The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: TimK2003 on November 05, 2007, 05:45:59 PM
-
As seen on Broadcasting & Cable, (http://\"http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/1010000501.html#740016674\") Ritch Colbert of Program Partners looks like he's really trying to save his show "Crosswords" from cancellation.
Reminds me of the Animal House parade scene when Kevin Bacon is trying to calm down the parade goers.
At least I give him credit for trying to do someting about keeping the show going, unlike others coughcoughFremantleTemptationcoughwheeze that pretty much threw in the towel from day one!
-
"ALL IS WELL!"
/see if you can guess what I am now
//germans?
///forget it, he's rolling
-
New Eligibility Requirement:
"You can't do that to our newbies. Only WE can do that to our newbies."
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'168850\' date=\'Nov 5 2007, 06:46 PM\']
"You can't do that to our newbies. Only WE can do that to our newbies."
[/quote]
Thank you, sir! May I have another?
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'168847\' date=\'Nov 5 2007, 05:45 PM\']
As seen on Broadcasting & Cable, (http://\"http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/1010000501.html#740016674\") Ritch Colbert of Program Partners looks like he's really trying to save his show "Crosswords" from cancellation.
[/quote]
I give him the credit that at least he's attempting to understand the business, and how it works for a new product these days.
Where's Ginger spinning Temptation? Or is her head so far in the sand that she thinks that what's on the air, works?
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'168859\' date=\'Nov 5 2007, 08:59 PM\']
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'168847\' date=\'Nov 5 2007, 05:45 PM\']
As seen on Broadcasting & Cable, (http://\"http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/1010000501.html#740016674\") Ritch Colbert of Program Partners looks like he's really trying to save his show "Crosswords" from cancellation.
[/quote]
I give him the credit that at least he's attempting to understand the business, and how it works for a new product these days.[/quote]
Well, considering that in Chicago WGN is dumping his other big product for this year, the "DeGrassi" reruns, in a block on Sunday mornings (and I assume treating it as their E/I programming) instead of stripping it--and that I assume there are other stations doing the same thing--I don't blame him for trying to figure out what he can do to keep "Crosswords" going.
It's not easy to be an indie syndicator these days and even if I wish the show was better, I admire the fact that he's in there punching away against the big guys.
-
I think stations will utilize more local news-service type programming in the daytime in the near future and keep the inventory rather than giving new syndicated shows good time slots. If you don't have the top-tier shows (Oprah, Regis) you'll go with an endlessly repeating local news block.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'168847\' date=\'Nov 5 2007, 05:45 PM\']
As seen on Broadcasting & Cable, (http://\"http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/1010000501.html#740016674\") Ritch Colbert of Program Partners looks like he's really trying to save his show "Crosswords" from cancellation.
Reminds me of the Animal House parade scene when Kevin Bacon is trying to calm down the parade goers.
[/quote]
More like....
"Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'168923\' date=\'Nov 6 2007, 03:07 PM\']
I think stations will utilize more local news-service type programming in the daytime in the near future and keep the inventory rather than giving new syndicated shows good time slots.[/quote]
Does anyone know how WCAU's All That & More is doing? That seems to be a textbook example of what Owen is talking about.
From the B&C article posted a while ago, it seemed like making a syndicated program was almost a Catch-22. If you don't put time and money into your new product, you'll fail, but new products often fail, so companies won't put in the time and money.
-
Here's how it's happening in my market, after years of going up against Oprah with various one-season talk shows (Jane Pauley was the last one as I recall), the station does a 4 o'clock news, which is essentially a promo for what's coming up on the 5 o'clock news.
Also we have a station owned by Meredith (publishers of Better Homes and Gardens) which does an hour long household hints show called "Better" at 9am with wraparounds done in New York and local segments in-between. This was after Larry Elder, Keith Ablow, etc failed to catch on. Anybody else have this in their market?
-
Am I the only one who actually likes Crosswords and wonders why Cash Cab's Ben Bailey can get an Emmy nomination and yet MGC is circling the drain?
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'169031\' date=\'Nov 7 2007, 04:32 PM\']
Am I the only one who actually likes Crosswords and wonders why Cash Cab's Ben Bailey can get an Emmy nomination and yet MGC is circling the drain?
[/quote]
Cash Cab isn't really really broken?
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'169031\' date=\'Nov 7 2007, 07:32 PM\']
Am I the only one who actually likes Crosswords and wonders why Cash Cab's Ben Bailey can get an Emmy nomination and yet MGC is circling the drain?
[/quote]
If Ty was driving in NYC traffic while hosting, then yes, he can get an Emmy nod.
--Mike
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169033\' date=\'Nov 7 2007, 07:53 PM\']
Cash Cab isn't really really broken?
[/quote]
I don't disagree there - but I don't see enough flaws to consider Crosswords to be broken. At least it moves fast, something lacking from many of today's shows.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'169040\' date=\'Nov 7 2007, 09:01 PM\']
I don't disagree there - but I don't see enough flaws to consider Crosswords to be broken.
[/quote]
A spoiler can stand at their podium/lectern/upright-desk-with-an-attached-monitor for 19 of the 22 minutes, do absolutely nothing, then answer the very last question to inherit a $4,000-or-so bank, then go to the bonus game. That's so broken, it should be put in a plaster cast.
It suffers from CS01 disease for that very reason. The only difference is that the show is still pretty enjoyable, it's just the rule sticks out like a sore thumb.
I must admit, though, I feel a bit of schadenfreude when a spoiler who does just that, then crashes and burns in the bonus round.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'169031\' date=\'Nov 7 2007, 04:32 PM\']Am I the only one who actually likes Crosswords and wonders why Cash Cab's Ben Bailey can get an Emmy nomination and yet MGC is circling the drain?[/quote]This should be the textbook definition of apples and oranges. There's really nothing that can better illustrate it.
-
Another way of looking at the "last minute spoiler flaw" is that when a winner-to-be stumbles at the very end, a spoiler lucks out with the pot, rather than the "house" getting it. I too enjoy MGC both for the "play along at home" crossword clue solving, and the drama of the twists and turns. It might be "unfair," but it's not boring!
-
[quote name=\'clanky06\' post=\'169044\' date=\'Nov 7 2007, 09:45 PM\']
Another way of looking at the "last minute spoiler flaw" is that when a winner-to-be stumbles at the very end, a spoiler lucks out with the pot, rather than the "house" getting it. I too enjoy MGC both for the "play along at home" crossword clue solving, and the drama of the twists and turns. It might be "unfair," but it's not boring!
[/quote]
You're right, that is another way of looking at it. Who cares if the house gets the pot? And the twists happen so often and are so arbitrary, it's no longer dramatic when they do. That makes it boring. The game doesn't build.
-
The last-second spoil is also only the most noticeable flaw of the game. You've got your vague clues that have a half-dozen reasonable answers, your incentive for a badly trailing player to intentionally miss a clue in order to become a spoiler, your wild variations in bonus round difficulty . . .
I'll still watch the show when it's on, mainly because the core gameplay can still be very entertaining, but I harbor no illusions about whether it's a good game.
-
Happened to stumble across the [url=http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/1010000501/post/1690016969.html#comments] (http://\"http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blogger/3226.html\")MGC Blog link as seen on the Broadcasting & Cable Website.[/url]
There are a few more entries to the 'sponsored blog', including an entry from Ty Treadway himself, as well as a few comments from others.
