-
List your favorite version of Card Sharks--and if applicable, reasons why.
-
NBC: Best host, basic game play, no 'added extras' that got in the way of the pacing, clever questions, badass theme song...
[Three Hours Later]
...and the green set looked like it would fit in at a casino.
-
What Travis said.
-
Ditto.
Doug
-
I'm going along with what Travis said, too. The NBC version is my favorite. Loved the theme music and set. I'd pick Perry as my favorite host of all the guys who hosted the show as well.
-
I want to say Eubanks; I'm more partial to the CBS run, mainly b/c it's what I grew up on, but Eubanks semi-smug personality drops it down a bit (haven't really seen Rafferty in action). Perry's interaction with the personality just might give the NBC run an edge.
However, I think the CBS run had a better set.
-
I've grown to favor Rafferty's version after watching it sporadically over the past two months. I think the new elements they added to the show (audience polls, prize cards, etc.) enhanced the gameplay without taking away from what made the original format so appealing, and Bill's hosting style is a happy medium between Jim Perry's dramaticism and the over-the-top silliness of Bob Eubanks.
-
NBC. Great set, no-gimmick gameplay, and top-flight hosting by the Master Of Suspense, Jim Perry. Need I say more?
-
If it means taking each version exactly as it was played at the time, it's the original for me as well -- for all the reasons that have been mentioned.
But if you could mix-and-match, I'd take everything about the NBC version as it was when it ended (push rule, etc.) and add the CBS money card rules (1 change anywhere on a line and +$400 on the second level for $32K max).
-
I lean toward CS86 because I like the car game (it's neat hearing TPiR car music outside TPiR...especially when they play "The Big Banana"), and the fact that you can change the card anywhere on the line.
Hostwise, I lean a bit towards Rafferty for CS86.
-
HOSTS: Well, it's Perry hands down. However, after seeing Rafferty, I can say I like him better than Eubanks.
FORMAT: They were both alright. I don't have any problem with either. The audience polls and car games would grow on you after a little while.
SET: They were both awesome in their own ways.
MUSIC: Perry's version, hands down.
MY VERDICT: Perry, although the Rafferty version [under the rules we're seeing now on GSN] isn't far behind. Only Fremantle could really screw this game up, as we all have seen.
-
CS78 without a doubt. Can't beat the original. I 100% agree with the sentiment Jim was a master of suspense. It had precious few flaws which, over time, were fixed -- mainly the "push" rule in the money cards.
The late '80s versions did add a nice touch with upping the ante in the money cards -- as well as a new way of making exchanges with the three spare cards. But, as noted elsewhere in this forum, by the time the car games and the 10-person audience polls came into the show, the pacing really dragged.
-
I like the look and feel of the CBS run.
The Eighties set is one of my most favorite game show sets ever, right after 'Hollywood Squares' from that time.
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'May 20 2005, 02:28 PM\']Ditto.
Doug
[snapback]85923[/snapback]
[/quote]
Yuh huh :)
Perry's version was my favourite CS version as well. One question though. I prefer on the bonus round where the same card is NOT a push. The reason is that I prefer if the gameplay stays consistant for the mostpart from the main game to the bonus round. If a push is considered ok in the bonus round, the same rule should've been applied to the main game. Since this was not the case, I preferred CS before the push rule was used. It would've been interesting though to see the push rule used in a main game. I did like though the $500 bonus for anyone sweeping the cards in the main game in the 80-81 season.
I lied. I have one more question. Was it in the rules where you could say that the card was not higher OR lower but rather than the card was the same? Would've been intertesting to see if someone had a gut instinct and and use a rule like this and to have it actually happen. The odds are lousy but at 1:13, the same cards appearing back-to-back happened many times throughout CS's run.
I dare anyone who says CS '01 :)
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 21 2005, 09:08 AM\']I lied. I have one more question. Was it in the rules where you could say that the card was not higher OR lower but rather than the card was the same?
[/quote]
No. Unlike some shows, they had rules in place to keep people from being ABJECT MORONS.
Sometimes I wish we had similar rules here.
I dare anyone who says CS '01 :)
To do, um, what?
-
It goes right up the middle for me. Both the NBC and CBS daytime editions, hands down.
