The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: clemon79 on January 08, 2008, 09:44:37 PM
-
A half-hour, from the looks of it. That game could be played on index cards with no loss of strategy, or fun.
Did anyone here actually like it? I'd be interested in hearing why.
-
Absolutely awful. I miss "Friend or Foe", which was the same concept, with trivia. At least there you could learn something!
Watching 4 players press buttons for a half hour? Who the hell green-lit this?
And Corbin, while at least able to ad-lib better than most GSN hosts (see Lane, Dylan), he wasn't adding anything to this. Every time he turned to a player in the lead and said "well played", I asked myself, just what in the hell did they do to play this well?
Crap. Pure Crap.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'174236\' date=\'Jan 8 2008, 09:54 PM\']
Watching 4 players press buttons for a half hour? Who the hell green-lit this?
Crap. Pure Crap.
[/quote]
All of a sudden I don't feel so bad about forgetting to set the DVR.
-
I don't know why, but I feel truly let down by this show. I guess I went into it with lofty expectations, but, yeah; while I think the game is an interesting concept, it was truly painful for me to watch, with the exception of Corbin Bernsen, who I thought did a great job with interacting with the contestants.
IMO, the game is too slow (hell, they could easily do 10 "money clocks" at $1,000 each in that time!) and just isn't that exciting to watch. You watch people push buttons for a half-hour...wow...and I think Matt makes a great point: at least with FOF, there was a quiz game underneath...here, there's nothing...except button-pushing...
I like the psychology aspect of it, but I just didn't like watching it. That's why I eventually stopped after 20 minutes and listened to ACP on Shokus Radio (shameless plug: I'm one of the contestants this week...;) )
In summary:
Good: Corbin Bernsen, underlying psychology aspect, I don't ever have to see it again...
Bad: Everything else not under good...:)
I'd say chalk this one up to another game that looks great on paper but terrible on the air. But I do hope Bernsen gets another crack at a game show at some point; he looks like he'd be great.
Anthony
-
[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'174242\' date=\'Jan 8 2008, 08:26 PM\']
I'd say chalk this one up to another game that looks great on paper but terrible on the air.[/quote]
But that's the thing; it doesn't look good on paper, either. Here's the pitch:
"Players hit a button when a rising dollar amount hits a point they can live with. Whoever tries to win the most money in a round gets nothing."
Everything else was chrome.
If a mute can play your game, and nobody notices they're a mute: it's lousy television.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'174235\' date=\'Jan 8 2008, 06:44 PM\']
Did anyone here actually like it? I'd be interested in hearing why.
[/quote]
I'll say at least that I didn't hate it. Then again, it's not anything even remotely approaching appointment (or even TiVo) television.
For the modern GSN budget, it's reasonably generous. The set is somewhat brighter than the standard 21st-century dark, and the visual elements are reasonably well done. (Then again, I'm a sucker for all those numbers.) If Corbin makes the show more about the people (he tried with Mettal) and less about the game, it could even be slightly entertaining.
But low five-figure jackpots aren't going to change any lives, and the Great Moral Questions the show poses just don't work that well. I feel slightly unclean for even thinking this, but the show could indeed work better in a Mo' Money world. Multiply the values by 20 or 30, drop it on a strike-bound network in prime time, turn down the lights, and Mettal might start taking his swagger a little more seriously.
I'm not saying that I'd personally like such a show, but I suspect it could appeal to those who think picking numbered suitcases is too intellectually challenging.
-
My summary of the problem with the concept: In theory, it's exactly the same game every time.
I also thought, since exactly one player doesn't get his money in a given round (except the last one with four people), that the reveal should work this way:
Round one: Choose any two people. The one who locked in for less gets his money. Now compare the other person to one of the other two people. Same process, then do it with the last person.
Rounds 2-5: Start with the two people who have the least money and proceed as described above.
