The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: johnnya2k3 on March 12, 2007, 05:58:40 AM
-
Based on the videos we've seen on YouTube, the return of the Aussie Family Feud (as Bert's Family Feud) includes a Fast Money round in which a family can win up to $100,000 -- give or take $70,000 U.S. -- depending on the top answers given.
Now we all know the Fast Money payout on our Family Feud has went from $5,000 to $10,000 to now $20,000, but the $5/point if nobody reached 200 has been around since DAY ONE!!!!! And with the current version switching syndicators this fall from Tribune to Debmar-Mercury, I think the payout structure needs an overhaul.
We have suggested an increase to $10/point, but as for the top prize, here's what I'm thinking: take a note from BFF and make it this way:
1 top answer: $20,000
2 top answers: $25,000
3 top answers: $30,000
4 top answers: $40,000
5 top answers: $50,000 (I was originally going to say $100,000, but Fremantle likes to save their money)
Then again, the first contestant trying to get all of the top answers in one try before the second does can be tough (except for that one time on the Combs version). But who knows?
Jonathan Allen
-
[quote name=\'johnnya2k3\' post=\'147845\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 03:58 AM\']
Now we all know the Fast Money payout on our Family Feud has went from $5,000 to $10,000 to now $20,000, but the $5/point if nobody reached 200 has been around since DAY ONE!!!!! And with the current version switching syndicators this fall from Tribune to Debmar-Mercury, I think the payout structure needs an overhaul.
[/quote]
Nah.
-
Oooh, may I be the first?
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3211/matmonbag2ec0.gif (http://\"http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3211/matmonbag2ec0.gif\")
-
[quote name=\'tomobrien\' post=\'147850\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 09:39 AM\']
Oooh, may I be the first?
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3211/matmonbag2ec0.gif (http://\"http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3211/matmonbag2ec0.gif\")
[/quote]
Okay, you beat me to the punch! Seeing an oft-quoted Lemonism on a Monday morning is fine, but seeing MATTHEW LESKO staring me in the face first thing on a Monday Morning!?!? Grab me the Tums-EX AND the Pepto.
-
[quote name=\'johnnya2k3\' post=\'147845\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 02:58 AM\']
And with the current version switching syndicators this fall from Tribune to Debmar-Mercury, I think the payout structure needs an overhaul.
[/quote]
What does A have to do with B?
Or was this another attempt to try to impress people with obscure knowledge?
(You failed.)
-
[quote name=\'johnnya2k3\' post=\'147845\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 05:58 AM\']
Now we all know the Fast Money payout on our Family Feud has went from $5,000 to $10,000 to now $20,000, but the $5/point if nobody reached 200 has been around since DAY ONE!!!!! And with the current version switching syndicators this fall from Tribune to Debmar-Mercury, I think the payout structure needs an overhaul.
[/quote]
What is it with some of you thinking increasing the grand prize on a game show makes it more enjoyable? I think $20,000 is absolutely fine, and right on par with what the show offered in the past for its returning champions.
$5000 in 1976 is about $18,000 now.
$5000 in 1985 is about $9,300+.
$10,000 in 1988 is only $17,000+. Got that?
For the nighttime version, $10,000 in 1977 is about $34,000, but since that show didn't have returning champions, it's kind of a moot point. Is that enough reasons as to why your idea sucks falls flat on its face?
I wish some of you would stop trying to give away money that doesn't belong to you, and would just enjoy the damn show for what it is. Family Feud does not need to give away six figures per show, regardless of what the Aussies do. The other syndicated game shows offer enough money, and in Wheel's case, too much. I'd like to see at least ONE game show still offer a moderate amount of money. As long as the contestants are happy with their loot, I'm happy.
-
I think in some cases, bigger payoffs can attract better and more varied contestants, thus making the shows more watchable to me. I cannot bear to watch something like the current Chain Reaction where the contestants aren't really into the game and don't care about playing it well.
-
Why bother? I don't think Feud's ratings improved at all when they upped it to $20,000 for a win.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'147863\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 12:36 PM\']
Why bother? I don't think Feud's ratings improved at all when they upped it to $20,000 for a win.
[/quote]
I don't think it was immediate, but the ratings have gone up a bit since then (but have fluctuated a bit). It's not getting Wheel or Jeopardy! (or hell, even Millionaire) numbers, but it's remained respectable.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'147862\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 09:36 AM\']
I think in some cases, bigger payoffs can attract better and more varied contestants, thus making the shows more watchable to me. I cannot bear to watch something like the current Chain Reaction where the contestants aren't really into the game and don't care about playing it well.
