The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: Winkfan on March 08, 2004, 04:45:04 PM
-
In case you may forget, this coming Saturday's edition of Blockbusters (3/13/04 on GSN) will feature the 'swan song' of Liz & Pat McCarthy.
Cordially,
Tammy Warner--the 'Nanette Fabray of the Big Board!'
-
Very excited.....i was worried GSN would end up pulling the show before Pzt & Liz finished their run! Looks like we'll see even more of the series though......=)
j
-
According to the Adlink schedules, Blockbusters keeps it twice-a-week showings (10:00 AM Eastern Sat-Sun) as long as the schedules run. Which is through the end of April.
Not to get an argument going (who, ME?) but what's so great about Blockbusters, anyway? It's a pretty routine quizzer, kinda slow, not particularly suspenseful. Mr. Cullen still launches a zinger or two, but the gameplay just sort of moseys along. An okay time-filler on GSN weekends but hardly a gem of the genre, IMO.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 06:21 AM\'] Not to get an argument going (who, ME?) but what's so great about Blockbusters, anyway? It's a pretty routine quizzer, kinda slow, not particularly suspenseful. Mr. Cullen still launches a zinger or two, but the gameplay just sort of moseys along. An okay time-filler on GSN weekends but hardly a gem of the genre, IMO. [/quote]
It's got that old time 70s/80's feel to it, a game board that isn't computer generated, neat strategy as they have miniaturized Hex to work on a game-show-sized board, and an endgame you can play along with and is fast-paced.
What's so great about Lingo, anyway?
-
What's so great about Lingo, anyway?
Apparently the ratings ain't too awful. It's one of the Three Musketeers that rescued GSN's prime time numbers from the oblivion of last August and September. Somehow, I don't think Blockbusters would have done quite so well.
It's kind of funny, but your main praise of the show relates to what it's not. I'll agree the show's not computer-generated, and its 80's feel means it's not like shows nowadays. Which, in fact, is probably Blockbusters' main attraction. It's a slow-pokey, old-fashioned show that some viewers feel comfortable with.
Like I said, a nice filler for GSN weekends. But not exactly a candidate for the top twenty game shows of all time.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 09:30 AM\'] Apparently the ratings ain't too awful.
[/quote]
Yeah, and most television viewers are idiots, what's your point? C'mon, you started this, don't dodge the question by saying "well, lots of people watch it, so it must be good." Tell me what it has that Blockbusters doesn't.
(I'll start: A ditzy co-host, a Chyroned game board (yawn, though I admit there isn't much way around it in this case), a broken scoring system slapped on in an effort to self-contain a show that wasn't originally, and a bonus game that can often be more than a little anticlimactic.)
But not exactly a candidate for the top twenty game shows of all time.
Then we agree to disagree (hey, what's new), because I'm pretty sure it would make my Top 20 rather comfortably.
-
Great theme, great host, great game. I also liked the computerized Rafferty version with the new theme, so the game was the constant that proved the show was solid. I don't know if I ever mentioned this, but I would schedule my classes at Michigan around the show. I would get up for 8 am classes, watch the clock for a couple hours and make sure I was at the dorm's TV lounge by 10:30 to watch the show (usually I was the only one there) and rush to get back to class around 11:05. This routine ended in April of 82 with the show but the dorm got cable in early 83 and soon thereafter there were crowds of kids in the lounge all the time to watch this newfangled MTV. No more game shows in the lounge :(
-
Well, okay, if you insist. But first, since when are most television viewers idiots? My guess is that most television viewers have just as much good sense as television viewers Casey Abell and Chris Lemon...if not more.
Anyhoo, Lingo offers the best play-along value of any game show I've seen, with the possible exception of Jeopardy. At least, it gets me talking to the screen more than any show except the Trebek epic. The scoring system is well designed to allow comebacks and tight games, especially since they went to five and sometime six puzzles in the first round for the third season. The bonus round is very fast-paced and ranks well in the history of the genre. Not quite the Winner's Circle, but not very far away. (It's anti-climactic no more often than the last twenty seconds and the post-mortem of the Winner's Circle are anti-climactic.) The icon host keeps things light but doesn't step on the gameplay.
