-
http://adlink.com/resource_center/programm...04&endtime=1770 (http://\"http://adlink.com/resource_center/programming_grids/apg.cfm?netid=44382&begweek=12/06/2004&endtime=1770\")
The WPPA poker tournament makes its debut that week, with some 5 airings - two each on Monday and Saturday, and one on Thursday.
Also, interestingly enough, the 8 pm Tuesday and midnight Saturday airings of Millionaire will be pre-empted in favor of Celebrity Blackjack and WPPA poker, respectively. This means that GSN actually won't be airing Millionaire at all that Saturday. No big loss for me, but definetely worth noting.
-
You know, this December line-up will make it almost a year since the profesors odd, GSN -will -never be- the- same- again breaking story.
I know that the future of the network is always a question mark and for short time in the summer the line-up was indeed pretty bad. Still I think right now time has shown that the sky-is-falling predictions people had late last year were off the mark.
-
Wonder if we'll get the Betty White Xmas marathon this year?
-
They haven't used THAT marathon in three years. Somehow, I doubt it's making it's return...
-
The Prof notes that the Dog Eat Dog marathon November 14 has been replaced by a Dodgeball marathon. This change hasn't shown up on Adlink yet, but it doesn't surprise me. The Dog has suffered ridiculous rerun abuse.
Looks like Dodgeball must be getting pretty good numbers. As a thread on the Big Board noted, the second season rule changes have created a faster, more entertaining game. The Prof dumps on Dodgeball as "trashsport," which is another strong indication the show must be doing something right.
The World Poker Players Association is a tiny startup operation. Its web site (http://\"http://www.wppa.info/cp/home.aspx\") mentions the GSN show in the forum section. Sounds like GSN is doing a one-shot, low-budget deal to see how poker plays (sorry for the bad puns).
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 02:59 PM\']
Looks like Dodgeball must be getting pretty good numbers. As a thread on the Big Board noted, the second season rule changes have created a faster, more entertaining game.
[snapback]61765[/snapback]
[/quote]
I've never seen the show, but based on the feedback I'm reading about the second season, perhaps it might be worth my while to watch an episode..
-
[quote name=\'PaulD\' date=\'Oct 23 2004, 12:54 PM\']You know, this December line-up will make it almost a year since the profesors odd, GSN -will -never be- the- same- again breaking story.[/quote]
In Steve's defense, and at the risk of stirring up what is obviously a very emotional issue for a lot of you, I think he was correct to report that GSN was turning a major corner and would, in all likelihood, never be the same again. Whether it's better or worse than it was before is the subject of endless debate, but GSN as a haven made up exclusively of old reruns and traditional, Q&A originals really is no more. Their choice to let Bob Boden go (a second time) was the best indication that they wanted to go in a new direction.
For a lot of us who followed the station from the beginning, it no longer feels like "our" GSN anymore. I understand that. But since the station is doing better now than it ever has, and seems to continue to be on the upswing, the "doom and gloom" prophesies are beginning to look a little silly.
-
...GSN as a haven made up exclusively of old reruns and traditional, Q&A originals really is no more.
Really? The shows for today, Monday 10/25:
Star Search, Hollywood Showdown, Jeopardy, Match Game, All New 3's a Crap, Newlywed Game, Love Connection, Friend or Foe, Whammy, Family Feud, Russian Roulette, Lingo, Win Ben Stein's Money, Weakest Link, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Street Smarts, Name's the Same, What's My Line.
Except for Star Search, it looks like...old game show reruns and traditional originals. I'm not a big fan of all these shows, but the lineup looks about as traditional as it did before Mr. Steve started his post-Boden fulminations. Okay, later in the week we get Dodgeball and a glimpse of Spy TV. But the schedule remains overwhelmingly dominated by traditional game shows.
Which is the problem with Mr. Steve's critique of GSN. It doesn't survive contact with the network's actual schedule. You can either believe GSN's schedule of almost nothing but traditional game shows, or you can believe the Prof's columns about how GSN is abandoning traditional game shows. But it's really, really hard to believe both at once.
The Prof is starting to sound like the Wizard of Oz when he tells us to pay no attention to that schedule in front of our eyes. I know he's still upset about Boden, but that's no reason to disconnect from the real world.
-
So, Casey - I guess Dsmith's comments in that other thread had absolutely no impact on you at all? Gave you nothing to think about?
The point he was trying to make (in a misguided way, I'll admit) is that you seem to scan every post for even the slightest criticism of GSN... so you can respond with your usual litany of reasons why "everything's great" in your eyes. Ususally including, but not limited to, a recitation of the current lineup, ratings and statistics, various slams against The Perfesser, your likes and dislikes, and what you've posted on other forums about the matter. Never concise, and usually not very relevant to the general drift of the thread.
As Dsmith said in part, "people should be able to express their opinions" and "your usual defense of them doesn't come as a surprise". I for one would appreciate it if you could block this reflex you seem to have toward making these sorts of posts EVERY TIME the topic of GSN programming is touched upon.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 09:08 AM\']
...GSN as a haven made up exclusively of old reruns and traditional, Q&A originals really is no more.