[/quote]
But then, that begs the question: would those better and more varied contestants be chosen anyhow?
Based on what we're seen the CR people cast, the answer to that is no.
-
[quote name=\'johnnya2k3\' post=\'147845\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 02:58 AM\']1 top answer: $20,000
2 top answers: $25,000
3 top answers: $30,000
4 top answers: $40,000
5 top answers: $50,000[/quote]In your mad rush to make silly and unnecessary changes to a format that doesn't need them, you forgot one thing: teams that get none, one or two right answers would win less than $20,000. Where are you saving money here? You're suggesting $20,000 for any team, again, with no concept of a prize budget.
So I don't know why I should bother going on, except to say that if you're going to change the prize budget, Pat O'Brien should immediately inherit the hosting position.
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'147857\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 08:49 AM\']What is it with some of you thinking increasing the grand prize on a game show makes it more enjoyable?[/quote] Those people are excited by seeing people winning loads of money for doing nothing, and it's not their money being spent.
I wish some of you would stop trying to give away money that doesn't belong to you, and would just enjoy the damn show for what it is.
Personally, I would like to see that enforced as an Eligibility Requirement.
It is clear that there is a difference between the people who have put rational thought into changing the prizes, and those who are bouncing up and down in their chairs at the sight of "$100,000."
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'147862\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 09:36 AM\']I think in some cases, bigger payoffs can attract better and more varied contestants, thus making the shows more watchable to me. [/quote]If you believe that, it's your dime, but I don't think people will try out for the Feud just because they might have an outside shot at $100,000 on every show. If the show wanted "better and more varied contestants," they would have contestant searches in other cities. Do they still do that sort of thing?
-
I would like to see the payoff structure changed like this:
The families play for $10 a point in the maingame, with $3,000 winning the game. Unlike previous versions, only the winning family keeps their money.
Each day, the two families start out with $10,000 in their Fast Money Jackpot. For each round they win outside of Sudden Death, $10,000 is added to the amount that they could play for in Fast Money if they win the game. Thus:
Winning the game via Sudden Death only: $10,000
Winning 1 round: $20,000
Winning 2 rounds: $30,000
Winning 3 rounds: $40,000
Winning all 4 rounds: $50,000
But should the family win the game with only the first three rounds, they play Fast Money for $100,000.
Fast Money is the same is normal- win, get your day's jackpot; otherwise, nothing extra.
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'147869\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 01:35 PM\']
I would like to see the payoff structure changed like this:
<snip>
[/quote]
Why?
-
*sigh* Nothing is wrong with the payouts for the millionth time. The only thing I'd ever do is increase the dollar/point thing to $10, and that's just because $5 a point split between 5 people isn't lighting a fire under anymore anymore. But that's not even needed. It's fine as it is. Leave it alone.
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'147869\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 12:35 PM\']
Winning the game via Sudden Death only: $10,000
[/quote]
This is impossible unless they pick a survey in which all 100 people selected the top answer, thus the round being worth 300 in itself. I've yet to see that happen.
I always liked the ol' Bullseye game. Not Bankroll, but Bullseye. Burt's version even adapted it. Why not just bring it back, start each bank with $10,000, that way each family has a possibility of playing for $25,000.
-
No, no, no. You're all headed in the wrong direction. Combine the idea of a payment structure with the kookiness of Deal or No Deal. Every time a contestant makes John lean back and raise an eyebrow, it's worth an additional $2/point in Fast Money. If during the main game a contestant runs up to the board and touches the correct number of their answer before the reveal, that answer's points are doubled. If a contestant manages to get the audience to do the wave a full 360 degrees, the team wins and the game is over.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'147867\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 10:11 AM\']
It is clear that there is a difference between the people who have put rational thought into changing the prizes, and those who are bouncing up and down in their chairs at the sight of "$100,000."
[/quote]
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'147869\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 10:35 AM\']
I would like to see the payoff structure changed like this:
But should the family win the game with only the first three rounds, they play Fast Money for $100,000.
[/quote]
My kingdom for the first person who can AudioEdit a WAV of Johnny Gilbert intoning "This....is....IRONY!"
(Extra points to Dale for bringing Teh Funnay.)
-
The only thing I'd like to see changed on the Feud is for the main game to be played for dollars instead of points. Fast Money is fine the way it is. The game is more important than a lot of money being given away, and I'd like to see the losing team get a little money even if they don't win the game.
