-
Fresh off the press - "Bert's Family Feud" made its premiere appearance on Aussie TV, and it's rather more spectacular than previous versions.
It pretty much follows the standard format - but for American viewers, it only features 4 members in each family. The first two rounds are for normal points, and the third round offers up double points. However - for the fourth round - if required - it's a "sudden death" round with only two answers on the board. Only two players - one from each family - play for it at the podium, and the player with the highest scored answer claims triple points and the right to play in the final round.
As always - the final round consists of two players from the winning family - working in turn to accumulate a total score of over 200 points. First player is given 20 seconds, and the second player 25 seconds to come up with their five answers. The real challenge is to determine what prize they will play for - and the pressure is applied to the first player on deck. The prize money on offer (in hard cash) is determined by the number of top answers given by the first player - ranging from $10,000 for 1 top answer to $100,000 for all 5 top answers.
The set is spectacular, glitzy and Bert Newton seems to have slotted in nicely to his new role - after hosting a mid morning, advertainment program for 12 years.
I will try and get some clips up on my site in the next day or so.
Chris.
-
Chris - are the questions designed that you will probably get at least one top answer in the final round?
Ryan :)
-
[quote name=\'pownster\' date=\'Feb 13 2006, 06:34 AM\']The first two rounds are for normal points, and the third round offers up double points. However - for the fourth round - if required - it's a "sudden death" round with only two answers on the board. Only two players - one from each family - play for it at the podium, and the player with the highest scored answer claims triple points and the right to play in the final round.[/quote]
So, they've basically taken the Karn format, which has often been regarded as a "fix" for the Anderson format often making early rounds pointless, and removed the first triple round--thus often making the double round pointless. Congrats, guys.
(I'm assuming they're playing to 300 points. If not, well, fool me once.)
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Feb 13 2006, 02:28 PM\'](I'm assuming they're playing to 300 points. If not, well, fool me once.)
[snapback]110063[/snapback]
[/quote]
If they are, that's really bizarre, because except in the case of a family sweeping the first three questions, you'd need the sudden-death question every time to decide the game. And you thought Go had irrelevant rounds.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Feb 13 2006, 05:48 PM\'][quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Feb 13 2006, 02:28 PM\'](I'm assuming they're playing to 300 points. If not, well, fool me once.)
[snapback]110063[/snapback]
[/quote]
If they are, that's really bizarre, because except in the case of a family sweeping the first three questions, you'd need the sudden-death question every time to decide the game. And you thought Go had irrelevant rounds.
[snapback]110064[/snapback]
[/quote]
To clarify - they play for 200 points.
-
[quote name=\'pownster\' date=\'Feb 13 2006, 04:27 PM\']To clarify - they play for 200 points.
[snapback]110068[/snapback]
[/quote]
That makes a *bit* more sense.
-
Ah. Won't get fooled again, etc. It's basically the first Dawson format with a speedier fourth round, then.
-
I now have a clip from the premiere edition. It features the intro and first round of play. It on my "Video Moments" page:
Australian Game Show Home Page - Video Moments (http://\"http://www.angelfire.com/oz2/powney/video_moments.htm\")
QUOTE(pownster @ Feb 13 2006, 06:34 AM)
The first two rounds are for normal points, and the third round offers up double points. However - for the fourth round - if required - it's a "sudden death" round with only two answers on the board. Only two players - one from each family - play for it at the podium, and the player with the highest scored answer claims triple points and the right to play in the final round.
I also place an addenda to my original show description. In the final round - if the first player doesn't pick up any highest scoring answers, the family ultimately plays for $5,000.
-
[quote name=\'pownster\' date=\'Feb 14 2006, 05:36 AM\']I now have a clip from the premiere edition. It features the intro and first round of play. It on my "Video Moments" page:
Australian Game Show Home Page - Video Moments (http://\"http://www.angelfire.com/oz2/powney/video_moments.htm\")
[/quote]
Bert seems ill at ease, but I'm sure he'll get better. I hope he doesn't take after Richard Karn who unfortunately hasn't gotten any better in four years. I sure like the Aussie set though.