Really? The shows for today, Monday 10/25:
Star Search, Hollywood Showdown, Jeopardy, Match Game, All New 3's a Crap, Newlywed Game, Love Connection, Friend or Foe, Whammy, Family Feud, Russian Roulette, Lingo, Win Ben Stein's Money, Weakest Link, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Street Smarts, Name's the Same, What's My Line.
Except for Star Search, it looks like...old game show reruns and traditional originals.
[snapback]61861[/snapback]
[/quote]
To put "Win Ben Stein's Money," "Weakest Link," "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," and "Street Smarts" in the category of "old" requires one to stretch the definition of "old" beyond the point where most of GSN's critics here define it. Matt was talking about reruns of the vintage GSN showed in the early days of the network -- not something that was in first run just a few months or years ago. But then, you knew that before you typed a single word.
Taking the contrarian view for the sole purpose of taking the contrarian view -- as you also do when you defend the GSN boards -- is fine, but it would be nice if you'd occasionally admit that that's exactly what you're doing. I'm not going to defend those who say that you're not allowed to have your own opinion or to back up that opinion with statistics (especially when said critics resort to ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual arguments), but I also know for certain that if the rest of the board were perfectly happy with GSN as it is, you'd be the one criticizing it... just to be different, and just to get a rise out of people.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 09:08 AM\']
...GSN as a haven made up exclusively of old reruns and traditional, Q&A originals really is no more.
Really? The shows for today, Monday 10/25:
Star Search, Hollywood Showdown, Jeopardy, Match Game, All New 3's a Crap, Newlywed Game, Love Connection, Friend or Foe, Whammy, Family Feud, Russian Roulette, Lingo, Win Ben Stein's Money, Weakest Link, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Street Smarts, Name's the Same, What's My Line.
Except for Star Search, it looks like...old game show reruns and traditional originals. [/quote]
Actually, no. Not even close. And the fact that you can't see that makes me begin to wonder if you really are just trying to be argumentative.
Not a single item on that list is an original, except in the broadest definition that everything was original at one time. Some of them are reruns of originals that were part of GSN before the change we're talking about. GSN is currently not creating "traditional" originals, and that was one of my points.
My other was specifically referring to "old reruns". I realize that you've arbitrarily decided not to recognize the term "classic" and you define any rerun as "old", but surely you can recognize the difference between reruns of recent shows and the sort of reruns that were a part of GSN in the early years. Only four of the shows you list have significant age to them, and two of them are seen in the middle of the night.
Yes, Casey, GSN aired game shows back then and they air game shows now. Game show fans can find plenty to enjoy. However, GSN is different now than it was then. Not as dramatically different as some would say, but it is different. There are people who preferred it the old way. I'm not even saying that I'm one of them, but to not even acknowledge the differences seriously over-simplifies your arguments.
-
So, Casey - I guess Dsmith's comments in that other thread had absolutely no impact on you at all? Gave you nothing to think about?
They must have given Dsmith something to think about, because he apologized for his intemperate language on the Behind the Scenes board.
The point he was trying to make (in a misguided way, I'll admit) is that you seem to scan every post for even the slightest criticism of GSN... so you can respond with your usual litany of reasons why "everything's great" in your eyes.
No, I respond with the facts about the current schedule. I notice you don't refute any of the facts, because you can't. The schedule is what it is.
Do I like everything on the current schedule? Not at all. You might have noticed my mention of "All New 3's a Crap." Should have been a tipoff that the show, in my opinion, is an abomination - braindead contestants, stupid questions, stupider answers, and a host who looks stoned most of the time, though I can't blame him.
This probably constitutes "defending GSN" in your view.
I also don't like Friend or Foe, which is mean-spirited, slow and dull. And I haven't been shy about expressing this opinion several times here and on the GSN board.
This probably constitutes "defending GSN" in your view, too.
Although it's (thankfully) not on today's sched, Card Sharks is a dull and simplistic game that's somehow gotten stuck on the GSN schedule forever. Hollywood Squares looks rehearsed and pre-arranged because so much of it is rehearsed and pre-arranged. It's another "classic" that should bite the dust.
This probably constitutes "defending GSN" in your view, again.
Said it on the other thread, and I'll say it here. If GSN does something I like, I say so. If GSN does something I don't like, I say so.
-
Some of them are reruns of originals that were part of GSN before the change we're talking about. GSN is currently not creating "traditional" originals, and that was one of my points.
In fact, I think Celeb Blackjack is every bit as traditional a game show as anything else GSN has created. You've noted the similarity to the panel shows of the fifties and sixties. If anything Celeb Blackjack puts far more emphasis on the gameplay than, say, IGaS.
I realize that the Prof can't allow Blackjack to be considered a traditional game show because it destroys his argument that GSN isn't creating traditional game shows any more. But that doesn't mean I have to accept the Prof's arbitrary creation of a "casino game" genre to exclude Blackjack from the hallowed halls of game-show-dom.
