The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: byrd62 on January 08, 2016, 07:13:25 PM
-
Michael Strahan of Fox NFL Sunday and the Kelly & Michael show gets to host what would be the 6th incarnation of this classic award-winning game show, but its first network primetime series run.
http://www.vulture.com/2016/01/abc-is-reviving-game-show-classic-pyramid.html#
They better tape it in NY, and it better use Ken Aldin's "Tuning Up". Too bad the Elysee Theatre is no more.
-
They better tape it in NY, and it better use Ken Aldin's "Tuning Up". Too bad the Elysee Theatre is no more.
And if not I'll throw your television out my window.
-
You beat me to that by 35 seconds. Well played, sir.
-
You beat me to that by 35 seconds. Well played, sir.
Minds that think alike will think alike. I presume that several of our number had similar thoughts--my neurons merely fired faster.
It annoys me that the first response to "Classic Game Show Revived!" is "I hope it happens in a particular state and uses the theme music from 1973," as opposed to "Hey, neat! I'll be sure to watch." or "Hey, neat! How does a person try out?" or even "How about that. I'm cautiously optimistic." But no, we get "It must be a relic from a millenium we are no longer part of."
-
I await the hysterical outrage once the front game is revealed to not be "7 in 30", not "6 in 20", but "4 in 15" so that they can bring out ponies as Mystery 4 prizes.
-
I really enjoyed the GSN revival. They got more right than wrong and I was disappointed it didn't get a renewal. It would be nice to see how it would do with a network audience. Looking forward to this!
-
I really enjoyed the GSN revival. They got more right than wrong and I was disappointed it didn't get a renewal
Now this is something and someone I can debate/have a debate with.
-
I'm wondering if it'll be an hour or half-hour; if it goes an hour how will they format it? (If it's an hour I'm guessing 4 players per show; either 2 qualifying rounds with a 25K WC, winners play a championship round for a shot at a 100K WC, or one ep is two separate games, two rounds per game with 25K WC for one trip and 100K if you win both rounds). A lot of this is counter-programming I suspect- it is an Olympic year for NBC, and CBS has Big Brother (though CFF did hurt it a little on Sundays).
-
Now this is something and someone I can debate/have a debate with.
😄 I thought the GSN revival did a decent job of modernizing without destroying the stuff that makes Pyramid the perfect game show format. They also had a few really good celebrity players and several decent ones. Sometimes you forget how important that is to pulling off this format. I loved the chrome too. That set was gorgeous!
-
I also liked the GSN version. Yes it had issues, but I feel like some of them could have possibly been ironed out in a second season. Will be interesting to see what this version is like, but I worry that Strahan will be a little too over the top.
-
They better change everything about the show just to spite byrdboy, if I see the slightest hint of classic Pyramid, I won't watch!
Seriously, good to see it back for another run. Good luck to Mr. Strahan.
-
Pleasantly surprised by this news. I'm also looking forward to this.
-
I await the hysterical outrage once the front game is revealed to not be "7 in 30", not "6 in 20", but "4 in 15" so that they can bring out ponies as Mystery 4 prizes.
Ice cream?
-
Bob Stewart and Dick Clark must be smiling up above. This is indeed good news.
-
I definitely am going to keep my eyes peeled for whenever casting info comes out...and I hope it tapes in New York, just for convenience's sake. ;)
In all seriousness, though, it would make the most sense...Strahan's based there, hosts GMA and Live there, and doesn't need to go to SoCal until football season, why not?
-
Bob Stewart and Dick Clark must be smiling up above. This is indeed good news.
I agree (oops, wrong show!)
Brian
-
In all seriousness, though, it would make the most sense...Strahan's based there, hosts GMA and Live there, and doesn't need to go to SoCal until football season, why not?
Since they are doing a limited run, they are probably going to knock them out in 1 or 2 days, plus rehearsals. He could go to the west coast just for that long. So I wouldn't totally rule out Hollywood.
/Although it would be nice if it was in NYC
-
This is wonderful news! It certainly deserves another chance. I also hope it's in NYC, but not for any nostalgia reasons, just because it's closer to me and I'd attend a taping in a heartbeat.
Here's hoping the celebrities this time around will be a bit brighter than the GSN version. It was one of the things that turned me off.
With a broadcast network attached, the show being in primetime,and the amount named in the title, that hopefully means the prize in the Winner's Circle won't be attached to the performance in the front game.
-
Here's hoping the celebrities this time around will be a bit brighter than the GSN version. It was one of the things that turned me off.
If those involved with this primetime show, they can easily create a short-list of potentially GOOD celebrities just by watching Celebrity Name Game.
If they want to make sure NOBODY has a chance at the $100K, here's one CNG'er to consider: http://www-scf.usc.edu/~younghaw/graphic2.jpg
-
😄 I thought the GSN revival did a decent job of modernizing without destroying the stuff that makes Pyramid the perfect game show format. They also had a few really good celebrity players and several decent ones.
I agree and disagree on the celebrity partner casting, but having watched the reruns daily for several months I think that the GSN version misses out on the ebb and flow of a whole week of competition. (I came up with it yesterday: the show could have had the four winners from Monday-Thursday back on Friday to compete for $25,000 one last time to cap off the week) Having standalone episodes takes away lots of the charm for me.
-
I don't think they've all been confirmed yet, but ABC could have quite the games lineup this summer - Pyramid, 500 Questions, Celebrity Feud, and To Tell The Truth (plus Battlebots, if you consider it a "game").
Cautiously optimistic.
-
According to Deadline, Strahan Pyramid will tape in NYC (end of article, which also discusses renewal of CFF) ...
http://deadline.com/2016/01/celebrity-family-feud-renewed-season-2-steve-harvey-pyramid-michael-strahan-abc-1201679003/
JD
-
Since I live in NYC, I will try to get tickets for this. I would love to see this latest version in person.
-
I'm wondering if it'll be an hour or half-hour; if it goes an hour how will they format it? (If it's an hour I'm guessing 4 players per show; either 2 qualifying rounds with a 25K WC, winners play a championship round for a shot at a 100K WC, or one ep is two separate games, two rounds per game with 25K WC for one trip and 100K if you win both rounds). A lot of this is counter-programming I suspect- it is an Olympic year for NBC, and CBS has Big Brother (though CFF did hurt it a little on Sundays).
I doubt they would put anything new directly against Olympics coverage; Fox even ran reruns of So You Think You Can Dance? for two weeks in 2012 against them (then again, the viewership is an important part of that show, as it decides who stays and who goes).
As for how it would work, my first thought was your first idea; the only problem is, there would only be time for 2 rounds per player in the head-to-head sections.
-
I'll certainly check out the premiere and see how it goes (with my avatar, how could I not? ;)).
-
I'm wondering if it'll be an hour or half-hour; if it goes an hour how will they format it? (If it's an hour I'm guessing 4 players per show; either 2 qualifying rounds with a 25K WC, winners play a championship round for a shot at a 100K WC, or one ep is two separate games, two rounds per game with 25K WC for one trip and 100K if you win both rounds). A lot of this is counter-programming I suspect- it is an Olympic year for NBC, and CBS has Big Brother (though CFF did hurt it a little on Sundays).