I agree, Corbin should get a chance to host a better show.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'174257\' date=\'Jan 8 2008, 11:06 PM\']
My summary of the problem with the concept: In theory, it's exactly the same game every time.[/quote]
Well, it's *slightly* different in a count-down round: if you can catch another player pushing their button, you know it's okay to push yours. But that's it. And it's still awful television.
-
[quote name=\'Kniwt\' post=\'174244\' date=\'Jan 8 2008, 11:47 PM\']
But low five-figure jackpots aren't going to change any lives, and the Great Moral Questions the show poses just don't work that well. I feel slightly unclean for even thinking this, but the show could indeed work better in a Mo' Money world. Multiply the values by 20 or 30, drop it on a strike-bound network in prime time, turn down the lights, and Mettal might start taking his swagger a little more seriously.
[/quote]
I thought of the exact same thing while watching this last night. I don't hate it either, but the game is so mind numbingly slow and has nothing going on that I think it's going to have the same fate as Camouflage or StarFace: 40 episodes aired to death for a few months then a gradual but swift downgrade to history. At least the show has a host with promise unlike many of the other GSN originals that have come and gone.
If it wasn't for the fact that I had nothing going on last night, I'd ask for a half-hour of my life back.
-
Sounds like "Duel" and "Set for Life" mated and had a kid.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'174268\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 08:26 AM\']
Sounds like "Duel" and "Set for Life" mated and had a kid.
[/quote]
"You're watching 'How Much is Enough' on GSN!"
In the final round, I'm surprised they went so high, as anything over $5000 is a pretty good haul for a GSN show :D
-
[quote name=\'Kniwt\' post=\'174244\' date=\'Jan 8 2008, 11:47 PM\'] but I suspect it could appeal to those who think picking numbered suitcases is too intellectually challenging.[/quote]That's not quite fair to say, IMO. Perhaps those who are sick of watching a three-ring circus would enjoy it. Deal or No Deal offers very, very little "intellectual" effect.
-
[quote name=\'lobster\' post=\'174271\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 10:15 AM\']
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'174268\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 08:26 AM\']
Sounds like "Duel" and "Set for Life" mated and had a kid.
[/quote]
In the final round, I'm surprised they went so high, as anything over $5000 is a pretty good haul for a GSN show :D
[/quote]
I have to agree with the last statement. HMIE (for short) is not intellectual, edge-of-your-seat
TV by any means, but it's a harmless half-hour of TV. Let's face it, if GSN had come up with
another word game with a $5,000 bonus round, everyone would be complaining about that.
The Good:
Corbin Bernsen - he's able to interract with contestants and can ad-lib without really trying. In
other words, it comes across naturally. He obviously has acting skills from L.A. Law, movies
and whatever else he's done, so he can be dramatic and create suspense. Since I believe this
is his first hosting job and there's not really much of a game here, that's pretty good.
To quote Bob Saget of 1 vs. 100 - "This game is simple." In this case, that's an understatement.
But there is a psychological aspect to the game, and some contestants may have personalities nice
enough for you to want to root for them.
The set is not dark and foreboding, like most post 2000 game shows and there's an AUDIENCE
and an ANNOUNCER. I imagine this isn't the most exciting show to sit through a taping of,
and maybe down the road, we'll find out the announcer's name. It's obviously not Don Pardo,
unless he's taking hormone pills - JUST KIDDING!!
Now the bad:
Take away the glitz and bling, and you've got four people on stage waiting to hit a button at
an appropriate time for them. Not too exciting. Basically, it's going to be up to Corbin to
carry the show, but from the one episode I saw, he's capable of doing that.
If the contestants come across as boring or obnoxious, it will probably make people go for
the remote and flip channels.