The routine trashtalk about Stacey has been hashed over so often on the GSN boards that it's hardly worth another look. She handles some bookkeeping and smooths transitions between puzzles and on the judging decisions. I don't mind her at all, but her role is so minor that complaints about her always strike me as not so much wrong as just beside the point. She certainly hasn't affected gameplay in the third season.
By the way, since you put Blockbusters in your top twenty, I'll give you my Select Score:
Match Game
Lingo
Family Feud
Jeopardy
Millionaire
Pyramid
Wheel of Fortune
Russian Roulette
I've Got a Secret
Newlywed Game
Cram
Greed
Win Ben Stein's Money
You Bet Your Life
Love Connection
Scrabble
Remote Control
Dating Game
Name That Tune
Beat the Clock
Easy to see that my tastes run toward quizzers, interview shows, word games and stunt shows. Comedy is always helpful, which means Match Game and Family Feud get in, though they don't quite fit into any of these categories. FWIW, I voted the top dozen for the recent GSN Feast of Faves, and saw six come home winners.
My biggest blind spot is probably shopping games, which leads to my biggest heresy, the omissions of TPiR and LMAD. No offense to Messrs. Barker and Hall, who ran (and run) these shows as well as anybody's ever run any show. But relentlessly shopping for bargains and deals has never fascinated me in real life or video life.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 11:55 AM\'] No more game shows in the lounge :( [/quote]
I remember having my lunch break from 11-12 back in '95 when I was in college...If I got to the TV lounge first, TPiR would go on, if not, there was a large group of people watching The Jerry Springer Show.....
TPiR actually did attract a good amount of people if it was on....Which may have attributed to the fact that another talk show (The Jenny Jones show) aired at 10 on the same station...
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 11:19 AM\'] I remember having my lunch break from 11-12 back in '95 when I was in college...If I got to the TV lounge first, TPiR would go on, if not, there was a large group of people watching The Jerry Springer Show.....
[/quote]
The student union was where I got my first exposure to PYL (a few weeks after Randy had appeared--which I never saw because the Indianapolis CBS affil only cleared PYL during "standard" time). Granted, I didn't think much of it--but I was so used to watching $otC in that time slot anyway that I let that cloud my judgement. Pretty soon I realized it was a neat little game (I had never seen SECOND CHANCE, so I had no basis for that comparison). But given the choice in my dorm room, I usually watched $otC.
Thank G-d Springer's show wasn't on in those days--I don't think any game show would have been on the student union television opposite him.
EDIT: And to bring this back to the topic of BB, I always considered BB very underrated myself. Good play-along value, great host.
Doug -- soon to celebrate 400 posts (last time I'll be writing that)
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 10:17 AM\'] By the way, since you put Blockbusters in your top twenty, I'll give you my Select Score:
[/quote]
And this proves we're arguing from completely different universes, because I simply can't fathom anyone who would include Love-friggin'-Connection in their Top 20, especially to the exclusion of Concentration, Password, TPiR (you DID explain that, tho), Whew!, or Joker's Wild.
To each their own, tho. I'm thinking it's best to agree to disagree here and move on. :)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 08:22 AM\']What's so great about Lingo, anyway?[/quote]
I have at least 2500 reasons why I think "Lingo" is great...
JOSH
-
[quote name=\'matchgame\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 01:41 PM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 08:22 AM\']What's so great about Lingo, anyway?[/quote]
I have at least 2500 reasons why I think "Lingo" is great...
JOSH [/quote]
What about that Croton watch? :-)
-
Fair enough, though I simply don't like the pace of Concentration, Password or TJW. If a show is going to concentrate (sorry) on the gameplay, move the gameplay along a little quicker or make the gameplay a little more suspenseful.
Never saw Whew. The show's thirteen months brushed past me.
Interview shows that actually tend to leave the game show premises are a weakness of mine. Ever since I was a kid and watched Groucho basically ignore the "gameplay" to spar with the contestants, I've liked shows that allowed a talented host to play off the surroundings while letting the less than all-important game slide.
