The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: AndyG on August 04, 2003, 05:59:55 PM
-
Some sources have reported from the tapings of H2's last season, and there are some rule changes. First, the game is played in a best two out of three format, instead of the game jackpot's of $1000, $1000, $2000, and $4000. And, the Bonus Round prizes are switched around, with the champ playing for a Trip, then Cash, and finally a Car. Also, shows can have more than one bonus round, which could make some games more exciting. Sounds pretty cool to me.
-
Does that mean it'll straddle?
-
[quote name=\'AndyG\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 04:59 PM\']Some sources have reported from the tapings of H2's last season, and there are some rule changes. First, the game is played in a best two out of three format, instead of the game jackpot's of $1000, $1000, $2000, and $4000. And, the Bonus Round prizes are switched around, with the champ playing for a Trip, then Cash, and finally a Car. Also, shows can have more than one bonus round, which could make some games more exciting. Sounds pretty cool to me.[/quote]
I don't mind the fact that the show will now straddle, if this is indeed true. The biggest problem I see is that H2 barely fits in two rounds nowadays, let alone three FULL matches. Unless the \"behind the squares\" and (unnecessary) witty banter is dropped, 2/3 matches sound like they'll be rare, unless we revert to the pace of the 98-99 season, where three or four games were feasible IIRC.
-
I still say that the producers realize their audience is more interested in the celebrities and the witty banter than they are in whether that guy or this girl wins more games of tic-tac-toe.
-
This sounds pretty damn good, you know. We've been talking about Squares going to a straddled format since at least the second season of this version, and now it does.
Any word on how the Secret Squares will work or on how long a player can stay on as champion?
-
Secret Square games are now the second game of each match; therefore, there can be more than one Secret Square game on a given show. However, the Secret Square prizes no longer roll over.
Players may stay on for a maximum of five matches.
Based on the shows I saw, they tended to get through more than one match in a given show, but not two full matches.
-
[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 12:05 AM\'] Secret Square games are now the second game of each match; therefore, there can be more than one Secret Square game on a given show. However, the Secret Square prizes no longer roll over.
Players may stay on for a maximum of five matches.
Based on the shows I saw, they tended to get through more than one match in a given show, but not two full matches. [/quote]
In other words, it took them five seasons to get to where WE'VE been saying they should have been all along.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 07:10 PM\'] [quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 12:05 AM\'] Secret Square games are now the second game of each match; therefore, there can be more than one Secret Square game on a given show. However, the Secret Square prizes no longer roll over.
Players may stay on for a maximum of five matches.
Based on the shows I saw, they tended to get through more than one match in a given show, but not two full matches. [/quote]
In other words, it took them five seasons to get to where WE'VE been saying they should have been all along. [/quote]
I say, good. The \"play 'til time runs out\" rule only belonged on the weekly syndie Marshall version and MG/HS, IMO.
-
Didn't I suggest this very thing close to a year ago? Hallelujah!!
-
Other than the lack of Secret Square rollover(probably done for budget reasons), the changes seem to be good.
-
Hmmm, i havent watched much bergeron squares since whoopi left mainly because it conflicts with The other merv griffin shows in NY and well i didnt like the idea of a rotating center square.
I am NOT a big fan of secret square rollover since it often ends up with a major case of mo' money syndrome (\"thats not the secret square but you can take it and win or look for the prizes\") so im kinda glad to see it go.
I think going back to gameplay will help this show, A major fault of this version of squares was that it went *too* much to the stars causing screen hogging and a talk show atomsphere, thats fine for something like match game but one of the charms of squares is that both the wit and wisdom could be shown by the celebs...some of that got lost over time. Although i must say it was much better than the tomfoolery on davidson squares.
-
On Saturday, after returning from the first taping day, I wrote up a detailed account of my first trip to watch Hollywood Squares. I was going to post it on this board in the Spoilers section (with three replies to myself to get it all in), but since this thread already exists, I'll just put up a web link:
http://www.geocities.com/mstiescott/hs080203.html (http://\"http://www.geocities.com/mstiescott/hs080203.html\")
Reveals the changes to the rules, but goes to great lengths to not reveal the outcome of any episode in any way.
--
Scott Robinson
-
John Moshcitta Jr is the new announcer? I guess they liked his work on the Scrabble pilot.
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 08:46 PM\'] John Moshcitta Jr is the new announcer? I guess they liked his work on the Scrabble pilot. [/quote]
I thought Rooooooooooood RODDY was the announcer on the Scrabble Pilot ?(Unless you mean the \"new\" one thats in the works).
This 2-to-3 format, wasn't that done on the 1981 Vegas Season ?
Davidson HS's game were self-contained. The scoring format was carried over into Bergerons (And it was the exact same amounts for the first couple months as I recall, except leftover squares were $250, not $200)
-Joe R.
-
[quote name=\'JRaygor\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 09:02 PM\'] [quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 08:46 PM\'] John Moshcitta Jr is the new announcer? I guess they liked his work on the Scrabble pilot. [/quote]
I thought Rooooooooooood RODDY was the announcer on the Scrabble Pilot ?(Unless you mean the "new" one thats in the works).
This 2-to-3 format, wasn't that done on the 1981 Vegas Season ?
Davidson HS's game were self-contained. The scoring format was carried over into Bergerons (And it was the exact same amounts for the first couple months as I recall, except leftover squares were $250, not $200)
-Joe R. [/quote]
I meant the new one.
IIRC, the Vegas eps had self-contained games where each game was worth one of your symbol [X or O] and the person with the most wins at the end won. The whole season was a tournament leading up to the $100,000 finals at the end.
-
[quote name=\'JRaygor\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 09:02 PM\'] This 2-to-3 format, wasn't that done on the 1981 Vegas Season ? [/quote]
In essence, that was the format used for the daytime version ($200 per game--two games out of three won the match, and any player amassing $2000 [winning five matches] received over $25,000 in prizes including a new car).
Doug
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 07:10 PM\'] In other words, it took them five seasons to get to where WE'VE been saying they should have been all along. [/quote]
Eh, now I'm indifferent to the idea, and I have a somewhat bad taste in my mouth. I see and understand them having to cut costs; as Mr. West has said, a 2.5 ain't going to cut it for a big budget show. I just hope the game play hasn't been sacrificed. I just don't see it as a really good sign when a game show has to slash the amounts they give away noticeably. Money is still money no matter how much it is, but nothing good ever comes of reduction, IMO.
