I caught an interview the other night from CBS This Morning circa 1990-1991. Mark Goodson was talking about his company legacy, and how some games didn\'t seem to have the pizazz necessary to survive the 90s, but To Tell the Truth was going to try.
What game shows of the past have the hardest time finding relevancy today? The right star and venue could make anything a success, sure, but I don\'t imagine we\'ll see You Bet Your Life make a comeback anywhere near the form it was originally successful in.
As you start to go forward in the overall game show timeline, the question gets muddier. Is To Tell the Truth itself past the diminishing point of audience attention spans? For me personally, it\'s a show I run hot and cold on. Sometimes I\'m in the mood to play along, other times the questioning makes me reach for the remote.
We\'ve also talked about Password before. The last time it was on TV, it was jazzed up significantly from the earlier versions. But a lot of us respond to Jimmy Fallon\'s late night Password skits, and they do them with some regularity. Could a form of that work in the same vain as @midnight, perhaps?
-Jason
Just about any game show could be \"relevant\". I think that Name That Tune and Tattletales would have a difficult uphill climb reaching a level of consciousness that would make it a worthwhile proposition. For me the most recent iteration of T^4 would have been more palatable if the show had eschewed the salacious in favor of the remarkable (though I did like the one segment about the Poop Moose candy dispenser. That was neat.)What game shows of the past have the hardest time finding relevancy today? The right star and venue could make anything a success, sure, but I don\'t imagine we\'ll see You Bet Your Life make a comeback anywhere near the form it was originally successful in.
The hard part for Tattletales to get back on wouldn\'t necessarily be the idea of gossip - it\'s finding couples that are married for more than a couple of minutes, IMO.
In addition to the audience games Fallon and Letterman play, I think Hollywood Game Night shows that a simple game like Password could work. However, I think the latter would work more as either a mini-game, or as a round in a revival*.
The GSN revival of I\'ve Got a Secret from the mid-2000s was enjoyable, but the retro shtick got old, and I didn\'t think the all-gay panel really added much to the show. Make it a light-hearted enough effort (maybe a few drinks to loosen the mood), and even add a little innuendo**, and I think it\'s a nice late night show. Same for What\'s My Line. Something like $100-500 for every \"No\" or something...maybe even less than that.
I think part of the issue with Name That Tune is finding the middle ground of popular music. If the show goes for pretty 20-somethings, then most of your music is going to come from the last 10 years with the occasional 80s or 90s tune. I\'m not so sure I want to hear an orchestral version of Ridin\' Dirty***, nor see the contestants standing in confusion when the band plays a stumper like Nothing Compares 2 U.
*Stay with me here...round 1 is \"Classic Password\", round 2 may use a P+/Super Password) puzzle, winner plays Lightning Round to determine how much Alphabetics is for, and so on. That\'s just off the top of my head to say that I\'m not sure 22 mins. of straight Password works as much in 2014.
**In other words, not a bunch of penile questions.
***Okay, I kinda do
The Joker\'s Wild & Tic-Tac Dough.
Both shows are traditional Q&A quizzers, and were the most poorly-rated, in terms of GSN rerun ratings (according to Jamie Locklin), despite being on the schedule for several years.
The Joker\'s Wild & Tic-Tac Dough.
Both shows are traditional Q&A quizzers, and were the most poorly-rated, in terms of GSN rerun ratings, despite being on the schedule for several years.
I don\'t think that means much. Marshall\'s Hollywood Squares was poorly rated, yet Bergeron\'s version ran for six years. Just because people don\'t wanna watch 30-year-old episodes doesn\'t mean they can\'t do well. I love both shows, but they were pretty damn formulaic, just like all the other B&E shows of the late-70s/early-80s.
It was a poor choice of words in that one sentence then, because the crux of my question was to ask which games might be incapable of a revival. \"Relevant\" does cloud the issue.
Tattle Tales is an interesting one. While the star power was never burning white hot in the 70s, I think the continued segmentation of our cultural pie makes that one difficult, no matter how funny the guests may be.
