One of the recent threads brought up the format change Millionaire made a few years ago, and how it (in some people\'s opinions) improved the show. I don\'t disagree with that, as I realize the familiar Q&A that was used for 11 years needed a refresh, and they\'d done all they could (categories, the countdown clock). In a case like that, switching the presentation of the trivia didn\'t hurt the show, even if it was a bit of a departure.
Anyway, that thread got me to thinking what shows (in your opinion) underwent a pretty major change, and it made the show equally, if not more, enjoyable? Off the top of my head, I\'d go with three Goodson-Todman games in the 70s: TPIR adding pricing games, MG7x going for a more riddle-based format, and Password+ adding puzzles to the show. All three successfully integrated new elements to make the shows enjoyable for a new audience in a different time.
Any others? I don\'t mean a change like offering more money for winning a round, or only requiring 6 words in :20. A true radical change that sounded like a WTF move on paper, but really worked out for the better.
ETA: It could be a revival, like the aforementioned G-T shows, or a change during the run, i.e. Millionaire.
I suppose Wheel eliminating shopping would fit that category, as it allowed for more time for puzzles.
\'Wheel Of Fortune\' for going from shopping to cash. Also \'Hollywood Squares\' for finally finding an end game that works in 2002 - 2004.
TJW\'90...
...going from \"on the air\" to \"off.\"
Brandon\'s examples were all remakes that made radical changes for the better. I think the best example of a show that made pretty major changes to its structure and game play during the run and came out the better for it was Scrabble.
I\'ll clarify to say that remakes or shows that altered the rules during the run are fine in my book.
I think Matt\'s example is the best one during a continuous run, but I would have described it oppositely: The structure changed, but the game play itself hardly changed at all.
I want to credit the modern Family Feud for fixing the \"bank\'s too small, so the game\'s over\" problem, but the problem wouldn\'t have happened if they\'d kept any version of the original format.
One rule that comes to mind is the \"push\" rule during the Money Cards on Card Sharks. It never seemed fair to me that if the card was neither higher nor lower, that money would be lost for a guess that couldn\'t be right either way...
It makes sense in that you did not correctly predict whether the next card was higher or lower than the one that preceded it. That said it was a rule I was happy to see go for the reason you described.One rule that comes to mind is the \"push\" rule during the Money Cards on Card Sharks. It never seemed fair to me that if the card was neither higher nor lower, that money would be lost for a guess that couldn\'t be right either way...
It makes sense in that you did not correctly predict whether the next card was higher or lower than the one that preceded it.
Insofar as it made any sense for a game show to present you with an impossible task (within the actual bounds of the game), sure.
One rule that comes to mind is the \"push\" rule during the Money Cards on Card Sharks. It never seemed fair to me that if the card was neither higher nor lower, that money would be lost for a guess that couldn\'t be right either way...
It makes sense in that you did not correctly predict whether the next card was higher or lower than the one that preceded it. That said it was a rule I was happy to see go for the reason you described
Yes. As Jim Perry would put it frequently early on, \"If it\'s another [card] you lose...it must be higher/lower than a(n) [card].\" And yes, that being said, the push rule in the Money Cards was welcome. Unless you liked drama on every turn of the cards, and know that an Ace or two means there\'s no risks.
As far as general formats with radical positive changes...I\'d say that Password (from 1979-1989, that is) and TPIR are the best two examples. The other best revivals I grew up with were pretty much the same show with new wrinkles here and there. That said, if we are to count rule changes/tweaks/misc. little changes, I\'d name:
- Illegal clue = no jackpot of any kind in Super Password
- A well-done tournament format added to Pyramid
- H2 coming up with a bonus game that has the best of both previous standalone incarnations (agree/disagree questions, which then better your chances at picking the correct key)
- Star Wheel on Match Game (but I know your mileage may vary...hey, it was the MG I saw the most of as a kid, so it is partially a sentimental pick...)
- The double buzz for illegal clues in Davidson Pyramid\'s Winner\'s Circle.
- 100 Mexicanos Dijeron/Que Dice La Gente presenting possibilities on Fast Money\'s outcome with the Lollipop Game, and offering a bonus for finding all five number one answers.
- And of course Joker\'s Wild finding its true calling as a game of definitions....j/k....
- Star Wheel on Match Game (but I know your mileage may vary...hey, it was the MG I saw the most of as a kid, so it is partially a sentimental pick...)
Same here....I had only seen random clips here and there of the \'70s MG (almost all of it the new set/Star Wheel era) so I assumed the wheel was there all along in that version. When I was finally able to gain access to some GSN not long after its launch and see my first episode of MG (\'73), I was disappointed to see that there was no Star Wheel. Pick a star, do the Head-to-Head Match. Seemed almost anticlimactic!