Brandon Brooks
-
I wasn't even thinking about the lesser prizes when I said what you quoted. My observation was merely that they should have been doing the two-out-of-three thing all along, and CERTAINLY when they went to returning champions.
As for the money, I definitely see your point (now that I've read the link). There's nothing particularly chintzy with the new payouts taken by themselves. In other words, had this been the payout all along, I don't think anyone would accuse them of being cheap. But yeah, when they were giving out more and now they're giving out significantly less, it does look bad to regular viewers.
Still wish the champ would get 45 seconds instead of 30 so that he could realistically hear all nine questions in the bonus, but other than that, I'm pleased with the moves.
-
[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 08:40 PM\'] http://www.geocities.com/mstiescott/hs080203.html (http://\"http://www.geocities.com/mstiescott/hs080203.html\")
[/quote]
Hi Scott; didn't know you were there. I would have said \"hi\" ;-)
Great summarization. You must have taken notes to remember all those details! While I waited for \"bricon\" to chime in with clarifications for you, I'll jump in just to answer your questions.
The red crawling sign is called \"silent radio\". The new announcer is a friend of the production company and a bit of a star in his own right. John Moschitta was the \"fast talker\" in the Federal Express commercials of the 1980s, it's a feat that landed him in the Guiness Book of Records at the time. He has been heard more recently on some toy spots.
And you are correct that the shows you saw are the 2nd week of the season. The first week is a \"special week\" and was taped on Sunday
FWIW, I think that the new format greatly improves the show.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
I'm hoping all the changes in this last season will lead to a ratings resurgence and a new season following the upcoming season, so this final season could the be the prelude to the next season of H2.
-
By now, these people (producers) should've known that this is a sign for resurgence and that they should extend the life of the show by another 2-3 years.
I think, if the show straddles, it would be cool to see, since I never seen the Marshall Daytime Squares...so when is the new season starting?
-
[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' date=\'Aug 4 2003, 09:40 PM\']On Saturday, after returning from the first taping day, I wrote up a detailed account of my first trip to watch Hollywood Squares. I was going to post it on this board in the Spoilers section (with three replies to myself to get it all in), but since this thread already exists, I'll just put up a web link:
http://www.geocities.com/mstiescott/hs080203.html (http://\"http://www.geocities.com/mstiescott/hs080203.html\")
Reveals the changes to the rules, but goes to great lengths to not reveal the outcome of any episode in any way.
--
Scott Robinson[/quote]
VERY interesting recap, Scott. Thanks for sharing the link with us. :- )
-
John Moschitta was the \"fast talker\" in the Federal Express commercials of the 1980s
I actually remember him more from the Micro Machines commercials.
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 12:06 AM\'] . John Moschitta was the "fast talker" in the Federal Express commercials of the 1980s, it's a feat that landed him in the Guiness Book of Records at the time. He has been heard more recently on some toy spots.
[/quote]
Moschitta does have game show experience, doing a week of $25K Pyramid, a week of $100K Pyramid, and a week of Win Lose or Draw, and I think a week of MGHS hour as well. Moschitta should have more of a Kenny Williams feel to him than Shadoe or Jeffrey does, at least in the fastness factor.
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 05:39 AM\']
John Moschitta was the \"fast talker\" in the Federal Express commercials of the 1980s
I actually remember him more from the Micro Machines commercials. [/quote]
I remember those, and I've also seen him on PBS's Square One TV in the late-80s and on WLoD, as Zach mentioned.
So will these changes save the show? I hate to say this, but like Frasier and Friends, I foresee this being the farewell season. An entertainment tabloid costs much less to make than a celebrity-oriented game show, even with the lower stakes. King World hasn't closed the door on survival past next season, but it's all up to Joe Zapper.
-
I hate to say this, but like Frasier and Friends, I foresee this being the farewell season.
Since the show's come back several times, this is interesting to think about. If this upcoming season will be the show's last, do you think it will come back again in the future, and if so how long in the future might we have to wait?
-
At some point it will, it will be five or so years later I guess. Maybe Tom B. would even come back as host, hard to tell at this point.
-
The show has known for a while that the show may end after this season.
That's sad. Knowing it's coming.
-
The show has known for a while that the show may end after this season.
That's sad. Knowing it's coming.
Gee, if anyone has seen a cancellation notice yet, I'd like to see them bend some spoons or pick next week's lotto winners.
-
The key word is \"may\".
I'd like to see it continue.
-
John Moshcitta Jr is the new announcer?
That'll make it harder to distinguish if your local station's doing speedups. :-)
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
[quote name=\'bricon\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 07:59 AM\']
The show has known for a while that the show may end after this season.
That's sad. Knowing it's coming.
Gee, if anyone has seen a cancellation notice yet, I'd like to see them bend some spoons or pick next week's lotto winners. [/quote]
1) What part of the difference between \"may\" and \"will\" do you not understand?
2) King World been busy for the last year or so getting clearances for the show that is going to steal any prime clearances that H2 might enjoy now. Barring a ratings miracle this season, or the rehiring of Peter Marshall (and I suppose it COULD happen), it's at BEST the beginning of the end.
-
Glad to see they dumped those Behind the Squares bumpers, BTW...I noticed that when they didn't do them during this past season's ToC wk, it left a good chunk of additional gameplay time, often allowing them to squeeze in 3 1/2-4 games.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 11:43 AM\']
John Moshcitta Jr is the new announcer?
That'll make it harder to distinguish if your local station's doing speedups. :-)
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby") [/quote]
LOL! Good one, Chuck!
-
I also think John was on Family Challenge as well to help with fast talking challenges. Very Glad to see Martin Mull get Center Square. He deserves it!
-
Very Glad to see Martin Mull get Center Square. He deserves it!
I agree that Mull is a gifted comic and wit who deserves any recognition he gets. I have to say, though, that when Squares takes one of their own semi-regulars and puts them in the center, I'm left with a vague feeling that somebody isn't trying hard enough. I like the idea that the center square is reserved for a Special Guest Star.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 08:43 AM\'] [quote name=\'bricon\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 07:59 AM\']
The show has known for a while that the show may end after this season.
