the possibility that the outcome of the match will be decided well before the final answer. And frankly, I'm OK with that. I have no problem with the better team being rewarded for being better, and not giving a weaker team the chance to luck into victory at the end.
[/quote]
Taking this idea to its natural extension, you have one of two scenarios:
A) There is a minimum and maximum bet, leading players to bet either the minimum or the maximum, all the time, as long as they have the money to do so. Anything but a very close game will be a runaway. If they don't have the money, it leads to situation B:
B) No limits; players can go all in at any time and try to double up, which inevitably leads to a situation where the game is over instantly because of an early all-in.
In short: the betting round is broken.
I also saw the clips on Youtube of the first show, and it's not a good sign when I end up mock hosting the bonus round to fill out the silence. And Davies is responsible for this? *shrug*
-
[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' post=\'126486\' date=\'Aug 6 2006, 06:49 PM\']
- (with the notable exception of the winning team from the first episode, who played the bonus round well)
[/quote]
Wrong. I went to the taping of the first show, and they were absolutely terrible. For some reason, someone would say "I messed up", and they would start again. The ladies did this THREE TIMES! They would purposely mess up something just to get a restart until they got easier words. Plus, they re-did the final thirty seconds three times aswell! The only reason why they looked like they did well was because they did it so much...
-
Uh, no....
The bonus was done 3 times. The first time, tape was stopped because there was a computer malfunction and a word was repeated. There was an outage of about 30 minutes, so they just decided to redo the entire bonus round instead of a terrible edit. The second time, they ran out of words. They wrote 13 words, and they ran out. Afterwards, they had to do a little segment of Dylan saying how much time was left, if they doubled, how many they got right, and a recreation of the loss. The girls did absolutely nothing wrong. It was the fault of the show. The only fault of the first episode should have been on the guys, who caused us to redo "Let's do the first speedchain" roughly 6 times by not shutting the hell up.
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'126504\' date=\'Aug 6 2006, 10:02 PM\'] Uh, no....
The bonus was done 3 times. The first time, tape was stopped because there was a computer malfunction and a word was repeated. There was an outage of about 30 minutes, so they just decided to redo the entire bonus round instead of a terrible edit. The second time, they ran out of words. They wrote 13 words, and they ran out. Afterwards, they had to do a little segment of Dylan saying how much time was left, if they doubled, how many they got right, and a recreation of the loss. The girls did absolutely nothing wrong. It was the fault of the show. The only fault of the first episode should have been on the guys, who caused us to redo "Let's do the first speedchain" roughly 6 times by not shutting the hell up. [/quote]
This is probably my bad memory acting up, but I swear the girl's did something wrong in the beginning that made the whole thing start over again...
-
[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' post=\'126486\' date=\'Aug 6 2006, 03:49 PM\']
Some thoughts after watching a week's worth of shows:
- The host is perfectly adequate. His job is minimal in this game, and he's not obtrusive. I'll take him over Bonaduce any day.[/quote] I really want to like him, I really do. I think that if he was given some actual copy that was written a few minutes before the first show was rolling, he would appear more in charge. If he was saying something like "Our winning team has a chance at $10,000 in the bonus round," as opposed to "a whole lot of cash," I would warm up to him.
- Revealing the last letter of the word is absurd.
Bears repeating.
- My only complaint about the speed chains is the inconsistency of their difficulty. Sometimes they're absurdly simple because there's only one reasonable choice to pair one of the words with. Others are hard for the opposite reason-- too many choices to narrow down in the time allotted.
For what amounts to an in-game bonus round, they ought to be worth more money. Or not there at all. That speed chain is worth exactly the same as each of the five words that were just filled in.
- Forcing players to bet $100 in the last round means that, in practice, teams earn very little in that round. That seems backwards to me. There are gazillions of different options here-- always getting $100 for a correct answer, but being allowed to make an additional, optional wager, for example-- but given the show's overall scoring system, nothing short of a no-limit wager will eliminate the possibility that the outcome of the match will be decided well before the final answer. And frankly, I'm OK with that. I have no problem with the better team being rewarded for being better, and not giving a weaker team the chance to luck into victory at the end.
It's going to create games of attrition, where teams slowly lose money until the one clueful player in the room bets the limit and cashes in. If that doesn't happen, we'll have winning teams finishing on $1,500 or so.
I realize that it's beating on a dead horse, but if the game were played to a set goal ($3,000, say), and having the stakes increase each round, you could fix that. Of course, you'd have to have straddling games, and we just can't have that, of course. (Yeah, I know, increasing payouts is one of my pet peeves, but if you realize that the $100-per-link chain is basically a warm-up, it's not so egregious.)
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'126520\' date=\'Aug 7 2006, 12:31 AM\']
If he was saying something like "Our winning team has a chance at $10,000 in the bonus round," as opposed to "a whole lot of cash," I would warm up to him.
[/quote]
The problem, however, is that with the completely-unwieldy double / triple payout system in the endgame, he doesn't know how much the players have a chance at, and therefore can't say that. It's obviously budgetary, as doubling / tripling a couple-three grand is easier on the pocketbook than paying off five or ten grand.
-
I thought for sure they'd be some commentary on here about the...
GAME
COCK
SU RE :)
chain from last night :)
FS
-
[quote name=\'FlashStash\' post=\'126916\' date=\'Aug 10 2006, 01:55 PM\']
GAME
COCK
SU
[/quote]
...and remember, you have to give us the exact word, not a form of the word.
-
During last night's bonus round, they got buzzed on forming a question for the word BANANA SPLIT.
I couldn't figure out why. I know she didn't say 2 words in a row.
Illegal clue of some sort?
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'126922\' date=\'Aug 10 2006, 02:22 PM\']
During last night's bonus round, they got buzzed on forming a question for the word BANANA SPLIT.
I couldn't figure out why. I know she didn't say 2 words in a row.
Illegal clue of some sort?
[/quote]
Here's what I think happened, because I had the same question and replayed it on the Tivo...
Before she said her word, she made an "uhhh" sound which could have been "uhhh", or the word "a"...she then gave a word after the "a", so I think she was buzzed for giving 2 words in a row.
FS
-
I'm SO PUMPED FOR TONIGHT!
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'126525\' date=\'Aug 7 2006, 09:29 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'126520\' date=\'Aug 7 2006, 12:31 AM\']
If he was saying something like "Our winning team has a chance at $10,000 in the bonus round," as opposed to "a whole lot of cash," I would warm up to him.
[/quote]
The problem, however, is that with the completely-unwieldy double / triple payout system in the endgame, he doesn't know how much the players have a chance at, and therefore can't say that. It's obviously budgetary, as doubling / tripling a couple-three grand is easier on the pocketbook than paying off five or ten grand.
[/quote]
It's not that unwieldy if you can do quick math. All you have to do is take the first digit, multiply it by 3, and fill in the rest from there.
I'd rather they do 2x/4x instead of 2x/3x, but that's asthetics (and requires more budget).
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'126951\' date=\'Aug 10 2006, 01:16 PM\']
It's not that unwieldy if you can do quick math.
[/quote]
...which the average American can't do.
All you have to do is take the first digit, multiply it by 3, and fill in the rest from there.
You and I and probably most people here can do this in a blink, yes. However, the average viewer would most likely have to spend a few seconds figuring out what $2800 tripled is. And the average viewer doesn't want to have to make an effort to figure that out. Which means they have no investment in it, lose interest, and change the channel.
-
I never would have believed it if you had told me, but it took until the 9th episode until neither team had to be given the last letter in any chain :)
FS
-
Hey! I'd like to know if anyone saw my show last Thursday... Everyone was telling me that they loved it. I haven't even seen it myself, but I will soon. Here's a few screenshots that people have sent me.
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/ajmette/11111.jpg)
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/ajmette/111.jpg)
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/ajmette/P1010144-1.jpg)
And one of our HOT opponents...
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/ajmette/11111111.jpg)
I'm happy to say that my team was one of the ones that didn't choke in the bonus round! We got 8 words. We should have had the 10, but Dylan jumped in and said, "You just doubled your money!!" It was at that point that I thought that we were all done, and I started to take off my blindfold. I'm not sure if they had shown that part in the show, but it was after that point where we were totally thrown off. By all intents and purposes, we should have won over 6 grand, but instead, we came home with 4200... Which isn't THAT bad.
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'127207\' date=\'Aug 12 2006, 09:50 PM\']
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/ajmette/11111.jpg (http://\"http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/ajmette/11111.jpg\")
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/ajmette/111.jpg (http://\"http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/ajmette/111.jpg\")
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/ajm.../P1010144-1.jpg (http://\"http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/ajmette/P1010144-1.jpg\")
And one of our HOT opponents...