There's a possibility that contestants could get "in each other's face" which means we'll
get "verbal smackdows" like what happened occasionally on The Weakest Link. But
that show had a Q&A aspect to it, which HMIE doesn't. That would make me flip channels.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'174286\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 12:12 PM\']
[quote name=\'Kniwt\' post=\'174244\' date=\'Jan 8 2008, 11:47 PM\'] but I suspect it could appeal to those who think picking numbered suitcases is too intellectually challenging.[/quote]That's not quite fair to say, IMO. Perhaps those who are sick of watching a three-ring circus would enjoy it. Deal or No Deal offers very, very little "intellectual" effect.[/quote]
With Deal, at least you have a little bit of math in play. The odds are right there in front of you (and often literally superimposed on the bottom of the screen right there in front of you). How Much Is Enough is a simple, boring and redundant sociology experiment. Honestly, I could see somebody taking data from the results of all the Enough shows and analyzing them for a masters thesis in human behavior.
/I just wouldn't televise it.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'174290\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 12:24 PM\']
With Deal, at least you have a little bit of math in play. The odds are right there in front of you (and often literally superimposed on the bottom of the screen right there in front of you). How Much Is Enough is a simple, boring and redundant sociology experiment. Honestly, I could see somebody taking data from the results of all the Enough shows and analyzing them for a masters thesis in human behavior.
/I just wouldn't televise it.
[/quote]
We''ll have the results after this you're watching a masters thesis in human behavior on GSN!
Nope. Not exciting enough. Unless there are scantilly clad women. Will there be scantilly clad women?
-
This show is really painful to watch. This show asks you, "How much can you take?"
At least Temptation involved Q&A. :)
The Inquisitive One
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' post=\'174372\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 06:34 PM\']
This show is really painful to watch. This show asks you, "How much can you take?"
[/quote]
OK, I sat through the second edition tonight, and boredom is setting in. Corbin's "well played"s are getting more annoying, and the structure of the show is already way too predictable. That said, I do find the final one-on-one round at least mildly dramatic, so maybe I'll find something better to do for the first 27 minutes. I don't really need to hear these folks' sanitized-for-teevee life stories.
-
After a careful slow-motion replay analysis of tonight's show, I've noticed that GSN gave away $43 too much.
Derrick pressed his button (and the green lights went on his side) when the money clock read $8665. His name appeared on the back screen at $8708 and that's the amount they declared as the final total.
-
[quote name=\'Kniwt\' post=\'174375\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 10:06 PM\']
That said, I do find the final one-on-one round at least mildly dramatic, so maybe I'll find something better to do for the first 27 minutes. I don't really need to hear these folks' sanitized-for-teevee life stories.
[/quote]
Serious inquiry: How is the last segment dramatic? Watching two people hold hands over a button until one presses makes for dramatic television these days?
If they wanted to make the final round 'mildly dramatic', they'd do what they did all half hour long. Have the two players press a secret button, THEN reveal who was greedier. Greedier person on the big clock loses.
/The above comment merely fixes 30 seconds, or 1/60th of this half hour of dreck. Even with this change, the game is still crap.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'174380\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 07:49 PM\']Serious inquiry: How is the last segment dramatic? Watching two people hold hands over a button until one presses makes for dramatic television these days?
If they wanted to make the final round 'mildly dramatic', they'd do what they did all half hour long. Have the two players press a secret button, THEN reveal who was greedier. Greedier person on the big clock loses.
[/quote]
OK, perhaps I oversold it by calling it "dramatic." Maybe "mildly interesting"? For me, the out-in-the-open, look-the-opponent-in-the-eyeballs element makes it more interesting than pressing buttons in secret (which, obviously, wouldn't work in the earlier rounds), and the immediate resolution of the game seems slightly more satisfying than another long, drawn-out, conversation-laden reveal.
But yes, now we're splitting hairs on roughly 1/60 of the show -- and we're getting intellectual about a show that is anything but -- which is scarcely going to fix anything.
-
Corbin tried, but I was rooting for this one and there's just nothing there. Even on "Press Your Luck," there was play-along value, shouting at the screen. Here, there's nothin.'
Maybe if they could do games within a game, they could package this, "Friend or Foe" and Art James' "Temptation." Call it "Mind Games" or something.
