The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: mmb5 on August 30, 2007, 12:21:51 PM
-
Howdy all!
I've recently moved the Game Show Pilot Light to a new host, and therefore it has a new location: http://usgameshows.net/wiki (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki\")
You'll notice an entirely new user interface, modeled after everybody's favorite reference source in the whole wide world. However, it's not going to be user editable. I just wanted a better content management system and do less programming.
But, to give you, the user, a better experience, you will have the ability to comment, as long as the comments don't go south. However, to comment, you must be a registered user of the site. That's to keep the anonymous crap down to a minimum.
I've added nine new pilots (with more coming over the next few days):
Body Language (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Body_Language\")
Casino (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Casino\")
The Couples Race (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_The_Couples_Race\")
Honeymoon Game (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Honeymoon_Game\")
Jeopardy (1977) (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Jeopardy_77\")
Oddball (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Oddball\")
Shoot for the Stars (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Shoot_For_The_Stars\")
Spellbinders (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Spellbinders\")
Write Your Own Ticket (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Write_Your_Own_Ticket\")
I also have uncovered new information about the possible airings of both Head of the Class (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Head_Of_The_Class\") and The Big Payoff (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Big_Payoff\"). If you have any information that can help me unravel their airing statuses (especially the latter one), it would be appreciated.
Finally, I also plan to try to get at least a list of up of known pilots. I'm going to be working on this one over the weekend. It will be very incomplete at the beginning but it's not going to be a list of hearsay. Proof of the pilot will have to be verifiable.
So, please take a visit, kick a few tires, and let me know what you think.
--Mike
-
I also have uncovered new information about the possible airings of ...Head of the Class (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Head_Of_The_Class\")
A good show that, IMO, started to take a dive when they added all the new kids. When Howard Hesseman left, that just killed it. :P
Seriously though, excellent work as always.
-
Right away, the thing that I love about it is the lists that allow you to search by producer, genre and tape date (though genre is going to be somewhat subjective). And of course, the fact that there are some new shows to read about and imagine "what if...?"
-
Looking through the Wiki, it seems that Mark Goodson was plenty capable in most areas except for one: Scoring.
While this translated to on-air games as well (Super Password, Body Lanugage, etc.), were there any games (besides Family Feud) that didn't feature either a "useless round" or some kind of glitch in how points were handed out?
-
Reading the "Casino" pilot, I can't imagine how GSN went for "Friend or Foe" or "Funny Money" instead of this. The changes seemed cool, and the bonus round concept was quite clever...furthermore, it looks like you had to work for the $100,000 or at least use some good strategy.
Shame it didn't work. I know someone posted the pilot several months ago...I'll try to find it when I get a free minute.
-
Good stuff. Where did you see the new pilots? Are they available to us common folk?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'162345\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 01:03 PM\']While this translated to on-air games as well (Super Password, Body Lanugage, etc.), were there any games (besides Family Feud) that didn't feature either a "useless round" or some kind of glitch in how points were handed out?[/quote]You could make an awfully strong argument that the early rounds in Family Feud were pretty useless as well.
I've resigned myself to accepting the awkwardly-weighted point systems on shows that needed to get done in a half hour. What never made any sense to me was doing that when your show straddled. The Password puzzle shows are the best example. Why should any round be more valuable than any other round? Best two out of three, or best three out of five, and you've made your game easier to follow and more equitable.
Still, not all Goodson games of the 70s-80s followed that pattern. Blockbusters and Tattletales are two examples of shows that IMO didn't have goofy glitches to their scoring.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 10:25 AM\']The Password puzzle shows are the best example. Why should any round be more valuable than any other round? Best two out of three, or best three out of five, and you've made your game easier to follow and more equitable.[/quote]
Well, Super Password *was* best two out of three. It just started with the second puzzle.
Feud is more interesting (excluding the ridiculous "who'sever* in the lead at the end of this question" format). Assuming that a weighted average of 75 people per question were scored (which was usually the case), the only 300-point format with a completely useless question was SSSDT when the same team got the first two questions. Even then, if questions went for small amounts, every point could matter.
