The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: xavier45 on April 10, 2012, 01:45:20 PM
-
After just 3 short months with dismal ratings, Dancing With The Stars will be departing GSN on April 21st, exactly 3 months after it first started airing on the network. Replacing all of its slots on Saturday and Sunday will be marathons of all Family Feud's GSN airs(Excluding Dawson). Feud will air Saturday nights from 5pm-11pm and Sunday afternoons from 3pm-6pm.
Anybody surprised to see it go this fast?
https://acrobat.com/app.html#d=5w0u1TyrslD8KIg99UvHxw
-
Anybody surprised to see it go this fast?
I'm sure the new programming chief who made this a HUGE priority is a little surprised.
I'm frankly sick of the "GSN should stick to game shows" drumbeat, but on the other hand, you don't lose a lot of money and totally embarrass yourself when That's The Question doesn't do quite as well as you'd hoped, and if I recall, the networks' biggest single audience to date is still for that Press Your Luck documentary. Maybe there's something to be said about sticking with your core brand.
-
Is there a way to know how many total households have GSN at any time? For them 500,000 might be a huge coup but that should be held up to a yardstick of however many million potential pairs of eyes there are.
-
Great Work, GSN let's hope BBC America picks up Dancing With The Stars along with Strictly Come Dancing with Bruce Forsyth as well as Classic Episodes of the Generation Game with Bruce Forsyth!
-
Is there a way to know how many total households have GSN at any time? For them 500,000 might be a huge coup but that should be held up to a yardstick of however many million potential pairs of eyes there are.
GSN's at about 70-75 million homes, which is pretty good. Tops is around 100 million. (http://"http://www.ncta.com/Stats/TopNetworks.aspx")
-
Great Work, GSN let's hope BBC America picks up Dancing With The Stars along with Strictly Come Dancing with Bruce Forsyth as well as Classic Episodes of the Generation Game with Bruce Forsyth!
This guy annoys us at Palace too.
-
Is there a way to know how many total households have GSN at any time? For them 500,000 might be a huge coup but that should be held up to a yardstick of however many million potential pairs of eyes there are.
GSN's at about 70-75 million homes, which is pretty good. Tops is around 100 million. (http://"http://www.ncta.com/Stats/TopNetworks.aspx")
So at their absolute one-time pinnacle of ratings, GSN was able to get 1 in 100 sets tuned to them, maybe one in 75. Most of the time they're're getting 1 in 300-ish, and that's with Flannel Feud. That's the kind of paradigm we're working with.
There are maybe ten thousand people out there in the country who sit down and watch GSN because they're following a show day-to-day. Everybody else sees a show, says, "Hey, I remember Win, Lose or Draw! I dug it!" and they watch. Maybe they watch whatever is coming next. And that's it. They go about the rest of their day. For Everybody Else, GSN isn't appointment viewing.
-
Great Work, GSN let's hope BBC America picks up Dancing With The Stars along with Strictly Come Dancing with Bruce Forsyth as well as Classic Episodes of the Generation Game with Bruce Forsyth!
Or perhaps the National Grammar Rodeo at the Sheraton Hotel in Canada, maybe?
-
Everytime I tried to give a newer show on GSN a chance (an original or a slightly older show), I always found it to be a bit underwhelming. It's like something is missing. Either it comes off as forced, the contestants have the intelligence of a rock, it feels too dark like millionaire, it relies too much on "Million Dollar Syndrome", or it doesn't feel as relaxed and laid back. Whatever it is, it makes me miss the days of game shows in the 70's and especially the 80's.
But of course, that doesn't mean I think anything older is automatically better, regardless of the B.S. a certain former user on this forum said.
-
Everytime I tried to give a newer show on GSN a chance (an original or a slightly older show), I always found it to be a bit underwhelming. It's like something is missing. Either it comes off as forced, the contestants have the intelligence of a rock, or it doesn't feel as relaxed and laid back. Whatever it is, it makes me miss the days of game shows in the 70's and especially the 80's.
GSN's last good crop of shows came out around 2002. Wasn't fond of Friend or Foe, but loved Russian Roulette and Lingo...Whammy was okay, but missing the charm of the original (well, the 80s version).