My other was specifically referring to "old reruns". I realize that you've arbitrarily decided not to recognize the term "classic" and you define any rerun as "old", but surely you can recognize the difference between reruns of recent shows and the sort of reruns that were a part of GSN in the early years.
Today you've got reruns of Match Game, Family Feud, Love Connection, Name's the Same, and What's My Line. These shows all have some pretty serious age on them. On other days you get Card Sharks, Blockbusters, Beat the Clock. How old does a show have to be?
I haven't heard any definition of "classic" that doesn't sound arbitrary. The shows I mentioned above all meet the arbitrary criterion of "at least ten years old or so" that another poster used. There's obviously no reason for the ten-year cutoff - as opposed to a five-year or a twenty-year or an any-year definition. But even by the ten-year standard, GSN shows many hours of classics each week.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just pointing out what's actually on GSN's current schedule. As I mentioned in the previous post, I don't like some of what's on the schedule, but it sure looks like traditional game shows almost all the time, including many hours of older shows.
-
To put "Win Ben Stein's Money," "Weakest Link," "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," and "Street Smarts" in the category of "old" requires one to stretch the definition of "old" beyond the point where most of GSN's critics here define it.
Some Regis Millionaire eps date from more than five years ago, as do many of the WBSM episodes. Is that old enough? I don't know. As I said in the previous post, it gets pretty arbitrary as to where you place the magic line of "oldness" for game shows. They certainly are traditional game shows, like almost everything else on GSN's current schedule.
I also know for certain that if the rest of the board were perfectly happy with GSN as it is, you'd be the one criticizing it... just to be different, and just to get a rise out of people.
How could you know this for "certain"? Believe it or not, I don't believe in just being different to get a rise out of people. I really don't care if people get a rise or not. (This is not a reference to Viagra.)
What I do care for is being as objective as possible in evaluating GSN or anything else. If somebody says something about GSN's schedule, I think the best way to discuss the issue is to...look at GSN's actual schedule. You know, what they're showing RIGHT NOW!, as Fox would say.
If this gets a rise out of people, I'm honestly sorry. But - and I'm not trying to get into a spitting match - what other approach would you suggest?
-
Casey said:
Some Regis Millionaire eps date from more than five years ago, as do many of the WBSM episodes.
Zach said:
The WBSM shows seen thus far are from 1998, and the August 1999 Regis MIllionaire episodes are yet to be shown on GSN. THe earliest they have shown are from November 1999's series of shows. WHen they went back after showing the January 2001 episodes, they went back to January 2000.
-
I bow to Zach. We'll have to wait until next month before some of GSN's Millionaire eps get into the five-year category. Some of GSN's WBSM episodes are already there. Incidentally, anybody know why GSN didn't license the August, 1999 Millionaire shows?
But really, this shows how arbitrary a time cutoff is. Do the Regis Millionaire eps suddenly turn into "classics" when they cross the five-year line, or the ten-year line, or the any-year line? Are the WBSM episodes from 1998 classics, while those from 2000 aren't?
Again, this isn't to be argumentative. It's just that an age requirement for "classic-ness" does seem pretty subjective and, well, arbitrary. Millionaire and WBSM are two of my favorite game shows ever. For me they'll always be classics regardless of age requirements. Of course, that's my own purely subjective and arbitrary opinion.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 09:32 AM\']I bow to Zach.
[/quote]
That says it all.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 11:32 AM\']I bow to Zach. We'll have to wait until next month before some of GSN's Millionaire eps get into the five-year category. Some of GSN's WBSM episodes are already there. Incidentally, anybody know why GSN didn't license the August, 1999 Millionaire shows?
[snapback]61874[/snapback]
[/quote]
Just guessing out of an undertermined body orafice, but probably because some of them were half hour shows?
--Mike
-
IIRC, GSN has accommodated some half-hour Millionaire eps before. I don't know, maybe the very oldest shows just got missed.
Absolute truth: I was wondering how soon Chris Lemon would pick up the "bow to Zach" line. Five minutes.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 12:21 PM\']Some Regis Millionaire eps date from more than five years ago, as do many of the WBSM episodes. Is that old enough? I don't know. As I said in the previous post, it gets pretty arbitrary as to where you place the magic line of "oldness" for game shows. They certainly are traditional game shows, like almost everything else on GSN's current schedule.
[snapback]61872[/snapback]
[/quote]
The fact that there is no fixed formula for determining whether or not a game show is "old" does not mean that there is not a clear difference between a show that has not aired anywhere else in 10, 20, or 30 years, and a show that gets canceled by another network and immediately goes to GSN. And again, you know that as well.
I also know for certain that if the rest of the board were perfectly happy with GSN as it is, you'd be the one criticizing it... just to be different, and just to get a rise out of people.
How could you know this for a "fact"? Believe it or not, I don't believe in just being different to get a rise out of people. I realy don't care if people get a rise or not. (This is not a reference to Viagra.)
