The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: entguy1 on January 09, 2007, 04:47:59 PM
-
At least if you have a Fox O&O MyTV station:
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11339 (http://\"http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11339\")
-
A quote from that article:
"We are pleased to be working on 'Temptation' with FremantleMedia North America, whose format track record speaks for itself."
Priceless.
-
[quote name=\'entguy1\' post=\'142605\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 04:47 PM\']
At least if you have a Fox O&O MyTV station:
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11339 (http://\"http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11339\")
[/quote]
Luckily, I do have a FOX owned & operated MyTV station. I don't think there are a lot of them, though.
-
Prizes featured on "Temptation" will be, for the first time in U.S. television history, available to viewers for discounted purchase via phone or at the program's Web site.
Does this worry anyone else? Is Don West available to host?
Curt
-
I do get NYC MyTV outlet WWOR-TV My9 on Dish Network. I wonder who will be carrying Temptations in Sacramento-Stockton or if I return to Mid-Michigan, Grand Rapids and Lansing?.
I can't wait to see it this fall.
-
I can't wait for this!!!!
-
I don't know about the via phone thing, but I'm sure it will not be a Bargain Hunters clone. It'll be the same Sale of the Century we know & love all these years albeit with a different name among other things. I even did a drawing of how the contestant podium may look. And although you might not like it and I will understand, I have thoughts of Chris Harrison of The Batchelor & Mall Masters hosting it.
-
I soooooo hope this clears on stations besides mynetwork O&O stations, I remember the Jim Perry version from when I was a little kid in it's original run and on USA Network
-
Note to Fremantle...give GSN the right to air some Sale. It might help.
Oh wait...only on Fox-owned O&O's? How many is that, anyway?
(For those in the Indianapolis/Lafayette/Kokomo/Muncie area who get MyINDY or whatever it's called...I believe that is a Fox O&O.)
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'142623\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 06:32 PM\']
Note to Fremantle...give GSN the right to air some Sale. It might help.
Oh wait...only on Fox-owned O&O's? How many is that, anyway?
[/quote]
It's only ten, according to the article.
Hopefully it picks up.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'142625\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 07:00 PM\']
It's only ten, according to the article.
Dammit. If they want to get ratings, they might want to reconsider that.
[/quote]
Yikes, I knew it was a small number, but not THAT small. I hope the other MyTV stations can get their hands on it; this could really be a ratings booster for them.
(On a side note...I've got one of only ten stations that get My Games Fever. Wonder if I should consider myself lucky.)
-
[quote name=\'Allstar87\' post=\'142616\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 06:02 PM\']
Luckily, I do have a FOX owned & operated MyTV station. I don't think there are a lot of them, though.
[/quote]
A full list of the Fox-owned stations is here (http://\"http://www.newscorp.com/operations/tvstations.html\"); as you roll over each you'll see a Fox or My logo. In a nutshell, there's a Fox-owned MyTV station in every market where Fox owns two TV stations, plus Baltimore.
(And although I get ten MyTV affils by satellite, not one is Fox-owned. Grrr...)
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'142629\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 07:10 PM\']
A full list of the Fox-owned stations is here (http://\"http://www.newscorp.com/operations/tvstations.html\"); as you roll over each you'll see a Fox or My logo. In a nutshell, there's a Fox-owned MyTV station in every market where Fox owns two TV stations, plus Baltimore.
(And although I get ten MyTV affils by satellite, not one is Fox-owned. Grrr...)
[/quote]
Ok...let me ask this then. Let's say my little podunk MyNetwork station, not Fox affiliated, wanted to air this show, could they get some sort of special right to do so?
-
[quote name=\'curtking\' post=\'142617\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 11:03 PM\']
Prizes featured on "Temptation" will be, for the first time in U.S. television history, available to viewers for discounted purchase via phone or at the program's Web site.
Does this worry anyone else? Is Don West available to host?
Curt
[/quote]
I would rather him keeping pushing a PPV than the junk up for purchase on Temptation...
Though people pleased has they have WWOR on DishNetwork I have read they will be switching off all receivers with the NYC stations out side their official area soon, even if the local station doesnt care.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'142630\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 07:14 PM\']
Ok...let me ask this then. Let's say my little podunk MyNetwork station, not Fox affiliated, wanted to air this show, could they get some sort of special right to do so?
[/quote]
No "special right" is needed. Temptation is syndicated -- any station that wants it and is willing to pay for it can have it, assuming that no other station in the market already has the rights. It's just that in this case, the first stations to pick it up were the Fox-owned MyNetworkTV affiliates.
IIRC the MyTV O&Os also were first to pick up weekend reruns of Desperate Housewives; this isn't at all different.
-
Woot. I'm pleased. Best of luck to the show and let's hope it sticks to the old format.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'142633\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 07:20 PM\']
No "special right" is needed. Temptation is syndicated -- any station that wants it and is willing to pay for it can have it, assuming that no other station in the market already has the rights. It's just that in this case, the first stations to pick it up were the Fox-owned MyNetworkTV affiliates.
IIRC the MyTV O&Os also were first to pick up weekend reruns of Desperate Housewives; this isn't at all different.
[/quote]
Ohhhhh....
I was under the impression that ONLY Fox O&O's would get the show. Didn't realize that it was syndicated.
/hopes Tempatation knocks off some of these judges
//or Rachel Ray
-
[quote name=\'remlap\' post=\'142632\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 07:19 PM\']
Though people pleased has they have WWOR on DishNetwork I have read they will be switching off all receivers with the NYC stations out side their official area soon, even if the local station doesnt care.
[/quote]
That only applies to the ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox stations from New York, and it's happened already (December 1, 2006). WWOR is a superstation, so it's covered under a separate law and Dish can still offer it in any market where the local MyTV affiliate doesn't complain. (The same goes for WPIX and CW.)
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'142635\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 07:36 PM\']
Ohhhhh....
I was under the impression that ONLY Fox O&O's would get the show. Didn't realize that it was syndicated.
[/quote]
Don't feel bad, I was confused myself. The article does give off that effect.
I'm hoping for Norfolk's MNTV station to pick this up. They've had Feud since spring 2003, and have given the show good daytime slots. This would be a good companion, esp. being another Fremantle show.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'142636\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 12:38 AM\']
[quote name=\'remlap\' post=\'142632\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 07:19 PM\']
Though people pleased has they have WWOR on DishNetwork I have read they will be switching off all receivers with the NYC stations out side their official area soon, even if the local station doesnt care.
[/quote]
That only applies to the ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox stations from New York, and it's happened already (December 1, 2006). WWOR is a superstation, so it's covered under a separate law and Dish can still offer it in any market where the local MyTV affiliate doesn't complain. (The same goes for WPIX and CW.)
[/quote]
Thank you I wasnt sure which stations still have superstation status with what syndicated progammng WWOR has, and WGN and Superstation WGN splitting.
Is KCOP or any other west coast FOX O&O a superstation?
-
Thought this one might come out as a MyTV-only show, as in it would air weeknights in prime instead of the low-performing novelas they are running now. We get two affils here, although neither are Fox-owned (WPHL 17 from Philly is a Tribune station, and WHP 21.2 is Clear Channel-owned).
Very excited to see this though! Can't wait for it to start. Let the host debate begin.
-
[quote name=\'remlap\' post=\'142639\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 07:58 PM\']
Thank you I wasnt sure which stations still have superstation status with what syndicated progammng WWOR has, and WGN and Superstation WGN splitting.
Is KCOP or any other west coast FOX O&O a superstation?
[/quote]
Nope -- no Big 4 network O&Os or affiliates are superstations. The law specifically lists WWOR and WPIX New York, KWGN Denver, KTLA Los Angeles, and WSBK Boston. All are CW stations except for WWOR (My) and WSBK (independent).
-
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' post=\'142641\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 05:06 PM\']
Let the host debate begin.
[/quote]
If you've sung the Anthem at a Flyers game this year, dust off your resume tape.
-
Personally, I'd like to see Jim Peck host the show. He's still in show biz doing commercials and he's handled similar shows before, not to mention familiar to court show fans from his stint on "Divorce Court."
-
For hosts, I'd start by looking at newscasters from the FOX/MNTV O&O newscasts. At least it's a good chance to go onto the national landscape.
I just hope potential hosts don't seem reluctant just because this is a MNTV show, like a pride thing or something...
-
Glad to hear this indeed... :D
I may have to go begging and pleading to the people I know at the local CBS/FOX station headquarters (they're owned by the same people) to show it. Not that it will probably work, but I really wanna see how it turns out, it'll give me some appointment TV back in the daytime.
