The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: MSTieScott on August 01, 2016, 12:23:55 PM
-
In 2006, TV Guide published a list of what they considered to be the fifty best game shows. Shortly thereafter, GSN aired a countdown of their own fifty greatest game shows of all time.
Here on the Game Show Forum, we felt that both lists were various degrees of... let's say "misinformed." So in August 2006, Matt Ottinger conducted the Game Show Fans 50 Greatest poll, in which the members of this forum voted and determined what we felt were the actual greatest game shows of all time.
It's now been a decade since we established those rankings. And since Matt has given me his blessing, I am here to conduct the ten-year anniversary of the Game Show Fans 50 Greatest poll! Quite a few things have changed in our genre over the past ten years, even among the long-standing shows. Have our opinions changed?
The rules are the same as they were in 2006:
• Compile your list of what you believe to be the 50 greatest game shows of all time. If you can't come up with 50, then please come up with at least 25 (although, of course, 50 is preferred).
• Rank them in order, with number one being the greatest. No ties.
• E-mail your list to gsf50greatest2016@gmail.com. I will only accept lists which wind up in that e-mail inbox. To prevent influencing others, do NOT post your list here. After I post the final tally, then everyone will be welcome to share how they voted if they so choose.
• When you e-mail your list, please include either your name or online handle so I know who you are. All lists and e-mails will be kept confidential. If I discover any attempts to stuff the ballot box, then none of the offending ballots will count.
• Scoring: Your #1 show will receive 50 points. Your #2 show will receive 49 points, and so on. When the voting is finished, the points will be tallied, and the show with the most points wins. In the event of a tie in total points, then the show which received the greater number of individual votes will get the higher final ranking. If the shows are still tied after that, then they will simply remain tied.
• Criteria: The subject is "the 50 greatest game shows of all time." What does "greatest" mean? That's entirely up to you when you compile your list. Is [name of show] considered a game show? That's also entirely up to you. The only constraint we had last time was that because the majority of users on this board are from the United States (and because the TV Guide and GSN lists focused on the U.S.A.), you are encouraged to stick to U.S. formats. If you really really want to include a format from outside the U.S., I won't stop you, but know that it probably won't make the final top fifty.
• Variations of the same show: Some game shows have been remade over the years with slightly (or wildly) different titles. All variations of a given format are considered one "show" on this list. For example, if you vote for Pyramid, that covers all of the versions of Pyramid which have aired throughout the decades. A vote for Password covers all of its various revivals, including Plus and Super. The Price Is Right covers the Cullen version, the current CBS daytime version, and all of the syndicated versions in between. So that we may directly compare these results to the first poll, all of Matt's rulings from 2006 about what is and isn't the same show will stand. If there's a duplication on your list, I'll let you know so you can make revisions. If you don't make revisions, then I'll just delete the lower-scoring duplicate and move everything else up accordingly.
• Same title, different shows: Conversely, there are a handful of titles which have been given to very different, unrelated shows. I don't want to influence the voting, so I won't list those titles here, but if you select one of those titles (and don't specify which show you're referring to), then I may e-mail you back and ask for clarification. Otherwise, I reserve the right to guess at what I think you mean.
Please submit your ballot by the end of the day (Pacific time) August 22. I will calculate the winners and post the results a week later, where much discussion and grousing will commence.
Have at it!
-
Great idea have fun
-
Hard to believe it's been 10 years.
I think the most significant difference since last time we did this is the amount of video now available online. I encourage anybody making a list who runs into a title they're not sure about (one way or the other) to seek out an episode on the web and let it inform you. I think the YouTube posters will help me clarify any foggy memories I had from watching these shows first-run as opposed to my fresh eyes today.
-Jason
-
I think the voting should be done by decades. Best of the 60's, 70's etc. Of course TPIR will come out on top overall, but it would be nice to salute the well-crafted shows of the various decades.
-
I do look forward to revisiting my list to see what shows might have changed positions, in my mind. I wonder how many new shows I might add (I'm pretty critical of the "newer" stuff, so I doubt I'll have that many).
