-
Watching today's episode of Blockbusters, it can now be said that the show recycled questions from the Cullen version. Case in point:
"What 'R' was first used on ships in 1241 and is what steers airplanes and boats?"
(Answer: "rudder")
That same question, word for word was used on the Cullen version and was featured on a game show clips website a couple years back. Cullen joked that 1241 was recent because (looks at watch) "it's only 1:10 now." That joke was met with crickets. Rafferty, the stand-up comic that he was, attempted no such joke.
See you at the Game Show Congress!
Andrew M. Greenstein
-
[quote name=\'AZAndrewG\' date=\'May 12 2005, 11:01 AM\'](Answer: "rutter")
[/quote]
I only hope you check spelling better on the web sites you make for your clients than you do here.
-
It's no secret that game shows reused material.
-
Well, it'd be better than "What R does household hints expert Mery Ellen suggest you use to scrape barnacles off of old boats, and can also be used to steer new boats?"
[more crickets]
Pyramid recycled a lot of their categories in the '80s as well.
- Mystery 7, who's just demonstrated why he's not a stand-up comic
-
You'll also notice that some Gold Run board layouts are recycled, with only previously used sets of initials being replaced.
-
[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'May 12 2005, 01:24 PM\']You'll also notice that some Gold Run board layouts are recycled, with only previously used sets of initials being replaced.
[snapback]85238[/snapback]
[/quote]
Actually, that's very wise. Why waste clues? Those poor writers on Whew! must've hated seeing the bulk of the fruits of their creative labors being flushed down the loo along with the Tidy Bowl Man because so few boxes on the board were exposed.
-
It totally makes sense that they would re-book unused material, especially on a game where you get to a quarter, maybe half the material at most. However, it is a little surprising that they would do it in such a blatant fashion.
Does anybody know if the clues were placed in certain positions on the board because of their relative difficulty? It seems really easy to create a "budget-friendly" board simply by putting in one column of difficult clues -- and it would look far less obvious or blatant than booking "Things that are shabby" on Pyramid.
-
[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'May 12 2005, 03:09 PM\']It totally makes sense that they would re-book unused material, especially on a game where you get to a quarter, maybe half the material at most. However, it is a little surprising that they would do it in such a blatant fashion.
[snapback]85254[/snapback]
[/quote]
In an era where game show reruns were relatively rare, I'm pretty sure no one was sitting there saying, "Hey, we'd better not use this clue - the old version had it six years ago, and any contestant who taped the show in 1981 would know it instantly."
-
[quote name=\'AZAndrewG\' date=\'May 12 2005, 02:01 PM\']Watching today's episode of Blockbusters, it can now be said that the show recycled questions from the Cullen version. [/quote]
We've found lots of examples of material being re-used by the same show in different eras. My favorite was catching a $100K Pyramid and seeing three categories in one game that were exactly the same as three categories in a $20K game I had recently watched -- right down to their punning title cards.
Part of that discovery is a phenomenon that no producer in the seventies or eighties could possibly have considered or cared about: That all these years later, you could watch the two different versions virtually side by side. Back then, it had to have been a no-brainer. You've kept all this material from the 1980 version, it's been almost a decade later, why bother creating new material when those old files are just sitting there and nobody's really going to recall that the "rudder" question was used on episode 137 of Bill's version?
-
[quote name=\'calliaume\' date=\'May 12 2005, 03:15 PM\'][quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'May 12 2005, 03:09 PM\']It totally makes sense that they would re-book unused material, especially on a game where you get to a quarter, maybe half the material at most. However, it is a little surprising that they would do it in such a blatant fashion.
[snapback]85254[/snapback]
[/quote]
In an era where game show reruns were relatively rare, I'm pretty sure no one was sitting there saying, "Hey, we'd better not use this clue - the old version had it six years ago, and any contestant who taped the show in 1981 would know it instantly."
[snapback]85255[/snapback]
[/quote]
This I wonder. Has Wheel Of Fortune repeated a puzzle? Or Concentration a rebus? Match Game '7x a fill-in-the blank statement? Card Sharks a survey question? Family Feud a survey topic? The Joker's Wild a definition?
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'May 12 2005, 04:25 PM\']This I wonder. Has Wheel Of Fortune repeated a puzzle? Or Concentration a rebus? Match Game '7x a fill-in-the blank statement? Card Sharks a survey question? Family Feud a survey topic? The Joker's Wild a definition?[/quote]
Even if it's just a coincidence, there's no way Wheel has had unique puzzles every day for 738 years. Feud has definitely reused material, though I couldn't tell you whether they conducted new surveys with the same questions, or used the results of the original survey as well.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'May 12 2005, 01:39 PM\']Feud has definitely reused material, though I couldn't tell you whether they conducted new surveys with the same questions, or used the results of the original survey as well.[/quote]
I know Jim Perry said that if they liked a Card Sharks question, they'd often re-poll it a couple of years later. I seem to recall Dawson saying something similar on a Feud ep, mentioning that it was interesting to see how the answers changed.
