The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: SteveR on May 02, 2007, 01:34:13 PM
-
According to BuzzerBlog, they're doing runthroughs with paid volunteers:
http://buzzerblog.flashgameshows.com/rumor...ssword-revival/ (http://\"http://buzzerblog.flashgameshows.com/rumor-control-password-revival/\")
Of course, we've seen what the know-it-alls in TV have done in their misguided attempts to improve the likes of Pyramid and Card Sharks.
The game of Password is strong enough that it doesn't need improvement.
I'd love to see this one come back but wouldn't be able to bear it if it suffers a similar treatment.
-
[quote name=\'SteveR\' post=\'151353\' date=\'May 2 2007, 01:34 PM\']The game of Password is strong enough that it doesn't need improvement.[/quote]
I like where your heart is, but the game of Password was already "improved" over the 3 or so decades it was on the air previously. (Whether it was an actual improvement probably varies from person to person)
I would've attempted to go, but I don't have a car of my own, I have a general distrust of public transportation (Thanks, Allegheny County Port Authority), and you'd probably have to dig for my Q rating.
-
[quote name=\'SteveR\' post=\'151353\' date=\'May 2 2007, 12:34 PM\']
According to BuzzerBlog, they're doing runthroughs with paid volunteers:
http://buzzerblog.flashgameshows.com/rumor...ssword-revival/ (http://\"http://buzzerblog.flashgameshows.com/rumor-control-password-revival/\")
Of course, we've seen what the know-it-alls in TV have done in their misguided attempts to improve the likes of Pyramid and Card Sharks.
The game of Password is strong enough that it doesn't need improvement.
I'd love to see this one come back but wouldn't be able to bear it if it suffers a similar treatment.
[/quote]
It seems like you're going through a lot of assuming very, very early in the game (along with the commenters on the blog post).
I've heard it said by some in here that "Password" may be *too* smart for today's audiences. Perhaps at this point all the producers are looking at is if reasonably intelligent people understand the game and can play it well.
Considering what "Chain Reaction"'s been put through in its revival, perhaps we should be relieved that a production company wants to know if there are people who will be able to play "Password" coherently and are willing to pay people money for a couple of days to find this out.
Frankly, I hope the answer is positive, perhaps because I don't think we're all as dumb today as some people think we are.
-
Yes, there are Password run-throughs in New York, but it is way early in the process of getting to air. There is no deal with a network or cable channel yet. My educated guess is that this is a big money version of the game, reformatted to move quicker and not require a college degree.
With the success of a couple of the newer games on the air, with Temptation and Merv's Crosswords now each with a firm "go", with a number of development deals around town, and the possibility of a WGA/SAG/AFTRA in the immediate future, this is the most encoraging environment for games in a long time!
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'151355\' date=\'May 2 2007, 01:49 PM\'][quote name=\'SteveR\' post=\'151353\' date=\'May 2 2007, 01:34 PM\']The game of Password is strong enough that it doesn't need improvement.[/quote]I like where your heart is, but the game of Password was already "improved" over the 3 or so decades it was on the air previously. (Whether it was an actual improvement probably varies from person to person)[/quote]Maybe I should have been more specific.
I didn't like the all-in "front game" of the first "improvement" -- where four contestants played for the right ro play "classic" Password against the champion.
Where they ended up with Plus/Super is what I was talking about. Yeah, they added things to the old game of 10-9-8-etc, first-to-25 Password. But everything they added remained in the spirit of the game and should be an adequate place to start from for a revival.
I find myself on the "wrong" end of TV's possible belief that shows are too smart for the general audience. Seems to work for Jeopardy. I just wish there were more.
-
[quote name=\'SteveR\' post=\'151363\' date=\'May 2 2007, 02:51 PM\']Where they ended up with Plus/Super is what I was talking about. Yeah, they added things to the old game of 10-9-8-etc, first-to-25 Password. But everything they added remained in the spirit of the game and should be an adequate place to start from for a revival.
I find myself on the "wrong" end of TV's possible belief that shows are too smart for the general audience. Seems to work for Jeopardy. I just wish there were more.