Woolery was perfect for Love Connection, and he's the only reason the show lasted over a decade. His persona - part serious, part goofy, part horndog - couldn't have been better for the datefest. He kept the show from total sleaze but allowed enough naughtiness to tease the viewer. And he rightly and obviously regarded the "gameplay" as an afterthought.
I'll admit the host (or panel) is crucial here. A computer could host great gameplay like Jeopardy's...and some people say that's exactly what we have. But as I look over the interview shows on my list - IGaS, Newlywed Game, Love Connection, You Bet Your Life - the critical importance of the personalities becomes clear. Really, it's not much of an extension to include my fave game show ever, Match Game.
None of these are really game shows in the sense that the game is all-important, or even the most important. And without the right people in front of the camera, these shows would fail with a thud. Maybe that's why I'm not nearly as upset as some others about GSN's timid move into non-traditional shows.
Of course, I'm not bothered by the hobgoblin of little minds, either. So I've included lots of shows where the game's the thing: Lingo, Millionaire, Pyramid, Jeopardy, etc.
-
[quote name=\'matchgame\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 01:41 PM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 08:22 AM\']What's so great about Lingo, anyway?[/quote]
I have at least 2500 reasons why I think "Lingo" is great...
JOSH [/quote]
True, but what did you think about Naturally Stoned? :-)
I don't want to read too much into what you said but you did say "at least 2500 reasons". Does this mean you took part in the Tournament of Champions? If you can't expound on that, I fully understand.
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 10:51 AM\']What about that Croton watch? :-)[/quote]
Forgot about that... I treat it as a collector's item. Granted, it was sent to me in a bubble-wrap envelope, but it's not something everybody has. So with that said, I'll be putting it up on eBay later today ;-)
JOSH
-
I've always scratched my head as to why people love Cram so much. To me, it's a disorganized mess of rounds stolen from different shows [1st round from Talk About, with honorable mention to Double Dare for the wheels; 2nd round, Shop til you Drop] Any show that has to have its model do a phone sex parody to promote it should have never left the drawing board, IMO. If you like the show, fine, but I just can't believe anyone ranking it as one of the 20 greatest game shows of all time.
Now, here's mine. Load your cannons, Casey, you're gonna LOVE this. :-)
1. Hollywood Squares
2. Match Game
(2.5. Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour)
3. Bullseye
4. The Price is Right
5. Tic Tac Dough
6. Starcade
7. The Joker's Wild
8. Cross-Wits
9. Go!
10. Concentration
11. Password Plus/Super Password
12. Card Sharks
13. Name That Tune
14. Press Your Luck
15. Break the Bank '76
16. Spin-Off
17. $xxx,xxx Pyramid
18. Play the Percentages
19. Scrabble
20. Whodunnit? (now who remembers THIS show?)
Honorable Mention: 21, (Super) Millionaire, Sale of the Century
But first, since when are most television viewers idiots?
When The Batchelor became a hit.
-
I just wanted to point out one other good thing about Blockbusters. It's impossible to have a tie. It doesn't matter how stupid the contestants are; as long as someone eventually gets each space that's called for, eventually someone will make their connection.
-
Different strokes. I can't believe anybody ranks Bullseye as the third best show of all time. That would make WinTuition the second best. Or maybe the first best.
If I have to choose between the slapstick and silliness of Cram or the sheer snooze of Bullseye, it's not a hard decision. Unless I really need a nap.
Also hard to see why PYL gets in but Whammy doesn't.
And finally, Feud, Jeopardy and WoF have to get in someplace. But if I can have heresy by excluding TPiR...
What the hey. Difference of opinion makes the horse race. This list, by the way, mostly confirms my cynical definition of a classic. It also plays pretty well into that hilarious post the Kid made a few days ago on the GSN board: "The Theory of Game Show Classicivity."
