The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: gamed121683 on April 18, 2007, 06:03:41 PM
-
They're once again trying to break out of the game show mode. Personally, I don't know WHY they keep trying but...
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cf...p;art_aid=58881 (http://\"http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=58881\")
-
[quote name=\'gamed121683\' post=\'150468\' date=\'Apr 18 2007, 05:03 PM\']
They're once again trying to break out of the game show mode. Personally, I don't know WHY they keep trying but...
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cf...p;art_aid=58881 (http://\"http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=58881\")
[/quote]
I look forward to the new promos. This does not sound to me like another 2004-style overhaul.
-
[quote name=\'PaulD\' post=\'150471\' date=\'Apr 18 2007, 03:30 PM\']
I look forward to the new promos. This does not sound to me like another 2004-style overhaul.
[/quote]
I'm not sure how you got that out of that press release, which basically went out of its way to say as little as it possibly could.
-
I've lost count of how many times they've said they want to branch out beyond game shows. Still, whatever that number happens to be, it's also the number of times they've been unsuccessful at it.
Of course they can't depend on the archive year after year after year, but it's still hard to understand why they can't see for themselves where their successes have been. They remade Lingo and Chain Reaction badly and got good results. People are willing to watch interesting 'original' games, and games are just about the cheapest form of original programming you can make. What's the problem?
-
Matt, I don't know that any post has been more worthy of your current sig. Does common sense truly disqualify one from running a network?
-
[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' post=\'150497\' date=\'Apr 18 2007, 08:35 PM\'] Matt, I don't know that any post has been more worthy of your current sig. Does common sense truly disqualify one from running a network? [/quote]
Common sense disqualifies one from having an authority position in a lot of companies, unfortunately....
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'150495\' date=\'Apr 18 2007, 07:27 PM\']
What's the problem?
[/quote]
Game sh0ws aren't hip 4 da--oh, screw it.
-
Imagine if Spike TV held on to "Fandango" and "Crook and Chase" in the morning and today's primetime lineup of CSI, UFC and TNA?
I'd prefer all game shows 24/7, but if GSN wants to change, it should change completely. Right now, a lot of young people who might like the primetime sked may have programmed their remote to automatically skip the channel because they once caught a glimpse of John Charles Daly. Ergo, no young people watching at all and no old people watching GSN in prime.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'150546\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 11:18 AM\']
Imagine if Spike TV held on to "Fandango" and "Crook and Chase" in the morning and today's primetime lineup of CSI, UFC and TNA?
I'd prefer all game shows 24/7, but if GSN wants to change, it should change completely. Right now, a lot of young people who might like the primetime sked may have programmed their remote to automatically skip the channel because they once caught a glimpse of John Charles Daly. Ergo, no young people watching at all and no old people watching GSN in prime.
[/quote]
They tried to change somewhat, if not completely, during the day (remember Arsenio "Star Search" and repeats of "AN3AC"?). It didn't work.
The thing is that for most entertainment cable channels, daytime is strictly leaving the lights on until night. Who's making any kind of effort to compete with broadcast television during the day these days, excepting Discovery's how-to shows and the kiddie channels? Is TLC's "Story" franchise still going? If we hadn't fallen into that decade-long black hole after 1990 with the genre, GSN would have enough 90s and 00s titles to fill a daytime schedule the way TNT does with "L&O," "Alias," "ER" and more "L&O."
And to be honest with you, if GSN wanted to be serious with daytime, it would probably be with low-risk call-in-and-lose shows.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'150546\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 11:18 AM\']
Right now, a lot of young people who might like the primetime sked may have programmed their remote to automatically skip the channel
[/quote]
And yet, I'm sure there's a good amount of "young people" that stop when they see the whammy. I don't think its fair you put it on the heads of "young people".
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'150553\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 01:51 PM\']
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'150546\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 11:18 AM\']
Right now, a lot of young people who might like the primetime sked may have programmed their remote to automatically skip the channel
[/quote]
And yet, I'm sure there's a good amount of "young people" that stop when they see the whammy. I don't think its fair you put it on the heads of "young people".