[/quote]
A revival cannot live on spirit alone. CS and Pyramid both remained "in the spirit of the game" but everything else reduced the game to something less than desirable.
Oh, and Jeopardy works because it has tenure, among other things.
-
It's about time. I have some thoughts about formatting it so the game ends with a finale (that is, each half-hour is self-contaned) if anybody is interested...
-
[quote name=\'SteveR\' post=\'151363\' date=\'May 2 2007, 11:51 AM\']
I didn't like the all-in "front game" of the first "improvement" -- where four contestants played for the right ro play "classic" Password against the champion.
[/quote]
Which is not how it worked, I don't believe. Weren't both players from the previous game thrown into the pool, and then two new players joined them?
(I realize this doesn't change your point much, but there it is.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'151368\' date=\'May 2 2007, 03:44 PM\']
[quote name=\'SteveR\' post=\'151363\' date=\'May 2 2007, 11:51 AM\']
I didn't like the all-in "front game" of the first "improvement" -- where four contestants played for the right ro play "classic" Password against the champion.
[/quote]
Which is not how it worked, I don't believe. Weren't both players from the previous game thrown into the pool, and then two new players joined them?
(I realize this doesn't change your point much, but there it is.)
[/quote]
<snip...see below>
God help me, if this goes through, and they SO touch Alphabetics, I'm going to have a fit. Not a fanb0izy fit...but still.
-
I was thinking of attending, but am unable to.
I don't understand why they want a photo of you just for a run-thru. Unless, it's possible they would use you for a pilot. And whatever happened to using employees for run-thru's?
I'm surprised this isn't in L.A.
-
This is a minority opinion, but I never warmed up to P+ puzzles or Alphabetics/Super Password. Made the game too easy and reduced the word variety. Lightning Round was where it's at. Hey, maybe they could get Jim Cramer to host.:) All-Stars was a good variant, IMO.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'151369\' date=\'May 2 2007, 01:01 PM\']
From Wiki...
[/quote]
Which, if you look at the revision history (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Password_%28TV_series%29&diff=127476143&oldid=76342145\"), has our own Chris Clementon's contribution (where he states that it was as I said it, the two previous players plus two new ones) "corrected" by some completely anonymous schmuck.
So, you'll forgive me, I think, if I side with the actual G-T employee here.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'151372\' date=\'May 2 2007, 04:43 PM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'151369\' date=\'May 2 2007, 01:01 PM\']
From Wiki...
[/quote]
Which, if you look at the revision history (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Password_%28TV_series%29&diff=127476143&oldid=76342145\"), has our own Chris Clementon's contribution (where he states that it was as I said it, the two previous players plus two new ones) "corrected" by a guy who looks an awful damned lot like he hasn't been out of his parent's basement in a LONG LONG time (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rfc1394\").
So, you'll forgive me, I think, if I side with the actual G-T employee here.
[/quote]
Oh my...this is why Wikipedia should never be used as primary research. Said post edited to reflect my complete oblivion of checking revision history.
But my Alphabetics point still stands. Just don't come up with a new endgame.
-
Actually, wait. In defense of Parent's Basement Guy, I screwed up, as he was not the one who made that particular edit, he made the most recent one. (Chalk it up to me not understanding how the comparative Wikipedia screens worked.) The edit happened here (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Password_%28TV_series%29&diff=prev&oldid=92736419\"), by some anonymous schmuck with the IP address of 24.172.221.62, which resolves to a RoadRunner location of some kind.
Nonetheless, given the choice between beliving Chris and believing an Anonymous Schmuck, I'll still go with Chris.
-
I've played the game with co-workers on our down time (Plus/Super rules). It's incredibly fun, and easy to get everyone involved.
That being said, this show would work with a laid-back environment and set that Win Lose or Draw or Pictionary had. No rotating spotlights, no steel girders, no dark colors. Oh, and this show does not need a big budget. Anything over $25,000 for a bonus round is too much.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'151382\' date=\'May 2 2007, 03:49 PM\']
Anything over $25,000 for a bonus round is too much.
[/quote]
I will never understand what so many people on this board have against big dollar payouts in and of themselves. They're no substitute for solid game design, but $25,000 means nowhere near what it did when it was at the top of the Pyramid.
