The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: daveromanjr on December 08, 2003, 03:28:34 PM
-
From TVGameshows.net
Bob Boden, the original programming chief of Game Show Network when GSN launched in December 1994 and senior vice president of programming since August 2001, is leaving the network.
GSN is expected to issue a release on Boden's departure later today. Boden was not available for comment. However, some insiders say he is expected to form his own production company.
Kevin Belinkoff, an assistant to Boden and a former senior producer of Family Feud, is expected to be named interim chief of GSN programming.
Boden rejoined the network more than two years ago from his post as senior vice president for production and development of Dick Clark Productions. He created Greed and developed Challenge of the Child Geniuses for Fox.
Since returning to GSN, Boden has overseen the most ambitious slate of original programming in the nine years of the network's history. The company's biggest hit has been Lingo, which is in its third cycle of first-run episodes. Under Boden's watch, GSN's first documentary, Big Bucks: the Press Your Luck Scandal garnered the highest ratings of any program ever on the network.
At GSN's outset in 1994, Boden developed the "Prime Games" and "Club A.M." concepts, which featured on-camera hosts and playbreaks between classic Goodson-Todman and Barry and Enright games.
Boden's recent interview with Bob Barker, who turns 80 this week, is appearing in excerpts during a morning marathon Barker birthday celebration through Friday.
And discuss
-
Bummer. Bob did some good work for GSN, but I suspect he'll be happier creating his own shows.
-
When I recieved the email from Steve last night (I'm not lying, he actually sent me an email saying that someone was stepping down) I was hoping that it wasn't going to be him, but I knew...
What else has Belinkoff done? His name does ring a bell....
-
I wonder if Boden is the one who's been using Mr. Prof. Beverly as his PR machine, and if maybe now GSN will improve their PR and communications, instead of leaking it out?
-
I don't know what shocks me more--Boden's departure or Kevin "MrGameShw" Belinkoff taking his place [albeit interim]
...be afraid.....
-
This ought to be good :)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 8 2003, 05:47 PM\'] This ought to be good :) [/quote]
The big announcement was that GSN aquired Louie's Feud, Card Sharks 01, and Match Game 98. ;-)
-
Kevin Belinkoff, an assistant to Boden and a former senior producer of Family Feud, is expected to be named interim chief of GSN programming
Oh....my.....God......
Run for the hills! Hopefully, this will just be temporary.
-
[quote name=\'TV Favorites\' date=\'Dec 8 2003, 07:04 PM\'] Oh....my.....God......
Run for the hills! Hopefully, this will just be temporary. [/quote]
Hey, here's an idea, how about we let the man do his job, and see what happens? At least we know he has an appreciation for the classics.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 8 2003, 09:06 PM\'] [quote name=\'TV Favorites\' date=\'Dec 8 2003, 07:04 PM\'] Oh....my.....God......
Run for the hills! Hopefully, this will just be temporary. [/quote]
Hey, here's an idea, how about we let the man do his job, and see what happens? At least we know he has an appreciation for the classics. [/quote]
I've seen the kind of job he does. Hopefully he has improved over time, though.
-
[quote name=\'TV Favorites\' date=\'Dec 8 2003, 07:11 PM\'] I've seen the kind of job he does. Hopefully he has improved over time, though. [/quote]
Yeah, besides, it would give you Chicken Littles nothing to bitch about, wouldn't it?
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Dec 8 2003, 04:54 PM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 8 2003, 05:47 PM\'] This ought to be good :) [/quote]
The big announcement was that GSN aquired Louie's Feud, Card Sharks 01, and Match Game 98. ;-) [/quote]
There is a bright side to this. I wouldn't mind seeing Shopping Spree again (Belinkoff was a producer for Jay Wolpert Enterprises then). And hopefully, Boden will take Greed with him.
-
Hey, you gotta fight PAX for those Louie Feud eps, better get $20 out of the ATM :D
-
I think I'm going to be sick... not because Belinkoff is taking over. Just for the simple fact that a brilliant man like Bob Boden is leaving GSN.
All I can do at this point is wish Mr. Boden the best of luck in his future. Hopefully Mr. Belinkoff will prove to be a worthy successor...
-
How much was Boden responsible for the current schedule? Did he just oversee the originals, or did he have a hand in programming the "classics" as well?
