The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: GS Warehouse on August 22, 2004, 09:01:22 PM
-
While persuing the Yahoo! Entertainment page this afternoon, I landed across a Variety article that says with a few expections, niche networks all over the dial have been abandoning their brand in order to those who'll buy any old junk they see on TV. What was once Game Show Network was among those mentioned. Here's a brief excerpt:
s
OK, you've seen enough. Of course, you can click here (http://\"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/variety/20040822/va_tv_ne/webs__id_goes_awol_1\") to see the full article.
-
MTV still stands for what it always did? Sorry. I remember MTV from Day 1. Commercial free with videos around the clock with occasional informative segments with the VJs with some interviews sprinkled in for good measure.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 06:16 PM\'] MTV still stands for what it always did? Sorry. I remember MTV from Day 1. Commercial free with videos around the clock with occasional informative segments with the VJs with some interviews sprinkled in for good measure. [/quote]
MTV was NEVER commercial free, I don't think. But it did play videos once.
-
Nickolodean isn't the same as it once was either. They don't do game shows at all anymore. Back in late 80's, they did a ton.
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 09:20 PM\'] Nickolodean isn't the same as it once was either. They don't do game shows at all anymore. Back in late 80's, they did a ton. [/quote]
But Nickelodeon hasn't gone through a major change in focus in the way other networks have. In contrast to when it started, Nick now has commercials and produces most (all?) of its own programming, but it's always been focused on kids and it's always been a mix of animation and live-action shows.
Oh, and Nick didn't always do game shows either -- so adding those was a change of sorts.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 08:16 PM\']MTV still stands for what it always did? Sorry. I remember MTV from Day 1. Commercial free with videos around the clock with occasional informative segments with the VJs with some interviews sprinkled in for good measure.[/quote]
What Lowry was referring to is that although MTV may not be exactly Music Television--and hasn't for so long now that complaining about it as fruitless--it's still for the 12-to-24 audience that it focuses on like a magnet and reflects as accurately as humanly possible--including the fact that they weren't really wild about music videos as they were when the channel started.
Lowry's not the first to point it out--he just does an excellent job of doing it. The LA Times' loss was Variety's gain (and he can even get away from Variety-ese, something that I thought only Peter Bart could get away with).
ObishGameShow: Scott Sternberg produces Peter Bart and Peter Guber's "Sunday Morning Shootout" show on AMC, the one good thing about AMC's rebranding.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 08:18 PM\'] [quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 06:16 PM\'] MTV still stands for what it always did? Sorry. I remember MTV from Day 1. Commercial free with videos around the clock with occasional informative segments with the VJs with some interviews sprinkled in for good measure. [/quote]
MTV was NEVER commercial free, I don't think. But it did play videos once. [/quote]
In actuality, MTV was commercial free up until the point they aired that Monkees Marathon sometime around 1986.
One can argue that they do monkeys marathons on this channel today: Jessica Simpson, Ashlee Simpson, Nick Lachey, Andy Dick...the list is endless. :)
Now that Grokster is no longer liable in downloading music (read the full story here (http://\"http://www.grokster.com\")), there is even LESS incentive to watch MTV.
The Inquisitive One
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 08:59 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 08:18 PM\'] [quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 06:16 PM\'] MTV still stands for what it always did? Sorry. I remember MTV from Day 1. Commercial free with videos around the clock with occasional informative segments with the VJs with some interviews sprinkled in for good measure. [/quote]
MTV was NEVER commercial free, I don't think. But it did play videos once. [/quote]
In actuality, MTV was commercial free up until the point they aired that Monkees Marathon sometime around 1986.[/quote]
Until I finally got cable, the only time I saw MTV was at a demonstration at ChicagoFest in 1982--I know I saw commercials when I was there. There were just fewer of them--or more direct response ads, including the totally inappropriate Big Band compilation albums.
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 06:59 PM\'] In actuality, MTV was commercial free up until the point they aired that Monkees Marathon sometime around 1986.
[/quote]
In actuality, you're wrong. MAybe they were commercial free in their inception, but I guarantee you they started running ads a damn sight before they pickup up The Monkees. I remember watching (well, listening to, since the audio was clear) the scrambled signal as early as 1983, and they definitely were running ads then.
Now that Grokster is no longer liable in downloading music (read the full story here (http://\"http://www.grokster.com\")), there is even LESS incentive to watch MTV.
Wow. Spoken like a kid who never grew up on MTV when it was wall-to-wall videos. Some of us APPRECIATE video music as an art form.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 08:18 PM\'] [quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 06:16 PM\'] MTV still stands for what it always did? Sorry. I remember MTV from Day 1. Commercial free with videos around the clock with occasional informative segments with the VJs with some interviews sprinkled in for good measure. [/quote]
MTV was NEVER commercial free, I don't think. But it did play videos once. [/quote]
It did? Why that must've been decades ago.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 09:41 PM\']
Now that Grokster is no longer liable in downloading music (read the full story here (http://\"http://www.grokster.com\")), there is even LESS incentive to watch MTV.
Wow. Spoken like a kid who never grew up on MTV when it was wall-to-wall videos. Some of us APPRECIATE video music as an art form. [/quote]
Unless I missed a hidden message, I do appreciate videos as an art form, from the A-ha's to the Princes, and from the Lionel Richies to the Jamiroquais (Virtual Insanity, 1997). Videos from the past are always a sight to behold, for they did more than just provide background to the music; they enhanced the music.
It's TODAY'S videos (the very few that MTV plays) that I have a problem with. Seems to me like today's directors take the same linear route with the videos: dancers in the background while the so-called artist in question lip synchs to pre-recorded, computer enhanced drivel. Rap and pop music rule the day, while the more sophisticated and tasteful material gets phased out of the picture. Of course, there are exceptions, as I have taken kind to Outkast's "Roses" and "Hey Ya!" as well as John Mayer and a few others. Worse, most of the music contained in these videos are made by people who pollute the radio stations and serve as the real reason why music industries as slowly and surely losing the Benjamins. In my opinion anyway, more than half of the music played today sucks.
That's why I made that Grokster comment. I do enjoy videos, but not today's. If it serves as a reason to do self-service in the bathroom, then have at it. :)
I just am not buying into it.
The Inquisitive One
(By the way, Mr. Lemon, if I were in error about commercial-free MTV, then I apologize. Serves me right for using jumptheshark.com as a reference.)
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Aug 22 2004, 10:27 PM\'] That's why I made that Grokster comment. I do enjoy videos, but not today's. If it serves as a reason to do self-service in the bathroom, then have at it. :) [/quote]
Now I understand your position. That's somewhat more tolerable.
(By the way, Mr. Lemon, if I were in error about commercial-free MTV, then I apologize. Serves me right for using jumptheshark.com as a reference.)
Ah, that explains it. Yes, it does. :)
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Aug 23 2004, 12:27 AM\'] Unless I missed a hidden message, I do appreciate videos as an art form, from the A-ha's to the Princes, and from the Lionel Richies to the Jamiroquais (Virtual Insanity, 1997). Videos from the past are always a sight to behold, for they did more than just provide background to the music; they enhanced the music.
It's TODAY'S videos (the very few that MTV plays) that I have a problem with. Seems to me like today's directors take the same linear route with the videos [/quote]
Relive those older videos(at least some of them) on VH1 CLassic. They now have a 12 hour programming cycle as opposed to eight, and they do play some videos as often as GSN repeats some short run shows into the ground, but still one of the best things going on digital cable these days.
-
I've got more video channels than any sane person (or even me) could want: MTVS, VH1CL, VH1SOUL, VH1CNTRY, GAC...PDQ, XYZ...