Having Sale back in the U.S. is wonderful. IMHO, it's one of the best trivia GS's ever developed...
As for hosts, why am I getting the sneaking suspicion that Ryan Seacrest will be rumored *shudders*...
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' post=\'142648\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 09:25 PM\']
As for hosts, why am I getting the sneaking suspicion that Ryan Seacrest will be rumored *shudders*...
[/quote]
What's wrong with Seacrest? He could actually be a pretty competent pick, and at least he's done game shows before.
/Granted they were kids/teens shows.
-
See, now I'm scared. The same company that did such a horrible job with Match Game and Card Sharks that there can never again be serious talk of a revival for either is now prepared to do something "hip and edgy" with my beloved Sale Of The Century. I'm as tense as I can be (about a syndicated television show that's still a year away from airing and doesn't actually impact my life one iota no matter what happens).
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'142644\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 09:14 PM\']
Personally, I'd like to see Jim Peck host the show. He's still in show biz doing commercials and he's handled similar shows before, not to mention familiar to court show fans from his stint on "Divorce Court."
[/quote]
I like Jim too, but something tells me when they're bouncing host names around, a 63-year-old whose last national program went off 16 years ago and is currently doing AARP spots is not the direction they'll go.
-
Host debate, you say? Friends, I know who they oughta hire to host Temptation. Who?
You're talking to him. No, seriously. Those who've seen me rock Sale of the Century at the GSC and elsewhere know I have the chops. All I need is the chance.
/anyone have the e-mail address of the person picking the host?
//yes, I know they probably already have a host, but dammit, I want a shot at it. :D
-
See, now I'm scared. The same company that did such a horrible job with Match Game and Card Sharks that there can never again be serious talk of a revival for either is now prepared to do something "hip and edgy" with my beloved Sale Of The Century. I'm as tense as I can be (about a syndicated television show that's still a year away from airing and doesn't actually impact my life one iota no matter what happens).
All they have to do is copy the Australian version. If the decide to make the IB's part of the "home shopping" part, I won't mind as long as it doesnt detract too much for the game.
I do fear that not many stations will pick it up, and our MNTV affil, WUAB, has gotten remarkably trashy since the changeover.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'142629\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 07:10 PM\']A full list of the Fox-owned stations is here (http://\"http://www.newscorp.com/operations/tvstations.html\"); as you roll over each you'll see a Fox or My logo. ...[/quote]Tsk tsk tsk. All the Mylogos are virtually identical, and all the Fox logos follow three basic templates. Whatever happened to creativity?
[quote name=\'Game Show Man\' post=\'142654\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 09:57 PM\']... No, seriously. Those who've seen me rock Sale of the Century at the GSC and elsewhere know I have the chops. All I need is the chance. ...[/quote]You realize your co-host probably isn't going to Amy Jo Johnson, right? :-D
-
Well, I know here in Phoenix it'll at least end up on KUTP My45, but I wonder if there's a possibility it could end up on Fox 10 KSAZ? Both are Fox owned stations, do you think Fox will move any to the bigger stations?
David
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'142645\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 07:25 PM\']
For hosts, I'd start by looking at newscasters from the FOX/MNTV O&O newscasts.
[/quote]
You do realize this would include such huge talents as Jillian Barberie?
However, I do have to say that news brings one thing that's essential to a host for the $ale/Temptation format: The ability to read quickly, clearly, and accurately.
/Jillian is already well known for her huge talents.
//Maybe they could get her to cohost/model and have Pat O'Brien read the questions. He's such a great guy.
-
I have a feeling that the other Fox stations or the non-Fox MyNetworks will get 2nd priority here. I'm willing to bet that there will be takers there and other stations will follow suit, allowing Temptation the chance to thrive. After all, it didn't take much for Wheel to get its foot in the door.
Slightly off-topic: How many TV markets are there? I remember it being said in my Mass Comm class, but I forgot, and after counting the Fox stations, I know it's more than 35.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'142689\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 10:39 PM\']
Slightly off-topic: How many TV markets are there? I remember it being said in my Mass Comm class, but I forgot, and after counting the Fox stations, I know it's more than 35.
[/quote]
There are 210 markets:
http://www.newsblues.com/dma.htm (http://\"http://www.newsblues.com/dma.htm\")
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'142689\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 01:39 AM\']
I have a feeling that the other Fox stations or the non-Fox MyNetworks will get 2nd priority here. I'm willing to bet that there will be takers there and other stations will follow suit, allowing Temptation the chance to thrive. After all, it didn't take much for Wheel to get its foot in the door.
[/quote]
Aside from the fact that TV was a lot different 23 1/2 years ago. Wheel didn't pop up until March 1984 in some markets, and from what I've read it didn't get good clearance in either NYC and/or LA (ditto for Jeopardy! its first season). Nowadays, if NYC and LA can't pick up a show, it's chances are slim-to-none (i.e. a LMaD pitch from the late-90s).
It had a very rocky start before it became a juggernaut.
-
[quote name=\'CountdownRound\' post=\'142651\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 06:42 PM\']
See, now I'm scared. The same company that did such a horrible job with Match Game and Card Sharks that there can never again be serious talk of a revival for either is now prepared to do something "hip and edgy" with my beloved Sale Of The Century. I'm as tense as I can be (about a syndicated television show that's still a year away from airing and doesn't actually impact my life one iota no matter what happens).
[/quote]
Well, Family Feud hasn't really been messed with. And since the thing's been on for 8 years, it's given them time to polish the format and get a host who realizes saying "Double the points" is quite stupid.
Not everything Fremantle makes is a lemon. Hopefully Temptation will make lemonade instead.
-
I'm stoked that $ale/Temptation is comming back after an 18-year huatus off the air. I'm sure other stations will pick it up(including any of my local affikiates) since DZ mentioned that it's not restricted to those Fox O&Os.
As far as the home shopping aspect goes, I wonder how they'll incorporate it into the show. Maybe it'll be patterned after the late 1980's show Bargain Hunters. The discounted prices they speak of will no doubt be mark-offs from the actual retail price instead of those $otC prices because if they do, those phone lines & web servers may not handle all that traffic if that happened.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'142642\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 01:08 AM\']
Nope -- no Big 4 network O&Os or affiliates are superstations. The law specifically lists WWOR and WPIX New York, KWGN Denver, KTLA Los Angeles, and WSBK Boston. All are CW stations except for WWOR (My) and WSBK (independent).
[/quote]
Intresting KWGN still has superstation status yet WGN-TV doesnt :D
Thanks..
-
[quote name=\'remlap\' post=\'142698\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 06:33 AM\']
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'142642\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 01:08 AM\']
Nope -- no Big 4 network O&Os or affiliates are superstations. The law specifically lists WWOR and WPIX New York, KWGN Denver, KTLA Los Angeles, and WSBK Boston. All are CW stations except for WWOR (My) and WSBK (independent).
[/quote]
Intresting KWGN still has superstation status yet WGN-TV doesnt :D
Thanks..
[/quote]
WGN *used* to have the status. When syndex (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndex\") and later ther decision to be a WB affiliate came into play, they decided to have two feeds, one for the Chicago market, and one for the rest of the nation. The superstations above do not have separate feeds. WTBS/TBS did the same thing.
--Mike
-
For all of you getting worried they are going to mess up the show, fair warning: It's A LITTLE different than what you were used to in the Perry era, but "generally" sticks to the same format.
I was hired to work on the pilot project for it (and, fingers crossed, will be for the main show) - at first I thought the format changes were a little odd, but trust me when I say that you'll warm up to them. I'm not sure exactly what I'm allowed to say about the format, and considering I'm under contract, I have to be considerate for any future paychecks! :D
Generally, the game is the same. Answer questions, earn money, highest amount is the champ. Changes? The mini-games. FAME GAME has been altered slightly for the home audience sake, and there's a new bonus round for the champ to earn even MORE money towards their 'account' for the end of the show (for the prize choices).
Over and above that, there is a lot of 'at home' playability so you can participate along with the contestants.
I think everyone will enjoy the show even if it doesn't stick to the old 80's format, and the updates don't ruin the game (at least in my opinion).
-
[quote name=\'TonicBH\' post=\'142694\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 04:24 AM\']
[quote name=\'CountdownRound\' post=\'142651\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 06:42 PM\']
See, now I'm scared. The same company that did such a horrible job with Match Game and Card Sharks that there can never again be serious talk of a revival for either is now prepared to do something "hip and edgy" with my beloved Sale Of The Century. I'm as tense as I can be (about a syndicated television show that's still a year away from airing and doesn't actually impact my life one iota no matter what happens).