That's sad. Knowing it's coming.
Gee, if anyone has seen a cancellation notice yet, I'd like to see them bend some spoons or pick next week's lotto winners. [/quote]
1) What part of the difference between "may" and "will" do you not understand?
2) King World been busy for the last year or so getting clearances for the show that is going to steal any prime clearances that H2 might enjoy now. Barring a ratings miracle this season, or the rehiring of Peter Marshall (and I suppose it COULD happen), it's at BEST the beginning of the end. [/quote]
I think that he understands it in this specific instance more than anyone else on this board. After all, it's a bigger difference for him - \"I may/will not get a paycheck from them a year from now\" - than for you - \"I may/will not get to hear someone say 'for the five-square win' a year from now.\"
After all, if there was ever a valid reason for us/Steve Beverly to be going around chanting that it's likely Atari's closing up shop a year from now, I'd be very surprised if one \"the reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated\" post was all we heard from you on the matter, Chris.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 01:59 AM\'] I'm hoping all the changes in this last season will lead to a ratings resurgence and a new season following the upcoming season, so this final season could the be the prelude to the next season of H2. [/quote]
Is it certain that this is in fact the final season?
-
[quote name=\'Card Shark\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 07:57 PM\'] [quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 01:59 AM\'] I'm hoping all the changes in this last season will lead to a ratings resurgence and a new season following the upcoming season, so this final season could the be the prelude to the next season of H2. [/quote]
Is it certain that this is in fact the final season? [/quote]
Man, don't you love it when everybody's paying attention.
No, absolutely nothing is certain so early in the season. There is some amount of superficial and circumstantial evidence that suggests that it MIGHT be the last season, and that has many of our members assuming that it WILL be. But nothing official has been announced, and one could easily assume that it's WAY too early for anything official to have even been decided yet.
But I tell you, as game show FANS, it sure wouldn't hurt for us to have at least a *slightly* more positive outlook on things. The show is kicking creatively, after all the mainstream critics said it wouldn't have a chance after Whoopi left. The format changes will help them do a more economical show with more excitement (more Secret Squares, more bonus rounds). And nobody says it HAS to air in the precious prime clearances that KingWorld is locking up for a different show. If KingWorld decides to shop it, and if enough stations want it in whatever time slot they have for it, it'll come back.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 03:16 PM\'] But I tell you, as game show FANS, it sure wouldn't hurt for us to have at least a *slightly* more positive outlook on things. The show is kicking creatively, after all the mainstream critics said it wouldn't have a chance after Whoopi left. [/quote]
Didn't the ratings actually increase somewhere during the season? I thought it at least made it back to 3.0 somewhere along the line?
-
[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 09:35 AM\'] I think that he understands it in this specific instance more than anyone else on this board. After all, it's a bigger difference for him - "I may/will not get a paycheck from them a year from now" [/quote]
Excellent point, and one I didn't take into account. My apologies.
After all, if there was ever a valid reason for us/Steve Beverly to be going around chanting that it's likely Atari's closing up shop a year from now, I'd be very surprised if one \"the reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated\" post was all we heard from you on the matter, Chris.
Quite frankly, as long as the economy stays in the dumper like it has, I consider every day here as one more day I don't have to worry about making rent. Between all of the stories in the media about the economy and the stories about tech jobs moving to India, if I'm still sitting at this desk next year at this time, I'll be THRILLED.
(I'll also REALLY wanna get up and stretch. Badump-bump. Thank you very much, I'll be here all week, try your waitress, tip the swordfish...)
-
[quote name=\'bricon\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 09:59 AM\'] Gee, if anyone has seen a cancellation notice yet, I'd like to see them bend some spoons or pick next week's lotto winners. [/quote]
You're right. But you gotta admit that things don't look too optimistic. With all the radical (wonderful) changes, ratings did improve... but realistically, not enough. If they did, all the cost cutting wouldn't be happening. This has to be an unusally amazing year for H2 to be back. And you surely know that it's really hard to compete with juggernauts like WoF, J!, ET, Judge Judy, Dr. Phil, Oprah, and hell, even WWTBAM to a certain degree.
I'm still gonna watch faithfully, but remember there is a difference between pessimism and realism.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 03:30 PM\'] try your waitress, tip the swordfish [/quote]
As the cook, I must apologize that the waitress was far too salty.
Care for some busboy sorbet, on the house?
To the topic, though, Brandon said it perfectly. There is a difference between pessimism and realism.
-
[quote name=\'Dan Sadro\' date=\'Aug 5 2003, 11:06 PM\'] To the topic, though, Brandon said it perfectly. There is a difference between pessimism and realism. [/quote]
From someone who knows, there is a difference; they just intertwine so often it's hard to tell.
-
2) King World been busy for the last year or so getting clearances for the show that is going to steal any prime clearances that H2 might enjoy now. Barring a ratings miracle this season, or the rehiring of Peter Marshall (and I suppose it COULD happen), it's at BEST the beginning of the end.
I agree...even as a big fan of the show, I know the ratings have been down since the 4th season, and I even predicted it would prolly wrap up after next season.
But hey, at least they still managed to last twice as long as Davidson's version!
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 08:50 AM\'] But hey, at least they still managed to last twice as long as Davidson's version!
[/quote]
And if this should be the last year, they have the satisfaction of knowing that aside from the original, theirs was easily the best version of the show to date. All you can ask for is the knowledge that they produced the best show they could, and they certainly did that.
(jesus, that sounds like a eulogy, and the rumors of the show's death are still awfully premature...)
-
Let me put my two cents in...
Final season or not, King World should not be ashamed by any stretch. They ran for six years, which is remarkable. Like Mr. Donegan said, they ran twice as long as the Davidson version; though not close to Marshall's version, they are the second longest running version of the venerable game. This show just proves that there is room for game shows to come back in the not-too-distant future. Great job by all who made H-squared possible. I am optimistic for a seventh year, but I will not get too excited.
As for the show changes, I am all for it, despite the budget slashing. I am glad that a game show art that was once thought to be frowned upon (save for Millionaire) has returned. That will make for some excellent gameplay. One downside to this is the fact that the \"eliminate one key for each return to the bonus round\" rule is abolished. However, if that final tier is, in fact, $50,000, it may be worth it.
