-
I finally caught a Season Three episode of Lingo this weekend, and noticed a few things:
* Stacey's job could easily be filled by an offstage judge. She's no Vanna, and she was distracting to me while the game played out.
* Was the big screen game board necessary? They didn't do that earlier, and I didn't miss it.
* The set seemed to have a lot more chrome than before. I thought the second season set was just right.
For what it's worth, if it was my money, the bonus round would be set up thusly:
Bonus Letters from S2 and S3
Words worth $100 no matter what, and $5,000 more for a Lingo
Season one board setup, so you need at least two balls to win it.
The best of all worlds, in my opinion. My dreams, I know, but that's what they are. If this starts a discussion, great. If not, off to the dustbin of history. :)
-
While most of us hated the changes at first, I think a fair amount, including myself warmed up to them. Watching, you really see the old Chuck because he doesn't have to say all kinds of things by rote and mention what makes Lingo. He can joke about words, wrong guesses, etc and banter with Stacy. I thought the video screen was cool.
-Jason
-
I like having Stacey there myself and I have always preferred a game display that was actually part of the set, so for me, those changes were for the better.
-
I thought Stacey was a total joke.
She clearly wasn't "controlling" the board and she took away from Chuck's hosting.
I liked the format, but it went right down the crapper.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' date=\'Mar 29 2005, 06:58 AM\']I thought Stacey was a total joke.
She clearly wasn't "controlling" the board and she took away from Chuck's hosting.
I liked the format, but it went right down the crapper.
[snapback]79762[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think she was just there to give Chuck something to grab on to at the end of the show. When you get into your sixties, you get a little unsteady on your feet.
<smirk>
-
[quote name=\'davemackey\' date=\'Mar 29 2005, 06:30 AM\']I think she was just there to give Chuck something to grab on to at the end of the show. When you get into your sixties, you get a little unsteady on your feet.
<smirk>
[snapback]79763[/snapback]
[/quote]
At the least, Stacey's there for eye candy and to appease to male demos.
I still say the addition of Stacey to the cast of the show was ill-timed. Not long before S3 debuted, there was news Chuck's marriage to Teri Nelson was on the rocks (an issue addressed for most of the series finale to his short-lived reality series "Naturally Stoned").
Last I knew, Chuck and Teri were separated. Speaking as someone who is two months away from hearing the wedding bells toll, I hope they can reconcile.
-
Only thing that I don't like about Lingo is the look of it now. It's a simple, really non-dramatic, word game, and yet it has a set that sort of looks like Winning Lines. Doesn't fit at all.
-
S2 had a big screen game board as well, they just never showed it as much on screen as in S3.
Josh
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' date=\'Mar 29 2005, 05:58 AM\']I thought Stacey was a total joke.
She clearly wasn't "controlling" the board and she took away from Chuck's hosting.
I liked the format, but it went right down the crapper.
[snapback]79762[/snapback]
[/quote]
They were channeling the original US Lingo when they bought in an eye candy co-host. Dusty Martell was the co-host in the original. I don't know, having not seen the original Lingo, if she and Michael Reagan(or she and Ralph Andrews) had as much on-screen banter.
-
Don't you see?! Stacey's not just eye candy, she speaks with a British accent! That makes her really smart!
I like the third set a lot. Stacy serves to make the game bigger for TV sake, which isn't a bad thing. I'm not wild about her specifically, and maybe we could hear less of her--maybe just to introduce the players, describe the prize and announce judge's rulings. It was sort of weird when Chuck would somehow divine the definitions of obscure words.
-
Well, i don't particularly care for Stacy too much. I watched Lingo whether she was on or not, so it doesn't make much of a difference. The third season set is the best, in my opinion, although the second wasn't half bad.
The other day, I saw a team solve 10 words in Bonus Lingo. It seemed like a total waste when they won the cash with only 2 balls. I think that a team should either win extra cash for each leftover ball, or they keep playing Bonus Lingo boards until they run out of balls.
Anybody else agree?
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Mar 29 2005, 12:04 PM\']Don't you see?! Stacey's not just eye candy, she speaks with a British accent! That makes her really smart!
[snapback]79793[/snapback]
[/quote]
As proven when she ruled that LYNX "is not a word".
-
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' date=\'Mar 29 2005, 02:24 PM\']The other day, I saw a team solve 10 words in Bonus Lingo. It seemed like a total waste when they won the cash with only 2 balls. I think that a team should either win extra cash for each leftover ball, or they keep playing Bonus Lingo boards until they run out of balls.[/quote]
Yes, that is one of many things that is wrong with the structure of the show. Any time anybody gets more than five or six words in Bonus Lingo, it's a foregone conclusion that they're going to win the $5K, so except for that single draw for the extra prize, it's totally anticlimactic.
The "No Lingo" round of the original was wonderful, and the $64K win that circulates is one of the most breathtaking bonus rounds I've ever seen in game shows (a shame they never actually got their money). However, it doesn't run a predictable length, and I'm resigned to the fact that GSN feels these things have to be self-contained.
-
I'm glad that they chose not to use the No Lingo round. Using that on the GSN version would've made no sense whatsoever.