The word I used was "certain," not "fact." Can I read your mind? No. Can I predict, with "assurance in mind or action" (m-w.com is a wonderful thing), that no matter what criticism anyone else offers regarding GSN, you'll take the opposite view nearly every time? Yes. Your pattern of posts demonstrates the ample grounds for my certainty.
What I do care for is being as objective as possible in evaluating GSN or anything else. If somebody says something about GSN's schedule, I think the best way to discuss the issue is to...look at GSN's actual schedule. You know, what they're showing RIGHT NOW!, as Fox would say.
And yet, you don't offer an objective assessment of what makes Celebrity Blackjack a "traditional" game show. It is your OPINION -- and you're entitled to it. It is the basis for said opinion that I question. If most of the board called "Celebrity Blackjack" a traditional game show, there's no doubt in my mind that you'd say that it wasn't.
As for looking at the actual schedule, that's not enough when you go out of your way to classify as many shows as "old reruns" as possible... especially when you know that your definition is far away from what everybody else who's voiced an opinion on the matter here considers "old." Yet again, you know exactly what you're doing when you make that judgment -- and if everyone else here were to call WBSM "an old rerun," you'd say it was recent, just to be different.
If this gets a rise out of people, I'm honestly sorry. But - and I'm not trying to get into a spitting match - what other approach would you suggest?
I doubt very much that you're sorry... but as to what I'd suggest, I've already made my suggestion: admit that you're taking the contrarian view for the sole purpose of taking the contrarian view. I don't expect it to happen, but it would be nice to see you admit it nonetheless.
-
I'd be willing to propose that anything that went off the air before the sign-on of Game Show Network (ten years ago) should be considered "old." Anything that preemed and went off after (0-9 years ago) is of recent vintage and in-production shows should be called new. My dream schedule would be the B&Ws from 7-9 am. Classic color network daytime show reruns from 9-4, (maybe an infomercial hour from 11-12 as a consession to TPIR) Recent GSN productions from 4-7, another infomercial hour from 7-8 when fans will probably be watching J! and WOF) 8-9 WWTBAM. 9-12 the Dodgeball and Blackjack Tourneys. Ben Stein and Street Smarts from 12-1. The nightcap from 1-2 would be color TTTT and WML? At 2 am-7am, solid Infomercials or more games if the budget will allow.
-
If most of the board called "Celebrity Blackjack" a traditional game show, there's no doubt in my mind that you'd say that it wasn't.
Again, I don't know why you've gotten this idea. Most people on this board don't seem to think All New 3's a Crapper is a good show. I agree with that consensus. Most folks here also don't seem to have much use for Extreme Gong or Love Buffet or Throut and Neck, and I again agree. This odd notion that I automatically disagree with what seems to be the consensus on this board is, well, odd.
I changed "fact" to "certain." Still don't know how you can be so certain about something, when I've just offered several counter-examples to your "certainty."
As for Celeb Blackjack, it shows contestants playing an interesting and complex game for admittedly charity prizes. One host interacts continually with the contestants. Visual displays update the score continually. Frankly, it strikes me as far more of a spontaneous and traditional game show than the heavily scripted and manipulated goings-on in H2. It certainly places far more emphasis on the gameplay than many panel and interview shows like IGaS, You Bet Your Life, Love Connection, etc.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 09:56 AM\']Frankly, it strikes me as far more of a spontaneous and traditional game show than the heavily scripted and manipulated goings-on in H2.
[snapback]61880[/snapback]
[/quote]
Pray tell, what do you mean by "heavily... manipulated"?
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 12:56 PM\']Again, I don't know why you've gotten this idea. Most people on this board don't seem to think All New 3's a Crapper is a good show. I agree with that consensus. Most folks here also don't seem to have much use for Extreme Gong or Love Buffet or Throut and Neck, and I again agree. This odd notion that I automatically disagree with what seems to be the consensus on this board is, well, odd.
I changed "fact" to "certain." Still don't know how you can be so certain about something, when I've just offered several counter-examples to your "certainty."
[snapback]61880[/snapback]
[/quote]
It doesn't invalidate my point at all. It simply demonstrates that occasionally, taking the contrarian view would be so ridiculous that even you can't say it with a straight face. :-)
-
I'd be willing to propose that anything that went off the air before the sign-on of Game Show Network (ten years ago) should be considered "old."
Well, does that mean the Regis Millionaire eps will never be old, because they were all made after GSN debuted?
Again, I'm really not trying to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, no matter what David says. But this looks like another subjective and at least debatable criterion for "old-ness."
Even by this prior-to-GSN's-debut criterion, the current schedule offers many hours of old shows. In fact, by this criterion, GSN may be the only outlet in this country's TV universe offering any old game shows for grownups at all.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 09:41 AM\']Absolute truth: I was wondering how soon Chris Lemon would pick up the "bow to Zach" line. Five minutes.
