The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: jdhernandez on May 23, 2006, 10:36:51 PM
-
For those of you looking for some excellent game playing, this week features the top online Lingo players against five of the best teams from season four of Lingo.
Be forewarned.... the words this week are T-O-U-G-H.
J-A-S-O-N
-
Query! Why are teams stopped at 10 in Bonus Lingo?
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'119353\' date=\'May 24 2006, 08:10 AM\']
Query! Why are teams stopped at 10 in Bonus Lingo?
[/quote]
Are they? If so, it's because it's a moot point from there. Really, it's a moot point at 9...there is no way they can draw 9 balls (given 12 numbers knocked off of the card to start) and not make Lingo.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'119355\' date=\'May 24 2006, 11:26 AM\']
Are they stopped at 10 words? If so, it's because it's a moot point from there. Really, it's a moot point at 9...there is no way they can draw 9 balls (given 12 numbers knocked off of the card to start) and not make Lingo.
[/quote]
Monday night's episode had the team getting their 10th word with about 15 seconds left on the clock. The two letters in their next word were revealed, but Chuck stopped them about a second letter.
-
I didn't see it, but what did Chuck say? Did he point out that there was no way they could lose at that point? Would it be better if they just gave it to them automatically at a certain point (i.e. "get a Lingo or 10 words right to win $5000"), or would you rather see them always play it out even if it's a forgone conclusion? Or maybe, if they got the 10 words which guarenteed it, have them draw once for the bonus and if they didn't get it, just give them the $5K. Or maybe just make the round shorter, as has been discussed before?
Any opinions?
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'May 24 2006, 09:17 AM\']"get a Lingo or 10 words right to win $5000"[/quote]
Personally, I prefer "Get a Lingo on your first pull or 10 words in 2 minutes to win the jackpot." That way, 9 words guarantees $5K, and there's actually a chance to win the jackpot based on being good.
-
[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' post=\'119369\' date=\'May 24 2006, 09:31 AM\']
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'May 24 2006, 09:17 AM\']"get a Lingo or 10 words right to win $5000"[/quote]
Personally, I prefer "Get a Lingo on your first pull or 10 words in 2 minutes to win the jackpot." That way, 9 words guarantees $5K, and there's actually a chance to win the jackpot based on being good.
[/quote]
That's actually a really fine idea. The only concern I have is explaining it to both the players and to a viewer in such a way that doesn't sound confusing or tacked-on. Your wording is fine, but I think it needs to be dumbed down even more to work on television.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 24 2006, 09:37 AM\']Your wording is fine, but I think it needs to be dumbed down even more to work on television.[/quote]
"You have two minutes to get as many words as you can. Get ten and you'll win our jackpot of $17,000."
...
"Okay, you got six, so you'll have six chances to win the $5,000. You still have a chance at the jackpot, though; get a Lingo on your first pull, and we'll give you that $17,000."
-
[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' post=\'119374\' date=\'May 24 2006, 09:44 AM\']
"You have two minutes to get as many words as you can. Get ten and you'll win our jackpot of $17,000."
...
"Okay, you got six, so you'll have six chances to win the $5,000. You still have a chance at the jackpot, though; get a Lingo on your first pull, and we'll give you that $17,000."
[/quote]
I like it, but that "You still have a chance" part is the part I was referring to when I was trying to avoid a "tacked on" feeling. But maybe that's as good as it can get, and it's such a good idea I'd be willing to go to air with it in that form and see if it works.
Here's another potential problem, though: how many teams have actually gotten ten? I'm pretty sure we can count them on a partially-amputated hand. So is it really a good idea to mention the 10-in-2-minutes as a primary goal when it's pretty much established to be damned near impossible to accomplish?
(Furthermore, how are you gonna fill time when someone DOES get the ten? Is Chuck gonna do a little soft-shoe and fill that 90 seconds or so that you're not spending drawing balls?)
