The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: nicole444 on September 05, 2011, 08:18:09 PM
-
Probably a dumb question, but has anyone seen previews or a taping of this season's Family Feud? If so, are they going back to the Party Theme, or the theme they used at the beginning of John O'Hurley's era? I hope not. I saw an ad on I guess the new station Feud will be aired on here, and it used that theme during the commercial. I still hope they continue to use the classic theme. But if anyone knows that can post the answer, it would be appreciated. I know, I know, it will be on next week, but wanted to know before.
-
This clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DQv2GxFHt4#t=2m20s) seems to suggest we're sticking with the '88 theme. (During a survey they had about possible changes coming, like moving to three rounds, I suggested the '94 theme or a modern remake of the song. But it looks like they want to stick with as much familiarity as possible.)
-
This clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DQv2GxFHt4#t=2m20s) seems to suggest we're sticking with the '88 theme. (During a survey they had about possible changes coming, like moving to three rounds, I suggested the '94 theme or a modern remake of the song. But it looks like they want to stick with as much familiarity as possible.)
Oh good. I hated the party theme. I like the 88 theme, but if it were changed that's fine, just as long as it's similar to the 77, 88, 94 theme. Like I said, I hated the 99-06 themes as they just didn't seem like the Feud to me. Thanks for answering my question.
-
My first thought on a three question game is that I'm piggish for as much content as I can get, and there's already too much stretching and nonsense and straightening of ties and overreacting to answers. But then I watched a couple of episodes over vacation and the questions were either lame, dumb or offensive, and so I suppose having only three lousy questions instead of four or five would be an improvement.
Would it be so hard to have the game be three singles a double and a triple? Or does the production company want to minimize the risk of the game ending earlier or later than the fourth question down to zero?
-
Anyone who's been to the tapings, have they really changed the number of questions? Anything new or different?
Hopefully they don't go to three questions (they might as well bring back Bullseye, then). I can understand it, in that they'd want to allow for more banter and wacky antics...which are appreciated by me. But the game should be the biggest star of the show.
-
My first thought on a three question game is that I'm piggish for as much content as I can get, and there's already too much stretching and nonsense and straightening of ties and overreacting to answers. But then I watched a couple of episodes over vacation and the questions were either lame, dumb or offensive, and so I suppose having only three lousy questions instead of four or five would be an improvement.
Would it be so hard to have the game be three singles a double and a triple? Or does the production company want to minimize the risk of the game ending earlier or later than the fourth question down to zero?
Feud, for the most part, has had lousy questions since they started back up in 99. Not all the time, but it always seems like they're trying to ask a basic question "with pizazz". Instead of asking for what a clown wears, they have to ask for something a clown takes off before he has sex...totally unnecessary, but hey, I guess that's what they feel they have to do to keep the game fresh.
As far as the number of rounds, I thought they had already gotten it down to where the game always ends after 4, barring Sudden Death. My big gripe with the game is that it can never end after 3, even when a deserving family clears just about everything available up to that point.I would love to see a s-s-d-d-t to keep a family from sitting like a log until the Triple Round, but consider this: Steve is gonna tell his jokes and do whatever else. Feud hit highs this year in syndication, and all of their YouTube clips get a good number of hits; they're going to let Steve do exactly what he wants to keep him happy and keep those ratings up.
-
My first thought on a three question game is that I'm piggish for as much content as I can get, and there's already too much stretching and nonsense and straightening of ties and overreacting to answers. But then I watched a couple of episodes over vacation and the questions were either lame, dumb or offensive, and so I suppose having only three lousy questions instead of four or five would be an improvement.
Would it be so hard to have the game be three singles a double and a triple? Or does the production company want to minimize the risk of the game ending earlier or later than the fourth question down to zero?
Feud, for the most part, has had lousy questions since they started back up in 99. Not all the time, but it always seems like they're trying to ask a basic question "with pizazz". Instead of asking for what a clown wears, they have to ask for something a clown takes off before he has sex...totally unnecessary, but hey, I guess that's what they feel they have to do to keep the game fresh.