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 08:21 AM\'] It's a pretty routine quizzer, kinda slow, not particularly suspenseful. Mr. Cullen still launches a zinger or two, but the gameplay just sort of moseys along. An okay time-filler on GSN weekends but hardly a gem of the genre, IMO. [/quote]
I think the show is quite underrated.
You have a game board that provides more intrigue and possibilities than, say, a Tic-Tac-Dough setup, without being so complicated that you can't pick it up easily (connect red to red, white to white... it's all sitting right there, they even politely flash the relevant colors when somebody scores.)
You have a moderately interesting concept (solo vs. family pair) that gives the players and the host something to talk about. This concept was arguably a failure as it was pretty clear that the solo player had an advantage most of the time, but a good concept nonetheless.
I don't think it was terribly slow-moving. Maybe not a lightning pace, but you could get through a game in four questions, and the back-and-forth slugfests could be quite entertaining. The guaranteed winner was also a very nice touch. And the money really wasn't bad at all.
And while the 10/20-time winners on Blockbusters maybe don't get the same adulation as Jeopardy Super Duper Grand Masters Of Ultimate Maximumness, I personally got a kick out of watching the players at the top of their game steamroll the opposition time and time again. And it didn't require 30 minutes of watching Jeopardy to get there, another big plus in my book.
For the "students of the genre", there's a lot of value as well...
- the gameboard itself, a neat and (usually) smooth-running hack of the analog era
- A set design that's a little dynamic, but cleverly keeps Cullen in one place
- strategies for "experienced" viewers to rant about (such as "no, you dolt, you should have taken T! You'd have had three opportunities to win then!")
-
[quote name=\'jcompton\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 09:25 PM\']it was pretty clear that the solo player had an advantage most of the time[/quote]
Try telling Pat and Liz McCarthy that. :-p
Seriously, If I'm recalling the last episode's stats correctly, I believe the family pairs came out slightly ahead. Of course, I'm sure there are those among us who can probably rattle off the numbers off the tops of their heads. :)
-
I think the show is quite underrated.
Welcome to the board! I don't know that Blockbusters is underrated around here. I seem to have brought out every fan the show ever had. I'm not saying the show is terrible. It's a nice amiable quizzer that ambles along. I just don't think that it was one of the greatest game shows ever.
Gotta wonder, what's your beef with Jeopardy?
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 09:08 AM\']
Welcome to the board! [/quote]
Jcompton was a regular on Usenet, even though it may be his first post on this board.
-
[quote name=\'jcompton\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 12:25 AM\'] [quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 08:21 AM\'] It's a pretty routine quizzer, kinda slow, not particularly suspenseful. Mr. Cullen still launches a zinger or two, but the gameplay just sort of moseys along. An okay time-filler on GSN weekends but hardly a gem of the genre, IMO. [/quote]
I think the show is quite underrated. [/quote]
I agree with you JCompton, but would like to add a few things you neglected: the format of having questions categorized by one-word answers beginning with a certain letter. The category types on shows like J!, TTD, TJW, and so on, seem fairly similar and conventional to me: History, British Lit, Movies, and so on.
The other good thing was that you could buzz in in the middle of a question and answer without hearing the end of it. On questions where the writers gave two definitions for the same word, this made both for some fun wrong answers, and some interesting risk-taking.
IMO the worst thing about Blockbusters was Cullen's pacing -- the show goes far too slow for my tastes.
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 10:06 AM\']
IMO the worst thing about Blockbusters was Cullen's pacing -- the show goes far too slow for my tastes. [/quote]
CUllen didn't slow the pacing until maybe six months into the show's run. Maybe that was GT's request that he do that. This was around the time Password PLus changed its maingame format and added the progressive Alphabetics jackpots. Maybe NBC or GT didn't want more than one bonus round played per show in most cases, and these changes were done for that reason.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 09:08 AM\'] Gotta wonder, what's your beef with Jeopardy? [/quote]
I've never found it, and straight quiz shows in general, terribly engaging. While I at least respect that Jeopardy tends to reward the most knowledgeable contestants (unlike, say, Weakest Link), watching people knock down trivia questions one by one with very little to break it up just doesn't ring my bell. The occasional A/V question and betting strategies don't raise my interest level any, either. Personal preference.