[/quote]
I just don't see the audiences for play-by-play casino shows and trad. game shows to be compatible. Either go one way or the other all day.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'150557\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 02:51 PM\']
I just don't see the audiences for play-by-play casino shows and trad. game shows to be compatible.[/quote]
Then I'm an exception to your rule. It's not like GSN is alternating game shows and telenovelas. Casino shows are adjunct enough to get people on either side of the aisle to watch the other. Whether that amount of people is large enough to continue experimenting is debatable, there is a demand.
While it's probably true, I still find Mark's comment humorous about how young people will stop at whammy.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'150557\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 01:51 PM\']
I just don't see the audiences for play-by-play casino shows and trad. game shows to be compatible. Either go one way or the other all day.
[/quote]
Oh, bull. I enjoy watching poker to see people take risks. For that same reason, I enjoy shows such as Jeopardy!, Press Your Luck, and Celebrity Sweepstakes for those same reasons.
By your standards, ESPN shouldn't be airing poker either, because sports fans are a different crowd. I think someone is mildly bitter that television isn't "as good" as it used to be and is simply looking for a scapegoat.
-
I guess the question is will casino show fans tune into game shows? Myself, I'd rather see two separate channels so everyone is satisfied.
ESPN is a better fit for the casino tourneys because they normally feature longform play-by-play coverage, and the events are appealing to the same demographic as play-by-play sports.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'150560\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 12:11 PM\']
I think someone is mildly bitter that television isn't "as good" as it used to be and is simply looking for a scapegoat.
[/quote]
Then you, sir, are reading WAY too much into Jimmy's comments.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'150562\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 03:17 PM\']
I guess the question is will casino show fans tune into game shows? Myself, I'd rather see two separate channels so everyone is satisfied.[/quote]
So you'd split up ad revenues, force advertisers to possibly spend more, and probably condemn two channels to anonymity in a sea of digital cable oversaturation just because you think no A's are B's and no B's are A's?
I thought we learned that most sweeping generalizations are bad.
-
I have a feeling that once GSN can get TPiR, we're going to see a real radical change in the network. Whether it be for the better or worse is yet to be known...
Heck, knowing GSN now, they probably won't even pick it up.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'150567\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 06:13 PM\']I thought we learned that most sweeping generalizations are bad.[/quote]
No, all sweeping generalizations are bad.
I'm going to disagree with Jimmy as well. To me, the casino and card game shows make perfect sense on a network like GSN. Just because I don't happen to care for them doesn't mean they don't fit a programming niche. There are plenty of traditional game shows I don't care for either.
-
Cable operators will have the last word. If GSN continues to move to the sports tiers, they will be forced into morphing into more sports-type programming anyway. I probably wouldn't buy a bundle of sports channels just to get GSN.
Hopefully by that time, Sony will have their old game show library available for download and we can pick and choose whatever they have.
-
See, saying that all sweeping generalizations are bad can be, in itself, a sweeping generalization, and people love to harp on semantics.....
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'150568\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 06:28 PM\']
I have a feeling that once GSN can get TPiR, we're going to see a real radical change in the network. Whether it be for the better or worse is yet to be known...
Heck, knowing GSN now, they probably won't even pick it up.[/quote]
I was under the impression that Fremantle was the more the reason behind no TPiR than GSN. They're certainly not getting it for at least another year, and execs on the GSN side are probably questioning whether it's worth the wait.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'150585\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 08:09 PM\']
Cable operators will have the last word. If GSN continues to move to the sports tiers, they will be forced into morphing into more sports-type programming anyway. I probably wouldn't buy a bundle of sports channels just to get GSN.
Hopefully by that time, Sony will have their old game show library available for download and we can pick and choose whatever they have.
[/quote]
That brings up an intresting point. In 5 or 10 years, I honestly would not be suprised if GSN started airing actual sporting games on the network. Can you imagine in 5 years seeing the Mets play on GSN? Or GSN airing games of the New York Rangers? Good and bad would come from this.
Good = Ratings boost (depending on what games they cover), which would mean more money for the network, which means more shows will able to be acquired.