Maybe now they might add a few more to the schedule (specifically those voted on the Feast of Favorites)?
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Dec 9 2003, 08:55 AM\'] How much was Boden responsible for the current schedule? Did he just oversee the originals, or did he have a hand in programming the "classics" as well?
Maybe now they might add a few more to the schedule (specifically those voted on the Feast of Favorites)? [/quote]
Well, we do know that the day after Boden was announced as the new programming head that GSN announced the acquiring of PYL (as well as Who Dares Wins and the $1.98 Beauty Show), and a couple of months later, Greed. He was also instrumental in reviving PYL as Whammy!, and helped bring us classic Hollywood Squares and Win, Lose or Draw!.
I believe Belinkoff and Cronin had more to do with the later originals, such as Cram and Funny Money, as well as the video game block, WWTBGOC, Greek Games, and Fake-a-Date. Interesting that these outside of the box shows are announced just before Boden announces his resignation, no?
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Dec 8 2003, 04:54 PM\']
The big announcement was that GSN aquired Louie's Feud, Card Sharks 01, and Match Game 98. ;-) [/quote]
Oh, dear gosh...the 2001 Card Sharks and Match Game 98?! Those 2 all-breast meat turkeys are being brought back from the dead?!
Goodson and Todman are sure to dervishly whirl in their mauoleum now. Or, in this case, dervishly hurl.
-
[quote name=\'cac8383\' date=\'Dec 9 2003, 12:22 AM\'] [quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Dec 8 2003, 04:54 PM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 8 2003, 05:47 PM\'] This ought to be good :) [/quote]
The big announcement was that GSN aquired Louie's Feud, Card Sharks 01, and Match Game 98. ;-) [/quote]
I hope you're joking about CS01, and MG98. Louie's FF I can live with. [/quote]
He was joking, hence his emoticon.
-
PMF was kidding when he posted that, but since I've never seen CS01, it would be new to me. My hope is Bob can come up with some great concepts that Kevin can buy (who else is buying game shows these days?)
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Dec 9 2003, 10:14 AM\'] but since I've never seen CS01, it would be new to me. [/quote]
No big loss there. THe only thing that looks anything close to the Perry/Eubanks runs is the MOney Cards.
-
My hope is Bob can come up with some great concepts that Kevin can buy (who else is buying game shows these days?)
Who else is buying game shows? Certainly not GSN.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Dec 9 2003, 08:23 AM\'] No big loss there. THe only thing that looks anything close to the Perry/Eubanks runs is the MOney Cards. [/quote]
And even that was a pale imitation of the originals.
I watched CS2K1 once. One time. That was enough for me.
-
Here's my take on the whole thing--I've been holding back on this for some time, and Bob's departure is the perfect time to point this out.
I've been reading in the trades that Sony is having some success overseas with a channel called AXN, which is built around the action films and TV series in their library. Something tells me that as soon as some of the series that would fit the channel end their current U.S. programming contracts, Sony would like to kill GSN and relaunch the channel as AXN. Of course, Liberty would have to go along with them (and Liberty owns a premium channel called Action as part of the Encore/STARZ! multiplex), but Sony would probably have a compelling argument that an all-action channel would pull bigger ratings numbers (and even more importantly, bigger young male demos) and have more advertiser acceptance than a mostly-game show channel. And they'd come out of the gate with 53 million subscribers.
It's also been obvious that the last several months at GSN have not been too happy, as Sony seems to have resumed the meddling that plagued the channel during the Fleming/Tauber regime (and yes, I blame most of what went on that time to Sony suit micromanaging, not Fleming and Tauber directly). If it is true what a Variety article I saw said in that Rich Cronin's bosses are simply not interested in any new studio game shows, there isn't much of a reason for a studio game show specialist like Bob Boden to hang around.
So enjoy GSN while you can--something tells me that by around this time next year, Belinkoff and Cronin will be shown the door and instead of "Lingo" and "Match Game" on GSN, we'll be seeing "Charlie's Angels," "Starsky and Hutch" and "V.I.P." on AXN. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid that's the probable future for GSN.
-
GSN="Guy Show Network" in future?