[snapback]61877[/snapback]
[/quote]
Well, when you THROW high gas to Johnny Damon, you shouldn't be surprised when the ball is headed towards Landsdown Street a few minutes later....
-
It simply demonstrates that occasionally, taking the contrarian view would be so ridiculous that even you can't say it with a straight face. :-)
So now "occasionally" I'm not contrarian? In other words, when I'm contrarian, you're certain I'm always contrarian, and when I'm not contrarian, you're certain I'm not always contrarian?
Okay, I can agree with that. Which is not contrarian.
-
Well, when you THROW high gas to Johnny Damon, you shouldn't be surprised when the ball is headed towards Landsdown Street a few minutes later....
No doubt. Though the Yankees were getting Damon out with just about anything before those two pitches in game seven.
-
Pray tell, what do you mean by "heavily... manipulated"?
"The areas of questioning designed for each celebrity and possible bluff answers are discussed with each celebrity in advance. In the course of their briefing, actual questions and answers may be given or discerned by the celebrities."
If this stuff was happening on a reality show, the Prof would be, well, very interested. In fact, he got upset with similar briefings of the celebs on Donny Pyramid. And I agree with him (I said in my best non-contrarian voice).
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 01:06 PM\']
It simply demonstrates that occasionally, taking the contrarian view would be so ridiculous that even you can't say it with a straight face. :-)
So now "occasionally" I'm not contrarian? In other words, when I'm contrarian, you're certain I'm always contrarian, and when I'm not contrarian, you're certain I'm not always contrarian?
Okay, I can agree with that. Which is not contrarian.
[snapback]61885[/snapback]
[/quote]
Please show me where I've said that you've always taken the contrarian view. In fact, I said "nearly every time," not simply "every time."
You take the contrarian view when you're reasonably certain that you can get a rise out of people. You don't when you realize that taking the contrarian view will simply make people question your judgment and/or sanity.
-
You take the contrarian view when you're reasonably certain that you can get a rise out of people.
I'm sorry (and I'm not being dishonest) but you're just on the wrong trail here. I really don't care about getting a rise out of people on this board. Otherwise, I'd start tossing around intemperate language about other posters like Dsmith used (and to his credit, apologized for.)
I don't deny that I have opinions, and I try to defend them. If this constitutes "trying to get a rise out of people," I'll have to plead guilty. But there are a lot of other posters on this board and thousands of other Internet boards who would be equally guilty by that criterion.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 01:17 PM\']
You take the contrarian view when you're reasonably certain that you can get a rise out of people.
I'm sorry (and I'm not being dishonest) but you're just on the wrong trail here. I really don't care about getting a rise out of people on this board. Otherwise, I'd start tossing around intemperate language about other posters like Dsmith used (and to his credit, apologized for.)
I don't deny that I have opinions, and I try to defend them. If this constitutes "trying to get a rise out of people," I'll have to plead guilty. But there are a lot of other posters on this board and thousands of other Internet board who would be equally guilty by that criterion.
[snapback]61890[/snapback]
[/quote]
I don't think I'm on the wrong trail at all. But I also don't think we're going to get anywhere here as long as mindreading is impossible and I can't prove definitively whether you're being truthful or not. I'll simply let the facts -- one, that you're in a minority of one (or, in the case of the usefulness of the GSN boards, two) on at least a half-dozen points; and two, that you've distorted what I've said twice in this thread alone in order to make your argument -- speak for themselves.
That ends my comments on the matter. And I'm sure you'll disagree, but that wouldn't surprise me in the least.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 12:11 PM\']I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just pointing out what's actually on GSN's current schedule. [/quote]
No, that's no longer what you're doing. You're taking the schedule and making your own subjective evaluation based on opinions you hold. Not the same thing.
We're all entitled to do that. Your opinions, at least on this subject, are drifting further and further into the minority, which isn't a problem either. But when you make your own definition of what constitutes a traditional game show -- and somehow find a place for Celebrity Blackjack within it -- and when you decide that the rest of us are arbitrary because we have an understanding for what constitutes a classic that somehow you lack, then your "just the facts" defense doesn't hold up any more.
-
I don't see how I've distorted your arguments, and I don't see how you can be sure that I'm in a minority of one on any issue unless you've polled the entire membership of the board...which I doubt that you've done. So as you suggest, we'll just leave the discussion where it stands.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 10:12 AM\']
Pray tell, what do you mean by "heavily... manipulated"?
"The areas of questioning designed for each celebrity and possible bluff answers are discussed with each celebrity in advance. In the course of their briefing, actual questions and answers may be given or discerned by the celebrities."
If this stuff was happening on a reality show, the Prof would be, well, very interested. In fact, he got upset with similar briefings of the celebs on Donny Pyramid. And I agree with him (I said in my best non-contrarian voice).
