The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: JasonA1 on July 21, 2024, 04:36:59 PM
-
On July 20, they ran a piece ranking the summer game shows "from worst to first." (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2024/07/20/summer-tv-game-shows-ranked/74410944007/)
On July 10, another article talked about game show giveaways lagging behind inflation. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2024/07/10/game-show-prizes-inflation/74328003007/)
-Jason
-
Although if are going to do a story ranking all the summer game shows on broadcast TV, you should make sure to get them all.
-
On July 20, they ran a piece ranking the summer game shows "from worst to first." (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2024/07/20/summer-tv-game-shows-ranked/74410944007/)
Clearly the emphasis for this author was on "show" more than "game"
-
Disapprove of the characterization of 1% Club’s questions as “too hard,” and surprised by the high ranking of Kiki Password—though pleased for the latter, because even loud Password is Password.
A friend of mine loves Kikiword, calling it “Day-Glo.” (He’s a fan of all Password, as am I.)
-
A nit to pick: Her information on NTT was inaccurate as to when it first aired. Two minutes of research would have prevented this. Also, I noticed that author said Password is “only” played for $25K. Glad she’s swimming in money.
-
Although Oswalt is funny, the format is pretty dull, with overly complicated questions that aren't fun to play along with at home...
I have several friends who have never gotten in to game shows in the past who would disagree. They are absolutely loving playing along with this game.
-
Kiki has grown on me as bas the format. Look let’s be real—this format was all but dead until Fallon started his skits. Given the age of the MDP audience I dare say no one under 60 save for these readers had any fond memories . This is that execution with a real game overlay and people who are savvy enough to inject callouts to virtually every format the show ever had—even the “betting word” of the 70s abc version which the redemption word effectively is. It’s a relative smash even with people under 50, and not many shows on this list can say that
-
A listicle is a listicle, no matter which publication it's in. Apparently ABC's Press Your Luck recreated the "gloriously 1970s set" and Let's Make a Deal is a "syndicated staple." Gotta churn out something to publish.
Also, I noticed that author said Password is “only” played for $25K. Glad she’s swimming in money.
But didn't you read her article on inflation? Inflation is a thing that exists! For example, when the Super Password jackpot was $25,000 in 1984, it would take more than $74,000 to get the same purchasing power today! Now you know!
-
it honestly never fails to amaze me how pathetic some paid reporters for national publications can't even bring themselves to google some things as easy to do as what year a version of a show you are employed to write about debuted. It's called research, and I'm stunned how it seems to be beyond the pay grade of so many writers. It's no wonder publications like USA TODAY want to replace writers with AI.
-
Newsrooms are a shell of their former self. I've seen so many fellow journalists tossed on the street thanks to venture capitalists who had no business funding a lemonade stand, let alone a newspaper. Add on the fact that publications are desperate for content - any content - and you get articles like this one. Used to be you had editors to make sure everything made sense, but I imagine you have a lotta people wearing many hats. Not that it excuses the errors, but publications going AI is more about greed than it is bad writing.
/Knew it was bunk when they ranked NTT and Password in the Top 5
-
I have several friends who have never gotten in to game shows in the past who would disagree. They are absolutely loving playing along with this game.
Consider that the author is writing for the readers of McPaper.
-
/Knew it was bunk when they ranked NTT and Password in the Top 5
One of the reasons I started the thread was to see how this article's opinion aligned with ours, because it felt a tiny bit more doted upon, unlike a best hosts list that put Peyton Manning in a high position after just one episode of College Bowl aired.
I was thinking there had to be a reason Name That Tune was getting multiple seasons, but not a lot of love on this board. What about the show makes you want to rank it lower?
-Jason
-
I was thinking there had to be a reason Name That Tune was getting multiple seasons, but not a lot of love on this board. What about the show makes you want to rank it lower?
I'll admit my hot take comes from only watching the first few episodes, but to me it came across as an SNL parody that was overproduced and all over the place. Dunno if that's changed since, but of the Fox musical games I prefer Beat Shazam.
-
For the record, I don't think yours is a "hot take." If you watched more than one episode, you did better than a lot of people. And if you were turned off, hey, they had their chance to keep you as a viewer.
Lately, there's been too much made out of having a strong opinion one way or the other, as if that can't be a genuine feeling. Sure, some people get in a proverbial I Love Nothing New Camp, but I don't think people should shy away from expressing themselves on this board. Selfishly, it would be great to see what people like and don't like about modern shows.