I'm not much of a fan of the Tattletales scoring system - it could take two questions to catch up just because someone else happens to get the same question as you right, and a question's worth more just because the last one was hard.
As to Mark's original question (well-scored Goodson games): Concentration, Match Game, Card Sharks, Double Dare, Password (original recipe). Granted, they did have a lot of games with scoring problems, but not all of them.
--
*I'm not generally a grammar Nazi, but this bugs the living daylights out of me.
-
I think that with games like Body Language and Super Password, the system was maybe meant more for accomodation rather than scoring. Body Language's system assured everyone mimed once and Super Password (and Kennedy P+) was designed so that the contestants played with both celebs for at least one puzzle.
-
I think with Super Password, the two-out-of-three-after-the-first-warmup-puzzle was ABSOLUTELY intentional.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'162364\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 03:32 PM\']I think that with games like Body Language and Super Password, the system was maybe meant more for accomodation rather than scoring. Body Language's system assured everyone mimed once and Super Password (and Kennedy P+) was designed so that the contestants played with both celebs for at least one puzzle.[/quote]
Going along with that, I always thought SP's $100 puzzle was meant to be a no-pressure practice round to help ease the nerves of the contestants.
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'162338\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 12:21 PM\']
Jeopardy (1977) (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Jeopardy_77\")
[/quote]
I wonder if this was intended as the replacement for Double Dare.
The timing seems right since the Jeopardy! pilot was filmed in early March of 1977.
Then CBS might've thought the changes for J! were too wacky and put Here's Lucy in the DD time period instead.
-
Going along with that, I always thought SP's $100 puzzle was meant to be a no-pressure practice round to help ease the nerves of the contestants.
Maybe...but I think it's much better if ALL your rounds actually mean something.
The timing seems right since the Jeopardy! pilot was filmed in early March of 1977.
Then CBS might've thought the changes for J! were too wacky and put Here's Lucy in the DD time period instead.
The addition of Here's Lucy does seem odd, doesn't it? Usually a network put a current show's reruns on the daytime schedule, rather than one that hadn't been seen for three years. I don't know why they couldn't have done Mary Tyler Moore for a few months - it was hitting syndication that fall and CBS could have gotten some daytime use out of it.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'162385\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 03:23 PM\']
Maybe...but I think it's much better if ALL your rounds actually mean something.
[/quote]
Why? Please tell me what's wrong with giving two people who have probably never been on TV before a chance to get comfortable before the real game for serious money starts.
Would you rather WWTBAM skipped the first five questions, too?
-
Another great update Mike
-
Why? Please tell me what's wrong with giving two people who have probably never been on TV before a chance to get comfortable before the real game for serious money starts.
Would you rather WWTBAM skipped the first five questions, too?
Ahh...but the first five questions on WWTBAM DO mean something. Several contestants have actually bowed out of the game on that level, and many others have had to use lifelines, which affects game play later on.
I just don't see any point to playing a "useless" round on any show. I know the ultimate object is to have fun, but if the point of the game is to win by getting to a certain amount, and one round doesn't have any bearing on the outcome of the game, why bother?
I can understand contestants being nervous - but don't most get to play some sort of "mock" game before taping, or at least sit on the set and run through a few things so they know where to stand or move, etc.
At least on Super Password, there was a "tournament of losers".
-
While I don't have anything against a "practice" round, I'm not convinced that Super Password was deliberately intended to have one. And I am less bothered by such rounds at the beginning of a game (Super Password, Body Language) than I am by ones that crop up in the middle of a game (last year of Password Plus, Go).
Louie Feud . . . I have a hazy memory of at least one instance where one team had a commanding lead (maybe 281 to 0). The trailing team won control of the Triple question, but lost it on a strike. Dramatic moment--except that there were fewer than 281 points in the bank, so it didn't matter whether or not the steal was successful.