The 2001 syndie version wrecked the entire scheme of things with its new rules (and, I might add, its new set!) and it earned its failure.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 21 2005, 12:45 PM\'][quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 21 2005, 09:08 AM\']I lied. I have one more question. Was it in the rules where you could say that the card was not higher OR lower but rather than the card was the same?
[/quote]
No. Unlike some shows, they had rules in place to keep people from being ABJECT MORONS.
Sometimes I wish we had similar rules here.
[snapback]86021[/snapback]
[/quote]
So people don't like being nitpickers, huh? :)
I guess people don't like stirring up anything with stupid questions. I didn't think the question was that moronic. If the push rule was never in place, contestants could be morons by complaining that the money cards was not possible to win because of how the cards were laid out. If the card's the same back-to-back, you're screwed in a loophole. If a possibility that something could happen without having a rule in place, it's called "pass me the aspirin when it happens and a contestant complains." :)
Oh yeah, a moronic question would be "Do people actually care about the poems on CS and if so, which one do you like and why?"
Aces are high,
Deuces are low.
Pick up your cards,
and away we go....
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 21 2005, 05:41 PM\']I guess people don't like stirring up anything with stupid questions. I didn't think the question was that moronic.
[/quote]
You were wrong. God, were you wrong.
If the push rule was never in place, contestants could be morons by complaining that the money cards was not possible to win because of how the cards were laid out.
...at which point they would be directed to the released they signed which indicated they understood the rules of the game that were provided to them, and then told (hopefully in these exact words) to STFU.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 21 2005, 07:56 PM\'][quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 21 2005, 05:41 PM\']I guess people don't like stirring up anything with stupid questions. I didn't think the question was that moronic.
[/quote]
You were wrong. God, were you wrong.
[snapback]86080[/snapback]
[/quote]
I guess to ask a question, never ask it to clemon79 otherwise you might get GONGED.
I'm sure I'm not the only one on this board who wondered if there was a rule on CS to say that the next was not higher or lower but rather that it was the same.
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 21 2005, 09:33 PM\']
I'm sure I'm not the only one on this board who wondered if there was a rule on CS to say that the next was not higher or lower but rather that it was the same.
[snapback]86097[/snapback]
[/quote]
We don't wonder about that, the damned rules of the game as explained by the hosts early in the run said that the players had to predict whether each card would be higher or lower than the one that precede it, not higher, lower, or the same.
-
No, just don't ask questions that you know the answer to. Why on EARTH would you say "I think it's a repeat, Jim!" when the odds are roughly 12:1 against? When you can call higher/lower?
Yeesh.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'May 21 2005, 09:37 PM\']No, just don't ask questions that you know the answer to. Why on EARTH would you say "I think it's a repeat, Jim!" when the odds are roughly 12:1 against? When you can call higher/lower?
Yeesh.
[snapback]86099[/snapback]
[/quote]
It might've been a rule that wouldn't have been used much but at least it would've been there. The odds suck at 12:1 I agree but at least the contestant wouldn't have felt it was a lost cause since the option would've been available. Then the contestant wouldn't have had any excuses... he/she just picked the wrong option and lost.
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 21 2005, 08:35 PM\']It might've been a rule that wouldn't have been used much but at least it would've been there. The odds suck at 12:1 I agree but at least the contestant wouldn't have felt it was a lost cause since the option would've been available. Then the contestant wouldn't have had any excuses... he/she just picked the wrong option and lost.
[/quote]
You can keep trying to explain it, it doesn't make the notion any less idiotic.
You KNOW you've been pwned when Zach flames you along with everyone else.
-
I suppose on "Tic Tac Dough" you think the contestant should be allowed another chance after he hits the dragon too.
-
Well, I guess being curious about something that nobody else ever gave a damn. Moronic to some people is interesting to others.
BTW: Comparing TTD to CS bonus rounds cannot be done. At least in TTD, all the options are available to you and you don't have a 1:12 chance of losing no matter what you do. If it's part of the rules that the contestant gets screwed over if a double comes up... then so be it. In that case, it would make even more sence having the PUSH rule into effect.
I guess I need to dig up something more interesting to talk about on this board otherwise I'll just watch from the sidelines.
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 22 2005, 09:19 AM\']
I guess I need to dig up something more interesting to talk about on this board otherwise I'll just watch from the sidelines.
