The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: DjohnsonCB on July 09, 2003, 09:54:53 PM
-
I just finished an artist's concept of how I'd design the set and puzzle board for a new version of \"Concentration\". These pics will be part of a new website section I plan to start on soon spotlighting the series over the years. But I couldn't wait to show you my idea for the set, so the two pics are now posted here for you to check out and (gulp) offer opinions on:
http://www.wtv-zone.com/dpjohnson/concentration/ (http://\"http://www.wtv-zone.com/dpjohnson/concentration/\")
-
One word for the set:
No.
Brandon Brooks
-
One word for the set:
No.
How do you REALLY feel. Don't hold back now!
Um... if you were deliberately going for a retro theme, and if that concept was to be worked into the show as a whole then maybe
-
I kinda like the basic layout of it ... but yeah, it might be a bit too seventies. I think a wood-and-chrome art deco design would be fitting. But I'm no artist.
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jul 9 2003, 07:06 PM\'] One word for the set:
No.
Brandon Brooks [/quote]
The one that comes to my mind is \"eeek.\"
And, based on what I see on that board, you might wanna refine that proposal a little bit, too.
-
Trebek's \"Classic Concentration\" really raised the bar on the game. If you look at pics of the old version and then look at pics of \"CC\", you see how vastly diffrent the show became.
If you're gonna bring back \"Concentration\", put the \"Classic\" back in it's title, if you get my drift.
-Joe R.
-
[quote name=\'JRaygor\' date=\'Jul 9 2003, 08:31 PM\'] Trebek's "Classic Concentration" really raised the bar on the game. [/quote]
Not really.
If you're gonna bring back \"Concentration\", put the \"Classic\" back in it's title, if you get my drift.
I think there's SOME room for bringing Concentration into the 21st Century, but we've discussed most of them here, and \"Random Cash\" and \"Double Cash\" ain't it.
This is EXTREMELY loose, but I see two major design elements that would do well in a new Concentration set: a video wall for the gameboard (one panel on the wall per square), and portrait-oriented widescreen plasma displays (think the hanging ones they use for OTS graphics on \"SportsCenter\" on ESPN) for the players' prize lists. Bonus points if they can be mounted so they appear to float, to add some depth.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 10 2003, 01:17 AM\']
I think there's SOME room for bringing Concentration into the 21st Century, but we've discussed most of them here, and "Random Cash" and "Double Cash" ain't it.
This is EXTREMELY loose, but I see two major design elements that would do well in a new Concentration set: a video wall for the gameboard (one panel on the wall per square) [/quote]
That's exactly what my board design tried to suggest: not mechanical trilons all over again, but a wall of monitors whose sides all touch to create the entire board surface, with only the slightest hint of seams. More than one individual at that \"other\" newsgroup used to lament the absence of a real gameboard in the Trebek revival. It may have been glitch-proof, but it was a bit dull.
As for the color scheme (if that's what turned off so many of you), it was my own reaction to the fact that the old NBC version was the last show on the network to go color, plus the fact that when it did, it and many other NBC games overemphasized blue, yellow and brown for their color schemes. My logo rendition was intended to be mulitcolored neon, and I felt like jazzing up the number panels on the board as well. Those \"V\" things on the player podiums are neon as well to indicated whose turn it is as well as a buzz-in effect to guess the puzzle if time runs short. It all may look a bit TPIR-like, but TPIR has run for 30+ years...
Finally, I never had a chance to explain what the \"Double Ca$h\" square was since I didn't post the new rules yet, so I'll explain it here:
There are two \"Random Ca$h\" squares, and if a player matches them, the host pushes the black button on his podium, starting a four-digit number display flashing on the display shown on the podium. The player then pushes his/her own black button on their podium to stop the display. The amounts start at $1000 and are incremented by $500, up to $5000, and what turns up is a matter of timing and luck. This amount is then transferred to the display you see above the prize boards with the appropriate arrow turned on to indicate who claims it.