-Jason
I think what folks here are missing is that the Password bits on Fallon are done more for the kitsch value than for the actual game. They might be playing the game seriously, but really, there\'s a reason they are using the old-style set and Higgins is standing up there in horn-rimmed glasses.
So y\'all see \"hey, Password, awesome, they keep doing it so it must be popular! OMG REVIVAL\" and everyone else is seeing \"huh-huh, that\'s old.\" And the latter doesn\'t stand up over a half-hour.
I still think Password+/Super Password could work again without any major changes. I find it to be the best revamped format of the original. I think it is still well paced, even after all these years.
I agree with Brandon in that What\'s My Line?, with $100 per no, could also work. I\'ve constantly thought about panel lineups and mystery guests who could be on versions today. I think it\'d be a lot of fun nowadays.
I think You\'re in the Picture would be the hardest show to revive.
Every time I hear that TattleTales wouldn\'t work, the reason always seems to be about not being able to get couples. I really don\'t think that\'s as big a problem as people want to make it out to be. It was never a requirement that both spouses were in the public eye. Nice when it happened, but not necessary. Anybody you saw on Hollywood Game Night last summer could probably do it, especially as a weekly show.
As much as I love them, though, it seems the traditional panel shows have gone the way of the traditional variety hours.
Every time I hear that TattleTales wouldn\'t work, the reason always seems to be about not being able to get couples. I really don\'t think that\'s as big a problem as people want to make it out to be. It was never a requirement that both spouses were in the public eye. Nice when it happened, but not necessary. Anybody you saw on Hollywood Game Night last summer could probably do it, especially as a weekly show.
As much as I love them, though, it seems the traditional panel shows have gone the way of the traditional variety hours.
Probably- but there still might be one or two that may be viable (I always thought that, with all the advances in makeup and such, Masquarade Party is one that still could work now if circumstances are right)
I still think Password+/Super Password could work again without any major changes. I find it to be the best revamped format of the original. I think it is still well paced, even after all these years.
The only change I could think of is to use Go\'s scoring system (puzzles worth $250, $500, $750, $1,250, game at $1,500) so as to make the first puzzle more meaningful.
I think this marks the first time I have EVER seen someone suggest Go\'s scoring system actually be applied to something ELSE.
I still think Password+/Super Password could work again without any major changes. I find it to be the best revamped format of the original. I think it is still well paced, even after all these years.
The only change I could think of is to use Go\'s scoring system (puzzles worth $250, $500, $750, $1,250, game at $1,500) so as to make the first puzzle more meaningful.
I lol\'d
I\'ve often wondered if Match Game would work better in the present day if the object of the game was to be clever and come up with the most creative double-entendres possible...in other words, it\'d be more of a test of the contestants\' ability to play on words.
Do you have an example handy?I\'ve often wondered if Match Game would work better in the present day if the object of the game was to be clever and come up with the most creative double-entendres possible...in other words, it\'d be more of a test of the contestants\' ability to play on words.
I lol\'d
Shoosh! Don\'t encourage him.At what?
Nick S. couples post on page 1..my quote thing isn\'t working...
I\'ve often wondered if Match Game would work better in the present day if the object of the game was to be clever and come up with the most creative double-entendres possible...in other words, it\'d be more of a test of the contestants\' ability to play on words.
I really doubt that the \'70s MG would work anymore. Two attempts to revive it failed. Back in 1973 we all screamed when someone said \"boobs\" as an answer for the first time; now it\'s said all over the tube and no one bats an eyelash. The \'70s MG is like Laugh-In: a product of its time that belongs to that time and would seem merely \"meh\" today.
I\'ve often wondered if Match Game would work better in the present day if the object of the game was to be clever and come up with the most creative double-entendres possible...in other words, it\'d be more of a test of the contestants\' ability to play on words.
I really doubt that the \'70s MG would work anymore. Two attempts to revive it failed. Back in 1973 we all screamed when someone said \"boobs\" as an answer for the first time; now it\'s said all over the tube and no one bats an eyelash. The \'70s MG is like Laugh-In: a product of its time that belongs to that time and would seem merely \"meh\" today.