Overall, this public awareness campaign is....interesting.
-
You know I've been thinking of a way to fix the show. I'll throw my two cents in. Why not create a strike system. A spoiler must earn two check-marks with two correct answers in order to take one of the main players lecturn away. However, a spoiler can only steal a lecturn when a player gets two strikes. A player only gets a strike when he or she rings in and misses. Also, the spoilers are there for the whole game until a point. Finally, to get rid of a spoiler winning at the last second, a bell rings signifying only 2 minutes left in the game in which the spoilers are removed, and the two players in front play a rapid fire crosswords. The person in the lead wins the game.
-
[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'169495\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 08:05 AM\']
You know I've been thinking of a way to fix the show. I'll throw my two cents in. Why not create a strike system. A spoiler must earn two check-marks with two correct answers in order to take one of the main players lecturn away. However, a spoiler can only steal a lecturn when a player gets two strikes. A player only gets a strike when he or she rings in and misses. Also, the spoilers are there for the whole game until a point. Finally, to get rid of a spoiler winning at the last second, a bell rings signifying only 2 minutes left in the game in which the spoilers are removed, and the two players in front play a rapid fire crosswords. The person in the lead wins the game.
[/quote]
...and by the time you finish explaining all of this to your audience, the first question you'll be asking is "Can you come back tomorrow?"
Sadly, your contestants won't be able to hear it over the chirping of all of the crickets.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169497\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 11:43 AM\']
[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'169495\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 08:05 AM\']
You know I've been thinking of a way to fix the show. I'll throw my two cents in. Why not create a strike system. A spoiler must earn two check-marks with two correct answers in order to take one of the main players lecturn away. However, a spoiler can only steal a lecturn when a player gets two strikes. A player only gets a strike when he or she rings in and misses. Also, the spoilers are there for the whole game until a point. Finally, to get rid of a spoiler winning at the last second, a bell rings signifying only 2 minutes left in the game in which the spoilers are removed, and the two players in front play a rapid fire crosswords. The person in the lead wins the game.
[/quote]
...and by the time you finish explaining all of this to your audience, the first question you'll be asking is "Can you come back tomorrow?"
Sadly, your contestants won't be able to hear it over the chirping of all of the crickets.
[/quote]
Lemon, do you really think that if implemented, my explanation will be quoted verbatim on the show. Heck no, it would probably be said in bits and pieces throughout the show.
Ty: Spoilers you can replace a contestant once you get two correct answers, but you can only replace a contestant who has guessed wrong twice.
Third part of show (last seqment of main game)
Ty: Remember when the bell rings only the two people in front gets to continue on with the game.
After bell rings:
Ty: Spoilers, thanks for playing. Now its time for rapid crosswords. We'll go fast for two minutes. The one of you with the most cash wins. Good luck, starts the two minutes........Now.
-
[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'169517\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 01:23 PM\']
Lemon, do you really think that if implemented, my explanation will be quoted verbatim on the show. Heck no, it would probably be said in bits and pieces throughout the show.
[/quote]
Not only wouldn't that be any easier to follow or take any less time, but broken up it easily could look to the viewer as though Ty's making it up as he goes along.
-
[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'169517\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 10:23 AM\']
Lemon, do you really think that if implemented, my explanation will be quoted verbatim on the show. Heck no, it would probably be said in bits and pieces throughout the show.[/quote]
My point is, it's STILL too complicated for the average simpleton TV viewer. I KNOW you can relate to that.
Plus your system has holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through: Let's say Front Player A misses, and Spoiler 2 gets it right. Then Front Player B misses, and Spoiler 2 gets that one right as well. You now have a Spoiler who has earned the right to step in...and no podium for him to step into. Brilliant, that.
So, to recap: it's too complicated AND broken. Please stay out of the TV production business.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169519\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 01:39 PM\']
Plus your system has holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through: Let's say Front Player A misses, and Spoiler 2 gets it right. Then Front Player B misses, and Spoiler 2 gets that one right as well. You now have a Spoiler who has earned the right to step in...and no podium for him to step into. Brilliant, that.
So, to recap: it's too complicated AND broken. Please stay out of the TV production business.
[/quote]
In a situation when two players can be replaced, spoiler can choose who to replace, and I would like to know who decided that some gameplay is too complicated for the average american.
-
[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'169526\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 02:46 PM\']
In a situation when two players can be replaced, spoiler can choose who to replace,
[/quote]
Except that you just said that
However, a spoiler can only steal a lecturn when a player gets two strikes.
and Chris specifically presented a (very likely) situation in which a spoiler earned the right to steal but neither player -- not both, as you state above, but neither -- can be replaced.
and I would like to know who decided that some gameplay is too complicated for the average american.
When you can't even follow your own description without getting confused, I'd say that "too complicated" is a good analysis.
-
[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'169526\' date=\'Nov 14 2007, 02:46 PM\']
In a situation when two players can be replaced, spoiler can choose who to replace, and I would like to know who decided that some gameplay is too complicated for the average american.
[/quote]
Your idea, rebelwrest, just makes everything needlessly more broken. You can spin it any way you want...it just makes the role of the spoiler just that much less of a factor in the show.
I've got one that can sort of keep everything the way it is, but add a few elements in as it goes.
1) play the first round as you normally would
2) add the spoilers in in round 2, but make them play for their own money instead of a podium. The difference? Give the spoilers money to start the round ($500 or $1000, or something like that), but still give the front row priority to offset the money advantage the spoilers would have.
3) after round 2, the two lowest money amounts are eliminated, the three remaining players play round 3 under normal rules until time runs out.
-
OK, thanks for the explanation. I just offered a solution, and it didn't work. Thanks for the criticism.
-
Your idea, rebelwrest, just makes everything needlessly more broken. You can spin it any way you want...it just makes the role of the spoiler just that much less of a factor in the show.
I don't think that's necessarily bad, either.
I've got one that can sort of keep everything the way it is, but add a few elements in as it goes.
1) play the first round as you normally would
2) add the spoilers in in round 2, but make them play for their own money instead of a podium. The difference? Give the spoilers money to start the round ($500 or $1000, or something like that), but still give the front row priority to offset the money advantage the spoilers would have.
3) after round 2, the two lowest money amounts are eliminated, the three remaining players play round 3 under normal rules until time runs out.
But then, why bother to have spoilers? Why not introduce five players and cut the low scorer until the game ends? If the low money scorers are out without regard to class, then it's just an extra layer to wade through. With as fast as the game goes, what would be wrong with a no-muss no-fuss rulebook?
-
I still like the idea that you start with five players, two in front and three spoilers. Play the game like you've been doing it, but everybody accumulates their own score. You still trade places on a "spoil", but you don't get the other guy's score, you just earn the right to start adding to your own. High score at the end, even if he's in the back row, is the winner.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'169598\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 01:52 AM\']
I still like the idea that you start with five players, two in front and three spoilers. Play the game like you've been doing it, but everybody accumulates their own score. You still trade places on a "spoil", but you don't get the other guy's score, you just earn the right to start adding to your own. High score at the end, even if he's in the back row, is the winner.
[/quote]
I like that concept.
