The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: cmjb13 on April 10, 2006, 10:49:54 AM
-
I was going to put this in the other thread, but I figured it would get buried there, so here goes...
Caught the show last night. There are some game play changes. The previous way had audience members using the keypad after every answer given by a contestant on stage. The new way (at least for now) eliminates this part completely. There is no audience participation during the 1st Single-Double-Triple game.
Once the game is over, 3 survey questions (with 4 answers each, 6 last time) are asked to the audience. The best in speed & accuracy plays fast money for $1000.
The process is repeated for 2 teams of 5 to play a game on stage. It's also same for the 2nd fast money game. Last night it was for $8000 (started at $5000) The jackpot increases $500 every night it's not won.
I prefer the old way better because it seemed to be more dependent upon accuracy. With 20 or so guesses from contestants, the greater the chance people would not get all the answers correct. With the change to 3 questions, the odds are greater that a lot of people will get all 3 answers right. At that point, it comes down to speed. After the show, Burger stated the old way dragged the show down too much, so it was changed. It's still a fun show even with the change.
Here's a question: I've noticed a 4 show limit sign in registration. Price has a 4 show limit. I'm curious on why this is so. I figure if someone wants to pay $25+ 6 days a week for 3 months to try to get on stage, they should be able to do so (not referring to myself)
Anyways, here are the pics. Camera does not do this set justice.
Pic 1 (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/set1.jpg\")
Pic 2 (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/set2.jpg\")
Pic 3 (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/set3.jpg\")
Pic 4 (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/set4.jpg\")
Pic 5 (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/set5.jpg\")
Pic 6 (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/set6.jpg\")
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'115803\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 07:49 AM\']
Anyways, here are the pics. Camera does not do this set justice.
[/quote]
Then it must be incredible, because I thought it looked darn good in those pics.
I notice they went with what looks like an eggcrate readout for the scoreboards, is that correct? A certain board programmer told me way back that originally they wanted to use plasmas for the score and Bank readouts.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'115804\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 10:53 AM\']
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'115803\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 07:49 AM\']
Anyways, here are the pics. Camera does not do this set justice.
[/quote]
Then it must be incredible, because I thought it looked darn good in those pics.
I notice they went with what looks like an eggcrate readout for the scoreboards, is that correct? A certain board programmer told me way back that originally they wanted to use plasmas for the score and Bank readouts.
[/quote]
That is correct.
Also, during fast money, the 20 seconds is superimposed on the top scoreboard. I suppose that's how they did it on Combs' version.
I wonder how hard it would be to use the readout to countdown from 20 seconds? Didn't they do that on Dawson's version?
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'115805\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 08:05 AM\']
Also, during fast money, the 20 seconds is superimposed on the top scoreboard. I suppose that's how they did it on Combs' version.
[/quote]
"Top scoreboard" meaning the game board, or meaning the Bank readout? Knowing Todd's software, I'm guessing the former.
I wonder how hard it would be to use the readout to countdown from 20 seconds? Didn't they do that on Dawson's version?
It probably depends on whether Todd's software is tied into the eggcrate system or if it runs independently. If it's tied in it would probably be easy.
-
Camera does not do this set justice.
Sure it does. It beats the pants off Jimmy Cuomo's abortion which looks like it's about to land in Area 51.
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'115803\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 10:49 AM\']
Anyways, here are the pics. Camera does not do this set justice.
Pic 1 (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/set1.jpg\")
Pic 2 (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/set2.jpg\")
Pic 3 (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/set3.jpg\")
Pic 4 (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/set4.jpg\")
Pic 5 (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/set5.jpg\")
Pic 6 (http://\"http://home.comcast.net/~cmjb13/set6.jpg\")
[/quote]
Holy...it's the Goddamn Combs set! And I don't mean it kinda looks like the Combs set...if I didn't know better, I'd swear that was the genuine article.
Words cannot express how beautiful that is.
-
The next logical question is, what kind of music are they using for this affair?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'115815\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 12:49 PM\']
The next logical question is, what kind of music are they using for this affair?
[/quote]
Combs music was used, with some Dawson 94 thrown in.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'115815\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 11:49 AM\']
The next logical question is, what kind of music are they using for this affair?
[/quote]
Hopefully, it's not the party mix currently being used.
-
is Fremantle part of this? Cause i'm curious to know why they'd use a 'classic' look to a show that currently airs with a more modern look to it.... After all, the name of the game is "Cross Promotion".....
Unless they have something up their sleeve when the O'Hurley version comes out....Hmmmmm.....
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'115819\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 11:21 AM\']
is Fremantle part of this? Cause i'm curious to know why they'd use a 'classic' look to a show that currently airs with a more modern look to it.... After all, the name of the game is "Cross Promotion".....
Unless they have something up their sleeve when the O'Hurley version comes out....Hmmmmm.....
[/quote]
Yes, they absolutely are part of this.
-
Well folks, this is history in the making: the Family Feud stage show looks better, sounds better, and has a better emcee than the television show:
Original set vs. cast-off set from a TV pilot which takes place on a UFO
Original music vs. Radio Shack percussion machine
Michael Burger vs. Richard "the Termite" Karn
Michael Burger isn't brilliant but he's also not Richard Karn. You could have Roger Mudd as emcee and he'd be preferable to Richie the T. Kudos to whomever made these decisions. Randy, would that be Andy Felsher?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'115821\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 10:36 AM\']
...Kudos to whomever made these decisions. Randy, would that be Andy Felsher? [/quote]
Yep, Andy is captain of the ship and admiral of the 'TPiR-Live" and "FF-Live" fleet. Remember, Andy grew up on the set of the original TV Feud, and learned the biz at the Goosdon College of Game Show Knowledge.