Also, on premiere night, did it strike anyone else that it's really stupid to twitch and feign that you're hitting your button on any round where the clock goes up? All that would do is encourage opponents to hit their buttons and cut you out.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'174412\' date=\'Jan 10 2008, 08:29 AM\']
Also, on premiere night, did it strike anyone else that it's really stupid to twitch and feign that you're hitting your button on any round where the clock goes up? All that would do is encourage opponents to hit their buttons and cut you out.
[/quote]
Yes, yes I did.
-
There could be a whole lot more to this game with the addition of trivia questions. Have four people play, locking in multiple choice guesses against a money clock...wrong answers cost money off the clock. Then play mind games with how well each person did. A show built around that basic premise could be very good.
-
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' post=\'174443\' date=\'Jan 10 2008, 04:47 PM\']
Have four people play, locking in multiple choice guesses against a money clock...wrong answers cost money off the clock. Then play mind games with how well each person did. A show built around that basic premise could be very good.[/quote]
It is. Ant and Dec hosted something in the UK that's almost exactly the show you describe, and it's wonderful.
-
[quote name=\'Kniwt\' post=\'174375\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 09:06 PM\']
Corbin's "well played"s are getting more annoying
[/quote]
He isn't saying it to the players, he's saying it to himself for getting paid to host this thing.
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'174412\' date=\'Jan 10 2008, 10:29 AM\']
Call it "Mindless Games" or something.
[/quote]
There, fixed that for you.
-
I described the format to my friend; he thought I was making a joke.
And really, this show is a joke. I'm actually beginning to miss Friend or Foe; at least THAT had questions.
-
[quote name=\'Allstar87\' post=\'174519\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 09:49 AM\']
And really, this show is a joke. I'm actually beginning to miss Friend or Foe; at least THAT had questions.
[/quote]
The only problem with FOF was the fact that your winning money is completely out of your hands no matter how you played. Well, and that you did not have the chance to bond with (or bs) your partner. If they gave you the chance to interact with your partner at all (with the exception of the quick 10 second sell you get to do at the trust box) and perhaps build a "friendship", then the trust box becomes a little more meaningful, as opposed to having to come to terms with "do i really care if i screw over a complete stranger?" .. but the fact that during camera downtimes they made you face away from your partner, and you could not engage in off-camera conversation made it like "what's the test, here, really?"
-
[quote name=\'lobster\' post=\'174525\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 08:39 AM\']
The only problem with FOF was the fact that your winning money is completely out of your hands no matter how you played.[/quote]
No, it really wasn't.
"what's the test, here, really?"
"Can I get through a half-hour of this crap without plunging a butter knife into my temple?"
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'174536\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 12:57 PM\']
"what's the test, here, really?"
"Can I get through a half-hour of this crap without plunging a butter knife into my temple?"
[/quote]
That's not a test. Matt Ottinger can do that with ....ah screw it.
-
[quote name=\'Thunder\' post=\'174377\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 10:22 PM\']
After a careful slow-motion replay analysis of tonight's show, I've noticed that GSN gave away $43 too much.
[/quote]
So how long is $43?
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'174451\' date=\'Jan 10 2008, 05:56 PM\']
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' post=\'174443\' date=\'Jan 10 2008, 04:47 PM\']
Have four people play, locking in multiple choice guesses against a money clock...wrong answers cost money off the clock. Then play mind games with how well each person did. A show built around that basic premise could be very good.[/quote]
It is. Ant and Dec hosted something in the UK that's almost exactly the show you describe, and it's wonderful.
[/quote]
Hell, that's NTN (or whatever the restaurant trivia thing is called nowadays. I have their book.)
I was thinking more along the lines of instead of getting money, the players buzz for control of a question at their clocked-in value, and the greediest getting locked out. Repeat for a bit, perhaps an increased-value Round 2, and throw in a buzzer battle endgame and you have a show.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'174536\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 11:57 AM\']
[quote name=\'lobster\' post=\'174525\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 08:39 AM\']
The only problem with FOF was the fact that your winning money is completely out of your hands no matter how you played.[/quote]
No, it really wasn't.