I will watch this season with great intent.
The Inquisitive One
(By the way, a tabloid may be cheaper to produce, but we have too many of them.)
-
H2 has had a teriffic run, and I think that it will continue to do so - in the Whoopi years, the show seemed only appropriate in that 6:30 (I live in Colorado) time slot, but now, it seems like it wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb in the afternoon. I disagree with WWTBAM, though, as the show airs at 3:00 PM here, and looks out of place.
The budget cutting measures seem to be exactly that - budget cutting measures. They will not affect the show either positively or negatively, but personally I don't think that it will be an improvement, by any means - would those who have said that it will make the show better offer an explaination without using \"behind the squares\"? (then again, I haven't seen Marshall daytime - maybe straddling adds something I'm not aware of).
Mull deserves his shot at the middle box, but I agree with Matt - the center needs to be someone who probably wouldn't be in one of the other squares.
WWTBAM is coming back with not-too-distant-from-H2's ratings. I would figure WWTBAM to have a higher budget than squares (if not last season, then now especially), and Vierra can't cost less than Tom (or Tom has one hell of an agent). Not that he's worth less, but ask someone on the street who Bergeron is and who Vierra is, and more people will identify the host of The View, I guarantee it.
Ok, I'm done now.
Thomas
Who didn't want to write several short replies in convenient places
-
then again, I haven't seen Marshall daytime - maybe straddling adds something I'm not aware of
It's not so much that straddling adds something. It's that arbitrarily stopping in the middle of a game that hasn't finished just because we're out of time takes something away. Without getting into a lot of detail (most of which we've gotten into before) I think it's a much bigger deal than most producers seem to realize.
-
Ok...H2 has had a great run. I am hopeful that it will make it to a 7th season...but it isn't looking good. America seems to be more interested in seeing Jen/Ben/Ashton/Demi/Justin/Cameron...type of shows. The new changes this year are good..even though I was never a fan of straddling games (i'm not getting into an argument about that now...) It seems that even though the payment scale is down (yet still impressive- I take it that, even w/o the $50K which may or may not be the final prize, the payouts would still be in the 50-60K range...) nothing else has been sacrificed. Now, if only a cleveland station would pick it up....
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 11:56 AM\'] It's not so much that straddling adds something. It's that arbitrarily stopping in the middle of a game that hasn't finished just because we're out of time takes something away. Without getting into a lot of detail (most of which we've gotten into before) I think it's a much bigger deal than most producers seem to realize. [/quote]
Does this go back to the \"playing bingo to time is boring\" thing? In which case, I see what you mean - although I would argue that it applies more to Lingo (which is based on game play) than H2 (which is based on comedy).
-
Without getting into a lot of detail (most of which we've gotten into before) I think it's a much bigger deal than most producers seem to realize.
Although I'm not a huge fan of straddling games on this version, maybe the producers figure that they'd keep the viewing audience for the next show if the game didn't finish when time ran out(?)
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 09:28 AM\'] One downside to this is the fact that the "eliminate one key for each return to the bonus round" rule is abolished. [/quote]
Why would it be? It's the same concept as a progressive jackpot on any other show, or the 5 extra seconds a Classic Concentration got per run at the cars. I see no reason at all the bonus game has to change.
-
Why would it be? It's the same concept as a progressive jackpot on any other show, or the 5 extra seconds a Classic Concentration got per run at the cars. I see no reason at all the bonus game has to change.
It is not the essence of the bonus game that changed, per se. You may recall that whenever a contestant goes for the same prize on the next show, one bad key is automatically removed from the picture. So instead of 9 keys to choose from, you have 8...and that is before the game begins.
Now, however, that benefit is eliminated (according to the account that I read). That sucks too, because that means that the contestant has to know the stars and may end up being stuck at the same tier for the entire run. That is a bit unfair, in my honest opinion.
The Inquisitive One
(If I totally misunderstood the stament that you have made, I sincerely apologize in advance.)
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 12:55 PM\']
Why would it be? It's the same concept as a progressive jackpot on any other show, or the 5 extra seconds a Classic Concentration got per run at the cars. I see no reason at all the bonus game has to change.
It is not the essence of the bonus game that changed, per se. You may recall that whenever a contestant goes for the same prize on the next show, one bad key is automatically removed from the picture. So instead of 9 keys to choose from, you have 8...and that is before the game begins.
Now, however, that benefit is eliminated (according to the account that I read). That sucks too, because that means that the contestant has to know the stars and may end up being stuck at the same tier for the entire run. That is a bit unfair, in my honest opinion.
The Inquisitive One
(If I totally misunderstood the stament that you have made, I sincerely apologize in advance.) [/quote]
I'll try to address Mr. Lemon's point as succinctly as possible: $
And Mr. Inquisitive... hasn't the point of this particular end game all along been using the contestants' knowledge of the stars (albeit sometimes coupled with dumb luck) to help the contestants improve their odds in a game of chance? After all, the same people who have been getting 8 and 9 squares in the end game are still going to be set up for automatic wins.
Frankly, if budget is the watchword at Squares this season, I'd rather see the end game prizes take a slight dent and have the end game have some of its crutches taken out than see the end game stay the same and have the prizes really hit bargain basement level. Of course, ideally I'd like to see the crutches remain and the prizes get even bigger... but the economics of a show in the position that Squares is in really don't justify it.
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 12:55 PM\'] Now, however, that benefit is eliminated [/quote]
Now I understand. I hadn't read that article about the guy attending the taping. I thought you were extrapolating that the one-less-key-per-return-trip rule was going to be removed simply because games straddle, I didn't realize that it was announced in the report.
I agree with you, I think that rule should remain, because a champion should get an advantage in the bonus game for repeat wins.
(If I totally misunderstood the stament that you have made, I sincerely apologize in advance.)
Nono, it was I who misunderstood you.
-
And Mr. Inquisitive... hasn't the point of this particular end game all along been using the contestants' knowledge of the stars (albeit sometimes coupled with dumb luck) to help the contestants improve their odds in a game of chance?
Duly noted. I have seen times where a contestant ran 7 of 9 and STILL lost $25,000. You are totally correct in that statement.