As far as the number of rounds, I thought they had already gotten it down to where the game always ends after 4, barring Sudden Death. My big gripe with the game is that it can never end after 3, even when a deserving family clears just about everything available up to that point.I would love to see a s-s-d-d-t to keep a family from sitting like a log until the Triple Round, but consider this: Steve is gonna tell his jokes and do whatever else. Feud hit highs this year in syndication, and all of their YouTube clips get a good number of hits; they're going to let Steve do exactly what he wants to keep him happy and keep those ratings up.
Seems to be Fremantle Strategy as of late...hire a comedian to host, then try to make the show into a comedy show as much as possible to adjust to his style. Sometimes it works better than other times.
Five rounds is never going to happen again, not with not only wanting to preserve Steve's schtick, but also ad time which crippled the show format all along in that regard.
BTW, from some comments here, it seems that GSF is the bizarro version of Buzzerblog as far as enthusiasm for Harvey FF goes. Am I right? (In that BB is super happy about the show now, while GSF is not so much)
And I still want to know, is the rule change in place for the new season, or was this just hypothetical?
-
BTW, from some comments here, it seems that GSF is the bizarro version of Buzzerblog as far as enthusiasm for Harvey FF goes. Am I right? (In that BB is super happy about the show now, while GSF is not so much)
I don't know, but if they were to ask sane questions and actually play several rounds I'd watch more closely. Steve's a great comedian and you play to the strengths of your host, but there's still a game to be played there.
Come to think of it, I think the solution to a game that ends in three questions is an easy one: a family that does that gets to play Fast Money twice.
-
a family that does that gets to play Fast Money twice.
Likes the cut of your jib. (http://"http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/41671_1437415034_7622_n.jpg")
-
And here I expected Chris Lemon's link to be to this person (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KIuTqGufh7E/TcgdM5Q7gMI/AAAAAAAABQs/xug2rZSVKNs/s320/090411lesko.jpg).
-
Or does the production company want to minimize the risk of the game ending earlier or later than the fourth question down to zero?
They already do. The third question is never worth more than (300-leading family's score) points.
-
Or does the production company want to minimize the risk of the game ending earlier or later than the fourth question down to zero?
They already do. The third question is never worth more than (300-leading family's score) points.
But if the format is SSDTT, if one family sweeps the first three questions, they should be well over 300, yes?
-
Or does the production company want to minimize the risk of the game ending earlier or later than the fourth question down to zero?
They already do. The third question is never worth more than (300-leading family's score) points.
But if the format is SSDTT, if one family sweeps the first three questions, they should be well over 300, yes?
Should be? Yes. Possible they wouldn't be? Definitely.
-
But if the format is SSDTT, if one family sweeps the first three questions, they should be well over 300, yes?
He's saying that if one family scoops 200 points in the first two, that question three will have at most 98 points on the board.
-
But if the format is SSDTT, if one family sweeps the first three questions, they should be well over 300, yes?
He's saying that if one family scoops 200 points in the first two, that question three will have at most 98 points on the board.
Right, but are the dollar values not doubled for the third question?
-
But if the format is SSDTT, if one family sweeps the first three questions, they should be well over 300, yes?
He's saying that if one family scoops 200 points in the first two, that question three will have at most 98 points on the board.
Right, but are the dollar values not doubled for the third question?
That would make a max of 49 points on the board for that question. Highly unlikely, I'd say.
-
They are, so there would be answers totaling 49 respondents. Or less.
-
They are, so there would be answers totaling 49 respondents. Or less.
Right, so the production company, short of doing something completely insane like that, can't reduce the odds of the game ending earlier or later than question four to zero. Which was my point.
-
What they're saying, without getting to the nut of it, is that they have been doing that going back to Richard Karn. If one family wins the first two rounds, then suddenly round 3 has a number one answer of 14 points, with the remaining answers clocking in around that. If the first two rounds are split, the third round question is "normal."