I'm sure Andy would be quick to share credit with his crew. In addition to other members of the Fremantle family, it includes a couple of guys who are hands-on, lovingly producing each and every episode for Andy. They are talented, creative producers, and are as knowledgeable as any fan here or elsewhere on the net. Both are wonderfully passionate about the details, and it shows. If you read the board carefully you know who they are; they both occasionally post. Add kudos to the backstage professional union crew.
If you have been reading my website "news" page you know that Andy's producing team also includes another member of game show royalty... Cathy Dawson. Speaking of which, watch for exciting TPiR-Live news in the next couple of weeks!
Randy
www.tvrandywest.com
-
Now the question is, how do you apply for contestantdom(sp, even a word?)
I'm trying to get my office family of co-workers to apply.....:)
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'115803\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 10:49 AM\']
Anyways, here are the pics. Camera does not do this set justice.[/quote]
Just keep in mind, you're not allowed to take pictures inside the theater. It's appreciated if you do not.
Thanks
John
-
[quote name=\'jrjgames\' post=\'115832\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 07:57 PM\']
Just keep in mind, you're not allowed to take pictures inside the theater. It's appreciated if you do not.
[/quote]
What's going to happen; are you gonna file a report with his ISP?
Anyhow, Chris, thanks for taking some shots...not all of us can make it out to the East Coast.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'115833\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 08:59 PM\']
[quote name=\'jrjgames\' post=\'115832\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 07:57 PM\']
Just keep in mind, you're not allowed to take pictures inside the theater. It's appreciated if you do not.
[/quote]
What's going to happen; are you gonna file a report with his ISP?
Anyhow, Chris, thanks for taking some shots...not all of us can make it out to the East Coast.
[/quote]
No, I'm simply going to reitterate our rule of no picture taking during the performance. As I stated we would appreciate it. Thank you.
John
-
[quote name=\'jrjgames\' post=\'115834\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 06:01 PM\']
No, I'm simply going to reitterate our rule of no picture taking during the performance. As I stated we would appreciate it. Thank you.
[/quote]
Good. Your rule has been noted.
Thanks again, Chris. Cellphones and PDA's are wonderful things, aren't they? ;)
-
Ladies and gentlemen, that's what Family Feud should look like. Those pics were magnificent. Classic without looking dated.
Thanks for the pics...is it 1989?
-
I was never a big fan of the Combs version, but I agree the set looks great!
And yes, that's how Feud is supposed to look. I've said it many times before, any other set makes it Family Fortunes, not Family Feud.
-
That looks stunning. What a quality job--I wouldn't upset to see something like this used for the Game Show Marathon. I would love to see that board in action.
Thanks Chris. However, I must chastise you because you shouldn't have done that. Bad, bad Chris. I call for bannination.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' post=\'115845\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 09:50 PM\']I call for bannination.[/quote]
Done. I think that's the suitable punishment for violation the show's rules and giving them in the process nothing but oodles and oodles of compliments and positive word-of-mouth.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'115808\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 11:31 AM\']
It probably depends on whether Todd's software is tied into the eggcrate system or if it runs independently. If it's tied in it would probably be easy.
[/quote]
Yes, my software controls not only the trilon, but the plasma screens that emulate the Ferranti-Packard readouts used back in the day. I must say myself, the effect is awesome.
-
Randy -
Please extend my best wishes to young Andrew and his dad as well, and tell him that I applaud what he's done with FF Live. Thanks.
-
[quote name=\'Particleman\' post=\'115850\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 07:22 PM\']
Yes, my software controls not only the trilon, but the plasma screens that emulate the Ferranti-Packard readouts used back in the day. I must say myself, the effect is awesome.
[/quote]
So the score readouts ARE screens, they're not actual physical readouts?
Jeez. You'd never know it. You're a master.
-
Since this show is smaller in scale than TPIR Live, hopefully it will play in more Harrah's properties. I'd love to see it at the Harrah's property in St. Louis.
I dobut they could accomodate TPIR, but they certainly could do this!
I GOTTA SEE IT!
-
So the score readouts ARE screens, they're not actual physical readouts?
I'm not sure they even make that kind of readout any more.
-
[quote name=\'jrjgames\' post=\'115832\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 08:57 PM\']
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'115803\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 10:49 AM\']
Anyways, here are the pics. Camera does not do this set justice.[/quote]
Just keep in mind, you're not allowed to take pictures inside the theater. It's appreciated if you do not.
Thanks
John
[/quote]
You know I was back and forth on this most of the day. I know with Price, there is an announcement before the show about no photography.
I didn't see any signage at Feud regarding picture taking or an announcement before the show about it, so I figured it was OK. In hindsight, I could understand that flashes may interfere with the filming of the show. I meant no harm in doing so.
But this was really that good, and I wanted others to see. I can take them down if you wish.
-
I've been wondering about this myself.
For the California show, I can unerstand. It's being taped, and there's really no need to take pictures except perhaps for before taping begins.
But for the stage show, so long as there is no flash to distract contestants, what' the big deal?
-
Good. Gracious. Me.
That's amazing work.
Thanks for sharing the illicit photos. I'm not such a wild Feud fan, but I want to see that set in person. Hell, I want to stand on that set!
(And, of course, I want to see it back on TV.)
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'115865\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 04:04 AM\']
But this was really that good, and I wanted others to see. I can take them down if you wish.
[/quote]
No. Please don't. I will be very sad if you buckle under to John trying to be a bully in the name of enforcing what is really an idiotic rule.