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/ajmette/11111111.jpg (http://\"http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/ajmette/11111111.jpg\")
[/quote]
Fixed your broken links for you. No need for the IMG tag here. :)
-
Saw your show Moe. You guys were one of the few teams that has shown real emotion and appeared to be pumped for the game. Dylan threw you off (it was clear even in the edited version GSN aired) and in any other show (like TPIR) a host mistake would have meant either a redo or an automatic win. Oh well, at least it seemed you guys were there to have a good time instead of to win money. Was your friend the one that said he really liked the original 'Chain Reaction'? I am amazed GSN let this in the show because all the promotions for 'Chain Reaction' call it 'the new original show from the creators of WWTBAM.' Oh well, you guys were one of the few teams that hasn't humilliated themselves. And since this is a GSN original you can rest assured GSN will be repeating this episode from now until kingdom come.
-
Thanks for the fix Chris.
Dad1153, glad you enjoyed the show. We had such a great time doing it. The money was just a side bonus to the great time that we had. Talk about adrenaline! I bet you could tell that we were genuinely pumped up. Man, we didn't catch any breaks in the beginning! They'd get the second letter of the word, and it was pretty obvious what the words were after that.
There were some funny moments, like me blurting out, "LUCKY BALLS" and then saying, "What? You can have lucky balls! I have them!" Also, my buzzer beater to win the game was heartstopping. People said that it looked like a light went on in my head, and I blurted out the answer. Dylan paused for a second to see if the answer was accepted, and there was pure silence. When the word appeared on the screen, we FLIPPED. I even turned to Matt and asked, "Did we just win??" hahaha... That's how much adrenaline was pumping.
From what I've been told, since I haven't seen it yet, the crowd's volume was kind of turned down. It was NOT quiet in that studio at all. I kept appealing to everyone to get them louder and louder... which they answered with deafening noise. It's a shame it didn't translate like that. Apparently, after we won the game, and the credits were rolling, you could see me pumping my fist and waving my hands to get the crowd screaming. What an absolutely amazing feeling. We should have gotten the 10 words though. We blew through the words very quickly in the beginning. A funny coincidence was that we actually practiced "Seinfeld" before we got to the bonus round. Also, "waiter" was one of the answers, and that's what I do for a living!
I can't remember if it was my friend that said he liked the original CR. I think it was the girls that said that. I'd never seen the original version myself...
I wish I could see the episode, but I won't be able to for at least a few days. I wish they at least did a redo, but the clock kept going. Also, there's WAY TOO MUCH time that passes by between the time the blindfolded person (me) gets the answer, and the next word comes up. There's at least a 1 to 3 second pause. (I've timed it on other shows.)
It would be cool to see our show on repeats. I hope that we make it into commercials for the show! From what I've been told, the energy in our show was higher than pretty much any other CR show they've seen.
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'127215\' date=\'Aug 13 2006, 01:27 AM\']
Also, there's WAY TOO MUCH time that passes by between the time the blindfolded person (me) gets the answer, and the next word comes up. There's at least a 1 to 3 second pause. (I've timed it on other shows.)
[/quote]
Yep, and I think that's also what cost you guys the triple. Whoever is in the control room (along with the judge) need to be on top of it and not nodding off.
-
Catnap, you saw our show too? I think if there wasn't the interruption in the middle ("You just doubled your money"), and the few seconds between each correct answer, we could have tripled it. Has anyone in the show tripled yet?
From what I remember, we doubled it with 20 seconds left. Getting a few more would have been easy.
-
If reports on the GSN message board are to be believed, and they seem credible, the bonus round has been changed to make it 5 correct for double your money and 7 correct for triple your money.
I think the problem is with the word choice, not the number needed to win. Look at the words used for CR vs. the words used for GO and you'll see a big difference in difficulty. "Running of the Bulls"?? Come on!
FS
-
I believe that is correct, yes. GSN told me about two weeks ago that they are making changes, but they haven't confirmed as of yet. However, I can see them changing the bonus structure. Now if they could only fix the speed chains. And betting round. And host. And set. And music. Hell, fix up StarFace a bit while they are at it.
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with the bonus round. It's just the contestants are dumb. See the current version of Family Feud and you'll see what I mean.
-
I should have put this in my post. The old Chain Reaction was relatively far before my time, but I wanted to know: how often did teams capture all 9 right? I'm just checking to see if it's the difficulty of the bonus or the stupidity of the contestants. Or possibly both.
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'128326\' date=\'Aug 21 2006, 02:07 PM\']
I believe that is correct, yes. GSN told me about two weeks ago that they are making changes, but they haven't confirmed as of yet. However, I can see them changing the bonus structure. [/quote]
Like i said, the structure's not bad, it's the difficulty level that's off, IMHO.
Now if they could only fix the speed chains.
No problem with the concept, although they are used as a reward for the easiest word on the board (the last one). How about using them as a buzz in question BEFORE the chain to see who takes control? Keep adding letters until one team gets it.
And betting round.
Here's the problem. In the original, you were playing towards a set score, so they used as many chains as needed until someone got to the score. Here, it's a fixed set of chains, so it doesn't work and leads to anit-climactic endings....anyone have any suggestions?
And host. And set. And music. Hell, fix up StarFace a bit while they are at it.
We get it, you don't like CR. Of the 2 new ones though, it seems to be the favorite, but it's nice to see you admit there are flaws with the best original ever on GSN, Starface :)
FS
-
Hey, I've openly admitted it. Chain Reaction is a much better game. However, StarFace, to me, is just the better show if you take in everything else. There is no excuse, in my mind, for Chain Reaction to be worse, show wise, than StarFace. StarFace is incredibly cheap, boring, and repetitive.
Here's my issue with the speedchain. It's not for enough money. It needs to be at least more than what one word in the main puzzle is worth. If they want to cheap out like that, just add another word to the chain. Hell, just making the speedchain a buzzer type situation would be cool. What they could do is make the winner of each chain do a speedchain, but they bet how much they want. Then make the final round a buzzer speedchain type thing. I probably crapped up the format even more, but oh well. The betting round, I honestly don't know. I appreciate they are trying to make the game more exciting, but it comes off as betting $100 until you know it, and then going for $500. And no, I think StarFace is FAR from GSN's best original. I place it way below Russian Roulette, Lingo, BallBreakers, I've Got A Secret, Whammy, World Series of Blackjack, and High Stakes Poker.
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'128339\' date=\'Aug 21 2006, 02:30 PM\']
I should have put this in my post. The old Chain Reaction was relatively far before my time, but I wanted to know: how often did teams capture all 9 right? I'm just checking to see if it's the difficulty of the bonus or the stupidity of the contestants. Or possibly both.
[/quote]
Maybe James can post a bonus round on his Page o Clips so you can see one. There was one there at one point but it is no longer there.
FS
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'128339\' date=\'Aug 21 2006, 02:30 PM\']
I should have put this in my post. The old Chain Reaction was relatively far before my time, but I wanted to know: how often did teams capture all 9 right? I'm just checking to see if it's the difficulty of the bonus or the stupidity of the contestants. Or possibly both.
[/quote]
I think it's more the stupidity of the contestants. The format is supposed to be moderately difficult, but since you can count the number of doublers on one hand, I think this problem lies with the players.
Unfortunately, unlike other Bob Stewart shows, I don't see the contestants getting smarter as time goes on.
-
Frankly, I think it's very telling. Given the options of a) having their contestant wranglers do more work and find better, equally telegenic contestants, b) selecting smarter contestants that might not be as pretty, or c) dumbing down the bonus game to meet their vapid television-friendly players, they chose option C.
-
Another thing we forget to mention is that finding unisex teams of three isn't exactly easy. That obviously doesn't help things along.
Boys v Girls is a nice concept, but it doesn't exactly lend itself to being longevous.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'128382\' date=\'Aug 21 2006, 07:03 PM\']
Another thing we forget to mention is that finding unisex teams of three isn't exactly easy. That obviously doesn't help things along.
[/quote]
So , what you're saying, is that having 2 mixed teams of three would make the show better to you, and result in smarter players and bigger cash wins? Pul-leeze.
The biggest problem with the new rule is that it's going to result in Moe posting more about how his team deserved more cash, how they would have won more, and how they should be invited back for another chance since the rules are easier. The answers , if you're scoring at home, or if you're alone are : No you didn't , yep you would have, not you won't.
-
Is there any need for that? I haven't said anything in a long time. There's no need to keep taking potshots at me. Yes, I knew about this rule change two weeks ago. No, I'm not bitching about the change. I had my fun on the show, and hopefully this new format will help in the success of Chain Reaction.
Give it a rest with your holier than thou attitude.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'128393\' date=\'Aug 21 2006, 09:44 PM\']
So , what you're saying, is that having 2 mixed teams of three would make the show better to you, and result in smarter players and bigger cash wins? Pul-leeze.
