The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Dbacksfan12 on December 11, 2003, 04:14:08 AM
-
I am of the opinion that these formats (especially Whammy!) are made to appeal to children, and the under 18 demographic. They have childish antics, and really are not appealing to watch. (However, I feel the same way about B&E games, minus the childish antics). The questions are easy enough an 8 year old could answer them--yet they are missed all the time.
I made these suggestions over on the GSN boards and was roasted. Since I like to think this group is more intellegent, what do y'all think?
-
I don't think the people who designed the formats gathered in a room and said to each other, "OK, let's make a game that appeals to children." So in that sense I disagree with you.
However, and I've said this before, our favorite game shows tend to be the ones that we remember from our childhood, and those obviously are going to be the ones that children can understand and play along. Bright, flashy and easy-to-get shows like PYL and TPIR certainly fit that description, even though they're not specifically *designed* for children the way other games are.
A lot of you who were pushing so strongly for GSN to bring back PYL (either with the reruns or with the remake) are in your twenties and have fond childhood memories of the original, either on CBS or the incessant USA reruns. Those of us who are older never entirely got your obsession with the show (hence the term "tomarkenite" back on Usenet) because we weren't kids when it was on originally and we recognized it all along as being a flashy, somewhat engaging but ultimately pretty empty game.
-
My mind tells me that "PYL" and "Whammy!" are silly, stupid shows. However, my gut gets me involved whenever I'm watching a final round and the spins are being passed back and forth. That's the whole secret of the show--the all-or-nothing setup can engage some real nail-biters that you get caught up in, even if you note the stupidity of people pounding on a button while screaming "BIG BUCKS NO WHAMMIES!" And that's the dirty little secret of the format. And I also try to be out of the room or on another channel during the question rounds--that helps. (And I was a grown adult when "PYL" was first on and I still got caught up in the stupid show.)
As for B&E, there is nothing wrong with the formats of their shows that can't be improved by better, more challenging question writing, better end games and a less kitschy feel. ("TJW" became a better show in the end simply for having Bill Cullen around--even if Cullen wasn't at his peak, Cullen off-peak is better than a lot of hosts at their peak.)
-
Well, you gotta remember that the show it replaced was "Child's Play," so maybe CBS wanted a show that was more child's play than "Child's Play." Personally, I prefered "Second Chance."
-
What's B&E? Sorry if that's a stupid question.
OT: This is my 100th post!
-
[quote name=\'JayC\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 04:21 PM\'] What's B&E? Sorry if that's a stupid question.
OT: This is my 100th post! [/quote]
Barry & Enright (as in producers of TJW, TTD, BULLSEYE, PTP and countless others--OK, maybe not countless).
And congrats on 100. But when you've done 209, you've really done something. :)
Hey, I beat Zach to the punch. Howzabouthat?
Doug
-
I like PYL because underneath all the silliness, there is one heck of an exciting, high-stakes game behind it. I see it in the same vein as shows like High Rollers--intriguing luck games where big money could be right around the corner, or a mile away [of course, there was some element of knowledge in the front game of HR, but the Big Numbers was all luck]
-
You picked a pair of favorites with PYL and The Joker's Wild (Barry days), because they both had a wonderful balance of knowledge AND luck. With Joker, you could know 2 or 3 of the category subjects well, but if the wheels didn't go your way, you were dead. Second Chance/PYL the same. True, the questions weren't at Jeopardy level, but a viewer who feels threatened by the question level (we all know people who say, "I don't like Jeopardy. I can't answer a single question!"), won't tune in. Question difficulty should be matched with the stakes - and neither were big money games (like Twenty-One). Joker was a pleasant challenge, PYL is fun, just like a trip to a Vegas dice table. And here's as good a place as any to throw out another idea: thinking about the difference between most G-T games and most B&E games, I can see why Jack Barry's stay at G-T was short-lived. I'd say a lot of G-T games could be called "the thinking man's games", vs. Barry's and others' quizzes being " the knowing man's games." A lot of GT games depended on logic and deduction, others depended on recall. Any thoughts?
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 05:35 PM\'] I like PYL because underneath all the silliness, there is one heck of an exciting, high-stakes game behind it. I see it in the same vein as shows like High Rollers--intriguing luck games where big money could be right around the corner, or a mile away [of course, there was some element of knowledge in the front game of HR, but the Big Numbers was all luck] [/quote]
I agree wholeheartedly with George. PYL was never meant to tax anyone's brain, especially with the questions- simply put, it helps with viewer play along, and PYL needed all the play along it could get. The show overall was never meant to be taken seriously, with the Whammies, Peter Tomarken's silliness, and the loopy contestants they had on the show. It was just a nice escape for 30 minutes, and if the game was played right, it could provide some exciting moments.