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Dec 9 2003, 05:36 PM\'] GSN="Guy Show Network" in future? [/quote]
I'm sure many of us remember that old DiGiorno promo with Wink playing host of "The Guy Game." Maybe GSN will pick it up as a series? ;-)
-
I think that GSN will be no more soon. Man! First my youth minister, now Bob Boden! GSN will be no more! James Vipond has an idea for another GSN. Yours truly has one too, plus I have seen an old post off of ATGS, for a second GSN called The Games Network. But, It would be nice if Bob Boden could launch his own Production Company. I hope to get into TV Production soon.
-
I've been reading in the trades that Sony is having some success overseas with a channel called AXN, which is built around the action films and TV series in their library. Something tells me that as soon as some of the series that would fit the channel end their current U.S. programming contracts, Sony would like to kill GSN and relaunch the channel as AXN.
That's a very interesting theory. I just wonder about the logistics of it all - for example, GSN probably has certain contracts with certain shows. They likely don't all end at the same time.
For example, they've just spent a lot of money acquiring rights to "Who Wants to be a Millionaire". I just can't imagine the company spending all that money for a certain-year contract, and then all of a sudden changing formats before the contract is up. Or, would the company just eat the remaining contracts to do the switch?
If this sort of thing does happen, I guess we can all stop wondering what GSN is going to do for their 10th anniversary, and wonder how they're going to sign off.
I've got a great idea: one episode from every series they've ever ran, ending with a "Thank you for watching" graphic!!
-
I think if they do change formats, it'll be almost half non-gameshow and half gameshow at the least. They're goal, as stated before, is 25% "traditional" gameshows in prime time. They didn't say anything about the rest of the day. I imagine if stuff changes, it'll be prime time only.
Or if they do abandon the game show network idea completely, do you think somebody else would pick it up?
-
[quote name=\'daveromanjr\' date=\'Dec 10 2003, 09:09 AM\'] I think if they do change formats, it'll be almost half non-gameshow and half gameshow at the least. They're goal, as stated before, is 25% "traditional" gameshows in prime time. They didn't say anything about the rest of the day. I imagine if stuff changes, it'll be prime time only.
Or if they do abandon the game show network idea completely, do you think somebody else would pick it up? [/quote]
In the eventual 1000 channel universe, there may in a few years be an all-classic game show channel, just as VH1 Classic is all classic music videos.
-
That brings up a question for me:
I know there are many specialty channels out there like VH-1 Classic and Nick GAS that don't show any commercials yet still remain on the air.
If the TV business is all about advertising, then how are these channels still in existence? I've noticed a lot of channels that have used this format and I still struggle to see how they can make anyone any money.
If they can, then I will definitely keep my eyes open for another GSN; I really don't think they should go the direction that many people here have hypothesized, but I'm not apocalyptic in my beliefs; people love game shows (I notice this because, whenever I'm eating in my school's cafeteria, I'll usually put on WOF or FF if nobody's watching, and then, all of a sudden, eyes begin to look up from homework to the TV!), and, as long as this is true, a channel like GSN should be in existence (there's that logical deducing math major in me!).
Anthony
-
[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' date=\'Dec 10 2003, 12:48 PM\'] That brings up a question for me:
I know there are many specialty channels out there like VH-1 Classic and Nick GAS that don't show any commercials yet still remain on the air.
If the TV business is all about advertising, then how are these channels still in existence? I've noticed a lot of channels that have used this format and I still struggle to see how they can make anyone any money.
[/quote]
Because Viacom owns VH-1 and Nickelodeon, which *do* have advertising and *do* make tons of money, Viacom can use those channels as leverage to get cable companies to carry channels like VH-1 Classic and Nick GAS. The existence of the latter two can also be justified as promotional vehicles for, and brand extensions of, the first two. Sony doesn't own lots of different channels (at least here in the USA), and I haven't seen Liberty use its other properties to promote GSN or vice versa -- so it has to justify its own existence, and that means making money through advertising. (Where would Liberty promote GSN, anyway? On Starz/Encore? Doubtful.)
And I wouldn't necessarily count on VH-1 Classic and Nick GAS remaining commercial-free... remember TV Land, also from our friends at Viacom? It was commercial-free at its inception (save for the "Retromercials"), but it isn't now.
- David
-
remember TV Land, also from our friends at Viacom? It was commercial-free at its inception (save for the "Retromercials"), but it isn't now.