[/quote]
If they can find mixed teams that are smarter and play the game better than the unisex teams, then yeah. But what they really need to do to find more good players is stop their "we can't have anyone who looks over the age of 40" policy.
As for changing the bonus round rules: As much as I love the "two people asking a single question" game, if they aren't going to find teams who can play the bonus round well (and so far they don't seem to even care much if they can play the main game well) then they may as well just go back to something like the USA version bonus.
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'128395\' date=\'Aug 21 2006, 10:19 PM\']
Is there any need for that? I haven't said anything in a long time. There's no need to keep taking potshots at me. Yes, I knew about this rule change two weeks ago. No, I'm not bitching about the change. I had my fun on the show, and hopefully this new format will help in the success of Chain Reaction.
Give it a rest with your holier than thou attitude.
[/quote]
Well, Moe, maybe if you didn't whore your appearance as much as you did, and act like a bigshot just because you appeared on a game show (much unlike Ken Jennings did), maybe people wouldn't have picked on you.
-
Guys, let it go. Moe said he was gonna tone it down, and near as I can tell he has so far. He shouldn't have to eat shite forever.
-
Could the bonus game be wrecked by the dreaded "Family Pyramid" scenario, where the friends start forming questions that only have meaning to them? I have given the show a chance and I don't think it lives up to the Emmons version.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'128393\' date=\'Aug 21 2006, 09:44 PM\'][quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'128382\' date=\'Aug 21 2006, 07:03 PM\']Another thing we forget to mention is that finding unisex teams of three isn't exactly easy. That obviously doesn't help things along.
[/quote]So , what you're saying, is that having 2 mixed teams of three would make the show better to you, and result in smarter players and bigger cash wins? Pul-leeze.[/quote]I didn't say it was the main problem, but consider this: dropping the unisex rule means more teams. More teams means more competition to get on, and more competition to get on lends itself to a higher learning curve and better players getting on the show.
-
I think that if what they're doing to the endgame is true, then the exact same problem that plagued the original CR is going to hurt this version, as well.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'128402\' date=\'Aug 21 2006, 08:34 PM\']
I didn't say it was the main problem, but consider this: dropping the unisex rule means more teams.
[/quote]
Why? Do you really think they will get THAT many more applicants? That there are THAT many teams of two-needing-a-third-but-they-can't-find-a-third-of-their-gender?
More teams means more competition to get on, and more competition to get on lends itself to a higher learning curve and better players getting on the show.
...or it means more people getting turned down, as the coordinators pick the same vapid pretty people they've been picking all along.
You are speaking from a distinct lack of information here. THERE IS NO DEARTH OF APPLICANTS. These people simply don't care how well they can play the game so long as they look good on TV.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'128405\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 12:00 AM\']
These people simply don't care how well they can play the game so long as they look good on TV.
[/quote]
I'm not so sure this is true... There's been some "Plain Janes" on the show, that's for sure.
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'128412\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 12:55 AM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'128405\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 12:00 AM\']
These people simply don't care how well they can play the game so long as they look good on TV.
[/quote]
I'm not so sure this is true... There's been some "Plain Janes" on the show, that's for sure.
[/quote]
Here you go defending the show again...probably because you were on it. Are you one of those "Plain Janes"?
You can't tell me for a minute that GSN (and other companies as well) don't go for looks over brains.
-
See? Once again. Attacked. I'm not defending anything... Nevermind. Some of you just won't stop.
I never said that they didn't cast for "attractive" people. I'm just saying that not everyone on the show is that cookie cutter type... That's all. I'd agree that at least one or two per team are.
It cracks me up how people on boards like this get big ol' cojones when they aren't talking to a person face to face.
Anyway, I wonder how it would be with "mixed" teams aka guys and girls. I think the original thought was to have chemistry between guy friends and girl friends make things easier, but I guess they were wrong. From what I've heard, the new rules are having more big winners, and for that, I'm glad. I'd much rather see people winning than coming up really short.
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'128415\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 01:51 AM\']
It cracks me up how people on boards like this get big ol' cojones when they aren't talking to a person face to face.
[/quote]
I'd be just as happy to say it to your face. I really don't mind telling it like it is.
See? Once again. Attacked. I'm not defending anything... Nevermind. Some of you just won't stop.
I don't see how you feel as if you're being attacked. Someone says something remotely negative about Chain Reaction and you immediately post a counterpoint without any reasoning whatsoever.
-
Immediately now, if I make ANY comment about the show, someone has to say something like, "because you were on the show." Yeah, I was on the show. That doesn't allow me to make comments about it? Was that comment I just made self serving? No. Not at all. Automatically, you have to make reference that because I was on the show, I have to defend it. I don't have to do anything. I made an observation like everyone else. "Without any reasoning"... There's no reasoning in thinking that there are some ugly people on the show!
I never realized how seriously some of you take this game show business... "Telling it like it is." I forgot. One person's OPINION is gospel.
-
Granted, most companies do go for looks over brains, BUT there have been some plain janes on CR.
There. It's settled. Now who wants Ginger Snaps?
-
And some milk please.
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'128417\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 03:05 AM\']
Immediately now, if I make ANY comment about the show, someone has to say something like, "because you were on the show." Yeah, I was on the show. That doesn't allow me to make comments about it? Was that comment I just made self serving? No. Not at all. Automatically, you have to make reference that because I was on the show, I have to defend it. I don't have to do anything. I made an observation like everyone else. "Without any reasoning"... There's no reasoning in thinking that there are some ugly people on the show!
[/quote]
Moe, you did nothing wrong here. I told you to stop bragging and you seem to have gotten the message; I wish others would do as they were asked, particularly Mr. Odor.
Mark and PYLdude: Clearly, Moe should not defend a show to the hilt just because he was on it, but neither should he have to agree with every criticism just because he was on it. He is entitled to his opinion just as much as anyone else is.
Mark: this is your second warning. (EDIT: Emailed as well in case anyone asks "what if he doesn't see this?")
-
Thanks Dz. Maybe I was a bit over zealous in the beginning (due to over excitement, and the pure fact that I've never been on a gameshow), but I'm sick of defending myself to people that don't even know me. Boards are supposed to be fun, not a constant nitpicking fest.
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'128432\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 08:28 AM\']
I'm sick of defending myself to people that don't even know me. Boards are supposed to be fun, not a constant nitpicking fest.
[/quote]
For what it's worth, Moe, I think you've done your time. You appear to be willing to put it behind you, I think other people should be, too.
-
Thanks.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'128425\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 05:45 AM\']
Mark and PYLdude: Clearly, Moe should not defend a show to the hilt just because he was on it, but neither should he have to agree with every criticism just because he was on it. He is entitled to his opinion just as much as anyone else is.
[/quote]
And I didn't say he wasn't entitled. I just explained why people dump on him.
I haven't criticized him one bit about any of his posts here. And in this case, Mark has continued to jump on him, and quite frankly I'm tired of him doing things like this (hence my "cram it" post from the other topic).
-
Pardon me as I don my asbestos long johns. There.
I just watched the show with the three funny gals and the three Texans on YouTube. All things considered, I really didn't think it was that bad. Especially when you figure so much is being done on the cheap. I'd love a real game board, too, but I've given up expecting to see too many these days. Random thoughts:
Yeah, the "Millionaire" lighting, staging, etc, isn't a plus here. I wonder if Mr. Davies has this type of lighting throughout his home? But walls cost money, and you have lights around anyway...
I think Mr. Lane will come along. He was not particularly bad, just sticking to the nuts and bolts. Bill didn't make tons of jokes...let's hope when Dylan relaxes, he'll keep playing it straight.
Personally, I like the speed chains. One thing that drags while watching at home is knowing the answer before the contestants, and hoping their struggle to guess right is at least entertaining. The speed chains give you a chance to play with the contestants in real time. They have 7 seconds, you have 7 seconds. It's a nice play-along factor.
Betting....still not sure about it. If the teams are fairly financially even, then it becomes a game of skillful wagering. If the team totals are totally lopsided before the betting round, you'd have to be stupid to blow a big lead (as said so often here). Just a 2-cents worth - If you want a game where people can really come from behind - start each word at a value of $300 and drop $50 for every letter revealed until you get down to $100, and keep it at $100 for the rest of the word. That may need some more thought, but it gives you a chance to win, not lose money.
Blindfold, cheesy but okay. Dig out the old Stewart answer bell from the prop house and send that little bell back to the counter at Denny's.
Overall, for an adaptation, it could have been a lot worse. I think it's better than most here are saying.
Have not had the courage to check out StarFace yet...let's see if I can find a boring half-hour in life that needs filling....
And Mr. Davies, please mail the check for the good review to 2731 Meyer SW, .............