[snapback]61888[/snapback]
[/quote]
First off, the briefings on Pyramid and the briefings on Squares are not at all similar. The briefings on Pyramid were essentially sneak peeks at actual game material for the purpose of helping the celebrity communicate to the contestants - thereby likely affecting the outcome of the game. The celebrities on Squares were briefed with a topic, a joke, and a bluff for each question. Celebrities ultimately get the final say - on the spot, after hearing the actual question for the first time - on what their responses are, and from there, the contestant still has to decide whether to agree or disagree.
The jokes were certainly scripted - a trip down MG/HS Hour Lane should serve as enough of a reminder as to what happens when they're not. But the show was far from "heavily scripted and manipulated."
-
But when you make your own definition of what constitutes a traditional game show...
We've gone around and around this issue many times, and the best definition I've heard is the "I know it when I see it" criterion. Which allows a great deal of subjectivity into the definition, and which I think is the right way to go.
Obviously, people have many ideas on the topic. The editors of EOTVGS somehow got Home Run Derby into their definition of "game show." I don't agree, and I doubt that I would be in the minority on this board in my disagreement. But that's their view and I can't absolutely disprove it, because there's no universally agreed-on definition of "game show."
As for the proposed definitions of a "classic" or "old" game show, well, yes, they also seem to run into subjective and arbitrary requirements. We may just have to use the "I know it when I see it" definition here, too.
Which is probably just another way of saying we'll have to agree to disagree.
-
The briefings on Pyramid were essentially sneak peeks at actual game material for the purpose of helping the celebrity communicate to the contestants - thereby likely affecting the outcome of the game.
The H2 celebs got sneak peeks at actual game material - "actual questions and answers" to use the disclaimer's wording - and this certainly helped in communicating to the contestants. Did this affect the outcome of the game? I don't know, and we'll never know because you can't rerun the game without the peek at the game material and see how it would have turned out. But it's hard to see how it could affect outcomes on Pyramid but not on H2.
-
On "Squares," the celeb really doesn't have to partner with a player, the player somewhat controls his or her destiny. Wasn't it just Winner's Circle material that was given to the celebs? If they gave out main game material, the game would be reduced to how quickly a celeb can recite a list, since there was no telling in what order the main game categories were picked. It would be, in effect, like "Dotto," a test of the powers of memorization.
-
Was it only Winner's Circle material? I thought I read on this board that WC material was not given to the celebs in the second season of Donny Pyramid. That's why the contestants had the choice to give or receive in the second season WC.
In any event, the peek at the game material was widely, sharply and (IMO) correctly criticized on this board. Another example of where I agreed with the apparent consensus.
I'll admit that the advance peek at the game material might have been necessary for entertainment value on H2, as the sorry history of the MG/H2 hour indicates. A poster gave a link to an actual MG/H2 episode on the Big Board, and the H2 segment really dragged without the prepping. Too many celebs just scratched their heads and said, "gee, I really don't know."
But I'm still not a big fan of the practice.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 01:37 PM\']
But when you make your own definition of what constitutes a traditional game show...
We've gone around and around this issue many times, and the best definition I've heard is the "I know it when I see it" criterion. Which allows a great deal of subjectivity into the definition, and which I think is the right way to go.[/quote]
It's almost extraordinary how you managed to excerpt the one phrase out of my post that suggests I somehow have a problem with subjective opinions, when the expression of opinions as opposed to facts was, in fact, my entire point.
-
It's almost extraordinary how you managed to excerpt the one phrase out of my post that suggests I somehow have a problem with subjective opinions, when the expression of opinions as opposed to facts was, in fact, my entire point.
It seems we agree on the subjectivity involved in all the attempted definitions of "game shows" and "classic game shows" and "old game shows." I wasn't trying to excerpt anything from your post to make you look like you have a problem with anything. I only used that phrase to begin the discussion about how subjective the definitions can be, and how this may actually be a good thing. (Martha said I can use that line until she gets out.)
If somebody tried to impose THE OFFICIAL DEFINITION of game shows on us game show fans, my guess is that there would be a lot of vigorously dissenting game show fans. So I have no problem at all with avoiding such a fiat, and I don't think you have a problem with avoiding it, either.
Which means there will always be roon for disagreement on what is and is not a "game show" or a "classic game show" or an "old game show."
Now that doesn't mean that I can't state an opinion that the Prof, for instance, is using restrictive definitions of "game show" or "classic game show" to exclude as much of the post-Boden GSN from those categories as possible. I don't think that's unfair to the Prof at all. In fact, I think he'd agree with me that it's exactly what he is doing in his frequent criticisms of the current GSN.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 11:10 AM\']Was it only Winner's Circle material? I thought I read on this board that WC material was not given to the celebs in the second season of Donny Pyramid. That's why the contestants had the choice to give or receive in the second season WC.
[snapback]61902[/snapback]
[/quote]
If the material wasn't given to the celebs, then there was a 10-to-15-minute delay in the studio before each WC for no reason. ;)
And, although the first four frontgame category selections are made in advance, I saw no evidence of anyone receiving any of this material before the game. (And if it were happening, I would've seen evidence of it.)