There's a channel that's hit the pits--at least at my house. That station showed
some gems for many years (Mannix, Have Gun Will Travel, Cannon, Judd For The Defense, Julia, Room 222, That Girl, etc.) and now it's pretty much TBS-style shows. Shame!!!!!!!!!!
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Dec 10 2003, 01:48 PM\']
There's a channel that's hit the pits--at least at my house. That station showed
some gems for many years (Mannix, Have Gun Will Travel, Cannon, Judd For The Defense, Julia, Room 222, That Girl, etc.) and now it's pretty much TBS-style shows. Shame!!!!!!!!!! [/quote]
The odds of them showing Cullen $25K Pyramid, Bobby Van Make me Laugh, or any other Viacom/Paramount-owned shows are what, about -100 to 1.
-
Well, Zach, if GSN cuts back on game shows, TV Land might consider using their holdings as change-of-pace niche programming. After all, TV Land shows more sitcoms than, say, Comedy Central.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Dec 10 2003, 07:43 PM\'] Well, Zach, if GSN cuts back on game shows, TV Land might consider using their holdings as change-of-pace niche programming. After all, TV Land shows more sitcoms than, say, Comedy Central. [/quote]
Sounds nice, but I doubt it. Nick at Nite and TV Land are pulling towards more recent shows(i.e. those 10-20 years old) it seems to me.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Dec 10 2003, 09:05 PM\'] [quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Dec 10 2003, 07:43 PM\'] Well, Zach, if GSN cuts back on game shows, TV Land might consider using their holdings as change-of-pace niche programming. After all, TV Land shows more sitcoms than, say, Comedy Central. [/quote]
Sounds nice, but I doubt it. Nick at Nite and TV Land are pulling towards more recent shows(i.e. those 10-20 years old) it seems to me. [/quote]
Make Me Laugh was last seen on USA in 1987, so in that sense it would fit in that bracket. But still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a show more representative of the late 70's era than MML, so....
-
I'd be hard pressed to think of a show more representative of the late 70's era than MML
Mindreaders.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Dec 10 2003, 07:43 PM\']Well, Zach, if GSN cuts back on game shows, TV Land might consider using their holdings as change-of-pace niche programming. After all, TV Land shows more sitcoms than, say, Comedy Central.[/quote]
Basically, COM's research, as I understand it, has shown that their audience just doesn't care for most run-of-the-mill sitcoms. Even if they chose to go for them, they wouldn't watch it, although they might watch a "SportsNight" or an original like "Strangers With Candy" or "Reno 911!"
And of course, there is support for animated sitcoms like "South Park" from COM audiences.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 12:02 AM\']
I'd be hard pressed to think of a show more representative of the late 70's era than MML
Mindreaders. [/quote]
True, for many of the same reasons with MML. Disco theme, disco-y set.....[not that there's anything wrong with that, just saying]
-
Working for Jay Wolpert for god knows how many years and the crappy Anderson Feud is supposed to give us confidence in this guy????
ARE YOU NUTS!!!!!!!!!
-
[quote name=\'Rhudson765\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 08:50 PM\'] Working for Jay Wolpert for god knows how many years and the crappy Anderson Feud is supposed to give us confidence in this guy????
ARE YOU NUTS!!!!!!!!! [/quote]
*sigh*
Ya know, sometimes, I WANT to say something....but in this case there just isn't a point.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 11:11 PM\'] [quote name=\'Rhudson765\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 08:50 PM\'] Working for Jay Wolpert for god knows how many years and the crappy Anderson Feud is supposed to give us confidence in this guy????
[/quote]
I agree with Chris L. in that we should see how he handles Boden's job before we judge him on it(positive or negative). We have had issues with Mrgameshow Belinkoff in the past, here is a job he can shine in IF he wants to.
-
I wonder if all the game shows we currently see will disappear.
-
[quote name=\'tomarkenfan77\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 11:08 PM\'] I wonder if all the game shows we currently see will disappear. [/quote]
They might. And you know what will happen?
THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENED BEFORE WE HAD GSN.
We survived.
-
[quote name=\'Rhudson765\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 10:50 PM\'] Working for Jay Wolpert for god knows how many years and the crappy Anderson Feud is supposed to give us confidence in this guy????
ARE YOU NUTS!!!!!!!!! [/quote]
This is coming from the same person that says I can't make an informed opinion about Bullseye without seeing a civilian episode.