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'128417\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 02:05 AM\']
Immediately now, if I make ANY comment about the show, someone has to say something like, "because you were on the show." Yeah, I was on the show. That doesn't allow me to make comments about it?
[/quote]
Since I criticized you earlier, I feel I must chime in as well:
Dude, you did nothing wrong. I have a strong feeling Mark's gonna Horanize himself pretty soon.
-
The men are WAY better at the bonus round. If you noticed, the women teams have only gotten 1-3 right. The men are getting 7-8 right. Tonight's winners were the men, and they got 8. So I don't know what is wrong with the women that the men are so much better in "Instant Reaction".
-
[quote name=\'--Richard\' post=\'128780\' date=\'Aug 23 2006, 06:32 PM\']
The men are WAY better at the bonus round. If you noticed, the women teams have only gotten 1-3 right. The men are getting 7-8 right. Tonight's winners were the men, and they got 8. So I don't know what is wrong with the women that the men are so much better in "Instant Reaction".
[/quote]
...why am I getting vibes from another annoying member that used to frequent the forum?
-
[quote name=\'TonicBH\' post=\'128803\' date=\'Aug 23 2006, 09:27 PM\']
...why am I getting vibes from another annoying member that used to frequent the forum?
[/quote]
Now I See It!
-
I could understand teams not doing well with the bonus game: it's not easy to construct a sentence one word at a time. Trust me, I've played a couple of board games that have that as the mechanic. And that's even with friends or people that I know well. Was this round not tested beforehand?
The thing that gets to me most about Chain Reaction '06 is the level of incompetent boobery that goes on, from the ruination of the main game with that stupid stupid stupid betting round, to the non-job that the contestant coordinators are doing, to the set and lighting. We're almost to the point that the host is the best thing about the show. And he's doing a C- job at best. And don't even get me started about how cheap it looks to have the guessing player wearing a blindfold, as opposed to spending some money and buying hidden monitors. Ath knows they're saving money on the double or triple prize money that they don't have to pay out.
My bet? Even though they've lowered the requirements to win the money, I don't think it will matter. Until the show has better teams, they will not have good game play. Congratulations to CR'06, the show that managed to take one of the great play along games of all time, with the greatest host of all, and flush everything completely down the toilet.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'128866\' date=\'Aug 24 2006, 03:28 AM\']I could understand teams not doing well with the bonus game: it's not easy to construct a sentence one word at a time. Trust me, I've played a couple of board games that have that as the mechanic. And that's even with friends or people that I know well. Was this round not tested beforehand?[/quote]
Well, it was--on previous shows.
Who gave the clues in the Instant Reaction round back in 1980? Celebrities. Celebrities who largely had lots of experience with word games already. Celebrities who, even with experience, were invited back very often during the show's short run, suggesting that expertise at sentence construction was vital.
Then look at Go. Yeah, most of the players were civilians, but they got 3-4 rounds of practice before going for the big money each day. AND they got to play all week. AND the celebrities still took the positions (in the main game and bonus) that required the most work.
Bob Stewart did everything but paint the current producers a big sign that said "this format is challenging and requires skill".
-
It's right up there with Burt Luden. Not good. I've seen better contestants at a funeral and they were horizontal.
-
[quote name=\'toddyo\' post=\'128976\' date=\'Aug 24 2006, 03:07 PM\']
It's right up there with Burt Luden.
[/quote]
The cough-drop magnate?
/obscure?
-
LOL LudDen. The infamous double D's.....oh wait, that was Carol Wayne. But that's another story.
-
I finally figured out what it is about the females in the bonus round. If one thing happens that's funny or slightly off-kilter, they laugh their asses off and forget about the game. I'm not totally singling out the women on it, but they definitely do it waaaaay more often than the males.
-
[quote name=\'toddyo\' post=\'128979\' date=\'Aug 24 2006, 06:29 PM\']
LOL LudDen. The infamous double D's.....oh wait, that was Carol Wayne. But that's another story.
[/quote]
32 posts and you already got two good one-liners. ;-)
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'129001\' date=\'Aug 24 2006, 06:48 PM\']
[quote name=\'toddyo\' post=\'128979\' date=\'Aug 24 2006, 06:29 PM\']
LOL LudDen. The infamous double D's.....oh wait, that was Carol Wayne. But that's another story.
[/quote]
32 posts and you already got two good one-liners. ;-)
[/quote]
Yeah, he deserves all props for rebounding from that well. :)
-
Guy I'd most like to be is Burt Sugarman. He had Carol Wayne, has Mary Hart, and he's got possession of the "Whew!" tapes.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'129081\' date=\'Aug 25 2006, 07:40 AM\']
He had Carol Wayne, has Mary Hart,
[/quote]
A combination guaranteed to make you say....
and he's got possession of the "Whew!" tapes.
Oh. Nevermind. :)
-
What kills me is the thought that they rack up and watch those old Whew! tapes during the afterglow....
-
Sorry if this was posted earlier. I didn't feel like digging through 18 pages of posts. For those who went to the pilot: how is the currently aired show compared to the pilot? I heard a few people say that the pilot was a lot better, but I don't trust the GSN boards opinion that much.
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'129090\' date=\'Aug 25 2006, 11:58 AM\']
Sorry if this was posted earlier. I didn't feel like digging through 18 pages of posts. For those who went to the pilot: how is the currently aired show compared to the pilot? I heard a few people say that the pilot was a lot better, but I don't trust the GSN boards opinion that much.
[/quote]
It wasn't much better.
As much as i didn't like Tim Vincent hosting the pilot, holy smokes is he better than Dylan Lane.
Rules were same, payouts were slightly different...teams started with a grand.
The teams were mixed gender...still friends of 3 who were either really goofy looking, or really hot. That hasn't changed.
The set was blander. 2 podiums of 3, one in the middle, all white set (no props) that were colored blue on one side and red on the other by lights.
No blindfold. Tim tied on a black hankerchief.
-
I was watching Chain Reaction.
During the show there was a phone in game. Fill in the one missing word in the chain
Rubber
________
Soup
The Choices:
A. Chicken
B. Instant
C. Duck
I think they want you to pick Chicken
All I have to say is has anyone at GSN heard of The Marx Bros?
-
[quote name=\'Chuck Sutton\' post=\'129248\' date=\'Aug 26 2006, 09:38 PM\']
Rubber
________
Soup
The Choices:
A. Chicken
B. Instant
C. Duck
I think they want you to pick Chicken
All I have to say is has anyone at GSN heard of The Marx Bros?
[/quote]
Yeah...that's pretty poorly thought out, even for GSN. You could of course say rubber duck as well.
-
I've been watching the old CR on Page O Clips and just thought of an interesting topic for debate:
Who would handle Chain Reaction's revival better: Michael Davies or Sande Stewart?
/I claim neutrality for now.
//I'll plead ignorance if I have to.
-
I think Davies has already proven Stewart the winner of this battle.
-
[quote name=\'mystery7\' post=\'129926\' date=\'Aug 31 2006, 09:48 AM\']
I think Davies has already proven Stewart the winner of this battle.
[/quote]
Well, I do have to say Davies is a fair man :)
I just got a call, we're getting double the money for our show! We got 5 right, and since they changed the rules, they're going back to previous people who got 5 or 7 and paying out appropriately. This also means there will be no more whining from Moe Train :)
FS
-
[quote name=\'FlashStash\' post=\'129996\' date=\'Aug 31 2006, 03:02 PM\']
I just got a call, we're getting double the money for our show! We got 5 right, and since they changed the rules, they're going back to previous people who got 5 or 7 and paying out appropriately. This also means there will be no more whining from Moe Train :)
[/quote]
No kidding? How interesting. I dunno if I've ever seen a game show pay retroactively following a rule change.
-
Yeah, that is actually pretty cool of them. It's rare to hear something like that.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'129997\' date=\'Aug 31 2006, 06:05 PM\']
[quote name=\'FlashStash\' post=\'129996\' date=\'Aug 31 2006, 03:02 PM\']
I just got a call, we're getting double the money for our show! We got 5 right, and since they changed the rules, they're going back to previous people who got 5 or 7 and paying out appropriately. This also means there will be no more whining from Moe Train :)
[/quote]
No kidding? How interesting. I dunno if I've ever seen a game show pay retroactively following a rule change.
[/quote]
Well, considering the number of people who actually got more than 5 or 7, I'm sure the actual cost is a pittance :) But it is cool of them...when I got the message on my cell to call for some good news, I was hoping this was it!
FS
-
[quote name=\'FlashStash\' post=\'129996\' date=\'Aug 31 2006, 06:02 PM\']
[quote name=\'mystery7\' post=\'129926\' date=\'Aug 31 2006, 09:48 AM\']
I think Davies has already proven Stewart the winner of this battle.