I've got one (1) channel that's showing eighteen hours of game shows for grown-ups today (Monday 8/23) out of twenty programming hours:
http://tvlistings2.zap2it.com/grid_one.asp...ner_id=national (http://\"http://tvlistings2.zap2it.com/grid_one.asp?station_num=14909&partner_id=national\")
Okay, if you wanna argue Blackjack, which Zap2it (correctly) calls a game show, we'll make it seventeen hours. This is getting rid of the niche? Did this Variety writer bother to look at a schedule? I know it's hard work, clicking on a couple links...
-
You get PDQ?
-
Not only do I get it, I get it...p.d.q.
-
I think something on which we can all agree is, while GSN is not completely abandoning game shows, they are changing their focus. Eighteen hours of games a day is down from twenty-four hours they had at launch. The name change is further evidence of a desire to shed the "game show" stigma (which is more of an ad agency predjudice than an audience one. We just like a good show, game or not.) New shows in development are gradual steps away from the what is traditionally considered a game show. The writer does bring up the point of the potential for Joe Sixpack and family to have to change their ideas about the various network identities. The card tourneys are on many different nets, without the bug in the corner, how would you know what channel you're watching?
-
In my opinion anyway, more than half of the music played today sucks.
Just half.....try 90%.....at least what you hear on most "pop" radio stations these days anyway.
I think something on which we can all agree is, while GSN is not completely abandoning game shows, they are changing their focus. Eighteen hours of games a day is down from twenty-four hours they had at launch.
It will be interesting to see what happens now that the several-week "reality" series haven't done well for GSN. When they started getting into "Average Joe" and "The Mole", it seemed they were bent on becoming the "reality" channel. Now that those shows haven't performed well, it leaves less "game-oriented" programming at GSN's disposal.
-
1. Just to be anal, it's a-ha, not The a-has.
2. All we're seeing now is another version of a great show-biz tradition - copy what's successful and run it into the ground to a depth hitherto unmeasurable. Remember the western craze, the doctor show craze, the nighttime soap craze...and more recently, the reality show craze? Now, we're seeing something similar with cable networks. Instead of being niches, they all want to shoot up the profits with lots of desirable eyeballs, so they all go for the same demographic and that requires similar programming. The reason, of course, is that once you pass, say, 30, you've made up your mind what brand you like and you stick with it, and you've seen enough advertising to know it's all crap, so you don't listen. The fact that you'd like to be entertained is beside the point.
You have to stop thinking of TV as an entertainment medium; it's almost totally an advertising medium now. Even on channels with no advertising, which mostly serve to advertise those channels (or their sisters).
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Aug 23 2004, 01:28 PM\']You have to stop thinking of TV as an entertainment medium; it's almost totally an advertising medium now. Even on channels with no advertising, which mostly serve to advertise those channels (or their sisters).[/quote]
Would that include HBO, Showtime and STARZ!, which theoretically exist only on pleasing enough people to pay for them every month?
It seems to me that sooner or later, we're going to get the public revolt that those on the left would leave to see against Big Media. But it's not going to be over corporate-friendly news coverage--it's going to be over focusing entertainment exclusively on one small subset of the population and kissing off everyone else. It may not happen immediately, but it's going to happen, unless something spectacular happens that nips this trend in the bud. Unfortunately, I have no idea what that might be, other than GoodLife TV or Pax suddenly getting 50 shares.
-
The Variety writer was just lazy. He couldn't be bothered to check a few schedules before launching his fact-free blather.
In (checked) fact, it would be hard to find a niche-ier network than GSN. It's just completely different from everything else out there. Game shows are in such disfavor now that no other channel on my zillion-channel cable system programs more than two-and-a-half hours of game shows for grownups a day. The two-and-a-hour outlet would be the local PAX affiliate, and I wouldn't bet too much on PAX sticking around very long.
The only outlet remotely similar to GSN is Nick's GAS channel for kid game shows. And I don't think many viewers would confuse the two.
As for a revolt against uniform media, it's already happened. Why do you think most people in this country pay for cable/satellite/internet? The ancient NBC-CBS-ABC triopoly broke down years ago. Now there are so many different visual media streams washing into the typical household that the variety is almost ridiculous. If I want to read Fidel Castro's press agency, watch a rugby match in Australia, or check the weather in Bangkok, it's a push of the remote button or a click of the mouse.
Just in case you're interested, it's 84 degrees in Bangkok right now with 89% humidity. Muggy and mostly cloudy.
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Aug 23 2004, 11:28 AM\'] 1. Just to be anal, it's a-ha, not The a-has.
[/quote]
He had it right. The linguistic conceit he was using was the one where you pluralize a single entity to refer to a collective of items of that same type. Like referring to "the Survivors of the world" as a catchall for all reality TV shows, regardless of name.
(What can I say. I have respect for someone who was essentially barely out of diapers when Take On Me was charting and still recognizes the greatness of the video. :))
-
No question that GSN is the best place for game shows right now. I think they would like to branch out from game shows and intrude on the turfs of ESPN2, TV Games Channel, Travel Channel and Bravo with the card tourneys and horse racing. Are the card tournaments on the other nets considered game shows?
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 23 2004, 02:04 PM\'] Are the card tournaments on the other nets considered game shows? [/quote]
No, but there are people here who will disagree.
They would be wrong.
-
Actually, they would be right, but it's an itty-bitty quibble on this issue. GSN's schedule remains overwhelmingly dominated by game shows whether you count Blackjack or not. Eight-five percent of the programming hours today (Tuesday 8/24) are game shows if you count Blackjack, eighty percent if you don't. By the way, I'm counting midnight-to-midnight my time, which is Central.
Interestingly, these percentages get even higher when the new schedule kicks in the week of September 27. The Saturday programming hours, for instance, are 100% game shows if you count Blackjack, 89% if you don't. I'll admit this is only temporary until new eps of Dodgeball begin, along with the pool and horseracing shows. But even then the percentages will stay very high.
I don't expect a Variety columnist to crunch numbers before tossing off a very puffy and very lazy opinion piece. But even a Variety columnist could glance at a schedule before he uses GSN as an example of lookalike, alphabet-soup programming. The numbers don't lie. There's just nothing else like GSN right now in this country's broadcast/cable/satellite teevee universe.
EDIT: To branch off a little...I don't want to restart the whole debate on whether the card-playing shows are game shows are not. But in one respect, at least, the debate is of more than academic importance to us game show freaks.
From time immemorial (or time memorial for all I know) it's been common practice at the final table of a poker tournament for the players to pre-agree on a split of the pot. They still play the game honestly to see who gets the title (we hope) but the money is pre-arranged. Obviously, everybody has to agree to the deal, so often there is no arranged split.
This is no secret. Last year ESPN trotted out Chris (Jesus, though he looks less like Jesus than the Red Sox' Johnny Damon) Ferguson on the WSOP shows to explain these arrangements. This got me wondering if the Travel Channel allowed such deals on their poker shows. A thread on Andy Bloch's bulletin board indicated that they definitely do not permit the practice:
http://www.wptfan.com/article.php?story=20030925182833799 (http://\"http://www.wptfan.com/article.php?story=20030925182833799\")
Now, if Ken Jennings started agreeing to a pre-determined split of the Jeopardy money with his fellow-contestants, there would be screaming, shouting, Congressional investigations and possibly an Alex Trebek heart attack. Of course, that's because of the rigging scandals and the subsequent legislation on game shows.
I know, Ken would have to be nuts to agree to a deal, because he's gonna win, anyway.
So my question is whether ESPN's lawyers have established that their WSOP shows are not game shows for legislative purposes, or have gotten the tournament to ban pot-splitting deals, or both, or neither. I haven't watched too many of this year's WSOP shows, and I haven't seen any disclaimers similar to Chris Ferguson's little confession last year.
-
A fascinating point, Casey. One of the qualifications I think of in the whole game show/not a game show debate is whether the event would happen whether TV cameras were there or not. Obviously, some of these poker shows are made-for-TV, but some of the key ones (notably the WSOP) are not. Much like popular sports, they rely on TV for prestige and revenue, but they were going on before TV discovered them, and they'd go on even if the TV cameras weren't there. Since the event doesn't belong to ESPN and is being covered pretty much like any other "sport" they carry, I doubt that they have too much to worry about legally.