Like you said, a lot of the stuff after that was pretty half-baked. I think things reduced to quarter-baked, if not raw, after the 2004 rebranding.
-
And you know what else I miss?
As we obviously know, even some of our favorite classics, were, at one point, new shows. Back then, typically, it would take a successful, continuing series on any of the major networks, 4-5 years (100 episodes; give or take a few) for it to begin making the rounds in syndication. For example, The Simpsons, the Fox Network's juggernaut, began it's back-end (or off-network) syndication run as early as September 1994, almost 5 years after it premiered.
But look at how it is now: Steve Harvey's era of FF was acquired by GSN, a little over A YEAR after it started!
-
GSN's last good crop of shows came out around 2002. Wasn't fond of Friend or Foe, but loved Russian Roulette and Lingo...Whammy was okay, but missing the charm of the original (well, the 80s version).
Like you said, a lot of the stuff after that was pretty half-baked. I think things reduced to quarter-baked, if not raw, after the 2004 rebranding.
I got the channel just before senior year started. And for that period (1998-2000) it seemed like they had a direction and purpose, and they were having fun with the interactive games, and they had some good product out. They were putting their back into it. Now it seems like straps of Deal or No Deal, Fifth Grader, or whatever the flavor of the month is.
A couple of years ago I got GSN on an introductory rate. From 10 to midnight, there was Jeopardy, Bergeron Squares and an hour of Pyramid. And before that they had 21 on Saturday nights. And they weren't afraid to trot out Trivia Trap or Now You See It, and so on. The problem isn't so much that I feel like I've seen everything GSN has to offer, but that they're not putting any sweat equity into what they're doing.
-
And you know what else I miss?
As we obviously know, even some of our favorite classics, were, at one point, new shows. Back then, typically, it would take a successful, continuing series on any of the major networks, 4-5 years (100 episodes; give or take a few) for it to begin making the rounds in syndication. For example, The Simpsons, the Fox Network's juggernaut, began it's back-end (or off-network) syndication run as early as September 1994, almost 5 years after it premiered.
But look at how it is now: Steve Harvey's era of FF was acquired by GSN, a little over A YEAR after it started!
That's not really the same thing. USA was guilty of that too- picking up the original Wipeout right after its cancellation, for one.
Also, IIRC, didn't they pick up Davidson Squares and Scrabble while both shows were still in first-run?
A better example probably would be to stick with scripted series in that case- for example, a show like Still Standing or 'Til Death. Neither one of those made it to that point, did they?
-
Still Standing: 88. Til Death: 81. 8 Simple Rules: 76.
A season of 200-ish episodes of a game show isn't really comparable.
Was USA guilty of anything, or just being awesome?
-
Still Standing: 88. Til Death: 81. 8 Simple Rules: 76.
A season of 200-ish episodes of a game show isn't really comparable.
Was USA guilty of anything, or just being awesome?
I forgot 8 Simple Rules was in syndication- probably because it seemed to disappear from the markets just as quickly.
(I had read earlier in the offseason that part of the reason why Rules of Engagement is still airing is because they want to pass the magic mark. I guess that would be the only reason I could accept- the show's just not that good. It's like Yes, Dear was- hanging on because there's nothing else.)
/my opinions, of course, various mileages will vary.
-
Also, IIRC, didn't they pick up Davidson Squares and Scrabble while both shows were still in first-run?
Don't know about HSq but it was at least a year when they picked up "Scrabble". However, they indeed aired a lot of shows just months after cancellation.
-
Yep, and I just realized two more examples:
Just the Ten of Us (1988-1990; 3 seasons; 47 episodes; ABC) and My Two Dads (1987-1990; 3 seasons; 60 episodes; NBC). Both shows began making the rounds of USA Network reruns immediately after cancellation.
I was mainly referring to continuing shows, and local syndication, not cancelled, and soon-to-be cable reruns.
-
I was mainly referring to continuing shows, and local syndication, not cancelled, and soon-to-be cable reruns.