Oh, and I thought Showoffs had a good scoring system--basically, it was The Joker's Wild scoring system. (first past X, and in the lead, at the end of a round)
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'162345\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 10:03 AM\']Looking through the Wiki, it seems that Mark Goodson was plenty capable in most areas except for one: Scoring.[/quote] I would make the case that he spent so much time making the game good so that the scoring would be secondary to enjoyment. The problem is that when you're comparing "game balance" to "good TV that people will watch," it should be absolutely no contest that watchable TV wins out every time. And if that means round three starts with a $5,000 space on the wheel, so be it.
As to the practice round, there's no better way than to stick it at the beginning. You can't have a zero round, because that would confuse and/or piss off your viewers. And how interesting would it be to have all "single" value questions on Family Feud? "It's 47 to 39 on the way to 300...let's play the Feud!"
Giving players a chance to play a low-stakes game in the actual environment is a much better way to do things than to say "Well, you played the game once with tap bells and some warm-up hack already, so the team that wins this question plays for $50,000. Here we go!"
I used to have the "game balance hang-up" too, but most shows manage to find a good way to walk the tightrope.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'162390\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 03:39 PM\']Would you rather WWTBAM skipped the first five questions, too?[/quote]If I was playing? Absolutely. Five questions with complete silence in the background, and 200 people waiting to see if I'll screw up, as opposed to some number less than five? Sure. But I understand why it's part of the show.
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'162410\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 06:33 PM\']Louie Feud . . . I have a hazy memory of at least one instance where one team had a commanding lead (maybe 281 to 0). The trailing team won control of the Triple question, but lost it on a strike. Dramatic moment--except that there were fewer than 281 points in the bank, so it didn't matter whether or not the steal was successful.[/quote]I remember something like that. The "strike" buzzer sounded, followed immediately by the "end of game" music, and Richard fumbling through an explanation of "they couldn't catch up even with the steal, so the game is over."
Yawn.
There is no reason that a game of Family Feud should end like that.
Oh, and I thought Showoffs had a good scoring system--basically, it was The Joker's Wild scoring system. (first past X, and in the lead, at the end of a round)
How many rounds did a game of Showoffs take? A race to seven when teams can score five or more in a round seems like it would be over quickly.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'162409\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 06:22 PM\']
Ahh...but the first five questions on WWTBAM DO mean something.[/quote]
Okay, if you're gonna go to THAT well, then I'll turn it around and suggest that the SP one does, too. Because, you see, a player who does poorly could get disillusioned and psyched out and such and be screwed for the rest of the game.
This is quickly becoming utterly ridiculous.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'162418\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 10:12 PM\']
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'162409\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 06:22 PM\']
Ahh...but the first five questions on WWTBAM DO mean something.[/quote]
Okay, if you're gonna go to THAT well, then I'll turn it around and suggest that the SP one does, too. Because, you see, a player who does poorly could get disillusioned and psyched out and such and be screwed for the rest of the game.
This is quickly becoming utterly ridiculous.[/quote]
Actually, best I can tell, it just now became ridiculous with your introduction of the intangible element. Simple fact is that the five questions in Millionaire do mean something. People have actually lost on them, and people actually use lifelines on them which tangibly affects the rest of their game. Doesn't happen much, but there's a difference between "hardly ever matters" and "NEVER matters," which is what Ian was saying.
Meanwhile, it's important to keep in mind the post from TLEberle. Ultimately, whether the TV show is fun to watch matters more than whether the game is "right".
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'162414\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 06:56 PM\']
I used to have the "game balance hang-up" too, but most shows manage to find a good way to walk the tightrope.[/quote]
It's important to make the distinction between "balance" and "fairness," too. Because the game is still absolutely fair; all players play under the same set of rules.
It's perfectly OK to be offended by a game show's rules as a game designer. The thing that we have to remember is that Mark Goodson was not a game designer, he was a TV producer.
If I was playing? Absolutely. Five questions with complete silence in the background, and 200 people waiting to see if I'll screw up, as opposed to some number less than five? Sure.
Okay. I totally and completely don't get it, but okay.