As for how it would work, my first thought was your first idea; the only problem is, there would only be time for 2 rounds per player in the head-to-head sections.
I'd love to see the daily tournament format for the first 8 eps, with those winners getting to come back for the final 2 eps for the shot at $100K.
The mistake they need not make is having celebs who are so bad that they can't play the game properly- if I recall, someone here mentioned that the GSN version had to reshoot eps/retrain the celebs because they were so bad. Get people who know the game and would be excited to play. They don't need to be Billy Crystal/Vicki Lawrence caliber at the game, but they needn't be a major factor in why a contestant loses either.
-
Here's a question I've always had. Did they audition celebs for '70s and '80s Pyramid (not as rigorous as the contestants, but have them rehearse a few games and see how they do) or did they just book them and hope for the best? There weren't too many rookies on Clark's $100K Pyramid from what I've seen.
-
Here's a question I've always had. Did they audition celebs for '70s and '80s Pyramid (not as rigorous as the contestants, but have them rehearse a few games and see how they do) or did they just book them and hope for the best? There weren't too many rookies on Clark's $100K Pyramid from what I've seen.
As I recall, celebrities were not auditioned thought they did rehearse, playing the game prior to the start of taping. Some celebrities were not invited back following their one appearance on the show. Shelley Winters played a week opposite Jack Carter in the summer of 1973. She lost every game.
-
Here's a question I've always had. Did they audition celebs for '70s and '80s Pyramid (not as rigorous as the contestants, but have them rehearse a few games and see how they do) or did they just book them and hope for the best? There weren't too many rookies on Clark's $100K Pyramid from what I've seen.
I don't know if it went for all celebrities in every run, but it did happen. I've heard a couple of the 80s regulars discuss having an informal meeting with a couple producers to play some material and see how they did. I doubt, for example, Gladys Knight & Smokey Robinson had to audition and weren't going to be booked based on how they played, but they always had lighter material to give anybody "new."
-Jason
-
Here's a question I've always had. Did they audition celebs for '70s and '80s Pyramid (not as rigorous as the contestants, but have them rehearse a few games and see how they do) or did they just book them and hope for the best? There weren't too many rookies on Clark's $100K Pyramid from what I've seen.
I don't know if it went for all celebrities in every run, but it did happen. I've heard a couple of the 80s regulars discuss having an informal meeting with a couple producers to play some material and see how they did. I doubt, for example, Gladys Knight & Smokey Robinson had to audition and weren't going to be booked based on how they played, but they always had lighter material to give anybody "new."
-Jason
The beauty of the 80s version was that you could use the daytime version as a farm team of sorts to decide who would be suitable for the $100K Pyramid
Jackee was notably bad and only did a week, but I recall Tom Poston being no better and getting invited back to play another time or two.
-
Maybe I underestimate him, but as far as brightness goes, Strahan seems a lot closer to Donny than Dick. Gosh, Tom Bergeron, another ABC guy, would have been a great choice.
How's this for a format? One hour, four celebrities, four civilians, three games. First two games, winners play for, oh, $25,000. Third game, the winning pairs play each other. Final Winners' Circle is for $50,000...but if they won the $25,000 in their first attempt, it's the $100K grand prize. Maybe for the final it's 10 subjects in, say, 90 seconds.
-
How's this for a format? One hour, four celebrities, four civilians, three games.
I don't mind the idea of a bracket tournament where the night's winner goes for the prize in the title, but I mind cleaving out an entire main-bonus game segment.
-
I love how we're already throwing the host choice under the bus when the show hasn't even conducted auditions yet.
-
I love how we're already throwing the host choice under the bus when the show hasn't even conducted auditions yet.
I'm not familiar at all with any of his on-camera work so I'm standing down and being cautiously optimistic.
-
I love how we're already throwing the host choice under the bus when the show hasn't even conducted auditions yet.
I'm not familiar at all with any of his on-camera work so I'm standing down and being cautiously optimistic.
As am I, and I'm more familiar with the man's work (well, somewhat...Fox NFL Sunday mostly, have only seen him on the morning soiree a handful of times).
-
Bob Stewart and Dick Clark must be smiling up above. This is indeed good news.
I agree (oops, wrong show!)
Brian
[GG] YOU FOOL! [/GG]
-
Occam's Razor tells me that the chances are much higher having eight stand-alone shows than a tournament format.
-
In that case, I like Neumms's format. That way, ABC can air out of order if they wish (and you know they prolly will).
But with an hour-long format, could they not get four games in? Feels like there would be a lot of padding with three matches. With Celebrity Feud, you get more leeway to cut up. With civilian contestants, I think you get something like Hollywood Game Night, where it becomes more about the stars.
Also...it hasn't been confirmed that it'll be one hour. Perhaps ABC simply airs a half-hour Feud, followed by a half-hour Pyramid. Noooo...that would never work! :P
/FWIW, Strahan has shown himself to have some pretty solid broadcasting chops, both on FOX and his morning show
//I believe he won a Daytime Emmy for the latter
-
We both know the business and economics rather well. Let's look at this from that higher ground that we occupy (and it's a pleasure to have this kind of business discussion with somebody like you).
Networks want to fill summer programming blocks with as little programming and promotion cost as they can. They will have already invested the capital to build the set and make the promotional material, so the costs of making a 60-minute show isn't much more than a 30-minute show. Also, a 30-minute show gives what little audience you have a chance to change the channel at the bottom of the hour. Finally, I look at the history of throwaway summer game-type programming where 60 minute shows have been the norm recently
The Razor tells me 60-minute shows.
-
How's this for a format? One hour, four celebrities, four civilians, three games.
I don't mind the idea of a bracket tournament where the night's winner goes for the prize in the title, but I mind cleaving out an entire main-bonus game segment.
My thought was four games with the first three games acting as qualifiers, the Winner's Circle being worth $25,000. The final game features the two winners of the first three games that had the fastest time up the pyramid/the most money on the pyramid going for the $100,000.
-
My thought was four games with the first three games acting as qualifiers, the Winner's Circle being worth $25,000. The final game features the two winners of the first three games that had the fastest time up the pyramid/the most money on the pyramid going for the $100,000.
I didn't like it when Hollywood Squares used money won as the qualifier for the semi-final round of their college tournament. I didn't like it when University Challenge used total points scored as the qualifier for the main rounds in their special mini-series tournaments. I see no reason that I would like it here, especially when a tie-break might come down to seconds.
-
My thought was four games with the first three games acting as qualifiers, the Winner's Circle being worth $25,000. The final game features the two winners of the first three games that had the fastest time up the pyramid/the most money on the pyramid going for the $100,000.
I had an idea similar to this. Since I don't think you'll have multiple Winner's Circle champions, I say use the two best Winner's Circle totals to qualify (the odd man/woman out keeps his or her money). If all three climbed the Pyramid, then you go by fastest times.
Now if there's a tie there, I dunno what you do. Best main game score? Flip a coin? Off-camera tiebreaker match?
-
Now if there's a tie there, I dunno what you do. Best main game score? Flip a coin? Off-camera tiebreaker match?
Strength of schedule. The one stuck with Lenny Krazelburg as a partner goes through.
-
Now if there's a tie there, I dunno what you do. Best main game score? Flip a coin? Off-camera tiebreaker match?