[/quote]
Well, I do have to say Davies is a fair man :)
I just got a call, we're getting double the money for our show! We got 5 right, and since they changed the rules, they're going back to previous people who got 5 or 7 and paying out appropriately. This also means there will be no more whining from Moe Train :)
FS
[/quote]
Ha... No whining here. Gotta love getting TRIPLE!
-
I've said it before and i'll say it again:
Davies may not produce the best shows out there in game-show-land, but
he . gets . it .
Going back to do this is classy. Says he made a mistake, and wants to make it right for everyone..... I doubt he's doing this for press. He's just doing it.
-
Cynical point of view:
"Crap! We're not making nearly as big of a dent in our prize budget as we initially proposed! Better pay out some of that money somehow so the network doesn't cut our budget, should we get a second season!"
In other news, Michael Davies will be contacting early $32,000 winners of the syndicated "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" to request that they return $7,000 of their winnings to him.
--
Scott Robinson
-
[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' post=\'130096\' date=\'Sep 1 2006, 03:16 PM\']In other news, Michael Davies will be contacting early $32,000 winners of the syndicated "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" to request that they return $7,000 of their winnings to him.[/quote]
After all, fair is fair.
Nice line.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'130097\' date=\'Sep 1 2006, 12:18 PM\'][quote name=\'MSTieScott\' post=\'130096\' date=\'Sep 1 2006, 03:16 PM\']In other news, Michael Davies will be contacting early $32,000 winners of the syndicated "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" to request that they return $7,000 of their winnings to him.[/quote]After all, fair is fair.[/quote]Ah, but the reduced third-tier values have a string attached: the Switch the Question lifeline. So, in exchange for the "refund", the contestants should have the opportunity to continue their game from where they stopped, with the fourth lifeline available. (Example: John stopped with $64K. He gives back $14K (since, on the new money tree, Level 11 is now $50K.) He returns to the Hot Seat, the fourth lifeline is considered to be used, and he attempts a new Level 12 ($100K) question.
Esoteric Eric, who realized several things while composing this post: 1) that people who answered a question incorrectly should not be allowed back, since they should've stopped instead; 2) that virtually no one stopped at Level 11, since there was no money at risk, so any "refund" would be more than $7K (as above, $14K @ Level 12, $25K @ Level 13...) 3) ...unless the contestant stopped with $250K or $500K! (Would those winners be SOL, or should they come back for a free fourth lifeline?* Decisions, decisions...) 4) Jeez, while I was proofing the post, light dawned on Marblehead <pointing at own pate> that it was possible for a returnee to drop back to $25K if they missed the new question. <pate spins>
*P.S. Does anyone else smell a WWTBAM sweeps stunt? ((8=D))
-
[quote name=\'Esoteric Eric\' post=\'130155\' date=\'Sep 2 2006, 08:48 AM\']
Esoteric Eric, who realized several things while composing this post: 1) that people who answered a question incorrectly should not be allowed back, since they should've stopped instead;
[/quote]
Sure they should. (Hypothetically speaking, of course, since this entire discussion is hypothetical.) Just because the contestant chose to answer and got it wrong does not mean they would have done so had they known the had the option to flip the question, ESPECIALLY in the case of those players at $25K who were taking the free guess.
-
The male team tonight OWNED Instant Reaction. They got nine right and I promise if they had about two more seconds, they would've won. They were able to finish their question, "Who hosts you in a restaurant," but before their teammate could answer "Maitre d'", the buzzer sounded. I'm sure if they hadn't used up the time to pass, they would've made it.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'130545\' date=\'Sep 6 2006, 06:32 PM\']
The male team tonight OWNED Instant Reaction. They got nine right and I promise if they had about two more seconds, they would've won.
[/quote]
I'm confused. I thought they stopped after seven now. Or have those episodes not aired yet?
They were able to finish their question, "Who hosts you in a restaurant," but before their teammate could answer "Maitre d'", the buzzer sounded. I'm sure if they hadn't used up the time to pass, they would've made it.
With the contestants they get?
"Um, a waiter?"
"Wrong, next word." <BZZZZZZZTT!>
Unless the person said something like "Was it a maitre'd?" before they were told, I wouldn't assume it was a gimme at all.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'130548\' date=\'Sep 6 2006, 09:56 PM\']
I'm confused. I thought they stopped after seven now. Or have those episodes not aired yet?
[/quote]
Nope, those haven't aired yet. It's still 7/10. I don't think we know when the 5/7 episodes will air.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'130548\' date=\'Sep 6 2006, 09:56 PM\']
"Um, a waiter?"
"Wrong, next word." <BZZZZZZZTT!>
Unless the person said something like "Was it a maitre'd?" before they were told, I wouldn't assume it was a gimme at all.
[/quote]
Though it's possible he could have said waiter, his mouth looked to be forming an M, but I honestly think that this team would've gotten it. They seemed actually interested in the game and having fun rather than being cardboard models. Or maybe I'm just being too nice and crediting. All I know is that I was actually excited during a 2006 CR end-game for once.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'130554\' date=\'Sep 6 2006, 07:08 PM\']
Though it's possible he could have said waiter, his mouth looked to be forming an M,
[/quote]
Uh. Right.
Or maybe I'm just being too nice and crediting.
Yes.
-
I beg your pardon, but what exactly is the rule change? Did they just lower the requirements for doubling and tripling their money?
-
From what I can tell, down to 5 and 7 from 7 and 10, respectively. And don't feel stupid for not knowing - I apparently missed the big coming out party for these findings, and just picked it up secondhand.
-Jason
-
The question was asked somewhere in these 20-odd pages, but in case you're wondering, ties are settled with speedchains, with a team picking from 2 chains, and if one team gets it, the other gets a chance to get theirs. Play continues until one team gets one and the other doesn't. No money is awarded for the tiebreaker chains.
FS
-
Sounds reasonable, although another full chain where words matter instead of money could've worked, too. (First to solve three words wins)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume that in the case of multiple tiebreakers, ones that don't decide the game are edited out.
-
The episodes with five and seven air now airing and it definitely appears to be working. A team (female, nonetheless) tripled their money tonight with about thirty-five seconds left. They didn't miss or pass on one.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'131316\' date=\'Sep 12 2006, 09:31 PM\']
The episodes with five and seven air now airing and it definitely appears to be working. A team (female, nonetheless) tripled their money tonight with about thirty-five seconds left. They didn't miss or pass on one.
[/quote]
"The bonus round everyone's been talking about"...seems like Dylan finally took our advice. Not a peep after the team got 5 correct ("OMGOMGOMG!!!YOU DOUBLED YOUR MONEY!!!LEMME WASTE SOME MORE TIME SO YOU DONT GET TRIPLE!!!"). Only after they got seven did he say anything.
-
I can't see why Dylan can't "be like Bill" and have a quick count after each correct answer, but every little bit helps here.
-
[quote name=\'FlashStash\' post=\'131080\' date=\'Sep 11 2006, 02:30 PM\']
The question was asked somewhere in these 20-odd pages, but in case you're wondering, ties are settled with speedchains, with a team picking from 2 chains, and if one team gets it, the other gets a chance to get theirs. Play continues until one team gets one and the other doesn't. No money is awarded for the tiebreaker chains.
[/quote]
That's a lousy way of doing it. I hate these kinds of tiebreakers because, like Joe said, any tiebreaker rounds that don't result in a winner are going to be edited out for time. So once you know how it works, it's very anti-climactic, since you know what the result is going to be after the first team has their turn. Not to mention it's too open-ended; if several tiebreakers are needed before someone finally wins, it makes the taping run long and exhausts the supply of game material they have available.
I think a much better solution would be: Just give the team who solved the last word of the last chain (thereby coming from behind to cause the tie) a speed chain, just like in the other rounds. They solve it, they win; they don't, they lose. It's simple, it resolves the tie without the need for editing or installing expensive buzzers, and it doesn't leave the intelligent viewers (if any) knowing the outcome halfway through the round.
-
[quote name=\'WilliamPorygon\' post=\'131803\' date=\'Sep 16 2006, 07:02 PM\']
I think a much better solution would be: Just give the team who solved the last word of the last chain (thereby coming from behind to cause the tie) a speed chain, just like in the other rounds. They solve it, they win; they don't, they lose. It's simple, it resolves the tie without the need for editing or installing expensive buzzers, and it doesn't leave the intelligent viewers (if any) knowing the outcome halfway through the round.
[/quote]
...and gives the other team no control in the outcome of the game, which is ridiculous.
A *slightly* better method would be figuring some way to discern an advantage (say, whichever team solved the most words over the course of the show, regardless of money), and offer them the option to play or pass that speed chain. I still don't think it's very good, but I think it's slightly better than just giving it to the team who happened to get the last word of the game.
-
Not that I think this discussion is pointless, but isn't it sort of like trying to polish a turd?