[/quote]
Well, Family Feud hasn't really been messed with. And since the thing's been on for 8 years, it's given them time to polish the format and get a host who realizes saying "Double the points" is quite stupid.
Not everything Fremantle makes is a lemon. Hopefully Temptation will make lemonade instead.
[/quote]
Remember that Fremantle had did well with the shows used for Game Show Marathon, as far as keeping with the original recipe. So they have had a decent track record -- if you only count the last year or so.
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'142699\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 12:49 PM\']
[quote name=\'remlap\' post=\'142698\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 06:33 AM\']
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'142642\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 01:08 AM\']
Nope -- no Big 4 network O&Os or affiliates are superstations. The law specifically lists WWOR and WPIX New York, KWGN Denver, KTLA Los Angeles, and WSBK Boston. All are CW stations except for WWOR (My) and WSBK (independent).
[/quote]
Intresting KWGN still has superstation status yet WGN-TV doesnt :D
Thanks..
[/quote]
WGN *used* to have the status. When syndex (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndex\") and later ther decision to be a WB affiliate came into play, they decided to have two feeds, one for the Chicago market, and one for the rest of the nation. The superstations above do not have separate feeds. WTBS/TBS did the same thing.
--Mike
[/quote]
I know its back story and same goes with WTBS.
I was just thinking that KWGN would of done the same in the mid 90s.
All the regional commerical broadcasters / local variations on commericals here in the UK could be called Superstations by North American terms now since they are easily accessed on satellite.
-
[quote name=\'remlap\' post=\'142716\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 11:16 AM\']
I know its back story and same goes with WTBS.
I was just thinking that KWGN would of done the same in the mid 90s.
[/quote]
KWGN never had sufficient popularity or cable carriage across the country to warrant a separate feed.
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'142699\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 12:49 PM\']
WTBS/TBS did the same thing.
[/quote]
My understanding was that TBS did a split feed not because of syndex but because Turner wanted to be able to charge cable systems for carriage, something that a superstation legally can't do. (Hence the early formation of Southern Satellite -- run by a buddy of Ted Turner -- and United Video to uplink WTBS and WGN.) When syndex returned in the late '80s, TBS already had a syndex-proof schedule.
For what it's worth, KTVT Dallas and KTVU Oakland also were early superstations. KTVT lost its status when it switched from being an independent to the area's CBS affiliate (now O&O); I'm not sure when and why KTVU did but I assume that it had something to do with joining Fox.
-
[quote name=\'MrGameShow\' post=\'142708\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 06:57 AM\']
Generally, the game is the same. Answer questions, earn money, highest amount is the champ. Changes? The mini-games. FAME GAME has been altered slightly for the home audience sake, and there's a new bonus round for the champ to earn even MORE money towards their 'account' for the end of the show (for the prize choices).
[/quote]
For the prize choices? So there's a "shopping" endgame? I was going to ask if maybe it wasn't following the Australian format pretty closely (with the new Fame Game cards, the Sprint Rounds, and the Vault) but it sounds like maybe we've found a way to bollocks this one up too...
-
[quote name=\'MrGameShow\' post=\'142708\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 08:57 AM\']
For all of you getting worried they are going to mess up the show, fair warning: It's A LITTLE different than what you were used to in the Perry era, but "generally" sticks to the same format.
Generally, the game is the same. Answer questions, earn money, highest amount is the champ. Changes? The mini-games. FAME GAME has been altered slightly for the home audience sake, and there's a new bonus round for the champ to earn even MORE money towards their 'account' for the end of the show (for the prize choices).
[/quote]
Well, what you're mentioning seems quite a bit like the Aussie "Temptation," including the build-a-bankroll bonus round. If Fremantle decides to just carbon-copy the current Aussie format and ship it over here, we're in for quite a treat.
Or, wait a minute, did I misread? Will the bonus round entail the champ earning more "dollar points," with the potential bonus prizes having fixed purchase prices? Hmm, definitely sounds like it could work.
/and a nifty way to keep the prize budget down
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'142721\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 11:48 AM\']
For the prize choices? So there's a "shopping" endgame? I was going to ask if maybe it wasn't following the Australian format pretty closely (with the new Fame Game cards, the Sprint Rounds, and the Vault) but it sounds like maybe we've found a way to bollocks this one up too...
[/quote]
Shopping for final prizes has always made sense to me: it rewards better play. Seems to me a champ who, night after night, completely blows away her/his opponents (yes, assuming that the contestant coordinators play fair) ought to get to the Big Prize sooner than somebody who squeaks by.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'142718\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 11:33 AM\']
KWGN never had sufficient popularity or cable carriage across the country to warrant a separate feed.
[/quote]
Plus KWGN didn't have baseball until 1993, which was pretty key in becoming a superstation. All of the others listed had a good amount of baseball or other sports in the 1980s before the amount of cheap channels went over available capacity. By 1993, pretty much any chance of it becoming more than a regional thing went by the wayside. And now they have no sports at all.
--Mike
-
I'm not sure if a champ should have to use additional brainpower in the bonus round. I had an idea to offer a "credit card" at some point in the main game to the player in the lead. The card would be used at the end of the show. The value of the card would be determined by a spin of the Fame Game board with values ranging from $5 to $100, so a big payoff could be possible (but not likely) every show.
The credit goes away, however, if it is not used that day, it is not added to the returning champ's total.
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'142724\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 08:55 AM\']
Shopping for final prizes has always made sense to me: it rewards better play. Seems to me a champ who, night after night, completely blows away her/his opponents (yes, assuming that the contestant coordinators play fair) ought to get to the Big Prize sooner than somebody who squeaks by.
[/quote]
I don't disagree - if you're going to have a shopping format, make it a SHOPPING format. Plus it ties in the maingame score quite nicely. I was mainly commenting that if that IS the case, there is a deviation from the Australian show, and if there's one, there will probably be more.
-
Hello there.
As an Australian, I am looking forward to seeing how this translates in the US.
The format is basically as described, and is similar to what we have here.
As for the bonus, here we have the champion attempt to get 10 questions right in 60 seconds for a chance to earn an extra $A50,000 in cash. Of course, if they win their first game, they receive $A50,000. So, a champion here can stay for 8 nights, and can walk away with up to $A950,000 in cash and prizes (including $A800,000 in cash).
One point I must make here is that their cash account can only be claimed after 7 or 8 nights. If they leave before then, they don't receive the cash they won in the bonus.
Hope this helps.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'142735\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 10:07 AM\']I'm not sure if a champ should have to use additional brainpower in the bonus round. [/quote]Why not? The Ten Right bonus that Australia uses is a great add, because it adds the two-pronged excitement of "will the champ add an extra $50,000?" and "will the champ get to night seven in order to cash out?"
If shopping is the only thing happening in the final act, that's fine, but having a bonus round for the sole purpose of getting a player to the Lot faster is silly. A Lot Win should be a rare event, which is something that the kiddies who try to soil the memory of Sale of the Century don't get when they dream up revivals where five wins collects everything.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'142740\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 10:44 AM\']I don't disagree - if you're going to have a shopping format, make it a SHOPPING format. Plus it ties in the maingame score quite nicely. I was mainly commenting that if that IS the case, there is a deviation from the Australian show, and if there's one, there will probably be more.[/quote]When I saw the first few episodes of Temptation, it took a bit to "adjust" to the extra bits on the Fame Game board, the sprints, and so on. But it all works. And when they moved the Cash Vault to the third round, changed Ten in a Row to Ten Right and other stuff, it's damn near perfect. There's nothing not to like.
There are so many things that make Sale of the Century work when it fires on all cylinders, that if you were to take some of them out, or swap them, that you're left with a hollowed-out shell of an idea.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'142744\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 03:21 PM\']
If shopping is the only thing happening in the final act, that's fine, but having a bonus round for the sole purpose of getting a player to the Lot faster is silly. A Lot Win should be a rare event, which is something that the kiddies who try to soil the memory of Sale of the Century don't get when they dream up revivals where five wins collects everything.
[/quote]
Yes, rare is good, but there needs to be a distinction between rare and implausible. My knowledge is poor about this, but I'm thinking that in the 80's version, one would require about 8-10 nights for a Lot Win (11 during the Winner's Board). That's pretty long to me, seeing the lack of 3 and 4-time champions on other shows. While still going above the "magic number of 5" is a good idea, not going too far beyond it would probably keep the spirit of a Lot Win intact.