For the show are the front two players that originally start the game generally the more experienced crossword solvers? Or do the coordinators just randomly place two contestants in those spots?
If so, two scenario ideas:
1) Out of the five, put your best two up front (from the preliminary auditions), and possibly spot the back row $250 or so, as a "handicap" of sorts.
2) Play a quick one-minute speed round, with each word worth a point, no spoils or anything, just every player for themselves. Top two scorers go to the front, and no "handicap money", to prevent someone from intentionally throwing the round. Have another word played to break any ties amongst players.
Anyone know how the pilot played out? Did they use the three-person team from the Flash pitch film, then split the team into three individual contestants?
-
Now I don't take any credit for this idea, but I thought of basically agreeing with the "Every contestant should have their own scoreboard" thing.
My way would go like this: Introduce all five on the offset, spoilers are not in play. After the first break, the two highest scoring players are put down in front and the other three become the spoilers. Play as normal, except when a spoiler takes a front player's podium, the front player keeps their score and the spoiler brings theirs. The highest-scoring player at the front row wins.
This may not fix all the problems (as somebody could potentially rack up $5-6,000, be dethroned by a spoiler and end up winning the game with lesser money), but it would help the prize budget. Maybe throw in the elimination idea from another person's suggestion.
-
[quote name=\'TonicBH\' post=\'169604\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 06:52 AM\']My way would go like this: Introduce all five on the offset, spoilers are not in play. After the first break, the two highest scoring players are put down in front and the other three become the spoilers. Play as normal, except when a spoiler takes a front player's podium, the front player keeps their score and the spoiler brings theirs. The highest-scoring player at the front row wins.[/quote]
I'll accept your first part, since five equal players at the start makes more intuitive sense. But limiting the winner to the highest score in the front row still means the game could take an ugly turn at the end because a vastly superior player just happened to miss a clue at the wrong time. It's better than what they're doing now, I just think it doesn't go far enough to reward performance.
-
One player down in front. The three or four are spoilers. Player gets a free crack at every clue until he misses one that a spoiler gets, then they trade places, keeping their money with them. Whoever has the most money at the end of the game, wherever they are, wins.
Either a returning champion (hey, it works on Jeopardy!) starts in front, or there's a toss-up clue with everyone to determine who's the first player in front. (I would denote the front player with a chair, everyone else standing behind them as if looking over his shoulder.) There could be another toss-up to start the double-money round.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'169620\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 10:20 AM\']
One player down in front. The three or four are spoilers. Player gets a free crack at every clue until he misses one that a spoiler gets, then they trade places, keeping their money with them. Whoever has the most money at the end of the game, wherever they are, wins.
[/quote]
How's that different from "Bob, you have control"? No point in even having "rows", then. Might as well just have five people standing there, and light up whoever currently has "control".
Of the ideas postulated so far, Matt O's is the easiest to follow for the viewer and best keeps in the spirit of what they were going for in the first place. Though I do like all five players participating in the first round, and rewarding the two highest scorers with the initial front-row spots from Round 2 forward.
I don't think I would give a Spoiler the money for a spoiled answer, though...getting into a position to add to your score should be its own reward. (But I'd want to playtest the hell out of that to see if that really disrupts game balance, too.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169624\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 01:43 PM\']I don't think I would give a Spoiler the money for a spoiled answer, though...getting into a position to add to your score should be its own reward. (But I'd want to playtest the hell out of that to see if that really disrupts game balance, too.)[/quote]
I would think that if you want to do that, then players shouldn't lose money for wrong answers. Instead, your score is frozen and stays that way if someone scoops up the response. Otherwise, you dodged a bullet. (Fwiw, in the way it is now, if someone scoops, the score doesn't actually change; the player who got it wrong lost X dollars and the X dollars you got from the right answer gets put in to make the two cancel.)
My idea would essentially be monkey in the middle for the first 2 rounds with whoever's still on the "outside" playing for cash in the final.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169624\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 01:43 PM\']
I don't think I would give a Spoiler the money for a spoiled answer, though...getting into a position to add to your score should be its own reward. (But I'd want to playtest the hell out of that to see if that really disrupts game balance, too.)
[/quote]
Which reminds me...for some reason, I see the idea of a "score transfer" confusing the hell out of Joe Sixpack.
Contestant A has $1,000
The spoiler in back has $700, and slips into contestant A's spot.
It just seems like a lot more work for Ty to keep explaining why the front podium keeps changing numbers. A lot of work to ask the average viewer to follow.
Maybe reduce the number of spoilers to one or two?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'169629\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 12:40 PM\']
Which reminds me...for some reason, I see the idea of a "score transfer" confusing the hell out of Joe Sixpack.
Contestant A has $1,000
The spoiler in back has $700, and slips into contestant A's spot.
It just seems like a lot more work for Ty to keep explaining why the front podium keeps changing numbers. A lot of work to ask the average viewer to follow.
[/quote]
I don't think so, necessarily. "Joe comes down to the front row, and brings his $700 with him, Larry, you can fight your way back in and get the chance to add to your $1,000." All the more reason to develop a scoring system that works without giving the spoiler money for the right answer, so that all of that remains static during the transfer.
Make the player's name a PROMINENT part of the score readout, and I not only think it works, I think it makes a lot more sense. Joe was standing *there* and had that displayed in front of him, now he's standing *here* and has that displayed in front of him.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169624\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 01:43 PM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'169620\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 10:20 AM\']
One player down in front. The three or four are spoilers. Player gets a free crack at every clue until he misses one that a spoiler gets, then they trade places, keeping their money with them. Whoever has the most money at the end of the game, wherever they are, wins.
[/quote]
How's that different from "Bob, you have control"? No point in even having "rows", then. Might as well just have five people standing there, and light up whoever currently has "control".
Of the ideas postulated so far, Matt O's is the easiest to follow for the viewer and best keeps in the spirit of what they were going for in the first place.
[/quote]
You're right on the first point--a front row (preferably with a big stylish modernist chair) is just for visual interest.
If it's five players, four of them spoilers, there could be five podia in the back row, the solver moving forward to the lower step (and sitting on said stylish chair) but his score staying on the now empty podium in the back. When he is unseated, he goes back to the podium he had, not the new solver's.
My idea is basically Matt's, I just think it's far simpler and more elegant to have one solver at a time rather than two. For one thing, it eliminates the "whose podium do you want" issue.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'169633\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 01:35 PM\']
My idea is basically Matt's, I just think it's far simpler and more elegant to have one solver at a time rather than two. For one thing, it eliminates the "whose podium do you want" issue.
[/quote]
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I don't find it interesting and it doesn't seem to keep in the spirit of what the Crosswords people wanted the game to be. You're just slapping a skin on "one player has control, when they get it wrong, it's a toss-up for the others." Fine and good, but I find that boring and I'd like the game to have a little more meat on it.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'169600\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 01:29 AM\']
For the show are the front two players that originally start the game generally the more experienced crossword solvers? Or do the coordinators just randomly place two contestants in those spots?
[/quote]
The first 2 players are pretty-much randomly chosen, near as I can tell. I have a theory that they choose 2 people with the best blurbs, since there's not a whole lot of interview.