Whammy!'s problems, IMO, stem(ed) from the sheer lack of play along value (1 question round, Big Bank added usually what, 1 question more?), the lack of charm of the Whammy (again, IMO), and the lack of warmth from Todd Newton (on that show, I actually like Todd overall).
-
I prefer Whammy over the Classic PYL. You know why?
Well, the rules of Whammy's first round are easier to learn than that of the Classic PYL's first round:
Whammy: Hit a whammy in the first round, and you're done for the rest of the round. Easier than......
Classic PYL: Peter Tomarken always talked about getting 4 whammies in the first round. Very, very, very confusing rule. Does that mean the player who hits 4 whammies in Round 1 can't participate in any part of Round 2 (Question Round or Big Board)?
Also, the Big Bank idea for Whammy is a good idea. That's another reason why I like it over the Classic PYL.
Also, I don't understand why, on the Classic PYL, a player's scoreboard is turned off permanently when they he or she gets 4 whammies. Why can't they just put the score on $0? This lets the audience and home viewers know, "Oh, that player is not only out of the game, that player's score will stay at $0 for the REST of the game!
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 10:24 PM\']
Classic PYL: Peter Tomarken always talked about getting 4 whammies in the first round. Very, very, very confusing rule. Does that mean the player who hits 4 whammies in Round 1 can't participate in any part of Round 2 (Question Round or Big Board)?
[/quote]
Yeah, they presumably wouldn't take part in round two if they got four Whammies. I say presumably because no one ever got four Whammies in round one, though occasionally players got three. Usually someone would pass their spins after getting a second Whammy in round one, as Peter would tell them to be careful about getting a third Whammy in round one.
-
Also, I don't understand why, on the Classic PYL, a player's scoreboard is turned off permanently when they he or she gets 4 whammies. Why can't they just put the score on $0? This lets the audience and home viewers know, "Oh, that player is not only out of the game, that player's score will stay at $0 for the REST of the game!
Because if your readout says $0, it's possible that you'd still win the game
and return the next day. When it's turned off, you're done forever.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 10:26 PM\'] [quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 10:24 PM\']
Classic PYL: Peter Tomarken always talked about getting 4 whammies in the first round. Very, very, very confusing rule. Does that mean the player who hits 4 whammies in Round 1 can't participate in any part of Round 2 (Question Round or Big Board)?
[/quote]
Yeah, they presumably wouldn't take part in round two if they got four Whammies. I say presumably because no one ever got four Whammies in round one, though occasionally players got three. Usually someone would pass their spins after getting a second Whammy in round one, as Peter would tell them to be careful about getting a third Whammy in round one. [/quote]
Uh-huh. And I remember that all too well.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 08:24 PM\'] Well, the rules of Whammy's first round are easier to learn than that of the Classic PYL's first round:
[/quote]
Um, PYL's rules aren't exactly taxing.
Classic PYL: Peter Tomarken always talked about getting 4 whammies in the first round. Very, very, very confusing rule.
How is "If you get four Whammies, you're out of the game" confusing? Sounds pretty cut-and-dried to me.
Does that mean the player who hits 4 whammies in Round 1 can't participate in any part of Round 2 (Question Round or Big Board)?
You're kidding, right? Let's break this down:
"If you get four Whammies" = if you land on a Whammy space four times over the course of the game
"then you're out of the game" = you are disinvited from participating in the rest of the show. Period, paragraph, end of story.
Or maybe we should put it in code:
If (Player.Whammies == 4)
{
OutOfGame(Player);
}
else
{
GameContinues(Player);
}
Also, I don't understand why, on the Classic PYL, a player's scoreboard is turned off permanently when they he or she gets 4 whammies. Why can't they just put the score on $0?
Because $0 represents the state a player is in if they have no money, but are still in the game, whereas a blank slate indicates a player is out of the game. Done. Finito. They're not coming back. Turn the eggcrate off.
If you're having trouble grokking these simple concepts, then I don't suggest you attempt tackling anything taxing like Lingo anytime soon.
-
"then you're out of the game" = you are disinvited from participating in the rest of the show.
That's hilarious. I must add "disinvited from participating" to the list which
contains such other phrases as "non-winners" and "hamsters apparatuses".
I burst out laughing when I saw that.
-
..."hamsters apparatuses".
I burst out laughing when I saw that.
I do what I can :)
Cheers,
Ryan :)
-
It would have been interesting to see someone whammy out in round one. I've always had this mental picture of the contestant with his feet up on the podium in front of him, reclining and reading a magazine, while Peter goes on with the rest of the game.
I'd love to know what would have happened if a contestant landed on "Pick a Corner"....with one of the corners being a whammy....and was brain-dead enough to pick the whammy.