This whole sub-bonus game to me could mean one of two things. First, the people in charge may want players who maul the competition out as soon as possible so as not to leech prizes from the front game. Sure it seems awkward, but if Ultimate Victory is almost assured, they may want to speed up the process for whatever minimal gains it could get them.
The second and more plausible thing the sub-bonus game could mean is that Fremantle would be making the most egregious error of not having returning champions, thus having the sub-bonus game serve as a chance to get the winner as much loot as possible.
Chances of likelihood of either being the reason are <1%, because that's how I roll. >>
-
I was expecting this day would come soon; $ale/Temptation is one of the best international formats out there, and hopefully it will do as well in the US both in quality and ratings. As for the host choice please tell me that Todd Newton and Brooke Burke are up for the hosting duties, because I honestly cannot fathom the beautiful but loathsome Jillian Barberie as the next Summer Bartholomew (my second choice for host would obviously be Tom Bergeron). I know, I know. What is it with me and Todd and Brooke? It's just that they had done so well for E! in the past and it would be nice of them to do something together.
All in all, I can't wait until the fall!
-
[quote name=\'BMaurice06\' post=\'142759\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 02:44 PM\']
I know, I know. What is it with me and Todd and Brooke?
[/quote]
I'm thinking it at least has something to do with a complete and utter lack of understanding of the qualities you would want in a good Sale host.
-
Marc Summers is my host, don't know about assistant though.
David
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'142643\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 08:09 PM\']
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' post=\'142641\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 05:06 PM\']
Let the host debate begin.
[/quote]
If you've sung the Anthem at a Flyers game this year, dust off your resume tape.
[/quote]
Kate Smith could host?
One trouble with main game dollars carrying over to the end is if it discourages a leader from buying bargains. That's the genius of the game, preventing runaways.
Maybe if there's a bonus round to win shopping money, it could work in such a way as to make up for any money one spends in the front.
-
If they stick to the Aussie format all the way, some serious dough will be up for grabs...hopefully there'll be a casting call in NY or some other nearby city, like Philly. I just hope we don't end up w/something that looks better suited to the short-lived home shopping GS craze of 87...that element worries me, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Chuck Donegan (The Optimistic "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'curtking\' post=\'142617\' date=\'Jan 9 2007, 05:03 PM\']
Prizes featured on "Temptation" will be, for the first time in U.S. television history, available to viewers for discounted purchase via phone or at the program's Web site.
[/quote]
Add a roulette wheel and we have Shopper's Casino all over again!
-
As long as Fremantle doesn't royally screw this up ala CS 2001, I'm stoked to see this come back.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'142753\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 01:51 PM\']Yes, rare is good, but there needs to be a distinction between rare and implausible. [/quote] What's implausible? If you watched someone knock off the million bucks on Meredith's Millionaire every day, it would get old. Ditto a DSW. If you make a Lot Win easier just for the purpose of seeing it more often, you're cheapening the specialness of it.
My knowledge is poor about this, but I'm thinking that in the 80's version, one would require about 8-10 nights for a Lot Win (11 during the Winner's Board). That's pretty long to me, seeing the lack of 3 and 4-time champions on other shows. While still going above the "magic number of 5" is a good idea, not going too far beyond it would probably keep the spirit of a Lot Win intact.
I'm not even sure how to argue the point here. It's long because it should be. There was probably much gnashing of teeth and raising of voices at NBC when they decided at what levels to place the prizes. You don't think they came up with $85...$530, $640 and $750 by throwing darts, do you?
The second and more plausible thing the sub-bonus game could mean is that Fremantle would be making the most egregious error of not having returning champions, thus having the sub-bonus game serve as a chance to get the winner as much loot as possible.
Now you're on the trolley. But then again, England's version was a weekly, and I don't think they had returning champs, either. But that absolutely kills the building excitement of "is he gonna quit with the car, or play on?"
Chances of likelihood of either being the reason are <1%, because that's how I roll.>>
Whosajiggawha?
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'142744\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 03:21 PM\']
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'142735\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 10:07 AM\']I'm not sure if a champ should have to use additional brainpower in the bonus round. [/quote]Why not? The Ten Right bonus that Australia uses is a great add, because it adds the two-pronged excitement of "will the champ add an extra $50,000?" and "will the champ get to night seven in order to cash out?"
If shopping is the only thing happening in the final act, that's fine, but having a bonus round for the sole purpose of getting a player to the Lot faster is silly. A Lot Win should be a rare event, which is something that the kiddies who try to soil the memory of Sale of the Century don't get when they dream up revivals where five wins collects everything.
[/quote]
Doesn't have to be a bonus that only gets our champ to the Lot faster. Maybe it's just enough to get you to the next level faster. I'm thinking 60 seconds, get 10 questions right, you can have your choice: $25 in bankable cash or (making up a number here) $1000 per game won to take home regardless (as with an Instant Bargain/Gift Shop buy).
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'142874\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 09:41 AM\']
Doesn't have to be a bonus that only gets our champ to the Lot faster. Maybe it's just enough to get you to the next level faster.
[/quote]
Well, by definition, if it does one, it does the other, right? You get that $25 three or four nights in a row, that adds up to a whole game's worth of money.
-
Back in a thread which talked about reviving $OTC, I gave an idea for a bonus in which the winner for that day can earn extra money for their account (getting to a prize level faster). However, due to my poor response ability (hey another puzzle i can use for Definition) I got laughed at by everyone. Now in attempt to look smarter (everyone stop laughing), here is my idea for the bonus.
The game is played like Fortune Hunter on TPIR. The board has five answers concealing different amounts of money. The host gives a clue and from that clue the player has to eliminate one of the answers. This is done until one answer is left. The amount of money behind that answer is added to the player's account. Amounts on the board are $5, $10, $15, $20, and $50. First clue eliminates $5 answer, next clue eliminates $10 answer, and so on.
-
[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'142888\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 10:48 AM\']
Back in a thread which talked about reviving $OTC, I gave an idea for a bonus in which the winner for that day can earn extra money for their account (getting to a prize level faster). [/quote]Why? No one has given me a reasonable answer as to why champions should earn more shopping money. If they only earn $55 on that day, then they should get $55. If that only gets them to $105, then, by golly, they have $105 to spend. I do not understand why some people here have this idea that people should be allowed to win the huge jackpot that much faster. The mind boggles.
-
On the Perry show originally, if a champ won on a Thursday, you knew he would never get all the prizes on stage, because the prizes would change on Monday, so why bother showing them except to fill time and make sure they get plugged (and of course, to see the gals in their bikinis). Then, you had people who won for a couple of days, lost and you're back to square one. It might have been better called "No Sale of the Century" cause nobody bought anything. What they need is a 'temptation' to buy and giving them a chance at extra spending money accomplishes this.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'142914\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 01:48 PM\']so why bother showing them except to fill time and make sure they get plugged (and of course, to see the gals in their bikinis). [/quote] That, erm, seems like a perfectly fine reason to plug the ski boat and Aruba holiday.
Then, you had people who won for a couple of days, lost and you're back to square one. It might have been better called "No Sale of the Century" cause nobody bought anything. What they need is a 'temptation' to buy and giving them a chance at extra spending money accomplishes this.
Then the player who got owned on day three should have thought harder about quitting. As has been said before, the excitement takes place on the front side of the doors.
-
It has been noted on other sites that not everyone went for broke. I remember one site showing a contestant stopping with a lovely dining group in the endphase. Hell, if I had a narrow escape after one or two straight shows, I'd consider quitting.
Here's a potential reason why you'd want to expedite Lot Wins: If you have too many people build up a run only to have them all fall short, you may lose viewers who dismiss the idea of a Lot Win as unattainable. Granted, that's not the greatest of reasons to turn the show off, but people who like Big Wins would start to look elsewhere.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'142944\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 08:19 PM\']
Here's a potential reason why you'd want to expedite Lot Wins: If you have too many people build up a run only to have them all fall short, you may lose viewers who dismiss the idea of a Lot Win as unattainable. Granted, that's not the greatest of reasons to turn the show off, but people who like Big Wins would start to look elsewhere.
[/quote]
1. If you're only looking at this, or any other game show for "Big Wins", you are an idiot. I don't want this show giving away buttloads of money every single day. Where's the suspense if everyone's going to win $50,000 every single day?
2. That argument doesn't even make sense. People don't watch Millionaire for Big Wins, despite the title. If the show is well-produced, it shouldn't matter whether they give away $500,000 or $5,000.
3. People watched Ken Jennings play on for 75 episodes, and the ratings went up for J! You get a good contestant keep playing day-to-day, and you might be on to something.