Frankly, if budget is the watchword at Squares this season, I'd rather see the end game prizes take a slight dent and have the end game have some of its crutches taken out than see the end game stay the same and have the prizes really hit bargain basement level. Of course, ideally I'd like to see the crutches remain and the prizes get even bigger... but the economics of a show in the position that Squares is in really don't justify it.
Once again, you have made an excellent point. Even if the budget takes a hit, it still would be fair to give the contestant the benefit of one less bad key should he or she go for the same prize a second time. I would like your ideal situation too, but it just will not happen this time.
I feel that the dent in the budget would justify that the \"Key Elimination\" rule stay into place. Now, if there was an actual INCREASE in the budget, then by all means...drop the crutch.
The Inquisitive One
-
[quote name=\'tommycharles\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 05:20 PM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 11:56 AM\'] It's not so much that straddling adds something. It's that arbitrarily stopping in the middle of a game that hasn't finished just because we're out of time takes something away. Without getting into a lot of detail (most of which we've gotten into before) I think it's a much bigger deal than most producers seem to realize. [/quote]
Does this go back to the "playing bingo to time is boring" thing? In which case, I see what you mean - although I would argue that it applies more to Lingo (which is based on game play) than H2 (which is based on comedy). [/quote]
I would agree with you completely. As I've said many times, people are not watching Hollywood Squares because they want to see which contestant gets more tic-tac-toes. The arbitrary stop is MUCH more of a problem for a show like Lingo where the game is the thing.
But I still believe it's more of an issue for a show like Squares than you might think. When you stop playing because a horn sounds -- and you haven't finished your game -- you're sending a signal to your viewers, subtle though it might be, that the game just doesn't matter. To a degree, this is the same argument that people make about Family Feud and how heavily weighted it is to the final question.
I realize the obvious differences, but notice for example that Wheel of Fortune doesn't just stop playing when their sound goes off. They finish the game that they're on. In Jeopardy, the time's-up signal is more logically a part of the game -- and it still bothers me a bit when they leave unplayed material behind. For TPIR it's a non-issue.
If you go down a list of the truly classic games -- or even the ones we consider great games that never became classics -- you'll find they either straddle, are structurally self-contained or at least have a logical speed-up round. The arbitrary stop is simply wrong.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 6 2003, 07:03 PM\'] But I still believe it's more of an issue for a show like Squares than you might think. When you stop playing because a horn sounds -- and you haven't finished your game -- you're sending a signal to your viewers, subtle though it might be, that the game just doesn't matter.
[/quote]
...and situations like the Marshall hosted show where they get through 1.5 games, and one player got more money than the game would have been worth had the buzzer not gone off - that was weird.
-
If you go down a list of the truly classic games -- or even the ones we consider great games that never became classics -- you'll find they either straddle, are structurally self-contained or at least have a logical speed-up round.
\"Whew\" popped into mind because it always fits the bill around here of \"great game, short run.\" What else?
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Aug 7 2003, 12:18 PM\']
If you go down a list of the truly classic games -- or even the ones we consider great games that never became classics -- you'll find they either straddle, are structurally self-contained or at least have a logical speed-up round.
"Whew" popped into mind because it always fits the bill around here of "great game, short run." What else?
-Jason [/quote]
Magnificent Marble Machine? :-)
-
I agree that Mull is a gifted comic and wit who deserves any recognition he gets.
Not to mention that he's one of the few semi-regs who can give both witty joke answers AND credible bluffs.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
And if this should be the last year, they have the satisfaction of knowing that aside from the original, theirs was easily the best version of the show to date. All you can ask for is the knowledge that they produced the best show they could, and they certainly did that.
No question...they even brought original HS staffer Jay Redack aboard for season 2, which may have been a contributing factor in making sure that this version was \"done right\".
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
Duly noted. I have seen times where a contestant ran 7 of 9 and STILL lost $25,000.
It happened during GS Week last Dec, IIRC.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
Magnificent Marble Machine? :-)
Well, at least it straddled!
As for Whew!, I had a problem with the structural soundness of that one for a different reason. Because the roles of the blocker and the attacker were so dramatically different, I didn't like settling it with a two-out-of-three match. I'd do it a little differently and have them play until one contestant won two games in a row, one as the blocker and one as the attacker.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 7 2003, 09:37 AM\'] Because the roles of the blocker and the attacker were so dramatically different, I didn't like settling it with a two-out-of-three match. [/quote]
This was my problem with the Rafferty Blockbusters, although that was handled OK (not GREAT, but OK) with the sixteen-space tiebreaker board for game 3.
I don't have a problem with it on Whew!, but certainly an independent third game needed to be in place where both players were on an even keel if it was found to be necessary.
-
Rafferty BB might have been better off going with the sixteen space board for all games, where neither player would have an advantage throughout the game. Well, some would argue they'd have been better retaning the two against one format of the Cullen show, but that's another story.
-
Here's an issue with \"Whew\" I can only guess came up a few times on ATGS: does anybody find it unfair they penalized a player for winning two straight rounds? A player who got to a third indeed got more money and more seconds in the Gauntlet then somebody who won it in two.
The bonus board idea is attractive for a revival for two reasons: one, it solves that problem and two, it keeps each show self-contained. My beef is it doesn't fit in when the player loses. There's no downer that he \"lost\" and no winner either. Feels flat. So, twisting my point, I'd keep things the way they were. That was a waste of time :-p
-Jason
-
If it's a self-contained Whew! you want, try a round-robin format. Three players, each blocking against one opponent and charging against another. Here's a hypothetical example:
Round 1: George blocks, Matt charges
Round 2: Let's say Matt won round 1. George now charges, Chuck blocks.
Round 3: Chuck charges, Matt blocks.
If one player wins both their rounds, he goes on the Gauntlet. If all three players win exactly one game, the player who accumulated the most money wins.