[/quote]
Sure it was. Case in point, I had already decided on the plane on the way out that I was going to go Foe no matter the partner, so in my case it was unfortunately pre-determined for my eventual partner that they were going to lose before the game even began. Nothing she could have done -- therefore, out of her hands entirely.
Not allowing us to interact was the flaw, because she didn't even have the chance to try to sway me.
"what's the test, here, really?"
"Can I get through a half-hour of this crap without plunging a butter knife into my temple?"
it was a horrible show
but a railroad spike is a better visual for me
-
I for one have been trying to figure out a way to put a little more thinking into the end game - something along the lines of having the players' buttons be hidden, as in the main game, and if neither player presses their button before the clock reaches its limit, both players leave with the amounts they won in the main game, and if only one person presses, one or the other player wins that amount. However, it always seems to come down to either (a) there's no incentive to press, in which case nobody does, and they each get money, or (b) there's no incentive not to press, in which case it's the same as what they do now.
-- Don
-
[quote name=\'lobster\' post=\'174550\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 12:02 PM\']
Sure it was.[/quote]
My point was that it wasn't the only problem, not that the problem you cited wasn't valid.
Case in point, I had already decided on the plane on the way out that I was going to go Foe no matter the partner
Which is the correct strategic decision, Always. There was NO reason to EVER go Friend. "Win half or win nothing" versus "Win all or win nothing" is a no-brainer. The only way you win anything is if your partner is an idiot.
(Which makes the guy who swore up a storm after making the incorrect decision even funnier.)
Not allowing us to interact was the flaw, because she didn't even have the chance to try to sway me.
Yeah, a social experiment where the participants aren't allowed to socialize just isn't gonna turn out well. Thankfully, most of the people they cast were morons.
-
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'174555\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 12:28 PM\']
I for one have been trying to figure out a way to put a little more thinking into the end game - something along the lines of having the players' buttons be hidden, as in the main game, and if neither player presses their button before the clock reaches its limit, both players leave with the amounts they won in the main game, and if only one person presses, one or the other player wins that amount. However, it always seems to come down to either (a) there's no incentive to press, in which case nobody does, and they each get money, or (b) there's no incentive not to press, in which case it's the same as what they do now.
[/quote]
Bingo. Under your system, there is never a reason to let the clock reach the end, because the correct decision is to hit the button at some point after your score going in has been reached, but before your opponents is reached, because that is when they will be incented to do the same. Makes it *exactly* the same game.
This concept has been floated on this forum and in ATGS over the years, with different window dressing, and every single time the exact flaws that we're now seeing in practice have been brought up. (And usually the OP dismissed them with "well, I think it's a good idea anyhow.")
-
I may be in the minority here, but I really liked the concept of it.
-
If anyone is at all surprised, please click the "X" in the upper right hand of your screen right now.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'174603\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 05:21 PM\']If anyone is at all surprised, please click the "X" in the upper right hand of your screen right now.[/quote]Honestly, I thought he was going to say "It sucks because they don't give away nearly enough money for doing nothing more than pushing a button." But you beat me to it.
/Was one of the people massaging the "button pusher wins the money" idea myself, but realized that the idea utterly falls apart in the final act.
//Next year: Push the Buzzer, Win a Dollar on your local MyNet stations.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'174605\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 09:08 PM\']
//Next year: Push the Buzzer, Win a Dollar Lotsa Love on your local MyNet stations.
[/quote]
Fremantled that for you.
-
Does anyone know the contestants names on the very first episode of the show?
-
[quote name=\'WildJoker76\' post=\'178669\' date=\'Feb 23 2008, 10:08 PM\']
Does anyone know the contestants names on the very first episode of the show?
[/quote]
Yes, I imagine the contestants probably do.
-
And people say Mindreaders stank.