-
Good point, Matt. Right now, though, Fox Sports is carrying an invitational poker tournament that they produced with a bunch of poker pros. Fox provided the money, and I have to think they made REAL sure Howard Lederer and Phil Ivey and the other guys didn't agree to any deal. At this point you're getting real close to the rigging legislation. After all, the show wouldn't exist without your control and production, and quibbles over whether it's really a "game show" or not probably wouldn't impress the Feds.
I agree ESPN can use the "pre-existing tournament" cover for the WSOP to avoid outright legal problems. But gee, I bet (sorry) a few lawyers are antsy about the whole business. That's probably why Chris Ferguson did his little speech.
It's kinda funny and sad to read over that thread on Andy Bloch's board. Doncha know that very similar thoughts went through Dan Enright's head when he first decided to...oh well, you know the rest of that story.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 07:36 AM\'] GSN's schedule remains overwhelmingly dominated by game shows whether you count Blackjack or not. Eight-five percent of the programming hours today [/quote]
Your good points are lost in the fact you must thumb this in our noses again. Not everyone agrees with you on what is and isn't a gameshow.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 08:43 AM\'] Your good points are lost in the fact you must thumb this in our noses again. Not everyone agrees with you on what is and isn't a gameshow. [/quote]
In his defense, I mentioned it first.
Mind you, he's still wrong.
-
Mind you, I'm still right. But like I said, it's almost irrelevant to this thread. Which is why I don't understand the thumb-in-nose comment.
Come to think about it, I don't put my thumb in my own nose. Can't pick much that way.
One more thing on ESPN and the World Series of Poker. The network of Chris Berman and bad promos apparently sponsored their own tournament with the best players from this year's WSOP. EPSN put up quite a bit of their own money. Something tells me the lawyers made sure there weren't any deals on that televised game. No legal loophole for a pre-existing tournament.
Found a funny poker blog where Daniel Negreanu whined about getting left out of the ESPN tournament. He kinda has a point after his very good WSOP performance this year.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 11:43 AM\'] [quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 07:36 AM\'] GSN's schedule remains overwhelmingly dominated by game shows whether you count Blackjack or not. Eight-five percent of the programming hours today [/quote]
Your good points are lost in the fact you must thumb this in our noses again. Not everyone agrees with you on what is and isn't a gameshow. [/quote]
Like I've been saying for a while, the fine line on what is or is not a game show has been blurrying for years. We've established that, for example, Match Game is a game show, but Extreme Dodgeball is not. However, ED is more of a contest, and for that matter, MG is also a contest by definition. Hence, GSN's change of focus. If it's not an infomercial, it's still a contest of some sort, whether the prize is cash, or a car, or a trip, or a flokati rug, or a trophy, or a soulmate, or a role in a bad TV movie, or just the right to humiliate your opponent.
EDIT: I think Casey may have a potential storyline for ESPN's upcoming scripted series about a poker tournament (I'm not clever enough to make this up.)
-
Scripted series on ESPN are OK with me because they are, by nature, entertainment. The E in ESPN originally stood for entertainment, but the promise of something beyond sports never was realized. Until now.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 11:59 AM\'] Mind you, I'm still right. [/quote]
Right, in your own mind.
Please justify, for once and for all, why you're right. If you say "It's a game. It's on TV. Hence, it's a game show.", you're wrong.
-
[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 12:34 PM\'][quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 11:59 AM\'] Mind you, I'm still right. [/quote]
Right, in your own mind.
Please justify, for once and for all, why you're right. If you say "It's a game. It's on TV. Hence, it's a game show.", you're wrong.[/quote]
But that's pretty much it. In every dictionary I've looked through, it says pretty much that a game show is a TV or radio show where people compete for cash and/or prizes. Blackjack has all of that, so it fits the definition of "game show."
Here are a couple of the sites I used:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dic...efid=1861694652 (http://\"http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861694652\")
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...ry&va=game+show (http://\"http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=game+show\")
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 02:28 PM\'] But that's pretty much it. In every dictionary I've looked through, it says pretty much that a game show is a TV or radio show where people compete for cash and/or prizes. Blackjack has all of that, so it fits the definition of "game show."
[/quote]
The two teams who are in the Super Bowl each get money - the winning team gets more than the losing team. So, based on your definition, the Super Bowl is considered a game show, because they're competing for cash.
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 02:31 PM\'] The two teams who are in the Super Bowl each get money - the winning team gets more than the losing team. So, based on your definition, the Super Bowl is considered a game show, because they're competing for cash. [/quote]
Aaron took the better of my two counter-examples. Darn you.
Similarly, Olympians are, in essence, playing games. They're televised. However, they're not game shows.
-
You could argue though, that a sporting event though it is televised, is technically not a show to begin with.
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 11:47 AM\'] You could argue though, that a sporting event though it is televised, is technically not a show to begin with. [/quote]
First word, first definition [courtesy Webster's, not Kline & Friends]:
Show (n): a demonstrative display ... [later definition] something exhibited especially for wonder or ridicule
Methinks some people here might possibly be able to stretch their minds around the concept of the Super Bowl and the Olympics fitting at least one of those definitions.
Sorry, try again.
...actually, on second thought, don't.
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 02:28 PM\'] But that's pretty much it. In every dictionary I've looked through, it says pretty much that a game show is a TV or radio show where people compete for cash and/or prizes. Blackjack has all of that, so it fits the definition of "game show."
The two teams who are in the Super Bowl each get money - the winning team gets more than the losing team. So, based on your definition, the Super Bowl is considered a game show, because they're competing for cash.[/quote]
OK. The Super Bowl fits the definition of a game show. So? Is there something wrong with that?
Similarly, Olympians are, in essence, playing games. They're televised. However, they're not game shows.
To you they aren't. Nickelodeon GUTS was modeled after the Olympics, and I haven't heard anyone here say that it's not a game show.
-
As I said, there's no way I'm going to argue the Blackjack issue again, because nobody ever changes their mind and all the arguments have been made.
Probably the biggest surprise for me on what-is-and-is-not-a-game-show occurred when a poster on this board noted that the old Home Run Derby is listed in the third edition of the Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows. (And so it is, right on page 97.) For those who don't remember the show, it featured genuine-article baseball players - most of them now Hall of Famers, in fact - playing a nine-inning game where home runs counted and everything else was an out.
By this extremely liberal standard, the current Home Run Derby would certainly qualify as a game show, and we're just a baby step away from the World Series and the Super Bowl getting in. Something tells me we're going too far here.
But drawing the line between sports and stunt game shows like Beat the Clock, Dog Eat Dog, Cram and American Gladiators is not so easy. Very real athletic skills are tested on those shows, and it becomes something of a subjective call as to where the game show kingdom ends and the sports world begins. I tend to think the line runs somewhere close to the Dog and the Gladiators, but it ain't easy to pin down the boundary.
It's got to fall between pumping the exercise bike on Cram and hitting Roger Clemens' splitter. But the precise location? Don't ask me.
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 11:54 AM\'] OK. The Super Bowl fits the definition of a game show. So? Is there something wrong with that?
Similarly, Olympians are, in essence, playing games. They're televised. However, they're not game shows.
[/quote]
With the Super Bowl? No. But because it fits your definition of a game show, it shows clearly that there is something very wrong with your definition.
To you they aren't.
No, to pretty much anyone with a reasonable clue in their head they aren't.
Nickelodeon GUTS was modeled after the Olympics, and I haven't heard anyone here say that it's not a game show.
Suggesting that because B was modelled after A, A therefore inherits the properties of B, is about the worst application of logic I have ever seen in my LIFE.
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 11:54 AM\']To you they aren't. Nickelodeon GUTS was modeled after the Olympics, and I haven't heard anyone here say that it's not a game show.[/quote]
Then perhaps you just haven't been listening closely enough.