-Jason
-
They are, so there would be answers totaling 49 respondents. Or less.
Right, so the production company, short of doing something completely insane like that, can't reduce the odds of the game ending earlier or later than question four to zero. Which was my point.
I can clearly recall them asking one Double question this year that only had 44 respondents on the board. There's a reason that the Double questions are usually way more open-ended than the rest (going back to the Karn years), and I suspect this is it.
-
I can clearly recall them asking one Double question this year that only had 44 respondents on the board.
I'm not doubting you, but the utter stupidity of that just amazes me. I posit that when your Number One answer is "Other", you've got a problem with that question.
-
Another update on 'How to Edit Your Shows Within an Inch of Their Lives:"
According to Golden-Road user Axl, who attended a taping last week, the rules of the game actually forbid a team from reaching Sudden Death with zero points, to the point that a Triple question had to be thrown out since the trailing family didn't put enough points on the board for the leading family to win outright on a steal.
Of course, it probably would have been thrown out anyway because they don't like airing questions worth so few points, but Heaven forbid that the show be forced to use two Sudden Death questions.
-
According to Golden-Road user Axl, who attended a taping last week, the rules of the game actually forbid a team from reaching Sudden Death with zero points, to the point that a Triple question had to be thrown out since the trailing family didn't put enough points on the board for the leading family to win outright on a steal.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit.
-
But if the format is SSDTT, if one family sweeps the first three questions, they should be well over 300, yes?
He's saying that if one family scoops 200 points in the first two, that question three will have at most 98 points on the board.
Right, but are the dollar values not doubled for the third question?
That would make a max of 49 points on the board for that question. Highly unlikely, I'd say.
From what I've seen, a sweep of the first two rounds usually would put the leading team somewhere between 140 and 180, meaning that the third question could still be worth a lot, but in the end nowadays, never a win.
I would love to see the double Fast Money, but how long is that Triple round segment? I'd imagine it's not as long as the actual Fast Money segment, but then again, Steve wouldn't have to explain the rules or do that dopey cutaway twice. The second one, I imagine, would jump right into the proceedings as Dawson's version did after the first couple of years.
/Still wonder why they explain the rules before EVERY Fast Money
According to Golden-Road user Axl, who attended a taping last week, the rules of the game actually forbid a team from reaching Sudden Death with zero points, to the point that a Triple question had to be thrown out since the trailing family didn't put enough points on the board for the leading family to win outright on a steal.
Seeing things like this happen just irk me....it's like the format is built on an industrial line- either it's constructed exactly like the rest, or it gets pulled. It's like when they re-added the podium scoreboards after O Hurley took over. Someone in the back doesn't want to adapt to a small change, so the show has to fit into the mold of what's been done and what's "safe".
-
It is as if having a game is getting in the way of their producing a game show.
-
It is as if having a game is getting in the way of their producing a game show.
It's not just a game, it's a show! Sorry, wrong Fremantle production.
Seriously, I was just over at G-R and they explain it a little better. Unless they came up with a SD question that the survey was unanimous in answering, the 0-scoring team would have no chance. I see what you're talking about, on the other hand...them not wanting to do a double sudden death (which kind of negates the meaning of the words "sudden death" anyway) because of the "usual" format.
-
Seriously, I was just over at G-R and they explain it a little better. Unless they came up with a SD question that the survey was unanimous in answering, the 0-scoring team would have no chance.
Umm....the 0 scoring team won't get to sudden death the way the show's points are structured.
-
I was wondering where I could get the episode numbers for this season.
-
Mark Goodson must be spinning in his grave.
While it's not technically rigging the game, the stuff they do to force every game to be 4 rounds and no more than 1 sudden death question is incredibly disingenuous. And it's not that hard to fix: Just change the double round back to a third single round. (Or better yet, do like they did in the Dawson and Combs eras and just play the damn game, and have them hurry up/do some editing if it goes to a 5th or 6th round.)
