The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Ian Wallis on June 10, 2024, 10:22:40 AM
-
Something I'm wondering about:
When a game finishes and not all the questions were used, how quickly would they be put back into gameplay?
Some examples: when a Match Game 7x game was finished in just three questions, would the unused question still be there for the next game, or would they completely change them out and do the unused one later?
Does everything have to be laid out in advance and approved by Standards & Practices? There were instances on Match Game where a question had to be thrown out because a celebrity kind of gave away their answer, and Ira would come on stage with a couple of other cards that would be put into the mix. There was another time where the machine malfunctioned going into a tie-breaker and the second tie-breaker was used rather than the first. Maybe the rules for questions used on that show wasn't that strict?
I know for shows like Jeopardy, their boards are laid out well in advance so questions wouldn't be put back into the mix that quickly, but does it vary from show to show?
Anyone know?
-
I'm sure this is heavily dependent on the era, but modern shows generally stack material for each episode, with plenty of overage and backups to work from in case they're needed. At the end of the season, anything unused goes back into the pool for consideration for season 2.
In the rare event that more backups are needed than were allotted for the episode, they'll generally go into unused questions from previous stacks, but that typically requires a randomization of multiple questions to select one, just so there's no accusation of favoritism by choosing one question over another.
-
does it vary from show to show?
Yes, it absolutely varies. I've worked on modern shows where every episode's worth of material is put together before we tape with no recycling, and shows where it was deliberately designed to start recycling at some point in the season.
Going back, I've seen some paperwork from Match Game '7x and Super Password. Both shows went into the studio with a pool of games that were considered complete units. In MG's case, they had 8, and more or less played them in order, though you'd see instances of them skipping one. Without comparing specific episodes, I can only imagine they would do that because the answers to one question ended up being similar/leading to what was expected for a question in the skipped game. The show's bible accounts for being able to drop questions on the spot, should that happen. But at least in what I saw, if question A wasn't chosen in game 1, round 2, you wouldn't see it until the next airing week, at a minimum.
Nowadays, I imagine Jeopardy! can go awhile before recycling, because they have so much time, material, etc. But ages ago, scans were posted of the show 1 material from 9/10/84. And season 1 was reportedly like a lot of modern season 1s, in that they had less staff, less time, etc.
Looking at those scans, I can see the unpicked $500 Inventions clue didn't replay in any extant episodes. The $500 Foreign Cuisine clue (A stew of various meats, or an old "Jeopardy" category) played on November 26 as a $300 Trivia clue with one phrase added (...a jar of mixed flower petals, or...). The entirely-unplayed Number, Please category showed up again on October 3. Two clues from the unplayed DJ! category Weights & Measures showed up on October 22. Two of the others showed up in May 1985. The unplayed $800 Notorious clue didn't replay in any extant episodes.
-Jason
-
The Password+ bible has this...
C. Main Game Material
The producers will present NBC Compliances and Practices with two matches of five puzzles each, for each one match needed on the show. NBC Compliance and Practices will then select one of the two matches for the show. This shall be done before it has been determined who the next contestant challenger shall be. If a programatic conflict occurs, the producers will attempt to avoid the conflict by skipping the conflicting puzzle. If, however, the producers feel this is unsatisfactory, they shall replace the puzzle by offering a pair of alternative puzzles to Compliance and Practices which will then make the selection.
D. End Game Material
The producers will select two Alphabetics games before it is determined who the next contestant challenger shall be. NBC Compliance and Practices will select one of the two which will then be played by whichever of the two contestants wins the game.
So in the event that there were 3 or more puzzles burned off as unsolved/host blooper/technical error, there is an unused set of puzzles to draw from, rather than arbitrarily reaching back into the discard pile. In the art-card era, I'm assuming both sets are prepared to go, rather than having to create one on the fly.
-
A production company would want to have extra material on hand for just those reasons. (J!6 being a premier reason/means of execution)
Upside is when you have the 400-0 blowouts you save the fourth puzzle, send it back into the process and load it into a new stack.
-
On P+ we went into the studio with 72 puzzles for two taping days. This meant the physical artwork had to be prepared for 72 puzzles.
There was a strict rule imposed by NBC that an individual password or puzzle could only be reused/repeated after 13 (IIRC) weeks. We kept track on index cards of the dates each individual password and puzzle was used based on the taping date (not air date). Each password (clue to the puzzle) and each puzzle was carefully checked and not used if the puzzle or a password within it violated this rule. If an individual password violated this rule, the puzzle was often rewritten and a different word substituted.