-Myron
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169636\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 04:56 PM\']
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I don't find it interesting and it doesn't seem to keep in the spirit of what the Crosswords people wanted the game to be. You're just slapping a skin on "one player has control, when they get it wrong, it's a toss-up for the others." Fine and good, but I find that boring and I'd like the game to have a little more meat on it.
[/quote]
Yeah, you may be right. Ideally, I think it would be simple good like the $1,000 Race on "Trivia Trap"--that actually was exciting--but it might just be simple boring.
I do love the idea of spoilers--maybe it's just watching Trebek "Double Dare." Dr. Stratton Lindenmeyer (I think that's his name) is so, so, so much cooler than any devil, dragon or whammy. On Crosswords, it's dramatic when Ty introduces the spoilers and makes them seem treacherous, but then the game starts and it's just people with buzzers.
It's funny how what's terribly infuriating about this and Temptation also makes interesting game discussion.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'169647\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 03:46 PM\']
Yeah, you may be right. Ideally, I think it would be simple good like the $1,000 Race on "Trivia Trap"--that actually was exciting--but it might just be simple boring.
[/quote]
See, I though the Race was simple-boring (or simple-painful if Jayne Meadows was on and Eubanks had to read her the categories every time because she was too vain to wear glasses)
I do love the idea of spoilers--maybe it's just watching Trebek "Double Dare." Dr. Stratton Lindenmeyer (I think that's his name) is so, so, so much cooler than any devil, dragon or whammy.
They beat Beauty and the Geek by a solid 25 years in casting the most bookish, nerdy PhD's they could. It was brilliant.
It's funny how what's terribly infuriating about this and Temptation also makes interesting game discussion.
Well, what's particularly infuriating is exactly this: We've fixed both shows, right here in these threads. We know EXACTLY what's wrong, we know EXACTLY what needs to be done to make 'em right, we know it CAN be done, and we know it isn't gonna happen.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169649\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 06:59 PM\']
See, I though the Race was simple-boring (or simple-painful if Jayne Meadows was on and Eubanks had to read her the categories every time because she was too vain to wear glasses)
[/quote]
Particularly painful in that she showed up without Steverino. Why else do you invite her? You only do it to get him. After all, Audrey was the funny, talented one.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'169677\' date=\'Nov 16 2007, 11:02 AM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169649\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 06:59 PM\']
See, I though the Race was simple-boring (or simple-painful if Jayne Meadows was on and Eubanks had to read her the categories every time because she was too vain to wear glasses)
[/quote]
Particularly painful in that she showed up without Steverino. Why else do you invite her? You only do it to get him. After all, Audrey was the funny, talented one.
[/quote]
Allen may've been booked but bailed out--had to be illness, because he seemingly never turned down a TV gig. *Never.*
-
Why else do you invite her?
In the case of Trivia Trap, because she was so good on IGAS 30 years prior.
-
i've been taping crosswords a lot, i love that game show, i hope it gets renewed for at least 2 more years
-
[quote name=\'JacksonBrowne1980\' post=\'170561\' date=\'Nov 26 2007, 06:47 PM\']
i've been taping crosswords a lot, i love that game show, i hope it gets renewed for at least 2 more years
[/quote]
I don't know what to say to this...
so here's a picture of Tommy Oliver in his underwear. (http://\"http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9579/tommyoliverny2.jpg\")
-
After watching one lady answer question after question correctly to the tune of $4000+ only to lose her podium to a slacker on a Pokemon clue on the last question, I would prefer it if the contestants stayed all week a la Jackpot!
-
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'174584\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 05:52 PM\']
After watching one lady answer question after question correctly to the tune of $4000+ only to lose her podium to a slacker on a Pokemon clue on the last question, I would prefer it if the contestants stayed all week a la Jackpot!
[/quote]
Someone else brought it up, but I noticed that most spoilers who sit the whole game, only to win on the last question usually do horribly in the bonus round.
The trade mags report a season two...somehow, they need to remedy this flawed main game...perhaps go back to the "three-as-a-team-then-opponents" format from the CGI pitch film. We've pitched some good ideas around the board, but something needs to give.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'174586\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 05:56 PM\']The trade mags report a season two...[/quote]
There must be some financial way that makes sense, in much the same way that Family Feud has managed to stay on the air all these years, 'cuz it's sure not setting the ratings world on fire.
-
Wow, I didn't even notice that MGC was on in my area... It got buried at the 1:30 PM slot on WNEM-DTW/CW-47/RSTLNE/KFC/whatever, that oddball network that used to be something else. Now I know where Temptation's been hiding too.
Seriously, though, I watched an ep of MGC on YouTube recently, and I must say it's a decent game. Ty is the average embodiment of the "young clean game show host" category into which I'd also lump Osmond, Lane, et al. (translation: he ain't bad, just kinda bland).
The game moves at a nice clip, the set is sharp, the music is good (although I'd prefer to hear more than just 8 notes of it), and there's even a great announcer. The only flaw, of course, is that whole spoiler thing that everyone has pointed out -- I agree with the idea that, at the very least, the contestants should stay on all week long á la "Jackpot!". And I've never even seen "Jackpot!".
Yes, I know I'm, like, five months behind, but actually for me, that's fast.
-
[quote name=\'TenPoundHammer\' post=\'174604\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 06:04 PM\']Seriously, though, I watched an ep of MGC on YouTube recently, and I must say it's a decent game. [/quote] No, it isn't. Any game where a contestant can answer once and win a pile of cash is by definition bad.
(translation: he ain't bad, just kinda bland).
If he didn't have that annoying trait in his voice where it would go up an octave at the end of a sentence, maybe he'd be 'passable.'
-
[quote name=\'TenPoundHammer\' post=\'174604\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 09:04 PM\']The only flaw, of course, is that whole spoiler thing that everyone has pointed out -- I agree with the idea that, at the very least, the contestants should stay on all week long á la "Jackpot!". And I've never even seen "Jackpot!".[/quote]
There have been other serious flaws seen in the past months: entries with wide-open clues and no helping letters, a scoring structure that encourages a trailing player to take a dive, and huge variances in how difficult the bonus round clues are, to name three. (I still get a laugh out of Patrick Jordan solving that insane, budget-saving bonus, though.)
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'174626\' date=\'Jan 12 2008, 04:22 AM\']There have been other serious flaws seen in the past months: entries with wide-open clues and no helping letters...[/quote]
Not just that, but short answers with vague clues that could be filled in any number of ways. I realize that's sometimes what makes solving a regular crossword challenging, but a regular crossword doesn't have such a dramatic penalty for getting one clue wrong.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'174600\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 04:39 PM\']There must be some financial way that makes sense, [/quote]How exactly does the money work? Does the production company get the ad revenue from each market depending on the time slot? If that's so, sell the show to a bunch of markets and you ought to make something, even on a one rating.
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'174637\' date=\'Jan 12 2008, 07:22 AM\']Not just that, but short answers with vague clues that could be filled in any number of ways. I realize that's sometimes what makes solving a regular crossword challenging, but a regular crossword doesn't have such a dramatic penalty for getting one clue wrong.[/quote]Has there ever been a game show other than Crosswords where you could give a right answer and end up hearing "That's not the answer we wanted, so sorry, you're wrong."?