-
While it's not technically rigging the game, the stuff they do to force every game to be 4 rounds and no more than 1 sudden death question is incredibly disingenuous. And it's not that hard to fix: Just change the double round back to a third single round. (Or better yet, do like they did in the Dawson and Combs eras and just play the damn game, and have them hurry up/do some editing if it goes to a 5th or 6th round.)
//"But OMG, she said 'Penis!', and then Steve was like falling on the floor laughing, so we can't cut that - that's funny! (http://alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/large/misc-are-you-fucking-kidding-me-l.png) See Steve reacting to funny answers is funny, so we'll make all the questions have funny answers and ensure that we have plenty of time for Steve to do the OMG face and then mock the contestant for saying the answer, and then it will be up on the board and he'll act all shocked. It's just soooooo funny everytime, and we're getting like 11 billionty YouTube hits!"
-
I've come to terms that this is now "The Steve Harvey Show" where they happen to play Family Feud. Steve's the draw, not the game.
-
While it's not technically rigging the game, the stuff they do to force every game to be 4 rounds and no more than 1 sudden death question is incredibly disingenuous.
I'm no expert on the law, but some of the things people are claiming seem more than merely disingenuous. If I'm understanding it right, you guys are saying that the show may decide to change material in the middle of the game based on the performance of the teams up to that point in order to make it harder for the team in the lead to win. Using that "technically" word again, you're "technically" not showing favoritism if there's a rule that's applied consistently regardless of which team is in the lead. I would be very curious as to whether this plan is spelled out to the contestants in advance ("we make sure you'll play at least four rounds no matter what"), because it strikes me as manipulative in the extreme.
-
While it's not technically rigging the game, the stuff they do to force every game to be 4 rounds and no more than 1 sudden death question is incredibly disingenuous.
I'm no expert on the law, but some of the things people are claiming seem more than merely disingenuous. If I'm understanding it right, you guys are saying that the show may decide to change material in the middle of the game based on the performance of the teams up to that point in order to make it harder for the team in the lead to win. Using that "technically" word again, you're "technically" not showing favoritism if there's a rule that's applied consistently regardless of which team is in the lead. I would be very curious as to whether this plan is spelled out to the contestants in advance ("we make sure you'll play at least four rounds no matter what"), because it strikes me as manipulative in the extreme.
This is the problem I've always had with Feud : the scoring. A well-executed game should favor teams who overall do better. Feud weights its scores/surveys at the end. Always did.
Would Feud work better with a point system for winning the round? 1/2/3/5 - most points at end wins the game?
-
Would Feud work better with a point system for winning the round? 1/2/3/5 - most points at end wins the game?
You'd still have the same problems. Some questions take longer to play out than others, so there's the timing issue. And if the game is a runaway by the third question, the last one or two would be pointless unless you start doubling or tripling.
-
Would Feud work better with a point system for winning the round? 1/2/3/5 - most points at end wins the game?
That's something I've always thought of, but was too afraid to propose to the board. Get rid of the bank entirely, and have the rounds worth a set number of points. A scoring system that it set up to end at Round 4 has always been problematic (for example, Super Password, Body Language, and Go).
In a perfect world, I'd just have a best three-out-of-five system, and just rush/edit like hell if there's a need for a 5th round (maybe limit all surveys to the top 4 or 5 answers?), or stretch out Fast Money if it ends in a 3 round clean sweep.
-
This is the problem I've always had with Feud : the scoring. A well-executed game should favor teams who overall do better. Feud weights its scores/surveys at the end. Always did.
To be clear, sure, I've known this as well. But the idea that they might change the material in the middle of the game to make sure we go to four rounds is something I hadn't heard before.
Would Feud work better with a point system for winning the round? 1/2/3/5 - most points at end wins the game?
Except that the fourth round is pointless and anticlimactic if one team sweeps the first three. I kinda like the way Go did it. They had their own scoring problem in which the third of four rounds was often meaningless, but what I liked was that if a sweep happened, they'd use the extra time to play two bonus games.