I\'ll go with Dick Clark\'s Pyramid, when they finally let both contestants play for the full show and whoever won the most Winners Circle money at the end of the day got to come back. If it was a tie, they BOTH came back.
I\'m going to go with Price, but not for it\'s complete revamped revival (though it was excellent). No, I\'m going to go for them expanding to an hour and the addition of the Big Wheel. I felt sorry for contestants in the half-hour era who played for an organ, won, and got the short stick because two other contestants got to play for a Chevy Vega and a fur coat. The Big Wheel gave all contestants a shot at the showcase and a shot at redemption if they fouled up on their pricing game or were bitten with a tough setup. It also added a little more excitement to the show once all the bonuses were instituted.
- Star Wheel on Match Game (but I know your mileage may vary...hey, it was the MG I saw the most of as a kid, so it is partially a sentimental pick...)
- 100 Mexicanos Dijeron/Que Dice La Gente presenting possibilities on Fast Money\'s outcome with the Lollipop Game, and offering a bonus for finding all five number one answers.
In the case of To Tell the Truth, only having two rounds per episode (on the syndicated version) was a welcome change. That\'s especially apparent when compared with the later daytime seasons, with three rounds in just 25 minutes, the audience guessing, and often a film clip or other kind of demonstration. The panelists just didn\'t have time to ask that many questions.
The ABC Password improved on the original series in a couple of ways, particularly in allowing only 6 clues instead of 10. The CBS Password could get draggy at times when the teams struggled to guess a word at those low values, and they were frequently far afield by then anyway. By allowing contestants to continue playing beyond two games, the show also became more suspenseful. (Although in the one-loss-and-out format of 1971-73, a sharp player could quickly shut their opponent out--perhaps this was improved in the best-two-of-three format, which I haven\'t seen.)
The single-player format of the 1989 Now You See It seems better to me than the rather unnecessary use of teams on the original (which I otherwise like a lot).
Regarding the Star Wheel: I know that for a short time, they had a restriction on picking the same celebrity. (I don\'t remember whether you had to go through all the celebs regardless of outcome, or if you just couldn\'t pick one you\'d won with.) I\'d be curious to know whey they dropped it. I had a different solution to always picking Richard, which is to tie it to the Audience Match: If you choose the answer that a celeb gives you, you have to play with that celeb. If you go on your own, you have to choose one of the other three.
I thought the change in Shopping prize progression from NBC\'s $ale of the Century (car>cash>Lot) to the syndicated version (car>all prizes on stage>Lot) was a necessary amendment. It made more sense for an additional cash purse to be the final step up the mountain for the gutsy, skilled player. It also made for very exciting television.
Granted, when a player went for the cash on the NBC version, it was just as tense. I was just surprised that the Lot came after. Of course, except for one player, the champions would take the money and run, rather than add additional tax burdens. When they made it where you had to get the Lot to get the cash, it was a better structure overall.
The Inquisitive One
I had a different solution to always picking Richard, which is to tie it to the Audience Match: If you choose the answer that a celeb gives you, you have to play with that celeb. If you go on your own, you have to choose one of the other three.
...and now everyone picks Richard for the audience match first, and STILL play with him an inordinate amount of the time.
After retiring a ten-time winner they would play two crossword games to have the two new Sprint challengers, and it was very tedious. Scrabble is meant to be a fast-moving game, or at least one that doesn\'t plod along with all the vigor of a beached whale. The fact that you say \"timing issues aside\" means you acknowledge that there wasn\'t enough time for two crosswords, the two Sprint rounds and the bonus. It was the same issue that was present on Davidson squares: the stars taking up so much time that you can\'t play more than two questions in the third game. Would anyone here call that a feature of the show as opposed to a negative?Why was there any need to either straddle or not have the champ play the front game outside of the one time he/she would have? To me it opened up the game and it allowed it to proceed as it should have timing issues aside.
I think the Tatletales change to all what used to be called \"quickies\" in the long run actually helped. At first I disliked it. But after a while it was clear it gave all the couples a chance to talk on all the questions and moved the show along.
Travis, I could have sworn you said that you prefer the format that came before it (1984-1986 one). I personally prefer the 1986-1990 one.
I was going to suggest \"Dice Game\" but I\'m not so clear on the early rules. For some who may not know, zeroes and the numbers 7 through 9 were also in the price with the earliest playings....If a 1 or 6 was rolled, was the option there to go lower than a 1 or higher than a 6? I remember seeing an early playing of the game when GSN got TPiR and nearly fell out of my chair when the player lost with one of the numbers being an 8...