Random thought: we've seen video of three Whew! openings, one closing, and two Gauntlet runs, both wins--but never an upfront round. I wonder if someone is eventually going to upload one, because all I know about how it's done I learned from Mike Klauss's ICQ transcript from six years ago.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'Aug 7 2003, 03:00 PM\'] I wonder if someone is eventually going to upload one, because all I know about how it's done I learned from Mike Klauss's ICQ transcript from six years ago. [/quote]
Probably not, since most of us who are Whew! fans but don't have episodes to watch either a) remember watching the show and know how it works, or b) have seen Randy Amasia's Web page (which I think Klaussie now hosts following Randy's passing) which is basically an illustrated version of the show bible, and can be found here:
http://www.tv-gameshows.com/wolpert/whew/index.html (http://\"http://www.tv-gameshows.com/wolpert/whew/index.html\")
-
On Saturday, after returning from the first taping day, I wrote up a detailed account of my first trip to watch Hollywood Squares. I was going to post it on this board in the Spoilers section (with three replies to myself to get it all in), but since this thread already exists, I'll just put up a web link:
http://www.geocities.com/mstiescott/hs080203.html (http://\"http://www.geocities.com/mstiescott/hs080203.html\")
Isn't it possible to not have the best 2 out of 3 match completed by the end of the Friday show? Then what happens?
JOSH
-
The stars stay in the same place, but they bring in new symbols for the next week.
Wait... strike that; reverse it.
-
The stars stay in the same place, but they bring in new symbols for the next week.
Wait... strike that; reverse it.
So Game 1 is over, \"and we're out of time... tune in Monday when Charo is in the Center Square and we'll start with Game 2. Bye!\" How did they handle the 'weekend' straddle on the old 'Squares'?
JOSH
-
THey'd keep the game from Friday into Monday with the same squares occupied. The stars sitting in the unoccupied seats would be in play for the unfinished game Monday's show would begin with. THis is just like on MG CBS7x when the celebs changed(in seats 1,4 and 6 usually). The celebs that are sitting in the seats of the celebs matched on Friday sat out of the round two question of the game straddled on Friday, which would resume on Monday(or the next show when the five shows with that panel didn't run MOnday-Friday)
-
If it does get the ax, It'll be back within 3 years for sure
-
In Jeopardy, the time's-up signal is more logically a part of the game -- and it still bothers me a bit when they leave unplayed material behind.
That always bothers me too, especially since they're usually the most valuable answers on the board. During most of the '90s, they got through just about every question on the board, but lately they're leaving a bunch again. Is it because of things like \"Clue Crew\", which are taking up more time revealing the answers? I wonder if those additions are really necessary.
-
[quote name=\'HSquares2003\' date=\'Aug 8 2003, 08:26 AM\'] If it does get the ax, It'll be back within 3 years for sure [/quote]
Considering it took them 10 years between the Davidson version and this one, I'm not sure where you get that idea.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Aug 8 2003, 08:30 AM\'] That always bothers me too, especially since they're usually the most valuable answers on the board. [/quote]
Don't blame the game for that, blame the players. That's why Alex gives the one-minute warning - he's telling the players that if they need to see those big-ticket clues, now's the time.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 8 2003, 11:49 AM\'] [quote name=\'HSquares2003\' date=\'Aug 8 2003, 08:26 AM\'] If it does get the ax, It'll be back within 3 years for sure [/quote]
Considering it took them 10 years between the Davidson version and this one, I'm not sure where you get that idea. [/quote]
Do remember that they wanted it back in '93 or so.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 8 2003, 10:49 AM\'] [quote name=\'HSquares2003\' date=\'Aug 8 2003, 08:26 AM\'] If it does get the ax, It'll be back within 3 years for sure [/quote]
Considering it took them 10 years between the Davidson version and this one, I'm not sure where you get that idea. [/quote]
I do predict it will be back, complete with another annoying time's up buzzer. I assume the buzzer will stay on this current season, since they'll probably play a bit of game after the last commercial break, as all game shows save for WOF have something game-related after the last commercial break.
-
I wonder if they'll bring back \"The Tacky Buzzer\" ? I love the reactions from the celebs whenever that obnoxious sound blasted suddenly out of nowhere !
Davdison's had the worst \"Times-Up\" signal, just some carhorn.
-Joe R.
-
I'm not sure that anyone else has brought up the point that I would like to make about how to improve H2 once and for all: Quit scripting so much of it! Yes, the old HS had jokes given to the stars, but the questions and answers were not provided to them (most of the time, anyway). \"The Simpsons\" hit it right on the nose with their take on the new HS when Homer asked Kent Brockman if he was supposed to answer from the \"jokes\" list or the \"answers\" list. I've seen productions of \"Riverdance\" that aren't choreographed as tightly as HS.
I love celebrity game shows, but the whole point of watching the show (for me) is to see some of my favorite stars as themselves. Half the time, I don't care if they get the right answer on HS. I just want to see them try to dupe it out and watch their minds at work. On this HS, they are performers reading lines. Nothing more. That was the feeling I had when I saw Gordon Clapp from \"NYPD Blue\" on early in the run of the new HS. I was looking forward to seeing him on the show, but afterwards, I got the feeling that I was just watching him give another performance and that I knew nothing more about Gordon Clapp the person than I did before the show started.
What's more, this scripted element of the show takes away one of the key reasons to watch a game show: the play-at-home factor. On other versions of HS, the home viewer usually had time to take in the question and formulate their own response before the celebrity answered. On this version, after Tom finishes reading what is often a long, hard-to-follow question, the celebrity often immediately spits out their written answer, robbing the home viewer of the chance to play at home. Granted, the viewer can still play along with the agree-or-disagree part of the game, but even the contestant's response seems to come too fast. Maybe there's a lot of tight editing done to get as much game in as possible, but I still think that viewers aren't getting to play along as much as they used to.
This all said, I think Tom Bergeron does an excellent hosting job, and I do think this version is an improvement over other revivals. It certainly seems to be attracting some big names to the game show world, which is always good. I just wish I could see those big names as themselves and not looking down at their desks for their joke and their bluff immediately after the question is read.
Brendan
-
Here's an issue with \"Whew\" I can only guess came up a few times on ATGS: does anybody find it unfair they penalized a player for winning two straight rounds? A player who got to a third indeed got more money and more seconds in the Gauntlet then somebody who won it in two.
Indeed...former ATGSer Steve Leblang won the game in just 2 rounds, yet picked up a mere $25,480 (I think), while our dearly departed old friend Randy needed to play 3 rounds, but went away w/$26,190.