There is no reason that a game of Family Feud should end like that.
Save, possibly, for the fact that the other 999 times the system is set up for a dramatic finish, and fixing this one-in-1000 situation in a sensible-to-the-viewer way would affect those 999 finishes. I'll take the sure thing and dine on the rare shiatburger, thanks.
How many rounds did a game of Showoffs take? A race to seven when teams can score five or more in a round seems like it would be over quickly.
In my experience, it was generally over in 2 rounds.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'162425\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 07:41 PM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'162414\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 06:56 PM\']If I was playing? Absolutely. Five questions with complete silence in the background, and 200 people waiting to see if I'll screw up, as opposed to some number less than five? Sure.[/quote]
Okay. I totally and completely don't get it, but okay.[/quote]I want to get the part of the game where I can leave with no money over and done with as quickly as possible, if it's me in that chair. Having nothing in the background would only serve to jangle the nerves and increase the chance that I'll do something stupid. My saying that I'd want the money to go 250-500-1,000 (safety) is only motivated out of selfishness on my part.
As a viewer, I have no problem with the money tree the way it is. It's worked for eight years, after all.
-
On Showoffs, remember this was their second scoring system. The first system was best 2-out-of-3, and since each round was played twice, that meant many six round games.
--Mike
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'162425\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 10:41 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'162414\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 06:56 PM\']There is no reason that a game of Family Feud should end like that.[/quote]Save, possibly, for the fact that the other 999 times the system is set up for a dramatic finish, and fixing this one-in-1000 situation in a sensible-to-the-viewer way would affect those 999 finishes. I'll take the sure thing and dine on the rare shiatburger, thanks.[/quote]
Wait, now I'm confused. You liked the Louie-era scoring system on Family Feud? On my part, I was just remembering the anticlimactic icing on top of the screw-the-first-three-rounds cake.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'162435\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 09:27 PM\']
Wait, now I'm confused. You liked the Louie-era scoring system on Family Feud?
[/quote]
I didn't like anything about the Louie Feud. Oh, wait, I see what Travis is saying, now. I thought he was referring to the Dawson show from "Richard." Which shows you how much Feud I've watched lately. Hell, I think I've HOSTED more Feud than I've watched over the last couple of years.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'162438\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 09:57 PM\']
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'162435\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 09:27 PM\']
Wait, now I'm confused. You liked the Louie-era scoring system on Family Feud?
[/quote]
I didn't like anything about the Louie Feud. Oh, wait, I see what Travis is saying, now. I thought he was referring to the Dawson show from "Richard." Which shows you how much Feud I've watched lately. Hell, I think I've HOSTED more Feud than I've watched over the last couple of years.
[/quote]Oh. Oops. :)
The incident in question happened on a show hosted by Richard Karn. Not Dawson. It was before they switched the the far better format in the fourth year of the most recent run.
/Maybe a little less better if you weren't so keen on doubling the points.
//Meh. Still a good trade, if you ask me.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'162441\' date=\'Aug 31 2007, 12:29 AM\']
/Maybe a little less better if you weren't so keen on DOUBLING THE POINTS!!!!1!oneeleventyomgwtfbbqroxxors
[/quote]
There, fixed that for you.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'162441\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 10:29 PM\']
The incident in question happened on a show hosted by Richard Karn. Not Dawson. It was before they switched the the far better format in the fourth year of the most recent run.
[/quote]
No. it's all good, had I thought a little, I would have drawn that conclusion.
[quote name=\'Sodboy13\' post=\'162445\' date=\'Aug 30 2007, 10:56 PM\']
There, fixed that for you.
[/quote]
Actually, no, I'm fairly sure that Travis would just as soon that tired (and not really accurate anyhow) cliche die.
-
Random early-morning thought ... allow the contestant to start at question 6 ... with NO option to bug off. You can skip the first five, start at six and have to answer it. Miss it, you go home empty handed.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'162446\' date=\'Aug 31 2007, 01:01 AM\']
Actually, no, I'm fairly sure that Travis would just as soon that tired (and not really accurate anyhow) cliche die.