The thing I've been trying to figure out over the years is just who loves all the contestant backstories. There must be someone. I know they have their place on a longer-form competition show. But I can't help but remember all the comments I've read and heard to the contrary -- and not just from "us."
-Jason
-
My theory on the backstories dates back to whenever NBC got the Olympics. IMO someone felt that because they were inspiring there, they must be needed elsewhere. I don't mind it sporadically, but when every other prime time game show or even some docuseries overuse them, it's definitely overkill.
ESPN started doing it a lot on SportsCenter too, but that all started in the early-2000s (give or take a couple years) so like you said, I dunno who the audience is for these.
-
The thing I've been trying to figure out over the years is just who loves all the contestant backstories.
My theory:
Producers realize, either consciously or subconsciously, that game shows are more compelling when the viewer has a rooting interest in the contestant. Which is true: I think even the most jaded of us will perk up our ears when we learn that a contestant is from the same hometown or enjoys the same hobby.
Problem is, a basic "where are you from, what do you do" will always only captivate the small fraction of the viewing audience that shares that very specific biographical detail. And there are very few contestants who can win over lots of strangers with naturally likable personalities that will shine through a twenty-second television interview (especially if the host isn't experienced at interviewing people).
So the way to try to entice the audience to sit through the entire episode -- which is important if there isn't much game to play along with -- is to create an emotional rooting interest by sharing the most root-worthy biographical details of a contestant's life. "Everybody loves a person who rescues dogs, so here's a person who rescues dogs! Stay tuned to see if this dog rescuer wins!"
And I think it does work -- in moderation. I was once with a non–game show friend and we were watching American Ninja Warrior -- a show that's especially guilty of this practice -- and after each two-minute package about an athlete who overcame some kind of adversity, he would be more invested in their run... and more excited/devastated when they succeeded/failed.
The problem is that when every contestant on every episode of a show is accompanied by a feel-good package, and when every competition show introduces every competitor with a feel-good package, the impact is diminished and the viewer is annoyed by being overexposed to the manipulation.
-
Regis' WWTBAM still is my favorite primetime show since the resurgence of game shows in the late 90s. More or less, all the contestants were randomly selected amongst those that only had to pass a couple of the phone quizzes.
And though some of the contestants were forgettable, Regis still seemed to pull something out of most players to make them people you wanted to root for, whether it was their hometown, their job, their friends, or something that wasn't just a Queen For A Day heart-tugging backstory, which seems to be more common now.
Also original Millionaire didn't necessarily rely on over-the-top people that could aldo pass as character actors on a sitcom, nor were they required to drink 4 large Red Bulls prior to taping, either.
-
The thing I've been trying to figure out over the years is just who loves all the contestant backstories. There must be someone. I know they have their place on a longer-form competition show. But I can't help but remember all the comments I've read and heard to the contrary -- and not just from "us."
I was watching an episode of one of the newer shows with a friend who enjoys some of the older shows. It might have been Tune. One of the contestants was a dance instructor, or some similar nonsense. The host then invited her to come out on stage and show off her dance moves. And my friend made a comment to the effect of: "Who gives a [fig], where's the game?" The channel was changed shortly thereafter.
This individual is not in our circle, nor would they ever be. But they found this particular part of modern shows annoying as well.
-
One of the contestants was a dance instructor, or some similar nonsense. The host then invited her to come out on stage and show off her dance moves. And my friend made a comment to the effect of: "Who gives a [fig], where's the game?" The channel was changed shortly thereafter.
This individual is not in our circle, nor would they ever be. But they found this particular part of modern shows annoying as well.
This is by far my biggest pet peeve with modern game shows. I know the producers want good Youtube content, but I also don't think people are rushing to share a clip of someone doing a cheer routine on You Bet Your Life.
I also feel like shows want forced energy from contestants. Obviously you don't want a Ben Stein Clear Eyes type of player, but the energy on so many prime time shows feels a bit contrived.
-
One of the contestants was a dance instructor, or some similar nonsense. The host then invited her to come out on stage and show off her dance moves. And my friend made a comment to the effect of: "Who gives a [fig], where's the game?" The channel was changed shortly thereafter.
This individual is not in our circle, nor would they ever be. But they found this particular part of modern shows annoying as well.
This is by far my biggest pet peeve with modern game shows. I know the producers want good Youtube content, but I also don't think people are rushing to share a clip of someone doing a cheer routine on You Bet Your Life.