Eric Hines
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'147874\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 12:59 PM\']
No, no, no. You're all headed in the wrong direction. Combine the idea of a payment structure with the kookiness of Deal or No Deal. Every time a contestant makes John lean back and raise an eyebrow, it's worth an additional $2/point in Fast Money. If during the main game a contestant runs up to the board and touches the correct number of their answer before the reveal, that answer's points are doubled. If a contestant manages to get the audience to do the wave a full 360 degrees, the team wins and the game is over.
[/quote]
If nothing else, it'd make a great drinking game.
-
I have no idea how deep Debmar-Mercury's budget is. Is it just me, or do you think the top prize will go back to $10,000, because they are just an upstart company?
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'147881\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 03:16 PM\']
I have no idea how deep Debmar-Mercury's budget is. Is it just me, or do you think the top prize will go back to $10,000, because they are just an upstart company?
[/quote]
They're not as upstart as you think, chief. They've been rerunning "South Park" for the last two years, as well as some other shows, and the "Saw" movies and "Crash". Also, they've got Lions Gate Entertainment on their side, so I don't think they'll have a problem.
/Wikipedia is your friend.
//And it's just you.
-
It's so much fun to watch the little kids play with Debmar's money. Here's a little tip : if your audience can't follow what the payout structure is, it's too damn complicated. In business, just like life, use the kiss principle:
Keep It Simple Stupid
That said:
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'147857\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 11:49 AM\']
$5000 in 1976 is about $18,000 now.
$5000 in 1985 is about $9,300+.
$10,000 in 1988 is only $17,000+. Got that?
[/quote]
Since the $5/point for losing hasn't gone up a dime since it's premiere 30 years ago, I would actually like to see it doubled. Hearing John announce at the end that a family has won a whopping $820 for their losing efforts just doesn't seem worth it.....and considering winning families now get less than their 70s counterparts (because there's no pay in the front game), I'm all for throwing them a bigger consolation prize bone.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'147889\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 05:01 PM\']
Since the $5/point for losing hasn't gone up a dime since it's premiere 30 years ago, I would actually like to see it doubled. Hearing John announce at the end that a family has won a whopping $820 for their losing efforts just doesn't seem worth it.....and considering winning families now get less than their 70s counterparts (because there's no pay in the front game), I'm all for throwing them a bigger consolation prize bone.
[/quote]
I meant to comment on that, but this has been the only upgrade I think could work, esp. if they're upping the top prize. I do agree that $199 a person is a pretty cheesy consolation prize in 2007. $10 shouldn't break the bank, even when a family reaches 199 points, and the math would be so much easier. ;-)
-
Isn't getting the privilege to appear on a game show a big enough prize?
What I love about British game shows is they aren't afraid to offer shows with little or no big prizes while keeping the game engaging and exciting. Contestants grill their brains on "Countdown" for a Teapot, for crying out loud, and it's still an awesome game!
-
[quote name=\'JRaygor\' post=\'147903\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 06:57 PM\']
Isn't getting the privilege to appear on a game show a big enough prize?
What I love about British game shows is they aren't afraid to offer shows with little or no big prizes while keeping the game engaging and exciting. Contestants grill their brains on "Countdown" for a Teapot, for crying out loud, and it's still an awesome game!
[/quote]
I certainly wouldn't criticize those who want more out of a game show appearance than the chance to play, but your larger point is dead on. Unfortunately I'm not aware of a cure for Mo' Money Syndrome; if there were one, I know several members of this group who would gladly volunteer to forcibly administer the cure to the Bandit and Pat O'Brien's Biggest Fan™, not to mention a few network executives.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'147905\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 07:13 PM\']
I certainly wouldn't criticize those who want more out of a game show appearance than the chance to play, but your larger point is dead on.
[/quote]
Thank you and I wouldn't criticize anyone either for wanting more either. I'd be kidding myself if I were to say the thought of winning something wasn't a motivation for wanting to get on!
If I got on DoND and was offered $300,000 I certainly would NOT tell Howie, "Well, being on a game show is prize enough, NO DEAL!" :-)
-
That's a great Noel Edmonds quote, by the way. But I have no problem with shows that offer enough to make it worthwhile for contestants. Jeopardy and WoF upping their minimums so contestants basically have free airfare to the taping is terrific. $10 a point in Fast Money would be inoffensive along these lines, IMO. Didn't "Weakest Link" pay contestant's airfare on one or both of the American runs?