You're still comparing sitcoms with game show programming, and there are so many differences between the two when it comes to syndication and the number of episodes produced and any number of other factors that your point really is quite irrelevant.
-
And you know what else I miss?
As we obviously know, even some of our favorite classics, were, at one point, new shows. Back then, typically, it would take a successful, continuing series on any of the major networks, 4-5 years (100 episodes; give or take a few) for it to begin making the rounds in syndication. For example, The Simpsons, the Fox Network's juggernaut, began it's back-end (or off-network) syndication run as early as September 1994, almost 5 years after it premiered.
But look at how it is now: Steve Harvey's era of FF was acquired by GSN, a little over A YEAR after it started!
That's not really the same thing. USA was guilty of that too- picking up the original Wipeout right after its cancellation, for one.
Also, IIRC, didn't they pick up Davidson Squares and Scrabble while both shows were still in first-run?
Davidson Squares started airing three days after it left syndication. Scrabble aired concurrent with the '93 run.
-
It probably hasn't helped - at least with the onscreen guide for my cable - that the only description is along the lines of "the dancers perform for the judges." No names, so you don't know what year it was.
-
Scrabble aired concurrent with the '93 run.
Scrabble was also airing before that, though- I seem to remember one of the Pyramids preceding it on the daily schedule on USA.
-
That was $25K Pyramid. Reruns began in October 1988. They added the original $100K Pyramid during the last week of 1992.
-
Scrabble aired concurrent with the '93 run.
Scrabble was also airing before that, though- I seem to remember one of the Pyramids preceding it on the daily schedule on USA.
Fall 1991 and you're right about "Pyramid". They aired during the 3:00 hour.
-
I'm frankly sick of the "GSN should stick to game shows" drumbeat,
To go back to the original topic, I just wanted to mention that I wouldn't be in that camp if almost everything they tried outside of the game show realm didn't, you know, flop. The only real non-game show related success I can think that they've had would be their poker nights. I'm just surprised they're jumping off of this so quickly. How long was The Amazing Race reran late at night after its primetime stretch didn't do so hot?
Last week, Dancing's highest charting (http://"http://sonofthebronx.blogspot.com/2012/04/gsn-ratings-april-2-8-2012.html") last week was 104th out of 232 recorded programs. (Coincidentally, the 232nd place show was a Sunday afternoon Dancing. 52,000 viewers.) I think it says a lot when three of the five 11am airings of Super Password do better. In a comparison of recent acquisitions, the addition of Steve Harvey's Feud did very well for them, taking 6 of the top 10 spots in its second week.
-
While were on this subject, with Harvey's Feud being brought up, didn't GSN acquire Bergeron's Squares during it's second year?
-
It probably hasn't helped - at least with the onscreen guide for my cable - that the only description is along the lines of "the dancers perform for the judges." No names, so you don't know what year it was.
But GSN said (on-screen) that it was "ALL NEW!"...wasn't that enough information for you?
-
While were on this subject, with Harvey's Feud being brought up, didn't GSN acquire Bergeron's Squares during it's second year?
That sounds about right. I believe it aired on weekend mornings.
-
Everytime I tried to give a newer show on GSN a chance (an original or a slightly older show), I always found it to be a bit underwhelming. It's like something is missing. Either it comes off as forced, the contestants have the intelligence of a rock, or it doesn't feel as relaxed and laid back. Whatever it is, it makes me miss the days of game shows in the 70's and especially the 80's.
GSN's last good crop of shows came out around 2002. Wasn't fond of Friend or Foe, but loved Russian Roulette and Lingo...Whammy was okay, but missing the charm of the original (well, the 80s version).
Like you said, a lot of the stuff after that was pretty half-baked. I think things reduced to quarter-baked, if not raw, after the 2004 rebranding.
My favorite GSN original was I've Got a Secret. Such a great remake, a host and panel with great chemistry, nice retro looking set and a fun, lighthearted game. It's a shame it only lasted one season.
-
I'm frankly sick of the "GSN should stick to game shows" drumbeat
To be fair, think about this for a second. A lot of people outside of our little circle of fans here still refers to the network as the "GAME SHOW" network. If the market you're attempting to target still knows you for what you once were, what sense does it make to try and be something else?