Bad = GSN becomes classified as a "Sports Network", and more and more "Traditional" game shows get phased out for the sporting events.
As for hoping Sony puts their game show library up for downloads...I would not leave my computer! I would download as much of their classics as possible!
-
For a network about games, GSN isn't fun to watch. There is no sense of community. All day long it's program segment, ID, comercials, repeat. Cartoon Network, Lifetime and Turner Classic Movies are among the cable stations that do a great job of giving you the feeling that the programmers are fans of the genre.
Even Nick @ Nite realizes that it is programming the same reruns night after night but sells itself as comfort food for the eyes. I wish GSN (even the name is dull) would learn that it can be hip to be square.
-
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'150643\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 02:51 PM\']
For a network about games, GSN isn't fun to watch.
[/quote]
Then don't watch. You're not hurting their feelings.
Lifetime [is one of] the cable stations that do a great job of giving you the feeling that the programmers are fans of the genre.
Exactly what genre does Lifetime program?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'150652\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 05:08 PM\']
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'150643\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 02:51 PM\']
For a network about games, GSN isn't fun to watch.
[/quote]
Then don't watch. You're not hurting their feelings.
[/quote]
That wasn't his point and you know it. His point was that other networks go out of their way to make sure that viewers hear not only "hey, we have <Program X> and you should tune in," but "we really love <Program X>, we love bringing it to you and we'd really like you to enjoy it as much as we do." I haven't seen GSN lately so I can't comment firsthand, but at least from Alfonzo's description, GSN seems merely to be going through the motions.
Lifetime [is one of] the cable stations that do a great job of giving you the feeling that the programmers are fans of the genre.
Exactly what genre does Lifetime program?
You're serious?
(Hint: if your answer is something along the lines of "I don't have/watch cable," then you had no business asking the question in the first place.)
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'150653\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 04:15 PM\']
You're serious?
[/quote]
Last I knew, they were "the network for women". Unless I'm not recalling something correctly from my broadcasting class, "women" is not a genre.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'150654\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 02:27 PM\']
Last I knew, they were "the network for women". Unless I'm not recalling something correctly from my broadcasting class, "women" is not a genre.
[/quote]
Christ, Mark, now you're going out of your way to pick fights. You might look back and see what happened to the other users who have done that. Didn't work out so well for them.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'150655\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 04:32 PM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'150654\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 02:27 PM\']
Last I knew, they were "the network for women". Unless I'm not recalling something correctly from my broadcasting class, "women" is not a genre.
[/quote]
Christ, Mark, now you're going out of your way to pick fights. You might look back and see what happened to the other users who have done that. Didn't work out so well for them.
[/quote]
Well, let me rephrase it then.
I thought Lifetime was a general entertainment network, with programming directed towards women. If "womens programming" is a genre, then I was a)unaware of it and b)not covered in class.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'150654\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 05:27 PM\']
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'150653\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 04:15 PM\']
You're serious?
[/quote]
Last I knew, they were "the network for women". Unless I'm not recalling something correctly from my broadcasting class, "women" is not a genre.
[/quote]
Last time I checked Merriam-Webster, the dictionary defined defines (http://\"http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/genre\") genre as, among other things, a "kind" or "sort." Unless I'm not recalling something from, well, the English language, "programming meant to appeal to women" qualifies as a "kind" or "sort."
(Hint: this really isn't the day to start snarking at the moderators.)
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'150637\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 03:07 PM\']
See, saying that all sweeping generalizations are bad can be, in itself, a sweeping generalization, and people love to harp on semantics.....
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'150568\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 06:28 PM\']
I have a feeling that once GSN can get TPiR, we're going to see a real radical change in the network. Whether it be for the better or worse is yet to be known...
Heck, knowing GSN now, they probably won't even pick it up.[/quote]
I was under the impression that Fremantle was the more the reason behind no TPiR than GSN.[/quote]
I was under the impression that the stumbling block was CBS.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'150652\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 05:08 PM\']
Exactly what genre does Lifetime program?
[/quote]
The "we ain't got balls" genre.
/why am I replying to a guy in the iso-booth