[/quote]
Ah, well. Consider this occurrence my first and last use of that ol' chestnut. And Travis is right - better to double and make a fuss over it than to continue playing a completely broken game.
/blaming it all on a combination of caffeine and cold pills
//but I look forward to continuing my service to the good people of Idaho.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'162441\' date=\'Aug 31 2007, 01:29 AM\']
The incident in question happened on a show hosted by Richard Karn. Not Dawson. It was before they switched the the far better format in the fourth year of the most recent run.
[/quote]
Wait...I thought they used the "one strike" BS rule just on Louie's Feud. Shows how much I watched during the Karn era. :)
I actually like the fact that UK WWTBAM is making the first tier two questions. I do agree with both points...the beginning questions need to be a part of the game, but they also need to be icebreakers. I never did understand why it was five questions...that's way too many. Two is enough to get comfortable.
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' post=\'162449\' date=\'Aug 31 2007, 04:31 AM\']
Random early-morning thought ... allow the contestant to start at question 6 ... with NO option to bug off. You can skip the first five, start at six and have to answer it. Miss it, you go home empty handed.
[/quote]
So you're effectively letting a contestant take out Idiot Insurance for $1000. (And really, less, since some of that money would end up being Uncle Sam's.)
I don't know who _wouldn't_ take that deal, since the $2,000 question usually isn't remotely hard - at WORST an ATA should get it - and now the contestant is no worse off than they were beforehand. NO Millionaire contestant is content to take home a grand, and they ostensibly would have had to burn that possible ATA anyhow.
-
To me, I much preferred "Showoffs"' original best-two-out-of-three. Since both teams were playing the same words in each round, I just didn't see the reasoning in going to a point goal.
And let it be said that I preferred the Sweepstakes end game to the second risk end game. Used all four celebs and made the civilian the receiver, which I think is the proper position in an end game for the civilian if you're not offering a choice.
Which leads me to that YouTube clip of the Australian "Celebrity Game"--oh, forget it, since sources state that it pre-dated "Showoffs."
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'162461\' date=\'Aug 31 2007, 11:18 AM\']
To me, I much preferred "Showoffs"' original best-two-out-of-three. Since both teams were playing the same words in each round, I just didn't see the reasoning in going to a point goal.
And let it be said that I preferred the Sweepstakes end game to the second risk end game. Used all four celebs and made the civilian the receiver, which I think is the proper position in an end game for the civilian if you're not offering a choice.
[/quote]
I also preferred the original versions. When I came back to the show (after watching The Magnificent Marble Machine hoping against hope it would get better), they'd already switched formats -- even at 12 years old, I knew that was a death knell. Still, one big strike against the show was the audience watching one pair of celebrities acting out a bunch of words -- and then another pair of celebrities acting out the exact same words. Couldn't they have had an A and B pack to choose from?
Best scoring system (non-G&T award): The Money Maze, with its Catchup Round. Trailing couple answers questions, worth one point for the first and increasing by one point apiece until they go ahead (one miss ends the game, leaders win), and then the other team gets one final question for the $10,000 Dash. If the teams are tied going into the Catchup Round, both couples run the $10,000 Dash.
-
Since I need to dull some pain (pain #1 (http://\"http://mgoblue.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=25213\") and pain #2 (http://\"http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20070902&content_id=2185209&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=det\")), here's a few more:
Call My Bluff (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Call_My_Bluff\")
Child's Play (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Childs_Play\")
Comedy Club (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Comedy_Club\")
Hot Potato (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Hot_Potato\")
The Love Experts (Cullen) (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_The_Love_Experts_78\")
Smart Money (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Smart_Money\")
Star Cluster (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Star_Cluster\")
Word Grabbers (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Word_Grabbers\")
--Mike
-
The Name Game is not listed among your titles. I'll tell you what I remember witnessing and perhaps you can work from there. Hangman + Pyramid was the format, basically. Bob Eubanks hosted two teams of celebrity-peasant. One member of each team would see in their monitor a word puzzle consisting of one blank space of each letter of a famous person's name. One letter at a time would appear at a time until either player could buzz in after recognizing the name. The player then had fifteen or twenty seconds to describe the person so that the partner would give the name in question. The first team to get three or five went on to the bonus round. In the bonus round, the audience would be given a category such as "someone whose diary you'd like to read" or "someone whose name contains a color." The first five responses yelled by the auidence where taken and the player had one minute to describe these people to the partner (who didn't hear the names) to win a car. The car, a convertible, was displayed on stage at an angle so the interior could be seen.