Brandon Brooks
-
Very nice. That's the first Australian set I've seen in a long while that I like. It's functional and good to look at. Also the first time in awhile that the Copperplate font is absent from any set piece or graphic of a game show. (About time!)
The American version can learn something from the contestant split-screens with the answer board as well as a lot of the basic graphics. I think our version should be past trying to play to the "vintageness" of 30-year old Feud.
-
Okay, NOW you can say that the set shows promise.
Holy. Is it just me, or are the Australians completely and totally pwning us when it comes to game show production in the last couple years? They're killing us with this one, too.
-
Would you care to explain a bit more Chris? I can certainly agree in some respects, but what of the new $ale offering $100,000 a night? And this show as well? That's like offering $75,000 here, and I think you'd be one of the first to pummel our "Feud" for putting up that sort of scratch.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Feb 14 2006, 01:30 PM\']Would you care to explain a bit more Chris? I can certainly agree in some respects, but what of the new $ale offering $100,000 a night? And this show as well? That's like offering $75,000 here, and I think you'd be one of the first to pummel our "Feud" for putting up that sort of scratch.
[snapback]110152[/snapback]
[/quote]
It seems that the current crop of Australian shows likes to throw a big number out there for promotional purposes while making it damned near impossible to win. In order to get that $100K, the first player in Fast Money (or whatever they call it) needs to nail all 5 #1 answers. In order to get the $100K on Temptation, they have to nail ten questions in a row. There are TWO WEDGES on the Wheel Of Fortune for the car, which isn't even a luxury car.
Note that of the three Lot winners so far on Temptation (and this assumes that the grand totals in Wikipedia are correct, though I have no reason to believe they wouldn't be), the LARGEST TIAR haul (and this ALSO doesn't take into account ANY winnings in the front game) would be no higher than ~$50K. Total. For six nights. And the other two didn't even win $25K.
Mo' Money doesn't seem to be a problem here.
-
I kind of took the question in a different direction, so my apologies. I was asking in general why you feel Australia is trumping us so supremely, throwing out the money as a potential case against them. Once again, I can certainly agree in some respects that they're doing better. I'll save any more comments until after you, and maybe some others, weigh in.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Feb 14 2006, 02:09 PM\']throwing out the money as a potential case against them. Once again, I can certainly agree in some respects that they're doing better.
[/quote]
Right. Which I just refuted.
Their sets look better, they don't seem to be afflicted with the Millionaire-itis in their design that we suffer, and their games look and sound and feel like, well, game shows. What more do you want?
-
They had me at the moving face-off podium.
Well, it looks like yet another Australian game show has totally outdone its American counterpart. Even on the first episode, Bert was better than Richard has gotten in 4 years.
Concerning the graphics, I agree with mitchgroff. A graphics update is needed on our version, especially if you tune in mid-round. It was also nice to see the player scoreboards on the big board again. Maybe it was just me, but the neon contestant backdrops reminded me of Sex Wars.
All in all, a great show. I wish Bert and the crew a long succssful run.
Oh, and Jason, Australia is kicking our butts in every show we put out, despite the fact that our shows have longevity. For the past few years, they have shown us how we can make our shows better, and how we should revive them. That's my 2 cents.
-
I have to agree about the split screen graphics effect...And they put the question on the screen a couple of times during the round as well, which is good for people skipping around channels.
But that $100K isn't going to go often...I mean, on other foreign versions of the Feud, they have a bonus if a family gets all 5 #1's between both players in the bonus (The UK version had a car for all 5 answers for example--and personally I think US Feud would be better if they did something like that, maybe like 20K for 200, but 50K for 200 and all 5 #1's), so it's difficult enough to do between two players...but getting all 5 in the first part? What I'd like to know is what the amounts are for 2, 3, or 4 #1's....If it's something like 5K for 0-10K for 1-15K for 2-20K for 3-25K for 4-100K for 5, you're not going to get really large totals as you what, average 2 or 3 #1's by the first person or so? 5K-10K-20K-30K-50K-100K would be OK I think, as it rewards a rarer occurance.