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Sep 24 2003, 12:11 PM\']I never considered Guts or AG game shows, so why should we?[/quote]
EDIT: Better yet, what Chris said...
-
I'm having ATGS flashbacks here... only then, someone was making the ridiculous claim that court shows and Playboy TV's "Night Calls" were game shows.
And no, that doesn't mean I like seeing the scenario repeat itself today.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 12:59 PM\'] Playboy TV's "Night Calls" were game shows.
[/quote]
It's only a game in the sense that when I watch it I'm usually playing with my- um. Hrm. Nevermind. :)
-
You might call that playing with house money. Or a REAL play-along factor.
Wouldn't you know, Playboy's Love & Sex Test did make it into EOTVGS, third edition. One guy even put it on his resume under "professional costumer work," which for some sick reason strikes me as funny:
http://spectrum.troyst.edu/~jspatton/vitae.htm (http://\"http://spectrum.troyst.edu/~jspatton/vitae.htm\")
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 03:12 PM\']You might call that playing with house money. Or a REAL play-along factor.
Wouldn't you know, Playboy's Love & Sex Test did make it into EOTVGS, third edition. One guy even put it on his resume under "professional costumer work," which for some sick reason strikes me as funny:
http://spectrum.troyst.edu/~jspatton/vitae.htm (http://\"http://spectrum.troyst.edu/~jspatton/vitae.htm\")[/quote]
It's a living.
I have to snarkily chuckle of the name of the production company of said program--"Little Joey, Inc." I never heard that called by *that* name before. :)
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 01:47 PM\'] You could argue though, that a sporting event though it is televised, is technically not a show to begin with. [/quote]
Ever heard of "Wide World of Sports"?
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 06:57 PM\'] [quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 01:47 PM\'] You could argue though, that a sporting event though it is televised, is technically not a show to begin with. [/quote]
Ever heard of "Wide World of Sports"? [/quote]
I really didn't want to get dragged down into this....
Wide World of Sports is a poor example because for the most part, it's just more coverage of events that would happen whether they were on TV or not. It just happens to be different sports each week.
Network sports departments do create their own made-for-TV events. People my age remember when ABC started doing The Superstars, which was their "serious" version of Battle of the Network Stars with professional athletes instead of actors. More recently, the various Skins Games and prime time events that Tiger's management produces each year are a lot closer to the GS/NGS dividing line than the more traditional sports coverage.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 02:03 PM\'][quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 11:54 AM\'] OK. The Super Bowl fits the definition of a game show. So? Is there something wrong with that?
[/quote]
With the Super Bowl? No. But because it fits your definition of a game show, it shows clearly that there is something very wrong with your definition.
[/quote]
OK, what's wrong with it then? Just how would you specify game shows to exclude WSoBJ and CB and ED while including what everyone usually calls game shows?
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 06:33 PM\'] OK, what's wrong with it then? [/quote]
Jesus, do you have to work to miss the point by this much?
What's wrong with your definition is that the Super Bowl is not a game show. Even Casey Abell would agree with that.
Yet, by the strictest interpretation of your definition, it qualifies. Therefore it is a poor definition.
And I never claimed to have a good one, mainly because I think you can find semantic issues with pretty much any way you attempt to define it. It's the same way the FCC defines obcenity...I won't try to tell you what it is, but know it when I see it.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 08:49 PM\'] [quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 06:33 PM\'] OK, what's wrong with it then? [/quote]
Jesus, do you have to work to miss the point by this much?
What's wrong with your definition is that the Super Bowl is not a game show. Even Casey Abell would agree with that.
Yet, by the strictest interpretation of your definition, it qualifies. Therefore it is a poor definition.
And I never claimed to have a good one, mainly because I think you can find semantic issues with pretty much any way you attempt to define it. It's the same way the FCC defines obcenity...I won't try to tell you what it is, but know it when I see it. [/quote]
In other words, you can't do it, and the definition is purely subjective. Fine. If that works for you, roll with it. By the way, this wasn't my definition. That came straight from the dictionary. You don't like it? Take it up with Merriam-Webster and the bajillion other sources that say the same thing.
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 24 2004, 07:09 PM\'] In other words, you can't do it, and the definition is purely subjective. Fine. If that works for you, roll with it.
[/quote]
...and that any attempt to objectify it is an exercise in futility, but other'n that, yeah, you pretty much got it right on. Well done.
By the way, this wasn't my definition. That came straight from the dictionary.
Yet, you cited it to back up your argument, so I would suggest you find some other excuse besides blaming the source for the fact that your argument was soundly and completely refuted. You adopted it to defend your point, you take ownership.
Take it up with Merriam-Webster and the bajillion other sources that say the same thing.
Yeah, it's called "not taking everything you read as gospel." You might look into it. Even reference sources are wrong sometimes.
-
Just to stir the pot...if "made for TV" is a factor...
Which of these is a game show?
1. U.S. Open Golf.
2. The Skins Game, which would not exist if not for TV.
3. Hole in one - or two (TPIR)
-
Hey, it's nice to be mentioned in the same post with Jesus...
Anyhoo, the great is-it-or-is-it-not-a-game-show debate is the perfect filler for this board and the GSN board. The debate can never be resolved because the definition of "game show" can never be agreed on. So we argue and argue, and Matt and Chris get nice traffic figures.
Though I think it's impossible to define "game show," it IS possible to talk about what the concept might mean to the average TV viewer. We can all probably agree that if the great unwashed couch potato sat down (or lay down) in front of the tube and watched an episode of Jeopardy, said potato would identify the Trebek epic as a "game show." Okay, some wise-ass might chirp "great sitcom!" but we'll exclude wise-asses.
There are zillions of shows like that. Millionaire, Pyramid, Wheel of Fortune, Family Feud, Lingo...you might call them the core group. Just about everybody would agree that, yes, these are what we think of when we hear the term "game show."
Trouble is (and there's always trouble in this vale of tears) a lot of shows sorta look like the core group but trail off into other kinds of TV shows. Love Connection, You Bet Your Life, Dating Game, Newlywed Game, I've Got a Secret and other such heavy-on-the-conversation-light-on-the-gameplay opuses wander towards talk shows. There's still some "gameplay" but the main focus is on witty (let's hope) banter among the participants.
Game shows with physical stunts, and even the poker and blackjack shows according to some posters, start looking like sports. In fact, a lot of American Gladiators or Dog Eat Dog looks more like sports to me than some stuff in the Olympics. Did you know that badminton is an Olympic sport?
Some game shows feature brief (or sometimes longer) showbizzy performances by the contestants. We're starting to head toward variety shows or talent contests here.
Then there's the dreaded "reality" category, a.k.a. "reality crap" on the GSN board. When this moniker isn't just tossed around as a term of abuse, we can see how the line between reality shows and game shows gets very blurry sometimes. The Mole sure looks like a game show much of the time, but there's enough focus on personal interaction among the contestants instead of the gameplay that the show qualifies as "reality"...I think. OTOH, Street Smarts hauls some "real" street life into the proceedings, but it lands well inside the game show category...I think.
Of course, TV producers often try for a show that blends different genres into a unique and gotta-watch-it and just wonderful program for your viewing pleasure. So we're always gonna get these debates because often the blurring of genres is completely intentional.
Which does help to fill this board.
-
In the 50's there were at least three kinds of "competition" shows: Game shows, quiz shows and panel shows. The scandals made the word "quiz" a no-no, and after the big three panels left CBS, they kinda became lumped with "game shows." Everything became a "game show." So there are many shades of gray (grey?) in the discussion.
-
By the way, this wasn't my definition. That came straight from the dictionary.
Yet, you cited it to back up your argument, so I would suggest you find some other excuse besides blaming the source for the fact that your argument was soundly and completely refuted. You adopted it to defend your point, you take ownership.