[snapback]86129[/snapback]
[/quote]
In 96 posts, that's the best thing you've suggested.
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 22 2005, 09:19 AM\']Well, I guess being curious about something that nobody else ever gave a damn. Moronic to some people is interesting to others.
[snapback]86129[/snapback]
[/quote]
Which explains all the back-up you're getting.
[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 22 2005, 09:19 AM\']I guess I need to dig up something more interesting to talk about on this board otherwise I'll just watch from the sidelines.
[snapback]86129[/snapback]
[/quote]
The sidelines are infinitely better that spectating from the set of The $64,000 Challenge.
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 21 2005, 10:35 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'May 21 2005, 09:37 PM\']No, just don't ask questions that you know the answer to. Why on EARTH would you say "I think it's a repeat, Jim!" when the odds are roughly 12:1 against? When you can call higher/lower?
Yeesh.
[snapback]86099[/snapback]
[/quote]
It might've been a rule that wouldn't have been used much but at least it would've been there. The odds suck at 12:1 I agree but at least the contestant wouldn't have felt it was a lost cause since the option would've been available. Then the contestant wouldn't have had any excuses... he/she just picked the wrong option and lost.
[snapback]86107[/snapback]
[/quote]
Well, that's why it's called GAMBLING! There's an element of chance that someone will lose. It'd be boring as hell otherwise.
Here's what I think of your notion, and I'll put it in Card Sharks terms.
(Jim Perry): It's the SAME CARD call idea! Is the next idea going to be HIGHER or LOWER?
(Saussage): HIGHER.
(Jim Perry filps card and says): You're right! It's the Scarecrow (Award) of Clubs!
-
The guy with 4 3's may have wanted to use a rule like that :)
I think Modor would want to throw a pie in my face. I have a 1 in 12 chance...
* ducks *
-
Let's move on, people...
I was too young to remember the original Perry version, but the mid-'80s with Eubanks/Rafferty had a flashier set and exciting gameplay...not to mention Lacey and Susanna dealing the cards in those short skirts that showed off a lot of those (pantyhosed) legs! Even the computer animated open added a nice touch to it.
As for "Card Guppies" (the 2001 version)? Only thing I liked about it was the logo; we all know about everything else.
Jonathan Allen
-
[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 22 2005, 07:16 PM\']The guy with 4 3's may have wanted to use a rule like that :)
I think Modor would want to throw a pie in my face. I have a 1 in 12 chance...
* ducks *
[snapback]86184[/snapback]
[/quote]
No, Modor, like the rest of us, are just going to put your exciting 'contributions' into the ignore user file.
-
[quote name=\'johnnya2k3\' date=\'May 23 2005, 05:23 PM\']Let's move on, people...
I was too young to remember the original Perry version, but the mid-'80s with Eubanks/Rafferty had a flashier set and exciting gameplay.
[snapback]86265[/snapback]
[/quote]
What, Jim Perry's version wasn't exciting?
I think the word you're looking for to describe the set in '86 is "cheaper". More lights do not equate directly to "flashier." I personally liked the '78 set for its mirrors and the glitz on the cards you'd see in the background during the Money Cards.
-
My 2 cents:
I prefer the '86 versions (both Eubanks and Rafferty), due to both having the "No Loss on a Push" rule in the Money Cards (something the '78 and '01 versions didn't have).
I mean, seriously, you're playing against the House. You shouldn't lose on a double.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'May 27 2005, 07:32 PM\']My 2 cents:
I prefer the '86 versions (both Eubanks and Rafferty), due to both having the "No Loss on a Push" rule in the Money Cards (something the '78 and '01 versions didn't have).
I mean, seriously, you're playing against the House. You shouldn't lose on a double.
[snapback]86763[/snapback]
[/quote]
The last year of the NBC CS did have the push rule intact, as did most of the 2001 version. The last batch of episodes of the 2001 version taped had the push=loss rule.
-
Hands down, the '78 NBC version. Jim Perry, poetry read by Gene Wood, the motorized freeze bars.
I'm just getting into the 80s Rafferty version (thanks GSN); seems about on par with the Eubanks/CBS take.
I've never seen this 2001 version that seems to turn every stomach on the board; Toledo's big four stations weren't too big on game shows that year.