(I can see flashes being an issue. That is not a reason to ban all photography. If you can take a picture sans-flash, you should be allowed to.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'115869\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 09:33 AM\']No. Please don't. I will be very sad if you buckle under to John trying to be a bully in the name of enforcing what is really an idiotic rule.[/quote]
I didn't read that as John being a bully at all. I read that as John honoring his own personal responsibility by letting us know that photography is, in fact, against their rules. He didn't even ask politely for you to take them down, he didn't threaten in any way to report it, he just stated the rule. For all we know, John may think the rule is as idiotic as you do, but as an employee of the operation who's a member of this board, I can easily see why he'd feel a responsibility to at least mention it.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'115870\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 09:33 AM\']
I didn't read that as John being a bully at all. I read that as John honoring his own personal responsibility by letting us know that photography is, in fact, against their rules. He didn't even ask politely for you to take them down, he didn't threaten in any way to report it, he just stated the rule. [/quote]
He stated the rule once. There was no reason to mention it again. It may have been me, but something about it gave me a bad vibe. And, before the show started, there were several reports (by staff members, if I'm not mistaken) of this great set, how it's a replica of the Combs set, yadda, yadda, yadda. Why even bother mentioning it, when 85% of the people on board don't get to see it in person?
And, if it went down as Chris said it did (and I have no reason to doubt him), then he didn't even know that the rules were been broken...meaning someone on staff wasn't doing their job.
For all we know, John may think the rule is as idiotic as you do, but as an employee of the operation who's a member of this board, I can easily see why he'd feel a responsibility to at least mention it.
So why not say it? I don't think it be career suicide if he mentioned "I don't agree with it, but our rules say..." To me, all he's doing is touting the company line. My two cents, and I'm sure people will disagree.
Say, how's that Rubik's Cube pilot coming?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'115871\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 07:38 AM\']
He stated the rule once. There was no reason to mention it again. It may have been me, but something about it gave me a bad vibe.
[/quote]
Yeah, this is basically where I stand. I'm probably reading too much into it, but this was the exact vibe I got, especially with the whole "we would appreciate it, thank you" thing on the end. Especially in a thread that had nothing but effusive praise for for show. I also note that when Mark posted his "or what?" post, John absolutely had the opportunity to realize that maybe he's coming off as a bully and clarify his stance, and chose not to. But, anyhow, it's a moot point.
I'm still boggling over those score displays being plasma. I mean, damn. That's bomb-ass.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'115871\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 10:38 AM\']He stated the rule once. There was no reason to mention it again. [/quote]
This is just outrageously wrong of you to say. Enough so that an apology is in order.
YOU asked a question. He responded. I think that more than qualifies as a "reason to mention it again".
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'115871\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 10:38 AM\']
He stated the rule once. There was no reason to mention it again.
[/quote]
Incorrect. If he found that someone had broken the rule, it was reasonable for him to assume that a reminder might be in order. And as Matt points out, it is beyond the pale that you would slam John for answering a question that you asked.
Now, if John were issuing said reminder upon every mention of FF Live, that would be overdoing things, but he hasn't. The only times I've seen him warn against photography were when he saw the rule had been broken or when someone explicitly asked about it.
It may have been me, but something about it gave me a bad vibe.
If everything that gave you a bad vibe were excluded from this board, the only remaining posts would be Mr. Lemon's gazpacho recipes. And I'm sure he could easily arrange for those to give you a bad vibe as well. ;-)
And, before the show started, there were several reports (by staff members, if I'm not mistaken) of this great set, how it's a replica of the Combs set, yadda, yadda, yadda. Why even bother mentioning it, when 85% of the people on board don't get to see it in person?
Uh, how about to encourage people to come and see it? Not everyone can, of course, but there's nothing wrong with encouraging people who could see it to make the trip.
And, if it went down as Chris said it did (and I have no reason to doubt him), then he didn't even know that the rules were been broken...meaning someone on staff wasn't doing their job.
Please explain how the fact that someone got away with breaking the rule in one particular instance means that the rule shouldn't be enforced at all.
For all we know, John may think the rule is as idiotic as you do, but as an employee of the operation who's a member of this board, I can easily see why he'd feel a responsibility to at least mention it.
So why not say it? I don't think it be career suicide if he mentioned "I don't agree with it, but our rules say..." To me, all he's doing is touting the company line. My two cents, and I'm sure people will disagree.
You don't have any idea (nor do I) how much dissent from the company line Fremantle tolerates, but more to the point, what purpose would it serve for John to say "I don't agree but..."? The rules are the same either way. Moreover, anyone who's familiar with the photos John has posted over the years should be able to figure out what he thinks of posting game show photos; as such, I can't imagine that if taking photos were allowed at FF Live, he wouldn't be quick to encourage it.
Say, how's that Rubik's Cube pilot coming?
Gee, an unjustified slam... how novel.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'115871\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 10:38 AM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'115870\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 09:33 AM\']
I didn't read that as John being a bully at all. I read that as John honoring his own personal responsibility by letting us know that photography is, in fact, against their rules. He didn't even ask politely for you to take them down, he didn't threaten in any way to report it, he just stated the rule. [/quote]
He stated the rule once. There was no reason to mention it again. It may have been me, but something about it gave me a bad vibe. And, before the show started, there were several reports (by staff members, if I'm not mistaken) of this great set, how it's a replica of the Combs set, yadda, yadda, yadda. Why even bother mentioning it, when 85% of the people on board don't get to see it in person?
And, if it went down as Chris said it did (and I have no reason to doubt him), then he didn't even know that the rules were been broken...meaning someone on staff wasn't doing their job.
For all we know, John may think the rule is as idiotic as you do, but as an employee of the operation who's a member of this board, I can easily see why he'd feel a responsibility to at least mention it.