-
If the material wasn't given to the celebs, then there was a 10-to-15-minute delay in the studio before each WC for no reason. ;)
Oh, I don't doubt that some WC material was given in advance. It helped make the Winner's Circle too easy to win, as many pointed out. I just thought that things might have changed in the second season, but I wasn't there and I don't know for sure.
Still don't like the practice. Maybe I'm naive, but the appeal of game shows for me has always been spontaneous competition. Yes, Donny Pyramid disclaimed the sneak peek, which got them off the legal hook. But it always bugged me a little. Still does.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 09:00 AM\'][Dsmith's comments] must have given Dsmith something to think about, because he apologized for his intemperate language on the Behind the Scenes board.[/quote]
He did not apologize for what he said, but for the way that he said it. I think you know that.
You might have noticed my mention of "All New 3's a Crap."
Crud, Crap, Crapper, etc. Yawn.
Said it on the other thread, and I'll say it here. If GSN does something I like, I say so. If GSN does something I don't like, I say so.
That's not the point, and I think you know that too. The problem is that if someone says something about GSN that you don't like, you go off the deep end - ratings, the schedule, Perfesser rants - as if from a checklist. God, can you even compose a post without mentioning "the Prof" and whether you agree with him, or he agrees with you? Give it a rest.
-
In fact, many (probably most, but I don't have time to check) of my posts don't mention Steve Beverly at all. But he's certainly relevant to this discussion because of his frequent criticisms of the current GSN.
And if GSN's ratings and schedule aren't relevant to a discussion of GSN, what is? Rich Cronin's office decor?
As for Dsmith's apology, I've congratulated him for it. The subject is closed as far as I'm concerned.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 10:41 AM\']
The briefings on Pyramid were essentially sneak peeks at actual game material for the purpose of helping the celebrity communicate to the contestants - thereby likely affecting the outcome of the game.
The H2 celebs got sneak peeks at actual game material - "actual questions and answers" to use the disclaimer's wording - and this certainly helped in communicating to the contestants. Did this affect the outcome of the game? I don't know, and we'll never know because you can't rerun the game without the peek at the game material and see how it would have turned out. But it's hard to see how it could affect outcomes on Pyramid but not on H2.
[snapback]61898[/snapback]
[/quote]
How many seasons did you work on the show?
-
I never worked on the show. The practice was disclaimed, though, so it was hardly a secret. Gameshowsteve, who seems to have pretty good knowledge of the show's production, says there was an interval of time before the WC when the celebs were given a look at the material. He doesn't think that there was any sneak peek for the front game, though, beyond the predetermined selection of the first four categories.
This thread (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3485&st=0\") goes into more detail from people who were involved on the show.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 05:29 PM\']I never worked on the show. The practice was disclaimed, though, so it was hardly a secret. Gameshowsteve, who seems to have pretty good knowledge of the show's production, says there was an interval of time before the WC when the celebs were given a look at the material. He doesn't think that there was any sneak peek for the front game, though, beyond the predetermined selection of the first four categories.
This thread (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3485&st=0\") goes into more detail from people who were involved on the show.
[snapback]61947[/snapback]
[/quote]
Pardon me for not being clear enough by referring to "the show" as Hollywood Squares, since, you know, that's what we were talking about.
Point is, I worked on Squares, and I have a dear friend who worked on Pyramid (and BRIEFED THE CELEBRITIES, no less). I'm pretty darn well familiar with the celebrity briefing processes on both shows, and I know how the processes compare to each other. I was not defending the (fairly indefensible) Pyramid briefing process; I was defending Squares, which you inaccurately called "heavily scripted and manipulated".
Your "people... involved on the show" you point to in that thread amount to... by my count, one contestant, no staff members. And besides, what authority have you to be arguing this subject anyhow?
-
If you mean that only staff members on a particular show have "authority" to discuss the show's practices, I can't agree with you. I also don't understand why prepping the celebs is okay on H2 but "indefensible" on Donny Pyramid. I'm uncomfortable with the practice on either show. I can understand the entertainment rationale behind the prepping: more WC winners on Pyramid, better bluffs and zingers on H2. And as long as the practice is disclaimed and the contestants are aware of what's going on, legal problems are avoided.
But the prepping still goes against the spirit of spontaneous, bona fide competition that to me is the heart of game shows' appeal. We'll just have to leave the discussion there.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 26 2004, 08:15 AM\']If you mean that only staff members on a particular show have "authority" to discuss the show's practices, I can't agree with you.
[snapback]61988[/snapback]
[/quote]
The degree of your arrogance is simply astounding -- not to mention your continued denial (in the face of mountains of evidence) that you're simply taking the contrarian position for its own sake. Given the chance, you'd argue with Eddie Timanus about what it's like to play Jeopardy! blind.
Please do try to explain how being an arrogant contrarian isn't exactly what you're doing... as someone who's taught psychology in the past, I find you a fascinating study.