-
Yeah, but it's interesting to find out that with not much thought on our parts, we're able to hack a much better solution to the tie-game situation than Davies and Co. did. For example:
"The first four words in this chain are worth $100. The final word is worth $150. We tossed a midget before the show, and the guys won the toss, so they'll start."
But then again, you'd be requiring people to figure out what $1,550 would be multiplied by three, so that's right out. Nuts.
-
4500+150
I'm typically out when CR comes on, so I follow by GSNN. While reading, I can't help but notice that the first three winning teams have combined for 18 correct answers in the endgame. Is it just me or did the learning curve go up?
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'131885\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 09:10 PM\']
4500+150
[/quote]
Okay, good for you, but you're missing the point. Travis's point is that the AVERAGE viewer (and by virtue of having an Internet connection and half a brain in your head, you're not average) doesn't like to do math. So they keep it to multiples of $100.
(Oh, and you might look a little less silly if you checked to make sure the links in your sig actually worked.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'131887\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 11:17 PM\']
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'131885\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 09:10 PM\']
4500+150
[/quote]
Okay, good for you, but you're missing the point. Travis's point is that the AVERAGE viewer (and by virtue of having an Internet connection and half a brain in your head, you're not average) doesn't like to do math. So they keep it to multiples of $100.
(Oh, and you might look a little less silly if you checked to make sure the links in your sig actually worked.)
[/quote]
Whether they can do math or not doesn't really matter. Dylbot always mentions how much frontgame-times-3 is anyway.
Personally, for that reason, I never do the math in my head. I COULD--but I don't :-)
-
[quote name=\'The Great EZE\' post=\'131888\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 09:34 PM\']
Whether they can do math or not doesn't really matter. Dylbot always mentions how much frontgame-times-3 is anyway.
Personally, for that reason, I never do the math in my head. I COULD--but I don't :-)
[/quote]
Yes, but.....oh, nevermind.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'131887\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 12:17 AM\']
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'131885\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 09:10 PM\']4500+150
[/quote]Okay, good for you, but you're missing the point. Travis's point is that the AVERAGE viewer (and by virtue of having an Internet connection and half a brain in your head, you're not average) doesn't like to do math. So they keep it to multiples of $100.[/quote]
Well, my point is to prove that the Average Viewer does know primary school math and could probably do the math if they wanted to, or God forbid, use a calculator. Besides, not all dollar values in the front game are divisible by 3, anyway, so that's a more important point, I would think.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'131887\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 12:17 AM\'](Oh, and you might look a little less silly if you checked to make sure the links in your sig actually worked.)[/quote]
Well, it's irrelevant now (since it's about a week away from wrapping up) but thanks for the catch.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'131913\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 07:04 AM\']
Well, my point is to prove that the Average Viewer does know primary school math and could probably do the math if they wanted to, or God forbid, use a calculator. Besides, not all dollar values in the front game are divisible by 3, anyway, so that's a more important point, I would think.
[/quote]
Then you have missed the point entirely, particularly the part where I said that you're not the average viewer.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'131863\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 08:59 PM\']
Yeah, but it's interesting to find out that with not much thought on our parts, we're able to hack a much better solution to the tie-game situation than Davies and Co. did. For example:
"The first four words in this chain are worth $100. The final word is worth $150. We tossed a midget before the show, and the guys won the toss, so they'll start."
But then again, you'd be requiring people to figure out what $1,550 would be multiplied by three, so that's right out. Nuts.[/quote]
No, it's not out...at least, not if we also change the endgame so that if they win that, the front game winnings are multiplied by ten instead of three -- in that case, they'd just have to stick another zero on the end.
-
[quote name=\'Thad Dixon\' post=\'131922\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 07:45 AM\']
No, it's not out...at least, not if we also change the endgame so that if they win that, the front game winnings are multiplied by ten instead of three -- in that case, they'd just have to stick another zero on the end.
[/quote]
Thad Dixon, ladies and gentlemen.
We'll be back with more of No Friggin' Concept Of A Prize Budget right...after...THIS!
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'131913\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 10:04 AM\']Well, my point is to prove that the Average Viewer does know primary school math and could probably do the math if they wanted to, or God forbid, use a calculator. [/quote]
Any game show idea where the phrase "use a calculator" is even considered is a bad game show idea.
"Myrtle, Chain Reaction's coming on. Go get the calculator so we can enjoy it."
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'131825\' date=\'Sep 17 2006, 05:57 AM\']
[quote name=\'WilliamPorygon\' post=\'131803\' date=\'Sep 16 2006, 07:02 PM\']
I think a much better solution would be: Just give the team who solved the last word of the last chain (thereby coming from behind to cause the tie) a speed chain, just like in the other rounds. They solve it, they win; they don't, they lose. It's simple, it resolves the tie without the need for editing or installing expensive buzzers, and it doesn't leave the intelligent viewers (if any) knowing the outcome halfway through the round.
[/quote]
...and gives the other team no control in the outcome of the game, which is ridiculous.
A *slightly* better method would be figuring some way to discern an advantage (say, whichever team solved the most words over the course of the show, regardless of money), and offer them the option to play or pass that speed chain. I still don't think it's very good, but I think it's slightly better than just giving it to the team who happened to get the last word of the game.
[/quote]
The best thought I can come up with is to have a five-word chain, first team to get two out of three words wins. It probably would take a bit more time than the existing format, but I can think of a couple ways to speed it up (like having Dylan Lane not repeat every guess back before the reveal or revealing words from the top down instead of giving the above/below option.)
-
My thought (puts flame retardant suit on...:) ):
Do something like Lingo does: a buzz-in tie-breaker. My thought was to display a normal speedchain; whoever buzzes in first wins the game, but, if you buzz in and are wrong, the other team wins the game. No conferences are allowed, but add a letter to the words after five or so seconds if no one has a guess.
This, in my opinion, gives both teams an equal chance of winning, and allows the team who actually has good chain guessers to shine. It doesn't have to be worth any extra money, just the right to move on to the bonus round.
Anthony
P.S. Why didn't they just bite the bullet and instill a fixed prize in the bonus round, like maybe $200/word, but, get 10 (or 7), your total goes up to a flat $10,000? This means that winners of close games won't be given the shaft in terms of total prize money they can win, and there's no need to do any math to figure out the top prize...:).
-
[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'131968\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 12:32 PM\']
Do something like Lingo does: a buzz-in tie-breaker. My thought was to display a normal speedchain; whoever buzzes in first wins the game, but, if you buzz in and are wrong, the other team wins the game. No conferences are allowed, but add a letter to the words after five or so seconds if no one has a guess.
[/quote]
Great idea, but now you've added a lockout system to the cost of the set, and one that won't even see the light of day more often than not. Yeah, Lingo has one with the same issues, but it's pretty clear that CR is operating on a lower budget than Lingo is.
-
Here is what it should have been:
Round 1: $100/word, the fifth word is worth $200
Round 2: $200/word, the fifth word is worth $400
Round 3: $300/word, the fifth word is worth $200
If there is only one letter left in the word, it is not given. It must be solved to get the money. If no one answers correctly after both teams go through their players, the word is shown and credit is not given.
Round 4-1: $500/word -or-
Round 4-2: $500/word and increases by $500 (fifth word is worth $2,500)
The winning team keeps their money, the losing team gets $500.
Instant Reaction
Each correct answer is worth $100. If the 2 players don't form a proper sentence or uses 2 words, a 'cuckoo' sound is heard, and they move on to the next word. 5 correct answers, doubles the team's winnings. (7 correct answers, triples the team's winnings.) Solving all 10 gives the team $10,000.
-
Coming up with an elegant solution is going to be hard when you have to work with the parameters that the show has: no lockouts, that goofy betting round, the silly double/triple bonus game, a very planned amount of game time. It would be easy to scrap the whole thing, award 10 points per word, a 5-point bonus for word five, and play the bonus game for $10,000. Since the producers made everything harder, it becomes that much more difficult to plan for the tie game, even if it happens once out of a 13-week run.
What I've found out is that Chain Reaction is one of the most poorly planned game shows in a long while, at least from the game side. The game builds up momentum only to screech to a halt with the betting round, then we watch teams multiply their money by one in the bonus round...(I suppose that's also the doings of the contestant coordinators, but that's another issue entirely.)
So I'm left to think that the whole game was thrown together in a thirty minute meeting while Michael Davies was out pitching another show somewhere, because you can't get that many things wrong without intended malice at some point.
Yes, I realize that I'm reading very far into this, but I expect the game to be decent, especially for such a good format. And besides, that's the point of the forum, right? So there. ;)
-
abric: Assuming you typoed "$600" in round 3, that's a split of either $6100 (with round 4-1) or $11100 (round 4-2). That gives the winning team, at absolute minimum, either $3100 or $5600. Thus, getting 10 would *lower* your final total in almost all cases.
