The Game Show Forum > The Big Board
Questions about 21
Matt Ottinger:
[quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 12:25 PM\'] IMO, (I am probably wrong so feel free to correct me), 21 was rigged in the 50's because the show didn't work well without it being rigged. It is no wonder to me why the modern version didn't work either. [/quote]
Actually, Eric, that's pretty much it exactly. No amount of tinkering and simplifying the questions and magnifying the payouts and unnecessary flourishes (a live band?) could change the fact that this was a format that didn't work in the FIFTIES! They did what they could with what they had, but I'm pretty sure that NBC saw the writing on the wall that this wasn't going to be engaging over the long run.
uncamark:
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 11:56 AM\'][quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 12:25 PM\'] IMO, (I am probably wrong so feel free to correct me), 21 was rigged in the 50's because the show didn't work well without it being rigged. It is no wonder to me why the modern version didn't work either. [/quote]
Actually, Eric, that's pretty much it exactly. No amount of tinkering and simplifying the questions and magnifying the payouts and unnecessary flourishes (a live band?) could change the fact that this was a format that didn't work in the FIFTIES! They did what they could with what they had, but I'm pretty sure that NBC saw the writing on the wall that this wasn't going to be engaging over the long run.[/quote]
And most importantly--it didn't kill \"WWTBAM.\" NBC didn't put \"Twenty-One\" back on the air to perpetuate the big money quiz show. They put it on to kill the reinstigator of the genre--and it didn't do that, so they quickly discarded it. I'm sure that neither Phil Gurin nor (despite some of the things said about him on these forums) Fred Silverman had that in mind, and the NBC suits didn't say that to them, but considering the general contempt for the genre from the execs, I'm pretty sure that's what they were thinking.
Meanwhile, some will argue that \"WWTBAM\" a year or so later killed itself in prime time--or should we say was assisted by the policies of certain ABC programming execs.
PeterMarshallFan:
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 12:56 PM\'] [quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 12:25 PM\'] IMO, (I am probably wrong so feel free to correct me), 21 was rigged in the 50's because the show didn't work well without it being rigged. It is no wonder to me why the modern version didn't work either. [/quote]
Actually, Eric, that's pretty much it exactly. No amount of tinkering and simplifying the questions and magnifying the payouts and unnecessary flourishes (a live band?) could change the fact that this was a format that didn't work in the FIFTIES! They did what they could with what they had, but I'm pretty sure that NBC saw the writing on the wall that this wasn't going to be engaging over the long run. [/quote]
IMO, it looked bad then because the games could theoretically be endless with 2 players tossing incorrect answers back and forth for a half hour [didn't the 1st ep. have something like this happen?] When it came back, the \"3 Strikes\" rule, although kinda out of place, was a fair enough remedy for it.
I also think this could possibly be revived on GSN [with the second payoff structure, cut in 10 to make it $2,500, $5,000, $10k, $25k, $50k, $75k, and $100k]
Didn't the 2000 series actually do pretty well?
bttritle:
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 12:38 AM\'] Yeah, because NBC is ALL ABOUT shunning the largest potential audience they can.
This is the stupidest argument I've heard in a long time. And I'm involved in a pretty stupid argument elsewhere on this very board.
[/quote]
What's stupid is pointing and laughing...what's smart is making an attempt at explaining why.
Your argument stated correctly that they took a show concept that was by all means flawed, tried to infuse it with a bunch of cash. The thing is that people bought into the show. The ratings the show received even after it moved into Monday nights is what the networks kill for during summer programming these days. I just don't agree that the death of the show had anything to do with the show.
clemon79:
[quote name=\'bttritle\' date=\'Sep 22 2003, 03:51 PM\'] What's stupid is pointing and laughing...what's smart is making an attempt at explaining why.
I just don't agree that the death of the show had anything to do with the show. [/quote]
So instead you're going to claim that it's some kind of conspiracy theory? Because when you say:
--- Quote ---It was cancelled because NBC didn't want to recognize that a large portion of the population wanted to watch it.
--- End quote ---
...that's exactly what you are doing.
So if you don't mind, until you can succesfully explain why NBC would \"not want\" to recognize a show's success, which is pretty much diametrically opposed to how ANY television network does business, I'm gonna get back to pointing and laughing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version