Soundly refuted? Not even remotely close. None of the replies to my post said anything besides, "Yeah? What about this?" If you don't want to say Blackjack or any other show is a game show, fine, but arguing against a universal definition isn't very convincing. Mighty funny that if someone wanted the definition of any other word, people would accept it, but once you cross into "game show territory," everyone seems to be in a hurry to exclude things that fall outside their own comfort zone. I tried to add some objectivity to the conversation, but people are just too resistant to accept that their own personal definition could be wrong. I used to think that WSoBJ was a casino tournament only, but looking at the definition for myself, it seemed silly to me to just say, "Well, it's still not a game show," even though it fits. Just because you haven't thought of something as a game show before doesn't make it right.
-
[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Aug 25 2004, 01:37 PM\'] Just because you haven't thought of something as a game show before doesn't make it right. [/quote]
You tell 'em, baby. Just back me up when I explain why Face The Nation is a game show, thereby making Bob Schieffer a game show host, Gloria Borger a game show hostess, John Wilcox a game show announcer and Jim Bohannon a game show sub-announcer.
Also, Bonanza was a soap opera because of that Adam/Laura/Will triangle. And you know what I'm talking about.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 25 2004, 02:53 PM\']You tell 'em, baby. Just back me up when I explain why Face The Nation is a game show, thereby making Bob Schieffer a game show host, Gloria Borger a game show hostess, John Wilcox a game show announcer and Jim Bohannon a game show sub-announcer.[/quote]
Actually, Gloria left Face the Nation a while ago. She's now co-hosting CNBC's game show Capital Report.
-
For purposes of this board, I tend to go back to Chris C.'s basic definition (paraphrased by me): A game show is an unjudged test of knowledge, skill or intuition for a reward of some sort (which for purposes of UK panel shows can be as little as the hearty handshake and warm round of applause from the studio audience) presented as a television program. This definition was used to exclude "Survivor" and "American Idol" from the game show category (but include "The Amazing Race" and "Fear Factor").
As for the current GSN original flagships, the fact that the blackjack and dodgeball shows are both presented in sporting event trappings with the hosts acting as commentators instead of as hosts would keep me from categorizing them as game shows. But on the other hand, you could say the same thing about "American Gladiators" or "Almost Anything Goes," and they're both considered game shows.
At this point, Chris L.'s use of the Supreme Court definition of obscenity sounds the most logical. I think I know what a game show is--and the poker, blackjack and dodgeball shows aren't game shows. IMHO.
-
Just because you haven't thought of something as a game show before doesn't make it right.
Your definition of game show is so far out there that Brian Henke looks more intellegent. You really love stirring the pot, don't you?
A game show, according to the Dictionary of Mark is a program with an emcee with contestants competing to win prizes.
-
I've never dipped my head into one of these inane debates, but the best answer to this would be the "identifying a game show on sight" argument because the trapping can often get ya.
Trouble is...a lot of shows sorta look like the core group but trail off into other kinds of TV shows. Love Connection, You Bet Your Life, Dating Game, Newlywed Game, I've Got a Secret and other such heavy-on-the-conversation-light-on-the-gameplay opuses wander towards talk shows. There's still some "gameplay" but the main focus is on witty (let's hope) banter among the participants.
Uhm, excuse me? You Bet Your Life, a show where two contestants answered questions posed by a host to get to a bonus round is in debate? Love Connection's presentation, granted, is VERY game show, but it's just a dating show. A talk show. Reality. Whatever you call it, it's not a game show. Fear Factor? Yes. The dressing is very reality, but it is a game show. So is Dog Eat Dog. World Series of Blackjack? HAHAHAHAHAHA.
And to say "I've Got a Secret" ever drifted close to talk show...ugh. "Newlywed Game" is also much heavier on game than "Love Connection" which as we've expressed before is NOT A GAME SHOW.
-Jason
-
And to say "I've Got a Secret" ever drifted close to talk show...ugh.
What do you mean? The game became very secondary on that show, which instead concentrated on the witty things Bill Cullen would say and the lovable-grumpy things Henry Morgan would say and the dippy things Betsy Palmer would say and the unpredictable things the contestants would say...
It drifted very much in the direction of a talk show, with a nod toward a variety show when some of the participants would perform. This isn't a negative criticism at all. In fact, IGaS is my fave among the B&W classics and got one of my votes in the GSN Feast of Favorites. I like the show exactly because it didn't take the gameplay too seriously but instead opened out into more of a talk/variety format.
Anyway, all five of the shows - IGaS, You Bet Your Life, Newlywed Game, Dating Game, and Love Connection - are in EOTVGS. That's not the final word, of course. It just indicates that the shows are very arguably game shows. Your opinion may differ, but "we" may have different opinions, too.
As I said, this is the perfect topic for Internet debate because it can never be settled. In the real world, though, things are different. If GSN ever got caught rigging Blackjack to heighten the suspense or to favor a contestant they thought would appeal to the public...well, the FCC and the media and the viewers would have little patience for a quibbling defense that it's "not really a game show." My guess is that such a defense would be met with, shall we say, derision.
Which is why GSN doesn't rig Blackjack.
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Aug 25 2004, 11:04 PM\']
Trouble is...a lot of shows sorta look like the core group but trail off into other kinds of TV shows. Love Connection, You Bet Your Life, Dating Game, Newlywed Game, I've Got a Secret and other such heavy-on-the-conversation-light-on-the-gameplay opuses wander towards talk shows. There's still some "gameplay" but the main focus is on witty (let's hope) banter among the participants.
Uhm, excuse me? You Bet Your Life, a show where two contestants answered questions posed by a host to get to a bonus round is in debate? [/quote]
Stirring the pot for a moment, I think the original point was that a show like You Bet Your Life is more about the interesting interviews with the guests than it is about the game. Someone could make the argument that the game is completely secondary and even unimportant, yet virtually all of us consider YBYL to be "in the tent".
Listen, a one-line definition isn't ever going to work, especially when people deliberately try to pick it apart. Heck, is Live with Regis and Kelly a game show? There's a small quiz element mixed in with interviews. How is that so much more different than You Bet Your Life?
I will certainly agree with you that the whole effort to pick a definition everybody's going to agree with is inane. What bothers me is that some of you seem genuinely upset by the debate. I just think it's goofy fun.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 08:52 AM\'] What bothers me is that some of you seem genuinely upset by the debate. [/quote]
The only thing I'm upset about is that Face The Nation isn't an hour-long program like Tim Russert's game show, both of which Dick Cheney has been a contestant on.
-
Face the Nation is not a game show. It's a panel show.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 08:52 AM\'] Face the Nation is not a game show. It's a panel show. [/quote]
Which brings to mind the fact that within the broad definition of "game shows" there are sub-genres:
The Panel Show (IGAS, TTTT, and you could included HS and MG7x)
The Pure-D Game Show (Concentration, Video Village, Taboo)
The Stunt Show (Beat The Clock, Almost Anything Goes)
The Quiz Show (64K?, WWTBAM, J!)
And, more recently, The Reality Show (Survivor, TAR)
You might even add The Sports Show (Gladiators)
So if you look at it in sub-genres, all could fit within the general category of "game show," with one caveat:
If it doesn't WANT to be a game show, it doesn't HAVE to be.
By the way, if Face the Nation is a panel show, Fox News is a 24-hour stunt show. :)
-
My reference to the anti-rigging legislation got me looking for the exact wording in the U.S. Code. Took a while but I finally tracked it down in 47 U.S.C. 509:
http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/Us_Eu/ad..._act/47/509.htm (http://\"http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/Us_Eu/ada_e/telcom_act/47/509.htm\")
The Feds use the phrase "a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance." They're smart enough not to use the phrase "game show."
This legislation was passed in 1960 in the wake of the rigging scandals and still uses rather archaic language like "radio stations" to describe what are clearly TV stations...unless you can "view" a radio broadcast.