I'm more eager to see how many older shows I'll add, since Youtube has given me a chance to view so many rarities. I can think of one off the top of my head, that I had never seen prior to 2006. If it wasn't on my list 10 years ago, it definitely will this time around.
-
I do look forward to revisiting my list to see what shows might have changed positions, in my mind. I wonder how many new shows I might add (I'm pretty critical of the "newer" stuff, so I doubt I'll have that many).
I was thinking about this, and I don't think that it taints the jury pool too much to say that there really hasn't been any new hotness, and if it's going to be one of the Fifty Greatest it has to leapfrog a whole lot of really good shows.
I'm more eager to see how many older shows I'll add, since Youtube has given me a chance to view so many rarities. I can think of one off the top of my head, that I had never seen prior to 2006. If it wasn't on my list 10 years ago, it definitely will this time around.
While it would be easy to let a few lesser-known shows slip through the cracks (and if they're lesser-known are they really going to get on the countdown?) I would encourage everyone to page through Adam's books, especially the Date in Game Show History volumes, because the more shows you've heard of the better you can judge them all as a whole.
-
I don't even remember what was on my list last time. I'm pretty sure most of it is back there, and I know there's a few on my list that may not garner much support, but this oughta be fun regardless.
-
I don't even remember what was on my list last time. I'm pretty sure most of it is back there, and I know there's a few on my list that may not garner much support, but this oughta be fun regardless.
I've managed to save my last list from an e-mail message I printed. There are a lot that are on my new list, and some that I've added in the years between. I will keep you in suspense as to what's in and what's out.
Cordially,
Tammy
-
I did find an email of my last list. Now i just have to decide what to dump for Moment of Truth😄
-
This is great. I was just about to propose that we should have a 10th anniversary poll when I saw this.
Once this one is done, maybe we could also have a 10th anniversary poll for the greatest game show hosts of all time, too. (See http://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,11421.0.html and http://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,11528.0.html.)
-
Are there any new hosts in the last ten years that would dislodge someone in the bottom quintile?
/Pat Kiernan's first national gig was the summer of 2004, so while he has more gigs than before, he had at least two chances to get on the chart.
-
All I can think of are a bunch of actor/comedians who have done well behind a podium/on set. But none who I would say belong in a "best of" compilation...at least not beside the Trebeks, Clarks and Wooleries of the industry. Should Pyramid continue gaining traction, I think Michael Strahan has the potential. However, he still has a few crutches that he relies on, and that's OK, given it's his first gig. He def. has the broadcasting chops.
Like with Pat Kiernan, off the top of my head, the great modern hosts had shows well prior to '06 (Bil Dwyer, Todd Newton, Tom Bergeron).
-
I think it might be interesting to see a revival of the host list as well. To see if our lists are different.
Boy how salty I was on Meredith Vieira back then. She did grow on me towards the end and I was kinda sorry to see her go.
-
I think it might be interesting to see a revival of the host list as well. To see if our lists are different.
I can't imagine people changing unless people watched more old stuff and decided that Garry Moore was an unrecognized talent.
Boy how salty I was on Meredith Vieira back then. She did grow on me towards the end and I was kinda sorry to see her go.
You really were. We just could not make you see reason.
Brandon more or less makes my point. Choosing fifty game shows out of a thousand or more it's bound to happen that opinions change: we sour on some shows, discover a diamond in the rough or a new hotness sets the world on fire. As it pertains to hosts there's really not anyone in that last ten years who has come on strong that was unrecognized previously (I could give Chris Hardwick a minor asterisk on the strength of At Midnight, and if Millionaire runs another nine years Chris Harrison), but the point is that someone who gets on your chart has to bump off Jack Narz, Dennis James, or any of those other guys who are just above the Mendoza Line, and I don't see Jeff Foxworthy, Brooke Burns or Mike Richards doing that.
-
Here's what I think had so much to do with my criticism of Meredith as host.
I felt that she was far too low key for her own good, at least at first. I guess I was more used to Regis doing it in his style that I thought it was too much of a change. And while I believe she really was excited for her contestants as they reached higher and higher levels (Kevin Smith winning the mil especially), to me it just came off like she couldn't bring herself above the even keel level she always seemed to be at. I guess my expecting more may have been asking a lot.