-
[quote name=\'Radiofreewill\' date=\'May 28 2005, 06:36 AM\']I've never seen this 2001 version that seems to turn every stomach on the board; Toledo's big four stations weren't too big on game shows that year.
[/quote]
Don't worry. It ate so much ass that even an Olsen Twin would have been full up on it when it was over. "My God, was that an awful lot of ASS." :)
-
And another reason for liking the '86 versions is the rules concerning changing cards in the Money Cards:
On the '78 version, when it first began, you could only change the base card on the bottom level, which didn't help much. Then, they changed the rules to where you could change the base card of each level. That was better, but often you were stuck with middle cards that preceded your base card.
With the '86 versions, you could change any one card on each level (and it didn't even have to be the base card!).
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'May 28 2005, 05:54 PM\']With the '86 versions, you could change any one card on each level (and it didn't even have to be the base card!).
[snapback]86826[/snapback]
[/quote]
I believe early in the Eubanks run, you weren't limited to change one card per line.
I seem to recall one player changing the same card twice.
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'May 28 2005, 04:15 PM\']I believe early in the Eubanks run, you weren't limited to change one card per line.
I seem to recall one player changing the same card twice.
[/quote]
That's correct. If you wanted to burn all three change-cards on your base card, you were welcome to. I would guess that prolly changed when they realized that if someone played straight through to the Big Bet without changing a card, they had four shots at something decent to bet on, and that could become expensive.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 28 2005, 07:29 PM\'][quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'May 28 2005, 04:15 PM\']I believe early in the Eubanks run, you weren't limited to change one card per line.
I seem to recall one player changing the same card twice.
[/quote]
That's correct. If you wanted to burn all three change-cards on your base card, you were welcome to. I would guess that prolly changed when they realized that if someone played straight through to the Big Bet without changing a card, they had four shots at something decent to bet on, and that could become expensive.
[/quote]
Exactly. I remember early in the run when this particular rule was in effect, someone ran the money cards for $29,000. I guess the folks at the mighty ship Goodson realized that the rule might break the budget a bit and had to modify it...
-
[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'May 28 2005, 07:10 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 28 2005, 07:29 PM\'][quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'May 28 2005, 04:15 PM\']I believe early in the Eubanks run, you weren't limited to change one card per line.
I seem to recall one player changing the same card twice.
[/quote]
That's correct. If you wanted to burn all three change-cards on your base card, you were welcome to. I would guess that prolly changed when they realized that if someone played straight through to the Big Bet without changing a card, they had four shots at something decent to bet on, and that could become expensive.
[/quote]
Exactly. I remember early in the run when this particular rule was in effect, someone ran the money cards for $29,000. I guess the folks at the mighty ship Goodson realized that the rule might break the budget a bit and had to modify it...
[snapback]86834[/snapback]
[/quote]
They had quite a few five digit MC wins during the first few weeks of the run due to that card change rule. The only contestant in Eubanks CS history who was forced to retire before they won their fifth game occurred during that period(retire at $50K was the norm through late 1986)
-
Well, I looked back on my recordkeeping I was doing at the time GSN aired these episodes, and apparently the $29,000 win came well after the "one card per line" rule was in effect.
The champ you're referring to, Chris, only played the MC twice, but won $28,000 and $22,400 successively. He did in fact retire with $50,800 total. This was on the third on-air week.
Overall, there were 10 five digit wins in the four weeks these rules were in effect. Unbelieveable!
-
Hands down...Jim Perry's Card Sharks were the best.
-
Overall, there were 10 five digit wins in the four weeks these rules were in effect. Unbelieveable!
And one of those 5-digit wins from the first month or so of Eubanks' CS was ALMOST a perfect $32K...contestant had $16K on the Big Bet, but chickened out over a less-than-ideal card and only wagered the required "1/2 of what you have" minimum.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'May 30 2005, 09:40 PM\']
Overall, there were 10 five digit wins in the four weeks these rules were in effect. Unbelieveable!
And one of those 5-digit wins from the first month or so of Eubanks' CS was ALMOST a perfect $32K...contestant had $16K on the Big Bet, but chickened out over a less-than-ideal card and only wagered the required "1/2 of what you have" minimum.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
[snapback]87126[/snapback]
[/quote]
This was a bit later in the run(1988 IIRC), but there was one time a $32K win would have happened if the contestant had picked the other remaining card to change on the Big Bet. Contestant had $16K at the Big Bet, picked a less-than-stellar card to change with, and the other card left to change was revealed to be an Ace.