Maybe our posters from across the pond can shed some light on this, but does the size of England and its transportation and everything else about the culture make it negligible to be on a game show? Those contestants taking time off to be on Deal comes to mind - I can't think of anybody in my immediate family who could get enough time off and would be willing to spend the money to travel to a studio for that long. I'd go on a game show with a $500 top prize if it were an hour drive away, but to hell with flying to California, New York or even Minnesota for that.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'147910\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 08:34 PM\']
That's a great Noel Edmonds quote, by the way. But I have no problem with shows that offer enough to make it worthwhile for contestants. Jeopardy and WoF upping their minimums so contestants basically have free airfare to the taping is terrific. $10 a point in Fast Money would be inoffensive along these lines, IMO. Didn't "Weakest Link" pay contestant's airfare on one or both of the American runs?
[/quote]
Correct. They paid for the trip, and the hotel. The bar tab was left up to you.
And that's a good point to be made. Wheel and Jep no longer fly out players, which is one of the reasons why they give cash as a parting gift (more than Family Feud gives for a losing trip to Fast Money)
Feud, unless i'm mistaken, doesn't fly in folks, and neither does Lingo or Millionaire. It's the players dime to do the show.
Are the kids on "Are you Smarter Than a 5th Grader" flown in to be contestants, or are they paid in other ways? (It's a joke people.)
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'147912\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 07:57 PM\'] Wheel and Jep no longer fly out players, which is one of the reasons why they give cash as a parting gift (more than Family Feud gives for a losing trip to Fast Money) [/quote]
I'm curious...when did Jeopardy fly contestants in?
-
[quote name=\'tomobrien\' post=\'147913\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 06:22 PM\']I'm curious...when did Jeopardy fly contestants in?
[/quote]
I don't think they ever have, with the exception of the tournaments, or when an out-of-town returning champion carries over to the next taping session.
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'147881\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 03:16 PM\']
I have no idea how deep Debmar-Mercury's budget is. Is it just me, or do you think the top prize will go back to $10,000, because they are just an upstart company?
[/quote]
There....Fixed that for you!!
-
Okay, at the risk of getting attacked with a Lesko jpeg or the wrath of Lemon, I've thought for several years now that both families should receive $5 a point at the end of the main game, and Fast Money should be bumped up to $10 a point. The fact that money is no longer awarded in the main game means families who fail at Fast Money actually win less than they did 30 years ago, and that rubs me the wrong way.
As for the grand prize, $20,000 seems like a perfectly fair amount, especially since the potential to have 5 shots at it is there.
-
[quote name=\'Sodboy13\' post=\'147924\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 08:31 PM\']Okay, at the risk of getting attacked with a Lesko jpeg or the wrath of Lemon, I've thought for several years now that both families should receive $5 a point at the end of the main game, and Fast Money should be bumped up to $10 a point. The fact that money is no longer awarded in the main game means families who fail at Fast Money actually win less than they did 30 years ago, and that rubs me the wrong way.[/quote]Given that you've actually put some thought into your response, I think you'll be spared mockery, but I will pose this question to you, and the people who say that Fast Money's per-point award should be increased.
Why?
It's a consolation prize. If they want to win some money, maybe the family should think harder about who they have playing that game. Losing the bonus game should not be rewarded. Personally, I like what the Australian show does: you either win the jackpot, or get nothing.
I have less of a problem with awarding cash for the main game, but I also see no urgent need to make the change. Even if you spot the team $100 if they get shut-out or close to it, that's $20 a head. Whoopee.
What I think would be an interesting change is to have two families playing all week, keeping whatever money they win over the five shows. That would probably come with a halving of the FM jackpot, but I it would at least give the families a good shot to score some money.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'147930\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 12:48 AM\']
It's a consolation prize. If they want to win some money, maybe the family should think harder about who they have playing that game. Losing the bonus game should not be rewarded. Personally, I like what the Australian show does: you either win the jackpot, or get nothing.
[/quote]
Personally, I feel that's why it's called a "bonus round". If I worked hard to win the game against my opponent, I feel there should be some sort of payoff, whether it's $895, or $20,000. Why should I go home with nothing just like my opponents? If they offered dollars in the race to 300, I'd be more understanding.
To me, it would just look awkward to see the day's "champions" get nothing for their effort. Sure, they should get the 200 points, but I wouldn't punish them for not doing so. I'm trying to rack my brains to find a show where the contestant not only a) wins no money in the front game, and b) could win $0 for losing the end game.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'147934\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 12:15 AM\']
I'm trying to rack my brains to find a show where the contestant not only a) wins no money in the front game, and b) could win $0 for losing the end game.
[/quote]
Well, off the top of my head, that was the scenario on Match Game '98. And any game that finds itself with a parallel to MG '98 should not be flattered by the comparison, to put it mildly.
-
If there was something I'd change about the payout structure, that would be converting maingame points to dollars. But that's not major, I couldn't care less if some family walks away with $21,124 or $20,755.
