The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Jimmy Owen on August 20, 2003, 02:23:32 PM
-
What do you guys think is the lowest threshold to be considered \"a good run\" for a traditional five-day-a-week series?
-
5 years
-
As long as \"lowest threshold\" is part of the consideration, I've always considered three years to be a decent run. The vast majority don't make it that far, and there are several shows (Press Your Luck, Davidson's Squares, Three on a Match, Eye Guess) that certainly deserve to be considered \"good\" runs.
-
I think....
Less than ½ years: Awful
½-1 year: Not too good
1-2 years: Ehhh... OK.
2-3 years: Good Run
3-5 years: Great Run
5-beyond: Excellent Run
-
[quote name=\'whampyl03\' date=\'Aug 20 2003, 03:56 PM\'] I think....
Less than ½ years: Awful
½-1 year: Not too good
1-2 years: Ehhh... OK.
2-3 years: Good Run
3-5 years: Great Run
5-beyond: Excellent Run [/quote]
I think....
Less than ½ years: Awful
½-1 year: Not too good
1-2 years: Ehhh... OK.
2-3 years: Good Run
3-5 years: Great Run
5-beyond: Excellent Run
So, do you think that \"Shop til You Drop\"(7+ years) and \"Supermarket Sweep\"(7+ years) is a EXCELLENT RUN while \"WWtBaM?\" (ABC)(2-3 years) is a GOOD RUN?
I think you don't have the episodes down. You also need a host/producer that will work/fix with the show AND audience support AND a network will get a GOOD/GREAT slot
StYD and SS had the episodes. However, there were cable game shows. So, there were little/no support. WWtBaM? had a good slot, one of the Big 3 were on their side. However, there were on EVERY DAY (5 days). So, there lost 3/4 of the audience and got canned and went to SYD.
That's why # of years isn't the key for a run. It's all four to make you work.
Charles Atkins
-
Quantity doesn't imply quality.
-
So, do you think that \"Shop til You Drop\"(7+ years) and \"Supermarket Sweep\"(7+ years) is a EXCELLENT RUN while \"WWtBaM?\" (ABC)(2-3 years) is a GOOD RUN?
Sure. STYD and Sweep have had excellent runs, and WWtBaM? has had a good run so far. Why would you disagree?
I think you don't have the episodes down. You also need a host/producer that will work/fix with the show AND audience support AND a network will get a GOOD/GREAT slot
Now I see. What does this have to do with whether a show has had a good run or not?
StYD and SS had the episodes. However, there were cable game shows. So, there were little/no support. However, there were on EVERY DAY (5 days). So, there lost 3/4 of the audience and got canned and went to SYD.
That's why # of years isn't the key for a run. It's all four to make you work.
This logic escapes me. A good run is a good run whether you liked the show or not.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'whampyl03\' date=\'Aug 20 2003, 03:56 PM\'] I think....
Less than ½ years: Awful
½-1 year: Not too good
1-2 years: Ehhh... OK.
2-3 years: Good Run
3-5 years: Great Run
5-beyond: Excellent Run [/quote]
This logic escapes me. A good run is a good run whether you liked the show or not.
So, Blockbusters (Cullen's version, 1 1/2 year) and Click (1 year) sucks, if I follow you. I think Blockbusters is a good, almost great run and Click is a good run. The Newlywed Game and The Dating Game sucks, but on your rating, these are excellent runs.
You have your opinion and I will have mine.
Charles
-
So, Blockbusters (Cullen's version, 1 1/2 year) and Click (1 year) sucks, if I follow you. I think Blockbusters is a good, almost great run and Click is a good run. The Newlywed Game and The Dating Game sucks, but on your rating, these are excellent runs.
Yes, they were excellent runs. You have to look at these shows from the normal TV watcher's perspective, and they are probably 10 times more likely to remember the Newlywed Game and the Dating Game than they are Click and Blockbusters.
While I will agree with you that the latter two shows are definitely better than the former two in terms of quality, in the TV world, it's quantity that makes a big deal (otherwise, why would ABC have even fathomed a permanent three-night-a-week run of Millionaire?).
You have your opinion and I will have mine.
Of course! My opinion: A show has to be on long enough where mere mention of it to many people will get reactions of, \"Oh, yeah; I remember that show!\" You can't get that with Blockbusters or Click, but you will get that with Dating and Newlywed! I don't know if it can be measured in years, but I'd say any show that can last past the first year must be doing at least something right, and any show that makes it past 3 is definitely doing something right!
Anthony
P.S. Oh, and BTW, Click ran for 2 years, not one (though the second season sucked, if you ask me).
-
Nobody's said that good runs = good shows. I mean, I've considered Wheel and J! nearly unwatchable the last few years, yet they're still here. We all know that sometimes a good show doesn't have a good run, and sometimes lousy shows are on forever. ***prays they never make it to a fifth season of American Idol***
and for the record...
TPiR's 32 year run = a GODLY run
-
***prays they never make it to a fifth season of American Idol***
Hate to burst your bubble, Simon Cowell has signed a contract for the next three years. I hope that the younger tv crowd will turn the channel.
Charles Atkins
-
[quote name=\'catkins522\' date=\'Aug 20 2003, 07:12 PM\'] So, Blockbusters (Cullen's version, 1 1/2 year) and Click (1 year) sucks, if I follow you. I think Blockbusters is a good, almost great run and Click is a good run. The Newlywed Game and The Dating Game sucks, but on your rating, these are excellent runs.
You have your opinion and I will have mine.
