Author Topic: Chain Reaction... (Read 38109 times)

clemon79 · « **Reply #90 on:** August 21, 2006, 10:51:21 PM »

Guys, let it go. Moe said he was gonna tone it down, and near as I can tell he has so far. He shouldn't have to eat shite forever.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #91 on:** August 21, 2006, 11:06:48 PM »

Could the bonus game be wrecked by the dreaded "Family Pyramid" scenario, where the friends start forming questions that only have meaning to them? I have given the show a chance and I don't think it lives up to the Emmons version.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #92 on:** August 21, 2006, 11:34:12 PM »

[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'128393\' date=\'Aug 21 2006, 09:44 PM\'][quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'128382\' date=\'Aug 21 2006, 07:03 PM\']Another thing we forget to mention is that finding unisex teams of three isn't exactly easy. That obviously doesn't help things along.
[/quote]So , what you're saying, is that having 2 mixed teams of three would make the show better to you, and result in smarter players and bigger cash wins? Pul-leeze.[/quote]I didn't say it was the main problem, but consider this: dropping the unisex rule means more teams. More teams means more competition to get on, and more competition to get on lends itself to a higher learning curve and better players getting on the show.

bandit_bobby · « **Reply #93 on:** August 21, 2006, 11:52:01 PM »

I think that if what they're doing to the endgame is true, then the exact same problem that plagued the original CR is going to hurt this version, as well.

clemon79 · « **Reply #94 on:** August 22, 2006, 12:00:01 AM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'128402\' date=\'Aug 21 2006, 08:34 PM\']
I didn't say it was the main problem, but consider this: dropping the unisex rule means more teams.
[/quote]
Why? Do you really think they will get THAT many more applicants? That there are THAT many teams of two-needing-a-third-but-they-can't-find-a-third-of-their-gender?

Quote

More teams means more competition to get on, and more competition to get on lends itself to a higher learning curve and better players getting on the show.

...or it means more people getting turned down, as the coordinators pick the same vapid pretty people they've been picking all along.

You are speaking from a distinct lack of information here. THERE IS NO DEARTH OF APPLICANTS. These people simply don't care how well they can play the game so long as they look good on TV.

Moe Train · « **Reply #95 on:** August 22, 2006, 01:55:12 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'128405\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 12:00 AM\']
These people simply don't care how well they can play the game so long as they look good on TV.
[/quote]

I'm not so sure this is true... There's been some "Plain Janes" on the show, that's for sure.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #96 on:** August 22, 2006, 02:22:15 AM »

[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'128412\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 12:55 AM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'128405\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 12:00 AM\']
These people simply don't care how well they can play the game so long as they look good on TV.
[/quote]

I'm not so sure this is true... There's been some "Plain Janes" on the show, that's for sure.
[/quote]
Here you go defending the show again...probably because you were on it. Are you one of those "Plain Janes"?

You can't tell me for a minute that GSN (and other companies as well) don't go for looks over brains.

Moe Train · « **Reply #97 on:** August 22, 2006, 02:51:38 AM »

See? Once again. Attacked. I'm not defending anything... Nevermind. Some of you just won't stop.

I never said that they didn't cast for "attractive" people. I'm just saying that not everyone on the show is that cookie cutter type... That's all. I'd agree that at least one or two per team are.

It cracks me up how people on boards like this get big ol' cojones when they aren't talking to a person face to face.

Anyway, I wonder how it would be with "mixed" teams aka guys and girls. I think the original thought was to have chemistry between guy friends and girl friends make things easier, but I guess they were wrong. From what I've heard, the new rules are having more big winners, and for that, I'm glad. I'd much rather see people winning than coming up really short.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #98 on:** August 22, 2006, 02:56:57 AM »

[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'128415\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 01:51 AM\']
It cracks me up how people on boards like this get big ol' cojones when they aren't talking to a person face to face.
[/quote]
I'd be just as happy to say it to your face. I really don't mind telling it like it is.

Quote

See? Once again. Attacked. I'm not defending anything... Nevermind. Some of you just won't stop.

I don't see how you feel as if you're being attacked. Someone says something remotely negative about Chain Reaction and you immediately post a counterpoint without any reasoning whatsoever.

Moe Train · « **Reply #99 on:** August 22, 2006, 03:05:51 AM »

Immediately now, if I make ANY comment about the show, someone has to say something like, "because you were on the show." Yeah, I was on the show. That doesn't allow me to make comments about it? Was that comment I just made self serving? No. Not at all. Automatically, you have to make reference that because I was on the show, I have to defend it. I don't have to do anything. I made an observation like everyone else. "Without any reasoning"... There's no reasoning in thinking that there are some ugly people on the show!

I never realized how seriously some of you take this game show business... "Telling it like it is." I forgot. One person's OPINION is gospel.

urbanpreppie05 · « **Reply #100 on:** August 22, 2006, 03:08:56 AM »

Granted, most companies do go for looks over brains, BUT there have been some plain janes on CR.

There. It's settled. Now who wants Ginger Snaps?

Moe Train · « **Reply #101 on:** August 22, 2006, 03:12:47 AM »

And some milk please.

dzinkin · « **Reply #102 on:** August 22, 2006, 05:45:34 AM »

[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'128417\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 03:05 AM\']
Immediately now, if I make ANY comment about the show, someone has to say something like, "because you were on the show." Yeah, I was on the show. That doesn't allow me to make comments about it? Was that comment I just made self serving? No. Not at all. Automatically, you have to make reference that because I was on the show, I have to defend it. I don't have to do anything. I made an observation like everyone else. "Without any reasoning"... There's no reasoning in thinking that there are some ugly people on the show!
[/quote]
Moe, you did nothing wrong here. I told you to stop bragging and you seem to have gotten the message; I wish others would do as they were asked, particularly Mr. Odor.

Mark and PYLdude: Clearly, Moe should not defend a show to the hilt just because he was on it, but neither should he have to agree with every criticism just because he was on it. He is entitled to his opinion just as much as anyone else is.

Mark: this is your second warning. (EDIT: Emailed as well in case anyone asks "what if he doesn't see this?")

Moe Train · « **Reply #103 on:** August 22, 2006, 11:28:17 AM »

Thanks Dz. Maybe I was a bit over zealous in the beginning (due to over excitement, and the pure fact that I've never been on a gameshow), but I'm sick of defending myself to people that don't even know me. Boards are supposed to be fun, not a constant nitpicking fest.

clemon79 · « **Reply #104 on:** August 22, 2006, 11:37:43 AM »

[quote name=\'Moe Train\' post=\'128432\' date=\'Aug 22 2006, 08:28 AM\']
I'm sick of defending myself to people that don't even know me. Boards are supposed to be fun, not a constant nitpicking fest.
[/quote]
For what it's worth, Moe, I think you've done your time. You appear to be willing to put it behind you, I think other people should be, too.

Author Topic: Chain Reaction... (Read 38109 times)

bandit_bobby

Moe Train

Moe Train

Moe Train

Moe Train

dzinkin

Moe Train