Anyway, that makes even the worst winning totals around $4000, with a very large number of payouts at or near 5 digits. No way is GSN going to foot that bill.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'132055\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 10:46 PM\']
Coming up with an elegant solution is going to be hard when you have to work with the parameters that the show has[/quote]
I also wonder if we would have been this hard on the original 1980 game:
"Why should a long word be worth more points than a short word? Why should a contestant be penalized for having a bad celebrity when the contestant has absolutely no control? At least on Password or Pyramid, the contesant is always half of the equation, but on this show, when it's not your turn, you get no say. And here, that's two-thirds of the time."
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'131929\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 11:18 AM\']
"Myrtle, Chain Reaction's coming on. Go get the calculator so we can enjoy it."
[/quote]
Part of the fun (for me) with Two For The Money and Password All-Stars was finding out through the host or the announcer what the totals were for the teams. "Three correct answers at $135 an answer..."
But the 20th century was a more patient age.
-
It would at least make watching the game more interesting.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'132111\' date=\'Sep 19 2006, 10:42 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'132055\' date=\'Sep 18 2006, 10:46 PM\']
Coming up with an elegant solution is going to be hard when you have to work with the parameters that the show has[/quote]I also wonder if we would have been this hard on the original 1980 game:
"Why should a long word be worth more points than a short word? Why should a contestant be penalized for having a bad celebrity when the contestant has absolutely no control? At least on Password or Pyramid, the contesant is always half of the equation, but on this show, when it's not your turn, you get no say. And here, that's two-thirds of the time."[/quote]
Then perhaps there's a bigger question out there, like "Can the concept of Chain Reaction be a good format at all?"
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'132245\' date=\'Sep 20 2006, 07:23 PM\']
Then perhaps there's a bigger question out there, like "Can the concept of Chain Reaction be a good format at all?"
[/quote]
Wow.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'132111\' date=\'Sep 19 2006, 07:42 AM\']I also wonder if we would have been this hard on the original 1980 game:
"Why should a long word be worth more points than a short word? Why should a contestant be penalized for having a bad celebrity when the contestant has absolutely no control? At least on Password or Pyramid, the contesant is always half of the equation, but on this show, when it's not your turn, you get no say. And here, that's two-thirds of the time."
[/quote]I doubt it. By 1980, Bob Stewart had built up heaps of credibility, so I would be way more forgiving of a game play hiccup (cf: Go) if Our Man Bob was in charge, than say if Stone-Stanley Productions brought out another insipid show. Now, since you've brought up some interesting points, I'll try to do what I can.
The thing about a point-per-letter is that it was elegant. You knew that each word was worth exactly that, and it provided for some uncertainty if a team was on 40 or more points; whether they could go out on that turn.
Sure, the contestant is penalized in gameplay for having a bad celebrity, but at BSP, they seemed to lean on the same people in rotation. I would happily put my $10,000 hopes in the hands of Debralee Scott and Nipsey Russell than whatever clods were on Pyramid starring Donny Osmond (I refuse to call it Donnymid out of principle). Even if ONE of your partners was a real thick-o, you could still win the game with the other one, and then maybe you get lucky and shlep that person to the other team.
And in the end, you get to be on TV, playing what's a really fun and interesting game; you get to hang out with four stars of the time and one bad ass host. And you have the chance to win $10,000 at the end of the game. I would happily take my chances with the celebrity draw for that.
I give Chain Reaction III a hard time because it has such an impressive forebear and it screwed up at almost every opportunity. Chain Reaction I was given the chance to shine, and while it was a short-lived show, it was a clever one, and what I saw of it on GSN; I enjoyed.
-
Anyone care to explain WHAT IN THE HELL just happened (9/22)?!?!?
-
Elaboration, please?
-
A team got zero in the bonus round, because the question givers apparently had no idea what the hell they were supposed to do.
-
[quote name=\'WilliamPorygon\' post=\'132411\' date=\'Sep 22 2006, 10:12 PM\']
A team got zero in the bonus round, because the question givers apparently had no idea what the hell they were supposed to do.
[/quote]
Example please? Or, better yet, Youtube clip please?
-
For those who didn't see it--another first in CR history. The first ZERO in Instant Reaction (bonus round). It'd be one thing if the team actually tried but the guesser just couldn't get anything, but it was as if the team was flying blind (all of them) and had no clue at all how to play, and in fact the one guy tried several times to get them to stop the bonus game altogether ("I just can't do this!") after royally screwing up. They definitely seemed like one of those teams Moe (Train) was talking about where they didn't even bother practicing the bonus round, and instead made total asses of themselves.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'132412\' date=\'Sep 22 2006, 10:14 PM\']
[quote name=\'WilliamPorygon\' post=\'132411\' date=\'Sep 22 2006, 10:12 PM\']
A team got zero in the bonus round, because the question givers apparently had no idea what the hell they were supposed to do.
[/quote]
Example please? Or, better yet, Youtube clip please?
[/quote]
I don't remember the names, but the one guy on the right was the real problem. First he was starting the sentences in "non question" form (which was cuckooed each time), then some "two word bobbles" (also cuckooed). Dylan chastized them ("gotta be in question form guys"), then the one guy starts passing everything (and I mean everything). When around :30 are left, he says "I can't do this anymore" and tries to get them to stop the bonus round altogether, which they wouldn't, so he wastes some more time, tries again (twice, I think) to get them to stop, and finally the disaster is over with.
-
[quote name=\'catnap1972\' post=\'132413\' date=\'Sep 22 2006, 10:18 PM\']
For those who didn't see it--another first in CR history. The first ZERO in Instant Reaction (bonus round). It'd be one thing if the team actually tried but the guesser just couldn't get anything, but it was as if the team was flying blind (all of them) and had no clue at all how to play, and in fact the one guy tried several times to get them to stop the bonus game altogether ("I just can't do this!") after royally screwing up. They definitely seemed like one of those teams Moe (Train) was talking about where they didn't even bother practicing the bonus round, and instead made total asses of themselves.
[/quote]
Which makes me wonder, who's the bigger team of idiots--the contestants, or the contestant coordinators?
/Wow.
//Freakin' wow.
///At least the production company saves money.
-
The Instant Reaction basically consisted of these two things:
"Umm.....What......*cuckoo*"
"Pass"
Whatever they didn't pass on they got cuckooed after two words. Unreal.
-
[quote name=\'catnap1972\' post=\'132414\' date=\'Sep 22 2006, 10:25 PM\']
When around :30 are left, he says "I can't do this anymore" and tries to get them to stop the bonus round altogether, which they wouldn't, so he wastes some more time, tries again (twice, I think) to get them to stop, and finally the disaster is over with.[/quote]
Bob Stewart would never have let a potential contestant get that far anyway, but if somehow it happened, he'd also have the good taste and sense to let the guy out of his misery if that's what he wanted and it was clear he wasn't going to get anywhere. Dick Clark or Bill Cullen would then come out with some appropriately worded comment to make everybody feel better and the awkwardness would be diffused while still giving the home audience a show. This was just ugly, made uglier by the ineptitude on the production/host end of things.
-
The longer this show is on, the more it proves the title of this thread correct.
Getting no words in 90 seconds...at the very least, I don't think the show can go any lower than this.
-
[quote name=\'Allstar87\' post=\'132426\' date=\'Sep 22 2006, 10:21 PM\']
Getting no words in 90 seconds...at the very least, I don't think the show can go any lower than this.
[/quote]
I seem to remember the second Saturday this show was on, three guys were playing that round and two of them kept shouting words indiscriminately like they were playing three-person Pyramid or something. About halfway through Dylan warned them to phrase it in the form of a question and I think they may have gotten one or two right after that. But these two incidents make me wonder if these teams are getting a chance to practice or if they even know what they're supposed to do before the taping.
I'm glad I missed this latest one, sounds like something akin to watching a fly die on the windowsill.
-
Wanna see the way to win Instant Reaction? lol (http://\"http://youtube.com/watch?v=AwB7EKtw45o\")
Zero. That's absoutely pitiful. Was the team drunk or something?
(http://myspace-118.vo.llnwd.net/01187/81/12/1187262118_l.jpg)
-
[quote name=\'Allstar87\' post=\'132426\' date=\'Sep 22 2006, 11:21 PM\']Getting no words in 90 seconds...at the very least, I don't think the show can go any lower than this.[/quote]
To be honest, this week was starting out pretty well, I thought. After everyone doubled or better last week, there were still some good endgaming, this occured. I don't know if there are any actual tests done with the contestants (a la the entry quiz for Jeopardy) but there'd better be some, and I would hope they would now include an endgame trial.