So why not say it? I don't think it be career suicide if he mentioned "I don't agree with it, but our rules say..." To me, all he's doing is touting the company line. My two cents, and I'm sure people will disagree.
Say, how's that Rubik's Cube pilot coming?
[/quote]
I don't beleive I was being a bully. I beleive my statements regarding the issue were very polite. There are reasons why we don't allow pictures, reasons that I don't have to explain.
Matt was right, all I did was state our appreciation that no photos be taken. I don't have to give my editorial about it.
And as usual everyone blows things out of proportion.
As for the Rubik's line, it's that kind of rude behavior that makes people in the industry dislike this board, and trust me, they do.
John
-
[quote name=\'jrjgames\' post=\'115877\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 08:26 AM\']
There are reasons why we don't allow pictures, reasons that I don't have to explain.
[/quote]
No, you don't, but I'd be curious as to what they are, aside from keeping flashes from popping during the show.
As for the Rubik's line, it's that kind of rude behavior that makes people in the industry dislike this board, and trust me, they do.
Ya know, John, I was all ready to apologize for misinterpreting the intent of your original post.
Then I read this.
-
[quote name=\'jrjgames\' post=\'115877\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 11:26 AM\']
I don't beleive I was being a bully. I beleive my statements regarding the issue were very polite. There are reasons why we don't allow pictures, reasons that I don't have to explain.
[/quote]
John, you did nothing wrong, at least with that statement. Most of the people who demand an explanation for the "no pictures" rule know exactly why it's not allowed; they may not agree with it (heck, I don't always agree with it either), but not agreeing with it isn't the same as not understanding it.
Matt was right, all I did was state our appreciation that no photos be taken. I don't have to give my editorial about it.
You mean Randy West doesn't open TPIR Live with "Welcome to The Price is Right Live! I think it sucks that my bosses won't let you take pictures, but please don't anyway. Ernie Q. Dimwit, COME ON DOWN!"
As for the Rubik's line, it's that kind of rude behavior that makes people in the industry dislike this board, and trust me, they do.
You were doing so well until you deigned to speak for "the industry" as opposed to one guy who's on the periphery of it.
-
As for the Rubik's line, it's that kind of rude behavior that makes people in the industry dislike this board, and trust me, they do.
You were doing so well until you deigned to speak for "the industry" as opposed to one guy who's on the periphery of it.
"I hear things".
As for this, it went on too long...you guys can discuss it more.
As for the others on here...Feud and Price are great shows, lots of fun and you can win stuff...just come, have fun and do the right thing. I'm not asking you to agree with our rules, just respect them, you're sure to have a blast and that's all we care about.
John
-
I want to clarify that my camera did have a flash. You can see by the photos I tried not to take them during gameplay, rather before and after the families played.
I didn't see any signage near registration or the showroom about photography being prohibited. Again, that doesn't mean there wasn't any. I just didn't see any (and I was looking at all the signage around registration & showroom) So I figured it was allowed.
I took John's post a week or two ago regarding pictures for TPIR Live to be only for TPIR Live. If Feud had been mentioned in that thread, I wouldn't have taken any. Period.
I have no problems with the rule. Those who know me, know I meant no disrespect. While I didn't take the post as being bullied, I'm willing to take down the photos out of respect if it makes some uncomfortable.
As a paying consumer of more than $30 (I realize there are comps), I think it's fair to the consumer to state, like TPIR live, the rules clearly.
I think it's fair to say the blame should be split between me not asking about taking photos when I could have v. expressed rules
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'115886\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 09:31 AM\']
As a paying consumer of more than $30 (I realize there are comps), I think it's fair to the consumer to state, like TPIR live, the rules clearly.
[/quote]
If there is a rule against it, you are 100% correct, it should either be posted prominently in the theater, or mentioned clearly in the warmup or during some kind of announcement. I know that in all of the hockey games I go to, the public address announcer has a standard rattle they read off about fifteen minutes prior to the faceoff that states rules like that, and that for events where they are in fact disallowed, they put signs on the doors that specifically say "no cameras."
(I think they ban video cameras. However, my digital still camera takes short video clips, proving what a stupid rule that is from a technology standpoint.)
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'115886\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 12:31 PM\']
I want to clarify that my camera did have a flash. You can see by the photos I tried not to take them during gameplay, rather before and after the families played.
I didn't see any signage near registration or the showroom about photography being prohibited. Again, that doesn't mean there wasn't any. I just didn't see any (and I was looking at all the signage around registration & showroom) So I figured it was allowed.
I took John's post a week or two ago regarding pictures for TPIR Live to be only for TPIR Live. If Feud had been mentioned in that thread, I wouldn't have taken any. Period.
I have no problems with the rule. Those who know me, know I meant no disrespect. While I didn't take the post as being bullied, I'm willing to take down the photos out of respect if it makes some uncomfortable.
As a paying consumer of more than $30 (I realize there are comps), I think it's fair to the consumer to state, like TPIR live, the rules clearly.
I think it's fair to say the blame should be split between me not asking about taking photos when I could have v. expressed rules
[/quote]
Yes we do have a statement before Price and we don't have one for Feud yet.
I appreciate your comments and didn't mean to reprimand you, that wasn't my intention.
The set is awesome and bottom line is I'm glad you had fun.
John
-
First off, to John. Please pass this along to whoever is in charge of set construction. Wow does that look neat. That takes me back to the good ol' days of the Feud.