Strength of schedule. The one stuck with Lenny Krazelburg as a partner goes through.
Brought to you by the College Football Playoff on ESPN!
/feel the synergy
-
Now if there's a tie there, I dunno what you do. Best main game score? Flip a coin? Off-camera tiebreaker match?
Strength of schedule. The one stuck with Lenny Krazelburg as a partner goes through.
A nightmare I lived in real life in 2003 :-)
-
I had an idea similar to this. Since I don't think you'll have multiple Winner's Circle champions, I say use the two best Winner's Circle totals to qualify (the odd man/woman out keeps his or her money). If all three climbed the Pyramid, then you go by fastest times.
Personally I found it the height of anti-climax to have Donny awarding $75,000 to the player who managed to climb the Pyramid a few seconds faster than the others. I'd love for the show to deposit $25,000 into the winner's circle bank for each 7 out of 7, or the 7-11 allows you to play for some cash prize or to increase the jackpot to $100k. Or to start at $25,000 and add that much for each failed attempt.
Having watched shows like Who's Still Standing and Boom, I have come to realize that for the most part we are looking at cleverness on American game shows in the rear-view mirror. I hope they don't make every WC worth $100k because even thirty years later I think that a six-figure prize is a big horkin' sum of money and shouldn't be thrown about willy-nilly. Give me good writing, good judging, good playing participants and good hosting and I can forgive whatever silliness that they decide to use to award the prize money.
-
Oh, the Donnymid tournament format absolutely blew, but using the fastest time to determine who plays in the championship couldn't hurt. If anything, it's along the lines of what the 50K tournament did (fastest times of the week, minus the convoluted round-robin setup), and of course the more familiar 100K Clark and Davidson tourneys.
I'm intrigued by the idea of each 7-for-7 adding 25K, esp. if you start with a base 25K jackpot. That way, a 21-point game allows for a potential six-figure jackpot, one earned the hard way.
-
Oh, the Donnymid tournament format absolutely blew, but using the fastest time to determine who plays in the championship couldn't hurt. If anything, it's along the lines of what the 50K tournament did (fastest times of the week, minus the convoluted round-robin setup), and of course the more familiar 100K Clark and Davidson tourneys.
The upshot of the "fastest times return in five weeks" element is that you had a couple of months waiting period and Dick would always mention that Suzie van Cashwinner was on the bubble with a time of 48 seconds, and he would then say what the bubble time was as new people took on the winner's circle and beat us over the head with the stratagem of "always go for the money but if you feel that you're moving along then play for a berth in the tournament." As the qualifying period wore on the excitement would ramp up because the question became would someone be unseated or could that person hang on? When you have more people qualifying than not it looks doofy to exclude someone because she guessed wrong a few too many times on the $300 box. it works a little better in the NFL because there's so darn many tie-breaker qualifications but they've had five months to play it out.
Inexplicably the reboot of American Gladiators had entrants to the next round of competition determined by eliminator time (I forget whether the head start bonus/penalty figured into that at all if indeed it did), so you had somebody who won his or her episode not moving on because he couldn't climb the pyramid or failed to navigate the inclined treadmill, and it was another bit of failure icing on a horribly-tasting cake.
-
As we get closer to summer, I was thinking and it's entirely possible that every attempt is for $100,000, and losers are out, or you just get that one chance whether you climb the pyramid or don't. It would certainly be more exciting than some other ways they could do it.
-
Audience tickets are now available for the $100,000 Pyramid
13 taping sessions plus a rehearsal mostly clustered on Friday-Sunday in consecutive weeks in April. Very long downtime between tapings on the same date. I would have thought they would have tried to group a few more on the same day, but then again, Strahan has a M-F show as well.
http://1iota.com/Show/519/The-$100,000-Pyramid
-
Some details about the format there too. First trip to the Winner's Circle worth $50K, second is for $100K. Mystery 7 in second game of the hour where you have to get 7/7 in 50 seconds.
-
Two games stretched out over an hour? And is not knowing the subject really worthy of 20 seconds of extra time?
Ponderous.
-
Two games stretched out over an hour? And is not knowing the subject really worthy of 20 seconds of extra time?
Ponderous.
As far as the run time, I'm a little worried since Pyramid doesn't have those "moments" that Family Feud has that can be stretched out to make a longer show- it's a very cut and dry game.
The 50 seconds for the Mystery 7 suggests to me one of three things. Either the celebrities are a very mixed bag, there's an additional gimmick that would justify more time being on the clock, or they want to ensure that the Mystery 7 prize will be given away due to a hefty sponsorship.
-
It doesn't specifically say there will *only* be two games in the show. Just that the second game is the one that has the Mystery 7. It also doesn't specifically mention the runtime. Have we heard for sure that it will be an hour?
-
The 50 seconds thing appears to be a typo - I wouldn't worry too much about that. It's also been tossed around that the show has been picked up for 10 hours, as opposed to 10 episodes, which will consist of back-to-back half-hour "traditional" games.
-
The 50 seconds thing appears to be a typo
How can you tell that it's a typographical error and not what they meant in the first place?
-
The 50 seconds thing appears to be a typo
How can you tell that it's a typographical error and not what they meant in the first place?
Because a) it would be an incredibly odd deviation and b) someone connected with the show has stated that it is a typo.
-
I'm on the waiting list for tickets. Iota.com lists several taping dates in April.
-
Has anyone heard any news from the Pyramid set? My fiancee and I have tickets to the Sunday morning taping and are debating whether or not it will be worthwhile to trek from Philly to NYC just to be audience members. I am (irrationally?) afraid that it might turn into one of those Deal or No Deal-like tapings that we've heard horror stories about.
-
Has anyone heard any news from the Pyramid set? My fiancee and I have tickets to the Sunday morning taping and are debating whether or not it will be worthwhile to trek from Philly to NYC just to be audience members. I am (irrationally?) afraid that it might turn into one of those Deal or No Deal-like tapings that we've heard horror stories about.
On the one hand, the show is being run by people who are fondly aware of the original and intend to do it justice. On the other hand, this is not the era of Bob Stewart-style quick-and-cheap production. This is a network prime-time series, and they will no doubt take their time to do it right. I would strongly caution you not to expect real-time shows, but I doubt you'll be enduring anything horrific.
-
On the one hand, the show is being run by people who are fondly aware of the original and intend to do it justice. On the other hand, this is not the era of Bob Stewart-style quick-and-cheap production. This is a network prime-time series, and they will no doubt take their time to do it right. I would strongly caution you not to expect real-time shows, but I doubt you'll be enduring anything horrific.
Guesstimate one hour shooting time per half-hour show?
-
If you're going to the first taping, I'd guesstimate longer. That's the one where they figure things out.
-
Either way, plan on being there awhile. I don't know how many episodes they plan on shooting in a session but I would say listen to Gene and expect an hour to be spent on one episode. Not just for filming but for stopdowns and other things, plus some post-production reshooting of certain bits if necessary.
-
Is the Endemol method a thing anymore? Seems like that really only happened for the NBC shows and Show Me the Money. I haven't read anything about a single taping going five-plus hours in quite some time.
-
Still a thing--each show only has however many episodes to gain a foothold so they're not going to leave in anything that doesn't contribute to a 100% finished product as they see it. That means we can look forward to ten hours of The Pyramid that look and sound the same but for the players and game material.
