Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: GSN, R.I.P.?  (Read 10810 times)

JMFabiano

  • Member
  • Posts: 1077
GSN, R.I.P.?
« on: July 08, 2003, 10:33:59 PM »
Obviously, I do not mean GSN is dying business-wise,  but yes, I mean as far as what it used to mean to so many of us. Which I agree is a shame. Yeah, yeah, I know, \"They need to make money,\" and \"It's just TV, get over it.\" Still, as a person who is disappointed with the utter lack of entertainment in \"entertainment\" nowadays, it sucks to be more limited to my choices in means of \"escape\" back to the stuff I grew up with, or things from earlier decades (which I consider now to be \"back when people cared about making good TV, music, etc\") It's happening with GSN like it did with the AMC before it, and with Cartoon Network (though the weekends are great, what with He-Man when it's new, the DC related shows, Popeye, and Adult Swim. And they DO have Boomerang, another hint hint! ;-)) To a lesser extent, and if I remember some of you from ATGS correctly, you'll flame me for this, there's wrestling as well. WWE is abyssmal now, and I don't even watch it regularly anymore, opting instead for my old tapes and the occasional indy.

I guess what I'm saying in so many words is that I guess my disillusionment with the media today aggravates what GSN is now and what it might become.  You can see how I feel left out in my little world of TV Land, GSN and CN (when it's good), and British TV on PBS.

Just needed to vent!

J.
Post over.  You may enter your smarmy comebacks here.

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 12187
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2003, 11:08:19 PM »
Nostalgia sure isn't what it used to be.
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

SplitSecond

  • Guest
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2003, 11:37:50 PM »
fX.

TheInquisitiveOne

  • Member
  • Posts: 684
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2003, 11:38:13 PM »
Well, since the fire has already started, I guess I will add fuel to it.

What our friend here is saying is spot on...all the way to the whole WWE argument. More about that later. Rather than break from the trend of today's insidious programming, GSN (as they are now called) wants to become PART OF IT.

I am not saying that the channel should be an all-classic channel. Of the originals that they show, Lingo and Russian Roulette are my favorites. I will stick to my reasoning that I am far from anti-original. However, one thing that bothers me is that these shows are aired ad nauseum to the point where the novelty wears off QUICKLY. The latest offerings of Cram, Naturally Stoned, and Funny Money also show me that they are not sure as to what audience they want to get, whether it is the comedy club hoppers, insomniacs, or the latest breed of Spike TV and E! viewers.

This is EXACTLY what has happened to Moron Television (MTV), Vehicular Homicide One (VH-1), and the Pseudo-Cartoon Newtork (Nickelodeon). Rather than serve the purpose that the channel implies, they are throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks. Sure, they have their money and their audience of nearly mindless drones who are suckers for anything, but the quality of programming is being sacrificed, and those who actually watch television for meaning suffer.

The \"recent rerun acquisition\" method is pretty tiresome, as well. It is hard to give a static schedule to shows that lasted less than a year and were aired on and after 1999. The \"major announcement\" about gaining 21 was more of a \"minor disappointment\" than anything. Also, the future airings of G4 related programming show me that GSN is running off in a tangent, much like many other cable networks. Much like the channels that I have mentioned above, GSN used to be a channel that you could never pull me away from. Now, I have to find my pleasure elsewhere. It is sad when I have more fun TAPE TRADING than watching GSN.

I am sure that there is hope for GSN and am not as quick for placing the tombstone on this young network. I just say that it should do what works; the documentary of the Michael Larsen incident was a kick-ass effort, despite its cheesy moments. Documentary type formats are good for GSN; it is innovative, yet it does not stray from its purpose. All the small things will help to make this a big network. Hell, they may do something to commemorate their 10th anniversary, which is very soon!

My point is, GSN should let the audience starve for it, and not the other way around. Mix things up, and let variety be the spice of life.

The Inquisitive One
“Assumption is the mother of all screw ups.”

From Under Siege 2: Dark Territory. Quote sanitized for forum.

JMFabiano

  • Member
  • Posts: 1077
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2003, 12:10:37 AM »
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jul 8 2003, 10:08 PM\'] Nostalgia sure isn't what it used to be. [/quote]
 Actually, I'd say what it COULD be.  I mean, there's definitely an audience and a place for it.  If there wasn't, would there be any MOGSM, and on VH1, I Love the 80s, among other examples?

J.
Post over.  You may enter your smarmy comebacks here.

Dan Sadro

  • Guest
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2003, 12:33:31 AM »
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Jul 8 2003, 10:38 PM\'] The latest offerings of Cram, Naturally Stoned, and Funny Money also show me that they are not sure as to what audience they want to get, whether it is the comedy club hoppers, insomniacs, or the latest breed of Spike TV and E! viewers. [/quote]
 I'm not really going to comment on the rest of the post as I'm not going to post a counterpoint for the sole purpose of playing devil's advocate, this is something that I want to address.