"Purportedly bona fide" is an interesting phrase, no? What if I don't make any pretensions that it's a bona fide contest, as they definitely don't make in pro wrestling? Reminds me of that glimpse of a wrestling match that got slipped into "Quiz Show" as an ironic comment on the whole hoohah.
EDIT: Now that I think about that "purportedly" a little, I can see why ESPN had Chris Ferguson do his spiel on final-table deals at the WSOP. ESPN's lawyers could then argue that the network was NOT pretending to the viewers that such deals couldn't occur. The deals certainly affect the outcome because players get a pre-arranged amount of money. But we're admitting such things can happen! So we're home free on the anti-rigging legislation because we're not "purporting" that the contest is completely bona fide!
Lawyers are great. It's not a "pre-existing tournament" loophole that exempts ESPN, because section a(4) eliminates that possibility. It's the "non-purporting of a completely bona fide contest" loophole that saves the day.
Which is also why you see those disclaimers whenever GSN runs a game show pilot.
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 11:08 AM\'] By the way, if Face the Nation is a panel show, Fox News is a 24-hour stunt show. :) [/quote]
What's the bonus stunt up to on Fox News Sunday this weekend? I forget the exact stunt, but I know it involves spinning.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 01:09 PM\'] [quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 11:08 AM\'] By the way, if Face the Nation is a panel show, Fox News is a 24-hour stunt show. :) [/quote]
What's the bonus stunt up to on Fox News Sunday this weekend? I forget the exact stunt, but I know it involves spinning. [/quote]
I thought it was trying to stuff Bill O'Reilly's ego in a shoebox in 40 seconds.
-
[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 01:21 PM\'] [quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 01:09 PM\'] [quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 11:08 AM\'] By the way, if Face the Nation is a panel show, Fox News is a 24-hour stunt show. :) [/quote]
What's the bonus stunt up to on Fox News Sunday this weekend? I forget the exact stunt, but I know it involves spinning. [/quote]
I thought it was trying to stuff Bill O'Reilly's ego in a shoebox in 40 seconds. [/quote]
Ah, the perfect budget saver! :-) (IMO, Fox News isn't a 24-hour stunt show; it's a 24-hour informercial for the Republican party.)
[quote name=\'Casey Abell @ Aug 26 2004\' date=\' 12:17 PM\']Lawyers are great.[/quote]That's a statement I never thought I'd see on a game show discussion group.
ObGS: Jeremy Soria always rooted against lawyers on classic Millionaire.
-
Edited portions... italics indicates removal, underline indicates newness
Game Show: A televised event where the focus of the show is for two or more players/teams to compete in a game or competition with a set of rules and a set target for some sort of prize. A game show is usually an original creation using a format not found elsewhere, however, exceptions have come from board games. A game show places its focus mainly on the game, with usually only a minimal amount of time no more than 15% of the total time of the show placed on the contestants or the rivalry between said contestants. A game show must have some kind of emcee which interacts somehow with the contestants.
Reality shows and dating shows are not seen as game shows under this definition because the focus on reality shows is the contestants and reactions thereof, and not specifically on the game.
Sports shows are not seen as game shows under this definition because their formats can be found elsewhere (a football field, a casino, a racetrack).
I think the definition covers everything. If anyone would like to go on and expand, defend, or argue it, feel free. It feels as if I'm missing something.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 12:58 PM\'] [quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 01:21 PM\'] [quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 01:09 PM\'] [quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 11:08 AM\'] By the way, if Face the Nation is a panel show, Fox News is a 24-hour stunt show. :) [/quote]
What's the bonus stunt up to on Fox News Sunday this weekend? I forget the exact stunt, but I know it involves spinning. [/quote]
I thought it was trying to stuff Bill O'Reilly's ego in a shoebox in 40 seconds. [/quote]
Ah, the perfect budget saver! :-) (IMO, Fox News isn't a 24-hour stunt show; it's a 24-hour informercial for the Republican party.) [/quote]
Then how do you explain all those liberals at FNC? How about watching the damn channel for a change before going off and yapping.
-
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 03:01 PM\'] [quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 12:58 PM\'](IMO, Fox News isn't a 24-hour stunt show; it's a 24-hour informercial for the Republican party.) [/quote]
Then how do you explain all those liberals at FNC? How about watching the damn channel for a change before going off and yapping. [/quote]
Actually, with all of the books its people are selling, and Bill O'Reilly's line of "No Spin" merchandise, these days Fox News is basically a 24-hour infomercial for itself. All it's missing is Jim Caldwell.
Oh, and I can attest from firsthand experience that the biggest ego at FNC doesn't belong to O'Reilly by a long shot... but that's another topic for another day. :-)
-
A game show places its focus mainly on the game, with usually only a minimal amount of time placed on the contestants or the rivalry between said contestants.
Plenty of wiggle room for arguments with "mainly" and "usually" and "minimal." Is "minimal" ten percent of air time? Two percent? Twenty percent? Is "usually" 51% of the time, 90%, 99%? Is "mainly" related to the rain in Spain falling on the plain? Is Groucho spinning in his grave because You Bet Your Life will have to get kicked out of the EOTVGS, or maybe it gets to stay in the EOTVGS, or probably Groucho wouldn't have given a half-fart about the EOTVGS?
But hey, we like to argue. So no prob. It's just that You Bet Your Life was one of the faves of my misspent youth, and I'm a little reluctant to read it out of gameshow-dom. Because there's no doubt, as a terrific site on the show notes, that the gameplay was NOT mainly or usually the focus. In fact, it was of, er, minimal importance:
"Comedian Groucho Marx was the emcee and star of this filmed quiz show, which had begun on radio in 1947. Although it was obtensibly a quiz, the series' most important asset was the humor injected by Groucho into the interviews he did with the contestants before they had a chance to play the game. Contestants were picked primarily on the potential they had to be foils for Groucho's barbs, which they seemed to love."
For more from the site:
http://timstvshowcase.com/youbety.html (http://\"http://timstvshowcase.com/youbety.html\")
And now that I think about it, why the exception for board games? Are they somehow better than card games or parlor games? Not trying to pick a fight, just wondering why you made that particular exception.
-
I was hesitant to put a percentage in there because I didn't have any hard facts on me. But, let's use an example...
On my episode of WoF, they spent about 2 minutes to focus on all 6 contestants (I was on a best friends week, so sue me). Doing the math from a 20 minute show, that's about 10% of a half hour show. Survivor probably takes about half the time focusing on contestants instead of the game.
And, for board games, I didn't wanna piss off the Balderdash people. :-P Actually, because there's such a large percentage of game shows past/present/future that have their premise in board games (as opposed to poker, blackjack, and pool, which I'm assuming are parlor games), I thought it well to include them as a note.
But I'm no expert; I'm just a nut who programs the stuff. :-D
-
Pacdude, I love you. Your programming is top notch and there's no question that you are a refined, intelligent and mature game show fan. (And remember, "fan" is simply short for "fanatic".) Now that I've gotten THAT out of the way...
A televised event where the focus of the show is for two or more players/teams to compete in a game or competition with a set of rules and a set target for some sort of prize.
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire (at least the syndicated version) and The $64,000 Question are not game shows because they involve one person at a time playing against the house.
A game show is usually an original creation using a format not found elsewhere, however, exceptions have come from board games.
Hollywood Squares, Tic Tac Dough and Wheel of Fortune are not game shows because they use a pre-existing format other than a board game.
A game show places its focus mainly on the game, with usually only a minimal amount of time no more than 15% of the total time of the show placed on the contestants or the rivalry between said contestants.
As Casey already mentioned, You Bet Your Life (to say nothing of Who Do You Trust, Two For The Money, etc) are not game shows because they spend much more than 15% of their time on the contestant interviews.
Sports shows are not seen as game shows under this definition because their formats can be found elsewhere (a football field, a casino, a racetrack).
Gambit and Dealer's Choice are not game shows because their formats can be found in a casino.
