Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: 4 opics for discussion-  (Read 2324 times)

urbanpreppie05

  • Member
  • Posts: 739
4 opics for discussion-
« on: May 08, 2005, 02:38:55 PM »
1. Newlywed game Blue set...Good or bad?

2. 1985 Split Decision Pilot- should've been done, or shouldn't have been made?

3. Ward TTTT: Nice remake, or too much disco?

4. 1989 Jackpot....better than the orginal, or a poor remake?



And the question...what was the cash format for Newlywed game?
insert signature here

whewfan

  • Member
  • Posts: 1771
4 opics for discussion-
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2005, 03:11:38 PM »
1- The blue and white NG set looked somewhat like a modern version of the old NG set, since it too was blue and white. The really odd thing was putting Bob's podium in the center, and they introduced the grand prize (no longer chosen "just for you") at the TOP of the show. One good thing about the staging was that Bob could move from his podium if he needed to. One particular couple that was on during the white set era had a lady that had an annoying laugh, and wouldn't STOP laughing.

2- The concept for Split Decision was a good one. If I could tweak the game, I would've made it two rounds to win, instead of three. Also, the bonus game was slow with the counting of the poker chips.

3- The set for the '80 TTTT was definitely too disco. The new one on one format was ok, but the two regular games seemed rushed. Robin Ward... someone tell him what camera to look at, PLEASE. He had no chemistry with the panel, and just pales in comparison to Bud, Garry, and Joe.

4- 89 Jackpot- It was pretty good, IMO. Bigger budget than the Darrow version, but still gave away less than the original. Geoff pretty much picked up where he left off, and IMO was a better host than Mike Darrow. The '89 version also gets props for reviving the cool "Jaws"-like intro used in the original version (also used in Pass the Buck)

calliaume

  • Member
  • Posts: 1949
4 opics for discussion-
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2005, 09:48:42 PM »
Eubanks described the NG blue set era as one of his favorites, although I have no idea why (especially since he only stuck with it a half a year).

I didn't find the Ward version of the show that bad (and the theme is one of my all-time favorites, disco or not).  My thought is they tried to bring the show back too fast (just two years after the previous version had left the air) - it's almost as if G-T had to justify having New York offices or something.

Craig Karlberg

  • Member
  • Posts: 1784
4 opics for discussion-
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2005, 04:34:41 AM »
1- The 90's blue set was OK but I still prefer the original 60's/70's version with the curtains in the backdrop(still can't get over how they made it look that the curtains were actually moving).  Oh, & the readouts(blue on black) were just rather dark.  I prefered the white on black ones for easier reading.

Don't know much about 2 & 3 so:

4-The 89 Jackpot was very intresting though not quite the big payouts as the 70's version.  I thought the level of difficulty of the riddles was a bit easier than the original version only because I couldn't quite understand what was going on back then.

uncamark

  • Guest
4 opics for discussion-
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2005, 11:37:24 AM »
[quote name=\'calliaume\' date=\'May 8 2005, 08:48 PM\']I didn't find the Ward version of the show that bad (and the theme is one of my all-time favorites, disco or not).  My thought is they tried to bring the show back too fast (just two years after the previous version had left the air) - it's almost as if G-T had to justify having New York offices or something.
[snapback]84778[/snapback]
[/quote]

Could it also have been to justify Gil Fates working with the company, although he also supervised and consulted the overseas versions of G-T formats?

And I've always liked the 1980 "TTTT" theme and don't consider it that disco, especially compared with "Mindreaders," which even had the stereotypical disco bass line.

Jimmy Owen

  • Member
  • Posts: 7090
4 opics for discussion-
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2005, 12:24:21 PM »
I enjoyed the Ward TTTT, pretty much every element was alright by me.  If you remember the trade ads Viacom put out at NATPE 1980, they had a picture of Robin, Pat Collins, John Wade, Stephani Cook and Joel Siegel.  At that time, the only person I recognized was Pat Collins, so I wonder why they didn't get some familiar faces like Tiiu Leek for the stills.  Seriously, it was almost like they were stand-ins for the real panelists.
Let's Make a Deal was the first show to air on Buzzr. 6/1/15 8PM.

chris319

  • Executive Producer
  • Posts: 9755
4 opics for discussion-
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2005, 04:51:08 PM »
Quote
Could it also have been to justify Gil Fates working with the company
No.

Dbacksfan12

  • Member
  • Posts: 5958
  • Haha, Elway.
4 opics for discussion-
« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2005, 05:48:32 PM »
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' date=\'May 8 2005, 01:38 PM\']And the question...what was the cash format for Newlywed game?
[/quote]
Best I can recall, they played three ronds for cash--I think round 1 was $25, round 2 was $50/question...they could then wager their pot on the final question--highest $$ won.
--Mark
Phil 4:13
@thatdbacksfan on Twitter

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 26924
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
4 opics for discussion-
« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2005, 06:32:12 PM »
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'May 9 2005, 02:48 PM\'][quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' date=\'May 8 2005, 01:38 PM\']And the question...what was the cash format for Newlywed game?
[/quote]
Best I can recall, they played three ronds for cash--I think round 1 was $25, round 2 was $50/question...they could then wager their pot on the final question--highest $$ won.
[snapback]84841[/snapback]
[/quote]
IIRC, they spotted everyone a few bucks at the start, too, so that completely feeble players would have something to wager at the end. :)
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype, YIM, AIM: FredSmythe

Steve McClellan

  • Member
  • Posts: 870
4 opics for discussion-
« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2005, 07:21:39 PM »
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 9 2005, 03:32 PM\']IIRC, they spotted everyone a few bucks at the start, too, so that completely feeble players would have something to wager at the end. :)[/quote]
Indeed, $25.

TimK2003

  • Member
  • Posts: 3687
4 opics for discussion-
« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2005, 10:05:32 PM »
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' date=\'May 8 2005, 01:38 PM\']3. Ward TTTT: Nice remake, or too much disco?
[snapback]84750[/snapback]
[/quote]

IMHO, I thought the set was too red!  Thank goodness they didn't have Alan Kalter announce at center stage, or people would be blinded!

[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' date=\'May 8 2005, 01:38 PM\']4. 1989 Jackpot....better than the orginal, or a poor remake?
[snapback]84750[/snapback]
[/quote]

I never liked the 89 remake.  After growing up on the '70s version, then seeing it cheapened up on the USA Network's Canadian import version I had a hard time watching it.  

When Edwards reprised the role in 1989, I still wasn't won over since the set still looked cheap and small compared to the original, and there seemed to be too many 'bonus envelopes'.  

Still, I wished the 89 version had brought back the Super Jackpot multiplier and the "Jet Set" theme.

Don Howard

  • Member
  • Posts: 5735
4 opics for discussion-
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2005, 12:09:25 AM »
Was this the only version of Jackpot where the money was only added if the riddle was solved?

ChuckNet

  • Member
  • Posts: 2193
4 opics for discussion-
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2005, 08:58:30 PM »
Quote
Was this the only version of Jackpot where the money was only added if the riddle was solved?

Yep.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")