When you get hired by a major TV production company or network, let me know.
-
This is coming from the same person that says I can't make an informed opinion about Bullseye without seeing a civilian episode.
No one can draw a complete conclusion about a show without seeing an episode, and the civilian episodes were better than the celeb eps by a longshot.
But considering you've changed your name to "antibullseye," isn't that a little TOO harsh?
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 04:51 PM\']
This is coming from the same person that says I can't make an informed opinion about Bullseye without seeing a civilian episode.
No one can draw a complete conclusion about a show without seeing an episode, and the civilian episodes were better than the celeb eps by a longshot.
But considering you've changed your name to "antibullseye," isn't that a little TOO harsh? [/quote]
I think Don's point is, and I back him up on this, that he is free to come to any conclusion he damn well pleases, whether someone else likes it or not. Now, whether you choose to AGREE with that conclusion, or REJECT it, that is your option.
-
Edited to remove my comments about Bullseye because they aren't really relevant, and quite frankly I can't figure out who's bitching at whom, about what. Never mind.
Don, did you really change your name to antibullseye? Just between us, it might be time to adjust the medication.
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 06:51 PM\'] No one can draw a complete conclusion about a show without seeing an episode, and the civilian episodes were better than the celeb eps by a longshot.
But considering you've changed your name to "antibullseye," isn't that a little TOO harsh? [/quote]
Yeah, I can... the show's boring. I saw how it was played with celebs, and I didn't like it. Sharper contestants may hold my interest for longer. But that show's just not that interesting to me, and I don't know why.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Dec 10 2003, 01:36 PM\']
Because Viacom owns VH-1 and Nickelodeon, which *do* have advertising and *do* make tons of money, Viacom can use those channels as leverage to get cable companies to carry channels like VH-1 Classic and Nick GAS. The existence of the latter two can also be justified as promotional vehicles for, and brand extensions of, the first two. Sony doesn't own lots of different channels (at least here in the USA), and I haven't seen Liberty use its other properties to promote GSN or vice versa -- so it has to justify its own existence, and that means making money through advertising. (Where would Liberty promote GSN, anyway? On Starz/Encore? Doubtful.)
And I wouldn't necessarily count on VH-1 Classic and Nick GAS remaining commercial-free... remember TV Land, also from our friends at Viacom? It was commercial-free at its inception (save for the "Retromercials"), but it isn't now.
[/quote]
The one channel that I am very surprised that it has remained commercial-free since it's onset is Boomerang -- the classic cartoon channel.
And especially now with Time-Warner spinning off some of their properties (AOL and Warner Music), I'm curious to see what happens with that channel....
...But if the addition of 'real' commercials reduces the amount of times I see the same freakin' spots with the marching cartoon figurines to that grandioso fanfare music, that would even make the network a lot more bearable to watch -- not to mention the shows might just start at :00 and :30 on a more predictable schedule.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 06:53 PM\'] [quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 04:51 PM\']
This is coming from the same person that says I can't make an informed opinion about Bullseye without seeing a civilian episode.
No one can draw a complete conclusion about a show without seeing an episode, and the civilian episodes were better than the celeb eps by a longshot.
But considering you've changed your name to "antibullseye," isn't that a little TOO harsh? [/quote]
I think Don's point is, and I back him up on this, that he is free to come to any conclusion he damn well pleases, whether someone else likes it or not. Now, whether you choose to AGREE with that conclusion, or REJECT it, that is your option. [/quote]
I think Don's point is, and I back him up on this, that he is free to come to any conclusion he damn well pleases, whether someone else likes it or not. Now, whether you choose to AGREE with that conclusion, or REJECT it, that is your option.
Yes, but GOD FORBID that someone should post an opinion or conclusion
that YOU disagree with, huh?
Not very tolerant or "nonjudgermental" for a liberal, are you?
-
[quote name=\'Rhudson765\' date=\'Dec 19 2003, 01:19 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 06:53 PM\']
I think Don's point is, and I back him up on this, that he is free to come to any conclusion he damn well pleases, whether someone else likes it or not. Now, whether you choose to AGREE with that conclusion, or REJECT it, that is your option. [/quote]
Yes, but GOD FORBID that someone should post an opinion or conclusion that YOU disagree with, huh?