Stick with what brung ya there, I say.
-
If the market you're attempting to target still knows you for what you once were, what sense does it make to try and be something else?
Money.
-
If the market you're attempting to target still knows you for what you once were, what sense does it make to try and be something else?
Money.
I knew someone would say that- to which I counter with this. How much of a cost difference is there, really?
I don't deny that GSN's idea to try to expand their profile is relatively admirable, if anything, but how many times do you have to fail before realizing that hey, this really isn't beneficial because the money we spend on these programs is going to waste because the viewership is the same?
I mean, if you can pull the same numbers with classics or recent reruns that you can with Dancing of the Stars reruns...
-
I knew someone would say that- to which I counter with this. How much of a cost difference is there, really?
They're a business. That's their aim: to make money in any legal way that they can.
Whether they're good at their goal is another story.
-
How much of a cost difference is there, really?
If it's $1, it's enough.
-
I knew someone would say that- to which I counter with this. How much of a cost difference is there, really?
They're a business. That's their aim: to make money in any legal way that they can.
Whether they're good at their goal is another story.
The way I see it, if the goal is to get from point A to point B and the ways you choose to get to point B don't get you there, and that keeps on happening each time, when do you stop saying "let's keep on the failing path" and go back to the first right path?
If GSN is going to keep making changes that don't end up working and aren't willing to admit that and try to do something with what HAS worked in the past, the way I see it they might as well just fold up the network at this point and give the channel space to someone else.
-
If GSN is going to keep making changes that don't end up working and aren't willing to admit that and try to do something with what HAS worked in the past, the way I see it they might as well just fold up the network at this point and give the channel space to someone else.
Well, while you operate under the assumption that it *has* worked in the past (hint: operating at less of a loss is still operating at a loss), I'm pretty sure you haven't seen enough of their financial records to make any kind of assessment of that sort. (And neither have I. That said, I'm assuming a certain level of core competency, seeing as these people are working in national cable television and not at Channel 49 in Snake's Ass, Missouri.)
That said, yes, if your premises are indeed true, that decision will eventually be made for them.
-
Snake's Ass, Missouri
Didn't Letterman used to have a Home Office there?
-
Snake's Ass, Missouri
The restaurant on the east side of town has the best pancakes in the lower 48.
-
Wow..."Dancing with the Stars" reruns fell faster than Melissa's head to the dance floor...
-
(I had read earlier in the offseason that part of the reason why Rules of Engagement is still airing is because they want to pass the magic mark. I guess that would be the only reason I could accept- the show's just not that good.
It's also not actively bad. It's just there. Since CBS isn't exactly hurting for hits, it's safer for them to just keep Rules on the air than take a shot with something that will most likely disappear completely after three episodes.
-
It's also not actively bad.
Also it keeps Patrick Warburton employed, and that is never a bad thing.
/although the karma there is washed out by also keeping David Spade in a steady paycheck
-
Also it keeps Patrick Warburton employed, and that is never a bad thing.
He has another gig to fall back upon (http://"http://cdn0.hark.com/images/000/006/291/6291/original.jpg").
/I miss The Tick.
-
He has another gig to fall back upon (http://"http://cdn0.hark.com/images/000/006/291/6291/original.jpg").
Yeah, but I like Patrick Warburton, so I want him to have as many concurrent gigs as he chooses to. :)
-
I often wonder why they haven't tried some other things. Why not show a movie every once in awhile? Or pick up some lower-tier college basketball/football action? Or are the rights fees to stuff like that not worth the cost?
-
If CBS is turfing shows after three poorly-rated episodes, it can't be sunk costs or risk-aversion. Did you mean GSN specifically, Mark, or another network?
-
If CBS is turfing shows after three poorly-rated episodes, it can't be sunk costs or risk-aversion. Did you mean GSN specifically, Mark, or another network
I was speaking of GSN, specifically.
-
Movie is right out, because you have to procure the rights, and other networks are already doing movies. Sports means you have to carve out three hours, hire talent, you're competing against the established networks, and there's rights issues. It worked for poker (and less so for blackjack. As badly as they'd like to branch out from it, their bread is buttered on game shows.