-
Match Game has recycled many fill in the blanks. Some of them have also popped up on MG/HS hour.
-
Around 10 years ago, IIRC, Pat Sajak said that the producers strove to continue to not repeat a puzzle on Wheel, but that it was getting harder and harder. I'm almost positive I caught them repeating one a few years later (having seen it on a GSN airing not long before).
-
[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' date=\'May 12 2005, 03:44 PM\']I know Jim Perry said that if they liked a Card Sharks question, they'd often re-poll it a couple of years later.
[snapback]85261[/snapback]
[/quote]
Well, I can confirm it's been done--on at least two occasions and possibly three, they used the question "We asked 100 married men, 'If you were walking in an alley with a beautiful girl on your arm, what would frighten you more--meeting a mugger. . .or meeting your wife?'"
Doug -- and the countdown to 1200 continues
-
I know the "Name a Famous George" question on Family Feud has been used at least 3 times (Dawson, Combs, and Karn Versions). I believe each time, there was a repoll since the answers/values/positions were different.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'May 12 2005, 03:25 PM\']This I wonder. Has Wheel Of Fortune repeated a puzzle? Or Concentration a rebus? Match Game '7x a fill-in-the blank statement? Card Sharks a survey question? Family Feud a survey topic? The Joker's Wild a definition?
[snapback]85257[/snapback]
[/quote]
Family Feud has reused at least two survey topics; as a matter of fact, in one of them, they re-used the original survey. The re-used survey was, "Name something with a hole in it"; the three answers were doughnut, bagel, and ring. When they re-used a question with a different survey, Richard pointed this out; the question was, "Name a famous Henry." This was when Happy Days was at its peak, so the top answer was Henry Winkler; I think Richard said that Henry Fonda was #1 the first time.
Speaking of reusing games: I remember a Jack Clark Cross-Wits where they only gave two clues and revealed one word when the time ran out; Jack then announced that they would not reveal the answer because they wanted to use the puzzle again on a future show (although they would change the two clues that had been read).
-- Don
-
[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'May 12 2005, 03:09 PM\']It totally makes sense that they would re-book unused material, especially on a game where you get to a quarter, maybe half the material at most. However, it is a little surprising that they would do it in such a blatant fashion.
Does anybody know if the clues were placed in certain positions on the board because of their relative difficulty? It seems really easy to create a "budget-friendly" board simply by putting in one column of difficult clues -- and it would look far less obvious or blatant than booking "Things that are shabby" on Pyramid.
[snapback]85254[/snapback]
[/quote]
Certain clues in the Gold Run were placed in the top or bottom hexes because those were slightly scrunched compared to the rest.
There were a limited number of main game board layouts in the Cullen version because it would be much cheaper to reuse the same boards over and over. What's surprising is that the Rafferty version used the same layouts. Since they had gone to a computer-generated board, you'd think they could put whatever letters wherever they wanted. (And would it really have been that expensive to write a program to place the letters randomly?)
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'May 12 2005, 09:04 PM\'][quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'May 12 2005, 03:09 PM\']It totally makes sense that they would re-book unused material, especially on a game where you get to a quarter, maybe half the material at most. However, it is a little surprising that they would do it in such a blatant fashion.
Does anybody know if the clues were placed in certain positions on the board because of their relative difficulty? It seems really easy to create a "budget-friendly" board simply by putting in one column of difficult clues -- and it would look far less obvious or blatant than booking "Things that are shabby" on Pyramid.
[snapback]85254[/snapback]
[/quote]
Certain clues in the Gold Run were placed in the top or bottom hexes because those were slightly scrunched compared to the rest.
There were a limited number of main game board layouts in the Cullen version because it would be much cheaper to reuse the same boards over and over. What's surprising is that the Rafferty version used the same layouts. Since they had gone to a computer-generated board, you'd think they could put whatever letters wherever they wanted. (And would it really have been that expensive to write a program to place the letters randomly?)
[snapback]85316[/snapback]
[/quote]
I don't think it would have been expensive to make them random. Coming from a programmer of 8 years, it doesn't take much to do it.
But I assume for the Gold Run, the writers offstage have to follow a chart of sorts that replicated the board layout[or maybe they were alphabetized]. Chris319 could possibly answer that one...
-Dan
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'May 12 2005, 03:25 PM\']This I wonder. Has Wheel Of Fortune repeated a puzzle? Or Concentration a rebus? Match Game '7x a fill-in-the blank statement? Card Sharks a survey question? Family Feud a survey topic? The Joker's Wild a definition?
[snapback]85257[/snapback]
[/quote]
The Stumpers category of the real Joker's Wild was entirely recycled questions that players missed. Recycled definitions on Pat Finn's version? I doubt it since there was only a season's worth of shows. The writers would have to be really lazy if they couldn't fill one full seaon of material.
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'May 12 2005, 09:04 PM\']There were a limited number of main game board layouts in the Cullen version because it would be much cheaper to reuse the same boards over and over. What's surprising is that the Rafferty version used the same layouts. Since they had gone to a computer-generated board, you'd think they could put whatever letters wherever they wanted. (And would it really have been that expensive to write a program to place the letters randomly?)