-
If I were Corbin, and I had to do 40 (or whatever) episodes of this show, I'd shoot myself in the foot halfway through.
-
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' post=\'179257\' date=\'Feb 28 2008, 08:58 AM\']
If I were Corbin, and I had to do 40 (or whatever) episodes of this show, I'd shoot myself in the foot halfway through.
[/quote]
If I were Corbin, I'd be counting my money after every episode taping and asking myself the eponymous question...
-
Interesting note on Wednesday's episode:
During the final round before the Final Face-Off, when they revealed where each player had stopped at, usually they would reveal the two lowest amounts before the two biggest amounts were shown. On at least this episode, however, they did the random reveals as in Rounds 2-4. What do you think about this change?
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'179287\' date=\'Feb 28 2008, 02:49 PM\']What do you think about this change?[/quote]
The show still sucks.
-
[quote name=\'JRaygor\' post=\'179293\' date=\'Feb 28 2008, 01:23 PM\']
The show still sucks.[/quote]
No more calls, please.
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'179287\' date=\'Feb 28 2008, 03:49 PM\']
Interesting note on Wednesday's episode:
[/quote]
Do you watch everything that GSN airs? Or every game show in general on any given day? I'd be impressed if anyone could sit through more than one episode of this one.
-
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' post=\'179298\' date=\'Feb 28 2008, 01:52 PM\']
Do you watch everything that GSN airs?[/quote]
Bouncing up and down in his chair the entire time. Bank on it.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'179302\' date=\'Feb 28 2008, 04:16 PM\']
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' post=\'179298\' date=\'Feb 28 2008, 01:52 PM\']
Do you watch everything that GSN airs?[/quote]
Bouncing up and down in his chair the entire time. Bank on it.
[/quote]
Sans pants, likely.
-
[quote name=\'Sodboy13\' post=\'179311\' date=\'Feb 28 2008, 06:24 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'179302\' date=\'Feb 28 2008, 04:16 PM\']
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' post=\'179298\' date=\'Feb 28 2008, 01:52 PM\']
Do you watch everything that GSN airs?[/quote]
Bouncing up and down in his chair the entire time. Bank on it.[/quote]
Sans pants, likely.[/quote]
Now where's that Brain Bleach?
-
A slightly more interesting question...
...I was flipping networks one day, and I saw How Much Is Enough? was on, but something interesting caught my eye. They were about to start the final main-game round, but one of the contestants had already been mathematically eliminated...she was over $5,000 behind second place.
I thought it would be interesting to see what would happen, or how Corbin would play it out...but it was barely even mentioned, and only after the contestants were locked in (when it was too late to affect the game). I really think there was a lot of potential there, to see how badly she could screw it up for the others if she wanted (since HWIM should really fall apart in theory if one of the contestants has absolutely nothing to play for).
Oh...I guess there wasn't a question there. Oh well, what do you expect for a thread about this show? Me to care?
-
There is a question, and it's almost interesting. I say almost, because it doesn't matter how badly you want to screw it up; what matters is how they think you're going to try to screw it up, and that's the point of the game regardless.
-
[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'179343\' date=\'Feb 28 2008, 08:08 PM\']
(since HWIM should really fall apart in theory if one of the contestants has absolutely nothing to play for).[/quote]How? The 5K clock counts up, right? She could do one of two things: either buzz right away, which does nothing, or make it clear that she's NOT buzzing, ever, the clock counts up to $5,000 because nobody else wants to be first, they all get the money (or, more likely, get nothing, which all of a sudden makes buzzing in BEFORE that point interesting again, and the "game" is back on), and the endgame is the same two leaders going into the round.
I'm just not sure how much they can break, when the game is utter crappe to start with.
-
This is my first time watching...contestants are Dianne/Betsy/Vernell/David.
I've seen about two minutes and Betsy and Dianne have both found a way to annoy me.
Betsy: "We came to play, Corbin!"
Dianne: "I'm losing...but I got some TV time!"
There's a game in there somewhere, but I have yet to find it. Pass.