And part of the reason why I greatly enjoyed the change in format was because she seemed to loosen up even more once that happened (just my own opinion, your mileage will certainly vary).
In hindsight, while I still might not rank her in my personal top 20 (if only because it's plenty deep as is), she certainly proved more than capable of carrying on from where her predecessor left off. Besides, you don't stick around for eleven years and get to be an EP if you aren't good at what you do.
It's a dish of crow I'll gladly eat.
-
My list has changed somewhat since the one I submitted 10 years ago, but there's nothing much new from the past 10 years that I really think deserves to be in the top 50.
-
I do look forward to revisiting my list to see what shows might have changed positions, in my mind. I wonder how many new shows I might add (I'm pretty critical of the "newer" stuff, so I doubt I'll have that many).
I was thinking about this, and I don't think that it taints the jury pool too much to say that there really hasn't been any new hotness, and if it's going to be one of the Fifty Greatest it has to leapfrog a whole lot of really good shows.
I disagree with that. It's still too early in the voting to see any kind of consensus forming, but from the votes I've received so far, it's evident that people are definitely considering shows introduced in the past ten years.
Unrelated observation: While I was working on my 2016 ballot, I looked at my 2006 ballot. There were a handful of shows which I had included based on hearsay, reputation, and/or vague memory. This time around, when I was able to actually watch said shows with fresh eyes, I realized that they didn't belong in my top fifty at all. It's been a good opportunity for me to challenge my opinions.
-
Without naming them, there is definitely one newer show that derserves to be one the list. There are two others I am considering.
-
1 vs. 100?
-
We had, up until now, been making a point to not name shows overtly.
-
This is a friendly reminder that there's one week left to vote for the 50 greatest game shows of all time!
I'm hoping to receive at least as many ballots as Matt received back in 2006 -- I trust that more votes will come in now that the deadline is approaching. If you already voted but you haven't yet received a reply from me thanking you for your vote, then I didn't receive your e-mail.
If you're worried about painstakingly ranking your top fifty, I would recommend you just go with your gut and accept the fact that on another day, your opinions would put the shows in a slightly different order. We're just thinking about which game shows we like, not deciding who lives and who dies.
What I've learned so far from recording everybody's votes is that a poll like this really benefits from a large number of responses. The reason top ten lists often get derided is because they're frequently just one person's opinion. If I published just my Top 50 Game Shows list, several people would disagree with my rankings and opinions. And I've received a handful of ballots where I've personally disagreed with an individual's vote.
But when we aggregate our opinions, a general consensus forms and we get a more definitive list of what the fans believe to be the best 50 game shows. The more ballots that are cast, the stronger the results will be.
So before you have to reluctantly vote in November (U.S. citizens only), why not take part in a democratic process in which you'll enjoy thinking about the candidates?
Remember: If you don't vote, you can't complain about the result. Well, I suppose you can, but you'll look like a huge jerk if you do.
-
Lots of us were away from the weekend, y'know. :)
I found my previous ballot, uploaded it to Google Drive and I'm making adjustments as I remember things, and you'll for sure get mine.
-
I actually did more rearrangements and additions than I expected. I'll let the list marinate overnight, and see how I feel 12 hours from now. ;)
-
One point made is certainly correct - the differences of opinion as to what constitutes "greatest". Will it be simple endurance, program quality, most innovative use of the visual medium, biggest ratings, best carryover from radio? Bound to be interesting reasons given for each entrant's top choices - several game shows come to mind that fit each category mentioned. Fortunately, most folks here won't get all butthurt if someone else doesn't agree on an all-time greatest choice - we just may be approaching it from different angles. There are a lot of long running shows that for some have become more habit than appointment watching. In some ways, a list of 25 sounds better. I remember really stretching toward the end of the 2006 list. Agriculture USA - America's first young farmer quiz? Egad! :-)
-
The different definitions of "great" do make the exercise more interesting. I know that in my case, there were a few shows which wouldn't have made my list if I was using only a strictly objective or strictly subjective concept of greatness.
In some ways, a list of 25 sounds better. I remember really stretching toward the end of the 2006 list.