Inflation has rendered the jackpots of yesteryear far less impressive, and modern audiences have gotten used to prime-time payouts of 6-7 figures. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Besides, if there were a professional Password circuit, I'd quit my job in a heartbeat. Since that will never happen, I'd prefer my one shot at Password-- should I ever get so lucky-- be for as much money as possible. And as a viewer, it can be no LESS exciting to watch someone go for big bucks than it would be to watch them play for a pittance.
That said, Password's strength is that money doesn't really matter-- it's all about the game. Contrast that with WWTBaM, where the tension of the high stakes is essential to the show's success.
-
[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' post=\'151385\' date=\'May 2 2007, 04:52 PM\']
I will never understand what so many people on this board have against big dollar payouts in and of themselves.[/quote]
In and of themselves? Nothing. It's the people who think the solution for a bad game is to throw a big-dollar payout at it that I have issue with.
They're no substitute for solid game design
Without question. Which is what a lot of people don't seem to comprehend.
I'd prefer my one shot at Password-- should I ever get so lucky-- be for as much money as possible. And as a viewer, it can be no LESS exciting to watch someone go for big bucks than it would be to watch them play for a pittance.
Hey, you and me both. As a potential contestant, I've said many times that if I was going to go on one game show, it would be WOF. Not because I like WOF (indeed, far from it), but because that's the show on which I stood to make the most money competing against brain-dead morons.
That said, Password's strength is that money doesn't really matter-- it's all about the game.
Exactly. Preach on. Clearly you are walking with Jesus.
-
[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' post=\'151385\' date=\'May 2 2007, 07:52 PM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'151382\' date=\'May 2 2007, 03:49 PM\']
Anything over $25,000 for a bonus round is too much.
[/quote]
I will never understand what so many people on this board have against big dollar payouts in and of themselves. They're no substitute for solid game design, but $25,000 means nowhere near what it did when it was at the top of the Pyramid.
[/quote]
I know it's not quite what you're saying but why should a game show offer beau-coup bucks just because the other shows do it, or because of inflation? I'd like to see a little balance in the budgets of all the shows. I mean, the Password Plus offered $5,000 in 1979, which still bumps to less than $15,000.
Honestly, I care more about Fremantle doing a competent job with the show than the payout. I'd hate to see this turn in Pyramid with steel girders and rotating spotlights, and more focus on C-list celebrities.
Regardless, I'd love to see this show make it so I can audition. I think I could clean up on this one. :-)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'151386\' date=\'May 2 2007, 07:59 PM\']
...it's all about the game.
Exactly. Preach on. Clearly you are walking with Jesus.
[/quote]
If that's the case...then the execs of GSN, NBC, ABC, FOX, and CBS all need to have regular Sunday meetings at the GSF Church of Game Show Development and Execution*. Because if it was all about the game, we'd be seeing quality revivals of Pyramid, Password, Match Game, Chain Reaction/Go, etc.
If anything is going to revive the classic genre of game shows...it would be this.
*That's what my credit to fame will be on this forum.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'151387\' date=\'May 2 2007, 05:02 PM\']
I'd like to see a little balance in the budgets of all the shows. [/quote]
What?! Unless you're a TV exec, why the *&#$ would you give a rat's poop chute about a TV show's budget? As a viewer I'd like to see compelling television, and as a contestant I'd like to get a great payday. Beyond that how a show allocates its budget is none of my concern.
-
[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' post=\'151397\' date=\'May 2 2007, 09:47 PM\'][quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'151387\' date=\'May 2 2007, 05:02 PM\']I'd like to see a little balance in the budgets of all the shows. [/quote]What?! Unless you're a TV exec, why the *&#$ would you give a rat's poop chute about a TV show's budget? As a viewer I'd like to see compelling television, and as a contestant I'd like to get a great payday. Beyond that how a show allocates its budget is none of my concern.[/quote]I'm on board with Brandon. Watching someone win a few hundred dollars on Password would be jarring next to the enormous amounts given away on Deal, or 1 vs 100, or whatever else.