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'115886\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 09:31 AM\']
I didn't see any signage near registration or the showroom about photography being prohibited. Again, that doesn't mean there wasn't any. I just didn't see any (and I was looking at all the signage around registration & showroom) So I figured it was allowed.[/quote] And now you know they aren't. I don't see how this got blown into the stratosphere.
If the rules say you can't take pictures, then you can't take pictures. Your entry ticket to the show does not guarantee that you'll be a contestant on stage. It does not guarantee that you'll win a few hundred bucks. This is the same as your seat at a basketball game. It does not give you permission to go out onto the court, even during a play stoppage and run around with the performing mascot. You're paying to watch the show, and that's all.
I would think that with the sets looking so close to the original product that there would be all kinds of advertising ("Come see the Family Feud live!") especially during the appropriate show on the air. Why is that not the case.
-
There actually is a loophole into this...of course you have to have the credentials. Friend of mine (also a co-partner in a little game show we're trying to get on air at his college) was able to take pics for the Price stage showa year or so ago, citing and proving of course, that he works as a reporter/photographer for his college's newspaper in Maryland. I'm not trying to suggest everyone go up and say they work for the AC Press or the Daily Journal...that'd be wrong. I'm just saying there are exceptions to every rule.
I've heard good things about the Feud stage show from another friend of mine who went over the weekend. It's a feeling out process, as I'm told, and the interactive function of the game (where audience members can play along with the game) is a feeling out process for now, as it is a debut show. I hope to make it out in the next few weeks...but sadly pressing family issues are in effect with my uncle in the hospital and in real bad shape.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'115871\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 09:38 AM\']
Say, how's that Rubik's Cube pilot coming?
[/quote]
[quote name=\'jrjgames\' post=\'115877\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 10:26 AM\']
As for the Rubik's line, it's that kind of rude behavior that makes people in the industry dislike this board, and trust me, they do.
[/quote]
You both are acting like 2 year olds. Grow up.
Brandon Brooks
-
There are reasons why we don't allow pictures, reasons that I don't have to explain.
No, you don't, but I'd be curious as to what they are, aside from [color=\"#FF6666\"]keeping flashes from popping during the show.
[/size][/b][/color]
I don't beleive I was being a bully. I beleive my statements regarding the issue were very polite. There are reasons why we don't allow pictures, reasons that I don't have to explain.
Matt was right, all I did was state our appreciation that no photos be taken. I don't have to give my editorial about it.
And as usual everyone blows things out of proportion.
Welcome to the world of your moderators. It's kinda like this board. It's your show, you make the rules, your guests are expected to comply with the rules, and you don't owe anyone an explanation of the rationale behind your rules. End of discussion.
Hint: the distance from the audience to the stage is too great for the flash on your camera to be of any use. The stage lighting will overpower what little light comes from the flash at that distance. You could stealthily take pictures but make G.D. sure that flash doesn't go off. In all of the fancy sit-down concerts, plays and TV tapings I've been to, from Broadway to Hollywood to various symphony concerts and university recitals, I can't recall anyone gratuitously whuppin out their camera and start taking flash pictures. It might be different when you're dealing with Bubbas from Bubbaville. One likely reason the rule exists is in case someone doesn't know how to disable the flash on their camera.
Say, how's that Rubik's Cube pilot coming?
As for the Rubik's line, it's that kind of rude behavior that makes people in the industry dislike this board, and trust me, they do.
Why is this considered rude behavior? You've taken ample opportunity to tout Rubik's Cube on this board; what's wrong with someone asking about it? As for people in the industry, they can read this board and like it, they can read this board and not like it, or they can not read this board. It takes all kinds.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'115902\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 02:10 PM\']
One likely reason the rule exists is in case someone doesn't know how to disable the flash on their camera.
[/quote]
Which is why I mentioned it. However, since John cryptically claimed that there were "reasons", plural, I was interested in knowing what the other ones might be.
I dunno that going out of your way to jack it up to 72-point type was necessary. But it sure didn't surprise me.
Sad, tho. The concept of "photography, but no flash photography" certainly seems to be grokkable by hockey fans, at least at all of the games I've been to. (The difference, of course, is that if some ninny DID start popping a flash, the fans around them would beat them down. At least, in Philly. :)) Banning photography wholesale because some asshat couldn't be bother to RTFM is yet another path towards the Dumbing Down Of America.
-
I've been on and off this board and the old newsgroup for about 10 years now. This thread is the perfect example why I participate for a couple months, and then vanish for a year or more because of the bad taste in my mouth these groups can leave. A simple, friendly post has devolved into a bunch of adults acting like brats. Some mod needs to lock this G.D. thread and everyone needs to move on.
-
Banning photography wholesale because some asshat couldn't be bother to RTFM is yet another path towards the Dumbing Down Of America.
The world is rife with dumbed-down asshats these days.
-
Every time I've attended a taping of a show, the reason that's always been given for prohibiting pictures, flash or not, is "copyright." This happened at NBC, ABC, CBS, Comedy Central -- heck, we weren't even allowed to take pictures in the hallway while waiting for a taping of Late Night with Conan O'Brien because there were pictures of Conan with various guests and catching one of them in a photo would "infringe copyright."
I never understood what copyright violation could occur with such photos that couldn't be achieved at home with a video-capture device, but there you go.
-
the reason that's always been given for prohibiting pictures, flash or not, is "copyright."
An in-studio photo of Conan and a guest might fetch $5 on ebay. That's basically stealing $5 from Lorne Michaels. Shame on you for stealing.
I'm telling you, the really big money to be made is with counterfeit One Bid price tags. They're inexpensive and easy to make, and who would be able to tell if it's counterfeit or not? Better yet, take a small piece of cardboard, write a price on it, and sell it on ebay as a price that was used on the Clock Game inside one of Barker's hand-held dealie-bobs.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'115912\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 04:28 PM\']
Better yet, take a small piece of cardboard, write a price on it, and sell it on ebay as a price that was used on the Clock Game inside one of Barker's hand-held dealie-bobs.