One of the many reasons why I stopped watching (or streaming) Wayne Brady's LMAD is that it feels like you must to be able to have a Talent Show talent if you want any shot at a regular deal.
I guess creative costumes are not enough anymore.
-
The thing I've been trying to figure out over the years is just who loves all the contestant backstories.
It's possible that this is all in reaction to Millionaire usually having at least one bit of bio per segment and the early reality shows going in on backstories. I get the original logic (Anyone can be an employee from a town. What makes them interesting? What makes them human?) and I also get the sports angles (Sports has all three of the traditional basic conflicts, often all happening at the same time) but things spiraled beyond where a good equilibrium point is.
More cynically, I think that the same "We're trying to make Art," mindset that resulted in hours in edit bays and hours of reshoots is playing a part, but that could be related to the above.
Even more cynically, someone clued in that the more we focus on the contestant's life, the less we play the game, and for many shows it's a whole lot cheaper long-term to play as little game as possible.
-
Although Oswalt is funny, the format is pretty dull, with overly complicated questions that aren't fun to play along with at home...
I have several friends who have never gotten in to game shows in the past who would disagree. They are absolutely loving playing along with this game.
Exactly. I introduced my wife and her parents to a Patton episode, and they all really enjoyed it.
BTW, some time ago I'd showed my wife an early UK episode, where the host's role was much more snark and the contestants less ready to dish it back...and she took a hard pass. Glad to see they've made the non-game parts of the show a little friendlier.
-
I have friends who work on Tune so I admit I’m kinder on it than most. It gets points for being faithful to the OG to an extent, especially the Golden Medley. They also draw praise for the unique film look that their foreign production makes easier. It doesn’t hurt that the network president is a personal fan of it. Jane and Randy look great and they are earnest. I do wish they had been given leeway to incorporate some element of bid a note, which I always thought was a strong suit. My understanding was Fox wanted a purer, simpler iteration without the “complications”. It falls short of PYL and Password to be sure but it is a better reboot than many others.
-
I do wish they had been given leeway to incorporate some element of bid a note, which I always thought was a strong suit.
Is this a typo? Because Bid-a-Note is on every episode.
-Jason
-
It is missing the Melody Roulette round which was almost as signature to the brand as the Bid-a-Note round.
Too often the Bid-a-Note solution is too obvious from the wordplay of the clue. It means extra work for the writers, but the trivia element is what really sets the bidding concept in motion. If the clue has something like "this #1 tune from Prince ...." or "Rogers and Hammerstein wrote this...." and you don't have it off the clue, you bid based on your knowledge of Prince or showtunes. I will say the rebound opportunity with all the notes on a failed guess was interesting, but it did break that best-of-5 dynamic.
Unfortunately, I had to ride the fast forward button to get through an episode, and I didn't feel like binge watching, even though I really liked the 1970s and (to a lesser extent) the 1980s versions.
-
It is a typo. I’m off my game. Apologies.
-
It is missing the Melody Roulette round which was almost as signature to the brand as the Bid-a-Note round.
I agree. I think they should have put Melody Roulette and Bid a Note as the main games but I get that the producers maybe wanted to try something new.
-
This is by far my biggest pet peeve with modern game shows. I know the producers want good Youtube content, but I also don't think people are rushing to share a clip of someone doing a cheer routine on You Bet Your Life.
To be perfectly fair, I was amused when a group in the audience on Price is Right would stand up and perform coming out of break, or something like that. There's countless examples like that on several classic shows. But on the flip side, many of those examples (most?) were genuinely impromptu. These things can be additive when done well. But they can also feel forced, and I think the audience is hip to it when it's overproduced.
-Jason
-
This is by far my biggest pet peeve with modern game shows. I know the producers want good Youtube content, but I also don't think people are rushing to share a clip of someone doing a cheer routine on You Bet Your Life.
To be perfectly fair, I was amused when a group in the audience on Price is Right would stand up and perform coming out of break, or something like that. There's countless examples like that on several classic shows. But on the flip side, many of those examples (most?) were genuinely impromptu. These things can be additive when done well. But they can also feel forced, and I think the audience is hip to it when it's overproduced.
I agree with you that they were more impromptu. How many of them were selected as a contestant? With that said, it seemed those folks were just happy getting their 30 seconds of fame. Now, not being able to dance is one of many blocks to being a contestant.
-
They also draw praise for the unique film look that their foreign production makes easier.