Charles [/quote]
You are putting words into my mouth, as the word \"sucks\" is no where in the scale perscribed by whampyl03. If you would look at the scale, both shows had \"okay\" runs. And they did have \"okay\" runs. However, Blockbusters was an excellent show; I didn't like Click. But the point you are again missing is one made in this thread by Mr. SplitSecond (damn, I don't know his real name): Quantity does not equal quality. Many excellent shows die young. When you get this false correlation out of your head, you'll probably understand where I'm coming from.
You may have your opinion, but it is horribly flawed.
Brandon Brooks
-
I said I thought this thread was going to be arbitrary, but I didn't think it would become THIS arbitrary.
Charles is obviously defining a \"run\", at least in part, in terms of the quality of the program. While that's certainly a valid consideration, I believe the rest of us thought Jim's initial question merely asked what length of time on the air would be sufficient for a show to have succeeded on television. He wasn't asking about the quality of the show, whether it was on cable or even how many episodes were produced.
So yes, by that standard, Supermarket Sweep and Shop Til You Drop have had better (that is to say \"longer\") runs than WWTBAM. According to the one condition, that's simply a fact. Obviously, by virtually ever other conceivable standard, WWTBAM is the more significant show. Likewise, most of us here would agree that Blockbusters is a better show than The Dating Game. But its run -- its length of time on the air -- is simply, verifiably a lot shorter.
-
[quote name=\'catkins522\' date=\'Aug 20 2003, 07:37 PM\']
***prays they never make it to a fifth season of American Idol***
Hate to burst your bubble, Simon Cowell has signed a contract for the next three years. I hope that the younger tv crowd will turn the channel.
Charles Atkins [/quote]
Well, I believe Regis has a contract that went a year past how long WWTBAM actually lasted.
It sickens me that the guy who formed the Spice Girls is making as much as he is now...
-
It sickens me that the guy who formed the Spice Girls is making as much as he is now...
Why does it sicken you? He's mighty smart, and he demands kudos for creating such a multi-million dollar pop group. He created something good at the time.
However, it might not be so good for Paula and Randy. They may be replaced. They both asked for a substantial raise when they found out that Simon was to be paid almost ten times as them per show for the upcoming season. I heard one of the replacements considered may be Belinda Carlisle; forgot the other woman's name.
Brandon Brooks
-
Swinging this back on-topic, I think that a minimum of three years can be considered a good run...especially by today's television standards. I am speaking on a totally objective level when I say this. There must be an audience out there who enjoys Supermarket Sweep and Shop 'Til You Drop, so that is all I can say about that.
I feel that if a show ran for two years, it was watchable but did not have enough appeal to go for thirds. Shows like Blockbusters (Cullen), The All-New Let's Make a Deal, and Bullseye fall under that category.
Many runs also depends on the taste of the audience to whom it is presented. For example, the Australian version of $ale of the Century went more than a decade with the Shopping Round, while we only had it for two years (One year on NBC, and one year on syndication...maybe because NBC needed a budget slash, but that is for another post). At the same time, their version of The Price is Right only had two three-year runs, with another run currently starting.
In summary, 2 years is notable, but three years is nice.
The Inquisitive One
-
I was looking for a span of time and I was thinking three years originally, but the discussion has triggered some subjective reflection. For a show like \"The Neighbors,\" maybe thirteen weeks was \"a good run\" because the show had reached its creative peak and had served its purpose. :)
-
I've been holding off on this thread, but I think it's time to throw this in:
Mark Goodson was once quoted as saying that a game show is not really a hit until it's been on for at least five years.
By his standards, \"STYD\" and \"SS\"--both with over five years of original production in their current forms--are hits. \"WWTBAM\" is one year away in the U.S. from being a hit, even if it's the more significant series.
Goodson's view, of course, is that staying power is the true measure of a hit game show. Lots of formats may get initial hype but don't have the staying power to stick around (helloooooooo, \"Studs!\" Hellooooooooo, \"WLOD!\"), while a true hit endureth forever (\"TPIR,\" come on down!).
Something to think about.
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Aug 21 2003, 12:49 AM\'] The All-New Let's Make a Deal [/quote]
Monty and Stefan had agreed to end it after the second season. They just didn't want to do it anymore. [That's how I heard it]
-
I've always thought that if a show could run two years in daytime it was a good run. For syndication (because of reruns during part of the year) the number would probably be three.
One of the best-loved shows by our group is \"Whew\". Since it only ran a year, I guess you could say it didn't have a very good run. However, if you look at the episodes that were produced (probably close to 300), that would be a fairly decent run if GSN were to ever pick up the show.
Since Mark Goodson stated a show had to run five years to be a genuine hit, does that mean a show that was on four years wasn't a hit? Four years seems like a pretty good run to me!
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 20 2003, 09:43 PM\']Charles is obviously defining a \"run\", at least in part, in terms of the quality of the program. While that's certainly a valid consideration, I believe the rest of us thought Jim's initial question merely asked what length of time on the air would be sufficient for a show to have succeeded on television. He wasn't asking about the quality of the show, whether it was on cable or even how many episodes were produced.[/quote]
If I were the producer or host of a show whose run had recently ended, I would feel that we had a respectable run if either (1) the show had lasted four years or (2) it had two full seasons and at least part of a third and it was a show I felt really proud of. All this is regardless of whether it's a primetime show, a network daytime show, a syndie strip, a weekly syndie (for those of us who remember them) or a cable show.
Blockbusters falls just a little short of the time necessary for (2), but if had lasted thru December 1982 instead of April 1982, it would be a good illustration. Dick Clark's $100,000 Pyramid satisfies (2), and his 10/20/25K versions all satisfy (1).