-
Is the Endemol method a thing anymore? Seems like that really only happened for the NBC shows and Show Me the Money. I haven't read anything about a single taping going five-plus hours in quite some time.
First taping of The Chase in 2013 took about 6 hours, I think. But by the next day, they had it down to 2 to 3 hours.
-
Oh, that's right. I forgot producers don't believe in office run-throughs anymore.
/Only halfway kidding
-
Oh, that's right. I forgot producers don't believe in office run-throughs anymore.
/Only halfway kidding
Was about to say...those exist in spades. It's the pilot stage largely disappearing that could have helped with a lot of this, as well as (more) genuine full rehearsals.
-Jason
-
There was a full studio rehearsal of "The Chase" -- I was one of the rehearsal contestants. Guess I didn't do a good enough job if the first actual taping took 6 hours.
-
Hey guys. (Long-time lurker. First post in YEARS.)
I'll be at the 2 PM taping tomorrow in NYC with a priority ticket. I look forward to it. Yeah, the ticket says the taping is from 2 to 5 PM, but we'll see how long it'll last!
/Shoutout to @chad1m :-)
-
Hey guys. (Long-time lurker. First post in YEARS.)
I'll be at the 2 PM taping tomorrow in NYC with a priority ticket. I look forward to it. Yeah, the ticket says the taping is from 2 to 5 PM, but we'll see how long it'll last!
/Shoutout to @chad1m :-)
Have fun! I'm going a week from today.
-
The host has tons of experience doing live tv, so I would not expect any delays in taping.
-
The host has tons of experience doing live tv, so I would not expect any delays in taping.
9/10. Some of your better work. You'll get bites.
-
9/10. Some of your better work.
<CLANG!>
Charge!
-
The host has tons of experience doing live tv, so I would not expect any delays in taping.
9/10. Some of your better work. You'll get bites.
I'm gonna be one of them, just for shiggles. Strahan is listed as an EP for this. Is he going to have any actual power on set, or is this just a vanity credit? One of the other EP's is his production company co-founder, but the third brought us such fine gems as Million Dollar Password.
-
I finished watching the taping of 2 shows today. Pyramid purists should rejoice!
This revival stays true to Clark version, sans the 7-11. You will not be disappointed.
While I can't reveal the gameplay results, the celebrities and other specifics (#NDA), I can say look for Pyramid this June on ABC's "Sunday Funday". One full hour, 2-30 minute games back-to-back.
Strahan is a great personable host on and off camera and there were great players.
And though I don't know him personally, I did see John Ricci pass by working behind the scenes!
-
One more thing. With 2 shows and a number of pickups, the taping stated 2:15 and ended before 6.
-
For a show that's offering $50,000 for a winner's circle win the $1,100 doesn't disappoint. When $1,100 was more than the pocket money you would pick up in a failed summit attempt it was a nice way to line the pockets of the contestants, especially if that was the only thing that contestant won. With a top prize of $100,000 and if you're right and it's closer in spirit to the 80s than 90s or 2000s, it doesn't break my heart.
-
Oh. And for you music addicts, the theme music we heard is the modern version of the recognizable Bob Cobert classic, but no tambourine. It's ALMOST like the GSN Pyramid theme, but its electronic bass and drum rhythm tracks has a light hip-hop flair to it. In fact, I felt the subwoofer rattle under our seat risers as the theme's "bridge" goes back to the "chorus". ;)
-
So when you say "2-30 minute games back-to-back," is that 2 full front-games-and-Winnar's-Circles or 4?
-
So when you say "2-30 minute games back-to-back," is that 2 full front-games-and-Winnar's-Circles or 4?
I so totally didn't overthink this that I couldn't make sense of your question.
Pretty sure he means that there are two distinct 30-minute episodes, each one with the standard amount of gameplay a 30-minute episode of Pyramid provides.
-
Pretty sure he means that there are two distinct 30-minute episodes, each one with the standard amount of gameplay a 30-minute episode of Pyramid provides.
That is what I am asking...is there the same amount of game content in a 30-minute period as there was in the 1980s, or is that content dragged out over an hour?
-
So when you say "2-30 minute games back-to-back," is that 2 full front-games-and-Winnar's-Circles or 4?
Clarification. :-) Yes, it's 2 full front-games-and-winner's circles. Each half-hour will feature 2 different celebrities.
Also noting at the taping... After the end of each show, during the pickups they taped alternative opens and closes. So just like what ABC and Fremantle did to Harvey's Celebrity Family Feud after all the shows were in the can, it appears they'll choose 2 games to pair-up and build a one-hour good show for air.
-
Clarification. :-) Yes, it's 2 full front-games-and-winner's circles.
So it's what I used to watch in a half-hour, dragged out into an hour.
I can't say that fills any "Pyramid purist" full of hope.
-
So it's what I used to watch in a half-hour, dragged out into an hour.
Oh, Chris. I'm truly sorry. I had to re-read very carefully. :(
It's really four. 2 games in the first 30 minutes with 2 celebrities and 2 games in the second 30 minutes with 2 different celebrities.
/Whoops, real sorry guys. I just got home back to Philly to NYC.
-
One more thing. With 2 shows and a number of pickups, the taping stated 2:15 and ended before 6.
I was also at the taping today and liked what I saw. The set and theme music are familiar. The show is done in "real time" with some retakes. Basically the 80s version with inflated dollar amounts for the WC board. Shows will air on Sundays starting in June.
-
It's really four. 2 games in the first 30 minutes with 2 celebrities and 2 games in the second 30 minutes with 2 different celebrities.
Phew. That is far better news. :) Thank you for the clarification. :)
-
Now that's established, spill: how's Strahan as a host? Obviously I'm not expecting the second coming of Dick Clark, because short of Bob Goen or Ryan Seacrest we're not gonna get that. Was he acceptable?
-
Now that's established, spill: how's Strahan as a host? Obviously I'm not expecting the second coming of Dick Clark, because short of Bob Goen or Ryan Seacrest we're not gonna get that. Was he acceptable?
Yes, he keeps the game moving and is able to schmooze with the celebs and contestants. He also spoke to the audience briefly.
-
I was also at the taping today and liked what I saw. The set and theme music are familiar.
Just out of curiosity, did it look anything like the GSN Pyramid set?
Thanks for the reports, guys. Sounds like it'll be pretty decent.
-
Just out of curiosity, did it look anything like the GSN Pyramid set?
Thanks for the reports, guys. Sounds like it'll be pretty decent.
Set looks somewhat similar, but to paraphrase Yogi Berra, some of the similarities are different. The set has glass pyramids in the background. The set and desks can change colors. At the beginning of each show, there's fog and darkness, then the set lights up. Strahan's podium is similar to Mike Richards' and categories are read off a computer screen he has - no more cards. A couple of times, the categories did no pop up right away or the WRONG category showed up, causing retakes.
Categories on the subject board appear magically on the screen just as Strahan is about to read them. There are little pyramids floating in each subject box. When one is picked, that box is flipped showing a pyramid, just like the old days. The WC board is MANUALLY operated and each box is a different value from $1,000 to $5,000 dollars. The board is able to display champagne-like bubbles of different colors if someone wins big. A horizontal video screen above displays the $50,000 or $100,000 the contestant is going for.