Realistically, the only way Feud works better as a fair and balanced game is if it's not played to fit in a half-hour format. The 200 people who care about that are all in this forum.
-
A scoring system that it set up to end at Round 4 has always been problematic (for example, Super Password, Body Language, and Go).
Except Super Password and Go could end after three rounds. Body Language is the only one that properly fits your statement. The $100 puzzles were basically warmups, and the game basically went in to a 2 out of 3 from there on. Then again, that scoring format was the only way for the show not to end in a complete meltdown.
Realistically, the only way Feud works better as a fair and balanced game is if it's not played to fit in a half-hour format.
Funny enough you should say that. I remember that the first five or so episodes had a new challenging family introduced in the final segment, and I vaguely remember Richard saying something about not having enough time to start a new game. Knowing that, I'm guessing the show originally planned to straddle to account for Richard's jokes, but since the episodes timed out just about where they wanted to anyways, they became contained.
-
Except Super Password and Go could end after three rounds.
Super Password was a practice puzzle that could never make a difference in determining the winner, then best-of-three.
-
If I'm understanding it right, you guys are saying that the show may decide to change material in the middle of the game based on the performance of the teams up to that point in order to make it harder for the team in the lead to win.
Not just harder -- impossible, or very nearly so.
Let's say a team sweeps Rounds 1-2 for 175 points (88/87). The resulting Double question, if swept, will award 124 points at most. Essentially, the more a family wins in the first two rounds, the less Q3 will be worth if swept, and it will never add up to 300.*
On the other hand, if the first two rounds are not swept (or each family sweeps a round), the resulting Double question will be worth enough points that the game would have been won if the first two rounds had also been swept by a single family.
Basically, Q3 is never enough to win if 1-2 are swept by a family but always enough for a coulda-won otherwise...and I've seen this scenario happen way too many times for it to be accidental. The fact that they've even thrown out a Triple question because they didn't feel like programming a sixth question (i.e., double Sudden Death) just in case is incredibly lazy.
(* Yes, I'm aware that they've occasionally screwed up and allowed the game to be won in three rounds -- indeed, I have an O'Hurley episode where that happens. The problem with that is the last commercial break is during Fast Money, not before or after where it would actually make sense and...you know...not deflate the mood.)
-
(* Yes, I'm aware that they've occasionally screwed up and allowed the game to be won in three rounds -- indeed, I have an O'Hurley episode where that happens. The problem with that is the last commercial break is during Fast Money, not before or after where it would actually make sense and...you know...not deflate the mood.)
How does a mid-game break deflate the mood?
-
Speaking only for myself: It's awkward to call it Fast Money if it's spread out over six minutes because of the commercial.
I agree that if they're dead set against letting a game end in three questions, they should go 1-1-1-2-3 like they did at various times in the Dawson era. But my favorite format was 1-1-2-2-3, because of all the ways a game could play out, even with all normal-sized banks.
-
The $100 puzzles were basically warmups, and the game basically went in to a 2 out of 3 from there on.
Not the case on Go. At all.
-
The $100 puzzles were basically warmups, and the game basically went in to a 2 out of 3 from there on.
Not the case on Go. At all.
Was referring to Body Language as far as that scoring.
-
Was referring to Body Language as far as that scoring.
Yes, perhaps I should actually *read* your post next time. :) My humble apologies.
-
(* Yes, I'm aware that they've occasionally screwed up and allowed the game to be won in three rounds -- indeed, I have an O'Hurley episode where that happens. The problem with that is the last commercial break is during Fast Money, not before or after where it would actually make sense and...you know...not deflate the mood.)
If it's the WWE episode that I'm thinking of, the men had only about 105 points after the second question and needed to sweep the 196-point Double round to win it. The producers probably didn't think that was likely enough to have to switch the question. (I can't remember the question, but I recall it wasn't all that easy of a question to sweep.)