The pilot was shot sometime during the nineties on the ABC-TV studio lot on Prospect Avenue. I hope I was of service.
-
Well, it is his website, and he can choose to review what he wants. I suspect Mike has seen more pilots than he has actually reviewed (and he is free to correct me if I am wrong) on the website. So it's not up there. Big deal.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'162687\' date=\'Sep 4 2007, 02:28 PM\']
Well, it is his website, and he can choose to review what he wants. I suspect Mike has seen more pilots than he has actually reviewed (and he is free to correct me if I am wrong) on the website. So it's not up there. Big deal.
[/quote]
I think he might have just been trying to help.
Maybe not in the right place (I would have emailed him), and maybe unsolicited, but nothing snarky.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'162687\' date=\'Sep 4 2007, 03:28 PM\']
Well, it is his website, and he can choose to review what he wants.
[/quote]
I don't think it's a matter of what Mike wants to review so much as that he doesn't review pilots he hasn't seen himself.
-
I can't speak for Mike...so I will anyway.
Mike is interested in collecting any and all information about game show pilots. He probably won't post a formal review based on Alonzo's recollections, any more than he would for the one game show pilot I attended. (Greg Proops and another which-is-the-right-definition game.) And yes, he's told me he has many pilots he's seen but not posted. Maybe he's got The Name Game, maybe not. But either way, all information is good information.
-
Matt is right that I will pretty much have to see the pilot before I review it. And usually I'll have to see it at least twice. For example, on the Word Grabbers one I posted yesterday I didn't really pick up on George Miller's antagonism towards Jim Lange on my first viewing. I also have at least two I've marked as "must see again" due to poor note taking on my part, since I won't be able to coherently write a good piece.
As part of the current updates, I will eventually be adding a master list of all known pilots, whether I'll be able to review them or not. As far as numbers go, right now I'm at 120 reviewed, 38 I still need to review and 200+ I know have a pilot but I currently have not seen. Of those, about 40-50 are in the UCLA Archive and I will see some day in the future. Many of the other ones on the "not seen" lists include mentions in trade magazines, ticket collections, people's resumes, etc.
Alfonzos' example is one where I have not heard of the show so I'll be adding it to the the master list. However, since I haven't seen it personally, I can't review it. I'll try to get this list a little more "camera ready" in the next few days and get that up. Then we can have some fun...
--Mike
-
There is an obvious practical reason some scoring systems are set up the way they are: contestant casting. You don't want a game where a contestant can lose after one round of play, otherwise you'll have contestants coming and going like s*** through a sewer pipe. You would need more contestant coordinators, more tryouts, more contestants coming to the studio, etc. On Family Feud, multiply the contestant problem by five.
Mike: thanks for the memories of the summer of '78. I interviewed with Ira Skutch about a job on Spellbinders, but inasmuch as it didn't sell ... as things turned out, one year later I was watching Mindreaders and All New Beat the Clock coming together. Mike: if it helps, I never saw a tape of Spellbinders with Patty Duke-Astin around the office. I doubt they taped one, and think Debralee replaced Patty.
-
On "Comedy Club," the assistant/model was also a comic--Sheryl Bernstein worked the circuit and IIRC, was a pretty good impressionist, which meant that she fell into cartoon voices, which she may still be doing today.