For anybody who's still hesitant, I'll use this opportunity to remind everyone that if you do find yourself having trouble placing 50 shows on your list, you can submit a list of fewer than 50. The minimum is 25, but any number in between is also fine. If you think there are only, say, 37 greatest game shows, then go ahead and submit that list of 37. More votes mean stronger results!
-
I'm still agonizing over some of my rankings and watching shows on YouTube to break "ties." I figure if we're going to do this again, I want to submit a list that I'm at least appreciably more proud of than my last one. I just looked at it and WOOF.
-Jason
-
Funny thing is I actually had less trouble compiling a top 50 this time than I did last time.
Looking at my list, the top half is particularly stacked. There's a rather glaring omission, some might believe (not telling), in the rest.
-
I got mine in. Oddly, I found myself changing my #1 choice.
-
I encourage anybody making a list who runs into a title they're not sure about (one way or the other) to seek out an episode on the web and let it inform you.
As I finish tweaking my list, I think back to ten years ago where I was a 16-year-old non-tape-trader in a world without YouTube, so some of my choices were a bit "skewed." Now, two shows that didn't even make my top 50 ten years ago are #12 and #13 on my list thanks to the wonders of YouTube.
-
Ditto to what Matt and Chad said. I actually rearranged quite a few shows in my Top 10, including the top choice. And like Chad, the one choice I left off in 2006 (hadn't seen it yet) is a Top 15 pick now. Some fell down, some went up, some didn't even make this year's list. I suppose tastes change.
I look forward to openly discussing the results this week. It's funny how Youtube was still in its infancy 10 years ago, and seeing full episodes of shows was still a foreign concept. I think Mike Klauss and Jamie Locklin posted the occasional episode on their respective sites, and it was a real treat. :)
/Still love having Youtube
-
Just submitted mine. Unfortunately, life circumstances doused any passion I had for this, but I tried my best.
These days I'm not that good at making subjectively ordered lists, but I think I got it to the point where I wouldn't make drastic changes to the order a day or two from now.
-
One of the things that makes it easier for me is that within a quintile the points don't matter as much: a vote in the top bracket will be worth 30 to 40 points more than one at the bottom, so I don't worry about placement other than is it in the right range of the list.
-
Is it too early to predict TPIR, J!, FF and WOF will be the top vote getters?
-
Is it too early to predict TPIR, J!, FF and WOF will be the top vote getters?
It's hardly a spoiler to assume they'll be comfortably in the top ten, but they weren't the top four the first time around, and I see no compelling reason to assume they'll be THE top four this time.
Still, let's save this kind of speculation for a couple more days. Even something this innocuous has the possibility of affecting last-minute entries.
-
I didn't think it would be this hard. There's at least five shows that got bumped off because something better came along.
-
I'm happy to see a small deluge of votes entering my inbox today.
If you feel left out, don't worry: As of the time of this posting, you still have about 23 hours to submit a ballot. When the American Film Institute compiled their list of the 100 greatest movies, they based their rankings on the votes of more than 1,500 people. This poll won't receive nearly that kind of response, but the more votes, the better the results!
-
Finally submitted mine. I initially tried sticking to a ballot that was only based on my personal preferences, but when it came to filling in the bottom of the list, there were some shows that just didn't feel like they should be among the 50 greatest. But for the most part, the shows I chose were those I enjoyed, as opposed to games that had a pedigree or place in history.
-Jason
-
Is it too early to predict TPIR, J!, FF and WOF will be the top vote getters?
It's hardly a spoiler to assume they'll be comfortably in the top ten, but they weren't the top four the first time around, and I see no compelling reason to assume they'll be THE top four this time.
And really, out of those four, to me maybe two of the four are worthy (I chose two of those for my top 4 and Wheel doesn't even crack my top 10).
While I understand Matt's point about potentially affecting the outcome, I think at this point that, unless we have ballot stuffing, the stragglers aren't going to have that much of an effect on the final tally.
Then again, I've been wrong before...
-
Then again, I've been wrong before...
"...but I'll potentially taint it anyhow."
While I understand Matt's point about potentially affecting the outcome, I think at this point that, unless we have ballot stuffing, the stragglers aren't going to have that much of an effect on the final tally.