Stick those $850 wins next to the money given away on the old Jeopardy! or Who, What or Where Game, and it doesn't look out of place. It goes to your point on compelling television. I'd rather have good gameplay and good contestants first, but given that those two are taken care of, a reasonable amount of money comes in third. All of the prime time games seem absurd when the kind of money they're waving around like Monopoly bucks is being waved around. And when you see someone winning $540,000 while Captain Kirk is flailing about, it's time to dive for the remote.
-
[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' post=\'151397\' date=\'May 3 2007, 12:47 AM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'151387\' date=\'May 2 2007, 05:02 PM\']
I'd like to see a little balance in the budgets of all the shows. [/quote]
What?! Unless you're a TV exec, why the *&#$ would you give a rat's poop chute about a TV show's budget? As a viewer I'd like to see compelling television, and as a contestant I'd like to get a great payday. Beyond that how a show allocates its budget is none of my concern.
[/quote]
I see what you mean, and it's not so much I care about how they spend the budget, since it's not my money. All I'm saying is, I'd just like to see contestants actually work a little for so much money. If Password goes with a {Dr. Evil}ONE MEEEEEEELION DOLLAR!{/Evil} top prize, it won't keep me from watching, but it won't stop me from thinking that they're overdoing it in terms of presentation. 1 vs. 100 and Millionaire execute my example in that I feel contestants should work for that kinda change. Identity does not. Furthermore, if the show is competently produced, then I have no problem with a high top prize. Case in point, Treasure Hunt in the 70s and 80s offered about the equivalent of $100,000 2007 currency. But Chuck Barris knew how to mix just the right amount and cheesiness and suspense.
I realize I'm not the average viewer, but I do look at more than just high grand prize being thrown around when there's no game present (*cough*ShowMeTheMoney*cough*).
-
How about a happy medium of hard work and dumb luck Hard work Password with a top prize of $25,000 in a lightning round or Alphabetics, if you prefer, with the final end game being selecting a password from 40 or so words to open a million-dollar vault. A one in forty chance wouldn't happen often for you budget watchers, but great TV for the unwashed masses if it does.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'151407\' date=\'May 2 2007, 11:10 PM\']How about a happy medium of hard work and dumb luck Hard work Password with a top prize of $25,000 in a lightning round or Alphabetics, if you prefer, with the final end game being selecting a password from 40 or so words to open a million-dollar vault. A one in forty chance wouldn't happen often for you budget watchers, but great TV for the unwashed masses if it does.[/quote]They do that on Wheel of Fortune right now anyway, and I don't like it any better there.
The only way you can convince me that Password should have a potential jackpot any higher than $50,000 is if that amount is the grand prize for a tournament (either of champions, or a season-long elimination event).
The problem is that Password shouldn't be for "the unwashed masses", and if the game has to be dumbed-down just so that your average viewer can understand and enjoy it, that's not fair to the game. I don't want to see players giving the antonym for every password, or "dog...." to get "cat."
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'151408\' date=\'May 2 2007, 11:22 PM\']
I don't want to see players giving the antonym for every password, or "dog...." to get "cat."
[/quote]
You think your average game-show contestant these days can GET "dog" from "cat?"
-
I think if you're going to go to do a $1 million prize, let's save it for the "Grandmaster Tournament of Champions" and if it's on a network, and popular enough, maybe that can be in prime time, a la TPIR MDS.
Otherwise, the bonus game should start at $10K, and add $5k until it's won....it doesn't matter if it's $25K, $55K, or $100K. The feat on Password is beating the game.
-
Average viewers today want instant gratification. They want to see someone try for a million on every show. It doesn't actually have to be given away on every show, but there has to be a possibility. Today's viewers don't have the patience for a tournament just once or twice a year.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'151387\' date=\'May 2 2007, 08:02 PM\']I'd like to see a little balance in the budgets of all the shows.[/quote]
Jim Cramer said a recession was coming by year's end on The Chris Matthews Show.
I think this debate is blurring the line between syndicated shows and network primetime. I would think Password would be one of the former (if not a GSN venture) at which point, there would be less of a monetary problem. I contend that all game show dollar values ballooned in reaction to the first strip of Millionaire and haven't come down since, but that's for another day.