I actually avoided Millionaire for a while for that very reason, although during the main ABC run I discovered that the other elements of the presentation (music, host, stakes) made it more interesting to me, at least for a time.
I don't know that Blockbusters is underrated around here. I seem to have brought out every fan the show ever had.
I'm not arguing for a National Blockbusters Observance Day, but I think a lot of "game show scholars" tend to lump it the way you do: just sort of "there." That, in my book, is underrating it. :)
Fedya:
I agree with you JCompton, but would like to add a few things you neglected: the format of having questions categorized by one-word answers beginning with a certain letter. The category types on shows like J!, TTD, TJW, and so on, seem fairly similar and conventional to me: History, British Lit, Movies, and so on.
The first-letter thing was a nice touch and helped keep the game moving along--your path to victory wouldn't be stopped by being a poor history student or whatever. Plus it helped cue contestants (and play-at-home viewers) as to what the answer might be, which a school of game show design says is a Good Thing, yes. I don't think that element in itself would put BB on a pedestal in my mind above the shows you mentioned, although it probably doesn't hurt.
-
No question that Jeopardy is a "straight" quizzer. It's a very fast-paced, challenging one as well, with great play-along value. It pulls me into the game immediately, and the pace doesn't let go.
Strangely enough, I think Jeopardy may actually be the underrated show among what you flatteringly call "game show scholars." I just call us game show freaks "game show freaks." The show missed GSN's Feast of Favorites both years, which I know is an imperfect measure distorted by bloc voting and a self-selected sample. But it's still something of a surprise.
After all, the show's been on forever, all the way back to the sixties with Art Fleming. It's enjoyed very successful network and syndie runs. Day in, day out, it attracts a large, loyal audience.
Which may be exactly why game show freaks underrate it and get sentimental over far more obscure shows. Jeopardy is too much "everybody's property," much like Wheel of Fortune (which also missed out on this year's Feast of Faves).
-
Different strokes. I can't believe anybody ranks Bullseye as the third best show of all time. That would make WinTuition the second best. Or maybe the first best.
Pure taste. I liked Bullseye, and gave it a straight across the board vote in the Feast.
If I have to choose between the slapstick and silliness of Cram or the sheer snooze of Bullseye, it's not a hard decision. Unless I really need a nap.
You say that as if you speak for everybody, which you don't.
There's a reason Bullseye made the Feast and Cram didn't.
Also hard to see why PYL gets in but Whammy doesn't.
I just liked PYL more. Perhaps because the winnings typically were higher than on W!, but maybe not.
This list, by the way, mostly confirms my cynical definition of a classic. It also plays pretty well into that hilarious post the Kid made a few days ago on the GSN board: "The Theory of Game Show Classicivity."
Bull. Pure and utter bull. I like what I like, and if it ain't on GSN, it ain't on GSN.
You know, I can't possibly be the only one sick of hearing you constantly whining about your "cynical definition of a classic." Stop trying to police other people's likes and dislikes. I can ignore it at GSN, but there's no technology for me to do the same here.
-
People are entitled to their own tastes. Hell, I like "The Name's The Same".
Don't tell anybody.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 02:13 PM\'] But it's still something of a surprise.
[/quote]
Not hardly. Unless the option to vote for a certain era of the show was there (and it wasn't), why would people vote for Jeopardy when it's been on five days a week pretty much continuously for twenty friggin' years?
much like Wheel of Fortune (which also missed out on this year's Feast of Faves).
Fancy that. Same argument.
which I know is an imperfect measure distorted by bloc voting and a self-selected sample.
No, it's an imperfect measure because it's NOT A DETERMINATION OF QUALITY. It was a poll asking people what shows they would like to see in a marathon. "What shows I would like to watch on a one-shot basis" and "what shows are my favorites" are two distinct different lists.
I am SO TIRED of people pointing to that damn poll and trying to pull any useful metrics out of it, because it simply wasn't designed to produce them.