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'174697\' date=\'Jan 13 2008, 02:47 AM\']Has there ever been a game show other than Crosswords where you could give a right answer and end up hearing "That's not the answer we wanted, so sorry, you're wrong."?[/quote]
Well, "Family Feud," "Chain Reaction," "Wheel of Fortune," to name a few. It's definitely more egregious on "Crosswords" but there are several shows where a perfectly all right answer falls to the buzzer.
-Jason
-
[quote name='TLEberle' date='Jan 13 2008, 02:47 AM' post='174697']
[quote name='Matt Ottinger' post='174600' date='Jan 11 2008, 04:39 PM']There must be some financial way that makes sense, [/quote]How exactly does the money work? Does the production company get the ad revenue from each market depending on the time slot? If that's so, sell the show to a bunch of markets and you ought to make something, even on a one rating.
To a smaller degree, one of the reasons why mediocre shows like FF and MGC (if it indeed sees 2008-09) stick around a while is that for many independent and smaller market stations, it costs less to acquire than say reruns of Seinfeld or more popular first run syndie shows (Springer, Judge Judy,...). And for many of these smaller stations, cheaper is better.
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'174698\' date=\'Jan 13 2008, 01:51 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'174697\' date=\'Jan 13 2008, 02:47 AM\']Has there ever been a game show other than Crosswords where you could give a right answer and end up hearing "That's not the answer we wanted, so sorry, you're wrong."?[/quote]Well, "Family Feud," "Chain Reaction," "Wheel of Fortune," to name a few. It's definitely more egregious on "Crosswords" but there are several shows where a perfectly all right answer falls to the buzzer.[/quote]
Good examples (and there are others, like the Pass the Buck bonus round), but the difference here, of course, is that those shows aren't Q&A. And my problem isn't actually with just the possibility of multiple answers to a clue, it's that coupled with the enormous penalty for getting one wrong, or even for laying off a clue because you're not sure, only to have someone else swoop in and guess right.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'174714\' date=\'Jan 13 2008, 10:57 AM\']
And my problem isn't actually with just the possibility of multiple answers to a clue, it's that coupled with the enormous penalty for getting one wrong, or even for laying off a clue because you're not sure, only to have someone else swoop in and guess right.
[/quote]
You might be the one who had the simplest remedy, Matt, but every time I watch, I think the show would be way better if, in circumstances where the spoiler now picks a podium, he or she went automatically to the one behind. Then the player in the lead could lay off a clue, at least until he wasn't in the lead anymore.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'174735\' date=\'Jan 13 2008, 02:04 PM\']You might be the one who had the simplest remedy, Matt, but every time I watch, I think the show would be way better if, in circumstances where the spoiler now picks a podium, he or she went automatically to the one behind. Then the player in the lead could lay off a clue, at least until he wasn't in the lead anymore.[/quote]Then why bother to spoil at all? If the scores are $6,000 apart, the person behind is screwed, no matter what.
-
At the beginning of Knockout (I was a contestant) Arte Johnson would recite a disclaimer about there being the possibility of other correct answers, but you must come up with the answer "we are looking for." The game was based on "which of these four things doesn't belong and why?" For example, RED BLUE YELLOW APPLE would have APPLE the non primary color, but RED is also the only one with just one vowel, rather than two. I'm sure the MGC contestants are fully advised on the rules and conditions, and of the possibility that a Spoiler may win at the very end with just one correct answer, and if you didn't like any of this, then you don't have to go on the show. This reminds me of a Tic Tac Dough session with Dan Enright and a conference table full of potential contestants. He said that there had been considerable correspondence with a contestant who pronounced the French National Anthem "Mar-se-yay" and was ruled incorrect. This incident had lead to a rule that a foreign word may be either pronounced according to the foreign language, or how it would be pronounced in English. He paused, and then asked, "Now, is there anybody here who doesn't agree to this rule?" Of course, nobody said they didn't, because we all knew that if you did object, you weren't going to be a contestant!
-
[quote name=\'clanky06\' post=\'174775\' date=\'Jan 13 2008, 11:21 PM\'] I'm sure the MGC contestants are fully advised on the rules and conditions, and of the possibility that a Spoiler may win at the very end with just one correct answer, and if you didn't like any of this, then you don't have to go on the show. [/quote] Of course they're advised on it. Doesn't make the game any less flawed, though.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'174739\' date=\'Jan 13 2008, 04:20 PM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'174735\' date=\'Jan 13 2008, 02:04 PM\']You might be the one who had the simplest remedy, Matt, but every time I watch, I think the show would be way better if, in circumstances where the spoiler now picks a podium, he or she went automatically to the one behind. Then the player in the lead could lay off a clue, at least until he wasn't in the lead anymore.[/quote]Then why bother to spoil at all? If the scores are $6,000 apart, the person behind is screwed, no matter what.
[/quote]
Well, pardon me for jumping in on this, but I think the "taking-the-podium-that's-behind" solution and removing the Crossword Extras might just fix these problems:
1. Currently, the player who's behind is fighting an uphill battle, because the spoilers serve only to add money to the leading podium, greatly magnifying any deficit to be overcome. This makes comebacks by the trailing player near-impossible without the help of a Crossword Extra.
If the spoilers must take the podium that's behind, then the podiums will tend to be closer together, because it is essentially four players against the leader. This makes for a more exciting finish without needing any Crossword Extras.
2. Under the current system, there have been many examples where a spoiler, who has been eye candy for the preceding ten minutes, has won on the last clue of the game, dethroning a leader who dominates except for knowing, say Pokémon.
Under the rule changes, it would still be possible for a spoiler to win on the last clue, but the podiums would have to be near-equal in score, reducing greatly the possibility. Furthermore, it is now possible for a spoiler to jump in near the end and win the game by answering several clues to take the lead at the bell, rather than simply ringing in on the last clue.
3. The Crossword Extras are the reason why players end up $6,000 or more behind. Getting rid of them would keep the scores closer and prevent one clue being worth far more than the others. Furthermore, removing the Crossword Extra would decrease the maximum total payout, allowing more money to be given away. (I don't want mo' money, but $50 for answering correctly seems a bit cheap.)
-
Well, pardon me for jumping in on this, but I think the "taking-the-podium-that's-behind" solution and removing the Crossword Extras might just fix these problems:
1. Currently, the player who's behind is fighting an uphill battle, because the spoilers serve only to add money to the leading podium, greatly magnifying any deficit to be overcome. This makes comebacks by the trailing player near-impossible without the help of a Crossword Extra.
If the spoilers must take the podium that's behind, then the podiums will tend to be closer together, because it is essentially four players against the leader. This makes for a more exciting finish without needing any Crossword Extras.
With or without the Crossword Extras, you can still have a player get out to a big lead and make it impossible for the others to get back in. That just takes the problem and leaves it with no chance to try and get back in the game. There's no good reason why the Extras should be taken out.
2. Under the current system, there have been many examples where a spoiler, who has been eye candy for the preceding ten minutes, has won on the last clue of the game, dethroning a leader who dominates except for knowing, say Pokémon.
Under the rule changes, it would still be possible for a spoiler to win on the last clue, but the podiums would have to be near-equal in score, reducing greatly the possibility. Furthermore, it is now possible for a spoiler to jump in near the end and win the game by answering several clues to take the lead at the bell, rather than simply ringing in on the last clue.