First, I think you greatly overestimate the size of the voting pool.
Second, ballot stuffing? On an emailed ballot? Jeez, if someone cares enough to submit their list multiple times under multiple different email addresses, maybe they deserve to get away with it.
-
Then again, I've been wrong before...
"...but I'll potentially taint it anyhow."
Agreed.
-Jason
-
I will admit that I did discuss this with another fan of the genre, and our mutual revelations each revealed items on the list that the other had either discounted or forgotten, and in my case helped me to flesh out the last ten of my list.
Finally submitted mine. I initially tried sticking to a ballot that was only based on my personal preferences, but when it came to filling in the bottom of the list, there were some shows that just didn't feel like they should be among the 50 greatest. But for the most part, the shows I chose were those I enjoyed, as opposed to games that had a pedigree or place in history.
I don't think anyone would begrudge you your opinion of what's greatest. If the list was based solely on longevity then there'd be no reason to vote. For me I look forward to seeing the shows that just snuck onto people's lists because I think that's where the most variation will be, and lots of instances of "Dang! I forgot all about that."
-
I will admit that I did discuss this with another fan of the genre, and our mutual revelations each revealed items on the list that the other had either discounted or forgotten, and in my case helped me to flesh out the last ten of my list.
Finally submitted mine. I initially tried sticking to a ballot that was only based on my personal preferences, but when it came to filling in the bottom of the list, there were some shows that just didn't feel like they should be among the 50 greatest. But for the most part, the shows I chose were those I enjoyed, as opposed to games that had a pedigree or place in history.
I don't think anyone would begrudge you your opinion of what's greatest. If the list was based solely on longevity then there'd be no reason to vote. For me I look forward to seeing the shows that just snuck onto people's lists because I think that's where the most variation will be, and lots of instances of "Dang! I forgot all about that."
One thing I'm curious to see is how many shows got votes, but didn't get enough to rank in the overall tally.
-
I recall last time we got things like "list of shows that got a single point for being #50" and the like. I doubt we're going to get just the list of the top 50 with no embellishment.
-
I doubt that, too.
The polls are closed! I'm still working to input the final ballots (several came in today), so if you sent a ballot this evening and I haven't replied to you yet, I'll get there by tomorrow (probably later tomorrow -- work and all that). If I've replied to you asking for clarification on one of your votes, of course I'll still let you make that clarification, since you got your ballot in before the deadline.
Then I'll tally everything up and begin posting the results next Monday, August 29, five at a time every couple of days. Discussion will be encouraged ("I ranked that higher"/"I ranked that lower"/"We sure got this list more right than GSN did in 2006"), but I do request that if you're itching to post your entire list, please refrain from doing so until #1 is revealed.
A big thank you to everybody who voted!
-
Sadly, did not have time to sit down with this until now and put in my submission. Guess that's what family life does. But I'm still going through it anyway, and I'll be interested to see how my own new list compares with the new one here.
-
Coming out of lurking mode... Being a reader of the forum since around 2009, I hoped to get in on this, but I wasn't sure if my low post count would disqualify me. But Scott said it didn't matter if you were a lurker or a regular poster, as long as you're a game show fan, your vote was welcome. So, thanks Scott, both for undertaking this project, and for letting us lurkers contribute!
I tried to base my definition of "greatest" on a combination of factors--quality (both of the game and production), impact/influence (both on game shows and pop culture as a whole), longevity, and "fun factor" (including play-along ability, and simply how fun I felt the show was to watch). I took the approach of tiering my selections. I thought my top 20 or so were pretty solid, but after that it became a bit more of a crapshoot. In the end, though, I actually ended up with about a dozen extra shows that I wanted to include but simply didn't have spots for.
I suspect that my list turned out to be pretty in line with the consensus, although there may be a couple of oddballs (though I think they're defensible).
Looking forward to sharing and seeing everyone's lists and thoughts.
-
The only thing that compromises the results is the "one show covers all versions" rule. Harvey Feud is not the same show as Louie Feud or Dawson Feud. Drew is not Barker or Cullen (or James, Kennedy or Davidson). Each variation should be able to be tallied.