$20,000 is still good, the reason why Bert's Family Feud does it because they have to go against the juggernaut known as "Deal or No Deal".
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'147930\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 11:48 PM\']
Personally, I like what the Australian show does: you either win the jackpot, or get nothing.[/quote]
Actually, this is my problem with Bert's Family Feud. (The only show I can think of where you can win the game, lose the bonus round, and have no money.) A team can win all 5 days and end up no better than the 5 families they defeated. The lowest scoring 5-day family as of today won $1,500, and that's only because they won 3 Bert's Bonuses.
$10 a point is the only change the show's payout structure needs.
-
[quote name=\'Sodboy13\' post=\'147938\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 01:46 AM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'147934\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 12:15 AM\']
I'm trying to rack my brains to find a show where the contestant not only a) wins no money in the front game, and b) could win $0 for losing the end game.
[/quote]
Well, off the top of my head, that was the scenario on Match Game '98. And any game that finds itself with a parallel to MG '98 should not be flattered by the comparison, to put it mildly.
[/quote]
In addition, I recall that happening at least once on the Doug Davidson-hosted New Price Is Right.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'147934\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 01:15 AM\']
I'm trying to rack my brains to find a show where the contestant not only a) wins no money in the front game, and b) could win $0 for losing the end game.
[/quote]
Wouldn't the last (and worst) incarnation of Card Sharks qualify -- the money you won in the main game became the money you bet with in the Money Cards?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'147934\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 11:15 PM\']
I'm trying to rack my brains to find a show where the contestant not only a) wins no money in the front game, and b) could win $0 for losing the end game.
[/quote]
Any version of Pyramid.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'147950\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 09:30 AM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'147934\' date=\'Mar 12 2007, 11:15 PM\']
I'm trying to rack my brains to find a show where the contestant not only a) wins no money in the front game, and b) could win $0 for losing the end game.
[/quote]
Any version of Pyramid.
[/quote]
Pretty hard to do on Pyramid, though. There's syndicated Match Game '79, too, where there was nothing for winning the game and one could get skunked in Super Match.
I think they should up the consolation prize to $10/point, too. A show ought to feel like a big deal--"Countdown" does by longevity rather than prize money--and tossing out $700 bucks to 5 people is very small potatoes. If a show feels cheap, it's not as fun to watch. Otherwise, I'll just play the home game.
-
Forget money. People will flock to the show just to be on TV. At most, give 'em a million S&H Green Stamps.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'147959\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 12:00 PM\']
Forget money. People will flock to the show just to be on TV. At most, give 'em a million S&H Green Stamps.
[/quote]
Sure. One contestant on The Joker's Wild during the Joker's Jackpot era opted not to risk his $500 by playing on saying that "$500 will buy a lot of egg salad sandwiches".
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'147977\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 10:46 AM\']
Sure. One contestant on The Joker's Wild during the Joker's Jackpot era opted not to risk his $500 by playing on saying that "$500 will buy a lot of egg salad sandwiches".
[/quote]
I bet the smell in his house was unbearable after he got home.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'147977\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 12:46 PM\']
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'147959\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 12:00 PM\']
Forget money. People will flock to the show just to be on TV. At most, give 'em a million S&H Green Stamps.
[/quote]
Sure. One contestant on The Joker's Wild during the Joker's Jackpot era opted not to risk his $500 by playing on saying that "$500 will buy a lot of egg salad sandwiches".
[/quote]
And an older gentlemen playing end game 2 on "TJW" deduced that the Vivitar 35mm camera was "a fine camera" from the art card and Johnny Jacobs' description and didn't want any more prizes, thank you very much. It does happen.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'147946\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 08:38 AM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'147934\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 01:15 AM\']
I'm trying to rack my brains to find a show where the contestant not only a) wins no money in the front game, and b) could win $0 for losing the end game.
[/quote]
Wouldn't the last (and worst) incarnation of Card Sharks qualify -- the money you won in the main game became the money you bet with in the Money Cards?
[/quote]
I believe that in the very few times the players have busted, they still ended with $700 regardless. I wouldn't think that the crapfest would have crappy consolation prizes other than the camera to give the champ. $700 would be at least marginal to make up for everything.
On topic: Keep the $20K jackpot, make the points matter in the match (convert to dollars), and give them $10 for every point made in Fast Money. No need to change the payoffs to Bert's format (other than maybe the set, but that's for an entirely different debate).
-
Sure. One contestant on The Joker's Wild during the Joker's Jackpot era opted not to risk his $500 by playing on saying that "$500 will buy a lot of egg salad sandwiches".