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the idea, but I think there would be backlash against making a big deal out of a task that has happened maybe thrice, if that.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 24 2006, 09:51 AM\']Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the idea, but I think there would be backlash against making a big deal out of a task that has happened maybe thrice, if that.[/quote]
Personally, I'd prefer a more fundamental restructuring. One I've thrown around is "Get as many pulls as you can; if you Lingo with at least five to spare, you win our jackpot." Of course, that has its own problem, namely that a team getting five words or fewer doesn't have the chance to win, and I'm pretty sure the producers want to see at least one jackpot pull on each episode.
So actually, I'm more interested in this new idea. What if you don't make a big deal of it? Just have Chuck say on the first episode of the season (perhaps the entire first week), during the rules rundown, that "You have two minutes to get as many words as you can. Now, if you Lingo on your first pull *or* get ten words in your two minutes, you'll win our jackpot, which now stands at $10,000."
Then, don't mention it again. Since Chuck has the tendency to talk during the bonus round, if he sees someone who's getting reasonably close to ten, have him say (quickly!) between words something like "You've got seven. Three more and you win the jackpot right now."
As for filling in time on a ten-word win, I don't see this leaving *that* much more time than someone winning on their first pull. And if a host can't fill two minutes, he shouldn't be hosting.
Then again, I don't even know that the "tacked on" issue is that much of a problem, anyway. I mean, a lot of shows have used the idea. TPIR, with Bullseye ("You didn't hit the bullseye, but if the hidden bullseye is under any of these, you still win") and Hole in One (...or Two), and the Card Sharks car game (when the player got a joker in the money cards, hence having multiple chances), for example. If GSN thinks that "More money!" is the way to make Lingo "even better" (per their promo), I think giving a team another chance to win the jackpot would be something that they'd actually want to brag about.
But then again, what (if anything) do I know?
-
[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' post=\'119378\' date=\'May 24 2006, 10:14 AM\']
So actually, I'm more interested in this new idea. What if you don't make a big deal of it? Just have Chuck say on the first episode of the season (perhaps the entire first week), during the rules rundown, that "You have two minutes to get as many words as you can. Now, if you Lingo on your first pull *or* get ten words in your two minutes, you'll win our jackpot, which now stands at $10,000."
[/quote]
Well, you have to say it on every show, or else a new viewer is going to potentially be confused, and you're all about hooking new viewers when you can.
I think the explanation above is an improvement, and would have no problems seeing it implemented.
As for filling in time on a ten-word win, I don't see this leaving *that* much more time than someone winning on their first pull. And if a host can't fill two minutes, he shouldn't be hosting.
Two minutes is a LOT of time to fill smoothly. Not saying Chuck can't do it, and certainly since we've established it's not going to happen very often at all, it's probably not a big deal. I suppose they could just run a long credit crawl and/or discuss The Essence Of Chuck with the HPOA.
Overall, I think it's a fine idea and give you all props for the suggestion and refinements. :)
-
It's certainly a fine idea, and I'm not surprised Steve came up with it; we've spent a good chunk of time trying to figure out ways to improve the bonus game.
What would be wrong with "To win the jackpot, just get 10 words in two minutes"? If you fall short, it's $5,000 for you.
If you get 10 right, you completely deserve the jackpot, if you get one, you shouldn't get a sniff at the money, I don't care if they want everyone to have a shot at the jackpot.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'119421\' date=\'May 24 2006, 07:46 PM\']
What would be wrong with "To win the jackpot, just get 10 words in two minutes"? If you fall short, it's $5,000 for you.
If you get 10 right, you completely deserve the jackpot, if you get one, you shouldn't get a sniff at the money, I don't care if they want everyone to have a shot at the jackpot.
[/quote]
Well, you don't have to care, but now that they have instigated the Lingo-on-one-pull thing, to take it away would smack of cheap.
And the problem is, again, how many 10-word rounds have there been? Leaving in the one-pull means there is an actual chance that the jackpot might pay out in my lifetime.
-
I think there have only been three 10-word bonus games so far.
I would much rather pay big money for teams that have shown acumen in the word-guessing portion than those who got lucky and plucked out the one right ball from the bin. If that means the jackpot for 10 words, $10k for a one-ball lingo, and $5,000 for a vanilla Lingo, so be it.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'119426\' date=\'May 24 2006, 11:31 PM\']
I think there have only been three 10-word bonus games so far.