\"But why display it that way instead of on a white card like the other prizes?\" That's where \"Double Ca$h\" comes in. Because the number of spaces on the board is odd and not even, there is only one DC square, and it can only be matched with a Wild Card. If it's matched after the cash amount is on the prize board, that amount is doubled, so it could be as much as $10,000. If it's matched before the two RCs are matched, the host puts up some sort of designation on his podium, so if he gets to run the display, whatever comes up is automatically doubled. But if both Wild Cards are used to match other prizes BEFORE the DC square is uncovered, the DC bonus is not awarded in that game when the card is uncovered by a player. From that point on, players must try to remember where it is and avoid picking it again, or their turn ends and the opponent goes.
If nothing else comes out of this thread, at least it gave me a chance to experience how the designer of the AMC Gremlin came to feel...
-
[quote name=\'DjohnsonCB\' date=\'Jul 10 2003, 08:19 AM\'] That's exactly what my board design tried to suggest: not mechanical trilons all over again, but a wall of monitors whose sides all touch to create the entire board surface, with only the slightest hint of seams.
[/quote]
With a big flashy ugly-ass border. The Trebek Double Dare was in 1976, man.
Finally, I never had a chance to explain what the \"Double Ca$h\" square was since I didn't post the new rules yet, so I'll explain it here:
{explanation snipped}
And that was pretty much what I suspected, and it sucks just about as much as I expected it would. The \"Cashpot\" was fine, leave it alone.
-
I certainly appreciate the attempt to go retro (as you said by making it \"TPiR-like\", etc.), but unfortunately, this doesn't look as retro as it does out of touch. As has already been said, you should definitely consider some less old-fashioned shapes and a more unified color scheme. Props, though, for keeping the original logo, but I would highly recommend making it a single color; you really won't be able to tell much difference between the red and fuschia neon, if you decide to keep it as neon.
Have you given any consideration to what the rest of the set will look like, beyond the home base and the game board?
-
This is a director's nightmare. Try drawing a 4 x 3 box around the contestants and the prize slips. The contestants' heads are at the bottom of the frame and you shoot way off the boundaries of the contestant area. It gets worse if you go 16 x 9.
-
The designs on the 25 squares (unturned) are what's driving me to distraction. I can't even imagine how distracting they'd be when the rebus begins to be revealed.
And, if you don't mind me asking, what did you use to draw that? Because it's in desperate need of some geometric regularity.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jul 10 2003, 07:09 PM\']
And, if you don't mind me asking, what did you use to draw that? Because it's in desperate need of some geometric regularity. [/quote]
I did the entire thing on my computer using the Paint program, and the logo was a scanned copy from my copy of the Classic Concentration book. I used the \"glowing edge\" option, then colored the logo and letters. I thought at first of making \"Concentration\" all orange while keeping the logo blue, which might have looked okay, but I decided to use different colors for each letter because orange accents were so common to colorcast games of that era.
Of course, this is not necessarily to scale. the host and contestant sections might not have to be up against each other. All previous versions of the show had the players just below the prize boards as my version shows, but the dimensions were likely more camera-friendly on the actual shows. I don't claim to be as skilled an artist as some of you, but I tried my best with the resources I had.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 10 2003, 02:31 PM\'] It gets worse if you go 16 x 9. [/quote]
While I agree fully with your shot blocking, I dunno if Concentration is the best example for experimentation with widescreen shooting. No matter WHAT you do, you're gonna have space to fill on the flanks, because the board by necessity needs to be a 4x3 ratio.
I would guess the BEST thing to do for that would be to have some superfluous set elements on either side of the board (maybe a vertical representation of the logo on either side)...somehthing that would complement a 16x9 shot, but isn't necessary on a 4x3 television.
My vision is a floor-to-ceiling (well, not the CEILING, that's pretty high in a studio, but you get the idea) video wall, unadorned (let it be its own adornment, the items you can show on it when it's not actually being used for gameplay are endless) with the aforementioned set pieces on either side.
