The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Dbacksfan12 on June 10, 2007, 10:03:49 PM
-
In short, do you think WWTBAM was a genre booster or did it change or did it change
the genre too much? game shows to where they are today--with every show giving away large amounts of money? Is this a good or bad thing; or would you prefer that Wheel of Fortune still gave away $25,000 or so tops every episode? Or is it all a good thing?
Discuss.
Edit: Question edited
-
In short, Booster.
-
Shorter: Yes.
-
Genre booster: yes.
Changed game shows too much: this margin is too narrow ...
-
It was a genre booster.
-
Both.
-
Booster. Game shows were already starting to become big again with syndication, but this was the spark the genre needed.
At the same time, it changed them too much, b/c every network except UPN and Telemundo had a (multi-)million dollar game show, offering way too much money for too little work. Ironically, the current shows make the 2000 stuff look like "Jeopardy". At least the late-90s/early-2000s shows signaled a nice throwback to the big money quiz shows of the 50s, minus the scandals.
If anything, I think D/ND changed games too much, with obnoxious contestants, lame tosses to commercials, and overediting. A lot of the shows look pre-packaged, kinda like most of today's popstars, but that's another rant. If I had to choose between 2000 or 2007, I'd take the former.
/if only we had more "1 vs. 100"s...
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'154882\' date=\'Jun 10 2007, 09:42 PM\']Booster. Game shows were already starting to become big again with syndication, but this was the spark the genre needed. [/quote] Really? If memory serves, the only new product at that point was Match Game, but I might be forgetting something.
If anything, I think D/ND changed games too much, with obnoxious contestants, lame tosses to commercials, and overediting. A lot of the shows look pre-packaged, kinda like most of today's popstars, but that's another rant. If I had to choose between 2000 or 2007, I'd take the former.
Preach on, Brother. If you want to put this another way, what would you rather watch; a TV schedule full of Millionaire clones, or Deal/No Deal clones? Is it really a contest? At all?
/if only we had more "1 vs. 100"s...
You kid, but I have found the Australian version totally watchable. (And Rich List too, which is a bit scary. You don't notice the gaping gameplay holes as much when they fill program time with actual content, I guess)
The problem with the original question is that you can't blame Millionaire for the other shows, just like you can't blame Deal for Show Me the Money. That honor goes to the no-talent assclown producers who thought they could turn straw into gold. Millionaire was competently produced. Greed was slapped together in two weeks.
/If you look really close, I think one of the Deal or No Deal producers is named Michael Bolton.
//No, not that Michael Bolton.
///D'oh. I forgot about Hollywood Squares starting in 1998.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'154884\' date=\'Jun 11 2007, 01:08 AM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'154882\' date=\'Jun 10 2007, 09:42 PM\']Booster. Game shows were already starting to become big again with syndication, but this was the spark the genre needed. [/quote] Really? If memory serves, the only new product at that point was Match Game, but I might be forgetting something.
[/quote]
Hollywood Squares, fall 98, 100%, winter 99. I think the latter got piss-poor clearance.
I make that comparison to the mid-90s, when the only syndie shows were Wheel and Jeopardy! (approx. fall 1995), and everyone and their mom had a talk show (*cough*CarnieWilson*hack*sneeze*TempesttBledsoeGabrielle Carteris*). Fall 96 brought a few more (albeit horrible Dating and Newlywed Game revivals), and things slowly turned around.