[/quote]
Those are basically the same dealiebobs you used to fold for Password Plus, aren't they?
Get you a stack of manila folders at Staples, you could make a mint.
-
I don't know about you, but many entities (which prohibit video/photo cameras) which want to publicize their venue will often either come out with a slick brochure or website which contain equally slick pictures of said venue.
Case in point, most casinos do not allow photos and/or videos in their gaming rooms, yet they will show some of the atmosphere in their websites and travel brochures.
Perhaps if TPiR Live and FF Live can come up with some photos (like the photos in question within this thread) and put them on their own official website or include them in the Harrah's website, then this whole argument would become moot.
How can a few internet-accessible "authorized" photos hurt the show or the 'intellectual/copyrighted property' of the show? Hell, a few good pictures of the set, host, gameplay,... could sell a few more tickets for each show, which would mean a bigger demand for the shows, which means the shows get longer runs, which means Randy gets to rack up even MORE air miles!!! :-)
(I dunno if this made sense, but it did get the bad taste out of my mouth regarding this subject).
-
Similar, but not the same. I've never handled one of the Clock Game dealie-bobs but SplitSecond has.
A while ago I constructed a prototype Password Plus wallet which could be made with a couple of standard 3" x 5" index cards. It conforms to the basic form factor, but the actual wallets were made of much heavier card stock and had a special spring to hold them shut. If anyone reading this is good with a CAD program I will email you the plans, and then post a CAD drawing on my web site in a common format (bmp?). Or, I could just hand-draw some plans and mail them to whomever wants them. They're not very useful for playing home games because you have to load two wallets for each password.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'115919\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 05:05 PM\']
... could sell a few more tickets for each show, which would mean a bigger demand for the shows, which means the shows get longer runs, which means Randy gets to rack up even MORE air miles!!! :-) [/quote]
NOW we're on to something!
OK, enough about pictures. And enough attacks on character. I haven't heard this much about Barker's dealiebob since Dian!
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
Cool! I'm at studio 8H at NBC-NY next week. From seeing "Match Game" and "SOTC" there as a kid, I return to work on that historic stage... The difference: now no worries about security escorting me out of the building!
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but what's happening at 8H?
Doug
-
[quote name=\'narzo\' post=\'115907\' date=\'Apr 11 2006, 05:56 PM\']
I've been on and off this board and the old newsgroup for about 10 years now. This thread is the perfect example why I participate for a couple months, and then vanish for a year or more because of the bad taste in my mouth these groups can leave. A simple, friendly post has devolved into a bunch of adults acting like brats. Some mod needs to lock this xx thread and everyone needs to move on.
[/quote]
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Move on already...
Bryan
itsbry@juno.com
-
Wow, that is a terrific set! Thank you for sharing those pictures! I appreciate you taking them for us to see.
I hope to make it to Atlantic City soon!
Tim :-)
-
[quote name=\'Particleman\' post=\'115850\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 09:22 PM\']
Yes, my software controls not only the trilon, but the plasma screens that emulate the Ferranti-Packard readouts used back in the day. I must say myself, the effect is awesome.
[/quote]
You know, I have looked at the pics now 3 or 4 times. I really, truly thought they were real and not a plasma screen. Let's hope they duplicate this for the O'Hurley years. :)
-
[quote name=\'isucgv\' post=\'116008\' date=\'Apr 12 2006, 09:21 PM\']
You know, I have looked at the pics now 3 or 4 times. I really, truly thought they were real and not a plasma screen. Let's hope they duplicate this for the O'Hurley years. :)
[/quote]
Me too.
And I had 3 row seats.
-
Give the set designers and construction crew a raise!! Hire them for the O'Hurley Feud!!
Like Chris, I too, am in jaw-dropping-awe over those scoreboards. OUTSTANDING work on those!
I also agree that the production company/casino taking some promo shots and posting them on the casino website and/or promotional flyer. When people I know hear 'Family Feud', they either think of the fun Dawson/Combs versions or of the dull/robotic/no life Karn version. Show them those cool promo pics and watch attendance soar!
(My $0.02 worth)
Matt
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'115821\' date=\'Apr 10 2006, 02:36 PM\']
Well folks, this is history in the making: the Family Feud stage show looks better, sounds better, and has a better emcee than the television show:
Original set vs. cast-off set from a TV pilot which takes place on a UFO
Original music vs. Radio Shack percussion machine
Michael Burger vs. Richard "the Termite" Karn
[/quote]
Would it be safe to say that the two are targeting two different demos, thus the difference?
Casinos generally target the elderly, who would be more familiar with the classic set than the TV version.
The TV version, apparently tries to target young demos, thus the current set. (until we see what's in store in the fall)
-
[quote name=\'mparrish11\' post=\'116080\' date=\'Apr 13 2006, 01:23 PM\']
Like Chris, I too, am in jaw-dropping-awe over those scoreboards. OUTSTANDING work on those!
[/quote]
Many thanks for the compliments.
I must say that I was really impressed with Michael. While I only saw him host through rehearsals, I saw his real talent for improvising comedy on the spot. I'm sure Chris can vouch for me there.
-
[quote name=\'Particleman\' post=\'116128\' date=\'Apr 13 2006, 08:22 PM\']
[quote name=\'mparrish11\' post=\'116080\' date=\'Apr 13 2006, 01:23 PM\']
Like Chris, I too, am in jaw-dropping-awe over those scoreboards. OUTSTANDING work on those!