-
There's a game in there somewhere, but I have yet to find it.
There's a game all right, for the contestants in the studio. As for the home audience, fuggedaboudit.
-
Here's the latest. As of March 11, HMiE is no longer on GSN's nightly schedule. It's been regulated to weekends, along with That's the Question and Camouflage. Lingo aired in HMiE's time spot, but I think that's only a temp situation. I think www.buzzerblog.com announced that Russian Roulette was going to air in that time slot - the old shows, NOT new ones. Looks like GSN has had enough of HMiE.
-
[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'181244\' date=\'Mar 13 2008, 01:27 PM\']
Looks like GSN has had enough of HMiE.
[/quote]
Which means they lasted a solid two months longer than I did.
-
According to buzzerblog, Russian Roulette returns in the 10 pm EST slot effective April 1st. I'm assuming this is NOT an April Fools joke.
-
[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'181247\' date=\'Mar 13 2008, 04:32 PM\']
According to buzzerblog, Russian Roulette returns in the 10 pm EST slot effective April 1st. I'm assuming this is NOT an April Fools joke.
[/quote]
I thought the internet lore was that Sony was unwilling let Sony run the show because Sony was asking for a price that Sony could not afford to pay to Sony. So I assume Sony will be able to meet Sony's asking price?
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'181251\' date=\'Mar 13 2008, 02:01 PM\']I thought the internet lore was that Sony was unwilling let Sony run the show because Sony was asking for a price that Sony could not afford to pay to Sony. So I assume Sony will be able to meet Sony's asking price?[/quote]Normally your eye-rollers at least make a bit of sense; but I'm legitimately lost here. The idea that a company owning the rights to run a product not being able to because they can't pay themselves enough is too bizarre to contemplate. :)
-
GSN operates independently from Sony Pictures Television, and it has since at least the first part of the decade (not sure about before) when Liberty Media bought 50% of the network from Sony. Ergo, because they're now no longer under the same umbrella, anything they want from Sony they have to lease out in exactly the same fashion as any other network.
-
And this hardly unusual. At one point, my company (the ones behind allmusic.com) was owned by a music distributor. Yet we still paid them to get the CDs we used to collect the data.
Another subtle distinction -- I think after the deal went down -- you noticed the amount of free publicity anything Sony sort of disappeared and GSN was no longer plugged at the end of Wheel and Jeopardy.
--Mike
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'181298\' date=\'Mar 14 2008, 05:42 AM\']
Another subtle distinction -- I think after the deal went down -- you noticed the amount of free publicity anything Sony sort of disappeared and GSN was no longer plugged at the end of Wheel and Jeopardy.
[/quote]
Hadn't thought about that, but it did occur to me that if the Sony/GSN ties were tighter, there'd be Sony flatscreens on the "GSN Live" set.
-
Normally your eye-rollers at least make a bit of sense; but I'm legitimately lost here. The idea that a company owning the rights to run a product not being able to because they can't pay themselves enough is too bizarre to contemplate. :)
He was trying to convey a sense of irony in his post, Travis, but didn't take into account Liberty Media's involvement.
How did a piece of work like this get off the drawing board in the first place? All you have to do is listen to a description of the format and the first question that comes to mind is, "How does the audience get involved?".
-
I saw one episode of this. Six playings of Double Prices on a Price is Right episode would dwarf this garbage. People pushing buttons. Big yip. That's one reason why I detested "Jumble", "Shuffle" & "Boggle" on The Family Channel back in the early 90s. Those shows, the players just pressed buttons. No interaction with the host. It was just people pressing buttons basically. But even that had SOME play along factor, although not much.
Some days, more days now than ever before, and maybe this will sound like the typical middle-aged man syndrome speaking here, it seems true that less is more, at least where TV is concerned. So many channels, it has truly watered down any quality content, and shows like Price is Right that do have quality, get eroded away by more and more commercial time every season it would seem.