I actually feel kinda bad for the production staff. You don't expect a team to announce their resignation during the game. How can you even plan for that?
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'132436\' date=\'Sep 22 2006, 11:08 PM\']
I actually feel kinda bad for the production staff. You don't expect a team to announce their resignation during the game. How can you even plan for that?
[/quote]
By casting competent contestants, so it's never something you have to worry about in the first place.
Sorry, no sympathy whatsoever. You look for pretty boys and pretty girls instead of people who can play the game, you deserve what you get. I'm just surprised we didn't see it sooner.
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'132430\' date=\'Sep 23 2006, 12:27 AM\']
Wanna see the way to win Instant Reaction? lol (http://\"http://youtube.com/watch?v=AwB7EKtw45o\")
[/quote]
Honestly? At this point? No. I want to see the team that bombed.
-
hahaha.. You have a point there. Something funny but painful about watching a team crash and burn. I'd like to see it too!
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'132419\' date=\'Sep 22 2006, 09:51 PM\']
Dick Clark or Bill Cullen would then come out with some appropriately worded comment to make everybody feel better and the awkwardness would be diffused while still giving the home audience a show. This was just ugly, made uglier by the ineptitude on the production/host end of things.
[/quote]
Obviously they should've planned for this and I'm betting from now on, they'll tell the contestants something to help prevent this from happening again. I'm sure there was a meeting over this and possibly even a permanently posted memo in the office.
But...keep in mind the contestant team itself may bear some blame here as well. They should've had some better strategy and may have decided who would play what position at the last minute. For all we know, the guy who tried to give up repeatedly, perhaps insisted earlier on playing that position, for example out of some kind of "carpool Napoleon" maneuver toward his teammates. ("Look, I'm driving and if you don't let me play in the middle I'm leaving you here!") Or something like that. Point is, it could have been any one of the three playing that position and they chose the worst one ever for whatever really, really bad reason. I had a college bowl teammate once who was one of the most brilliant people I ever met, but totally sucked at being part of any team, let alone captain.
Or perhaps they did practice it, perhaps even more than once, and he soared like eagles, but during the actual show he choked. Or they could've been out partying the night before or something. Anyway I would think this show will be a cautionary tale not just for the production staff but for future contestants.
Anyone know when this turkey will be rerun?
-
I don't understand how hard it is to either show contestants a clip of the old bonus round or say "Hey, have you seen Whose Line? Remember 3 Headed Broadway Stars? Yeah, you're doing that to win money." This was just about the final nail in the coffin here for me. How I cannot wait for That's The Question.
-
[quote name=\'cweaver\' post=\'132454\' date=\'Sep 23 2006, 10:42 AM\']
Or perhaps they did practice it, perhaps even more than once, and he soared like eagles, but during the actual show he choked. Or they could've been out partying the night before or something. Anyway I would think this show will be a cautionary tale not just for the production staff but for future contestants.
[/quote]
Bull Funky.
Fault lies COMPLETELY on the contestant coordinators, which is a damn shame, cause I worked with some of them on the KenJen pilot, and they're good people.
You get a contract for 65 episodes. Each show requires 6 contestants. You better damn well find 390 people who can play the game well enough to provide entertainment for the home audience. Otherwise, you keep looking for good quality contestants or you scale back the contract. Or, introduce returning champs to lighten the contestant pool.
Again, I'll say that i'm sorry that Michael Davies is behind this. Becuase if I know Michael, he was in the booth screaming up a storm after this travesty. It's his baby, his deal with GSN, and his ass on the line if he can't provide 'quality' programming (subjective , I know). And you're right, this won't happen again.
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'132430\' date=\'Sep 23 2006, 12:27 AM\']
Wanna see the way to win Instant Reaction? lol (http://\"http://youtube.com/watch?v=AwB7EKtw45o\")
[/quote]
Wow, that video looks like crap. You must have treated it like it was 16:9 while editing and processing it.
-
Shrink the video down a little bit. It clears up. It's true though, it needs to be rerendered for a larger size.
-
No, I'm not talking about the crappy video quality that is common on YouTube. I mean the aspect ratio is off. Normal NTSC video is 4:3. That video looks like it was treated as 16:9, which has to be stretched horizontally. How, exactly, did you get this video into the format which you uploaded to YouTube?
-
DVD to AVI to Windows Movie Maker, then I converted it to WMA.
-
By the way Moe, your signature expired. Unless they're rerunning your show again on that date several years from now (not likely).
-
Ha. I'll make some adjustments.
-
[quote name=\'PYLclark86\' post=\'132417\' date=\'Sep 22 2006, 07:27 PM\']
The Instant Reaction basically consisted of these two things:
"Umm.....What......*cuckoo*"
"Pass"
Whatever they didn't pass on they got cuckooed after two words. Unreal.
[/quote]
So, how is the word "What" cuckoo worthy? And for that matter, why must a question start with one of the three Ws? Why couldn't a team clue the word "violin" with "Stradivarius...made...what...instrument? <ding!>" You get the pertinent information out of the way faster, and establish a route for the question to take without foundering in "What...does...a...person...do...?" territory.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'132666\' date=\'Sep 26 2006, 09:04 AM\']
So, how is the word "What" cuckoo worthy?
[/quote]
In and of itself, it isn't, but the vibe I got was that they were probably doing something closer to "Where...um...what", which is two words and therefore is illegal.
-
We did the "what" thing when we were on the show. It made it a no brainer to start off the sentence. It would always be, "What place," "What person," etc... Quick and effective.
All of the sentences had to be full questions. Starting it off with "what" made each and every response a question.
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'132685\' date=\'Sep 26 2006, 11:53 AM\']
All of the sentences had to be full questions. Starting it off with "what" made each and every response a question.
[/quote]
It's also the most logical way to make sure you and your partner are on the same wavelength.
Travis's point, though, is that a question doesn't HAVE to start with one of the 5 W's as its first word. It might be bad strategy on CR to do it that way, but a legal question could still be formed.
-
That's very true. If you did it that way though, hopefully the other person would turn it into a question before hitting the bell, or you'd get buzzed.
-
[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'132691\' date=\'Sep 26 2006, 02:26 PM\']
That's very true. If you did it that way though, hopefully the other person would turn it into a question before hitting the bell, or you'd get buzzed.
[/quote]
Well, yeah, of course that's the idea. Thing is, by starting a question like that, you are setting up a very specific type of question structure and not really giving yourself an out in case your partner doesn't pick up on it. Whereas the other way, if that happens, both of you have some wiggle room to get on the same wavelength.
Given the choice between "I hope he's thinking what I'm thinking" and "I can wing it if he's not thinking what I'm thinking", I'll go with the latter every time.
-
Tonight's Instant Reaction team obviously practiced tonight. Also, tonight's best line for the word fiddle. "What does one play on a roof?"
And, unrelated, but Starface is in reruns already? How many episodes were ordered?
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'132717\' date=\'Sep 26 2006, 06:32 PM\']
Tonight's Instant Reaction team obviously practiced tonight. Also, tonight's best line for the word fiddle. "What does one play on a roof?"[/quote]If the blindfolded person said ANYTHING other than "A fiddle!" he or she needs to be taken out behind the woodshed. (EDIT: Oh, wait, you said "fiddle" already. Even so, my point stands.)
And, unrelated, but Starface is in reruns already? How many episodes were ordered?
Too many.
-
She was utterly confused, so she spat out "Hockey."
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'132721\' date=\'Sep 26 2006, 06:46 PM\']
She was utterly confused, so she spat out "Hockey."
[/quote]
I lol'd.
/don't pass it to that guy, he sucks!
//seen any balls down there?
-
CR is rerunning shows as well. I've been told that our show has been on 2 or 3 times!
-
Yes, but they're only re-ran on late night and weekends. They're still airing first-run episodes, while Starface just repeated an episode at 9:30.
-
The man who took five takes to say "OK guys, you solved that chain. It's time to play our first speedchain" is going to host the National Vocabulary Challenge for GSN.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'132759\' date=\'Sep, 06:41 AM\']
Yes, but they're only re-ran on late night and weekends. They're still airing first-run episodes, while Starface just repeated an episode at 9:30.
[/quote]
Oh really? Did they not tape as many episodes as CR?
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'125967\' date=\'Aug 1 2006, 10:20 PM\']
I now take back all the bad things I ever said about how they're doing Lingo wrong.
Well, actually I don't, but at least now I know how much worse it could have been.
What's next? Eye Guess without hiding the answers? Three on a Match with two columns?
Pass the Buck with...well, actually, maybe I WOULD like to see how they'd change Pass the Buck.
[/quote]
Remember when there were some versions of Match Game back in 1990 and also back in 1998? It didn't feel like the Match Game that GSN has. You can not ruin a show like that because there are only 2 Match Games that we know really well as in with the orange set and all.