-
Sports means you have to carve out three hours, hire talent, you're competing against the established networks, and there's rights issues.
Since I spent my time growing up in the Big Ten, we always had coverage. Do companies like Jefferson Pilot and Mizzlou not exist anymore?
Not that I want to lose what GSN offers--but if they insist on trying other things...
-
Sports means you have to carve out three hours, hire talent, you're competing against the established networks, and there's rights issues.
Since I spent my time growing up in the Big Ten, we always had coverage. Do companies like Jefferson Pilot and Mizzlou not exist anymore?
I want to say the former still does. I know one of the indie stations aired their games iin recent years...same for the ACC Network.
-
Sports means you have to carve out three hours, hire talent, you're competing against the established networks, and there's rights issues.
Since I spent my time growing up in the Big Ten, we always had coverage. Do companies like Jefferson Pilot and Mizzlou not exist anymore?
I want to say the former still does. I know one of the indie stations aired their games iin recent years...same for the ACC Network.
Raycom has gobbled up Jefferson Pilot (which was Lincoln Financial at its end); Mizlou, according to Wikipedia, is now specializing in horse racing with some sports distribuution.
There were some others - SNI (which handled Big Ten basketball in the 60s) and TVS (the Eddie Einhorn-run network that did a LOT of college basketball, including the 1968 Houston-UCLA game that was the first televised nationally), but now the conferences are either with ESPN, NBC Sports Network or CBS, or have their own networks, either cable or internet.
Actually, I've wondered why GSN doesn't try to find a sponsor and revive College Bowl.
-
Actually, I've wondered why GSN doesn't try to find a sponsor and revive College Bowl.
Attempts have been made in the past 10 years by both the College Group and other entities. The College Bowl-type game played now is much more densely layered. So you either go with the classic version which few current players like to play, or you go with what is played now and does not translate well to television.
-
The College Bowl-type game played now is much more densely layered.
How so?
So you either go with the classic version which few current players like to play
Does this really matter, though? Yeah, you might get a *different* audience for a TV version, but I don't think you'd have any trouble fielding quality teams.
-
The College Bowl-type game played now is much more densely layered.
How so?
It's complicated, and Mike is far more familiar with this world than I am, but the short version is that the people who are involved in quiz bowl at the collegiate level take it all way too damn seriously. (So do a lot of high schools.) There is some delightfully entertaining reading at Wikipedia and elsewhere, written by quiz bowl insiders who think what they do is the most important thing in the world. In fact, the Wikipedia article for the original College Bowl series breathlessly describes one particular game as "one of the great upsets in College Bowl history — or indeed, in the history of any intercollegiate competition." (The article about a group called the Academic Competition Federation (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Competition_Federation") is also amusingly self-aggrandizing.)
They play under formats that have mountains of rules and regulations, and as so much of what you "should" know in these games has become codified, clues and references in questions have become more and more obscure. Mike's right, quiz bowl at the elite level would be no fun at all for a national audience, certainly not the kind of audience GSN would want to attract.
There are other issues. For one thing, "College Bowl" as a brand doesn't exist anymore, though I imagine somebody's still got the copyright or the trademark or whatever. Most viewers these days have probably never heard it called that, and if they're familiar with the format at all, it's through their local high school competitions, which all have different names.
-
They play under formats that have mountains of rules and regulations, and as so much of what you "should" know in these games has become codified, clues and references in questions have become more and more obscure. Mike's right, quiz bowl at the elite level would be no fun at all for a national audience, certainly not the kind of audience GSN would want to attract.
Oh, that much I knew, but that's easy to toss out the window and fark anyone who doesn't like it. I thought he was implying that the format of the game itself had changed significantly from tossup-followup-lather-rinse-repeat-for-two-halves.
-
They play under formats that have mountains of rules and regulations, and as so much of what you "should" know in these games has become codified, clues and references in questions have become more and more obscure. Mike's right, quiz bowl at the elite level would be no fun at all for a national audience, certainly not the kind of audience GSN would want to attract.