Your solution doesn't help matters at all. And besides, if the possibility still exists even in your solution it doesn't matter WHAT happens, then your solution, sorry to say really isn't much of one.
3. The Crossword Extras are the reason why players end up $6,000 or more behind.
I guess playing a bad game doesn't count in your book.
Getting rid of them would keep the scores closer and prevent one clue being worth far more than the others.
No, it wouldn't. You still have to factor in the fact that someone can (and probably would) get on a hot streak and still put the game out of reach in the second round, basically rendering the third round meaningless.
Furthermore, removing the Crossword Extra would decrease the maximum total payout, allowing more money to be given away.
How is more money allowed to be given away if the maximum total payout is decreased? You go from winning maybe $3,000 ($5,000 or more if you're solid enough or lucky enough) to winning $1,500 a game? And how much time would you really have for extra clues if you got rid of the Crossword Extras? Maybe enough for six, seven at the most? Is that really going to make that much of a difference?
(I don't want mo' money, but $50 for answering correctly seems a bit cheap.)
It is. So what? It's a three letter clue in the first round. Big deal. Doesn't harm the game.
-
PYLdude, you may not have known, but I created the changes based on two premises.
1. If there is a dominant player, that player should win.
2. Good players should win most of the time, but there should be the possibility for another player to earn a comeback.
These two premises go hand-in-hand. On the one hand, if a clearly dominant player doesn't win, it basically makes the game a travesty. On the other hand, if the better player always wins, it makes for a great sporting event, but it's terrible television. So the catch is to straddle the line, so that good players win more often, but there's always a possiblity for a dark horse to make a comeback and win.
Under the current system, a leader who has answered every clue except the last one could lose the game to a spoiler who only buzzes in once on a clue he happens to know. My system would make such last-second steals far less frequent, even though they wouldn't be eliminated. (I don't think this is a major flaw any more than the fact that a person with $100 in Final Jeopardy! can still win the game if the two leaders tied for the lead bet it all and miss.) Most of the time, a late spoiler will end up anywhere from several hundred dollars to about a thousand dollars behind in a competitive match. That difference must be made up by answering clues, not by making a lucky spoil.
To that end, the reason why I got rid of the Crossword Extras was that they made and broke the game more than anything else. When $3,000 or more is on the line, it's going to make a big impact on the gameplay, either putting a leader into an insurmountable lead or putting a trailer far out of contention. Getting rid of these makes it harder to catch up, but at the same time, the deficits to be made up are far less. Furthermore, removing the Crossword Extras makes the gameplay better by putting less value on a single clue.
With regards to the budget, since I've seen Extras converted for more than 50% (but I would like to see an actual count if anyone has one), that means that the Extra has a positive expected value for the show, which must be factored into the budget. And I don't suggest making each clue worth $50,000, or even $500, but I think doubling the dollar values in Round 3 (like in the one week of shows in December 2007) could make the game closer without sacrificing the quality of play or straining the budget.
Unfortunately, there is no way to satisfy the two axioms above perfectly. You'll either have unsatisfactory upsets or blowout games. But I think the show could use a little tinkering to come closer to the center of this balance.
-
[quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'175072\' date=\'Jan 15 2008, 10:07 PM\']
PYLdude, you may not have known, but I created the changes based on two premises.
1. If there is a dominant player, that player should win.
2. Good players should win most of the time, but there should be the possibility for another player to earn a comeback.
These two premises go hand-in-hand. On the one hand, if a clearly dominant player doesn't win, it basically makes the game a travesty. On the other hand, if the better player always wins, it makes for a great sporting event, but it's terrible television. So the catch is to straddle the line, so that good players win more often, but there's always a possiblity for a dark horse to make a comeback and win.[/quote]
This much I agree with.
Under the current system, a leader who has answered every clue except the last one could lose the game to a spoiler who only buzzes in once on a clue he happens to know. My system would make such last-second steals far less frequent, even though they wouldn't be eliminated. (I don't think this is a major flaw any more than the fact that a person with $100 in Final Jeopardy! can still win the game if the two leaders tied for the lead bet it all and miss.) Most of the time, a late spoiler will end up anywhere from several hundred dollars to about a thousand dollars behind in a competitive match. That difference must be made up by answering clues, not by making a lucky spoil.
Your solution, while I appreciate the effort you put behind it, is equivalent to turning the spoilers into cardboard cutouts for lack of a better term. Everyone agrees that the last-second spoils are a problem. It bugs me, and I actually am a big fan of the show. But what's the point of having a spoiler system if that can't happen (the way it's set up now, that is)? They're not called the second-bests or the trailers.
To that end, the reason why I got rid of the Crossword Extras was that they made and broke the game more than anything else.
And that's PRECISELY WHAT THEY'RE DESIGNED TO DO. Just like the Daily Doubles on Jeopardy. Would you advocate removing those?
When $3,000 or more is on the line, it's going to make a big impact on the gameplay, either putting a leader into an insurmountable lead or putting a trailer far out of contention.
But a leader typically isn't going to bet enough to where losing money is a problem. If the leader's secure enough in front, he/she is going to play conservatively and not be reckless unless they're uncompromisingly greedy. And maybe a trailer would be put far out of contention, but if you're that far out of the game, wouldn't you try whatever you could to get back in? I mean, if you had $500 and your opponent was more than $2K or $3K ahead, are you going to bet $500 or less, or are you going to try and get back in the game if the situation calls for it?
Getting rid of these makes it harder to catch up, but at the same time, the deficits to be made up are far less.
It still doesn't stop any player from jumping out to a huge lead and rendering the final round moot. Plus you're assuming too much that the trailing player is going to get a decent shot to come back, and that's not guaranteed.
Furthermore, removing the Crossword Extras makes the gameplay better by putting less value on a single clue.
The impact to the gameplay, as far as I'm concerned, would be minimal at best and not enough to judge one way or another.
I don't suggest making each clue worth $50,000, or even $500
Agreed, because that's ridiculous.
but I think doubling the dollar values in Round 3 (like in the one week of shows in December 2007) could make the game closer without sacrificing the quality of play or straining the budget.
I reiterate: it still doesn't stop someone, solver or spoiler, from running away with the game and making the last round of clues moot.
Unfortunately, there is no way to satisfy the two axioms above perfectly. You'll either have unsatisfactory upsets or blowout games. But I think the show could use a little tinkering to come closer to the center of this balance.
You could cut away the unsatisfactory upsets, but in doing so you also negate the role of the Spoiler in a way that's worse than the problem you're trying to solve in doing that. And, hate to beat a dead horse, but the blowouts will always remain.
It needs tinkering, but you need to work with what you have and not change things too radically. I believe your Spoiler idea does that. Your Crossword Extra removal idea doesn't as much, but to me it takes away any hope a player might have of catching up. And to me that's just unfair enough to cause a problem.
-
Well, I'm delighted to report that WNBC, New York has renewed "Merv Griffin's Crosswords" and that we will be back for a second year. There is no question that performance has been modest, particularly in NY and LA where we air head-to-head against both Oprah and Judge Judy, but or national number continues to grow and we saw some strong performances in many mid-sized and smaller markets in thr November book. We've received some very constructive feedback from viewers, focus groups and stations and I believe year two will be better than ever. Thanks, Ritch Colbert, Program Partners
-
[quote name=\'rbc101\' post=\'176396\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 02:04 AM\']We've received some very constructive feedback from viewers, focus groups and stations and I believe year two will be better than ever. Thanks, Ritch Colbert, Program Partners[/quote]
Well, whaddaya know.