The normal audience for a game show is middle-aged women.  Especially traditional game shows, which is something I could expand and theorize on if I wanted to be burned at the stake.  Cram and NLFM are two shows that are trying to expand that demographic without losing it... Cram especially can appeal to people of all ages, and NLFM can have appeal to the twentysomethings without being appalling to the thirtysomethings.  Those two shows are inoffensive fare which is out of the bounds of the traditional game show, yet don't clash with the boundaries of a traditional game show.

And Naturally Stoned just satisfies the public's curiosity in a similar way to The Osbournes, although I think NS would be much more interesting if there was a Ozzy Woolery  :^)

JMFabiano

  • Member
  • Posts: 1077
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2003, 12:40:13 AM »
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Jul 8 2003, 10:38 PM\'] Well, since the fire has already started, I guess I will add fuel to it.

What our friend here is saying is spot on...all the way to the whole WWE argument. More about that later. Rather than break from the trend of today's insidious programming, GSN (as they are now called) wants to become PART OF IT.

I am not saying that the channel should be an all-classic channel. Of the originals that they show, Lingo and Russian Roulette are my favorites. I will stick to my reasoning that I am far from anti-original. However, one thing that bothers me is that these shows are aired ad nauseum to the point where the novelty wears off QUICKLY. The latest offerings of Cram, Naturally Stoned, and Funny Money also show me that they are not sure as to what audience they want to get, whether it is the comedy club hoppers, insomniacs, or the latest breed of Spike TV and E! viewers.

This is EXACTLY what has happened to Moron Television (MTV), Vehicular Homicide One (VH-1), and the Pseudo-Cartoon Newtork (Nickelodeon). Rather than serve the purpose that the channel implies, they are throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks. Sure, they have their money and their audience of nearly mindless drones who are suckers for anything, but the quality of programming is being sacrificed, and those who actually watch television for meaning suffer.

The "recent rerun acquisition" method is pretty tiresome, as well. It is hard to give a static schedule to shows that lasted less than a year and were aired on and after 1999. The "major announcement" about gaining 21 was more of a "minor disappointment" than anything. Also, the future airings of G4 related programming show me that GSN is running off in a tangent, much like many other cable networks. Much like the channels that I have mentioned above, GSN used to be a channel that you could never pull me away from. Now, I have to find my pleasure elsewhere. It is sad when I have more fun TAPE TRADING than watching GSN.

I am sure that there is hope for GSN and am not as quick for placing the tombstone on this young network. I just say that it should do what works; the documentary of the Michael Larsen incident was a kick-ass effort, despite its cheesy moments. Documentary type formats are good for GSN; it is innovative, yet it does not stray from its purpose. All the small things will help to make this a big network. Hell, they may do something to commemorate their 10th anniversary, which is very soon!

My point is, GSN should let the audience starve for it, and not the other way around. Mix things up, and let variety be the spice of life.

The Inquisitive One [/quote]
 Thanks for the feedback, TI1.  So you understand my comment about the WWE, huh?  Can I assume you're another who is tired of being made to worship at the altar of Triple H? ;-)  

Yeah I agree that the originals we do have contain some watchable programs, which is more than we can say for certain past \"efforts\" that shall not be named.  Besides the one you name, Whammy is all right once you've gotten over that this is PYL without network backing.  My problem, I guess, is with the affixation on more suspect choices of programs and acquisitions.  The video game programming, as far as I've heard, has nothing to do with game shows (a doc on the history of VGs may be cool, though, I admit).  I am reminded of my problem with the old Game TV, which sometimes seemed to be about GS once or twice a week (they'd have a guest sometimes, and then there was Friday with Fred Wostbrook).  And getting recent, short lived series just comes off as looking cheap and lazy.  Besides, why would I care about programs that I saw not too long ago and wasn't overly impressed with, and/or lack that element of \"pleasant memories\"?  Yeah, I know I defend Adult Swim on CN, but somehow shows like Futurama and Family Guy fit in more naturally.  I don't know why.  Plus they're pretty good too ;-)  

Now, if you're on the GSN boards, you may be familiar with two characters whose initials are JC and BC1234/5/5555.  I am in no way the \"extremists\" they are, but sometimes I wonder a bit whether we really had it that bad under Fleming?  I know he was going the same direction and probably even WORSE, but the schedule of classics seemed less inhibited as it is now somehow.  

I think I wouldn't mind so much if I wasn't totally disenchanted by, oh, 85% of everything else on TV.   I hardly watch the networks, and with cable it's usually looking for something that looks interesting, at the spur of the moment.  Like with too many other forms of entertainment, I believe that things are now largely not about the acting, the talent, and the entertainment value in general.  It's just about petty things like how you look, and if said person/show is the \"flavor of the month.\"  The shows I do make a point to catch are like blips on the map.  (Off the top of my head, of the ones \"freshest\" to me there's PYL Wednesdays; My Hero and Coupling on Fridays and Saturdays on different PBS stations; Superman and the Popeye Show on CN Saturdays; and...that's about it!)  