The desks now actually show the words the players are trying to guess . No more super-imposing - impressive.
Rules and format are pretty much the same. Get seven answers in 30 seconds. Team trailing gets to choose from the final two categories. Contestants have the option of giving or receiving for the final category and the WC. Contestants switch celebs after the first game. Mystery 7 is for a trip. "Brad" is the announcer.
Shows are being done at the ABC Studios on West 66 Street & West End Avenue. Dr. Oz is also done there. They are taping for this next week.
-
A couple of other things:
Contestants winning both games get to keep the total won for both games, so yes, there is a possibility of someone going home with $150K if they have two perfect rounds in the WC.
Sounds effects are familiar with the bell, buzzer and "cuckoo" still alive and kicking.
-
From Ice-T's Twitter, a partial look at the set:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgL3gLIXIAE3kAb.jpg)
-
I was also at this afternoon's taping. The set is sort of a blend of the GSN set and the 80's version. I was impressed that they actually used trilons, as opposed to just TV screens. The show ran very smoothly, in my opinion - very few mistakes or technical errors. The show was live to tape (minus a few very minor retakes), which was refreshing. The one concern I have is the ability of the celebrities to play the game. The contestants were great, though.
-
I was impressed that they actually used trilons, as opposed to just TV screens.
So those are actually trilons on the pyramid in the above image? They really look like part of one big screen like on The Pyramid.
-
Oh. And for you music addicts, the theme music we heard is the modern version of the recognizable Bob Cobert classic, but no tambourine. It's ALMOST like the GSN Pyramid theme, but its electronic bass and drum rhythm tracks has a light hip-hop flair to it. In fact, I felt the subwoofer rattle under our seat risers as the theme's "bridge" goes back to the "chorus". ;)
because i can't remember:
Bob Cobert did the 70s or the 80s version ?
-
because i can't remember:
Bob Cobert did the 70s or the 80s version ?
He did the 80s version.
-
I was impressed that they actually used trilons, as opposed to just TV screens.
So those are actually trilons on the pyramid in the above image? They really look like part of one big screen like on The Pyramid.
They are TV trilons. There are 3 sides - all TVs. Apparently there is only one computer, because the category board has the WC clues in the back during that round. They actually cover up the back of the category board during the WC round, so that the answers can't be seen by the contestant. The only reason I know the clues are there is because they took the cover off before they reset the board.
-
because i can't remember:
Bob Cobert did the 70s or the 80s version ?
He did the 80s version.
Yep. He pulled a Victor Borge and flipped the '70s sheet music upside down and worked from there. Ok, not really, but in some spots the 80s theme does sound like an opposite of the '70s one.
-
Yep. He pulled a Victor Borge and flipped the '70s sheet music upside down and worked from there. Ok, not really, but in some spots the 80s theme does sound like an opposite of the '70s one.
I've noticed this as well. It's like Bob maintained some familiar elements of Tuning Up, but gave a unique flair to the other parts. But over time, I've grown to love the original more, as it has a lot more groovier parts (the guitar "tuning" intro for example) that Cobert left out.
/Okay, so he left out a good two minutes :P
-
The WC board is MANUALLY operated and each box is a different value from $1,000 to $5,000.
Surprised at the larger WC values. What was the sequence, if you can recall?
-
The WC board is MANUALLY operated and each box is a different value from $1,000 to $5,000.
Surprised at the larger WC values. What was the sequence, if you can recall?
Amounts are $1,000, $1,500, $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 and $5,000, going from bottom to top.
-
Yep. He pulled a Victor Borge and flipped the '70s sheet music upside down and worked from there. Ok, not really, but in some spots the 80s theme does sound like an opposite of the '70s one.
I've noticed this as well. It's like Bob maintained some familiar elements of Tuning Up, but gave a unique flair to the other parts. But over time, I've grown to love the original more, as it has a lot more groovier parts (the guitar "tuning" intro for example) that Cobert left out.
/Okay, so he left out a good two minutes :P
Agreed. I absolutely love the original - and don't care for the 80s version - yet that's not going to stop me from watching! :)
-
Amounts are $1,000, $1,500, $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 and $5,000, going from bottom to top.
Wow. The top box is as much as the top prize was for the first successful try at the WC on $50K Pyramid.
-
Wow. The top box is as much as the top prize was for the first successful try at the WC on $50K Pyramid.
Even I will allow that there's gonna be SOME inflation over 36 years, but yeah, the potential for walking away with $15,500 for losing (most of the time gonna be closer to $11,500, but stay with me here) seems a little high.
That said, if you look at it as a percentage, it's a little more interesting to play with the numbers. Consider on Password Plus they were playing for $5,000, and when they failed I'd say (conservatively) they got 7 right for $700. Ditto the daytime Dawson Family Feud: about $800-$850 vs. a $5,000 prize. So 14-17% of the top prize. $11,500 on a $50K payday is 23%.
Pyramid, Chain Reaction, and Go were all roughly the same...somewhere between $600-800 for a failed attempt at $10,000 (usually - keeping the situations basic here just because the chosen data is so cherrypicked in the first place because I don't really care to do the extensive study), so 6-8%.
So maybe Bob Stewart was just a cheap fark and this production is righting itself? :)
-
For the sake of comparison I recall precisely zero people here making an issue over the fact that a team can pull up just short in the Hollywood Game Night end game and win $9,000. [If I'm remembering things right, The Hollywood Game from 1992 or '93 also offered a $25,000 grand prize but also had $1,000 per picture if some were left unsolved. So that's a little fun synergy there.]
I don't particularly care too much because it isn't my money but I do think there's a threshold where you say "Yup, that's acceptable consolation money" and then you jump over into "Nope, that's just too darn much," and I think five figures falls into the latter. On the other side of the ledger is the fact that there's no main game money on lots of these shows--what would be thought of as the bonus game is where you get paid at all.
-
Social media posts have revealed that in addition to Ice-T and Peri Gilpin, other known celebrity combinations include Rachel Dratch/Ana Gasteyer, Rosie O'Donnell/Pyramid vet Kathy Najimy and Shark Tank's Daymond John/Barbara Corcoran.
EDIT: Added the Shark Tank players above as well.
Speaking of social media, enjoy a look into the control room as posted by the show's technical director on Instagram.
(https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s640x640/sh0.08/e35/12930762_1573507016311878_1019730174_n.jpg)
-
Social media posts have revealed that in addition to (...) Peri Gilpin,
Full realization that I'm most certainly no average casual viewer, but this name is the one I'm most excited about. Rosie O'Donnell's name makes me glad I still have functioning volume control.
-
Social media posts have revealed that in addition to (...) Peri Gilpin,
Full realization that I'm most certainly no average casual viewer, but this name is the one I'm most excited about.
At least I now have confirmation that's actually who that is in Ice-T's picture. I guess she's on Scorpion these days?
-
At least I now have confirmation that's actually who that is in Ice-T's picture. I guess she's on Scorpion these days?
At the very beginning of the second season she was some sort of liaison between Cabe and Homeland. After the midseason hiatus she seems to have disappeared.