I'm sorry, but I'm tired of people thinking game shows need to all give money away like it's air, just to get ratings.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'142944\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 08:19 PM\']
Here's a potential reason why you'd want to expedite Lot Wins: If you have too many people build up a run only to have them all fall short, you may lose viewers who dismiss the idea of a Lot Win as unattainable. Granted, that's not the greatest of reasons to turn the show off, but people who like Big Wins would start to look elsewhere.
[/quote]
You saying that reminded me of when the Aussie $OTC went one year without a lot winner (the cash jackpot was finally won at AU $508,000).
If that would happen, would the implentation of an escalating cash jackpot (similar to the one in early episodes of $OTC) keep it from cancellation or could it survive during that time with the current Temptation format of personally building you own cash account?
-
I don't think people want to see big wins every day. They would like to see the possibility of a big win every day. Take "The Big Showdown." In six months there were only two big winners, but there was always the possibility for a big win every day. A well-earned big win is not just a payoff for the winner, but also to the audience. On Sale, there were days when you knew there couldn't possibly be a big win. I'd usually switch it to "Child's Play" for their bonus round after watching the first 20 mins of Sale.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'142875\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 12:54 PM\']
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'142874\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 09:41 AM\']
Doesn't have to be a bonus that only gets our champ to the Lot faster. Maybe it's just enough to get you to the next level faster.
[/quote]
Well, by definition, if it does one, it does the other, right? You get that $25 three or four nights in a row, that adds up to a whole game's worth of money.
[/quote]
Well, yes, of course. But there's always the possibility that a champ will amass enough to buy the <car, or whatever large prize is a couple layers below the Lot> and decide to quit while s/he's ahead.
-
Is it just me - or is there an obsession recently with having huge prizes available to win every night by whatever contestant on EVERY game show?
Temptation/Sale is a format which deservedly defies this trend - and should be celebrated for that fact. Contestants who can truly compete against, and defeat, more than a handful of contestants over 9 days of competition, not only deserves to receive a handsome monetary reward, but also the prized distinction of being a top quiz champion. For many players (and so many of the contestants on such shows are trivia nuts), this title is as important as any prize won (just consider Ken Jennings). And even those who don't make it all the way through (either through being defeated or leaving early) - still feel satisfaction of being a winner on a premier quiz (whilst taking away a decent parting gift or ten).
Sale/Temptation has survived in its numerous reincarnations in this country for more than 25 years - and that's on primetime, network television. It is still regarded in this country (despite the flood of quiz shows of recent years) as the "creme de la creme" of quiz formats. Is the American pysche so much different from ours that they will be forced to tamper with the format so much that it will destroy the essence of the format. I sure hope not!
As an Aussie - I truly LOVE our version, it works really well, and I hope the Yanks don't mess it up!
-
[quote name=\'pownster\' post=\'143009\' date=\'Jan 12 2007, 03:18 AM\']
Is the American pysche so much different from ours that they will be forced to tamper with the format so much that it will destroy the essence of the format.
[/quote]
When it comes to what they like in their game shows in 2007, the mentality of the "average" American seems to usually fall along the lines of "OMG BIG MONEY, SHINY THINGS, PRETTY COLORS, OOH OOH OOH". The games that catch on and are successes tend to be more sizzle, less steak, and it's a shame.
Sale/Temptation is one of those wonderful shows that I think, if done properly, can both attract the "average" viewer as well as those who prefer their game shows to, you know, have a game. What concerns me is that Fremantle's track record has spoken largely for itself on it's revivals, and they tend to break what didn't need to be fixed.
-
[quote name=\'pownster\' post=\'143009\' date=\'Jan 12 2007, 04:18 AM\']
Is it just me - or is there an obsession recently with having huge prizes available to win every night by whatever contestant on EVERY game show?[/quote]
Nah. It's not just you. And a lot of us (around here, that is) are sick unto death of it.
As for the rest of your well-reasoned, insightful comments: I just hope somebody at Fremantle NA reads them and takes them very much to heart. No, that's not right. I hope everybody at Fremantle NA reads them and takes them very much to heart.
-
[quote name=\'pownster\' post=\'143009\' date=\'Jan 12 2007, 01:18 AM\']
As an Aussie - I truly LOVE our version, it works really well, and I hope the Yanks don't mess it up!
[/quote]
As a Yank....I couldn't agree more.
-
[quote name=\'pownster\' post=\'143009\' date=\'Jan 12 2007, 04:18 AM\']
As an Aussie - I truly LOVE our version, it works really well, and I hope the Yanks don't mess it up!
[/quote]
I actually wouldn't mind if they copied everything from the Aussie version, except the 10 in a Row played for $25,000 ($50,000A in Australia is the prize) each night, and the big prize is $250,000 cash or a growing jackpot of some sort rather then $500,000A in gold bullion. The set, keep the same, you can even keep the theme the same, makes no difference anyhow. I think it can be a hit if executed right.
David
-
[quote name=\'gsgalaxy82\' post=\'143110\' date=\'Jan 12 2007, 08:05 PM\']I actually wouldn't mind if they copied everything from the Aussie version, except the 10 in a Row played for $25,000 ($50,000A in Australia is the prize) each night, and the big prize is $250,000 cash or a growing jackpot of some sort rather then $500,000A in gold bullion. The set, keep the same, you can even keep the theme the same, makes no difference anyhow. I think it can be a hit if executed right.[/quote]I really don't care what their cash jackpot is. (And the $500k bullion was gone by the end of 2005, for what that's worth.) If the show is done right, it is a quality product. The cash jackpot can start at $25k, $50k, $100k or a million bucks; that depends on the syndication company. I would rather that company be more concerned more about the show on the whole.
Referring back to pownster's earlier comment, I offer these two bits heard from Penn Jillette's daily radio program. One is the old standard I trot out that says the focus groups for Deal or No Deal were displeased when a contestant won less than $50,000. The other was after Identity had finished its initial run. Penn said, "And NBC really knows how to do game shows." Why do people play the Powerball? To win a metric load of money. (That's 1.072 imperial loads of money for you Yanks) Now that the bar has been raised by various game shows, the public expects big money. Which is unfortunate.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'143118\' date=\'Jan 13 2007, 04:40 AM\']
Now that the bar has been raised by various game shows, the public expects big money. Which is unfortunate.
[/quote]
Yes and no. Look at the 50's when the game show scandals brought the big money amounts down to a few thousand dollars -- people still watched game shows.
In the 70's when shows like Name That Tune and Jokers Wild had occasional $100K shows, people still watched the smaller payoff shows.
Same thing with the other decades. Even today, you have Mo' Money Syndrome games like DoND cranking out 6-figure payoffs on a regular basis, but Family Feud is still chugging along and so is Lingo and they're not super glitz and most contestants don't see more than $20K in winnings.
Overall, if you're talking Primetime shows, yes -- Mo' Money is the rule. But other game shows in daytime and early fringe people just want a show that is fun to play along with and it doesn't always have to be for OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS AND 3 NEW PORSCHES OMGSOSLOLTGIF!!!
-
But Sale has always been about glitzy prizes. Would the game be just as good if they were playing for grocery items?
There is some more good news at NATPE. Merv Griffin and Program Partners will be shopping "Let's Play Crosswords." If launched, this will be the second Griffin game to start with "Let's Play."
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'143135\' date=\'Jan 13 2007, 11:03 AM\']
Same thing with the other decades. Even today, you have Mo' Money Syndrome games like DoND cranking out 6-figure payoffs on a regular basis, but Family Feud is still chugging along and so is Lingo and they're not super glitz and most contestants don't see more than $20K in winnings.
Overall, if you're talking Primetime shows, yes -- Mo' Money is the rule. But other game shows in daytime and early fringe people just want a show that is fun to play along with and it doesn't always have to be for OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS AND 3 NEW PORSCHES OMGSOSLOLTGIF!!!
[/quote]
You also have Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy. Wheel's payout rarely breaks into the $70K range, let alone the $100K range with the bonus spin. Jeopardy's still chugging along, and their average payout usually is between $17-22K, with some shows more, and some shows with winners not breaking $10K.
I wouldn't mind if the lot winner takes home $250K with everything (cash and prizes) for a nice extended say on the program. J! winners usually seem to take $125K for six or seven days...which is a happy medium.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'143136\' date=\'Jan 13 2007, 11:12 AM\']
There is some more good news at NATPE. Merv Griffin and Program Partners will be shopping "Let's Play Crosswords." If launched, this will be the second Griffin game to start with "Let's Play."
[/quote]
With the first one being Let's Play Post Office starring The Shell Answer Man. Good memory, Jimmy.