Between "Star Clusters," "Matchmaker" and the "Liars' Club" revival--not to mention "Reel to Reel" a decade later--Bill Armstrong's career didn't exactly close out on a strong note, did it?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'162712\' date=\'Sep 4 2007, 05:22 PM\']
Mike: thanks for the memories of the summer of '78. I interviewed with Ira Skutch about a job on Spellbinders, but inasmuch as it didn't sell ... as things turned out, one year later I was watching Mindreaders and All New Beat the Clock coming together. Mike: if it helps, I never saw a tape of Spellbinders with Patty Duke-Astin around the office. I doubt they taped one, and think Debralee replaced Patty.
[/quote]
I'll quote the person who tipped me off on the EBay ticket, Debralee was...available.
--Mike
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'162716\' date=\'Sep 4 2007, 05:33 PM\']
On "Comedy Club," the assistant/model was also a comic--Sheryl Bernstein worked the circuit and IIRC, was a pretty good impressionist, which meant that she fell into cartoon voices, which she may still be doing today.
Between "Star Clusters," "Matchmaker" and the "Liars' Club" revival--not to mention "Reel to Reel" a decade later--Bill Armstrong's career didn't exactly close out on a strong note, did it?
[/quote]
It was a weird setup, she was sort of an announcer more than an assistant -- she "brought" in the comedians from the faux alley plus introduced the contestants and Jim McKrell -- but someone else did the prize copy. She and the one female comic both showed off their Joan Rivers impressions within the first two minutes.
I don't think Bill Armstrong's career ever had a high note. Liar's Club was a treble clef D at best.
--Mike
-
Debralee was...available.
Meaning?
-
Between "Star Clusters," "Matchmaker" and the "Liars' Club" revival--not to mention "Reel to Reel" a decade later--Bill Armstrong's career didn't exactly close out on a strong note, did it?
Indeed...and I'm still wondering what happened behind the scenes on Pitfall that caused his onscreen EP credit to disappear near the end of the run.
Chuck Donegan (The Curious "Chuckie Baby")
-
The unreviewed lists are now up (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Unreviewed\"). Sorry I had to split up the lists among so many pages, the Wiki software I'm using chokes on large pages.
--Mike
-
One addition: Mark Kriski was on one of the TPIR '94 pilots.
And "Rock and Roll Pyramid"!?
-
I do believe there was a "Rock Feud" as well. If I'm correct, VH1 showed interest in those shows.
-
One extra note I should have mentioned. If you have additions/corrections/whatever, I would like a source before I include it, even if it's an ATGS post saying I went to the pilot. That way, our descendants can have concrete proof rather than name calling when someone asserts that VH1 shot a pilot for Rock 'n' Roll Bumper Stumpers back in aught-one.
--Mike
-
Page O'Clips has clips of "Cheaters" up, the pilot that ultimately became "Dirty Rotten Cheater." Didn't see that on the list. Also, a YouTube search one day turned up a clip from this weird pilot called Idiot Quest (http://\"http://youtube.com/watch?v=eVXJjKiJ9QQ\"), where they hook three people up to lie detectors and ask them softball questions. If you answer wrong and the lie detector proves you really think that's right, you get money.
And I saw it on your site, but with incomplete info - Smartass! (http://\"http://youtube.com/watch?v=ttROEjIT4ME\") with Mark DeCarlo.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'162982\' date=\'Sep 6 2007, 04:11 PM\']
Page O'Clips has clips of "Cheaters" up, the pilot that ultimately became "Dirty Rotten Cheater." Didn't see that on the list. Also, a YouTube search one day turned up a clip from this weird pilot called Idiot Quest (http://\"http://youtube.com/watch?v=eVXJjKiJ9QQ\"), where they hook three people up to lie detectors and ask them softball questions. If you answer wrong and the lie detector proves you really think that's right, you get money.
And I saw it on your site, but with incomplete info - Smartass! (http://\"http://youtube.com/watch?v=ttROEjIT4ME\") with Mark DeCarlo.
-Jason
[/quote]
I have a feeling that IQ (which I have on the list) and Idiot Quest are the same show. Time frame and the ad on Craigslist for the type of contestant they were looking for seem to be similar.