-
From what I can make out in the Instagram picture, I love the glass wall of pyramids. It's hard to tell, but on "Gary"'s monitor (lower left), is that Michael's lectern in the center?
-
Wow. The top box is as much as the top prize was for the first successful try at the WC on $50K Pyramid.
Even I will allow that there's gonna be SOME inflation over 36 years, but yeah, the potential for walking away with $15,500 for losing (most of the time gonna be closer to $11,500, but stay with me here) seems a little high.
That said, if you look at it as a percentage, it's a little more interesting to play with the numbers. Consider on Password Plus they were playing for $5,000, and when they failed I'd say (conservatively) they got 7 right for $700. Ditto the daytime Dawson Family Feud: about $800-$850 vs. a $5,000 prize. So 14-17% of the top prize. $11,500 on a $50K payday is 23%.
Pyramid, Chain Reaction, and Go were all roughly the same...somewhere between $600-800 for a failed attempt at $10,000 (usually - keeping the situations basic here just because the chosen data is so cherrypicked in the first place because I don't really care to do the extensive study), so 6-8%.
So maybe Bob Stewart was just a cheap fark and this production is righting itself? :)
On the one hand, even if it was a lousy percentage, $600-$800 was more or less numerically in line with a lot of other shows in the 70s and 80s. On the other hand, a lot of those other shows were also keeping score in the front game in dollars, so the contestant ended up netting a little more.
I'm a little bit surprised that they didn't just add a zero to the CBS/$100K box values. It would be pretty generous without paying out quite as much, but having five-figure consolation prizes may be exactly why they went with something a little richer.
-
I'm a little bit surprised that they didn't just add a zero to the CBS/$100K box values. It would be pretty generous without paying out quite as much, but having five-figure consolation prizes may be exactly why they went with something a little richer.
I might be misunderstanding, but multiply the consolation prize x10? The most that could be won in consolation money was $1,000. Multiply that x10 and you go home with the same amount you would on your first Winner's Circle attempt. Just the bottom three categories would be worth $3,000. That's a lotta coin in 1982*. :P
The average consolation (whatever that may be) was right in line with other games of the early-80s, as you mentioned. A lot of shows still paid out $100/correct answer.
*/I'll also take it in 2016
-
From what I can make out in the Instagram picture, I love the glass wall of pyramids. It's hard to tell, but on "Gary"'s monitor (lower left), is that Michael's lectern in the center?
I think that is a very safe assumption! ;)
-
I might be misunderstanding, but multiply the consolation prize x10? The most that could be won in consolation money was $1,000. Multiply that x10 and you go home with the same amount you would on your first Winner's Circle attempt.
I think he meant on the new version.
-
I might be misunderstanding, but multiply the consolation prize x10? The most that could be won in consolation money was $1,000. Multiply that x10 and you go home with the same amount you would on your first Winner's Circle attempt.
I think he meant on the new version.
Okay, that clears things up perfectly, thanks.
To that point, even on a prime time game, a potential 10K "consolation prize" seems a bit much. I'm guessing this version doesn't take a page from the GSN book and offer a 7-for-7 bonus?
-
Attended the afternoon taping with Rosie and Kathy and it was an absolute treat.
Great seats and thanks to the warm-up man Tom Kelly, I even got to walk onto a bit of the set (and get $20). Small which was to be expected, but a very warm feeling. They chose some great colors in my opinion.
As others have stated the show is very faithful to the Pyramid format, however there is one change they've made, which I'm unsure as to if it's been used before.
Michael was very good. Very personable both on and off camera. Not what I'd call polished, but I wasn't expecting the 2nd coming of Dick Clark when I walked into that studio. He was very cognizant of Pyramid history though and it was clear that he had a great memory of the show and watched some beforehand. He had a great sense of humor with Tom and even came out into the audience during a break to give a hug to an audience member.
The tapings were very quick. Very well done. We finally got into the studio by about 3:30 and they were done filming two 30 minutes shows by 6:30, which wasn't bad since there were pickups and a lengthy break between the first show and the next. I'm from Baltimore and if I had the time to make it to NYC again sometime in the next two weeks while they're still filming, I definitely would. Great experience.
-
I might be misunderstanding, but multiply the consolation prize x10? The most that could be won in consolation money was $1,000. Multiply that x10 and you go home with the same amount you would on your first Winner's Circle attempt. Just the bottom three categories would be worth $3,000. That's a lotta coin in 1982*. :P
You were misunderstanding, in that I was proposing the 2016 values be 10x the 1982 values, not that the 1982 values be 10x what they were.
-
At least I now have confirmation that's actually who that is in Ice-T's picture. I guess she's on Scorpion these days?
At the very beginning of the second season she was some sort of liaison between Cabe and Homeland. After the midseason hiatus she seems to have disappeared.
She's listed on Wikipedia as recurring; there are seven regulars and 11 recurring characters listed overall - that's a lot of people to stuff into the show.
Regarding the celebrities issue, this may be a continuing issue for the show unless they get a regular time slot. During the original runs of the show (let's say 1973-1991, with a few breaks), celebrities had different abilities and sometimes struggled with the format, but eventually they worked that out. The bad news was, during the 1980s, the level of "celebrity" was debatable in order to ensure there weren't celebrity pairings of wildly varying abilities.
This would seem a natural for Neil Patrick Harris if they can get him to do the show.
-
You were misunderstanding, in that I was proposing the 2016 values be 10x the 1982 values, not that the 1982 values be 10x what they were.
My sincere apologies there. Carry on. :)
-
There are no returning champions, I'm assuming? If all players are one-and-done (or two-and-done as the case may be), then upping the consolation prizes isn't such a bad idea.
-
Wow. The top box is as much as the top prize was for the first successful try at the WC on $50K Pyramid.
Even I will allow that there's gonna be SOME inflation over 36 years, but yeah, the potential for walking away with $15,500 for losing (most of the time gonna be closer to $11,500, but stay with me here) seems a little high.
There's no front game money to be won, there's no returning champions, players still have to earn it (unlike a show like Deal or No Deal), and it's in primetime. I'm fine with a contestant who wins both games but loses the Winner's Circle leaving with $10K plus.
-
A contestant who wins both halves and gets everything but the tippy-top box in both halves would win $23,000. That is indeed a good day out, especially since no parting gifts and paying your own way and all those other paradigm shifts mentioned. Back in 2002 someone who did the same thing would win $2,400.
-
Speaking of social media, enjoy a look into the control room as posted by the show's technical director on Instagram.
I don't usually have a lot of actual information to contribute around these parts, so I always feel like I should when there's something I actually know:
If anyone's wondering, the switcher is a 4 M/E Snell Kahuna. The (slightly) bigger version of my 3 M/E baby at work.
-
And no sooner was Michael Strahan already in the middle of taping Pyramid than ABC News just announced that he will join Good Morning America full-time this fall, thus leaving his role as Kelly Ripa's co-host, but still finding time to work on the Fox NFL Sunday pregame show.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/04/michael-strahan-good-morning-america
-
And as per Variety, we've got a start date of June 26th. http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/uncle-buck-to-tell-the-truth-premiere-dates-abc-summer-1201757030/
-
Notwithstanding that Variety has a hallowed place on the medal podium of loathsome publications, Uncle Buck is one of the last properties I can think of that deserved a TV deal in the first place, certainly not twice.