...and remember -- that $500 would have bought a lot more egg salad sandwiches in the early '70s than it would today; so it's not unreasonable to take it and run!
-
The only thing I would change would be to increase it to $10/point. Right now, that seems like the only (slightly) logical thing to do...since it's been $5/point since '76. Little extra gas money...spending cash...whatever. And it's not really Mo' Money Syndrome....unless you count doubling $5 "mo' money".
When they do that, can Richard Karn debut the change? Please? :)
And IIRC...didn't the Combs version use "dollars" instead of "points" in the maingame?
/and I really don't want to see my Lesko image with this post....
//DOUBLE THE DOLLARS!!!!111!!!!!!!oneelevenone!!!!11111!!!
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'148002\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 04:09 PM\']
...and remember -- that $500 would have bought a lot more egg salad sandwiches in the early '70s than it would today; so it's not unreasonable to take it and run!
[/quote]
Depends on whether it was '72 or later (http://\"http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/Avian/eeu1106.pdf\")
Yeah, too much free time
-
As of right now, I want $10 a point offered to the winning family in the maingame (thus, they could win from $3,000-$5,990 before getting the shot at $20,000), and have no money awarded in Fast Money if they lose there.
-
As of right now, I want $15 a point in Fast Money if lost, with a potential jackpot of $12 times the maingame score. A few moments ago, I wanted to keep $5 a point and have a Fast Money win be worth $50,000. In a little while, I'll probably be leaning toward bringing Dawson back and reintroducing the Bankroll Round. But that's just me. I'll keep ya posted.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'148009\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 01:45 PM\']
As of right now, I want $15 a point in Fast Money if lost, with a potential jackpot of $12 times the maingame score. A few moments ago, I wanted to keep $5 a point and have a Fast Money win be worth $50,000. In a little while, I'll probably be leaning toward bringing Dawson back and reintroducing the Bankroll Round. But that's just me. I'll keep ya posted.
[/quote]
You, sir, have been on absolute fire the last few days. :)
-
On fire, my eye! Where are the calls for progressive consolation jackpots? It starts at $5 per point, and increases by $5 per point per day until won.
I mean, until not won.
That is, uh . . .
-
I'm going to be different! Seeing as some people are insisting on bigger money... let me propose smaller money!
I think "Fast Money" should be played for a top prize of $500! Miss and it's $0.10 a point!
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'148007\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 03:41 PM\']
As of right now, I want $10 a point offered to the winning family in the maingame (thus, they could win from $3,000-$5,990 before getting the shot at $20,000), and have no money awarded in Fast Money if they lose there.
[/quote]
*boom*
MY HEAD A SPLODE
-
Put me down for $10 a point in fast money. As for the main game, just count the score in points. Giving away a few hundred bucks to a family of five is an insult.
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'148003\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 03:16 PM\']And IIRC...didn't the Combs version use "dollars" instead of "points" in the maingame?
[/quote]
They played for dollars in the beginning, but I believe at some point (probably the Bullseye round) they switched it to points.
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'148068\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 09:46 PM\']
Put me down for $10 a point in fast money. As for the main game, just count the score in points. Giving away a few hundred bucks to a family of five is an insult.
[/quote]
An insult, eh?
OK, chief...if you make it on a game show, I'll make sure you get an ample supply of Today's Girl pantyhose instead of some cash.
/Have I ever said how much I can't stand it when people complain about being better off than they were before?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'148019\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 04:50 PM\']
You, sir, have been on absolute fire the last few days. :)
[/quote]
Matt would disagree. My benign PiR posts fail to wow him. :(
-
Count me among those whose ideal would be:[list=1]
- main game for dollars instead of points
- $10/point for a Fast Money loss
- leave the $20K as is.
For me, there is something unseemly if an iconic show's prize structure is such that it's not unusual for a winner to leave with less than $1,000, especially a winning team.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'148080\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 11:50 PM\']
For me, there is something unseemly if an iconic show's prize structure is such that it's not unusual for a winner to leave with less than $1,000, especially a winning team.
[/quote]
OK, since you're a reasonable guy, I'll ask you this:
They lost the bonus game. Why are they deserving of anything more?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'148081\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 11:51 PM\']
Have I ever said how much I can't stand it when people complain about being better off than they were before?
[/quote]
And how exactly are they better off??? In the case of Feud, at least a couple of family members probably TOOK TIME OFF FROM WORK to be there. I don't know about you, but I make more than $50 a day, CHIEF.