Add me as another vote for \"Wheel getting rid of shopping.\" And unlike most, I generally don\'t mind their constant addition of new gimmicks over the years. Sure, a few have been clunkers (Double Play, Megaword), and a couple I wouldn\'t mind seeing again (the categories with an extra question after them, like Slogan, Where Are We?, or Fill In the Blank), but I generally don\'t mind the constant tweaking over the years.
I also agree with TPIR expanding to an hour. I hadn\'t really thought of the \"odd one out\" problem that half-hour episodes present.
Another one I\'m surprised wasn\'t brought up yet: Jeopardy! redoing the buzzer system so that you can\'t ring in until after Alex finishes reading the clue. Didn\'t they sometimes have problems with people buzzing in too soon, or two podia lighting up at the same time?
Didn\'t they sometimes have problems with people buzzing in too soon, or two podia lighting up at the same time?
Not the latter, there was never a problem with the lockout system (at least nothing that ever aired).
According to a book by one of the show\'s clue writers, smart players would assume (reasonably, in most cases) that they\'d know the first few clues in any given category, so those players would ring in as soon as they were able to do so, usually before Alex had even begun reading a clue. This presented two big problems for the show. inevitably, there would be clues that the player didn\'t know after all, but the show still had to tick away those precious seconds while he stands there blankly. Secondly, some players weren\'t nearly as smart as they thought they were, and the result would be large negative scores. This would be a particular problem late in the game when someone tried desperately to catch up.
Forcing the players to wait took care of those problems, but created a game which, especially in the early round, became less about knowledge and more about eye-hand coordination.
Forcing the players to wait took care of those problems, but created a game which, especially in the early round, became less about knowledge and more about eye-hand coordination.
Aw, you\'re just bitter because you lost against Ken Jennings. :-P
According to a book by one of the show\'s clue writers, smart players would assume (reasonably, in most cases) that they\'d know the first few clues in any given category, so those players would ring in as soon as they were able to do so, usually before Alex had even begun reading a clue. This presented two big problems for the show. inevitably, there would be clues that the player didn\'t know after all, but the show still had to tick away those precious seconds while he stands there blankly. Secondly, some players weren\'t nearly as smart as they thought they were, and the result would be large negative scores. This would be a particular problem late in the game when someone tried desperately to catch up.
Was this also a problem in the Fleming version? They maintained the \"ring in when the answer is exposed\" rule throughout the run and from what I\'ve seen, there weren\'t many awkward pauses.
Was this also a problem in the Fleming version? They maintained the \"ring in when the answer is exposed\" rule throughout the run and from what I\'ve seen, there weren\'t many awkward pauses.
I\'d like to answer with a quote from Bill Cullen about game show contestants:
\"They used to play it for fun, to get on the air and have their friends see them. You\'d give them a thousand dollars and you made their year. Now, unless it\'s twenty or thirty thousand dollars, they look at you like you suckered them into a deal that really didn\'t turn out as well as they perhaps had hoped.\"
In the case of Jeopardy, the original game, for all its highbrow reputation, was not all that different than other daytime affairs of the day. It was a harmless trifle, played mostly by East Coast housewives. When the 80s stakes were a lot larger (not to mention all-or-nothing), more people started taking the game more seriously, and exploiting its modest flaws became a LOT more commonplace. The powers-that-be, which were an essentially different group than for the original show, decided a change was necessary
Aw, you\'re just bitter because you lost against Ken Jennings. :-P
FWIW, I\'m pretty sure I was better at the hand-eye thing than he was. His depth of knowledge, though, was off the charts.
Before the changes Pat Finn wrought, there were the changes to the bonus game on \"The Joker\'s Wild\" during the CBS years. I\'m not crazy about the one they ended up with, but it was more exciting than its processors. Having the player get up and meet Jack at the big arm helped, too.
Despite all they did wrong, I did like what Rossi\'s Temptation did with the final act on $ale. I liked that they went back to shopping for the big prizes, yet the idea of the bonus round to earn more shopping money added some action. The bonus round could have been better, but then so could the whole show.
I\'m aware I\'m in the minority on this, but there were some aspects of TJW90 that I actually liked more than in the original run. The random money amounts, the direct clues over the long-winded softy questions and a more interesting end game (matching over devil avoiding). The category format slowed it way down though. Overall, I dug it.
Though it may not be all that major, the switch from three final questions to a speed round on Sale definitely made it more exciting.
Another one I\'m surprised wasn\'t brought up yet: Jeopardy! redoing the buzzer system so that you can\'t ring in until after Alex finishes reading the clue. Didn\'t they sometimes have problems with people buzzing in too soon, or two podia lighting up at the same time?
Wouldn\'t the logical solution be to not start the timer until Alex has called on them?
Wouldn\'t the logical solution be to not start the timer until Alex has called on them?
I\'m pretty sure the on-podium timers didn\'t exist until after the rule change was implemented.