Checking the puzzles and passwords was a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. I believe Bobby Sherman may have used a computer for this on Super Password to get away from index cards.
In the studio Bobby would pick two puzzles to be played next. They would be presented to the rep from Compliance and Practices who would pick the one which was actually played next.
On MG I've seen Ira change the questions which were loaded into the question board.
-
Does everything have to be laid out in advance and approved by Standards & Practices?
S&P is more concerned about the selection of material rather than the content. Questions can be written any which way provided there is no obscenity.
-
Does everything have to be laid out in advance and approved by Standards & Practices?
S&P is more concerned about the selection of material rather than the content. Questions can be written any which way provided there is no obscenity.
Well shit?
-
Does everything have to be laid out in advance and approved by Standards & Practices?
S&P is more concerned about the selection of material rather than the content. Questions can be written any which way provided there is no obscenity.
Well shit?
But that actually makes sense. S&P doesn't have the trained ability to know what makes a good question or to suss out ambiguity that makes a certain question wrong or have multiple right answers. From a content perspective, they're just a human random number generator.
I'd imagine there'd be more eyebrows raised if bad questions kept popping up and causing the production to give make-goods to jilted players, but we haven't reached that point.
-
On P+ we went into the studio with 72 puzzles for two taping days. This meant the physical artwork had to be prepared for 72 puzzles.
There was a strict rule imposed by NBC that an individual password or puzzle could only be reused/repeated after 13 (IIRC) weeks. We kept track on index cards of the dates each individual password and puzzle was used based on the taping date (not air date). Each password (clue to the puzzle) and each puzzle was carefully checked and not used if the puzzle or a password within it violated this rule. If an individual password violated this rule, the puzzle was often rewritten and a different word substituted.
Well, that explains why Alphabetics used the last 10-15 letters of the alphabet sparingly in the bonus round. How many X-words could they really use (X-Ray, Xenon, Xerox, Xylophone, ???...)
-
Budget saver: Xerxes
-
Budget saver: Xerxes
King, Persian, Ancient
/thank goodness for taking Middle Eastern history my sophomore year of HS
-
I've noted that even used questions are recycled back into gameplay sometimes after a year or so:
* Split Second: https://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,32502.msg383791.html#msg383791
* Sale of the Century: https://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,30673.msg367571.html#msg367571
This was probably more viable in an age before reruns and home video.
-
Vaguely related, but I miss talking about my old show.
On QuizBusters, we had a regular feature called a "Pop Quiz" where all the answers would begin with a certain set of (usually) three letters. Since there are only so many combinations that would work (we needed 12 for each set, plus a backup), we had to reuse material. We set it up so that Pop Quiz sets would be reused every five years, and even then they'd be tweaked and edited a little. That way, no high school player could ever have gotten exactly the same Pop Quiz.
We also ended the game with what we called the Lightning Round (think Sale of the Century's Speed Round) for which we had a massive and ever-growing database of questions. By the end, I think we were over 10,000. Each year, those would be randomized and distributed into game sets. We'd use about a thousand of them each season. The entire set would be randomized each season, so duplication of a given question from year to year was possible, but these were mostly straightforward, unadorned facts ("Which planet is fourth from the sun?") so nobody ever really had a problem with it.
-
I'm surprised that questions weren't reused more frequently. For example, if a question was used on Match Game 74, who's going to remember if it's used again on Match Game 77 - especially in the days before VCRs were common?
Having said that, I do recall a Tattletales question or two being reused, but it was probably from the '70s version and the '80s version.
I recall questions on Family Feud and Card Sharks being reused (saw it on GSN), but again - once was on the network version and the other on the syndicated version.
Even Jeopardy - there's so much info on the archive site that it can't possibly all be memorized.
-
I'm surprised that questions weren't reused more frequently. For example, if a question was used on Match Game 74, who's going to remember if it's used again on Match Game 77 - especially in the days before VCRs were common?
I think among producers, but especially writers, there's a personal pride to avoid Xeroxing yourself. It's one thing to trade on the same area as a previous piece of material, but it's a whole 'nother matter for the most writery writers to say the same exact thing they said before.