And now, I quote The Stosh:
"Jack Kelly, Joe Garagiola and Jim Perry are all retired but MyNetworkTV viewers will see shades of Sale of the Century this fall".
Yes, Jack Kelly retired, all right. In 1992. Permanently. From life.
-
We have all been excited about Temptation coming stateside. We have also been crossing our fingers and toes and whatever else we can cross that Fremantle does not screw this great game up.
However, I have been thinking about Reg Grundy. Reg fought for years to buy the rights to the show, even putting on a knockoff in the 70s called Temptation. Reg put a lot of work into $OTC and it paid off with 21 years on television and being considered Australia's best quiz. I know that Grundy Productions is now part of Fremantle, and Reg lives in Bermuda, but was Reg Grundy ever brought on for consulting purposes for Temptation?
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'143118\' date=\'Jan 13 2007, 04:40 AM\']
Now that the bar has been raised by various game shows, the public expects big money. Which is unfortunate.
[/quote]
Thanks to work considerations, I seldom get on here, let alone post these days. Those who've been on here a while, though, will know that I don't necessarily agree with the Mo' Money Syndrome argument, but I will say that having a possible 6- or 7-digit payoff for every contestant per game is starting to get old. Millionaire was special because it was a very rare thing to even offer such a prize before it aired. Even then, how often does someone get to the jackpot question on that show? Less often than I post here, I suspect.
Nevertheless, if there is a game where Mo' Money Syndrome really does not apply, it's Sale of the Century/Temptation. It was the big money quizzer of its day, and even today, winning $150,000 or more is still pretty respectable. Anyone who has tapes of the Aussie version will remember that its introduction billed the show as "The World's Richest Quiz." That might not reign true any longer, but it still needs the megaprizes for the format to work. Even better, it actually requires a contestant to work for his/her haul and take some big chances in order to get there. I look forward to seeing its US return, and hopefully, Freemantle will just do it the way the Aussies do it and leave it there.
-
Okay, now that we're all excited about Temptation coming to America, allow me to present my idea on how Temptation USA should be done:
I would use the current jackpot format they have in the Aussie version, but I wouldn't let 7-day winners play the "10 in 60 Seconds" round at the end of the show if they decide to come back because I feel that it's pointless to do so; IMO it would evoke the impression that the show is simply shoving money up the champ's throat. As for the cash jackpot itself, I'd adjust the figures to assure reasonably-high-but-budget-friendly stakes:
Base Value: $25,000
Day 1: $5,000
Day 2: $10,000
Day 3: $15,000
Day 4: $20,000
Day 5: $25,000
Day 6: $50,000
At that point, if the champion decides to come back, he/she could take home up to $150,000 or risk it to "go all the way" for all 5 prizes totaling around $100,000 plus up to $300,000 cash, bringing the potential grand total to at least $400,000.
-
[quote name=\'BMaurice06\' post=\'143396\' date=\'Jan 15 2007, 04:19 PM\']
Base Value: $25,000
Day 1: $5,000
Day 2: $10,000
Day 3: $15,000
Day 4: $20,000
Day 5: $25,000
Day 6: $50,000
[/quote]
Frighteningly, those numbers don't offend me. (is he actually getting it, folks?)
Killing Ten Right on the penultimate night is too complicated, though. Why can't you jury-rig those numbers to be able to play it one more time?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'143425\' date=\'Jan 15 2007, 07:30 PM\']Frighteningly, those numbers don't offend me. (is he actually getting it, folks?)[/quote] As I do every morning before the trek down to the Family Business, I take care of my dad's dogs; specifically what comes out the ass end.
I usually get there at 11 or so. On this particular day, I couldn't see very well; I was squinting, and falling down and so on. I looked up, and wouldn't you belive it, the sun was in fact shining on the dog's ass today.
So who knows. Maybe he just picked some random numbers and got lucky. I'd sooner believe that than "I sat down, and rationally came up with a payoff schedule that satisfies the winners, the audience, and the budget," given what I know of the poster's history. (Last time out, he was going to have the Cash Jackpot increase by $25,000 every time a champion was defeated or quit with a prize. Or some hooey like that.)
Killing Ten Right on the penultimate night is too complicated, though. Why can't you jury-rig those numbers to be able to play it one more time?
I absolutely agree. The whole bonus is predicated on "continuing to play". Taking that away makes zero sense. Now, I didn't get it, but are those amounts bonuses for winning Ten Right? "Your jackpot was $25,000, now it's $30,000?" 'Scuze me while I fap. If they bother to include Ten Right at all, I'd be pleased. I'm not going to go on postulating about numbers because like everyone here, I don't have access to the budget.
-
Why? No one has given me a reasonable answer as to why champions should earn more shopping money. If they only earn $55 on that day, then they should get $55. If that only gets them to $105, then, by golly, they have $105 to spend. I do not understand why some people here have this idea that people should be allowed to win the huge jackpot that much faster. The mind boggles.
The trouble is that the vast majority of the time, the winner is on their first or second day. So instead of the suspense of finding out whether they'll take the nice prize they've built up to or risk it for more, viewers get to sit through descriptions of prizes no one will have a chance at (because of the weekly rotation), followed by the contestant declining an ugly bracelet or somesuch. The shopping bonus fits best with the premise of the show, but it needs *something* more to it. This may not be it, but I'm glad to see they're trying something new instead of either leaving the shopping as it was or, as they tried twice before, replacing it with something that doesn't fit the show.
-
Just thought of a "sinister" twist to the game that could help boost a player's daily total and get them slightly closer, without rushing the process.
Over the course of the tenure, any or all prizes that a contestant bought via instant bargain, can be "bought" back for the price they originally paid. If you lose the next day, it's bye-bye prizes. Think of it as a "refund".
So, for example, you have that new $2,500 HDTV you bought for $11, and the $1,000 trip to the Grand Canyon that you paid $7 for. Do you sell to get $18 closer to another prize? At least it involves somewhat of a risk.
If there's any flaws in this, blame it on me posting at 2:30 a.m. :-P
/If you like the idea, you know where to send the check.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'143457\' date=\'Jan 15 2007, 11:44 PM\']Over the course of the tenure, any or all prizes that a contestant bought via instant bargain, can be "bought" back for the price they originally paid. If you lose the next day, it's bye-bye prizes. Think of it as a "refund".
So, for example, you have that new $2,500 HDTV you bought for $11, and the $1,000 trip to the Grand Canyon that you paid $7 for. Do you sell to get $18 closer to another prize? At least it involves somewhat of a risk.
[/quote]Here's the thing. There's a reason that I bought the TV and the holiday, right? Because when they were presented, I thought I was going to win, or didn't care if I lost, by gum, I want to go to Arizon on Grundy's dime.
I think your tweak works better if the fenced goods are sold back at a loss. If you're $18 away from the Volvo XC 90, hell yes, where do I sign up, and sold American. But if I only get back half the money...then I might think about it. Then again, it's not really that interesting: if you're close, and get the Buyer's Remorse, then you sell back the stuff, buy the car and run like hell. If you're $50 away, then there's really no point. That is, of course, unless I'm being obtuse and missing something.
/I'll give you this; of all of the tweaks I've seen, this is far and away the best one I've seen. Then again, you actually thought it out, so you're among rarefied air.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'143458\' date=\'Jan 16 2007, 03:20 AM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'143457\' date=\'Jan 15 2007, 11:44 PM\']Over the course of the tenure, any or all prizes that a contestant bought via instant bargain, can be "bought" back for the price they originally paid. If you lose the next day, it's bye-bye prizes. Think of it as a "refund".
So, for example, you have that new $2,500 HDTV you bought for $11, and the $1,000 trip to the Grand Canyon that you paid $7 for. Do you sell to get $18 closer to another prize? At least it involves somewhat of a risk.
[/quote]Here's the thing. There's a reason that I bought the TV and the holiday, right? Because when they were presented, I thought I was going to win, or didn't care if I lost, by gum, I want to go to Arizon on Grundy's dime.
[/quote]
That does make sense, and that would be the reasoning behind give one or all prizes, although it would suck to go for a lower-priced TV or vacation and then sacrifice them to possibly win a Volvo, esp. if I lose the next day by $1 or on a tiebreaker. It's kinda like buying the ceramic Dalmation, Chuck/Pat/Rolf telling you it's yours, then forfeiting it on a Bankrupt.
Not that it would do much, but I'd maybe offer a cash incentive for selling a prize, such as $500 a pop, or make it so that the contestant may sell all but one. I know it's not much, but I think a cash buyback (even at a lower rate) could create a little temptation (forgive the bad pun).
/My, but spending other people's money is fun!