As for the show itself, Stacey isn't too bad. Aside from her accent, I like the way she introes Chuck at the beginning of each show (like Burton does on Feud), with things like, "The fifth face on Mount Rushmore" or "The catch of the day".
And I liked the 3rd season set, with the on-screen game board, and lights. Heck, even the show's 3rd season logo was more colorful than the first 2 seasons (as was the set, more neon makes for a better set).
The 2nd season was good, too, especially the April Fools' version with Marc Summers (WinTuition) and Mark L. Wa(h)lberg (Russian Roulette) vs. Kennedy (Friend Or Foe?) and Graham Elwood (Cram), with Todd Newton (Whammy!) in the announcer role (good thing they put him on camera). Only bad thing on this season was that Randi Thomas didn't get to be shown on camera, but her voice, nonetheless, was good.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Mar 29 2005, 09:22 PM\']I'm glad that they chose not to use the No Lingo round. Using that on the GSN version would've made no sense whatsoever.[/quote]
We're all entitled to our opinions, and I can certainly think of many perfectly good reasons why you might not like the No Lingo Round. But I don't understand why you say it would make "no sense whatsoever". Why would it make any more or less "sense" on the GSN game than on the original, except for the issue of straddling which I already brought up?
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 29 2005, 08:36 PM\']We're all entitled to our opinions, and I can certainly think of many perfectly good reasons why you might not like the No Lingo Round. But I don't understand why you say it would make "no sense whatsoever". Why would it make any more or less "sense" on the GSN game than on the original, except for the issue of straddling which I already brought up?
[snapback]79847[/snapback]
[/quote]
Personally, I'd never seen the NLR -- but it just looks good "on paper". Only way I could see this used in the current version is play only three words and make the first portion of the NLR worth $5000, the second $10K and if the team goes through all three phases without making a lingo, the payoff is $20K. Well short of a dramatic $64K payoff -- but that's the only compromise I can think off.
-
The reason it makes no sense, is because, like most game shows, the format of the front game should also be used in the end game (like the Money Cards, you go higher or lower with each card; and Gold Rush, you have to make a path from one side to the other, and must identify what word begins with each letter of the answer).
Does this make sense?
-
Say what you want about the Series 3 set (I liked it) or Stacy (useless bimbo), but nobody has mentioed what I feel is a serious hole in the rules:
A team lost control after Turn 5, no matter who started. This can be exploited when, if a team did not find any letters after 4 turns could let the last turn pass (on a time-out) and hope the forced letter doesn't give the word away to the opponents.
Think it never happened? It did. The contestants were mostly too stupid to realize this hole, and never tried to take advantage of it. The ones who did were usually champions.
'Brian
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Mar 31 2005, 05:32 PM\']The reason it makes no sense, is because, like most game shows, the format of the front game should also be used in the end game
[snapback]80099[/snapback]
[/quote]
Or, the endgame is often the OPPOSITE of the front game. For example, Pyramid, where the front game involves guessing a list of items given a subject, and the endgame, which involves guessing a subject given a list of items.
So what's the difference between that and the No Lingo Round?
-
Then there are shows where the end game had little to do with the front. "Big Showdown," "Chain Reaction," "Hot Potato," "Pitfall," etc.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 31 2005, 07:51 PM\']Or, the endgame is often the OPPOSITE of the front game. For example, Pyramid, where the front game involves guessing a list of items given a subject, and the endgame, which involves guessing a subject given a list of items.[/quote]
Not that I'm trying to be disagreeable . . . but what other notable examples are there besides Pyramid and Lingo?
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Mar 31 2005, 08:17 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 31 2005, 07:51 PM\']Or, the endgame is often the OPPOSITE of the front game. For example, Pyramid, where the front game involves guessing a list of items given a subject, and the endgame, which involves guessing a subject given a list of items.[/quote]
Not that I'm trying to be disagreeable . . . but what other notable examples are there besides Pyramid and Lingo?
[snapback]80108[/snapback]
[/quote]
Whether it fits the definition of "notable" is debatable, but TJW90 qualifies. The main game had contestants giving definitions; in the bonus round, they were given the definitions and asked to provide the word.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Mar 31 2005, 06:17 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 31 2005, 07:51 PM\']Or, the endgame is often the OPPOSITE of the front game. For example, Pyramid, where the front game involves guessing a list of items given a subject, and the endgame, which involves guessing a subject given a list of items.[/quote]
Not that I'm trying to be disagreeable . . . but what other notable examples are there besides Pyramid and Lingo?
[snapback]80108[/snapback]
[/quote]
Child's Play, in particular the version of the bonus where they would have to explain the words to the kids and get them to say them.
The Double Definition Round on Wordplay: in the front game you are guessing the definition of a word, in the endgame you are guessing words from their definitions.
But my point with Pyramid was, when GSG2K was making the uninformed comment that the No Lingo round flew in the face of conventional wisdom, there is a VERY NOTABLE example, indeed considered by many to be the Gold Standard by which endgames are judged, that contradicts him.
-
That's fine. I was just trying to remember some other examples, and failing. I didn't doubt they existed somewhere.