-
I like PYL because underneath all the silliness, there is one heck of an exciting, high-stakes game behind it.
I think that's one of the reasons I like the "classic" PYL - BECAUSE of the silliness. In today's world (OK, and yesterday's), sometimes we're all too serious with everything going on (and maybe we should be), but it's nice to be able to escape all that and laugh for a little while - and PYL was usually able to do that. As other people have mentioned, most of the time it was very exciting as well - because you just didn't know what was going to happen, or who was going to win until that final spin was taken.
-
[quote name=\'Steve_Bier\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 08:50 AM\'] It would have been interesting to see someone whammy out in round one. I've always had this mental picture of the contestant with his feet up on the podium in front of him, reclining and reading a magazine, while Peter goes on with the rest of the game.
I'd love to know what would have happened if a contestant landed on "Pick a Corner"....with one of the corners being a whammy....and was brain-dead enough to pick the whammy. [/quote]
People wonder why I think PYL is directed towards children and the lower IQ-bracket.
He would be credited with a whammy.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 12:44 PM\']
As for B&E, there is nothing wrong with the formats of their shows that can't be improved by better, more challenging question writing, better end games and a less kitschy feel. ("TJW" became a better show in the end simply for having Bill Cullen around--even if Cullen wasn't at his peak, Cullen off-peak is better than a lot of hosts at their peak.) [/quote]
What did Cullen do differently than Barry that made you prefer him?
-
[quote name=\'Steve_Bier\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 07:50 AM\'] It would have been interesting to see someone whammy out in round one. I've always had this mental picture of the contestant with his feet up on the podium in front of him, reclining and reading a magazine, while Peter goes on with the rest of the game.
I'd love to know what would have happened if a contestant landed on "Pick a Corner"....with one of the corners being a whammy....and was brain-dead enough to pick the whammy. [/quote]
Uh, he'd lose all his money.
Seriously though, there is a situation where picking a Whammy on purpose isn't necessarily a bad move. Consider this:
Let's flash back to August 14, 2003 (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=858\")
Some people disagreed, and made great arguments for doing so. Others agreed. Your mileage may vary.
Doug
-
That's what I love about this board...at ATGS, even bringing up the name of PYL would cause everyone to immediately grab their flame retardent suits! :) Here, we can actually discuss it intelligently.
I don't know...PYL gets a bad wrap IMO. Yes, I'm a late 20s who remembers the show fondly from childhood, but I don't think that's why the show appeals to so many. PYL had all of the elements of a fun game show. An easy game, lots of unnecessary glitz, a great set, a great host and a great theme song. It was just damned exciting to watch and it was one of the first shows that really used technology as the "draw" for the game.
It is not brain surgery, but there are very few game shows that are. HR and TJW are considered classics among most of us and these games were also mostly based on luck. They might have had some trivia element, but the ?'s were very elementary in nature...not tough stuff. Speed and luck were the predominate factors...especially in HR.
PYL is just...entertaining. It was a concept that worked for whatever reason and I'll take it for that. Flaws in the game or not, people watched and continue to watch...that defines a success in my opinion.
To be honest, I think Whammy! is the rare occurence where pretty major changes to the format actually improved upon the original concept. The only issues I have with Whammy! are just a few minor points with the execution...most of which can be attributed to the inherent cheesy nature of a cable game show. I'd love to see Fremantle take Whammy! into syndication and do it up right.
ITSBRY
itsbry@juno.com
-
[quote name=\'tommycharles\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 11:01 AM\'][quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 12:44 PM\']
As for B&E, there is nothing wrong with the formats of their shows that can't be improved by better, more challenging question writing, better end games and a less kitschy feel. ("TJW" became a better show in the end simply for having Bill Cullen around--even if Cullen wasn't at his peak, Cullen off-peak is better than a lot of hosts at their peak.) [/quote]
What did Cullen do differently than Barry that made you prefer him?[/quote]
The fact that he was being Bill Cullen. With the possible exception of "How Do You Like Your Eggs?" (and only because I've haven't had the misfortune of actually seeing it), his presence on the set alone always made a show even marginally watchable.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 12:18 PM\'] [quote name=\'tommycharles\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 11:01 AM\'][quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 12:44 PM\']
As for B&E, there is nothing wrong with the formats of their shows that can't be improved by better, more challenging question writing, better end games and a less kitschy feel. ("TJW" became a better show in the end simply for having Bill Cullen around--even if Cullen wasn't at his peak, Cullen off-peak is better than a lot of hosts at their peak.) [/quote]
What did Cullen do differently than Barry that made you prefer him?[/quote]
The fact that he was being Bill Cullen. With the possible exception of "How Do You Like Your Eggs?" (and only because I've haven't had the misfortune of actually seeing it), his presence on the set alone always made a show even marginally watchable. [/quote]
Here's where I disagree.