[/quote]
Many thanks for the compliments.
I must say that I was really impressed with Michael. While I only saw him host through rehearsals, I saw his real talent for improvising comedy on the spot. I'm sure Chris can vouch for me there.
[/quote]
Last year when I went to see TPIR Live, I just missed Burger's last show of his run. A friend who was with me stated he did a better job here than at TPIR.
I thought he was very good and interacted with contestants very well. Best thing was, like Summers, he kept the game moving (even with the old rules) and it never got boring.
-
Would it be safe to say that the two are targeting two different demos, thus the difference?
Casinos generally target the elderly, who would be more familiar with the classic set than the TV version.
The TV version, apparently tries to target young demos, thus the current set.
I am not aware of any research which proves that game shows performed on a set cast off from a TV pilot set on a UFO attract a more desirable demo.
FF Live & TPIR Live are run by Andy Felsher, whose dad produced the original TV version of FF. Andy grew up in the game show business and has better taste and judgement than your typical modern-day TV executive, IMO.
-
I went to see Family Feud Live Friday night. I enjoyed TPIR Live more. I was disappointed by the fact that they don't explain how the first family was picked to play. Also, I think they need more than three questions to determine winners. Also, the show only lasted an hour and ten minutes (one of the games only had two rounds, this probably contributed to it). The show doesn't work as well as TPIR Live IMHO because the audience is not allowed to partcipate during the games. I did enjoy Michael Berger as host. The jackpot round was $10,500 and not won. The difficulty of the questions leads me to beliieve it may not be won for a long time.
-
[quote name=\'goongas\' post=\'116263\' date=\'Apr 16 2006, 12:41 AM\']I was disappointed by the fact that they don't explain how the first family was picked to play.
[/quote]
Agreed. I think they are either high rollers or they are chosen randomly by computer based on seats purchased for the show. I'd like for them to do some sort of survey question during registration so there are 20 audience members to play the game.
Also, I think they need more than three questions to determine winners.
I think 3 questions is enough. It's the answers (4), instead of (6), that doesn't weed out most of the people. 4 is too easy and, again, most people get them all right and it comes down to speed.
Also, the show only lasted an hour and ten minutes (one of the games only had two rounds, this probably contributed to it).
Not so bad when I have a 90 minute drive home.
The show doesn't work as well as TPIR Live IMHO because the audience is not allowed to partcipate during the games.
Burger had stated after the show that the audience is so quiet, it's like they are taking a test. I like the show better than Price. And we may get rotating hosts. I'd give this show another few months to tweak any remaining aspects of the show. If it's still drawing half a house in a few months, I may be concerned. But I'm not sure what the break even point per night is. As long as it makes money, I don't see it going anywhere.
-
If I were Herman Fremantle, the next Goodson property I'd dust off for a live franchise would be Card Sharks (the NBC version, not CS 2001). It is dead-nuts simple to produce -- simply recycle questions from the network versions, the contestants don't have to know anything, and audiences can whip themselves into an apoplectic state by shouting "higher" and "lower". The card game would fit right into a casino setting.
-
When I saw the final product of the 2001 version of "Card Sharks," I was suprised to see that the show was so bastardized. Even "Match Game" stuck with filling in the blank, and the Audience/Head-to-Head Match.
With a little creativity, "Card Sharks" can easily run as a half hour program, with the match ending at 22:00 or wherever they need it, and it can be done with no returning champions. And it can be done the way we remember it: with two decks of cards, survey questions, the works. I don't understand why they went with the shortened game of one line of cards, which is really silly. How much sense does it make for me to win the game without having done anything except watch the other guy miss the sixth call?
I'm not getting my hopes up yet, we're a long way off, but "Card Sharks" deserves another chance to shine.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Apr 17 2006, 05:51 AM\']With a little creativity, "Card Sharks" can easily run as a half hour program, with the match ending at 22:00 or wherever they need it, and it can be done with no returning champions. And it can be done the way we remember it: with two decks of cards, survey questions, the works.[/quote]
Might take more than a little creativity if the match lasts all of two questions.
(Please tell me you wouldn't encourage them to Lingo-ize it and give 25 points a card and 50 for clearing the row. Please?)
-
[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' post=\'116327\' date=\'Apr 17 2006, 07:59 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Apr 17 2006, 05:51 AM\']With a little creativity, "Card Sharks" can easily run as a half hour program, with the match ending at 22:00 or wherever they need it, and it can be done with no returning champions.[/quote]
Might take more than a little creativity if the match lasts all of two questions.
(Please tell me you wouldn't encourage them to Lingo-ize it and give 25 points a card and 50 for clearing the row. Please?)
[/quote]
*I* surely wouldn't. Rather than a 2-out-of-3 match, how 'bout we play as many games as possible, first game worth $100, each additional game worth $50 more; after each game, a two-card double-or-nothing Money Card pick? Most cash at the end of the show plays the Traditional Money Cards.
Or borrow the "Special Deck" from the TPiR Card Game, and the winner of each game cuts that deck to determine her/his prize; again, high score when time's called plays Money Cards...
-
Why must it increase as the show progresses? Winning one game is just as hard as winning another. I wouldn't mind the first game at $100 as a practice, and the remaining ones at $200, but there's no compelling reason to increase the stakes like that just because we're later in the show. (My idea was almost the same; keeping it at $100 per win, though.)