-
The only thing that compromises the results is the "one show covers all versions" rule. Harvey Feud is not the same show as Louie Feud or Dawson Feud. Drew is not Barker or Cullen (or James, Kennedy or Davidson). Each variation should be able to be tallied.
Excellent. I look forward to your post that invites people to submit their lists to you and the results we get. Thanks for volunteering.
-
The only way the argument works is for The Price Is Right and even that's pushing it.
Family Feud still has the same basic game structure it always did. The only notable change was the addition of the Bullseye round and that's what, three/four total seasons out of 30+ across three entire series?
-
The only way the argument works is for The Price Is Right and even that's pushing it.
Family Feud still has the same basic game structure it always did. The only notable change was the addition of the Bullseye round and that's what, three/four total seasons out of 30+ across three entire series?
For Feud, I only will sit down and watch Dawson, Combs and Harvey. I'd like to be able to vote for Harvey Feud and Dawson Feud. Whether you prefer Fleming J! or Trebek J! can be based on your age. I grew up with Fleming, so I like that one better.
-
The only way the argument works is for The Price Is Right and even that's pushing it.
Family Feud still has the same basic game structure it always did. The only notable change was the addition of the Bullseye round and that's what, three/four total seasons out of 30+ across three entire series?
For Feud, I only will sit down and watch Dawson, Combs and Harvey. I'd like to be able to vote for Harvey Feud and Dawson Feud. Whether you prefer Fleming J! or Trebek J! can be based on your age. I grew up with Fleming, so I like that one better.
And that makes them different how? You still didn't answer that.
-
He won't. Just move on.
-
The only thing that compromises the results is the "one show covers all versions" rule. Harvey Feud is not the same show as Louie Feud or Dawson Feud. Drew is not Barker or Cullen (or James, Kennedy or Davidson). Each variation should be able to be tallied.
So you'd have about twenty different versions of Price, a dozen or more of Feud, and I can't even begin to count how many TTTT. Hell, you'd have at least five different versions of Concentration. And why stop with the hosts? Would thirty-minute Barker TPIR be different than 60-minute ones? Blankety Blanks changed its scoring system halfway through its ten-week run. Two different versions?
You either haven't thought this out, or Chris has been right about you all these years.
-
Gimme a B!
-
The only thing that compromises the results is the "one show covers all versions" rule. Harvey Feud is not the same show as Louie Feud or Dawson Feud. Drew is not Barker or Cullen (or James, Kennedy or Davidson). Each variation should be able to be tallied.
In that case, the GSN marathon should've shown an episode of Dawson and Combs's Feud, ranking them separately, and ditto for every show that had more than one host. Feud has had six different hosts (seven if you count Al Roker*); it would be ridiculous to displace six or seven other potentially deserving shows so that every tenure gets a potential ranking.
Like Chris said, even with the changes over the years, it's still people filling in the blanks of a national survey. TPiR is still four people bidding on the price of an item...it's just the show added chrome over the years. The host doesn't matter if the format remains intact.
Harvey Feud isn't my cup of tea, but to not include it with every other version of the last 40 years makes no sense.
*/Okay, eight if you wanna include Sammy Davis, Jr. ;)
-
The only thing that compromises the results is the "one show covers all versions" rule. Harvey Feud is not the same show as Louie Feud or Dawson Feud. Drew is not Barker or Cullen (or James, Kennedy or Davidson). Each variation should be able to be tallied.
So you'd have about twenty different versions of Price, a dozen or more of Feud, and I can't even begin to count how many TTTT. Hell, you'd have at least five different versions of Concentration. And why stop with the hosts? Would thirty-minute Barker TPIR be different than 60-minute ones? Blankety Blanks changed its scoring system halfway through its ten-week run. Two different versions?
You either haven't thought this out, or Chris has been right about you all these years.
I guess the question is where would a Karn Feud rank when compared to Dawson Feud. I'd guess Dawson would rank higher. I liked the faster pace of PAS plus the music and set changes. It's almost as if it was a different show. Would Shoot For the Stars be considered a different show than Double Talk? Looking forward to the results.