There are places for that look. The Bachelor, for example, takes place over time and the romance might benefit from looking cinematic. Name That Tune loses so much energy, though. It’s as if they’re not even bothering to pretend it’s spontaneous.
Watching Kennedy’s version as a wee lad, I thought it was all old songs only nerds could name. With the current run, though, I can name lots of tunes. This does not make me feel youthful and vibrant.
-
It is missing the Melody Roulette round which was almost as signature to the brand as the Bid-a-Note round.
What surprised me the most was, when they play Spin Me Round, they don't call that "Melody Roulette" instead. It's not as if half of the audience would respond, "That's not 'real' Melody Roulette," and stop watching.
BTW, in the earliest 1970s nighttime episodes, when the first round was Pick-A-Tune instead of Money Tree, they didn't play Melody Roulette; instead, it was Cassette Roulette - the quick version: there were eight "cassettes" (actually 8-track tapes), each with a category; a contestant chose one, and a corresponding tune was played by the band; four of the categories had prizes associated with them; I think it was best of 7 tunes.
-
I'll toss my 2 cents in, and I may have posted this here before. Every moment that can be filled with a contestant showing off a talent, or shots of anxious relatives, or drawn-out reveals is a moment that the game isn't being played and money isn't being given away. Yeah, there's the human interest aspect, but when you're turning a good 30-minute game into an hour show, you have to cut corners everywhere you can to stay in budget. Then there's the element that always bugged me about Deal or No Deal. How many people ever took a big early offer? Makes one wonder if strongly encouraging a contestant to go on was always part of the plan. Heck...if I picked my first set of cases and the bank offered me $35,000 - I came in with nothing, so why not take it and run? Can't see DoND go through 6 contestants in an hour taking early cash grabs and staying budgetarily viable...
-
My theory on the backstories dates back to whenever NBC got the Olympics.
I make a lot of analogies between sports and game shows. I understand they're nowhere near the same level when it comes to economics. But I think a lot can be gained by treating them the same way, particularly with doing them live to tape, etc. You'd never do a pickup of a free throw because the camera was out of position. Frankly, the camera would almost NEVER be out of position in basketball, whereas on modern game shows it can be, but I digress.
To that end, I think story packages CAN have a place. To go to sports, I think they make sense at the Olympics, because the whole thing is about a long journey to one moment in time, a life spent training, etc. And I think they're OK on game shows where the action isn't too dense. Deal or No Deal is a perfect example. Sure, some countries play it a little more straight. But there's an obvious appeal in tying the big six-figure swings on a U.S. version to a compelling personal story. You're not distracting from a barrage of questions, or competition between multiple players.
But on shows that are format driven, I really start to question how much is enough when it comes to contestant chat. You shouldn't stop a football game mid-drive to show a 3-minute package about one player. People are watching for the competition. Similarly, when you've got a dense game show, I think the audience is coming for that, first and foremost. If not, why not do a talk show instead? You can still develop that sort of personal attachment on a game-heavy show organically; returning champions would be one way to do it.
If there's loads of research that says regular people won't watch regular people play a regular game no matter what, then the story-forward strategy makes sense. I just have a feeling that certain shows are making that choice for the viewers, rather than the other away around.
-Jason
-
To go to sports, I think they make sense at the Olympics, because the whole thing is about a long journey to one moment in time, a life spent training, etc.
Most Olympic disciplines, though, face similar challenges to most game shows in that they are trying to draw an audience that is either actually or functionally watching them for the first time. Unlike game shows, there is no real play-along value to many sports, so the Olympics have to lean into the human interest angle because otherwise they're presenting games you don't care about featuring people you don't care about.
I feel like there's a big meaty philosophical discussion here that we could spend hours on (if we haven't already) but in reality, I'm not sure how much more complex the answer is going to be other than "we need ratings" and/or "this other successful show did this, so we should do it, too."
-
I watched some of the opening ceremony on Peacock last night. I know she has a talk show syndicated by NBC and I know he hosts “College Bowl”, but Kelly Clarkson and Peyton Manning made the ceremony damn near unwatchable by being so chatty. Felt a little “How do you do fellow kids?” Between that and Hoda and Savannah talking about what celebrities are in Paris, I have a feeling the fluff is going to overshadow the spirit of competition more than ever this year.
The reactions on Threads has been overwhelmingly negative (mostly wishing the commentators would stop talking and let the moment breathe), so again I ask what audience is NBC trying to reach?