Looks like I turned in another rant here!

J.
Post over.  You may enter your smarmy comebacks here.

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 26890
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2003, 01:11:03 AM »
[quote name=\'JMFabiano\' date=\'Jul 8 2003, 09:10 PM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jul 8 2003, 10:08 PM\'] Nostalgia sure isn't what it used to be. [/quote]
Actually, I'd say what it COULD be.  I mean, there's definitely an audience and a place for it.  If there wasn't, would there be any MOGSM, and on VH1, I Love the 80s, among other examples?

J. [/quote]
{VRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMM!}

{Chris looks up to see Joke Airways screaming over JM's head}

You haven't looked up \"redundant\" in the dictionary lately, have you? :)
« Last Edit: July 09, 2003, 01:11:36 AM by clemon79 »
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype, YIM, AIM: FredSmythe

TheInquisitiveOne

  • Member
  • Posts: 684
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2003, 02:44:53 AM »
Quote
Can I assume you're another who is tired of being made to worship at the altar of Triple H? ;-)

That is right. I hate to stray in a tangent, but H3's backstage politics, coupled with bad writing and Vince's refusal to listen to the fans, makes for RAW is CRAP every Monday night.

Quote
And getting recent, short lived series just comes off as looking cheap and lazy. Besides, why would I care about programs that I saw not too long ago and wasn't overly impressed with, and/or lack that element of \"pleasant memories\"?

Again, I agree. Maybe Gurin is having some stroke in this, but the money used in acquiring TWL, 21, and Greed, could be used as an effort to make Fremantle crack and give up such  shows as $ale of the Century and Scrabble, the more established Chuck Woolery classic that would help in boosting my interest in Naturally Stoned and Lingo. Never mind the money that is being pissed away for the effort of becoming G4 the Second...

Quote
Yeah, I know I defend Adult Swim on CN, but somehow shows like Futurama and Family Guy fit in more naturally. I don't know why. Plus they're pretty good too ;-)

These shows were killed well before their times. You can blame this purely on FOX's lack of scheduling skill. These shows would help make FOX Sunday Night Appointment TV along with The Simpsons and King of the Hill. What do we have instead? Crap like Malcolm in the Middle and Oliver Beene, shows that are not even HALF as funny as the animated series. Sorry for the tangency, again.

Quote
I think I wouldn't mind so much if I wasn't totally disenchanted by, oh, 85% of everything else on TV.

My sentiments exactly.

Quote
...sometimes I wonder a bit whether we really had it that bad under Fleming? I know he was going the same direction and probably even WORSE, but the schedule of classics seemed less inhibited as it is now somehow.

Though the originals under the Fleming era were bush-league garbage, his classics scheduled more than covered those inkblots. Do I really need to mention The Price is Right? Also there was the G-T library, Bumper Stumpers (my guilty pleasure), and many others. Cronin, on the other hand, made the originals innovative and watchable but, at the same time, kicked the classics to the curb. I am sure that a middle ground can be sought here. (Not that the classics are phased out of the picture, it is that MORE could be added to the mix.)

And that is all I have to say about that.

The Inquisitive One
« Last Edit: July 09, 2003, 02:50:39 AM by TheInquisitiveOne »
“Assumption is the mother of all screw ups.”

From Under Siege 2: Dark Territory. Quote sanitized for forum.

joeken2

  • Guest
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2003, 03:23:42 AM »
It does not feel like it did when the network started.  When I started watching they had the b/w in primetime with Peter Tomarkin doing the interactive gameshows like race for the numbers and things like that.  They also had Marrianne Curran with Saturday night Wide World of Games and the morning show and the afternoon show I can not remember the name.  It was more laid back and it was all the games.  I still like Match Games and shows like that, but it does nto have the same feel.


Thank you

Ian Wallis

  • Member
  • Posts: 3537
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2003, 09:34:29 AM »
I'll add my 2 cents in here:

I've been thinking lately that we had it better under Fleming as well.  To give Cronin credit, when he first came to GSN he gave us \"Press Your Luck\" and \"Let's Make a Deal\" (two shows that actually could have been part of GSN from the beginning), and most of his originals are way better.