This also assumes that the host keeps the game moving at a decent pace, as opposed to having the horn sound just as the third puzzle finishes.
When I was watching the new Whose Line over the summer, I felt like there was less content per episode compared to previous seasons, even though the pace of the show didn\'t really change. Considering that a revived show would already move slower than its prior version, you could have another problem other than just \"How hip is my game?\"
(Travis\' idea for P+/SP won\'t quote for me.) Assuming that you don\'t start on $200 puzzles until three $100\'s are solved, you won\'t have any ties to break! (unless you mean $100-100 and $0-0)
I certainly reject that thesis; The Pyramid didn\'t move any slower than $25k/$100k, and marched at a much faster clip than Pyramid 2002.Considering that a revived show would already move slower than its prior version
How is it that game shows are slower but also have to cater to slower attention spans?
Because people are by and large dumbasses. The key to a happy life is understanding that and figuring out how to live with it.
How is it that game shows are slower but also have to cater to slower attention spans?
Because people are by and large dumbasses. The key to a happy life is understanding that and figuring out how to live with it.
I had an old radio boss who used to say, \"You\'ll never go broke, underestimating the intelligence of your audience.\"
You worked for H.L. Mencken?
As much as I love them, though, it seems the traditional panel shows have gone the way of the traditional variety hours.
I thought GSN\'s I\'ve Got a Secret was well done, good host and panel and probably better game play than the original and, yeah, it failed.
That said, if you got celebrities who played Hollywood Game Night to play What\'s My Line? in prime time with A-tier mystery guests, would it work? It\'s just as captivating as the games on Game Night, but more than the game, it was the panel and stars who made it.
I think the obsolete games are Password and Pyramid. It\'s not the games, but the celebrity partner thing doesn\'t work. Just today, I saw Wallace Something-or-Other giving the clues Africa and Asia for the category \"Countries.\" If you have that low a threshold for fame and still can\'t get decent celebrity players, it doesn\'t work.
Thing is, from the late-70s on, Password and Pyramid were never really about the star power, but they had competent celebrities, which were a little more hit or miss in the Osmond and Richards versions.
I can kinda forgive the Countries goof, as I feel that\'s a common misconception, one of those things you should know, but gives you a brain fart. It\'s still a goof, but I don\'t think I\'d use that as precedent for dumb celebs. That being said, I won\'t say that this latest Pyramid didn\'t have them.
As for What\'s My Line?, I proposed making that a late-night show (say, the 11:00pm hour) for low stakes, more of a lighthearted affair, maybe a few martinis to loosen the panel up. I\'m thinking a Hollywood Game Night kinda vibe.
As much as I love them, though, it seems the traditional panel shows have gone the way of the traditional variety hours.
I thought GSN\'s I\'ve Got a Secret was well done, good host and panel and probably better game play than the original and, yeah, it failed.
That said, if you got celebrities who played Hollywood Game Night to play What\'s My Line? in prime time with A-tier mystery guests, would it work? It\'s just as captivating as the games on Game Night, but more than the game, it was the panel and stars who made it.
The GSN Secret is my cautionary tale of why panel shows probably won\'t work. They did it about as well as I could ask them to, and it didn\'t work.
As much as I love the panel shows, I disagree that they would be as captivating as the games on Hollywood Game Night, primarily for the lack of play-along. I do like Brandon\'s idea of a later show with cocktails. Still, it\'s a format that simply appeals to an older audience. You have to cater to that audience and not pander to a younger one, who won\'t care anyway.
As much as I love them, though, it seems the traditional panel shows have gone the way of the traditional variety hours.
Just today, I saw Wallace Something-or-Other giving the clues Africa and Asia for the category \"Countries.\" If you have that low a threshold for fame and still can\'t get decent celebrity players, it doesn\'t work.
If Wallace was going to go that route, he should\'ve just said \"Australia\". ;-)