-
The only thing that compromises the results is the "one show covers all versions" rule. Harvey Feud is not the same show as Louie Feud or Dawson Feud. Drew is not Barker or Cullen (or James, Kennedy or Davidson). Each variation should be able to be tallied.
So you'd have about twenty different versions of Price, a dozen or more of Feud, and I can't even begin to count how many TTTT. Hell, you'd have at least five different versions of Concentration. And why stop with the hosts? Would thirty-minute Barker TPIR be different than 60-minute ones? Blankety Blanks changed its scoring system halfway through its ten-week run. Two different versions?
I pretty much end up coming down on the side of doing multiple versions of a show being impossible for this reason, unless whoever takes on the job of compiling the votes also makes a million judgement calls about what does and doesn't merit separating. Not splitting variations is somewhat arbitrary, but it's arbitrary in a way that doesn't create duplication in anyone's mind. Just about any consistent way of drawing lines has a counterexample of a show where it doesn't make sense to split it up that way, and even the inconsistent ones are debatable.
Yes, there are eras/versions of many beloved shows that probably don't deserve to have the same lofty perch in the game show pantheon as their counterparts, but it would be insanity any other way.
-
I considered every show at what I perceived to be its best. When the music magazines rank the best artists, they aren't counting new material released decades after the glory years by the last surviving members against the rest of their catalog.
-Jason
-
Question: In the list from '06, we also got a quick peek inside the 50 that just missed the cut (#'s 51-100). Will this 10th anniversary edition follow suit?
-
Asked and answered. There will be peeks, though I don't know that you can say #100 "just missed the cut."
-
I considered every show at what I perceived to be its best.
That doesn't seem to conform to the rules which specifically stated "if you vote for Pyramid, that covers all of the versions of Pyramid which have aired throughout the decades".
I punished shows accordingly for poor revivals.
-
I punished shows accordingly for poor revivals.
But did you then equally reward them for great ones?
-
So by Flerb's logic, Jeopardy should have points taken away for the 1978 series and Billy Bush should knock Let's Make a Deal down several pegs? Ditto Pat Bullard and Card Sharks or Michael Burger on Match Game?
That's not really punishing, that's just really strange form.
-
I briefly thought about Flerbert's idea too, though. Case in point, I'm not a fan of Harvey's Feud, but at the same time, a massive penalty would be unfair to the legacies built by Richard Dawson and Ray Combs. I'm too tired to compare my '06 vs. '16 list, but I imagine the show didn't drop any more than one or two spots. Chris also makes a valid point -- quite a few of the big names had subpar revivals, in many people's opinions, so to drop Feud from say, #7 to 23 would be drastic.
Going with another recent discussion, do you lump Where in the World is CS? with Where in Time...? :P
-
So by Flerb's logic, Jeopardy should have points taken away for the 1978 series
If you hate fun or bonus games, sure, absolutely. I also was not as offended by LMAD '03 as much as the rest of humanity, so I didn't take that into account.
Everyone has different opinions. We're collating them in a survey. I doubt very much that someone is going to match my list letter for letter. And even if they did it's likely for different reasons.
/To answer the question posed by Lord Hyphen, my entry was listed as "Carmen Sandiego." Scott did not ask for elaboration.
-
If it was my call, I have to separate the two Carmen series. They're just too dissimilar to count them as one.
For the record I didn't mind the addition of the Super Jeopardy round to the 1978 series but it's still not as good to me as the original or the current series. That doesn't mean it affects the standing of Jeopardy in my eyes, just that they couldn't be on the ball all the time.
-
If it was my call, I have to separate the two Carmen series. They're just too dissimilar to count them as one.
On any task this large, there are going to be reasonable debates. That's a good one. (They're two different shows to me too, but whatever.) Lumping He Said/She Said in with Tattletales and lumping Who What and Where with Challengers was difficult. Worst of all in my mind was Password, but I made the decision to lump them all together and stuck with it.