Reality shows and dating shows are not seen as game shows under this definition because the focus on reality shows is the contestants and reactions thereof, and not specifically on the game.
This line doesn't make any sense unless you've already got a preconceived notion as to what constitutes a "reality show" or a "dating show". The Dating Game and The Bachelor have almost exactly the same premise, only one took fifteen minutes to play and the other took a dozen or so hours. Are both game shows? Neither? As for "reality shows", Fear Factor and Beat the Clock have essentially the same concept, only one was done by Goodson-Todman in a studio and the other was...um...not. NBC would rather than you considered Fear Factor a reality show than a game show. Is it?
My point is that the more complicated and convoluted (and lengthy) that your definition is, the more loopholes you create.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 11:17 AM\'] The Feds use the phrase "a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance." [/quote]
I've read through that before, and unless I'm missing something, isn't it possible to find a loophole in which you can rig a show that supposedly rewards contestants for performing only physical stunts? For example, if I created a version of "Beat the Clock" without any question-and-answer or unscrambling elements, and deliberately planned it so likeable contestants completed their stunts (through multiple takes, if necessary) and unlikeable contestants purposely failed their stunts, I wouln't be doing anything illegal, because it isn't a "contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance." Only physical skill.
--
Scott Robinson
-
Yep, I noticed the "purely physical stunt" loophole, too. But this is really dicey because rigging a show like Beat the Clock would clearly violate the spirit of the law. And you might get hung on that "chance" thingie. After all, you can at least argue that chance plays a part in physical contests.
These are only the legalities, of course. Rigging a stunt show or any other kind of "purportedly bona fide" televised contest would be a p.r. nightmare if discovered. Even a vague odor of rigging can attract lots of irritating media attention, as the Survivor producers learned to their discomfort.
On this general topic I noticed an interesting post from Terry Teachout's arts blog (summarized to avoid fair use issues):
Reality programming might continue to dominate TV until there's a serious rigging scandal. Not just questions involving staging, but an outright rig with a pre-determined winner. Some desperate producer will want a popular winner, just as Twenty-One did with Charles Van Doren. When this happens, the fallout will probably contaminate all reality shows. After all, they're supposed to be "real."
Me again: anything is possible, and someday somebody might rig a reality show from top to bottom. But with the horrible example of the game show rigging scandal before them, I can't believe that most reality producers would even consider tampering with the proceedings so blatantly. My guess is that reality, like so many other kinds of programming, will diminish in a much less spectacular way as tastes simply change (how boring!) It didn't take a sensational scandal to end the reign of westerns on TV. People just got tired of watching them and started watching something else.
-
I think reality TV is just a fad for now, but could stay popular for a while yet. I, personally, don't care for many of the reality shows. Right now, it seems to be the "cool" thing, but I consider what I like myself to be "cool." I grew up in the '70s and remember when variety shows were all over the networks' line-ups. "Donny & Marie," "Sonny & Cher," "Flip Wilson," "Tony Orlando & Dawn," "The Captain & Tenille," "Carol Burnett," etc. Now we don't see any variety shows anymore. (By the way, I liked many of these shows, and am hoping for "Donny & Marie" to make it out on DVD.) But I assume variety shows died out as westerns did (as Casey noted). Then Saturday mornings were full of cartoons and kids' shows on all the networks--no news programs. Game shows were seen on the networks during the daytime. However, network game shows, variety shows, westerns, and Saturday morning kids' shows, apparently, were just fads that didn't stick around, although we have several channels now that take us back to enjoy what used to be a big part of network TV.
-
Re: "michaellinn"'s post,
Saturday morning cartoons have not all disappeared from network TV, contrary to your assessment. While it is true that news programs now take up the first 2 hours, and many stations choose to air infomercials instead of the cartoons, they are still to be found. Of course, most of them are also shown on cable, and every single network except UPN (only because they have no such block) have farmed out at least part, if not all, of their blocks to either corporate sisters (as is the case with ABC, CBS, and The WB) or outside program suppliers (NBC and Fox).
ObGameShow: Several cartoon voice actors have appeared on many game shows. To attempt to create an exhaustive list of them would, IMHO, be futile.
-
I didn't say that Saturday cartoons have all disappeared from the networks. I said they filled up the networks' schedules on Saturday mornings back in the '70s, with no news programs, unlike nowadays. And I'm not talking about cable. I'm talking about the three big networks back then--ABC, CBS, and NBC--that would schedule a full slate of children's programming and even have Friday night preview specials to introduce all the new stuff to the kids each fall. Oh, cartoons can be still found, of course, but it's not like it used to be. By the time the '90s got here, cable TV would basically take over kids' programming, and the networks weren't interested much anymore with a full schedule of cartoons and kids' shows on Saturday mornings. An excellent book to read about this topic is "Saturday Morning Fever," by Tim and Kevin Burke. I don't mean to go off-topic with this, but I felt it fits in with the subject about the demise of network daytime game shows.
-
[quote name=\'michaellinn\' date=\'Aug 27 2004, 08:58 PM\'] I don't mean to go off-topic with this, but I felt it fits in with the subject about the demise of network daytime game shows. [/quote]
You're right, though, it does fit in with the demise........CBS, NBC, and ABC used to stack their Saturday schedules chock full of cartoons and kids' shows.....CBS even used to program up to 2 p.m. up until the mid-1980's!!! Now, it looks like this:
CBS 7am-12pm, 3 hours of kids' shows with 2 hours of "Saturday Early Show" in there.
NBC 8am-12pm, 2 hours of teen shows with 2 hours of "Saturday Today".
Even ABC, the last holdout, starting September 4th, airs a Saturday version of GMA (an hour long, I believe)..
-
There are so many options with kids programming these days. Not to mention the cable channels, kids DVDs are a good investment, because the kids want to watch the same shows over and over and over. I would venture to say FCC guidelines are the only reason any over-the-air broadcaster still offers kid's shows.
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Aug 27 2004, 08:05 PM\'][quote name=\'michaellinn\' date=\'Aug 27 2004, 08:58 PM\'] I don't mean to go off-topic with this, but I felt it fits in with the subject about the demise of network daytime game shows. [/quote]
You're right, though, it does fit in with the demise........CBS, NBC, and ABC used to stack their Saturday schedules chock full of cartoons and kids' shows.....CBS even used to program up to 2 p.m. up until the mid-1980's!!! Now, it looks like this:
CBS 7am-12pm, 3 hours of kids' shows with 2 hours of "Saturday Early Show" in there.
NBC 8am-12pm, 2 hours of teen shows with 2 hours of "Saturday Today".
Even ABC, the last holdout, starting September 4th, airs a Saturday version of GMA (an hour long, I believe)..[/quote]
Yes, I enjoyed the daytime game shows on weekdays in the summer and any other time that I didn't have school. I mean, I was crazy about them. Same with cartoons and kids' shows on Saturdays. And I still like those old '70s toons and shows, even though I'm not a kid anymore.
-
[quote name=\'michaellinn\' date=\'Aug 27 2004, 10:57 PM\'] Yes, I enjoyed the daytime game shows on weekdays in the summer and any other time that I didn't have school. I mean, I was crazy about them. Same with cartoons and kids' shows on Saturdays. And I still like those old '70s toons and shows, even though I'm not a kid anymore. [/quote]
I enjoyed the game shows in the summer and offtimes from school...."Dream House", "Price is Right", and many others while off in the summer...Not to mention I fell in love with many sitcoms when the networks would air reruns of them too...
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 26 2004, 08:40 PM\'] My point is that the more complicated and convoluted (and lengthy) that your definition is, the more loopholes you create. [/quote]
Point taken. I tried my best, but meh, you can't really do it, I guess.
To be honest, that was a legal definition. And we all know they suck.