I'm feeling optimistic at the moment, so I'm going to read "very constructive feedback from viewers" as "we're going to try to fix the spoiler system".
-
[quote name=\'rbc101\' post=\'176396\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 02:04 AM\']
Well, I'm delighted to report that WNBC, New York has renewed "Merv Griffin's Crosswords" and that we will be back for a second year. There is no question that performance has been modest, particularly in NY and LA where we air head-to-head against both Oprah and Judge Judy, but or national number continues to grow and we saw some strong performances in many mid-sized and smaller markets in thr November book. We've received some very constructive feedback from viewers, focus groups and stations and I believe year two will be better than ever. Thanks, Ritch Colbert, Program Partners
[/quote]
Congradulations on having your Second Season buried at 1:35am on 'most of this NBC stations'.
These local NBC O&O's getting saddled with this better pray that syndie Deal delivers quickly, otherwise both will end up buried in overnight quickly.
-
[quote name=\'rbc101\' post=\'176396\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 02:04 AM\']
Thanks, Ritch Colbert, Program Partners
[/quote]
Well hiya...welcome! Nice to hear this show is getting a second season. Yeah, the spoiler system is flawed, but I like the show more for the content anyway...I finally figured out why I don't do crossword puzzles.
And don't feel bad about the placement of the program...mine is up against Rachel Ray and Dr. Phil.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'176400\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 02:24 AM\']
I'm feeling optimistic at the moment, so I'm going to read "very constructive feedback from viewers" as "we're going to try to fix the spoiler system".[/quote]
Your breath. Let me not hold it for you. :)
-
my solutions.
have spoilers play FIRST 2 rounds round 3 is a duel.
people in spoilers row at end of round 2 comeback next day except for friday new spoilers each week
no random crossword extras, you must answer 3 consecutive clues to earn the right to bet; limit 2 extras per player per round
-
[quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'176414\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 02:27 PM\']my solutions.
have spoilers play FIRST 2 rounds round 3 is a duel.
people in spoilers row at end of round 2 comeback next day except for friday new spoilers each week
no random crossword extras, you must answer 3 consecutive clues to earn the right to bet; limit 2 extras per player per round[/quote]Those are certainly in the running for most random "fixes" that don't really fix anything.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'176404\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 11:47 AM\']
[quote name=\'rbc101\' post=\'176396\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 02:04 AM\']
Thanks, Ritch Colbert, Program Partners
[/quote]
Well hiya...welcome! Nice to hear this show is getting a second season. Yeah, the spoiler system is flawed, but I like the show more for the content anyway...I finally figured out why I don't do crossword puzzles.
And don't feel bad about the placement of the program...mine is up against Rachel Ray and Dr. Phil.
[/quote]
Our Fox's run was up against either the local or national newscasts, while the CBS affils run was up against The View, 700 Club and one of the judge shows.
(Both stations are still off the air after the fire last week. You realize how bad the other 2 networks/channels are on both the local & national levels when you lose the top two stations in the market).
-
YaY, I'm glad this underrated game show is getting season #2 either way...now does anyone know the fate of Temptation, has it spent it's last temptation dollar? has the last purse been opened?
-
[quote name=\'WildJoker76\' post=\'176439\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 11:28 PM\']
YaY, I'm glad this underrated game show is getting season #2 either way...now does anyone know the fate of Temptation, has it spent it's last temptation dollar? has the last purse been opened?
[/quote]
TV Week says it's on the fence. Its ratings are low, but the -- eek -- home shopping element and money therein could save it for stations. There may also be a simultaneous cable run. But 20th said it will continue through the end of the season. (Didn't someone here say the entire season had already been shot?)
-
[quote name=\'WildJoker76\' post=\'176439\' date=\'Jan 28 2008, 12:28 AM\']
YaY, I'm glad this underrated game show is getting season #2 either way...now does anyone know the fate of Temptation, has it spent it's last temptation dollar? has the last purse been opened?
[/quote]
If it has, then it's going away with nothing but "lots of love" from it's host.
If it even dares to consider another season, then it's gonna need one hell of a major overhaul.
(envisioning the scene from Animal House when after the "Road Trip", Flounder's borrowed car is rolled into the garage with John "Bluto" Belushi lighting the blow torch).
-
Crosswords, as of the first reports from NAPTE, doesn't have a spot in the Washington DC schedule for the Fall.
WUSA-9 (CBS) is going with "The Doctors" for the 4:00 hour, replacing WWTBAM and Inside Edition.
WJLA-7 (ABC) jumped at the chance for the more-established franchise and will run Millionaire at 12:30 in place of MGC.
There aren't many other spots available for MGC. The only thing I can see is if WDCA-20 (MyNetwork) bails on/trims back Temptation (double-run at noon).
-
[quote name=\'SteveR\' post=\'176561\' date=\'Jan 29 2008, 09:39 AM\']
Crosswords, as of the first reports from NAPTE, doesn't have a spot in the Washington DC schedule for the Fall.
WUSA-9 (CBS) is going with "The Doctors" for the 4:00 hour, replacing WWTBAM and Inside Edition.[/quote]
Why would any station order up reruns of a long canceled NBC soap opera anyway? ;)
-
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' post=\'176623\' date=\'Jan 29 2008, 10:23 PM\']
[quote name=\'SteveR\' post=\'176561\' date=\'Jan 29 2008, 09:39 AM\']WUSA-9 (CBS) is going with "The Doctors" for the 4:00 hour, replacing WWTBAM and Inside Edition.[/quote]Why would any station order up reruns of a long canceled NBC soap opera anyway? ;)[/quote]
The same thought occurred to me as well.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'176401\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 05:25 AM\']
These local NBC O&O's getting saddled with this better pray that syndie Deal delivers quickly, otherwise both will end up buried in overnight quickly.
[/quote]
What do you mean 'will be'? MGC is already on at 1:35 AM here! On a network who's lead-in to Price is an infomercial!
And I do think it would help a lot if the spoilers played Rounds 1 and 2 instead of Rounds 2 and 3...that way, the better contestant of the last two has a better chance to win. Also, it always seemed really, really wrong that this is one of the few (only?) game shows that added contestants along the way instead of eliminating them.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'176401\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 03:25 AM\']Congradulations on having your Second Season buried at 1:35am on 'most of this NBC stations'.
These local NBC O&O's getting saddled with this better pray that syndie Deal delivers quickly, otherwise both will end up buried in overnight quickly.
[/quote]
Assuming they're not going to pre-empt the 3:05 A.M. Conan O'Brien rerun, the NBC O&O's on the coasts can't bury both shows overnight...they only have a half hour of non-network time available, from 4:00 to 4:30.