Not very tolerant or "nonjudgermental" for a liberal, are you?[/quote]
I'm not sure Chris has ever claimed to be nonjudgmental. In fact I think he takes great pride in being quite the opposite. :-) But he does respect the right of others to hold different views, whereas you were claiming that any conclusion regarding Bullseye based on anything but a "civilian" episode wasn't valid. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it less than valid.
-
[quote name=\'Rhudson765\' date=\'Dec 19 2003, 01:19 PM\']
Yes, but GOD FORBID that someone should post an opinion or conclusion
that YOU disagree with, huh?
Not very tolerant or "nonjudgermental" for a liberal, are you? [/quote]
Take this garbage back to the GSN boards where it belongs, Richard.
Just because I don't agree with your "vision" that Bullseye is a great show doesn't mean you get to trash me on every message board on the internet that discusses gameshows.
I also never said that you couldn't disagree with me. When I said I don't like Bullseye, you went out and slammed me for not watching a civilian episode. I don't have to watch a damn civilian episode if I don't want to. The format is simplistic, and I don't like Barry/Enright, period. I am well entitled to that--but obviously--you are too close minded.
Politics aren't needed either.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Dec 19 2003, 02:02 PM\'] [quote name=\'Rhudson765\' date=\'Dec 19 2003, 01:19 PM\']
Yes, but GOD FORBID that someone should post an opinion or conclusion
that YOU disagree with, huh?
Not very tolerant or "nonjudgermental" for a liberal, are you? [/quote]
Take this garbage back to the GSN boards where it belongs, Richard.
Just because I don't agree with your "vision" that Bullseye is a great show doesn't mean you get to trash me on every message board on the internet that discusses gameshows.
I also never said that you couldn't disagree with me. When I said I don't like Bullseye, you went out and slammed me for not watching a civilian episode. I don't have to watch a damn civilian episode if I don't want to. The format is simplistic, and I don't like Barry/Enright, period. I am well entitled to that--but obviously--you are too close minded to see beyond the lightning round.
I'll thank Mr. Lemon publicly for backing me up on this. I can come to any conclusion I want; without someone elses input. You DON'T have to agree with it. But I *can* have that opinion, and my opinion has already been stated.
You also don't need to bring politics on here. [/quote]
Just because I don't agree with your "vision" that Bullseye is a great show doesn't mean you get to trash me on every message board on the internet that discusses gameshows.
Hey, I was'nt the one making all of the snotty remarks on other posters.
Take this garbage back to the GSN boards where it belongs, Richard.
BTW, despite the your high opinion of yourself and low opinion on anyone who likes shws that you don't like, you have no right to tell me where I can post.
In addition I never "flamed" or "slammed" you for not liking Bullseye. I merelly said that your opinion was uninformed because of a lack of data.
If you want to see a flamer, look in the mirror and then at your buddies.
Finally, if you think I "followed" you to this board to "slam" you for not liking Bullseye, you are narcissistic and egotistical to an extreme never though possible.
-
[quote name=\'Rhudson765\' date=\'Dec 19 2003, 12:26 PM\'] Finally, if you think I "followed" you to this board to "slam" you for not liking Bullseye,
[/quote]
....which he never said, at least not in this thread.
you are narcissistic and egotistical to an extreme never though possible.
WRONG! I can top it! :)
-
Just because I don't agree with your "vision" that Bullseye is a great show doesn't mean you get to trash me on every message board on the internet that discusses gameshows.
I hardly think he's "trashing" you just because you dislike Bullseye. I think he's doing it because of your hyperaggressive [is that a word?] attitude at the GSN boards. If you came along and politely said "I don't like Bullseye because I found it boring," I'd bet none of this would have happened. Instead, we got remarks like "Dullseye," "B-E's are for third graders," and the infamous "antibullseye" incident, which obviously grated people's nerves.
Just saying......
-
[quote name=\'Rhudson765\' date=\'Dec 19 2003, 11:19 AM\'] Yes, but GOD FORBID that someone should post an opinion or conclusion
that YOU disagree with, huh?
[/quote]
(Ignoring the idiotic political crack, and focussing on the subject at large)
Ya know, while I'm thinking about it....
I challenge you, Richard, to find an instance where I have OUTRIGHT DENIED someone the right to an opinion, since that is what you have accused me of. Go ahead. I'll wait.