However, being a \"classics\" lover, it was much better before Cronin arrived.  Maybe we wouldn't have had \"PYL\" and \"LMAD\" if Fleming had stayed, but at least we would have had a lot more use of the vault.  Fleming wasn't afraid to try things, such as running the CBS \"Joker's Wild\", doing \"Games of the Week\", or even having obscure shows like \"Perfect Match\" on the weekends.  I know a lot of us complained even then, but those shows and ideas are likely never to be seen again - unless our hope of a GSN2 comes around.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2003, 09:35:12 AM by Ian Wallis »
For more information about Game Shows and TV Guide Magazine, click here:
http://gamesandclassictv.webs.com/index.htm

vtown7

  • Member
  • Posts: 1033
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2003, 10:28:03 AM »
Quote
Cram especially can appeal to people of all ages,

This is quite true.  I have friends who own a bed and breakfast, enjoy the fact that GSN has been added to their digital cable... and they're in their SIXTIES!  

Cheers,

Ryan V.

GS Warehouse

  • Guest
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2003, 10:37:55 AM »
I've said it before and I'll say it again: GSN has succumbed to advertiser pressure.  If TV was not so money-driven, we'd be enjoying a more classic-driven GSN.  But look at the advertising industry from my perspective: even though I fall in the 18-to-49 demo, I do not throw my money at just any product I see on TV.  The people who do are the ones who watch trash like Friends and Fear Factor, but don't even know who Bill Cullen was.  I never buy anything other than essentials, especially after getting laid-off, because I know my life savings will eventually become a down payment on my congressman's new Porsche.  If everybody in the country had my views, TV will cease to exist.

BrandonFG

  • Member
  • Posts: 16002
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2003, 11:11:21 AM »
It seems to me that GSN is starting to think that you can't run a network on \"niche\" programming. I mean, look at most of your cable networks, and how they've strayed from their original roots. One of the most notrorius examples will always be MTV, and more recently, AMC. Hell, even Nick, a station I grew up on with Double Dare, You Can't Do That on Television and other gems, has become nothing but Spongebob and Rugrats. Why? Original programming brings in $$$.[/COLOR]

The thing is, as has been stated a million times here, you can't run your network on nothing but 20 year old game shows. Yes, it would be nice, but GSN has to make money to stay above water, hence the crop of originals. Just the same, MTV can't make money on music videos 24/7, hence the crop of (crappy) original programming.

However, I'll counter that argument by saying 1) GSN needs to keep their original programming within the confines of game shows (\"GS\"N), just like MTV should keep theirs within the confines of music (\"M\"TV).
"I'll say anything you want, because my baby's applying to.....Tic Tac Dough! What the f**k is this?
Now celebrating his 18th season on GSF!

beatlefreak84

  • Member
  • Posts: 495
GSN, R.I.P.?
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2003, 11:45:18 AM »
After reading a lot of the comments from all of you, I'd have to agree with most of your sentiments.

While I was probably happier than a lot of people to see PYL come to GSN (!), I was kinda sad to see shows like TJW, TTD, and BS leave the schedule.  You'd think Cronin would've taken a hint from that \"Feast of Favorites\" thing he did; if I were him, I would've put TJW and TTD right back on the sked, even if just for a weekend slot.

In a sense, I guess you're right:  Cronin looks like he's trying to scale down the classics to just the ones with proven ratings.  While I do see the need to make money and whatnot, come on, how many of you got up early and/or set your VCR's when \"Trivia Trap\" was on for three months?

Also, we're not the only ones who enjoy the classics.  As I mentioned in another thread, when my friends talk about and/or watch GSN, they mention the CLASSICS, not the ORIGINALS (I have one friend who likes \"Cram\" and another who despises \"Lingo,\" and that's all they say about the originals).  Trust me, there are way more people that will raise an eyebrow to mention of \"Bumper Stumpers\" than will to \"Cram;\" at least, among people I know!

I didn't mind that the classics were being scaled down to the morning hours, but I did mind that they were very repetitive and basically just the same few shows we've seen time and time again.  And how many of you were PO'ed that they picked LC instead of Scrabble for Chuck's classic show?  :)

As is true with any TV station, however, money has to be made.  It's no surprise to me that GSN wants to focus on the development of originals, but I was very shocked that they decided to make a switch toward video games.  Even more so, 21?  It had 19 episodes!!!!!!

As far as a GSN 2 is concerned, before you say \"It's never gonna happen; deal with it,\" who would've ever pictured a Nick GaS?  I think it's very feasible; however, don't expect it anytime in the near future.

As Matt said, nostalgia isn't what it used to be anymore, and he's right.  Instead of being a cornerstone, it's almost as if the classics are filler, and we all know that shouldn't be.  I'm not suggesting that GSN scrap their originals (most of them are watchable!) for classics, but I am suggesting that they at least give them some consideration when making up schedules for that \"irresistible demo.\"  BTW, I'm in that demo, and nothing ticks me off more than shows aimed at me since they're too flashy and don't even care about entertainment value; what's the point in wathching with that?

Okay; I'm done now.  Thanks for reading!

Anthony
You have da Arm-ee and da Leg-ee!

Temptation Dollars:  the only accepted currency for Lots of Love™