-
Not bad at all! Thanks for sharing!
-
[quote name=\'weaklink75\' date=\'Feb 14 2006, 06:38 PM\']I
...
But that $100K isn't going to go often...I mean, on other foreign versions of the Feud, they have a bonus if a family gets all 5 #1's between both players in the bonus (The UK version had a car for all 5 answers for example--and personally I think US Feud would be better if they did something like that, maybe like 20K for 200, but 50K for 200 and all 5 #1's), so it's difficult enough to do between two players...but getting all 5 in the first part? What I'd like to know is what the amounts are for 2, 3, or 4 #1's....If it's something like 5K for 0-10K for 1-15K for 2-20K for 3-25K for 4-100K for 5, you're not going to get really large totals as you what, average 2 or 3 #1's by the first person or so? 5K-10K-20K-30K-50K-100K would be OK I think, as it rewards a rarer occurance.
[snapback]110166[/snapback]
[/quote]
I'd need to check the exact monetary combination - but the last set quoted sounds about the right combinations. And yes - the big cash amounts are hard to collect on - most Aussie game shows work that way....I mean, our TV networks are small compared to those in the States - and shows like "Feud" will only attract audiences of 1 million viewers maximum - to remain commercially viable, you wouldn't want the show to give away the big amounts too often.
Mind you, saying that, another different between our version and the American/British ones are that the families are allowed to return the next night to defend their title - and only leave once they're knocked off. As such, it gives time for families to build up a sizable prize total. Previous versions of the show here were lucky to give away $10,000 in cash & prizes on any one night - so Bert's version is a real step up from what we're used to.
-
All I can say is "Wow"...and not a Chris Lemon "Wow"...this version kicks the US version's ass, which is sad considering that was the first episode, and ours has been on for almost 7 years (current version of course).
I remember there were complaints when Louie's version debuted, about how the set and new theme were too modern, and Feud was a folksy "Hatfield v. McCoy" type show, which is true. However, the Aussies found a way to modernize the show and did an excellent job at it. The set was flashy without being over-the-top, the audience was excited without being annoying, and I loved what I heard from the theme song. And like Lemon said, even though the show offers a buttload of money (gosh!), they make it difficult to win. Australia, can we either kidnap or clone some of your producers? :-P
BTW, the neon backdrops are VERY reminiscent of Sex Wars.
-
Love the look and feel of the show...it's truly a party atmosphere with Bert serving as your genial host. He is a little stiff, but it's his first show. I mean for goodness sakes, Karn still acts like he's being fed lines via cue cards and all.
Question: Any reason why namely on the Aussie and British versions that the host usually refrains from turning and calling to the board?
-
After watching the clip, I must say I rather like Bert Newton. He's a little stiff certainly, but I have my suspicsions he'll even out. And he has at least one thing neither Louie nor Richard have: charm. Darnit, I can't help liking the guy. I can see why the Aussies do, too.
-
Mind you, saying that, another different between our version and the American/British ones are that the families are allowed to return the next night to defend their title
Nitpick alert, but this was the case on the 70s daytime version, 80s daytime version and was recently restored on the current run.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'Game Show Man\' date=\'Feb 14 2006, 11:22 PM\']After watching the clip, I must say I rather like Bert Newton. Darnit, I can't help liking the guy.
[snapback]110181[/snapback]
[/quote]
Not that there's anything wrong with that...lol.
-
[quote name=\'Game Show Man\' date=\'Feb 14 2006, 11:22 PM\']After watching the clip, I must say I rather like Bert Newton. He's a little stiff certainly, but I have my suspicsions he'll even out. And he has at least one thing neither Louie nor Richard have: charm. Darnit, I can't help liking the guy. I can see why the Aussies do, too.