I suspect I'll be here a while.
This, of course, is your usual M.O.. You put forth a silly argument, someone tells you so and/or outright refutes you, and you start whining about free speech.
Well, free speech works both ways. You have the right to be stupid. I have the right to tell you you're being stupid, and I even offer the courtesy of explaining why, should you choose to learn something from the experience in an effort not to be stupid next time. Unfortunately, you choose not to learn.
So, whenever yer ready. I'm waiting.
-
[quote name=\'Rhudson765\' date=\'Dec 19 2003, 02:26 PM\'] If you want to see a flamer, look in the mirror and then at your buddies.
[/quote]
I'm saying one thing, and I'm going back to my hole...can we keep the homophobic comments out of the discussion, that is, assuming this is supposed to be an "intelligent" discussion
BTW, I'm not gay, not that there's anything wrong with it.
-
Oh my, 2004 will be the year that my life ends.
First, Casey Kasem is ousted as host of American Top 40, now I read that Game Show Network will be no more.
If GSN goes, I won't watch ANYTHING on the new channel out of spite.
-
[quote name=\'bellbm\' date=\'Dec 20 2003, 02:30 AM\'] Oh my, 2004 will be the year that my life ends.
First, Casey Kasem is ousted as host of American Top 40, now I read that Game Show Network will be no more.
If GSN goes, I won't watch ANYTHING on the new channel out of spite. [/quote]
Spite. Hmmm, that sounds like a good name for a network.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 19 2003, 08:46 PM\'] [quote name=\'Rhudson765\' date=\'Dec 19 2003, 11:19 AM\'] Yes, but GOD FORBID that someone should post an opinion or conclusion
that YOU disagree with, huh?
[/quote]
(Ignoring the idiotic political crack, and focussing on the subject at large)
Ya know, while I'm thinking about it....
I challenge you, Richard, to find an instance where I have OUTRIGHT DENIED someone the right to an opinion, since that is what you have accused me of. Go ahead. I'll wait.
I suspect I'll be here a while.
This, of course, is your usual M.O.. You put forth a silly argument, someone tells you so and/or outright refutes you, and you start whining about free speech.
Well, free speech works both ways. You have the right to be stupid. I have the right to tell you you're being stupid, and I even offer the courtesy of explaining why, should you choose to learn something from the experience in an effort not to be stupid next time. Unfortunately, you choose not to learn.
So, whenever yer ready. I'm waiting. [/quote]
you start whining about free speech.
Well, free speech works both ways. You have the right to be stupid. I have the right to tell you you're being stupid, and I even offer the courtesy of explaining why, should you choose to learn something from the experience in an effort not to be stupid next time. Unfortunately, you choose not to learn.
BY your personal attacks agains those who express an opinion that you don't agree
with, you are basically that that person's opinions are not vaild.
BTW, aren't personal attacks against the rules of this board?
If the rules of this board are enforced equally for everyone, if at all.
-
[quote name=\'Rhudson765\' date=\'Dec 20 2003, 08:07 PM\'] BY your personal attacks agains those who express an opinion that you don't agree
with, you are basically that that person's opinions are not vaild.
BTW, aren't personal attacks against the rules of this board?
If the rules of this board are enforced equally for everyone, if at all. [/quote]
That's also a completely unfounded argument, and since this has gotten about as far off-topic as possible, I refuse to continue discussing it.
And here's a hint: "that's a completely unfounded argument" isn't a personal attack.
-
If the rules of this board are enforced equally for everyone, if at all.
We're quite serious about keeping the discourse on this board at an adult level lest it devolve into another ATGS. To that end I would remind Mr. Hudson that the Isolation Booth is rather chilly this time of year, and that taking the high road in debates such as these is the best way to stay out of it. You are hereby warned.
-
Yeah really, this thread was originally about GSN and Bob Boden, correct?(lost track of it about 2 pages ago)
If GSN wants to do what they plan, then maybe somebody else(another network) should buy their archives so somebody can run them. What the hell is the sense of them having a vault full of stuff that they wont run? And after March, we will be lucky to see any "vault" shows ever again!
-
Columbia/Screen Gems (since absorbed by Sony) has taken good care of the stuff in their vaults. Who else would have kept all those episodes of Dick Enberg's "Perfect Match" and "All About Faces."?