-
I'm assuming TTTT is an hour-long show, because otherwise they'd be burning 2/3 of their available inventory on premiere night.
-
Looking at that summer schedule, it appears ABC has zero confidence in "TTTT". Bad time slot with a potentially cringe-worthy lead-in.
Celebrity Feud was able to beat Big Brother head-to-head last season, so this is a good vote of confidence for Pyramid.
JD
-
I'm assuming TTTT is an hour-long show, because otherwise they'd be burning 2/3 of their available inventory on premiere night.
Yes; hour show.
-Jason
-
Seeing game shows at 10 p.m. just sounds odd to me, even with the success of Hollywood Game Night. I get that Blackish airs on Tuesdays, and even the reruns make a nice lead-in for TTTT. But I'd think you have a nice setup with three hours of games on Sunday night.
/Travis made my point about a second Uncle Buck sitcom
//Never mind the fact that it's been 27 years since the movie
///What next? A TV show based on the 1998 movie Rush Hour? :P
-
Looking at that summer schedule, it appears ABC has zero confidence in "TTTT". Bad time slot with a potentially cringe-worthy lead-in.
Plus the fact that they waited approximately a full year to air it.
I get that Blackish airs on Tuesdays, and even the reruns make a nice lead-in for TTTT.
"Black-ish" is a Wednesday show. It looks like ABC wants "Uncle Buck" to be the lead-in for each week.
(That promotional picture for "Uncle Buck" at the top of the Variety article pretty much tells me everything I need to know about whether I'll want to watch it.)
-
///What next? A TV show based on the 1998 movie Rush Hour? :P
A game show based on Rubik's Cube.
-
///What next? A TV show based on the 1998 movie Rush Hour? :P
A game show based on Rubik's Cube.
I'm not sure what to do other then link to this page, which I first came across years ago - http://www.jrjgames.com/rubiks/.
As for the topic at hand, I'm looking forward to more Pyramid, but I absolutely agree that if ABC waited almost a year to schedule To Tell The Truth, it doesn't bode well.
-
The next two things he should look into licensing are Tamagotchi and, well, nothing faddish from the 2000s springs to mind right now.
-
As for the topic at hand, I'm looking forward to more Pyramid, but I absolutely agree that if ABC waited almost a year to schedule To Tell The Truth, it doesn't bode well.
I thought summer replacement was always the intent for TTTT?
/Thanks for the Blackish correction, Scott
-
///What next? A TV show based on the 1998 movie Rush Hour? :P
A game show based on Rubik's Cube.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=se-eXJPu8_c
-
https://youtube.com/watch?v=se-eXJPu8_c
What a load of garbage. The "Secret Cube" element is totally a golden snitch mechanic.
-
https://youtube.com/watch?v=se-eXJPu8_c
Buzz Berry called. (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAVmoGjjRJRm38XCxbZPYxA) He wants to borrow that jacket.
-
Five Escudos to Kevin for reminding me about that. I did like that they kept to the color scheme, and I think I would wear that jacket unironically.
-
Any GSFers going to be at today's 7pm taping?
-
I'm not sure what to do other then link to this page, which I first came across years ago - http://www.jrjgames.com/rubiks/.
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/132/thatsthejoke.jpg)
-
Since I'm not a lawyer:
If you buy the rights to a property such as "TV version of something," for how long does that last? Even though it looks for all the world like an abandoned page it has all of the boilerplate language which makes me think that John Ricci Rich still has the rights to a TV version of a property that is now over 40 years old. Are those rights transferrable from John to whoever couldn't get the title deed to the Brooklyn Bridge or do they have to revert to Dr. Erno first?
-
On my mobile device, that looked like "Dr. Emo" to me. Therefore...
(http://i.imgur.com/eaj6BNq.jpg)
...would be more fun to watch than a Rubik's Cube gameshow.
-
I absolutely agree that if ABC waited almost a year to schedule To Tell The Truth, it doesn't bode well.
Didn't they go the same route with Million-Dollar Mind Game as well?
-
I absolutely agree that if ABC waited almost a year to schedule To Tell The Truth, it doesn't bode well.
Didn't they go the same route with Million-Dollar Mind Game as well?
Sorta. It would have probably stayed in the can if the NBA had not suffered a labor strike.
-
Regarding contestants - before the first show was taped, they had name tags that were quite colorful. Right before they were about to tape, someone in the control room said over the P.A. system "Lose the name tags." The contestants are referred to by first name only, so they've taken a page from the GSN playbook. The first show taped had someone named Victor, so watch for him. The celebs on the shows I saw were on ABC shows. They were good and seemed evenly matched.
-
The contestants are referred to by first name only, so they've taken a page from the GSN playbook.
Other than their very brief introduction, I don't recall any other version of Pyramid using the contestant's full name or wearing name tag, so I'm not quite sure what you're mean by the show "taking a page from the GSN playbook."
-
Dick would routinely refer to contestants by their full name, especially when it was during a recap of the previous round. GSN of late does not do that, referring to contestants by just their first name.
-
In defense of the inflated money today's $25k episode had Florence Henderson committing a foul on the $250 box in an otherwise flawless summit attempt that the contestant had no control over. With the current money paradigm it would be $12,500 instead of $50k or $100k with no chance to come back the next day to try again, as opposed to $800 and a likely return trip the next day.
-
I attended last night's taping and can't say enough good things about the whole experience. (Seriously, I can't. Some of the good things I'd like to say are covered under a non-disclosure agreement.)
Writing is excellent, gameplay is solid, the format has not been meddled with, the physical production is beautiful, and the host is genial and in control. In short, it is the Pyramid we know and love, dressed in its prime-time best.
We have a lot to look forward to.
-
I'm assuming TTTT is an hour-long show, because otherwise they'd be burning 2/3 of their available inventory on premiere night.
Yes; hour show.
-Jason
While doing a search for more info on TTTT, I found this picture of the set:
http://static.wixstatic.com/media/202ed5_51a0587ae8fa4295b9c1ac0036845a61.jpg_srz_1467_626_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz
Any comments?
-
While doing a search for more info on TTTT, I found this picture of the set:
http://static.wixstatic.com/media/202ed5_51a0587ae8fa4295b9c1ac0036845a61.jpg_srz_1467_626_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz
Any comments?
It looks more like a talk show set. Is that really a spot for a live band?
-
Any comments?
First and second on the survey board for me: They need a house band? It's now a talk show?
My post was interrupted by Greg's, who has the same exact comments. That should be telling.
-
I hope to God that blue chair on the left is where Anderson sits the whole time, possibly sipping on a nice single-malt, and they have to cut away entirely to a static shot of him every time he needs to conduct the proceedings. I would watch the HELL out of that.
-
I hope to God that blue chair on the left is where Anderson sits the whole time,
The thing of it is what else could it be. The four chairs are for the panel, the three chairs and desk are for the team of challengers. What an odd place to have your host, being so far removed from the action.
-
The thing of it is what else could it be.
Could be for an audience segment of some sort like they used to do for the 1990 show. I suspect Anthony's home base is standing next to that screen in the back with the tweet on it. But a man can dream. :)
-
Anthony's mom is supposed to be in the show acting as "scorekeeper" - my guess is that's her spot.