[snapback]110181[/snapback]
[/quote]
You guys are weird.
I thought Bert Newton was very stiff, yet too laid back. No real excitement. The set does look very nice though for a game show set.
And also I think Richard Karn's a good host for Feud. The other options are either too old (Dawson) or dead (Combs). He's a heck of a lot better than Louie Anderson, though.
-
[quote name=\'Brakus\' date=\'Feb 14 2006, 11:18 PM\']I thought Bert Newton was very stiff, yet too laid back.
[/quote]
And I thought the show sucked, yet was good. Do you realize how little sense you're making?
And also I think Richard Karn's a good host for Feud. The other options are either too old (Dawson) or dead (Combs).
And there's a law that says only those who have hosted Feud before are qualified to do it today?
-
[/quote]
You guys are weird.
I thought Bert Newton was very stiff, yet too laid back. No real excitement. The set does look very nice though for a game show set.
And also I think Richard Karn's a good host for Feud. The other options are either too old (Dawson) or dead (Combs). He's a heck of a lot better than Louie Anderson, though.
[snapback]110200[/snapback]
[/quote]
The first round did seem to move a little slow, but it was the first episode. Give him time.
You must be kidding about Karn. He is no better than Louie. At first, he seemed like he had the potential to come into his own, then he went nowhere fast. And all it took was an over-accentuated phrase and inept audience cheers.
I'm hoping that the new season coms with a new host, but my prayers probably won't get answered.
-
Thank you for the clip.
I liked the joke he said at the begining about Nine Losing thier balls, I havent seen Nine now for about 4 months so when did they rebrand?
Thanks
-
[quote name=\'remlap\' date=\'Feb 15 2006, 07:33 AM\']Thank you for the clip.
I liked the joke he said at the begining about Nine Losing thier balls, I havent seen Nine now for about 4 months so when did they rebrand?
Thanks
[snapback]110209[/snapback]
[/quote]
In answer to that question - only a matter of two weeks ago.
And just to give you a taste of the bonus round - I include tonight's thrilling attempt by the Grimes family to take out $25,000. I hope you enjoy it!
Australian Game Show Home Page - Video Moments (http://\"http://www.angelfire.com/oz2/powney/video_moments.htm\")
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Feb 14 2006, 11:45 PM\']
Mind you, saying that, another different between our version and the American/British ones are that the families are allowed to return the next night to defend their title
Nitpick alert, but this was the case on the 70s daytime version, 80s daytime version and was recently restored on the current run.
[snapback]110183[/snapback]
[/quote]
Returning champions were also a part of the 1988-95 syndicated run(save for part of the 1994-95 season, when the second half of the hour long show saw the winner of the first half play against 80% of a family team from the original Dawson Feud.
-
[quote name=\'remlap\' date=\'Feb 15 2006, 04:33 AM\']I liked the joke he said at the begining about Nine Losing thier balls, I havent seen Nine now for about 4 months so when did they rebrand?
[snapback]110209[/snapback]
[/quote]
According to the stuff I found on Wikipedia, it happened just after the first of the year.
(Incidentally, Wikipedia is a great source to find out about foreign television networks. Not knocking Remlap for not checking there, I just found them to be interesting reads when I was looking myself the last couple days and thought I would point them out for everyone else.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Feb 15 2006, 07:41 PM\'][quote name=\'remlap\' date=\'Feb 15 2006, 04:33 AM\']I liked the joke he said at the begining about Nine Losing thier balls, I havent seen Nine now for about 4 months so when did they rebrand?
[snapback]110209[/snapback]
[/quote]
According to the stuff I found on Wikipedia, it happened just after the first of the year.
(Incidentally, Wikipedia is a great source to find out about foreign television networks. Not knocking Remlap for not checking there, I just found them to be interesting reads when I was looking myself the last couple days and thought I would point them out for everyone else.)
[snapback]110228[/snapback]
[/quote]
Clemon I did exactly that after I posted, I thought to myself hmm maybe Wikipedia mentions it, and they did.