-
OH... WOW...
WAY back when, at least 6 years ago, early in my website history, this was one of the first little features I had. I polled a lot of you here when we still had alt.tv.game-shows about this same Card Sharks stuff.
If I recall, the questions I asked were this: (I'll give my personal answers in the process, and they've now been extended to include Bulard's version.)
Best Host: Perry, Eubanks, Rafferty or Bulard?
My vote: Perry, for many of the reasons the rest of you have said to this point.
Best Set: 70's, 80's or 00's?
My vote: This was tough, but I ultimately went with the red set of the 70's. (I think that's the one you were arguing for when you said "green", Travis.) It's so darn close with the 80's, though. 00's wasn't bad, but needed more of the casino feel of the others.
Best Theme: 70's, 80's or 00's?
My vote: Another super close one, I really thought the 70's and 80's both kicked tail. But I'll go with the 70's. What DID the 00's theme sound like, anyway?
Best Rule for a Tie on the Money Cards: Push, No Push, or Something Else?
My vote: I was one of the few at the time that voted for something else. My personal thought (and I still adhere to it) is that every tie is a push EXCEPT the 2 and the Ace. This way, there is always a risk factor.
Those are the four main questions I remember asking back then. But after seeing a couple of your comments, I'm inspired to make a couple new questions, and answer them accordingly:
Best question format: 70's, 80's, or 00's?
My vote: I assume there's no difference between Eubanks' and Rafferty's formats (Anyone wanna verify?). I'm gonna go with the straight surveys of the 70's. I loved the Educated Guess questions, but the Audience polls were a little slow, thus not quite as cool. They kind of cancel each other out as a result. I realize that there were other things that slowed the 80's runs down, but if they only added the Educated Guesses, my answer would have been different. The Clip Chips, though... all wrong.
Best Change Rule on the Money Cards: 1st Card Only, 1st Card per Line, or Once per Line?
My vote: This one's easy. 1 per line. And as a side to this...
Better Way to Change a Card on the Money Cards: Top of the Deck or 3-Card Bank?
My vote: Easy call here, too. 3-card bank. This doesn't make you totally dependent on the next card. (BTW, does anyone have a better term than "3-Card Bank"? That's all I could come up with.)
Better Money Cards Structure: 70's/80's or 00's?
My vote: 70's/80's. It doesn't look right without that 3rd card on the 2nd line, and while the money division on Bulard's verson was definitely interesting and always left you a chance to keep the game going, I was still bothered by the fact that you were risking your main game money and could thus leave with nothing.
Best Car Game: Jokers, Surveys, or None?
My vote: It's cool they wanted to offer cars. But if I had to pick... I'd say none. Can't decide which of the two formats was better, and I'm not sure if they were the best way to do it, either.
Prize Cards: Yes or No?
My vote: Haven't seen a Rafferty ep where they came up yet, but... sure, why not? Doesn't bother me. But I'd only discuss the prizes after the match. Don't stop the game midway.
That's my take. And if anyone honestly liked Bulard's version the best in any way... well, to each their own.
-
[quote name=\'Sonic Whammy\' date=\'May 31 2005, 10:35 AM\']What DID the 00's theme sound like, anyway?
[snapback]87177[/snapback]
[/quote]
I can't describe it, but it sounded like it belonged on a Nickelodeon game show, no glitzy feel whatsoever. I know there's a portion of it on Uproar's CS game. It's semi-catchy (I said "semi"), but it's also extremely repetitive. Typical Alan Ett theme song (:30 of the same thing looped over and over again).
-
My two cents as follows...
Hands down, the original is the best here!
Jim is the master of suspense and the game just flowed right along...It's the very thing that compells me to tivo his shows when they are on.
I"d rank Bob's version above Bill's any day (Maybe it's just me, but it drives me nuts every time Bill screws something up... i.e., saying the third question out of four is the "final question" of the game)
And for the record, (not that anyone would care) I personally rank CS01 the worst remake of all time with Billy Bush's LMAD coming in 2nd, and TTD90 a close third