Could Quizbusters compete if it was done on an independent station, or picked up to fill a network slot on the weekend?
-
Oh, that much I knew, but that's easy to toss out the window and fark anyone who doesn't like it. I thought he was implying that the format of the game itself had changed significantly from tossup-followup-lather-rinse-repeat-for-two-halves.
Format isn't an issue, or else we'd all be paying royalties to the College Bowl folks. Yeah, that hasn't changed much.
And I agree that one approach is to "fark" the current elitists and do your own thing. GSN could go onto college campuses and cast for contestants in the way contestants are cast these days, meaning that you don't necessarily select the ones that would do the best, or that have already formed a team. As much as The World Series of Pop Culture was a decent Q&A show, there was some controversy in the selection process when teams who might have performed better on the audition test were passed over for more telegenic teams. You'd have the purists crying foul, but you could make the material a little more accessible that way.
Could Quizbusters compete if it was done on an independent station, or picked up to fill a network slot on the weekend?
Maybe with a better host.
An independent local station? Sure, if there's a sponsor, which is typically all any of these shows need. There are plenty of local quiz bowl programs that are on commercial stations. But no, we're more audience-friendly than most, but I don't think even we would stand a chance on a national stage.
-
Y'know, I really thought my question was asked, but apparently it never
made it to air, although I'll still receive my prizes went through. But Matt addressed the point I really wondered, which is how difficult would it really be to put two teams of college students against one another, and ask a bunch of questions, but with varying formats, and not just against a clock for two rounds. Just call it "Campus Conundrum"* or something along those lines, and make no reference to it being a "College Bowl".
Matt also addressed my other question about what could happen if it really were called "College Bowl 2012" or something like that, and whether anyone would be up in arms the way we get when Fremantle presents its newest revival...
*/I own the rights to said title, plus, I just really, really love saying "Conundrum"
//So there!
-
Y'know, I really thought my question was asked, but apparently it never made it to air, although I'll still receive my prizes went through. But Matt addressed the point I really wondered, which is how difficult would it really be to put two teams of college students against one another, and ask a bunch of questions, but with varying formats, and not just against a clock for two rounds. Just call it "Campus Conundrum"* or something along those lines, and make no reference to it being a "College Bowl".
Matt also addressed my other question about what could happen if it really were called "College Bowl 2012" or something like that, and whether anyone would be up in arms the way we get when Fremantle presents its newest revival...
*/I own the rights to said title, plus, I just really, really love saying "Conundrum"
//So there!
Maybe for colleges that don't participate in the non-televised bowl. I don't think the colleges would lend their name to the team, just as they wouldn't allow for two different football teams playing in different conferences.
-
Maybe for colleges that don't participate in the non-televised bowl. I don't think the colleges would lend their name to the team, just as they wouldn't allow for two different football teams playing in different conferences.
Not getting official collegiate cooperation is far from a deal-breaker. Playboy's done just fine with their "Girls of the _____ Conference". A disclaimer at the end (or even as part of the host's introduction) saying the contestants are not official representatives of their respective universities and you're all set.
-
I don't think the colleges would lend their name to the team, just as they wouldn't allow for two different football teams playing in different conferences.
"And as a token of our appreciation for your cooperation, our sponsor will make a contribution in the amount of - "
"Stop right there. Done. Where do we sign?"
-
Y'know, I really thought my question was asked, but apparently it never made it to air, although I'll still receive my prizes went through. But Matt addressed the point I really wondered, which is how difficult would it really be to put two teams of college students against one another, and ask a bunch of questions, but with varying formats, and not just against a clock for two rounds. Just call it "Campus Conundrum"* or something along those lines, and make no reference to it being a "College Bowl".
Matt also addressed my other question about what could happen if it really were called "College Bowl 2012" or something like that, and whether anyone would be up in arms the way we get when Fremantle presents its newest revival...
*/I own the rights to said title, plus, I just really, really love saying "Conundrum"
//So there!
Maybe for colleges that don't participate in the non-televised bowl. I don't think the colleges would lend their name to the team, just as they wouldn't allow for two different football teams playing in different conferences.