And besides that, if you start reusing material in large enough quantities, why do you need writers full time? The writers obviously want to avoid that question being asked, so they'll keep churning out new stuff. For the producer, there's the notion of...once you give back part of your budget (by laying off the writers temporarily), it's hard to get it back.
-Jason
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zge_tg5hQLs
I only found two of these because Buzzr had aired them fairly close together. The other one I had lying around on my hard drive.
-
I'm surprised that questions weren't reused more frequently. For example, if a question was used on Match Game 74, who's going to remember if it's used again on Match Game 77 - especially in the days before VCRs were common?
I remember noticing during GSN reruns that the daily syndicated run of MG reused some network questions. The reason it stood out to me was they actually reused a question that went so badly on the network show that they elected to throw out the whole round after it played--there was a huge argument about Ira not matching "Going bananas" and "Going ape" because while the key words don't match, they mean exactly the same thing.
-
Pyramid seemed to reuse WC categories without too much regard to time. Or perhaps they showed up close in time to each other because they were crossing over between daytime and nighttime. As I recall, "Things that are Enshrined" showed up on $25kP just a few weeks before it showed up in the $100k tournament, and Nathan Cook played it both times.
-
That same delicatessen question was also used this time and on this occasion four celebs said "Lox" but incredibly not Richard!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWMzjB7soJk
-
Pyramid seemed to reuse WC categories without too much regard to time.
I seem to recall reading that in the ABC days, there was a two-week minimum rest between uses of the same word in the front game. Did the same not apply to the Winners' Circle?
As I recall, "Things that are Enshrined" showed up on $25kP just a few weeks before it showed up in the $100k tournament, and Nathan Cook played it both times.
I've seen the clip from the $100k tournament, and the contestant gave in that playing. I'm curious to know if Cook was on the giving or receiving side of the $25k use. Did he give similar clues to what he was given, or did he manage to get it there receiving as well? Either way, it's a toughie; but if you've had a crack at it once before and have a good memory, it would, in theory, make it a bit easier.
Now that you mention it, after the $100k win, Dick seemed to marvel about how tough a top-box category it was and that they got it. He forgot that it had been used at least one before?
-
I've seen the clip from the $100k tournament, and the contestant gave in that playing. I'm curious to know if Cook was on the giving or receiving side of the $25k use. Did he give similar clues to what he was given, or did he manage to get it there receiving as well?
He was giving on the $25k game, and as I mentioned, it was before Keefe's win. He only had maybe ten seconds with it, and the only clue I remember him giving was "Grant's tomb".
Now that you mention it, after the $100k win, Dick seemed to marvel about how tough a top-box category it was and that they got it. He forgot that it had been used at least one before?
It had been used at least twice before. First time I believe was Monday of the (I think) sixth tournament. Howard Morton and his partner only had a few seconds with it, but Dick gave them ten more seconds afterwards with it and they got it.
-
Something to remember at least in the days pre-2000s is they were using physical art cards for all of the category titles, and I don't think they would fit in a regular banker box. Even if those plastic sheets are a sixteenth of an inch thick, a thousand of them aren't as tall as me, and I remember through watching the USA Network and GSN reruns that the bottom row were more apt to be recycled and nobody cares because you polish off $300 in a few seconds to save time for the top shelf.
I can't imagine that Bob would willingly throw away those artifacts given the vanishingly small cost it would be to house a stack of those boxes.
-
Not just Bob, but any producer would weigh costs. Is it cheaper to box up, securely store, and fish out unused panels or just create a new one when needed? I would guess there were extra sets that were retained, or a few weeks' worth prepared in advance, but to have a whole library of them is probably more trouble than it's worth.
On the other hand, there was the unwritten rule that they would not flip to reveal a new box if there was 1 or sometimes 2 seconds left on the clock. So there was a deliberate recycling tactic in play, if only for the written game material, but possibly for the physical media.
-
I vaguely remember in the end credits of an 80s Pyramid that mentioned they were bringing a contestant back because they had reused a winner's circle category within the last six weeks.
-
Would “Hall of Famer” be a legal Pyramid clue since it’s a common phrase or get buzzed for the prepositional phrase? What other clues are there for enshrined?
-
Would “Hall of Famer” be a legal Pyramid clue since it’s a common phrase or get buzzed for the prepositional phrase? What other clues are there for enshrined?
"The hall of fame books" was the winning clue for it.
-
Would “Hall of Famer” be a legal Pyramid clue since it’s a common phrase or get buzzed for the prepositional phrase? What other clues are there for enshrined?