I think your tweak works better if the fenced goods are sold back at a loss. If you're $18 away from the Volvo XC 90, hell yes, where do I sign up, and sold American. But if I only get back half the money...then I might think about it. Then again, it's not really that interesting: if you're close, and get the Buyer's Remorse, then you sell back the stuff, buy the car and run like hell. If you're $50 away, then there's really no point. That is, of course, unless I'm being obtuse and missing something.
No, you're not missing anything, and you make an interesting note of how it could be anti-climatic on some days. Yeah, it could put a contestant $18 closer, which would be cool if they're, say $25 away from the car or a trip around the world. But on days where they would still need more than one day to buy the lot, it could get quite boring.
/I'll give you this; of all of the tweaks I've seen, this is far and away the best one I've seen. Then again, you actually thought it out, so you're among rarefied air.
Ahh gracias. :-)
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'143459\' date=\'Jan 16 2007, 03:40 AM\']
That does make sense, and that would be the reasoning behind give one or all prizes, although it would suck to go for a lower-priced TV or vacation and then sacrifice them to possibly win a Volvo, esp. if I lose the next day by $1 or on a tiebreaker. It's kinda like buying the ceramic Dalmation, Chuck/Pat/Rolf telling you it's yours, then forfeiting it on a Bankrupt.
[/quote]
Eh. Seems weird. Like buying the ceramic dalmation, then saying, "you mean I can use that money on a trash compactor? Hell, I didn't have room for the stupid dog statue anyway."
Something that dawned on me, though, is that the title "Temptation" gives them more leeway than "Sale of the Century" when crafting an end game (or staging the denouement). Maybe it's more interesting if they tempt you to quit rather than tempt you to keep going. Let's say if you win 7 games, it's $250,000 cash. But each game they say quit now and we'll give you this. Sure it starts with the crummy jewelry, but maybe a car comes out after the 3rd win. Maybe at the 5th, it's that car plus another one. At the 6th win, it's everything they've turned down, plus some money. Then, when a player wins the 7th game and the dough, they're tempted to stay, to play once more for all the stuff they've turned down (essentially, the lot), plus cash to make it a double or nothing proposition.
This may not be all that much different, but I think the change in emphasis could make for a more dramatic climax each night, especially if you don't know what the champ will be tempted with.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'143494\' date=\'Jan 16 2007, 12:50 PM\']
Something that dawned on me, though, is that the title "Temptation" gives them more leeway than "Sale of the Century" when crafting an end game (or staging the denouement). Maybe it's more interesting if they tempt you to quit rather than tempt you to keep going. Let's say if you win 7 games, it's $250,000 cash. But each game they say quit now and we'll give you this. Sure it starts with the crummy jewelry, but maybe a car comes out after the 3rd win. Maybe at the 5th, it's that car plus another one. At the 6th win, it's everything they've turned down, plus some money. Then, when a player wins the 7th game and the dough, they're tempted to stay, to play once more for all the stuff they've turned down (essentially, the lot), plus cash to make it a double or nothing proposition. [/quote] That's exactly what they do now, just worded differently, or from a different perspective. If you stop on day one you get the $10,000 prize, but if you come back you're playing for $15,000. Whether you're tempted to quit or tempted to continue, the basic idea is exactly the same.
This may not be all that much different, but I think the change in emphasis could make for a more dramatic climax each night, especially if you don't know what the champ will be tempted with.
How so? You're merely changing words on the cue card. You still have the on-screen graphic that shows the prize ladder.
-
[quote name=\'BMaurice06\' post=\'143396\' date=\'Jan 15 2007, 08:19 PM\']
Okay, now that we're all excited about Temptation coming to America, allow me to present my idea on how Temptation USA should be done:
I would use the current jackpot format they have in the Aussie version, but I wouldn't let 7-day winners play the "10 in 60 Seconds" round at the end of the show if they decide to come back because I feel that it's pointless to do so; IMO it would evoke the impression that the show is simply shoving money up the champ's throat. As for the cash jackpot itself, I'd adjust the figures to assure reasonably-high-but-budget-friendly stakes:
[/quote]
If I'm reading you correctly, the champ would have the chance to take home $25k and a prize on the first show, and then raise the pot the amount-o-de-day amount if they stay on? Let me know if Im off-base on that.
I dunno about the idea of doing away with it. Of the episodes I've seen of the show, I find that it's a welcome change, especially after that last bonus round on US "Sale." That round may be the reason why 10 in 60 has its opponents here, but I'd like to see it stay. It is meant to add heightened suspense to later shows, particularly if the contestant is able to do well nightly at this part of the game. It's cheaper to give $200,000 in cash if a contestant decides to bail on night 6 than to double a $250,000 pot and give all the prizes for playing one night more.
What I might suggest is the version of this round from Aussie Temptation's first season, namely a pot that progresses in smaller steps at first, then takes larger steps later, depending on how many questions the champ gets right. The original version re-set the pot to $0 if the champ missed, and this can be kept or jettisoned. Maybe do it as 7 in 30 instead, if time is a problem.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' post=\'143562\' date=\'Jan 17 2007, 12:48 AM\']
If I'm reading you correctly, the champ would have the chance to take home $25k and a prize on the first show, and then raise the pot the amount-o-de-day amount if they stay on? Let me know if Im off-base on that.
[/quote]
I meant to say that if the champion decides to play on, then he/she would play "10 in 60" to build up their personal cash jackpot, which can be claimed as a result of seven straight wins. At that point, the champion can leave with all the money or come back one more time and try for "the lot" (double the jackpot and all of the prizes).
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'143529\' date=\'Jan 16 2007, 09:09 PM\']
This may not be all that much different, but I think the change in emphasis could make for a more dramatic climax each night, especially if you don't know what the champ will be tempted with.
How so? You're merely changing words on the cue card. You still have the on-screen graphic that shows the prize ladder.
[/quote]
I'd get rid of the prize ladder--that's the difference. 7 games for a flat $250,000 (or $97 billion, or whatever), but the inducements to quit are a surprise each night. Maybe there's a game or bonus round involved in determining what it is, anything so that it's not simply "here's that trip we've been talking about you buying the whole show, now Jay will tell us about it, then you can tell us you're not taking it."
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'143582\' date=\'Jan 17 2007, 09:39 AM\']I'd get rid of the prize ladder--that's the difference. 7 games for a flat $250,000 (or $97 billion, or whatever), but the inducements to quit are a surprise each night. Maybe there's a game or bonus round involved in determining what it is, anything so that it's not simply "here's that trip we've been talking about you buying the whole show, now Jay will tell us about it, then you can tell us you're not taking it."
[/quote]What company is going to buy single spots for their merchandise prize or vacation? That's part of how game shows make back some of their budget. You don't think Ed relentlessly pimps the night five prize by brand name out of the goodness of his heart, do you? Hell no. The Volvo company is paying good money to have their name (and car, and hood ornament) getting as much screen time as possible. I think your idea would be interesting for the sake of variety, but it makes for more work for the stage hands-who have to strike the backdrops, shuffle the prizes, and so on. Better to leave everything up and then take it down at the end of the day. The production company is probably banking on the fact that no one (or very few people, anyway) are going to quit with a low level prize.
-
I think doing the prize ladder during the first year that Aussie Temptation was on was a mistake for two reasons:
A. It was a ripoff of the one from "The Weakest Link," and
B. The payoff weren't that big; it was virtually impossible for someone to actually reach the original winnings maximum of AUS$600,000, which is possibly why they originally added the extra $500,000 in gold.
This is based on what I know. Anyway, that's why I think they should use the much more perfect second-year format for the new version. Also, somehow I can't picture this show being Bargain Hunters for the 21st century in terms of Fox and Fremantle's plans to offer the Instant Bargains to the home viewers as well.
-
[quote name=\'BMaurice06\' post=\'143594\' date=\'Jan 17 2007, 11:27 AM\']
I think doing the prize ladder during the first year that Aussie Temptation was on was a mistake for two reasons:
A. It was a ripoff of the one from "The Weakest Link," and[/quote] And any show where you can double your money or lose it all is a 'ripoff' of Take it or Leave it, by your standards. Nuh-uh.
B. The payoff weren't that big; it was virtually impossible for someone to actually reach the original winnings maximum of AUS$600,000, which is possibly why they originally added the extra $500,000 in gold.
They're not expecting to give away $1.2 million to every champion. Possible winnings means just that. Possible winnings.