Trying to encompass every single game show into a single definition is pretty much impossible. (I'll do it as a research paper, just lemme quote all of this :-D) I guess saying "if it's a game, and it's a show, that makes it a game show" isn't enough, but saying "if a and b and c and d but not e or f are in it, then it's a game show" is too much because you exclude out way too much.
Therefore, I should say that "game shows are sometimes in the eye of the beholder." If you wanna say that the Super Bowl is a game show, by all means, call it a game show. If you wanna say that Survivor isn't a game show? By all means, don't.
This could go deeper and more philosophical, but I just had the honor of Matt saying he was a fan of mine.
Excuse me while I fan myself.
-
In considering whether a show is a game show, I think it goes back to the intent of the producers of a show. I don't think Mark Burnett wants anyone to consider his "creations" game shows. Michael Davies embraces the name. That is why I have asked if the Travel Channel, ESPN, etc. call their card tourneys game shows. I don't think they want the shows labeled "game shows." Next question, with the home redecorating shows starting to decline, how long before the card shows burn out?
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Aug 27 2004, 08:05 PM\'] Even ABC, the last holdout, starting September 4th, airs a Saturday version of GMA (an hour long, I believe).. [/quote]
They are? Wow, am I out of the loop. That's one of my favorite game shows ever. Couldn't stand that one model (Joan Lunden) but Charlie & Diane are da bomb! Who's going to host the weekend edition of this classic game show? Will it be played for higher stakes? Will there be returning champions? And if Morton Dean isn't hosting, I'm not watching!
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 01:13 PM\'] [quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Aug 27 2004, 08:05 PM\'] Even ABC, the last holdout, starting September 4th, airs a Saturday version of GMA (an hour long, I believe).. [/quote]
They are? Wow, am I out of the loop. That's one of my favorite game shows ever. Couldn't stand that one model (Joan Lunden) but Charlie & Diane are da bomb! Who's going to host the weekend edition of this classic game show? Will it be played for higher stakes? Will there be returning champions? And if Morton Dean isn't hosting, I'm not watching! [/quote]
I believe they're changing the title to "The All-New Super $100,000 Good Morning America". :)
-
I stopped watching GMA after Jim Peck wrapped up his week as guest host.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 01:46 PM\'] I stopped watching GMA after Jim Peck wrapped up his week as guest host. [/quote]
Peck left GMA?
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 02:53 PM\'] Peck left GMA? [/quote]
Yeah, Don, he did! Where have *you* been? :)
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 02:01 PM\'] [quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 02:53 PM\'] Peck left GMA? [/quote]
Yeah, Don, he did! Where have *you* been? :) [/quote]
Did they change the set after he left?
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 01:46 PM\'] I stopped watching GMA after Jim Peck wrapped up his week as guest host. [/quote]
I stopped watching after GMA was renamed GMFM, or good morning fall man
(ducks)
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 03:38 PM\'] [quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 01:46 PM\'] I stopped watching GMA after Jim Peck wrapped up his week as guest host. [/quote]
I stopped watching after GMA was renamed GMFM, or good morning fall man
(ducks) [/quote]
I heard that TV stations and/or networks may be only a year or two away from airing different ads in different homes. I could just imagine ABC renaming the show for each potential viewer. "Next on WLAJ ABC53, it's Good Morning Matt Ottinger", or "Next on WOKR ABC13, it's Good Morning David Zinkin", or something like that.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 02:30 PM\'] [quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 02:01 PM\'] [quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 02:53 PM\'] Peck left GMA? [/quote]
Yeah, Don, he did! Where have *you* been? :) [/quote]
Did they change the set after he left? [/quote]
That they did. It's now called AMERICA!: The All-New Good Morning.
Brandon Brooks
-
Peck left GMA?
Yep, he left about the same time that Woolery left Wheel.
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 03:20 PM\']
Peck left GMA?
Yep, he left about the same time that Woolery left Wheel. [/quote]
Woolery left Wheel? You mean that weatherman is staying?
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 01:46 PM\'] I stopped watching GMA after Jim Peck wrapped up his week as guest host. [/quote]
You didn't watch the week in August 1994 where Trebek guest hosted. He had a segment with Peter Marshall, Jim Lange, and Gene Rayburn as guests.
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Aug 28 2004, 12:38 PM\'] I stopped watching after GMA was renamed GMFM, or good morning fall man
(ducks) [/quote]
Wow.
-
Just saw a puff piece about Bil Dwyer that referred to Extreme Dodgeball as a "game show/sporting event." Guess the writer hasn't been reading these threads, or she would have known about the Badlands of Endless Dispute:
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazett...ing/9522973.htm (http://\"http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/living/9522973.htm\")
-
There is more than just that error in the piece. The writer also calls the network "Game Show Network," not GSN. This is tantamount to calling Spike "The National Network."
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 29 2004, 08:00 AM\'] This is tantamount to calling Spike "The National Network." [/quote]
Or worse, "The Nashville Network". :)
-
Well, actually she does use "GSN" later in the story. The point is that most people couldn't care less about our endless disputes over what is and is not a game show. Kinda depressing and reassuring at the same time. Depressing because we spend a lot of time splitting hairs over something most people would just laugh over if they knew about it at all. Reassuring because most people don't care to split this hair so fine.
-
I wonder what GSN's definition of "game show" is. After all, the folks at GSN are the ones who changed the name of their channel from Game Show Network to GSN - the Network for Games. Anyway, I could care less myself, LOL. This dispute reminds me of those Viva paper towel commercials from years ago. Viva: is it a paper towel or isn't it? There would be a huge question mark on the packaging. Maybe GSN should put a question mark in its logo.
-
It's a floor wax...it's a dessert topping...it's both a floor wax and a dessert topping. I'll just resign myself to the fact that Blackjack and Dodgeball are not game shows and end the discussion with that certainty. The debate has been fun and interesting.
-
I wonder what GSN's definition of "game show" is.
In fact, that's why the game-show-or-not discussion has gotten even more, uh, intense than before. Folks like me, who think GSN's "transition" has been much exaggerated, look at the schedule and see game shows and more game shows, with a few non-GS offerings sprinkled in. This is particularly true of the new and admittedly temporary schedule starting September 27.
Folks who think the network is changing into something else (and something worse) want to exclude as much of GSN's schedule from gameshow-dom as possible. So they tend to use much more restrictive definitions of "game show." Trouble is, those definitions wind up erasing some of what most game show fans would consider timeless classics of the genre, like You Bet Your Life. I don't think too many fans, no matter what they think of GSN nowadays, would want to toss a great talent like Groucho and his signature TV show out of the game show tent.
But in all honesty, a supposed non-game-show like Blackjack puts far more emphasis and spends far more time on (much more interesting and complex) gameplay than Groucho ever did. Groucho treated the simplistic and brief gameplay on his show with barely disguised contempt. He treated announcer George Fenneman with undisguised contempt.
That's why the definitions start getting more and more complicated and, frankly, arbitrary. The role of the host, the details of the staging, the mysteriously divined "intent" of the producers, the number of sunspots observed during the taping - all these are hauled in to get Groucho inside the tent but leave Blackjack outside the tent. When all else fails to convince skeptics like moi, an I-know-it-when-I-see-it definition (gleaned from Potter Stewart's gravestone) is used...which may be the only possible definition, after all.
So you can see why the debates get a little heated, despite Matt's request that we keep things light.
My final note on this subject: while the EOTVGS may go a little too far in its inclusiveness (no, Home Run Derby was NOT a game show) I prefer to be too inclusive rather than too exclusive. Like many game show fans, I don't like the ridicule that the genre has often been subjected to. So it helps to have somebody like the critically acclaimed Groucho inside the game show kingdom, even if we have to stretch the definition a little. In other words, I want as rich a selection as possible included in gameshow-dom. When we start throwing shows out of the genre, we're conceding too much to unfriendly critics.
P.S. That's a joke about Potter Stewart. He used to kid people that his famous definition of obscenity would be carved on his tombstone. It wasn't.