Thanks for the others.
--Mike
-
Seeing the lists and remembering what I watched with Mike on one of the UCLA trips, I might humbly suggest to the webmaster that he post a review of Tomarken's Duel in the Daytime, one of the trippiest shows you're never going to see.
-
Just based on the set (http://\"http://pics.livejournal.com/jasona1/pic/0007y16k\"), that would be a fair assumption. What a title too. Figured Jay was only really quirky in the formats until this came along...
-Jason
-
Wolpert? Interesting. That set SCREAMED Chuck Barris. :)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'162999\' date=\'Sep 6 2007, 06:34 PM\']
Wolpert? Interesting. That set SCREAMED Chuck Barris. :)[/quote]
Yeah, but you didn't see it move in that way that only Jay Wolpert sets move. Cartoonish, candy-colored pieces dropping, spinning, magically appearing after a fee-plug edit. That picture is only the beginning (though a pretty neat find). As I said, trippy.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'163001\' date=\'Sep 6 2007, 03:43 PM\']
Yeah, but you didn't see it move in that way that only Jay Wolpert sets move.
[/quote]
Ah yes, Go. The Most Unnecessary Rotating Set Evar(tm).
/looked cool tho
//they could have placed the main desk on hydraulics and saved a fortune
-
To Tell the Truth is mentioned as having shot a pilot on July 31, 1980. If this is any help, I just got an episode shot on that date and the celebrities were John Wade, Susan Lucci, Bill Cullen and Polly Bergan. The slate states 80-35. The a/v are out-of-sync and it has a time code. It does have the unedited footage noted in a previous post, and was hosted by Robin Ward.
Clearer...or more confusing?
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'163004\' date=\'Sep 6 2007, 06:50 PM\']
To Tell the Truth is mentioned as having shot a pilot on July 31, 1980. If this is any help, I just got an episode shot on that date and the celebrities were John Wade, Susan Lucci, Bill Cullen and Polly Bergan. The slate states 80-35. The a/v are out-of-sync and it has a time code. It does have the unedited footage noted in a previous post, and was hosted by Robin Ward.
Clearer...or more confusing?
[/quote]
Clearer. If you look at Marshall's site (http://\"http://www.nmi.uga.edu/people/marshall/tttt/TTTT80log.asp\"), that matches up perfectly with week 7, and if it's #35, that would be the Friday from the week. I'm guessing more and more that the remembrance of the person on ATGS probably saw it in '79.
I'll try to put up Duel in the Daytime up tonight. The set, sound effects and just the general noise level would have had Chuck Barris going whoa there Jay, you have to chill. It was like having a game show at Medevial Times.
--Mike, who doesn't need a fork but wants a refill on that Pepsi
-
Let the duel begin...
http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php..._In_The_Daytime (http://\"http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_Duel_In_The_Daytime\")
--Mike
-
I wonder if it had been a hit on the network, would there have eventually been a Duel in the Daytime PM?
-
Great website , as always, and kudos for your extensive research.
One question . Are the new additions all from the UCLA archive that takes weeks to copy over, and hence, isn't available immediately for showing? Or are some of these new shows about to be released into the trading wild, where they will be hunted for sport?
[quote name=\'ChrisLambert!\' post=\'163029\' date=\'Sep 7 2007, 07:02 AM\']
I wonder if it had been a hit on the network, would there have eventually been a Duel in the Daytime PM?
[/quote]
I LOL'ed. :)
-
In reading over the list, I'm surprised at how many pilots some of these shows actually did. Until the 'net came along, I always thought they did just one pilot for each show.
That belief was made stronger by a 1979 TVGuide article that discussed upcoming pilots of the big game show companies. In describing All-Star Secrets, which was on the air by that point, it stated
"...NBC demanded two pilots for their new show instead of one, industry sources say the new producers received only a six-week contract rather than the usual 13-week deal..."
It's interesting that they tried to bring this show back again in the late '80s. I always thought it wasn't a bad little show.
Carry on...