[/quote]
There have been at least three just this season alone, but there were a few over the previous seasons, too.
-
Five for five went the winning Lingo Smackdown teams in their quest for $5000 last week, so plaudits to them. No one broke the jackpot, though, so for Monday the bank is at $26000.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'119636\' date=\'May 28 2006, 08:27 AM\']
Five for five went the winning Lingo Smackdown teams in their quest for $5000 last week, so plaudits to them.
[/quote]
The $5000 is very rarely not won, so of course the teams of champions all won it. What's so noteworthy about that? "Plaudits"? An unnecessary five-dollar word there.
But Friday's show wasn't a "smackdown show", was it? I thought it was just "regular" contestants.
-
[quote name=\'melman1\' post=\'119643\' date=\'May 28 2006, 11:33 AM\']
The $5000 is very rarely not won, so of course the teams of champions all won it. What's so noteworthy about that? "Plaudits"? An unnecessary five-dollar word there.
But Friday's show wasn't a "smackdown show", was it? I thought it was just "regular" contestants.
[/quote]
You're taking Don way too seriously. Look at his posting history.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'melman1\' post=\'119643\' date=\'May 28 2006, 12:33 PM\']
But Friday's show wasn't a "smackdown show", was it? I thought it was just "regular" contestants.
[/quote]
Right you are. My apologies. I only saw the final segment of that program and incorrectly presumed that Smackdown Week would go the full five days. Your Don regrets the error and offers contrition.
As for Tuesday's telecast (beamed to all time zones already) the winning pair of John and Chris--with only three Bonus Lingo balls to pull--won $5000 [plenty of dough for a nice dinner and a couple of hookers] on their third and final available pick.
The jackpot rises to $28000 for today's episode of Lingo starring Chuck (no more last names).
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' post=\'119647\' date=\'May 28 2006, 10:23 AM\']
You're taking Don way too seriously. Look at his posting history.
[/quote]
I don't spend enough time here anymore to know everyone's posting history. So if you have a point to make, just make it.
today's episode of Lingo starring Chuck (no more last names).
Since you brought it up, what's the deal with that? It seems a bit amateurish or unprofessional not to introduce at least the host(s) by first and last name. I'm sure many casual viewers wouldn't know Woolery except for possibly as an "infomercial guy", if that.
-
[quote name=\'melman1\' post=\'120009\' date=\'Jun 1 2006, 12:18 AM\']
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' post=\'119647\' date=\'May 28 2006, 10:23 AM\']
You're taking Don way too seriously. Look at his posting history.
[/quote]
I don't spend enough time here anymore to know everyone's posting history. So if you have a point to make, just make it.
[/quote]
Don uses a lot of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm in his posts, sometimes mocking the fanb0i behavior of other posters. Easy to get confused by, but still funny.
-
[quote name=\'melman1\' post=\'120009\' date=\'May 31 2006, 11:18 PM\']
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' post=\'119647\' date=\'May 28 2006, 10:23 AM\']
You're taking Don way too seriously. Look at his posting history.
[/quote]
I don't spend enough time here anymore to know everyone's posting history. So if you have a point to make, just make it.
[/quote]
Oh, really?!? So over 400 posts isn't enough time to know everyone's posting history? Listen, pendejo, why don't you take your smarmy comments somewhere else where they are welcome, hmmm? Maybe you should get to know someone before you make your asinine comments, ad nauseum.
today's episode of Lingo starring Chuck (no more last names).
Since you brought it up, what's the deal with that? It seems a bit amateurish or unprofessional not to introduce at least the host(s) by first and last name. I'm sure many casual viewers wouldn't know Woolery except for possibly as an "infomercial guy", if that.
Oh please! Why don't you lighten up, jerk? Chuck is Chuck. ON THE SHOW maybe it is impolite to only introduce a host by only a first or last name. Now take your huffing and puffing elsewhere, you big, bad wolf. Banninate him! NOW!
-
JD, I'm gonna assume this is a late-late-night rant made after an especially late evening of... well, I don't know exactly what. Because otherwise, I really don't know what the hell you're so irate about.