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'148101\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 03:19 AM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'148081\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 11:51 PM\']
Have I ever said how much I can't stand it when people complain about being better off than they were before?
[/quote]
And how exactly are they better off???[/quote]
In the same sense if I walked up to someone and offered them $175. If you don't want it, screw ya.
In the case of Feud, at least a couple of family members probably TOOK TIME OFF FROM WORK to be there.
That's what vacation days are for.
I don't know about you, but I make more than $50 a day, CHIEF.
Must have a pretty large paper route, huh?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'148111\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 06:14 AM\']
Must have a pretty large paper route, huh?
[/quote]
Dude, you are so not in a position to be talking here.
-
I personally don't care about the dollar amounts given away. The 'Feud' is fine just the way it is. It's a format that has worked flawlessly for over 30 years. The current run is the best since the Dawson days and is generally well received with the public. (Ratings speak volumes).
Why fix it if it's not broke?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'148111\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 09:14 AM\']
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'148101\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 03:19 AM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'148081\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 11:51 PM\']
Have I ever said how much I can't stand it when people complain about being better off than they were before?
[/quote]
And how exactly are they better off???[/quote]
In the same sense if I walked up to someone and offered them $175. If you don't want it, screw ya.[/quote]
Yeah, especially when airfare to LA costs over 10 times as much as that. Yeah, that makes sense.
If you consider $175 to be "better off," I feel sorry for you.
In the case of Feud, at least a couple of family members probably TOOK TIME OFF FROM WORK to be there.
That's what vacation days are for.
Did you ever stop and think...oh, I don't know...that maybe some people DON'T HAVE PAID VACATIONS? Or, maybe vacation days to use?
I don't know about you, but I make more than $50 a day, CHIEF.
Must have a pretty large paper route, huh?
Like Chris said...you don't have any room to talk.
-
Count me on the bandwagon for $10 a point for not reaching 200 in fast money. The only real problem is with the main game. My problem is when producers can change the DOUBLE question so that a family cannot 300 before the 2nd commercial break. If the producers are worried about the main game ending before the 2nd commercial break, they should change the structure of the main game.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'148081\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 11:51 PM\']
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'148080\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 11:50 PM\']
For me, there is something unseemly if an iconic show's prize structure is such that it's not unusual for a winner to leave with less than $1,000, especially a winning team.
[/quote]
OK, since you're a reasonable guy, I'll ask you this:
They lost the bonus game. Why are they deserving of anything more?
[/quote]
It's less about merit than about aesthetics.
i) The host sounds more dramatic reading a total that begins with "one thousand" than one that begins "x hundred."
ii) The viewer doesn't have to listen as closely to know when the team had a bad Fast Money round.
And that's without comparing it to the payouts on WoF and J!
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'148129\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 10:26 AM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'148111\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 06:14 AM\']
Must have a pretty large paper route, huh?
[/quote]
Dude, you are so not in a position to be talking here.
[/quote]
What's this supposed to mean?
Did you ever stop and think...oh, I don't know...that maybe some people DON'T HAVE PAID VACATIONS? Or, maybe vacation days to use?
Well, if its that much of a financial burden for them, perhaps people should get their priorities straight and go to work instead of appearing on a game show.
If you consider $175 to be "better off," I feel sorry for you.
If I throw 5 bucks down on double 00 on roulette, and that number hits, I'm up $170. While you're not "rich" by any means, that's $170 you didn't have before.
It's less about merit than about aesthetics.
i) The host sounds more dramatic reading a total that begins with "one thousand" than one that begins "x hundred."
ii) The viewer doesn't have to listen as closely to know when the team had a bad Fast Money round.
Fair enough. While I still disagree, at least you can give decent reasoning for it, instead of merely calling it "an insult".
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'148201\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 05:53 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'148129\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 10:26 AM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'148111\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 06:14 AM\']
Must have a pretty large paper route, huh?
[/quote]
Dude, you are so not in a position to be talking here.
[/quote]
What's this supposed to mean?
[/quote]
It means you sound like you're arguing for the sake of having something to argue about and in the process are making yourself look like an ass.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'148215\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 05:55 PM\']
It means you sound like you're arguing for the sake of having something to argue about and in the process are making yourself look like an ass.
[/quote]
I'd say he completed that process a long time ago...
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'148215\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 06:55 PM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'148201\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 05:53 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'148129\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 10:26 AM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'148111\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 06:14 AM\']
Must have a pretty large paper route, huh?
[/quote]
Dude, you are so not in a position to be talking here.
[/quote]
What's this supposed to mean?