A solution was provided towards the end of the run, however, when they went to a self-contained format: to keep games from straddling, a team that won the first 2 rounds of a match got to play an additional round w/a board of pre-placed blocks.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
I'm not sure that anyone else has brought up the point that I would like to make about how to improve H2 once and for all: Quit scripting so much of it! Yes, the old HS had jokes given to the stars, but the questions and answers were not provided to them (most of the time, anyway
The celebrities on H2 do not receive the questions, they are given a joke and a bluff, plus are told the general area of the question (example: question about George Washington and marriage). They are free to make up their own bluff if they wish. And, if they think they know the answer upon hearing Tom reading the question, they can certainly give the answer too.
-
A solution was provided towards the end of the run, however, when they went to a self-contained format: to keep games from straddling, a team that won the first 2 rounds of a match got to play an additional round w/a board of pre-placed blocks.
Does anybody know the approximate date that started? I'm sure it was within the last three or four weeks of the run.
My guess is they received their cancellation notice and had to come up with a way to make sure the game ended with a guantlet run, rather than having two contestants never decide the last championship.
-
[quote name=\'bricon\' date=\'Aug 10 2003, 10:24 AM\'] The celebrities on H2 do not receive the questions, they are given a joke and a bluff, plus are told the general area of the question (example: question about George Washington and marriage). They are free to make up their own bluff if they wish. And, if they think they know the answer upon hearing Tom reading the question, they can certainly give the answer too. [/quote]
Wasn't there a disclaimer, though, that said that some celebrities may be exposed to ALL game material? Or was that just when Whoopi and Bruce were involved with the show?
-
[quote name=\'pyrfan\' date=\'Aug 10 2003, 05:18 PM\'] Wasn't there a disclaimer, though, that said that some celebrities may be exposed to ALL game material? Or was that just when Whoopi and Bruce were involved with the show? [/quote]
Bottom line: Celebrities don't receive questions and answers. They didn't in Marshall's version (I know there was a disclaimer), they didn't when Whoopi was on (I remember being told this when I was on), and they don't now. And even if they did, it doesn't matter, since it is the contestants decision to agree with them or not.
Branodn Brooks
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Aug 10 2003, 05:35 PM\']Bottom line: Celebrities don't receive questions and answers. (edit) And even if they did, it doesn't matter, since it is the contestants decision to agree with them or not.[/quote]
As far as integrity of gameplay, it might not matter, but relating to my original point of why I personally don't find the show interesting, it does matter.
On the Marshall version, the bluff was a safety net in case the celeb couldn't think of the right answer or think of their own bluff. It was fun to watch the celeb's brain wheels turning, trying to think of either the corect answer or something that seemed plausible enough, especially when their own \"bluff\" turned out to be right.
On H2, though, it seems that most of the celebs go straight for the written bluff and don't even try to dupe it out on their own. Couple that with them giving a joke answer that was also written for them, and you have a performer on a game show -- supposedly so the public can see them as themselves -- essentially reciting lines. If I wanted to watch Gordon Clapp recite lines, I'd just break out my \"NYPD Blue\" Season 1 set.
This scripted feel is why I don't watch the new HS regularly. And maybe other TV viewers feel the same way and that's why they don't watch either.
Brendan
-
Wasn't there a disclaimer, though, that said that some celebrities may be exposed to ALL game material? Or was that just when Whoopi and Bruce were involved with the show?
I'm sure other members know the details more fully, but sure, Bruce was head writer, so naturally he had access to all the questions and answers. As Executive Producer, there was probably little keeping Whoopi from seeing them if she wanted to, but I doubt she bothered.
As to the bigger issue of \"scriptedness\", I don't find the modern version dramatically different than the original in that respect. Or at least not \"worse\". Gordon Clapp is a fine dramatic actor but not a comic. NBC foisted a lot of those types on Marshall and they weren't any better, nor did we get the impression that we were peering into their personal sides. The NBC show had some clever and/or interesting personalities that did the show very well, and so does the modern version.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 11 2003, 02:10 AM\']As to the bigger issue of \"scriptedness\", I don't find the modern version dramatically different than the original in that respect. Or at least not \"worse\". Gordon Clapp is a fine dramatic actor but not a comic. NBC foisted a lot of those types on Marshall and they weren't any better, nor did we get the impression that we were peering into their personal sides. The NBC show had some clever and/or interesting personalities that did the show very well, and so does the modern version.[/quote]
Agreed, but on the other hand, would the current version allow Robert Fuller to be as great and convincing a natural bluffer as he was? He didn't need scripted material--his bluffing was reason enough for him to be there.
But of course I'm sure Brian would point out that if the panelists don't feel comfortable with the scripted material, they don't have a gun pointing at their heads demanding that they do it, as I sometimes felt was going on in the 80s version (not for real, of course, but figuratively).
-
Agreed, but on the other hand, would the current version allow Robert Fuller to be as great and convincing a natural bluffer as he was? He didn't need scripted material--his bluffing was reason enough for him to be there.
I guess what I'm saying is yes, they would, if they had someone who was that clever. My impression is that the bluff answers are provided as a crutch and too many celebrities choose to rely on the crutch rather than risk actually being creative on their own.
(BTW, Robert Fuller was my favorite celebrity on Squares for exactly that reason, and I had the wonderful opportunity to tell him so at the Hollywood signing of Peter Marshall's book.)
The flip side we haven't mentioned is the awkwardness on the original show when a star couldn't come up with a bluff. Personally, I never cared for those moments, and providing stars with a bluff prevents that from happening.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 12 2003, 01:16 PM\']The flip side we haven't mentioned is the awkwardness on the original show when a star couldn't come up with a bluff. Personally, I never cared for those moments, and providing stars with a bluff prevents that from happening.[/quote]
I don't like those moments either, and I'm not saying that they should do away with the written bluffs entirely. As you said, Matt, I just think that the celebs don't even try to come up with their own bluff and just go straight for the \"crutch\" too often.
By the way, I think Suzanne Pleshette handled the lack of a bluff best. About 5 or 10 seconds after Peter asked the question, she just said, \"Peter, I don't have a bluff for this. I'm sorry.\" Contrast that with Jonathan Winters, who I love and who is a comic genius if ever there was one but whose humor I don't think really worked on HS that well. He would eat up about a minute of camera time with some shtick and then admit that he had no idea what the answer was -- sometimes for two questions in a row.
I just think there's just got to be a happy medium between not having a bluff at all and going straight for the written help.