-
The irony here is that this thread went south after Casey jumped on a post of mine that not only was NOT critical of GSN but basically toed the GSN line. I said, "GSN as a haven made up exclusively of old reruns and traditional, Q&A originals really is no more." I think if you ask the people at GSN, they'd say yes, they specifically have been pursuing more recent reruns and less traditional originals. Words to that effect have probably turned up in press releases.
It was a harmless statement -- one line in a longer, balanced post -- that Casey nevertheless felt the need to refute with a list of shows, none of which were original and only a few of which were old. If that's not contrarian, I don't know what is.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 26 2004, 05:15 AM\']But the prepping still goes against the spirit of spontaneous, bona fide competition that to me is the heart of game shows' appeal. We'll just have to leave the discussion there.
[snapback]61988[/snapback]
[/quote]
More classic Casey. "My argument is eroding by the microsecond, so let's quit before I'm completely in over my head." Sorry, not gonna get away with it this time.
The prepping on H2 does NOTHING to affect gameplay. The player still has to agree or disagree with the provided response, which means they still need to know the answer to the question themselves, or at the least, recognize a wrong one. It doesn't matter if the Square makes up the lie or not.
I ask you this: If the celebrities on Battlestars had the option of selecting (and trying to sell) the wrong answer from the two shown to them, would that be questionable? If not, tell me where that differentiates from what happens on H2.
-
Why all the shouting? What is so "arrogant" and "contrarian" about wanting as spontaneous and unrehearsed competition as possible on game shows? If this is an arrogant and contrarian position, then yeah, I'll gladly plead guilty.
Of course, the prepping of the celebs affected the gameplay on H2, as the MG/H2 clips on the Big Board demonstrated. Without the prepping the celebs were often reduced to confessing ignorance and admittedly guessing an answer, which clearly affected the contestant's judgment of whether the answer was right or wrong.
Now as I said, I can understand the entertainment rationale for the prepping, as the H2 segment of the MG/H2 hour also demonstrated. The game limped along without the scripted bluffs and zingers. But like Mr. Goodson - to his chagrin in this case - I'm not comfortable with the prepping on H2.
This position of mine isn't eroding at all. I'll continue to maintain that competition on game shows should be as bona fide as possible. If this gets some adjectives thrown my way, I'll just have to tolerate them.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 26 2004, 01:59 PM\']Why all the shouting? What is so "arrogant" and "contrarian" about wanting as spontaneous and unrehearsed competition as possible on game shows? If this is an arrogant and contrarian position, then yeah, I'll gladly plead guilty.
[snapback]62029[/snapback]
[/quote]
There's no shouting at all. What's arrogant is you claiming to have more knowledge of what goes on with H2 than someone who worked on it has. What's contrarian is the fact that if SplitSecond were to argue that the prepping on H2 and Pyramid were equivalent to one another, you'd be arguing that they weren't... just to argue. Deny it all you like, but your own posting record belies any denial on your part.
Of course, the prepping of the celebs affected the gameplay on H2, as the MG/H2 clips on the Big Board demonstrated. Without the prepping the celebs were often reduced to confessing ignorance and admittedly guessing an answer, which clearly affected the contestant's judgment of whether the answer was right or wrong.
Considering that all of the questions on MG/HS were multiple choice, even if a celebrity had bluffed and given an incorrect answer, it could still sound legitimate to the contestant -- just as the bluffs supplied on H2 could. Thus, there was no real difference at all in game play... just in the entertainment value.
Now as I said, I can understand the entertainment rationale for the prepping, as the H2 segment of the MG/H2 hour also demonstrated. The game limped along without the scripted bluffs and zingers. But like Mr. Goodson - to his chagrin in this case - I'm not comfortable with the prepping on H2.
You don't have to be comfortable with the prepping on H2. But to claim that it's equivalent to the prepping on Pyramid is wrong, and you know it.
This position of mine isn't eroding at all.
The fact that you care more about arguing for the sake of arguing than about having an actual discussion means that your position isn't going to erode in the face of evidence that demolishes said position.
I'll continue to maintain that competition on game shows should be as bona fide as possible.
More evasion... that's a position against which no one has argued, and you know it. That is not the same thing as claiming that the prepping on H2 is roughly the same as the prepping on Pyramid -- as you also know.
If this gets some adjectives thrown my way, I'll just have to tolerate them.
It's simply going to continue to destroy your credibility. I have no problem with that if you don't.
-
I'm reminded of what someone once told me in regards to how winning an argument on the internet is a lot like winning in the Special Olympics.
Look it up.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 12:41 PM\']The H2 celebs got sneak peeks at actual game material - "actual questions and answers" to use the disclaimer's wording - and this certainly helped in communicating to the contestants.[/quote]
While I cannot speak for how any of the previous versions of the show handled their briefings, the celebrities on H2 were given only the questions, the bluff and a joke. There were certain panelists in seasons 1-4 who, due to their additional titles/duties on the show - namely our head writer and an executive producer, had access to more than that criteria. In season 5-6, they were no longer given the question, but rather the rough subject of the material: "question about famous siblings", for example.