His work on "The Joker's Wild" slowed down the proceedings from a drag to a crawl. While he seemed sharp on Hot Potato, something seemed to have happened in between then and his start on Joker.
IMO, the job should have gone to Jim Peck.
-
His work on "The Joker's Wild" slowed down the proceedings from a drag to a crawl. While he seemed sharp on Hot Potato, something seemed to have happened in between then and his start on Joker.
I agree...the problem, IMO, was that Bill didn't realize TJW's not a show that leaves room for joking around, and even during his first season when still had the audience game, he knew he had to keep the game moving to some degree...when they dumped the audience game for the following season, he just saw it as an invitation to do more interaction and joking w/the contestants, as anyone who saw the Cullen eps from that season on GSN can tell you.
IMO, the job should have gone to Jim Peck.
No argument there...supposedly, as per Peck, syndicator Colbert wanted someone w/name value, though that wouldn't explain how little-known (outside LA, anyway) Jim Caldwell got the job on TTD just a season later.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Dec 13 2003, 09:09 PM\']
IMO, the job should have gone to Jim Peck.
No argument there...supposedly, as per Peck, syndicator Colbert wanted someone w/name value, though that wouldn't explain how little-known (outside LA, anyway) Jim Caldwell got the job on TTD just a season later.
[/quote]
Didn't Caldwell formerly host the NYC version of Evening(PM) Magazine?
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Dec 13 2003, 09:12 PM\'] [quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Dec 13 2003, 09:09 PM\']
IMO, the job should have gone to Jim Peck.
No argument there...supposedly, as per Peck, syndicator Colbert wanted someone w/name value, though that wouldn't explain how little-known (outside LA, anyway) Jim Caldwell got the job on TTD just a season later.
[/quote]
Didn't Caldwell formerly host the NYC version of Evening(PM) Magazine? [/quote]
Even so, Peck still had a couple of national game shows under his belt, albeit none lasted beyond one year, so the decision to go with Jim C. is still kinda interesting.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Dec 13 2003, 10:19 PM\'] [quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Dec 13 2003, 09:12 PM\'] [quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Dec 13 2003, 09:09 PM\']
IMO, the job should have gone to Jim Peck.
No argument there...supposedly, as per Peck, syndicator Colbert wanted someone w/name value, though that wouldn't explain how little-known (outside LA, anyway) Jim Caldwell got the job on TTD just a season later.
[/quote]
Didn't Caldwell formerly host the NYC version of Evening(PM) Magazine? [/quote]
Even so, Peck still had a couple of national game shows under his belt, albeit none lasted beyond one year, so the decision to go with Jim is still kinda interesting. [/quote]
Also, Jim was seen nationally on Good Morning America when David Hartman was on vacation. What I am unsure of is when he had his stint on Divorce Court, and whether this had any bearing on it.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Dec 15 2003, 01:55 PM\']
Also, Jim was seen nationally on Good Morning American when David Hartman was on vacation. What I am unsure of is when he had his stint on Divorce Court, and whether this had any bearing on it. [/quote]
His Divorce Court gig started in Fall 1984, which is when Bill Cullen took over on TJW. The DC gig starting that Fall would probably have make Peck ineligible to do TJW. Peck did stand in for a week or two of the 1985-86 TJW season. Peck's DC gig ran through 1987 or 1988.
-
Speaking of Peck and his role on the Original DC, who was he, the stenographer/interviewer, or the bailiff or the judge?
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Dec 16 2003, 12:42 AM\'] Speaking of Peck and his role on the Original DC, who was he, the stenographer/interviewer, or the bailiff or the judge? [/quote]
More like the host, kinda like Doug Llewellyn on People's Court.
-
OK, so he was the stenographer, then, right?
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Dec 15 2003, 11:27 PM\'] OK, so he was the stenographer, then, right? [/quote]
No, he was not at all involved with the actual proceedings of the case, he would sit in the gallery and turn to the camera and bring the viewer up to speed with the background of the case, or with what was current going on when coming back from a break for those joing late.
-
OK. Thanks!
-
And while I was in Milwaukee over the weekend, I heard Jim in a promo for his "I Remember" show (formerly "I Remember Milwaukee"--could he be gearing the show for regional or national distribution?) on WMVS (or Milwaukee Public Television 10, or MPTV, as they prefer to be called). He sounded in great voice and I'm glad to see that his show seems to be doing well.
Here's MPTV's page for Jim's show. (http://\"http://mptv.org/iremember.html\")