In that regard, I long for the old days. It seemed you really had to have a sensational or original idea to get put on the air. Now with 9 zillion channels of dreck to choose from, this is what we end up with. Just terrible. How much is enough? About 30 seconds of the program, that's how much is enough.
Regards,
Bill
-
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'183768\' date=\'Apr 10 2008, 06:16 PM\']
In that regard, I long for the old days. It seemed you really had to have a sensational or original idea to get put on the air. Now with 9 zillion channels of dreck to choose from, this is what we end up with. Just terrible.
[/quote]You make it sound as if everything that aired "back in the day" was pure gold. That just (http://\"http://www.curtalliaume.com/neighbor.html\") isn't (http://\"http://www.curtalliaume.com/spinoff.html\") true (http://\"http://www.curtalliaume.com/blankety.html\").
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'183808\' date=\'Apr 11 2008, 12:08 PM\']
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'183768\' date=\'Apr 10 2008, 06:16 PM\']
In that regard, I long for the old days. It seemed you really had to have a sensational or original idea to get put on the air. Now with 9 zillion channels of dreck to choose from, this is what we end up with. Just terrible.
[/quote]You make it sound as if everything that aired "back in the day" was pure gold. That just (http://\"http://www.curtalliaume.com/neighbor.html\") isn't (http://\"http://www.curtalliaume.com/spinoff.html\") true (http://\"http://www.curtalliaume.com/blankety.html\").
[/quote]
Hey, don't be hatin' on Blankety Blanks! It had the spiffy magic spinning card hickey!
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'183809\' date=\'Apr 11 2008, 09:11 AM\']
Hey, don't be hatin' on Blankety Blanks! It had the spiffy magic spinning card hickey!
[/quote]
And I really liked Spinoff.
Mark needs to learn that opinions can be subjective.
-
Back in the day, if someone brought a concept that stank up the place like How Much Is Enough? to a network development executive, the executive would politely hear the pitch and then escort that person to the egress with a sincere "Give us a call if you have any more ideas". The executive would then drive over to the offices of Bob Stewart or Goodson-Todman or Heatter-Quigley to look at an office run-thru they had worked up in house. Meanwhile, the executive's calendar was filled with appointments with the likes of Jay Wolpert or Larry Hovis who were fairly lined up around the block with ideas to bring in.
The executive would then ponder to himself, "Why don't we bring back Concentration?".
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'183816\' date=\'Apr 11 2008, 01:37 PM\']
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'183809\' date=\'Apr 11 2008, 09:11 AM\']
Hey, don't be hatin' on Blankety Blanks! It had the spiffy magic spinning card hickey!
[/quote]
And I really liked Spinoff.
[/quote]
But apparently we can all agree that The Neighbors really was bad.
/no argument here
-
[quote name=\'davidhammett\' post=\'183840\' date=\'Apr 11 2008, 04:34 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'183816\' date=\'Apr 11 2008, 01:37 PM\']
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'183809\' date=\'Apr 11 2008, 09:11 AM\']
Hey, don't be hatin' on Blankety Blanks! It had the spiffy magic spinning card hickey!
[/quote]
And I really liked Spinoff.
[/quote]
But apparently we can all agree that The Neighbors really was bad.
/no argument here
[/quote]
No way, man. Anything the Reeginator hosts is t3h AWESUMEZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!11!1ONE
/Has never seen The Neighbors.
-
You've never seen "The Neighbors"? Reege was good. I enjoyed the first week or so, it was kinda fun. After a while, you realized you couldn't play along, and it became the same thing day after day. Great set, though. Much better set than HMIE.
-
You've never seen "The Neighbors"? Reege was good. I enjoyed the first week or so, it was kinda fun. After a while, you realized you couldn't play along, and it became the same thing day after day. Great set, though. Much better set than HMIE.
I didn't mind it (just about ANY game show to my young eyes looked good back then) but I liked the show that replaced it on the ABC schedule a lot better....to bad THAT didn't last a bit longer.