If you separate those examples, then you start going down the rabbit hole of separating any two (or more) distinct runs of a show that didn't have a name change, or was simply "The All-New Whatever"*. You'd pit Concentration against Classic Concentration, Cullen Price against Barker Price, Fleming Jeopardy against Trebek Jeopardy. While those are certainly interesting discussions to have, they are totally counterproductive to this particular exercise. Jeopardy is Jeopardy. Family Feud is Family Feud. Card Sharks is Card Sharks. As both Scott and I have said, use whatever criteria you want to rank them. If a bad version pulls it down for you, so be it. If you want to rank them by the best show, that's your call.
But really. If you say you want to rank Harvey Feud differently than Dawson Feud, then the only way that works is to consider EVERY host change on EVERY show a different version. And that's just madness.
*The All-New Whatever, this fall on ABC.
-
As far as I was concerned, both versions of Carmen Sandiego would have been counted together. Although nobody tried to vote for Where in Time separately.
Since I was using Matt's rulings as to what was and wasn't the same show, most of the tough calls had already been made for me. The only difficult decision was whether I should include Catch 21 along with Gambit. Ultimately, I decided to group them together, citing the precedent that The Who, What or Where Game and The Challengers had been grouped together in 2006.
That specific ruling only came into play once -- in that instance, the voter had placed both Gambit and Catch 21 on their ballot. They removed Catch 21, which had been ranked lower, so technically, my decision did not have an impact on Gambit's final ranking.
I'm still examining the final tally, but I will say, I'm seeing a couple of interesting results in the top 50. I'm looking forward to seeing the group's reactions.
I'll give you one spoiler: Once again, nobody in the game show fandom voted for Studs.
-
I'll give you one spoiler: Once again, nobody in the game show fandom voted for Studs.
Which only proves that people who have heard of Studs know of at least 51 game shows. :)
-
I'll give you one spoiler: Once again, nobody in the game show fandom voted for Studs.
I've personally voted for studs many times. It was equally unsatisfying.
-
Great line, Mr. Lemon!
-
That specific ruling only came into play once -- in that instance, the voter had placed both Gambit and Catch 21 on their ballot. They removed Catch 21, which had been ranked lower, so technically, my decision did not have an impact on Gambit's final ranking.
I could see someone tossing a vote to Gambit, but Catch 21? Really? For me it's not even best of breed among the GSN shows (and closer to the bottom of the barrel but for the end game.)
-
That specific ruling only came into play once -- in that instance, the voter had placed both Gambit and Catch 21 on their ballot. They removed Catch 21, which had been ranked lower, so technically, my decision did not have an impact on Gambit's final ranking.
I could see someone tossing a vote to Gambit, but Catch 21? Really? For me it's not even best of breed among the GSN shows (and closer to the bottom of the barrel but for the end game.)
As I recall, there were some pretty astonishing selections the first time around as well.
-
Are PYL and Second Chance considered the same show? I would think that most fans would vote for PYL, but the way the votes are counted should elevate SC to top 10 status.
-
Are PYL and Second Chance considered the same show? I would think that most fans would vote for PYL, but the way the votes are counted should elevate SC to top 10 status.
I imagine that falls in the same category as Gambit and Catch 21 or Who, What, Where and The Challengers. IIRC, when Matt rolled out the list in 2006, he mentioned it as Second Chance/PYL.
I could be wrong.
-
I voted Patrick Wayne Tic Tac Dough as #1
(no I didn't)
-
Are PYL and Second Chance considered the same show? I would think that most fans would vote for PYL, but the way the votes are counted should elevate SC to top 10 status.
I imagine that falls in the same category as Gambit and Catch 21 or Who, What, Where and The Challengers. IIRC, when Matt rolled out the list in 2006, he mentioned it as Second Chance/PYL.
I could be wrong.
Matt listed the show in the 2006 results as "Press Your Luck/Whammy! (1983-86, 2002-04)".
Jimmy commented, "I considered "Second Chance" and "Press Your Luck" to be the same show, but I would guess nobody else made that distinction since only PYL was listed."
Matt responded, "True on both counts. Only one or two ballots specifically mentioned Whammy for that matter. I probably should have listed Second Chance on the same line for the sake of completeness."
So if we're following Matt's 2006 rulings, we should probably include Second Chance under the Press Your Luck heading. http://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,11330.255.html
-
Short version: "Nobody voted for Second Chance."
-
True, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be merged with PYL. :)