Then checked out the link on their showing the new regional indents for the Nine afflaited stations.
I think its a stupid move, wonder if PRIME in New Zealand droped the balls yet.
Edit - Yeah they have dropped thier Nine like ball to.
-
I like the top answer jackpot idea in Fast Money...it keeps the end game a bit more fresh and makes the person who goes first have some more significance which is good.
-
I agree with most of you in that it is LEAPS better than ours. And after just one show! Take notes, Karn.
However, I'm not that crazy over Bert. I think the show needs someone with a little more energy. Pownster, what's his background on AM tv? A comfortable presence , or someone with a real funny streak in him? Because as great as the set is (and it is a GREAT set and graphics), I can't help but wonder if 9 is going to end up with demographics that skew WAY too old with him at the helm?
-
[quote name=\'FOXSportsFan\' date=\'Feb 15 2006, 09:24 PM\']I like the top answer jackpot idea in Fast Money...it keeps the end game a bit more fresh and makes the person who goes first have some more significance which is good.
[snapback]110239[/snapback]
[/quote]
I don't know, I think there's something not quite right about it - if someone gets five top answers off the bat, it's extremely unlikely that the other person isn't going to put it over the 200 barrier, which makes the second part of a two part round rather anticlimactic.
So... what if they did it in reverse? First bloke gets 0 top answers, they win $100,000 if they win.
-
Getting all 5 top answers seldom happens, and I would say, thus merits said reward. Not easy to do that with lights, cameras, and merely 20 seconds to play with.
-
[quote name=\'Brig Bother\' date=\'Feb 15 2006, 04:22 PM\']So... what if they did it in reverse? First bloke gets 0 top answers, they win $100,000 if they win.
[snapback]110257[/snapback]
[/quote]
Rewards tanking. Interesting strategically, would completely befuddle most viewers.
-
I've alluded to it before, but damn that show looks slick. To be honest, IMO the majority of American game shows look, for lack of a better term, stupid:
Our FF set looks like pure-dee shite. I really like what WOF does, but I really have never liked theme weeks and ever changing sets. TPiR looks--dare I say--rather non-evolutionary. J! looks like hell. DoND looks nice and I think it fits the show, but it seems like the exception and not the rule. I honestly think that even with lower production values. Britain is a mixed bag, but I think Australia does it the best (though their new WOF set looks slightly cheaper than ours). Does anyone agree with this sentiment?
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Feb 16 2006, 01:11 AM\']but I think Australia does it the best (though their new WOF set looks slightly cheaper than ours). Does anyone agree with this sentiment?
[snapback]110263[/snapback]
[/quote]
Absolutely yes, I've mentioned this before too. It's surprising because of the relative lack of viewers, I think.
-
Brandon, you're spot on. The sets and in many cases the gameplay seem to be a little better down under. And, many of the models down under...well...they make great motivational material when I have to provide my sample of Ode de Jimmers at the doctor's office.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Feb 16 2006, 01:07 AM\'][quote name=\'Brig Bother\' date=\'Feb 15 2006, 04:22 PM\']So... what if they did it in reverse? First bloke gets 0 top answers, they win $100,000 if they win.
[snapback]110257[/snapback]
[/quote]
Rewards tanking. Interesting strategically, would completely befuddle most viewers.
[snapback]110262[/snapback]
[/quote]
Then why not... reveal how many top answers the first person got at the end then? The climax goes at the end, that's what a climax is.
-
You could counteract things by picking surveys in which the top answer yields somewhere between 25-30 points tops. While it leaves a so so shot, it doesn't guarantee that the money will be theirs.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Feb 15 2006, 06:21 PM\']I agree with most of you in that it is LEAPS better than ours. And after just one show! Take notes, Karn.
However, I'm not that crazy over Bert. I think the show needs someone with a little more energy. Pownster, what's his background on AM tv? A comfortable presence , or someone with a real funny streak in him? Because as great as the set is (and it is a GREAT set and graphics), I can't help but wonder if 9 is going to end up with demographics that skew WAY too old with him at the helm?