-
Wow.
-
I appreciate that many of you have "got my back", but let's let it end here, please. Melman has made the honest mistake that others have made and will make in the future. In due course, he'll understand that his Don is an acquired taste and we'll get along just fine.
Back to our subject of Lingo, I was unable to catch the telecast last evening where $28K was up for grabs. Was it won? Thank you.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'120058\' date=\'Jun 1 2006, 10:34 AM\']
.
Back to our subject of Lingo, I was unable to catch the telecast last evening where $28K was up for grabs. Was it won? Thank you.
[/quote]
Nope, but as is usually the case, the $5K was won. The jackpot will be at $29K tonight, and if it is not won, will be a tied-for-season-high of $30K tomorrow.
-
Yeah, let's end it here and y'all get your sarcasm detectors fixed.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' post=\'120064\' date=\'Jun 1 2006, 11:00 AM\']
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'120058\' date=\'Jun 1 2006, 10:34 AM\']
Back to our subject of Lingo, I was unable to catch the telecast last evening where $28K was up for grabs. Was it won? Thank you.
[/quote]
Nope, but as is usually the case, the $5K was won. The jackpot will be at $29K tonight, and if it is not won, will be a tied-for-season-high of $30K tomorrow.
[/quote]
Thanks for the fast answer, but a question here. Didn't the top dollar go for $31000 the night before J.D. was on?
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'120066\' date=\'Jun 1 2006, 11:17 AM\']
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' post=\'120064\' date=\'Jun 1 2006, 11:00 AM\']
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'120058\' date=\'Jun 1 2006, 10:34 AM\']
Back to our subject of Lingo, I was unable to catch the telecast last evening where $28K was up for grabs. Was it won? Thank you.
[/quote]
Nope, but as is usually the case, the $5K was won. The jackpot will be at $29K tonight, and if it is not won, will be a tied-for-season-high of $30K tomorrow.
[/quote]
Thanks for the fast answer, but a question here. Didn't the top dollar go for $31000 the night before J.D. was on?
[/quote]
According to JD's report of the 5/4 Lingo, the jackpot was indeed $31K that night.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' post=\'120136\' date=\'Jun 1 2006, 07:16 PM\']
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'120066\' date=\'Jun 1 2006, 11:17 AM\']
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' post=\'120064\' date=\'Jun 1 2006, 11:00 AM\']
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'120058\' date=\'Jun 1 2006, 10:34 AM\']
Back to our subject of Lingo, I was unable to catch the telecast last evening where $28K was up for grabs. Was it won? Thank you.
[/quote]
Nope, but as is usually the case, the $5K was won. The jackpot will be at $29K tonight, and if it is not won, will be a tied-for-season-high of $30K tomorrow.
[/quote]
Thanks for the fast answer, but a question here. Didn't the top dollar go for $31000 the night before J.D. was on?
[/quote]
According to JD's report of the 5/4 Lingo, the jackpot was indeed $31K that night.
[/quote]
Very fine. So we haven't quite tied the record yet. But we're close as the military team of Bradford and Meg nailed 9 words in Bonus Lingo and lingoed on the second pull for a $5000 night. The Friday jackpot is at $30K.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'120058\' date=\'Jun 1 2006, 07:34 AM\']
Melman has made the honest mistake that others have made and will make in the future. In due course, he'll understand that his Don is an acquired taste and we'll get along just fine.[/quote]
Ummm... I haven't made any mistake, and I don't see where we're not getting along. Again, I will say that it seems kinda cheesy to me that Woolery is only introduced as "Chuck" on his own show. Has a reason for this ever been stated?
All civil and un-profane responses are appreciated. Check your "wow"'s at the door please.
-
[quote name=\'melman1\' post=\'120366\' date=\'Jun 4 2006, 07:54 PM\']
Again, I will say that it seems kinda cheesy to me that Woolery is only introduced as "Chuck" on his own show. Has a reason for this ever been stated?