[/quote]
It means you sound like you're arguing for the sake of having something to argue about and in the process are making yourself look like an ass.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that there was more to what Chris was saying than that, but I'll let him enlighten us if he so chooses.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'148261\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 08:20 PM\']
I'm pretty sure that there was more to what Chris was saying than that, but I'll let him enlighten us if he so chooses.
[/quote]
All I was saying is that Mark is in no position to be making cracks about the quality of someone else's job.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'148052\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 07:48 PM\']
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'148007\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 03:41 PM\']
As of right now, I want $10 a point offered to the winning family in the maingame (thus, they could win from $3,000-$5,990 before getting the shot at $20,000), and have no money awarded in Fast Money if they lose there.
[/quote]
*boom*
MY HEAD A SPLODE
[/quote]
Sorry so late.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a10/whoserman/myhead.jpg (http://\"http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a10/whoserman/myhead.jpg\")
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'148266\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 10:40 PM\']
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'148261\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 08:20 PM\']
I'm pretty sure that there was more to what Chris was saying than that, but I'll let him enlighten us if he so chooses.
[/quote]
All I was saying is that Mark is in no position to be making cracks about the quality of someone else's job.
[/quote]
Chris, why would you even provoke him? It's plain as the nose on your face that the two of you dont like each other. You two snipe at each other with the childish name calling, callling out, which in turn provokes others, and drags the conversations down. It's childish and frankly, it's getting old- from both of you.
I know I don't post much, and Im not a moderator, but I honestly felt it had to be said.
-
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' post=\'148275\' date=\'Mar 14 2007, 10:06 PM\']
Chris, why would you even provoke him?
[/quote]
Yeah, I know. I call out hypocrisy when I see it, though. Just so happens that particular individual spews a lot of it.
If it really bothers you that much, you are certainly free to put me in your ignore list.
(And I will point out that I elaborated because a moderator INVITED me to.)
-
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' post=\'148275\' date=\'Mar 15 2007, 01:06 AM\']
Chris, why would you even provoke him? It's plain as the nose on your face that the two of you dont like each other. You two snipe at each other with the childish name calling, callling out, which in turn provokes others, and drags the conversations down. It's childish and frankly, it's getting old- from both of you.
[/quote]
That said, it's not as old as Mark being negative about everyone and everything, which is what really started all of this. Rather than simply say that TheLastResort might be overreacting by calling the Fast Money payouts an "insult," he made the whole thing personal and then made fun of TLR's livelihood when he didn't get the answer he wanted. As Chris pointed out, it was hypocritical in the extreme, and more to the point, there was no need for it except for Mark's apparent desire to fulfill some monthly quota of negativity.
I'm convinced that someday Mark will understand that this isn't a place where every single member has to live up to his expectations and every single post has to meet with his approval. Whether that's before or after he's banned remains to be seen.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'148301\' date=\'Mar 15 2007, 12:46 PM\']
Rather than simply say that TheLastResort might be overreacting by calling the Fast Money payouts an "insult," he made the whole thing personal[/quote]
Hey, I wasn't the one who said
but I make more than $50 a day, CHIEF.
and then made fun of TLR's livelihood when he didn't get the answer he wanted.
Unless LastResrt is in fact a paperboy, how did I make fun of his livelihood?
Look, I've come to the conclusion when a couple members of this board are against you all the time, you're basically screwed.
-
Mark, stop playing the victim. You were being snarky and you know it.
Did you not say:
An insult, eh?
OK, chief...if you make it on a game show, I'll make sure you get an ample supply of Today's Girl pantyhose instead of some cash.
And that was before the "I make more than $50 CHIEF" response.
No one would be against you if you didn't try to be so rude with your posts. Start taking some accountability, and I mean that as a friend.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'148312\' date=\'Mar 15 2007, 04:37 PM\']
Look, I've come to the conclusion when a couple members of this board are against you all the time, you're basically screwed.
[/quote]
Perhaps some of them wouldn't be against you all the time if you weren't against pretty much everyone all the time.
I still don't know why you decided to go negative almost 24/7, but you shouldn't be surprised that people don't think much of you as a result, and you certainly have no business complaining about it.
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'148068\' date=\'Mar 13 2007, 10:46 PM\']
Put me down for $10 a point in fast money. As for the main game, just count the score in points. Giving away a few hundred bucks to a family of five is an insult.
[/quote]
Gotta disagree here. Few people are fortunate enough to be chosen to appear on a game show. For those who do, I have to think they'd be happy just being there and wouldn't be insulted with whatever extra bonus money they get for losing the bonus round. It also isn't like they don't get to play again if they do lose anyway... There's no need to mo' money the fast money round.