[snapback]110246[/snapback]
[/quote]
It's interesting about your observations of Bert. Funny enough - Bert is gathering a large following amongst YOUNGER viewers - who are attracted by his style of humour. This only adds to the existing old demographic who have known him from over 49 years on TV. It's his combined warmth and humour that Nine is counting on to conteract the brash, over-the-top performances of Andrew O'Keefe on DoND. Needless to say - it going to be a contest to watch.
As for Bert's past performances - he has hosted "Good Morning Australia" on Network Ten for the past 12 years - which was a mixture of interviewers, light entertainment and advertorials. Pretty much the bread-and-butter viewing of the housewife set. It was flagging ratings after strong competition from Nine (with Kerri-Anne Kennerly) which spelt the end of his show and his move to the Nine Network to do FF and another program "20 to 1".
-
[quote name=\'Brig Bother\' date=\'Feb 15 2006, 05:36 PM\']Then why not... reveal how many top answers the first person got at the end then? The climax goes at the end, that's what a climax is.
[snapback]110270[/snapback]
[/quote]
And the climax is whether they WIN the money, which is, by definition, at the end. Think of this as a minor sub-climax.
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Feb 14 2006, 11:42 AM\']Bert seems ill at ease, but I'm sure he'll get better. I hope he doesn't take after Richard Karn who unfortunately hasn't gotten any better in four years. I sure like the Aussie set though.
Brandon Brooks
[snapback]110129[/snapback]
[/quote]
He seemed pretty comfortable to me. The "these four are all Puffs" comment was a bit shocking though. I guess the PC police aren't as strong down under. ;)
Agreed...SUPER cool set and the twist in Fast Money is kinda fun!
ITSBRY
itsbry@juno.com
-
[quote name=\'ITSBRY\' date=\'Feb 25 2006, 01:45 PM\']He seemed pretty comfortable to me. The "these four are all Puffs" comment was a bit shocking though. I guess the PC police aren't as strong down under. ;)
Agreed...SUPER cool set and the twist in Fast Money is kinda fun!
ITSBRY
itsbry@juno.com
[snapback]111236[/snapback]
[/quote]
You've been away for a while. Welcome!
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Feb 25 2006, 05:54 PM\'][You've been away for a while. Welcome!
Brandon Brooks
[snapback]111256[/snapback]
[/quote]
Brandon...a sincere "thank you" for that! Truly.
I read the board from time to time, but frankly all the bickering and downright rudeness that seems to find its way into many threads just got old and I stopped visiting for awhile.
Anywho, I'm still around and your kind word is a reminder to me that the good folks who just wish to bask in our game show geekiness together are still around! ;-D
Cheers!
-Bryan
-
Count me among those impressed by the new Oz FF...maybe Bert would like to become the first Aussie host to commute across the Pacific to do 2 versions, if you know what I mean. :-)
Chuck Donegan (The Overly-Optimistic "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'ITSBRY\' date=\'Feb 25 2006, 12:45 PM\']He seemed pretty comfortable to me. The "these four are all Puffs" comment was a bit shocking though. I guess the PC police aren't as strong down under. ;)
[snapback]111236[/snapback]
[/quote]
I have the feeling he might've actually said "poofs," as in "poofsters." Rules 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the Philosophy Department of the University of Woomaloo in the Monty Python sketch: "No poofsters!"
"This here's the wattle, the emblem of our land. You can stick it in a bottle, you can hold it in your hand." AI-MEN!
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Feb 27 2006, 01:01 PM\']I have the feeling he might've actually said "poofs," as in "poofsters." Rules 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the Philosophy Department of the University of Woomaloo in the Monty Python sketch: "No poofsters!"
[/quote]
I always though it was "poofters", not pluralized, but "poofs" would still be a reasonable abbreviation for that. :)
/g'day, Bruce
-
You're certainly right about its modern usage, I can't speak for Python.