Brendan
-
\"Last\" season?! They're cancelling it? And after only 5 seasons?
-
[quote name=\'pyrfan\' date=\'Aug 12 2003, 10:46 PM\']By the way, I think Suzanne Pleshette handled the lack of a bluff best. About 5 or 10 seconds after Peter asked the question, she just said, \"Peter, I don't have a bluff for this. I'm sorry.\" [/quote]
And of course, there was Tony Randall, who did a whole schtick out of not knowing the answer, to which Peter would immediately cry, \"It's a game of bluff, you silly goose!\"--not to mention the seeming disgust he showed whenever the writers hit him with opera questions that would never be posed to him on \"Texaco's Opera Quiz\" on the Saturday afternoon Met broadcasts.
-
[quote name=\'AH3RD\' date=\'Aug 13 2003, 04:24 PM\'] \"Last\" season?! They're cancelling it? And after only 5 seasons? [/quote]
Have you been under a rock?
It's not canceled yet; the contract with the O&Os is expiring after this year. And five (excuse me, six) years is a pretty damn healthy run for any show.
Brandon Brooks
-
It's not canceled yet; the contract with the O&Os is expiring after this year. And five (excuse me, six) years is a pretty damn healthy run for any show.
Amen to that...it frequently made the wkly Nielsen top 20 for most of its run and as I've pointed out previously, 6 yrs is twice as long as Davidson's version lasted.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
And can we please bring back Caroline too? If anyone deserves another chance to shine, it's her.
-
[quote name=\'JMFabiano\' date=\'Aug 24 2003, 03:38 PM\'] And can we please bring back Caroline too? If anyone deserves another chance to shine, it's her. [/quote]
As a guest, maybe, but I doubt she'd be a regular for a long time. The idea of going from national talk show host to being a game show regular, in just the course of a season seems like a step down, just IMO.
Now, if she had still done H2 *last* season, then yes, it'd be cool.
-
I am NOT a big fan of secret square rollover since it often ends up with a major case of mo' money syndrome (\"thats not the secret square but you can take it and win or look for the prizes\") so im kinda glad to see it go.
I disagree (no pun intended...LOL). I've always thought \"mo' money syndrome\" applied when the overblown budget becomes the focal point of the show (i.e., Twenty-One, the $1M Pyramid pilots)...but when it's just there, as in the case of H2's Secret Square jackpot, I see no objections and am disappointed to see it go.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
Another point with the new Squares format: WIll the formats for the tournament weeks(College, TofC, etc., assuming they still have those) be changed as well to fit the new two-out-of-three format?
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Aug 13 2003, 04:39 PM\'] [quote name=\'pyrfan\' date=\'Aug 12 2003, 10:46 PM\']By the way, I think Suzanne Pleshette handled the lack of a bluff best. About 5 or 10 seconds after Peter asked the question, she just said, "Peter, I don't have a bluff for this. I'm sorry." [/quote]
And of course, there was Tony Randall, who did a whole schtick out of not knowing the answer, to which Peter would immediately cry, "It's a game of bluff, you silly goose!"--not to mention the seeming disgust he showed whenever the writers hit him with opera questions that would never be posed to him on "Texaco's Opera Quiz" on the Saturday afternoon Met broadcasts. [/quote]
What i'm waiting to see is something like this...
Tom: What war did the US win against the British in 1789?
Celeb: Easy. The answer is Weird Al Yankovic...no wait! *holds up a piece of paper and skims it* ...The Revolutionary War!
-
What i'm waiting to see is something like this...
Tom: What war did the US win against the British in 1789?
Celeb: Easy. The answer is Weird Al Yankovic...no wait! *holds up a piece of paper and skims it* ...The Revolutionary War!
You'll be waiting a long time. As people who actually work on the show have told us many, many times, the celebrities are never given the correct answers to the questions. They are typically given a gag answer and a plausible bluff in case they're stuck, but never the right answer.
-
That policy differs from that of BTB'76, on which, IIRC, the disclaimer stated \"The celebrities have been furnished with the questions and answers.\" Well, at least Jack came clean.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 24 2003, 09:50 PM\'] That policy differs from that of BTB'76, on which, IIRC, the disclaimer stated \"The celebrities have been furnished with the questions and answers.\" Well, at least Jack came clean. [/quote]
Si...
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Bouleva...5410/other.html (http://\"http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Boulevard/5410/other.html\")
It's near the bottom.
Isn't a similar disclaimer used on Osmond Pyramid as well, where it says something about the celebrities have seen the Winner's Circle material, or something related, which is likely why there's been so many wins.
BTW, I think this has now become the longest thread ever, beating out that \"Who Will Replace Barker\" thing over at EZBoard. :-)
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Aug 24 2003, 05:16 PM\'] [quote name=\'JMFabiano\' date=\'Aug 24 2003, 03:38 PM\'] And can we please bring back Caroline too? If anyone deserves another chance to shine, it's her. [/quote]
As a guest, maybe, but I doubt she'd be a regular for a long time. The idea of going from national talk show host to being a game show regular, in just the course of a season seems like a step down, just IMO.
Now, if she had still done H2 *last* season, then yes, it'd be cool. [/quote]
Point taken, but I suppose my suggestion was more of a personal bias thing. First yes it would be cool. And also I'd hate her to be forgotten post-talk show. Now that would be a waste.
J.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 24 2003, 09:50 PM\']That policy differs from that of BTB'76, on which, IIRC, the disclaimer stated \"The celebrities have been furnished with the questions and answers.\" Well, at least Jack came clean.[/quote]
Considering the format of BTB '76, not providing the answers would be a nightmare. Remember, if one of the two celebrities doesn't give the right answer, they have to throw out the question and start over.
(Of course, it still happened! Not the brightest bunch of stars on that show . . . )
-
On BTB, they could've offered the option to reject both answers (without necessarily asking the contestant to answer it as on HSq.)
-
Another point with the new Squares format: WIll the formats for the tournament weeks(College, TofC, etc., assuming they still have those) be changed as well to fit the new two-out-of-three format?
No, any \"stand-alone\" week, that is, with two different contestants per day, with no returning champions, are based on last year's format, where we play to time, and the show ends with a bonus game. That will be seen in the season premiere week September 8th. The 2 out of 3 format starts the 2nd week.