Okay, so, story here. We played Pyramid one night in my apartment about ten years ago. The category was "Things That Are Shuffled," and the friend acting as judge sounded the buzzer on "Deck of Cards." That felt wrong to me, so I emailed a friend who had some good Pyramid knowledge. What I wasn't expecting was that he sent my email up the chain of command and ended up getting an answer directly from Sande Stewart about the issue.
"Deck of cards isn't a prepositional phrase, that's just what it's called--it's the same reason we would allow Statue of Liberty. The word 'of' is in there, but that's still just what it's called."
So "Hall of Fame" is legal.
-
"Deck of cards isn't a prepositional phrase, that's just what it's called--it's the same reason we would allow Statue of Liberty. The word 'of' is in there, but that's still just what it's called."
I remember hearing Dick Clark explaining the nuance of that rule on air once, using Statue of Liberty as his example.
-
I remember Donny Osmond explaining the prepositional phrase rule, and explicitly saying that "of" was the exception. It was a bit more nuanced than that on the Clark version (as evidenced but Adam's story), as Clark himself tried to sneak "The title of the play" by the judges to no avail.
-
Not just Bob, but any producer would weigh costs. Is it cheaper to box up, securely store, and fish out unused panels or just create a new one when needed? I would guess there were extra sets that were retained, or a few weeks' worth prepared in advance, but to have a whole library of them is probably more trouble than it's worth.
On the other hand, there was the unwritten rule that they would not flip to reveal a new box if there was 1 or sometimes 2 seconds left on the clock. So there was a deliberate recycling tactic in play, if only for the written game material, but possibly for the physical media.
This may not be the reason that Win Ben Stein's Money and Debt moved from pull cards and trilon blocks, but Ben's Money had a minimum of eight topics that were never going to be played, and Debt's early round usually revealed about two-thirds of the material. I don't know that the first seasons of each felt dated, but the switch to monitors must have made lots of things easier and cost-effective.
-
I would think that every preposition in a proper noun or title.was fair game (i.e. "Gone WITH The Wind", "United States OF America,...)
A deck of cards could be buzzable, since you can eliminate.the preposition by saying "A (Fresh) Card Deck".
But if the category was "WINK MARTINDALE SONGS"...
-
A deck of cards could be buzzable, since you can eliminate.the preposition by saying "A (Fresh) Card Deck".
Are you seriously saying that the literal judge of 80s Pyramid is wrong? Like, the person who actually did it for all those years? You think you know more than she does? Is that what you're saying right now?
-
A deck of cards could be buzzable, since you can eliminate.the preposition by saying "A (Fresh) Card Deck".
Are you seriously saying that the literal judge of 80s Pyramid is wrong? Like, the person who actually did it for all those years? You think you know more than she does? Is that what you're saying right now?
I didn't say it was 100% illegal, I was stating that it COULD have been buzzed, depending on the demeanor of the judge and perhaps where on the WC it was. I seem to recall other similar prepositioned descriptions that were buzzed, and Dick Clark saying explaining could have got around the potential trap if they phrased it differently (ie. A gun-toting man vs. A man with a gun for Things In A Bank Robbery)
-
I think it's been pretty well established that when "of" is used to indicate either a quantity or identity (A suit of armor, the Statue of Liberty), it's OK, but when "of the" is used to point out part of a whole (the middle of the road, the collar of a shirt), it gets a buzz.
-
I didn't say it was 100% illegal, I was stating that it COULD have been buzzed, depending on the demeanor of the judge and perhaps where on the WC it was. I seem to recall other similar prepositioned descriptions that were buzzed, and Dick Clark saying explaining could have got around the potential trap if they phrased it differently (ie. A gun-toting man vs. A man with a gun for Things In A Bank Robbery)
It shouldn't make a difference if the judge is Frannie Bergman or Angel Hernandez.
Ok, bad example. Or Ed Hochuli.
-
Could have used Tim Donaghy and promised him a 10% cut.
-
I would think that every preposition in a proper noun or title.was fair game (i.e. "Gone WITH The Wind", "United States OF America,...)
I think you're pointing out why, too: because in the case of a proper noun the word isn't being used *AS* a preposition; it's part of the noun itself.
A deck of cards could be buzzable, since you can eliminate.the preposition by saying "A (Fresh) Card Deck".
Yeah, here's where the grass starts to grow very, very green.