Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: 1975 NBC "Fun in the Morning" GS promo discovered!  (Read 8809 times)

vtown7

  • Member
  • Posts: 1049
1975 NBC "Fun in the Morning" GS promo discovered!
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2003, 02:34:15 PM »
Quote
This is actually what they do on the Australian version...however, if you hit a Bankrupt, you lose that money, whereas the money earned from winning a round is safeguarded.

IIRC, this is how the UK version was doing it in the mid nineties when I saw an episode.  Also I believe that it was done it points, and the person that won NEVER solved a puzzle in said program!  Go figure.

Cheers,

Ryan V.

uncamark

  • Guest
1975 NBC "Fun in the Morning" GS promo discovered!
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2003, 07:23:40 PM »
Quote
I can think of The Magnificent Seven (which I would guess was the $500 answer); The Magnificent Ambersons, an old Orson Welles movie; and The Magnificent Mile, Chicago's shopping district.


I am duly humbled.  I'm especially peeved that I didn't think of \"Magnificent Mile,\" since I've only lived in the Chicago for 35 years.

Hate to think what would've happened if I were the contestant.

Lead me into that room where Larry Van Nuys says, \"In a moment...\"

JasonA1

  • Member
  • Posts: 2565
1975 NBC "Fun in the Morning" GS promo discovered!
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2003, 09:27:37 PM »
Just a quick FYI - I dug up a quote from FOX's internet chat w/ Chuck during the run of \"Greed.\"

====

Chuck Woolery: I thought that Greed was the most imaginative--on the money concept--for a game show that I had seen in my career. I was that strong about it, and I still feel that strong about it. These things are extremely difficult to come up with, game shows are very difficult to come up with. And normally when you do a pilot it takes many twists and turns before it gets to the air. An example: Before Wheel of Fortune became Wheel of Fortune, it was called Shopper's Bazaar. I did the pilot, and it had people talking to each other on telephones. And it was bizarre! And it didn't make it. It evolved over a year into Wheel of Fortune. So they had a year to play with it.

====

The entire chat can be found here:
FOX's Chat with Chuck

-Jason
JA1 Presents - movie reviews, TV reviews, top 5 lists and more
--or-- you can go the Twitter route

Michael Brandenburg

  • Guest
1975 NBC "Fun in the Morning" GS promo discovered!
« Reply #33 on: July 04, 2003, 10:15:43 AM »
Quote
A (WOF) shopping question, then: why do you suppose, if a player elected to purchase something, they wouldn't let him or her spend part of their money and put the rest on account--why did they make them either bank all of it or just the spare change?


   I recall Chuck explaining the rule once on one of the WOF shows he had hosted: After a contestant won a round, he was allowed to put any part of his winnings \"On Account\" and apply it toward an available prize in a future round -- he did not have to either put all of it \"On Account\" or spend as much of it as possible before putting the remainder \"On Account.\"  (Thus, for example, a contestant who won $1,000 in a round could buy a $500 prize in the shopping round and put $500 \"On Account.\")

   However, because of the risks involved, few contestants during the \"shopping\" era of WOF even used the \"On Account\" option at all, electing to take one of those \"tift cergificates\" (or at least I thought that's how Chuck referred to them) for their remaining winnings in a round instead.  (These could only be bought by a player for an amount that was less than the amount of the lowest-price prize available -- thus, if you had $100 left after buying other prizes after winning a round and their famous $79 ceramic Dalmation was still available, you could not have a $100 tift cergificate; you had to either 1) buy the ceramic Dalmation and then take a $21 tift cergificate with what you had left, 2) put the entire $100 \"On Account,\" or 3) split the remainder between the two so that neither portion is greater than the price of the lowest-price available prize -- say, $50 \"On Account\" and a $50 tift cergificate.)

   If a contestant choose to put winnings from a round \"On Account,\" he had to win another game in order to get another chance to spend it, and do so without hitting a \"Bankrupt\" space on the wheel.  If he did so, his \"On Account\" money was added back to his winnings for his subsequent win (for example; if he had $122 \"On Account\" and then won $4,000 in the next round, he now had $4,122 to spend on prizes after his second win).  Then the same rule would be applied again, unless his subsequent win came in the show's final round, in which case his bankroll had to be all spent on either prizes or tift cergificates.

   If a contestant who had money \"On Account\" did hit a \"Bankrupt\" space on the wheel in a later round, he lost that money in addition to whatever amount he accumulated in that round.  Also, if he failed to win the show's final round and had money \"On Account\" from previous rounds, that amount was lost as well.  So that made for quite a risk for a player who wanted to try to win an especially valuable prize on the show, which is why few players during the \"shopping\" era of the WOF show even used the \"On Account\" option.


   Michael Brandenburg
   (And you know something?  Chuck Woolery needs to learn how to talk slower -- someone just pointed out to me that those \"tift cergificates\" he gave away on WOF for so many years were really Tiffany gift certificates!)