Why can't the endgame (whatever it would be) be played for a car? Or that increasing prize scale similar to H2?
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'151419\' date=\'May 3 2007, 09:07 AM\']Average viewers today want instant gratification. [/quote]That's absurd, and you know it. If that was true, mini-series and story arcs wouldn't exist. You'd have three minute bits of show. Average viewers do want compelling television. Deal or No Deal, when not focusing on the idiotic gimmickry, is still compelling even when the top prize left is $200,000.
I reject your assumption on its face. My overarching point: why does Password need to be changed in order to fit the whims of a network executive who only comes out of his ivory tower to shuffle tiles on his magnetic schedule grid? If it does, then I would rather see some potboiler take up the space for 13-weeks, rather than seeing one of the greatest game shows in all of recorded history turned into a shell of itself. I'm surprised you're laying down so easily on this point.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'151424\' date=\'May 3 2007, 12:25 PM\'] Jim Cramer said a recession was coming by year's end on The Chris Matthews Show. [/quote]
Actually, what he said was ARGGHHBRGLLDROOOOLOMGQ!!oneelevenone!!!!HELLOWBBQ!
Or words to that effect.
As for Password - I wonder in general why classic "thinking persons'" shows haven't found a home on the many so-called "thinking persons" cable channels. If Discovery can run "Cash Cab" which is little more than a trivia show with a unique setting, why not increase our vocabularies with Password? Or salute education with College Bowl?
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' post=\'151479\' date=\'May 4 2007, 09:35 AM\']
As for Password - I wonder in general why classic "thinking persons'" shows haven't found a home on the many so-called "thinking persons" cable channels. If Discovery can run "Cash Cab" which is little more than a trivia show with a unique setting, why not increase our vocabularies with Password? Or salute education with College Bowl?
[/quote]
Because in this world of political correctness, many shows (including game shows) think they have to dumb down their material, so as not to offend the un(der)-educated audience. And unfortunately in this era, the less-intelligent you make a show, the better the ratings go (See: "Deal Or No Deal").
Password, if executed correctly, can begin to pull the game show genre back toward the direction of intelligent quiz shows that make you work for your winnings.
If given the choice of getting on a game show with all travel/lodging expenses paid, and to have a chance to play a game with one or two A or B-list celebs and possibly win up to $25K, or to appear on a show by myself (with a remote chance of winning a six-or-seven figure prize) on my dime, I would take the former.
At least you can say that hey, part of my prize "win or lose" was to get to go to California and play a game with a famous celebrity on my team. How many modern day game show contestants can say that?
If I came back with more money than what I started out with, even better. :-)
-
Very few, if any, game shows will pick up your travel expenses.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'151484\' date=\'May 4 2007, 12:24 PM\']
If given the choice of getting on a game show with all travel/lodging expenses paid, and to have a chance to play a game with one or two A or B-list celebs and possibly win up to $25K, or to appear on a show by myself (with a remote chance of winning a six-or-seven figure prize) on my dime, I would take the former.
[/quote]
That's another thing that kinda irritates me about a lot of the current games, the lack of a consolation prize. I mean, I'm not saying offer the $1,000 minimum that Wheel and J! give...I think even H^2 offered $500. But I just don't like that I've stood there for half an hour and have nothing to show for it, esp. since I have to pay my own money to fly to California, and worry about lodging, etc.
Just a pet peeve of mine.
/then again, what would you rather have...
//the pizza-in-a-box* and Press-On-Nails
///or nothing?
////*cut a hole in the box...
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'151493\' date=\'May 4 2007, 10:28 AM\']
I mean, I'm not saying offer the $1,000 minimum that Wheel and J! give...I think even H^2 offered $500. But I just don't like that I've stood there for half an hour and have nothing to show for it, esp. since I have to pay my own money to fly to California, and worry about lodging, etc.
[/quote]
Then, um, don't go on the show?
It seems to me that those shows that do not offer a consolation prize are usually those whose top prize is a disgusting amount of money, yes? So there's your tradeoff: in return for the possibility of winning eleventy billion dollars instead of just $20K or $30K, you risk going home with nothing, too.