You're talking about two completely different things. For one, the NCAA sanctions football.
Or did I just get 4/10ed?
-
If we are wanting a cheap quiz for GSN, how about a slightly dumbed-down version of Only Connect? The current version of the show on BBC4 feels to me a bit too difficult for the average American viewer.
-
If we are wanting a cheap quiz for GSN, how about a slightly dumbed-down version of Only Connect? The current version of the show on BBC4 feels to me a bit too difficult for the average American viewer.
It is. Which is just one reason why it's *awesome*.
-
Perhaps I should clarify, the teams would still represent the college, i.e. Faber vs. Hillman, just like any other quiz bowl. I guess Words Have Meanings and all, but I thought that part was clear. :-P
-
If we are wanting a cheap quiz for GSN, how about a slightly dumbed-down version of Only Connect? The current version of the show on BBC4 feels to me a bit too difficult for the average American viewer.
Other than the fact that some of the questions are Brit-centric, I've never understood this argument. I really can't imagine that the "average" UK viewer is so much smarter than the "average" American one. But if you're going to make the argument that Americans can't handle complicated things, I don't see how you could recommend Only Connect at all. There are a lot of other "smart" British games (Pointless and The Chase immediately come to mind) that could be adapted to "stupid" Americans a lot easier than the lateral-thinking puzzles of Only Connect.
-
If we are wanting a cheap quiz for GSN, how about a slightly dumbed-down version of Only Connect? The current version of the show on BBC4 feels to me a bit too difficult for the average American viewer.
It is. Which is just one reason why it's *awesome*.
Agreed to a point. When the material is at the level used on Only Connect, I can see people shying away from it. Tone it down to something Joe Sixpack can at least follow without rupturing some blood vessels and it might work since you're not alienating your viewers. Think of it this way: If a person used complex words just for the sake of sounding smarter, what good is it when 99% of people have no clue what he's saying?
Addressing Matt's point, maybe, just maybe it's challenging for us since it is a British-centric show. Just sayin'.
-
Other than the fact that some of the questions are Brit-centric, I've never understood this argument. I really can't imagine that the "average" UK viewer is so much smarter than the "average" American one. But if you're going to make the argument that Americans can't handle complicated things, I don't see how you could recommend Only Connect at all.
From what I've heard (and how I've written some of the puzzles you see on the program) the idea was that there was a segment of viewership that found Mastermind and University Challenge too easy, and that the show is a sort of "well, wise guy, let's see how you like these apples." The entire point is that the material is corundum-hard, that it takes more than knowledge to penetrate the puzzles, and that you have three heads to do it with, so the difficulty is pegged to match. Everything about it says "If you think you can hang with us, come right in." Jeopardy manages to walk the tightrope of hard-assed difficulty and accessibility, I don't see why a OC:US would fail outright.
/All those Game Show Confessions people who are clamoring for Brad and Ken to be Chasers are Missing the Point.
//And widely at that.
///Thought that Bil Dwyer's turn at hosting Pointless was good, albeit brief.
-
Other than the fact that some of the questions are Brit-centric, I've never understood this argument. I really can't imagine that the "average" UK viewer is so much smarter than the "average" American one. But if you're going to make the argument that Americans can't handle complicated things, I don't see how you could recommend Only Connect at all. There are a lot of other "smart" British games (Pointless and The Chase immediately come to mind) that could be adapted to "stupid" Americans a lot easier than the lateral-thinking puzzles of Only Connect.
I don't disagree with your points (and Mr. Lemon's, either). Only Connect UK is great television, but I find it hard to pick up in the middle. GSN needs "drive by" eyes, and if they can't get into the game (and content) quickly...off to repeats of How I Met Your Mother. If that is accomplished by simpler material, go for it.
The Jeopardy comparison is excellent.
/I'm happy with myself if I can get 3 or 4 points before the no-vowels round
-
What people forget about Jeopardy is that some of the material (a lot of it, really) is actually pretty easy, it's just that the show is designed to let those play the same way as the hard ones.