-
[quote name=\'jcompton\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 03:17 PM\'] I'm not arguing for a National Blockbusters Observance Day [/quote]
Oh, let's have one of those. Truly. Let's do. Oct 27, 2005--the 25th anniversary of
the premiere. That's a Thursday. Bob Hilton can be the guest of honor. Save the date.
-
You know, I can't possibly be the only one sick of hearing you constantly whining about your "cynical definition of a classic." Stop trying to police other people's likes and dislikes.
You seem to be the policeman around here. My idea is: I give my opinions, you give your opinions. Let's stop saying that either of us is "pure and utter bull" or that we're "sick of hearing" either set of opinions. It's the least constructive kind of debate that I can imagine.
Your list mostly contained shows that aren't on GSN right now. So, yes, it did tend to confirm the cynical definition. Why can't I point out that fact?
Also, you must have missed the vertical pronoun in my opinion of Cram vs. Bullseye. I made it very clear that I was giving my own opinion and not speaking for anybody else except little old me. I give my opinions, you give your opinions. The opinions differ. Live and let live.
No, it's an imperfect measure because it's NOT A DETERMINATION OF QUALITY. It was a poll asking people what shows they would like to see in a marathon. "What shows I would like to watch on a one-shot basis" and "what shows are my favorites" are two distinct different lists.
Good point, but I think people tend to merge the two lists in their voting. I know I did. After all, I don't really want to watch shows that aren't favorites of mine on a one-shot or an any-shot basis. It IS called a Feast of Favorites, not a Feast Of Shows You Want To See On A One-Shot Basis.
And yes, I know the metric is imperfect for the reasons I gave in my original post. But it's still interesting that the two top shows in syndication didn't make the top twelve.
Sure, those shows are on "five days a week pretty much continuously." But most of the shows that made the Twelve were on all the time on GSN, too. Millionaire, Lingo and Match Game all made it, and they were on so often in prime time that not much of anything else was on.
No, I think Jeopardy and WoF just don't have the same cachet for game show freaks (or scholars) as lesser-known shows that have long been off the air, or are only available on GSN. Of the twelve in this year's Feast, only two - Feud and Millionaire - were available anywhere except GSN. Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, Pyramid and Hollywood Squares all missed.
In fact, you seem to be edging close to this opinion when you point out that Jeopardy and WoF have been in syndication continuously for twenty years. By now they really are everybody's property.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 11 2004, 06:53 AM\'] You seem to be the policeman around here. My idea is: I give my opinions, you give your opinions. [/quote]
No, your idea seems to be to imagine that your opinions are going to anger a mysterious class of people called "traditionalists", and to drop hints here about your posts on GSN, and vice versa. And if anyone calls you on that, to go into a "you're the policeman; who are you to criticize me" defense.
It's old and it's tired. State your position and stop there.
-
It's old and it's tired. State your position and stop there.
Truth to tell, you've posted this same complaint about me on this board and the GSN board four times in the last two days, and several times before.
I'll try to take your advice. Maybe you should do the same.
-
[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 06:01 PM\']People are entitled to their own tastes. Hell, I like "The Name's The Same".
Don't tell anybody.[/quote]
I knew I couldn't be the only one who liked NTS.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 11 2004, 09:21 AM\'] Maybe you should do the same. [/quote]
Should do the same... what?
And please notice, I'm not the only one pointing this out. Not by a long shot.
-
Should do the same... what?
Should take the same advice you offered me and avoid "old and stale" comments...such as your attacks on me over GSN's new programming direction.
For anybody who's interested, this whole discussion is continuing on the GSN Originals and In General boards. I'm trying to keep it as non-old and non-stale as I can.
-
[quote name=\'David Lawrence\' date=\'Mar 11 2004, 11:38 AM\'] [quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 06:01 PM\']People are entitled to their own tastes. Hell, I like "The Name's The Same".
Don't tell anybody.[/quote]
I knew I couldn't be the only one who liked NTS. [/quote]
I even liked it with Bob and Ray.