-
so again I ask what audience is NBC trying to reach?
Not saying there’s zero overlap in the Venn diagram between “Interested in athletics” and “Swifties”, but my guess is Swifties.
-
A nit to pick: Her information on NTT was inaccurate as to when it first aired. Two minutes of research would have prevented this. Also, I noticed that author said Password is “only” played for $25K. Glad she’s swimming in money.
When The Wall has a possible eight-digit grand prize and weakest Link has a $500,000 round six, twenty-five grand feels picayune. I wish that the show would allow players to play three or four games in an hour and thus have that chance to win more., but they don't. There's other things I don't like about the new iteration but that prizing structure does hit the podium.
I think the third season of American Gladiators was perfect in terms of having seven events (I forget if the Eliminator was seven or eight?) but also being able to flesh out all four contenders and also spotlighting the Gladiators. For me, content is king. If you can reasonably replace interviews or check-ins with your celebrity guests with another round or a more satisfying tiebreaker, I would prefer more game. Most contestants will be gone after the conclusion of the show, and in most cases forgotten. I will find out whatever I care about their personality through the play of the game/
For the new Name That Tune, it felt like so much of what worked was cast aside. Bid-a-Note's song values overpowered anything from earlier rounds and Melody Roulette was essentially jumbling the money amounts from $1,000 to $6,000 rather having an actual carnival wheel. For as much that Beat Shazam does that irks me, it feels like a more complete presentation, and watching celebrities play a game where a wrong guess in Golden Medley is treated like an oopsie, keep trying, I'll move on because they've lost me.
-
When The Wall has a possible eight-digit grand prize and weakest Link has a $500,000 round six, twenty-five grand feels picayune. I wish that the show would allow players to play three or four games in an hour and thus have that chance to win more., but they don't.
I don't watch Password, but my instinct is that they would want to make the bonus round easy enough that the contestant wins nearly every time. If I'm right, that's $50,000 an hour. According to the fandom.com wiki-keepers, the current version of Weakest Link is averaging a little more than $60,000 per episode, so there actually isn't much of a difference between the two. It's all a side effect of shows advertising nigh-impossible-to-win grand prizes ruining things for shows that want to present a lot of happy winners.
For Password, the next natural-sounding grand prize amount would be $50,000. I'm guessing the network doesn't want to open its pocketbook by that much.
-
so again I ask what audience is NBC trying to reach?
The OC and CC usually have a high level of abstraction, and in theory both Manning and Clarkson's skills of being approachable while having a high level of institutional knowledge should be able to help de-mystify the proceedings. Clarkson should be able to comment on the performances and Manning would be able to provide an athlete's perspective on both the spectacle and what will happen with the athletes both before and after the ceremonies.
My take having watched the whole thing as part of a group is that a good plan did not survive first contact with the ceremony (although Manning doing a bit was never going to work).
-
I was thinking there had to be a reason Name That Tune was getting multiple seasons, but not a lot of love on this board. What about the show makes you want to rank it lower?
"Name that tune."
(band plays a snippet.)
(Finalist signals, band stops.)
"Pass."
Audience: "ooooh."
The 70s and 80s iterations weren't set up for reaction shots other than finding the players, but the FOX version is worse for it. Yes, we know that a passed tune will need to be guessed on another time through the rotation, and we can actually see dots on screen to indicate which songs have been guessed successfully. (That's actually not terrible or a knock as the old show had the countdown ring).
Hold a shot on the contestant and break away after a signal. Keep the round moving and don't reset the situation unless it's one to win the bonus or time is short. (that might be something that a good host will know, or a producer/director can feed via IFB). Just because Millionaire brought the crowd into view doesn't mean I want to see their reaction as opposed to the contestant.
The game was fine and there was a nice mix of gettable and recognizable songs that someone who pays attention to the radio should have no issue identifying. Everything else detracted from the final product.
-
I was thinking there had to be a reason Name That Tune was getting multiple seasons, but not a lot of love on this board. What about the show makes you want to rank it lower?
"Name that tune."
(band plays a snippet.)
(Finalist signals, band stops.)
"Pass."
Audience: "ooooh."
When the show premiered I remember being annoyed that the audience went "Oooh" every time a contestant made a bid during Bid-A-Note, and that the only time anyone reacted like that in the past was when someone said they could Name That Tune in one note. I know 1984 was 40 years ago, but I would think producers wouldn't have to force the enthusiasm.