-
Realistically, the only way Feud works better as a fair and balanced game is if it's not played to fit in a half-hour format. The 200 people who care about that are all in this forum.
And I would overlook the format flaw if I enjoyed the hosting, or the questions and so on. Richard and Ray were funny enough that I didn't care about the fact that every question but the last was essentially practice. And if the game hinged on the last one, Ray was so good at building up the suspense that I forgot about that back-heaviness. But now we have "If cannibals were about to eat a tourist, what would they throw away?" and obnoxious capering so I stop caring, and that leaves more time to contemplate how a production company could be so OCD that a game has to end in four or five questions, and if they have to edit and rerack the game, even if if disadvantages good game players, so be it.
Some guy uploaded his appearance on The Crosswits, and he handily won the first two rounds. There is no doubt that he's going to win the game and play the Crossfire round, but Jack still hosts the game and builds it up because our intrepid hero is on the cusp of winning the $1,000 bonus. For that round, I forgot that he had the game in the bag and got caught up in the play of the puzzle. Great game shows can do that.
-
Adding a few thoughts late: IIRC, one of the very first Karn play-to-300 episodes had a team winning after the Double round, and they were so long on time that they did an amazingly slow full credit crawl *and* aired a two-minute blooper reel of sorts (funny answers, buzzers not working) at the end. I wouldn't be surprised if that led to the practice of switching Double questions around.
I'd say that 95% of the Karn and O'Hurley episodes I've seen with teams that won the first two rounds had points in the third round that gave a sub-300 total, and the other 5% gave a total just barely above 300.
And another problem with 55-point questions is what's needed to get that survey result: usually either a maddeningly vague question, or one that had 20 decent responses but they only listed the top six. (The latter tended to be questions that might as well have been "Name a celebrity.")
-
Adding a few thoughts late: IIRC, one of the very first Karn play-to-300 episodes had a team winning after the Double round, and they were so long on time that they did an amazingly slow full credit crawl *and* aired a two-minute blooper reel of sorts (funny answers, buzzers not working) at the end. I wouldn't be surprised if that led to the practice of switching Double questions around.
I believe they also added a commercial break in between the two Fast Money rounds, to eat a little time...
-
I believe they also added a commercial break in between the two Fast Money rounds, to eat a little time...
Wasn't that the break that would have come between the Triple round and Fast Money anyway?
-
I believe they also added a commercial break in between the two Fast Money rounds, to eat a little time...
Wasn't that the break that would have come between the Triple round and Fast Money anyway?
Thinking about it now, that seems to make sense, considering there was already a break between the Double/Triple round, whether the family reached 300 early or not.
-
Yeah, that was already a scheduled break. They might've killed 20 seconds or so with the outro and intro, but that's about it.
For all its flaws, I thing Bill Engvall's Lingo shows that a sufficiently talented host can give you a good bit of editing room on a self-contained show. From appearances, I'm guessing that Bill did a fair amount of chatting with the contestants in every episode, which could all be left in if the contestants were guessing words quickly, and edited out when there was more struggling.
-
And another problem with 55-point questions is what's needed to get that survey result: usually either a maddeningly vague question, or one that had 20 decent responses but they only listed the top six. (The latter tended to be questions that might as well have been "Name a celebrity.")
They had one last week that looked like a case of the latter--the question was proabably designed to have more than four answers on the board, but numbers 5-X may have been cut off to keep the leading family (who already had 181) from being able to win.
The question was "Name something that could be described as Hot-Hot-HOT", and I think the scores on the four answers were something like 19-17-14-9. Plenty of room for more answers on the tail end (seriously, none of the other 41 people surveyed matched anyone else's answer?), and had the leading family swept this one, they would have had exactly 299 points.
-
But then I watched a couple of episodes over vacation and the questions were either lame, dumb or offensive
I watched the show on Monday and was surprised at some of the questions they're using now. First was "name something that might make you throw up". Next, "name something you'd put in your mouth but now swallow". Sure enough, one of the contestants said "sperm". I'm no prude, but is this what we've come to to get a laugh on a "family friendly" show? You'd never have questions like this in the old days.