The "Card Game" idea makes that even worse. You're introducing a huge variable in the amount of the prize, plus it determines the winner. If you want to award a prize to the winner like "Concentration" did, that would be fine.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'116341\' date=\'Apr 17 2006, 07:56 AM\']
Why must it increase as the show progresses? Winning one game is just as hard as winning another. I wouldn't mind the first game at $100 as a practice, and the remaining ones at $200, but there's no compelling reason to increase the stakes like that just because we're later in the show. (My idea was almost the same; keeping it at $100 per win, though.)
[/quote]
Ya know, I had noticed this and was gonna say something, and Travis's comments here reminded me.
We have a lot of people here who get all up in arms about a scoring system for a given show being "unfair". And they're not wrong, but it shows, with all due respect, why they don't work in the business. Because it's not about being "fair" most of the time, it's about making good TV. And a scoring system where someone runs away with the game in the first half and we have to plod through the rest of it does not make for a good TV, whereas one where the other player can make a quick burst and catch right back up does.
(And the idea of playing Card Sharks until we hear the Time's Up Bell hits me the same place it hits Steve. Which is to say, a very tender location.)
-
I don't think that having the match turn on one game is that good of TV, either. Even as a youngster, I noticed that a 1000-1000 tie on Hollywood Squares meant that one person won two games to the other's one. Sure, it's exciting to have the game hinge on a single question, but it's counterintuitive. The one guy won two games, and yet he's going home. That's my beef. I thought it was stupid then, I think it's stupid now. I don't see how that disqualifies me from a career in the industry any more than the fact that I'm 2,000 miles away from LA does. A producer that thinks outside the box could come up with a happy medium. Sometimes you can't work around that. The ninth guy to get called on down will not have as many chances as the first four. Sometimes the Big Wheel is capricious, and the showcase is full of furniture. TPIR is never going to be close to fair, and that's OK. A Jeopardy! contestant could be rolling along, while another person gets one right, bets big on a Daily Double, and it's now a ball game. Nature of the beast, there. I don't think that's necessary for "Card Sharks," though I concede that it's less bothersome because the whole game is revolved around the luck of the cards.
I was merely voicing my displeasure with the idea that the stakes must march up the scale every game. If you're going to do that, go whole hog and make the first game worth $100, and re-double it every time. That way you're guaranteed that whoever wins the last game goes to the Money Cards, and that's exciting because either player can win that last game. Or make a total mockery of the whole thing like "The Cheap Show" did, and have the first two rounds worth $100, and all rounds after that worth $2000.
Personally, I don't understand why producers are so against the idea that games can continue through to the next show anyway. "Card Sharks" was at its best in the original NBC incarnation, I'm merely trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. ANY results are going to be unsatisfactory.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'116353\' date=\'Apr 17 2006, 08:53 AM\']
I don't think that having the match turn on one game is that good of TV, either.
[/quote]
I realize this. But, by virtue of you having a brain in your head and a fair understanding of what makes a good game for the game's sake, you're not the target audience.
I don't see how that disqualifies me from a career in the industry
It doesn't, so long as you understand that your job as a producer is to maximize your audience, period, paragraph, end of story. And sometimes that means that balance in scoring goes out the window.
(Note that I'm throwing out the word "fairness". Because it's still absolutely fair. All contestants are playing under the same set of rules. It might not appear to your sense of aesthetics, but it's still fair.)
A producer that thinks outside the box could come up with a happy medium.
Sure. But your beef was "why can't every game be worth $100?" And I told you why. Whether you like it or not is yours to decide. But I'm telling you why it usually happens that way.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'116326\' date=\'Apr 17 2006, 05:51 AM\']With a little creativity, "Card Sharks" can easily run as a half hour program, with the match ending at 22:00 or wherever they need it, and it can be done with no returning champions. And it can be done the way we remember it: with two decks of cards, survey questions, the works.[/quote]
I got yer creativity right here.
One possible solution: Based on the idea Scrabble used. Same basic Card Sharks, with two rows of five cards. Best of *five* match. Play as normal (up to 3 or 4 questions per game) until the producer decides we're running short on time. Play in sudden death from the next question on. Any subsequent games are three cards, one question. First to three games goes to money cards, for chance at eleventy billion dollars. Say goodbye to contestant and home audience. (Better yet: Say goodbye to home audience; tell champion we'll see him next time.) Repeat tomorrow.
Not perfect, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
-
First--I realize (a little late) that this was meant to be a thread about live shows, not TV revivals. If the PTB want to move this to a separate thread, I understand.
My ramping-up-gradually idea was an effort to balance the realization that later games aren't harder to win than earlier games with the need to make a good finish. The Special Deck idea, granted, adds a heapin' pile of luck to the outcome of the game, perhaps too big a pile.
I'm all for games taking as long as they take, and spanning matches across two shows where necessary, but I realize that more packagers don't like that idea than do.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'116326\' date=\'Apr 17 2006, 07:51 AM\']
When I saw the final product of the 2001 version of "Card Sharks," I was suprised to see that the show was so bastardized. Even "Match Game" stuck with filling in the blank, and the Audience/Head-to-Head Match.
With a little creativity, "Card Sharks" can easily run as a half hour program, with the match ending at 22:00 or wherever they need it, and it can be done with no returning champions. And it can be done the way we remember it: with two decks of cards, survey questions, the works. I don't understand why they went with the shortened game of one line of cards, which is really silly. How much sense does it make for me to win the game without having done anything except watch the other guy miss the sixth call?
I'm not getting my hopes up yet, we're a long way off, but "Card Sharks" deserves another chance to shine.
[/quote]
I agree, and have doing a message board version of the format for almost a year. First two games for $250, third game for $500, fourth game (if you get there) is $750. Outside of sudden death at the bell, it retains all the old rules.
BTW, some Net versions of CS have an $80,000 Money Cards. Gee.....wonder where they got that from??