[/quote]
'Cuz it's part of the intro. Everyone else introduces themselves by their first name, so does Chuck. I don't see a problem with it; in fact, I think it kinda contributes to a friendly and inviting atmosphere.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'120372\' date=\'Jun 4 2006, 11:47 PM\']
[quote name=\'melman1\' post=\'120366\' date=\'Jun 4 2006, 07:54 PM\']
Again, I will say that it seems kinda cheesy to me that Woolery is only introduced as "Chuck" on his own show. Has a reason for this ever been stated?
[/quote]
'Cuz it's part of the intro. Everyone else introduces themselves by their first name, so does Chuck. I don't see a problem with it; in fact, I think it kinda contributes to a friendly and inviting atmosphere.[/quote]
Plus it's just different. Game show introductions are so standardized that it's nice to see when a little variety is introduced. My favorite is still ABC Millionaire. When the show got big, they didn't introduce Regis at all. Not an announcer, not a graphic, not even Regis saying "Hi, I'm Regis." That's the sign of a secure host.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'120423\' date=\'Jun 5 2006, 09:09 AM\']
Plus it's just different. Game show introductions are so standardized that it's nice to see when a little variety is introduced.
[/quote]
I think it's also a clever way to mask the "we're too cheap to hire a real announcer" thing. Back in the day, when Ron Maestri came out to do Quicksilver, it looked really bad. (Of course, a lot of that had to do with the show being really bad, but that's another rant.) With Lingo, you don't care so much, 'cuz you admire how it actually flows pretty well. Almost like they actually put some thought into it, which seems to be kinda rare in television production these days, so I like to encourage it.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'120423\' date=\'Jun 5 2006, 11:09 AM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'120372\' date=\'Jun 4 2006, 11:47 PM\']
[quote name=\'melman1\' post=\'120366\' date=\'Jun 4 2006, 07:54 PM\']
Again, I will say that it seems kinda cheesy to me that Woolery is only introduced as "Chuck" on his own show. Has a reason for this ever been stated?
[/quote]
'Cuz it's part of the intro. Everyone else introduces themselves by their first name, so does Chuck. I don't see a problem with it; in fact, I think it kinda contributes to a friendly and inviting atmosphere.[/quote]
Plus it's just different. Game show introductions are so standardized that it's nice to see when a little variety is introduced. My favorite is still ABC Millionaire. When the show got big, they didn't introduce Regis at all. Not an announcer, not a graphic, not even Regis saying "Hi, I'm Regis." That's the sign of a secure host.
[/quote]
I don't think they *ever* introduced Regis. Even on Night One, you knew who he was (at that point, more than you did the show).
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'120433\' date=\'Jun 5 2006, 10:00 AM\']
I don't think they *ever* introduced Regis. Even on Night One, you knew who he was (at that point, more than you did the show).
[/quote]
I'm almost positive that on at least the first couple nights, he did the "Hello eveybody, I'm Regis Philbin" thing.
-
[quote name=\'melman1\' post=\'120366\' date=\'Jun 4 2006, 09:54 PM\']
All civil and un-profane responses are appreciated. Check your "wow"'s at the door please.
[/quote]
I hadn't commented on this, but I must say that your earlier response to my post was rather curt and uncivil, and I don't believe I was disrespectful. You get what you give.
At any rate, I echo what Matt said. It's different cause it can be. Why shouldn't it be?
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' post=\'120476\' date=\'Jun 5 2006, 06:14 PM\']
I hadn't commented on this, but I must say that your earlier response to my post was rather curt and uncivil, and I don't believe I was disrespectful. [/quote]
Then you did not interpret it in the way I had intended. I had simply meant to ask "could you clarify what you mean, please?". That is all. Really. Let it end there. Next time I will be more direct.
It's different cause it can be. Why shouldn't it be?
I can think of several reasons, most of which involve basic tradition. But it appears that nobody is too concerned about this. Including "Chuck", or else he would have insisted upon it. Oh well.
-
[quote name=\'melman1\' post=\'120481\' date=\'Jun 5 2006, 08:02 PM\']
I can think of several reasons, most of which involve basic tradition. But it appears that nobody is too concerned about this.
[/quote]
Correct. Because if the only reason you can think of to do something is "well, that's the way it was always done", then that is not a good enough reason.