-
[quote name=\'trainman\' post=\'176631\' date=\'Jan 29 2008, 09:50 PM\']
Assuming they're not going to pre-empt the 3:05 A.M. Conan O'Brien rerun, the NBC O&O's on the coasts can't bury both shows overnight...they only have a half hour of non-network time available, from 4:00 to 4:30.[/quote]
I dunno about the O&Os, but I know here in Seattle, Carson Daly ends, and then there is an hour of infomercials before Poker After Dark, which runs right into Early Today.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'176636\' date=\'Jan 30 2008, 04:40 AM\']
[quote name=\'trainman\' post=\'176631\' date=\'Jan 29 2008, 09:50 PM\']
Assuming they're not going to pre-empt the 3:05 A.M. Conan O'Brien rerun, the NBC O&O's on the coasts can't bury both shows overnight...they only have a half hour of non-network time available, from 4:00 to 4:30.[/quote]
I dunno about the O&Os, but I know here in Seattle, Carson Daly ends, and then there is an hour of infomercials before Poker After Dark, which runs right into Early Today.
[/quote]
I think that the O&O's have to clear NBC's wee-hours programming, IIRC.
Here in Albany, we don't get any of NBC's wee-hours programming. Instead we get an infomercial, an ET rerun, a rerun of the 11:00 news, and 20 minutes of superfluous "sign-off" time where they pipe in Weather Plus.
/Back to the original topic, Crosswords has it easy here.
//Unless going against Guiding Light, the unnecessary waste 4th hour of Today, Tyra, Maury, and an infomercial isn't easy.
-
"The Doctors" is the "Dr. Phil" spinoff show with a panel of various medical types offering their assistance and consultation with guests. CBS Distribution has it running shotgun with Quick Draw McGraw on a lot of the same stations, although in Chicago it will be on WCIU instead of WBBM due to lack of space.
That's the same reason WCIU airs "The Insider" instead of WBBM in Chicago.
/Do I need to say who the host and star of "The Insider" is?
//What a guy.
-
Small tweaks in the new season, eh? Bear with me, as I'm only an occasional watcher - but I would think that one logical round 2 tweak that could be done without radically altering either the current game play or set could be that if one of the main two contestants is incorrect, the turn automatically goes to the opponent first. If no correct answer, the spoilers can participate. I'm also debating the logic (if any) of a "two strikes and out" for a spoiler/podium. For the most part, I'm noting the spoilers are usually successful in their steals because of the main two contestants eliminating other possibilities through bad guesses and also having a few more seconds to think things out. But no matter what, there's no risk in trying to steal a main podium. Now let's say if a spoiler buzzes in and is incorrect, either by direct answer, incorrect spelling, or the time's up signal, that spoiler's podium is lit up with a strike (X). Whoever is behind that podium and gives the next incorrect answer is out of the game - potentially diminishing the number of spoilers and creating drama. Does the spoiler at the podium with one X want to risk buzzing in if not 100% sure? This would give the two contestants at the main podiums better chances at staying on board. True, a spoiler could still answer one question and win the game, but there could be more drama. Just some thoughts. Have at 'em.
-
I thought of another one. Time after time, I've seen a spoiler answer the one question/clue correctly, and walk down as the time's up
bell synth-cue plays, that being the only right answer they gave all game. How about forcing a spoiler to answer a follow-up question to get the podium, similar to an Extra, except no money risked.
Either that, or just make it so that it's three contestants from the start. They play a round similar to the show's first round, but on a time limit (either 10-15 words or say, 3:00). The two leading contestants take the center podia, the third player becomes the spoiler and works their way to the front.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'176661\' date=\'Jan 30 2008, 12:35 PM\']
"The Doctors" is the "Dr. Phil" spinoff show with a panel of various medical types offering their assistance and consultation with guests. CBS Distribution has it running shotgun with Quick Draw McGraw on a lot of the same stations, although in Chicago it will be on WCIU instead of WBBM due to lack of space.
That's the same reason WCIU airs "The Insider" instead of WBBM in Chicago.
/Do I need to say who the host and star of "The Insider" is?
//What a guy.
[/quote]
Pat rulz!! JK
I actually knew "The Doctors" was a "Dr. Phil" spinoff. Couldn't resist the jab though. :)
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'176401\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 06:25 AM\']
[quote name=\'rbc101\' post=\'176396\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 02:04 AM\']
Well, I'm delighted to report that WNBC, New York has renewed "Merv Griffin's Crosswords" and that we will be back for a second year. There is no question that performance has been modest, particularly in NY and LA where we air head-to-head against both Oprah and Judge Judy, but or national number continues to grow and we saw some strong performances in many mid-sized and smaller markets in thr November book. We've received some very constructive feedback from viewers, focus groups and stations and I believe year two will be better than ever. Thanks, Ritch Colbert, Program Partners
[/quote]
Congradulations on having your Second Season buried at 1:35am on 'most of this NBC stations'.
These local NBC O&O's getting saddled with this better pray that syndie Deal delivers quickly, otherwise both will end up buried in overnight quickly.
[/quote]
Bumping this up to announce that, yes, while WNBC is airing season 2 of this, there is no way they're going air this as their early news lead in.
In fact, they're not even waiting until Fall.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02122008/tv/el...rah_2_97194.htm (http://\"http://www.nypost.com/seven/02122008/tv/ellen_vs__oprah_2_97194.htm\")
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'176401\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 06:25 AM\']
[quote name=\'rbc101\' post=\'176396\' date=\'Jan 27 2008, 02:04 AM\']
Well, I'm delighted to report that WNBC, New York has renewed "Merv Griffin's Crosswords" and that we will be back for a second year. There is no question that performance has been modest, particularly in NY and LA where we air head-to-head against both Oprah and Judge Judy, but or national number continues to grow and we saw some strong performances in many mid-sized and smaller markets in thr November book. We've received some very constructive feedback from viewers, focus groups and stations and I believe year two will be better than ever. Thanks, Ritch Colbert, Program Partners
[/quote]
Congradulations on having your Second Season buried at 1:35am on 'most of this NBC stations'.
These local NBC O&O's getting saddled with this better pray that syndie Deal delivers quickly, otherwise both will end up buried in overnight quickly.
[/quote]
The series will air on WNBC at either 11:00AM or 3:00PM and not "buried" in late night.
-
[quote name=\'rbc101\' post=\'178112\' date=\'Feb 18 2008, 11:45 AM\']
The series will air on WNBC at either 11:00AM or 3:00PM and not "buried" in late night.
[/quote]
Ritch, I wish you and the staff of "Crosswords" the best of luck in your sophomore season. And I'm glad the show will be airing in Market #1 at a time that viewers can still find it. Special thanks to "In the Loop with IVilliage" for ensuring that the NBC O&O's now have an extra hour to plug with syndicated fare this fall.
I hope you are taking the constructive feedback from viewers like myself and addressing what is, unfortunately, a broken game format. 22 minutes of "...Here's Your Next Clue..." repeated endlessly from a, unfortunately, hollow host, is not good solid television. I think many here will agree, but I can't nor won't speak for them. That's just constructive feedback from a guy who not only loves, appreciates, and studies the game show genre, but has also spent many, many years working in television.
I am, by the way, available to discuss, and consult. I have more ideas that I'm happy to share to help improve the show. My resume has plenty of game show experience both in front of and behind the camera. It's nowhere near the same level as being an Executive Producer of a syndicated show, but it is more than what the casual viewer offers. Please feel free to email me if you'd like.
Continued success in Year 2.