The Game Show Forum > The Big Board

World Poker Tour

<< < (2/4) > >>

DrBear:
The problem with classifying anything as a game show is that there will be something that will either:
a. match most of the rules but contain something that disqualifies it.
b. totally not qualify but match one rule.

So what rules are we talking about? Well, there are a few that have been suggested:
1. It must have a game. Well, duh! (As opposed to a sporting event.) The game should be specifically created for the show.
2. Someone must win something.
3. It must appear on television/radio and be made for television/radio.

So let's look at some borderline cases:

Survivor, and its ilk. It's made for television, includes games, and somebody must win something. But there's a ton of folks who refuse to call it a game show.
The difference may be that the game is a minor part of the program, and the bulk of it is observation of
The Gong Show: It wasn't a game, really, but it's considered a game show. It was a competition. But not all competitions are games hows; you would likely not, for example, consider \"American Gladiators\" a game show, although someone else might.
Truth or Consequences: People get prizes, but the show is more an observation of humans in silly situations than a contest. (And those reunions have more in common with \"This Is Your Life\" than a game show.

Which leads us to the World Poker Tour (which I also really enjoy, BTW). The main strike against it is that, while it has a game and people win money, the competition could be done without a TV show (even though the tour was basically put together for TV). By contrast, I don't see too many people going out and playing Concentration or The Magnificent Marble Machine at clubs.

So is it a game show. By our standards, no. But then again, what is?[/B]

davemackey:
If it's got Jack Clark in a powder-blue tux and Jane Nelson in a Suzy Creamcheese gown dealing out the cards, then I'd consider it.

Matt Ottinger:

--- Quote ---Which leads us to the World Poker Tour (which I also really enjoy, BTW). The main strike against it is that, while it has a game and people win money, the competition could be done without a TV show (even though the tour was basically put together for TV). By contrast, I don't see too many people going out and playing Concentration or The Magnificent Marble Machine at clubs.
--- End quote ---
Not that we haven't already hashed this out hundreds of times, but the thing you left out of your analysis is whether the average viewer has a reasonable opportunity to participate.  I'm not familiar with this World Poker Tour, but I assume it's made up of pretty serious poker players.  A true game show needs true contestants, not skilled pros who've spent years honing a specific skill.

Dan Sadro:
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jul 18 2003, 09:26 AM\'] Not that we haven't already hashed this out hundreds of times, but the thing you left out of your analysis is whether the average viewer has a reasonable opportunity to participate.  I'm not familiar with this World Poker Tour, but I assume it's made up of pretty serious poker players.  A true game show needs true contestants, not skilled pros who've spent years honing a specific skill. [/quote]
 The average viewer has an extremely reasonable opportunity to participate.  I could take a hundred bucks and enter myself in one of these tournaments... although that would declassify it as a game show because you can't pay to be on a game show.

It has pros, but it has many, many, many amateurs.

It's no game show; it's a mindsport.  Near-sadly, I watch the two-hour show weekly, and it exceeds my intake of GSN.

PeterMarshallFan:
[quote name=\'davemackey\' date=\'Jul 18 2003, 09:19 AM\'] If it's got Jack Clark in a powder-blue tux and Jane Nelson in a Suzy Creamcheese gown dealing out the cards, then I'd consider it. [/quote]
How can I get tickets? Sounds too good to be true. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page