I knew you'd come around, just not this fast.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'143588\' date=\'Jan 17 2007, 01:31 PM\']
What company is going to buy single spots for their merchandise prize or vacation? That's part of how game shows make back some of their budget. You don't think Ed relentlessly pimps the night five prize by brand name out of the goodness of his heart, do you? Hell no. The Volvo company is paying good money to have their name (and car, and hood ornament) getting as much screen time as possible. I think your idea would be interesting for the sake of variety, but it makes for more work for the stage hands-who have to strike the backdrops, shuffle the prizes, and so on. Better to leave everything up and then take it down at the end of the day. The production company is probably banking on the fact that no one (or very few people, anyway) are going to quit with a low level prize.
[/quote]
Heck, the stagehands are union--we don't have to worry about them. And there's probably a way to get the car mentioned somewhere, maybe mid-show as a "here's something our players might be offered." And they could leave everything back there that the player has turned down, so we get to keep seeing it--and in fact it gets more impressive as his or her run goes on, sort of like Monty's "you turned down this, you turned down that, what if I offered you______."
-
just got an e-mail from somebody who works at KMYQ the local My Network affilate and she said that KMYQ is going to air Temptation this fall, sweet!
-
[quote name=\'1984Gameshowsfan\' post=\'147182\' date=\'Feb 28 2007, 02:34 PM\']
just got an e-mail from somebody who works at KMYQ the local My Network affilate and she said that KMYQ is going to air Temptation this fall, sweet!
[/quote]
Could someone be bothered to explain exactly how "My Network" works, or exactly what it is? Perhaps I've been out of the loop too long, but I'm fairly sure that we don't have one here in Iowa.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'147184\' date=\'Feb 28 2007, 12:44 PM\']
Could someone be bothered to explain exactly how "My Network" works, or exactly what it is? Perhaps I've been out of the loop too long, but I'm fairly sure that we don't have one here in Iowa.
[/quote]
My Network is something Fox cooked up so that stations (and I think they specifically had their O&O's in mind, but I could be wrong there) who lost affiliation due to the UPN/WB merger would have somewhere to go. The idea was that they were going to launch it with American telenovelas and then build from there, but that doesn't seem to be working out so well for them, and I think they've sinced zagged from that a little.
Iowa has four MyNetwork affils, based on this (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MyNetworkTV_affiliates\") list.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'147184\' date=\'Feb 28 2007, 03:44 PM\']
Could someone be bothered to explain exactly how "My Network" works, or exactly what it is? Perhaps I've been out of the loop too long, but I'm fairly sure that we don't have one here in Iowa.
[/quote]
More of less, it's what popped up when UPN and WB announced they were becoming The CW. FOX announced its plans to start MNTV maybe two or three weeks after The CW announcement.
It's lineup is cheesy 13-week soap operas (telenovelas), but they're looking to add other programming, such as movies and UFC, I believe.
-
[/quote]
Could someone be bothered to explain exactly how "My Network" works, or exactly what it is? Perhaps I've been out of the loop too long, but I'm fairly sure that we don't have one here in Iowa.
[/quote]
My Network took the former WB and UPN stations that weren't taken by the CW. If you're in Des Moines, it's the digital channel from KCWI. If you're in the Cedar Rapids market, it's from 9-11 p.m. weeknights. Not sure about Sioux city. I'm in the QC, where it's a LPTV, shown here on Ch. 16 on Mediacom.
-
[quote name=\'entguy1\' post=\'147188\' date=\'Feb 28 2007, 03:55 PM\']
My Network took the former WB and UPN stations that weren't taken by the CW.
[/quote]
That's true in many cases, but not all. In San Francisco, for example, KBWB was the WB affiliate and KBHK was with UPN; the latter is now the CW station but KBWB is now independent, with former indie (and further back, NBC affil) KRON taking the MyNetworkTV affiliation.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'147187\' date=\'Feb 28 2007, 03:55 PM\']
It's lineup is cheesy 13-week soap operas (telenovelas), but they're looking to add other programming, such as movies and UFC, I believe.
[/quote]
The telenovela idea ends soon (thankfully). That had dreck written all over it from the beginning.
Beginning soon : two nights of two hour 'telenovelas' (one each one night per week), two nights of movies, and two nights of fightin'.
And understand this : Temptations is NOT a MyNetwork show. It just so happens that Fox bought it for many of their MyNet affiliates, but it's a syndicated show, not a Fox show...
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'147195\' date=\'Feb 28 2007, 06:44 PM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'147187\' date=\'Feb 28 2007, 03:55 PM\']
It's lineup is cheesy 13-week soap operas (telenovelas), but they're looking to add other programming, such as movies and UFC, I believe.
[/quote]
The telenovela idea ends soon (thankfully). That had dreck written all over it from the beginning.
Beginning soon : two nights of two hour 'telenovelas' (one each one night per week), two nights of movies, and two nights of fightin'.
And understand this : Temptations is NOT a MyNetwork show. It just so happens that Fox bought it for many of their MyNet affiliates, but it's a syndicated show, not a Fox show...
[/quote]
As I explain to clients (since I sell for both CBS and MyNetwork -- a low-power station in our neck of the woods), My Network comprises 10% of the programming, while the remaining 90% is locally scheduled. So I consider a MyNetwork affiliate as pretty much an independent station much like the ones that existed before Fox, UPN and the WB.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'147221\' date=\'Feb 28 2007, 09:50 PM\']
As I explain to clients (since I sell for both CBS and MyNetwork -- a low-power station in our neck of the woods), My Network comprises 10% of the programming, while the remaining 90% is locally scheduled. So I consider a MyNetwork affiliate as pretty much an independent station much like the ones that existed before Fox, UPN and the WB.
[/quote]
Almost exactly like an independent, except MyNet produces the same amount of programming as UPN and WB did in their heyday (yeah, like they really had a heyday. If they did, they wouldn't have merged). So, it's no different.
*Wait a sec. Did UPN and WB do 7 nights of programming? I don't think one of em did. Anyways, MyNet does 6 nights, not 7, leaving the station to plug the hole on Sunday night.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'147235\' date=\'Mar 1 2007, 03:55 AM\']
*Wait a sec. Did UPN and WB do 7 nights of programming? I don't think one of em did.
[/quote]
Actually, neither network programmed on Saturdays. For that matter, hardly any network puts on competitive programming on Saturdays.
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' post=\'147239\' date=\'Mar 1 2007, 06:57 AM\']
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'147235\' date=\'Mar 1 2007, 03:55 AM\']
*Wait a sec. Did UPN and WB do 7 nights of programming? I don't think one of em did.
[/quote]
Actually, neither network programmed on Saturdays. For that matter, hardly any network puts on competitive programming on Saturdays.[/quote]
And UPN didn't program on Sunday prime time, either, outside of the one and only season of the XFL.
The CW's current schedule is the same as The WB through most of its history: Two hours in the late afternoon and two hours in prime time Monday through Friday, five hours on Saturday mornings, two hours late Sunday afternoon and three hours prime time Sunday.
UPN was at the end two hours Monday through Friday. At various points in its history, it was also one-to-two hours weekday afternoons (the failed "UPN Teens" and the last year of "The Disney Afternoon"), two hours on Sunday mornings (cartoons and "UPN Teens") and a movie that could be inserted anywhere during the weekend.
Right now, MyTV is just two hours Monday through Saturday. The Fox O&Os are airing "MyGames Fever" in the afternoon weekdays, but that's not on the full network. "Temptation" will be on Fox-owned MyTV affils in duopoly situations, on Fox-owned Fox affils where they own just one station, and predominately on Fox or MyTV affils everywhere else.
-
I was wondering since the last time this thread was updated in March, and since I didn't see anything in here, does anyone know if there's been an update to the clearance areas to include Indianapolis?
-
[quote name=\'PalCatIN\' post=\'163107\' date=\'Sep 8 2007, 08:50 PM\']
I was wondering since the last time this thread was updated in March, and since I didn't see anything in here, does anyone know if there's been an update to the clearance areas to include Indianapolis?
[/quote]
Have you checked this thread (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13420\")? Somebody may have posted something for Indy.
-
Apparently no one has, so by looking at TitanTV, I can tell you WXIN's game show lineup is as follows:
12pm Millionaire
12:30 Millionaire
1pm Crosswords
1:30 Temptation
Greg
-
No Temptation in Atlanta. I've been waiting 18 years for this revival. :( There's always hope it will be picked up at a later date, though.
-
[quote name=\'Justin Dyer\' post=\'163153\' date=\'Sep 9 2007, 07:26 PM\']
No Temptation in Atlanta. I've been waiting 18 years for this revival. :( There's always hope it will be picked up at a later date, though.
[/quote]
Looks like things haven't changed much since I left...