-
I can remember The Name's The Same from its days on GSN's B&W block. Robert Q. Lewis had an off-beat sense of humor that kept the game lively enough. Gene Rayburn, looking like he was just past puberty, would show up now and then on the panel and generate chuckles.
The same-name gimmick did get a little old, so I can see why the show didn't make it past its fourth year. But it was good for some laughs.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 11 2004, 10:23 AM\']
Should do the same... what?
Should take the same advice you offered me and avoid "old and stale" comments...such as your attacks on me over GSN's new programming direction.
For anybody who's interested, this whole discussion is continuing on the GSN Originals and In General boards. I'm trying to keep it as non-old and non-stale as I can. [/quote]
This is unbelievable. Please stop bringing references to GSN's boards in here. I've been smacked down for it before, myself.
I have not made any "attacks on [you] over GSN's new programming direction". I am just one of several that wish you'd drop the pretense of needing to spread the word about how you're battling the traditionalists, or even that a "traditionalist" group-think exists. There's a broad spectrum of likes and dislikes.
-
Fair enough, no reason to continue here.
-
Anyways.....next Saturday is a good day for the people who like Blockbusters and the people who want to watch Blockbusters =)
j
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Mar 11 2004, 12:24 PM\']I even liked it with Bob and Ray.[/quote]
I've only seen RQL-hosted episodes.
I don't rank NTS up there with WML or IGAS, but it's a nice little show. Lewis is a good moderator, occasional panel appearances from "youngsters" like Rayburn & Cullen are fun, and the idea of panelists handing out checks to contestants is certainly unusual.
As far as the Blockbusters vs. Lingo debate, I enjoy both shows a great deal; but the presence of Cullen and that great theme give BB the edge when ranking my own Top 20.
-
[quote name=\'mctoyboy\' date=\'Mar 11 2004, 12:36 PM\'] Anyways.....next Saturday is a good day for the people who like Blockbusters and the people who want to watch Blockbusters =)
j [/quote]
I've heard that, yes. To continue, does anyone know what happened to Liz after she graduated from (as Cullen said) the "University of Harvard"?
-
I myself would love to see a Bob and Ray Hosted NTS. I love their humor and I heard it didn't translate well to television.
Tim Lones
-
I have heard that Tom Kennedy makes an appearance promoting Password +, does anyone know if this has aired yet or when it should air? Thanks!
-
FWIW:
"Blockbusters" could be played much faster (I've seen a clip of the most recent UK version and Liza Tarbuck ran things a lot faster than Cullen did--and I assume Bob Holness kept up the same pace)--it's just that either Bill or Rob Sherman wanted to play it slower, for whatever reason. It wouldn't work with any host, but somehow with Cullen it seems to work for me (I never saw Bill Raferty's version, so I don't know how much faster his pace was, but it had to be faster). In addition, it is a well-crafted format, to which Steve Ryan deserves the kudos. It deserved better than it got here in the U.S. (and if Mandel's reading this, how about pitching the show to The N as a teen format--or are they simply not interested over there in studio games?). The only problem is Mother MacKenzie's hyperactivity, but that's endemic to any NBC Burbank game show back then.
As for "Cram," yeah, you could nitpick its influences all you could, but it worked for me late at night in its modest, admittedly silly way. Whether it'll work at 8 a.m. Chicago time on a Saturday morning--well, we'll have to see about that.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Mar 15 2004, 08:22 PM\'] The only problem is Mother MacKenzie's hyperactivity, but that's endemic to any NBC Burbank game show back then.
[/quote]
Maybe it's me, but the McKenzie track for BB I thought was considerably muted compared to other NBC games of the day. There were audience tracks that NBC used in its various games that were much more "hyper" (the ones primarily used by GONG and HSq spring to mind immediately [which also got plenty of use on many of NBC's other Burbank-based shows]--although the various reaction tracks could be mixed and matched at the sweetener's discretion [or even someone higher up]).
Of course, most people probably couldn't tell the difference or even cared to tell the difference between the various tracks that NBC used. Guess I'm a little goofy in that respect (for probably more reasons than just that one ;-) ).
Doug