-
Just to get back to College Bowl for a second - does Jeopardy!'s college championships have "official" representatives of schools? Or maybe they could just choose four college students from the same state, each from different colleges as individuals playing on a "Wisconsin" or "Oregon" team.
-
Why do they need an "official" representative for anything?
-
Just to get back to College Bowl for a second - does Jeopardy!'s college championships have "official" representatives of schools? Or maybe they could just choose four college students from the same state, each from different colleges as individuals playing on a "Wisconsin" or "Oregon" team.
So you expect Badgers to co-exist with Golden Eagles, Ducks with Beavers, and let the Phoenix, Pilots, and Golden Panthers pray for shots? Do you know what kind of chaos you'll create, man?!?! :)
-
It's complicated, and Mike is far more familiar with this world than I am, but the short version is that the people who are involved in quiz bowl at the collegiate level take it all way too damn seriously.
Out of curiosity, are teams aligned like college football/basketball? In other words, is there a "Big Ten Quiz Bowl Conference" or "ACC Quiz Bowl Conference" and so on.
-
Out of curiosity, are teams aligned like college football/basketball? In other words, is there a "Big Ten Quiz Bowl Conference" or "ACC Quiz Bowl Conference" and so on.
I seriously doubt it, and even if there were, it would be in a totally unofficial capacity. In a lot of colleges, if quiz bowl even exists at all it's at a club level virtually invisible to the rest of the university.
I can tell you from personal observation that many high school teams in our area play against each other in non-televised, makeshift "leagues" which resemble those of the Michigan High School Athletic Association, but which are totally of their own devising.
Travis is right, a lot of you have gotten really hung up on this "official" business. If GSN wanted to do a college-oriented quiz show, they could choose to do it without going through any of the trouble you guys are suggesting.
-
Travis is right, a lot of you have gotten really hung up on this "official" business. If GSN wanted to do a college-oriented quiz show, they could choose to do it without going through any of the trouble you guys are suggesting.
A few years ago CNBC had their host of "Fast Money" host a summer series called MBA Challenge. It had a flash round, a part where teams identified stock tickers, two rounds where players answered questions individually at a set piece that looked nothing like the question-monitor desks from Millionaire, and it finished up with a question that would have been completely at home on Double Dare or Sale of the Century. It was fun watching, and if CBI wanted to poke their nose into things, CNBC could tell them exactly where they were free to get off.
GSN could take a page from History IQ and use the tossup-bonus format if they wanted. They could have Teachers vs. Students. They could have single contestants playing to wipe out their college debt. They could bring brains and jocks together and play one half of trivia and one half of flag football. The world's their oyster if they wanted to do something.
-
To semi get back on topic, it looks like GSN is embracing what works. Don't know if they have done this before, but GSN is starting to plug the classics in the morning now. This week is my first time seeing it, but I don't remember it in recent years.
-
I saw promos for classics the moment Goldhill took over in 2007, as well.
-
It's complicated, and Mike is far more familiar with this world than I am, but the short version is that the people who are involved in quiz bowl at the collegiate level take it all way too damn seriously.
Out of curiosity, are teams aligned like college football/basketball? In other words, is there a "Big Ten Quiz Bowl Conference" or "ACC Quiz Bowl Conference" and so on.
There was an attempt, the players really didn't care.
-
If a team, say from my beloved University of Washington, wanted to have a throwdown with their cross-state rival (in this case The Washington State University of Boredom), could they organize a match without any top-down interference? Could four schools put together a one-day or weekend tournament just because they all want to play each other?
-
Could four schools put together a one-day or weekend tournament just because they all want to play each other?
I see absolutely no reason why they couldn't. It's not like there is any rule forbidding them from assembling. Now, if they attempted to profit in some way under the guise of being sanctioned by the universities, that may be an issue.
-
If a team, say from my beloved University of Washington, wanted to have a throwdown with their cross-state rival (in this case The Washington State University of Boredom), could they organize a match without any top-down interference? Could four schools put together a one-day or weekend tournament just because they all want to play each other?
Most universities barely even know they have quiz bowl teams in the first place. However, it is extremely likely this would happen because you're not going to have two schools simply play each other. One is going to have to travel, and a game doesn't last that long.