-
I'm no prude, but is this what we've come to to get a laugh on a "family friendly" show? You'd never have questions like this in the old days.
Count yourself lucky if it was referred to only once.
-
But then I watched a couple of episodes over vacation and the questions were either lame, dumb or offensive
I watched the show on Monday and was surprised at some of the questions they're using now. First was "name something that might make you throw up". Next, "name something you'd put in your mouth but now swallow". Sure enough, one of the contestants said "sperm". I'm no prude, but is this what we've come to to get a laugh on a "family friendly" show? You'd never have questions like this in the old days.
One of the Roker Celebrity Feud questions was "Name another phrase for 'throw up' ". I'm a 7th grader at heart, but I gotta admit I cring'd hearing the players come up with their favorite way of saying "ralph", "spew", or "hurl".
-
Next, "name something you'd put in your mouth but now swallow". Sure enough, one of the contestants said "sperm".
Well? Was it there? (http://"http://www.iconsoffright.com/interview/Brian/MALLRATS-12.jpg")
-
Next, "name something you'd put in your mouth but now swallow".
I found this exact question on a UK Family Fortunes promo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0hPicAtwTWk#t=22s from 4 years ago! I wonder if it's the same answers.
-
But then I watched a couple of episodes over vacation and the questions were either lame, dumb or offensive
I watched the show on Monday and was surprised at some of the questions they're using now. First was "name something that might make you throw up". Next, "name something you'd put in your mouth but now swallow". Sure enough, one of the contestants said "sperm". I'm no prude, but is this what we've come to to get a laugh on a "family friendly" show? You'd never have questions like this in the old days.
That did it for me. The entire series now seems rigged with offensive questions to ensure a funny reaction from Steve. One of the things I always appreciated about 'Feud' was how it was TV-G in this day and age. Thats not the case anymore.
-
But then I watched a couple of episodes over vacation and the questions were either lame, dumb or offensive
I watched the show on Monday and was surprised at some of the questions they're using now. First was "name something that might make you throw up". Next, "name something you'd put in your mouth but now swallow". Sure enough, one of the contestants said "sperm". I'm no prude, but is this what we've come to to get a laugh on a "family friendly" show? You'd never have questions like this in the old days.
That did it for me. The entire series now seems rigged with offensive questions to ensure a funny reaction from Steve. One of the things I always appreciated about 'Feud' was how it was TV-G in this day and age. Thats not the case anymore.
I'm tending to agree on that statement. I started working 2nd shift when the new season of Feud premiered last month, so I have already seen more episodes this season than in the past 3-4 seasons combined. And it's almost a sure bet that the opening question will have at least one answer containing "Sex" "Penis" or some bodily function (fart, poop, etc...) on the board. I have to say that it's growing old fast. It's almost as if Feud is starting to get the Match Game '98 treatment for their selection of Q & A's. Hell, if Nell Carter were still around, they'd probably plant her in the audience to constantly say, "That's a Very Good Answer" to all the responses. :)
-
Hell, if Nell Carter were still around, they'd probably plant her in the audience to constantly say, "That's a Very Good Answer" to all the responses. :)
The Halloween shows are coming up, so they still might.
\Too soon?
-
I watched the show on Monday and was surprised at some of the questions they're using now. First was "name something that might make you throw up". Next, "name something you'd put in your mouth but now swallow". Sure enough, one of the contestants said "sperm". I'm no prude, but is this what we've come to to get a laugh on a "family friendly" show?
I was on YouTube last night, and noticed that the 'Trends' videos on the right side of the home page were two vids about Dan Wheldon's death and one from Family Feud on this very question. Like it or not, it appears that this stuff's getting the reaction they want.
-
Like it or not, it appears that this stuff's getting the reaction they want.
I think that depends on where you fall on the "no publicity is bad publicity" spectrum.