[snapback]85316[/snapback]
[/quote]
Considering the PYL board wasn't random (yes, I know BB came after PYL, but still...), I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. OTOH, maybe they wanted to spread the letters out strategically, i.e. don't put A, B, and C so close to each other. And such possibilities are not exactly infinite, especially if you want to use Q, X, or Z so rarely. Has anybody noticed that:
- Q and Z always appear in corners?
- Between the two versions, whenever a Q or Z came up, it was picked to start the game almost every time? Doesn't seem so random to me.
- As best to my knowledge, X has appeared only once in Blockbusters history. (Yes, it was picked to start the game as well.)
Last year I worked on a Blockbusters game (it's been on hold on months), and I developed a way to try to make Q, X, and Z appear only sporadically with random boards (I wasn't aware of the preset boards at the time). Sure enough, I still got two of those letters more often than none.
And as for Gold Run, I've seen the letters BC a lot in Cullen's version, and no less than three of those BC questions referred to a certain game show host who had those very initials.
Computer mice. Rafferty's getting technical on us. :-)
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'May 12 2005, 09:05 PM\']Last year I worked on a Blockbusters game (it's been on hold on months), and I developed a way to try to make Q, X, and Z appear only sporadically with random boards (I wasn't aware of the preset boards at the time). Sure enough, I still got two of those letters more often than none.
[/quote]
Easy. Figure out what percentage of the time you want a given letter to NOT be featured in a given board, to however many decimal places pleases you. (This should total 100%.) Then assign the alphabet to a percentage chart, kinda like those Random Monster Tables you see in D&D games. (So, say, 0%-1% is A, then 1.1%-3% is B, and so forth, until you get Z at 81%-100%.) Then you write a quick routine that a) selects a percentage, consults the chart, and knocks that letter out of the possible 20, repeating if it selects a letter that has already been selected, and further repeating until you have six letters. Randomize the rest of the letters into an array, and there's your board.
-
And if you don't want, say, Q and Z to appear together, you can set up a routine that automatically eliminates one of them when the other is picked.
If, for example, you were simply picking slips of paper out of a hat, you could just write "Q/Z" on one of them, and if you picked that one, flip a coin for which letter actually gets used. :-)
-
And songs were repeated on "Name That Tune" all the time.
In the case of "Whew!", the categories on the show were a small and finite list, so unused bloopers were sure to be booked on the boards again. I personally think that there was not that much difference between a $20 blooper and a $50 blooper, between you and me, so Wolpert could move them around at will.
And of course, as Trebek says on "J!", the responses are reused, it's just the clues written for them that change every year or so. With that in mind, I'd love to say what they've used over the years to elicit the response "Who is George Washington?"--and when they used "The Father of Our Country." Just "The Father of Our Country."
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'May 16 2005, 06:25 PM\']In the case of "Whew!", the categories on the show were a small and finite list, so unused bloopers were sure to be booked on the boards again.
[snapback]85628[/snapback]
[/quote]
Ah, okay. Good to know. Damn, that show had too short of a life. Reruns of Alice indeed. Why, I ask you, why? WHY? WHY?!? Plus, it cut Doug Edwards down to a minute a day.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'May 16 2005, 09:52 PM\']
Ah, okay. Good to know. Damn, that show had too short of a life. Reruns of Alice indeed. Why, I ask you, why? WHY? WHY?!? Plus, it cut Doug Edwards down to a minute a day.
[snapback]85652[/snapback]
[/quote]
WHP-TV 21 (Harrisburg, PA) expressed its displeasure at the cancellation of "Whew!" by airing reruns of "Maude" for the summer of '80. It relented in the fall, picking up "Alice" by then.
(Yes, I know they probably weren't ticked at Whew! ending, but it was fun to say so)
ObGameShow: I remember being totally excited in fall '82 when that sitcom hour was replaced by $25K Pyramid and Child's Play.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'May 16 2005, 08:52 PM\'][quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'May 16 2005, 06:25 PM\']In the case of "Whew!", the categories on the show were a small and finite list, so unused bloopers were sure to be booked on the boards again.
[snapback]85628[/snapback]
[/quote]
Ah, okay. Good to know. Damn, that show had too short of a life. Reruns of Alice indeed. Why, I ask you, why? WHY? WHY?!? Plus, it cut Doug Edwards down to a minute a day.
[snapback]85652[/snapback]
[/quote]
I suspect bringing on luminaries such as John Saxon and Trish Stewart in an effort to increase ratings couldn't have helped any.....
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'May 16 2005, 09:18 PM\']I suspect bringing on luminaries such as John Saxon and Trish Stewart in an effort to increase ratings couldn't have helped any.....
[snapback]85660[/snapback]
[/quote]
Ah, John Saxon. That one-man stud farm from The Bold Ones.
John Saxon, Pat O'Brien and a hot tub. It'd be better than Spartacus.