-
Okay...I made it, you saw it, you hated it. So I started work on a second proposal that--even if you don't care for this one either--you're sure to at least like better than the last one (no 1974 TPIR pseudo-hexagons). I adopted Chris Lemon's proposal about the board in the center, and the host and player areas flanking either side. I'm leaving town till tomorrow so it'll take some time before it gets finished. Think you can wait? [ducking]
-
[quote name=\'DjohnsonCB\' date=\'Jul 11 2003, 09:58 AM\'] I adopted Chris Lemon's proposal about the board in the center, and the host and player areas flanking either side. [/quote]
Just for the record, I didn't suggest the board should be in the center of the set. (Not that I'm saying it SHOULDN'T, either, we'll see what you come up with.) I was merely commenting on how a set could be designed so the board would work in a 16x9 HDTV shot the as well as it does in its native 4x3, in that \"something\" should be on either side of the board so as to occupy the dead space.
In all honestly, I dunno that I like the idea of a Concentration set that separates the contestants from the host. It doesn't HAVE to be as intimate as the previous incarnations, but something about the flow of the show makes me feel like the host should be between the two players.
-
No matter WHAT you do, you're gonna have space to fill on the flanks, because the board by necessity needs to be a 4x3 ratio.
I must be missing something. Why must the board \"by necessity\" be 4x3?
-
[quote name=\'HYHYBT\' date=\'Jul 18 2003, 01:04 PM\'] I must be missing something. Why must the board "by necessity" be 4x3? [/quote]
Because, for the most part, a direct shot of the game board should fill up your television screen, and the aspect ratio of a regular (not widescreen) television is 4x3.
(Note that by that I mean \"four units wide by three units high\", not a 12-square board.)
-
Okay, I finished the revised set proposal. It's on the same page as the old one, which still exists below it at
http://wtv-zone.com/dpjohnson/concentration/index.html (http://\"http://wtv-zone.com/dpjohnson/concentration/index.html\")
The color scheme this time around isn't a jarring rainbow, but a simple combo of blue, sea green, pastel yellow and light gray which could be considered silver. The neon rendition of the title and logo still exist over where the MC sits, but \"Concentration\" is all orange now. The small light blue thing over it is the bottom tip of the letter jumble in the logo, which I didn't have room to add it its entirety; you can picture my intention.
Yellow and green neon tubes are on the contestants' podiums (front side only, not the back--wouldn't want to burn their legs); again, this is to designate whose turn it is as well as buzz-in with the solution whereupon the lights may do a \"chase\" effect. Ovals are a major theme here which, unlike the TPIR hexagons, dont seem as dated. They exist on the board numbers, which are of a simpler design than my first, but different from all previous TV versions. This time I showed all the numbers, however, the prizes and other cards I used in the first board would still be used here, still looking as they did before.
Finally, the first picture showing the board was created in approximately the same dimensions as an HDTV screen. I feel the best way to adapt this game to those wider dimensions would be to use a lot of split-screen shots, with the entire board taking up the left two-thirds of the picture and a player calling numbers on the far right. The strip of multicolored spotlights that hangs over the board *could* be positioned instead over the MC area instead if that sound more practical.
-
[quote name=\'DjohnsonCB\' date=\'Jul 19 2003, 10:39 AM\'] I feel the best way to adapt this game to those wider dimensions would be to use a lot of split-screen shots, with the entire board taking up the left two-thirds of the picture and a player calling numbers on the far right. [/quote]
You can't do that, though. At least not for a few years, and especially not while the 4x3 normal television is still prevalent.
You're not shooting the show with two different sets of cameras, so you can't block (technical term: to \"block\" a show means \"to design how the camera shots are going to be done\") the show one way for widescreen and another for 4x3. Every shot has to work with BOTH, 'cuz yer shooting with the same camera, which means the pertinent information has to be in that 4x3 window in the middle of the widescreen shot. The stuff on the ends has to be inoffensive to a widescreen shot, but also unimportant if it should be cut off, which it would be on a 4x3 TV. Your shot would have half the board on the left side and half of the contestant's head on the right, which is worthless.
Again, this is why a show like this runs into blocking problems when you insist on separating the host and the contestants, because unless their parts of the set are way out in the parking lot, you can't get a widescreen shot of the board that doesn't have contestants or a host poking in from the sides, and that's a bad shot.