-
It's slick, but the first thing I thought of was something along the lines of Watch What Happens Live or Chelsea Lately. Definitely looks like a late-night talk show.
That said, I don't mind it. Can Fremantle execute the show properly is my question.
-
That said, I don't mind it. Can Fremantle execute the show properly is my question.
We could call the 2000 version a foul-tip if you like, but that's still a strike against the batter.
-
Anthony's mom is supposed to be in the show acting as "scorekeeper" - my guess is that's her spot.
Lord, really?
"Ma, how many votes does Number 2 have?"
"Lemme see, um, Number 2 has one...two...three votes, Anthony."
"That's my mom! Ha ha!"
I suppose it's better than the Comic's View thing of the Mammy in the kitchen cooking something almost assuredly racist in nature, but not by much.
-
If they stuck by the 'tweet a lie' forfeit angle (which would make sense because the tweet on screen has "???" where the handle would be) it is possible that scorekeeping could entail incorrect votes for each panelist.
-
That said, I don't mind it. Can Fremantle execute the show properly is my question.
We could call the 2000 version a foul-tip if you like, but that's still a strike against the batter.
Season one was decent. The second half season, when it tried to be Jerry Springer-esque, was pretty mediocre.
-
That said, I don't mind it. Can Fremantle execute the show properly is my question.
We could call the 2000 version a foul-tip if you like, but that's still a strike against the batter.
Season one was decent. The second half season, when it tried to be Jerry Springer-esque, was pretty mediocre.
Ironically, Season 1 of the 2000 TTTT had Paula Poundstone - ugh. The main reason I will tune in to this version is for Betty White, who I believe is a regular. A friend of mine who lives in La-la-land tells me all the eps of this are in the can.
-
What's ironic about that?
-
What's ironic about that?
On several occasions, Paula was more interested in making wise cracks and jokes than asking questions. Granted, Orson Bean and Tom Poston joked around too, but they got questions in. Host John O'Hurley once scolded Paula after her time was up by saying "There goes a minute of valuable network time." or words to that effect.
-
I attended last night's taping and can't say enough good things about the whole experience. (Seriously, I can't. Some of the good things I'd like to say are covered under a non-disclosure
Great to hear! Thanks for sharing. How is the Winners Circle judging? This, to me, is one of the biggest issues with the Pyramid revivals. I really enjoyed The Pyramid on GSN, and they came close to getting it right, but the judging/rule nuances on the 80s version is just the gold standard for creating excitement in an end game and really making that part of the game a skill to master. It was always a joy to watch the good celebrities play that end game knowing those nuances in and out.
Really looking forward to this!
-
How is the Winners Circle judging?
First-rate.
-
What's ironic about that?
On several occasions, Paula was more interested in making wise cracks and jokes than asking questions. Granted, Orson Bean and Tom Poston joked around too, but they got questions in. Host John O'Hurley once scolded Paula after her time was up by saying "There goes a minute of valuable network time." or words to that effect.
And Travis's (correct) point is: that has nothing whatsoever to do with "irony".
-
What's ironic about that?
On several occasions, Paula was more interested in making wise cracks and jokes than asking questions. Granted, Orson Bean and Tom Poston joked around too, but they got questions in. Host John O'Hurley once scolded Paula after her time was up by saying "There goes a minute of valuable network time." or words to that effect.
And Travis's (correct) point is: that has nothing whatsoever to do with "irony".
Paula is grimly humorous.
-
And Travis's (correct) point is: that has nothing whatsoever to do with "irony".
Doesn't it? The most watchable of the two seasons featured one of the most unwatchable panelists? I'd consider that irony, at least for people who share those sentiments about Poundstone.
-
And Travis's (correct) point is: that has nothing whatsoever to do with "irony".
Doesn't it? The most watchable of the two seasons featured one of the most unwatchable panelists? I'd consider that irony, at least for people who share those sentiments about Poundstone.
Somehow I don't think BillCullen1 was thinking that way when he typed it out...otherwise he would've said as much IMO.
-
And Travis's (correct) point is: that has nothing whatsoever to do with "irony".
Doesn't it? The most watchable of the two seasons featured one of the most unwatchable panelists? I'd consider that irony, at least for people who share those sentiments about Poundstone.
Somehow I don't think BillCullen1 was thinking that way when he typed it out...otherwise he would've said as much IMO.
I read it from his post. I'll give him credit for it.
-
Assuming that we still care about words having meanings, meaning what you say and communicating in a fashion that does not leave the intended recipient guessing what the hell you're talking about:
If that's the case the writer could say "I don't think Paula Poundstone was a good match for To Tell the Truth," presenting evidence to support that fact which is in abundant supply. He could say "I thought it was disrespectful how she would ignore the game to make non sequitur jokes," or "Paula Poundstone is a square peg and the square hole is something like 'Wait Wait,' which is a nothing game that focuses more on the panelists being funny than on the actual score, at least up until Lightning Fill in the Blank." Or he could have indeed said that while the first season was better in terms of gameplay, that Paula dragged it down. Or really any of thousands of other things. But he didna, he couched it in vagaries and in irony, so I questioned him on it.
Use your words to communicate your point clearly and stand behind what you say instead of being the millionth customer to overuse the word "irony." (I was going to plump for 'misuse,' but Kevin has a point about it being plausible. I maintain it was a poor choice instead of merely the wrong choice.)
-
And Travis's (correct) point is: that has nothing whatsoever to do with "irony".
Doesn't it? The most watchable of the two seasons featured one of the most unwatchable panelists? I'd consider that irony, at least for people who share those sentiments about Poundstone.
Somehow I don't think BillCullen1 was thinking that way when he typed it out...otherwise he would've said as much IMO.
I read it from his post. I'll give him credit for it.
I'm with Kevin and immediately picked up that vibe. Not everything has to be spelled out to fit everyone's standards; if he wanted to expound, I'm sure he can.
-
Thanks, Brandon. the post was fine in my eyes. I think if a different handle had been beside it, the response would have been different.
-
How is the Winners Circle judging?
First-rate.
Seconded. For the taping I saw, there were several nuances handled in a "classic" manner.
-
How is the Winners Circle judging?
First-rate.
Seconded. For the taping I saw, there were several nuances handled in a "classic" manner.
I hope they aren't still buzzing people for saying "things".
-
Was this judging assitry congruent with disallowing the word "you or your" if the subject begins with "Why you" as in "Why you cannot competently produce a game show"?
-
Was this judging assitry congruent with disallowing the word "you or your" if the subject begins with "Why you" as in "Why you cannot competently produce a game show"?
THINGS IN A PARKING LOT
"A car..."
*Bzzzz*
"Ooh sorry, you said 'a'."
-
And Travis's (correct) point is: that has nothing whatsoever to do with "irony".
Doesn't it? The most watchable of the two seasons featured one of the most unwatchable panelists? I'd consider that irony, at least for people who share those sentiments about Poundstone.
Somehow I don't think BillCullen1 was thinking that way when he typed it out...otherwise he would've said as much IMO.
I read it from his post. I'll give him credit for it.
I'm with Kevin and immediately picked up that vibe. Not everything has to be spelled out to fit everyone's standards; if he wanted to expound, I'm sure he can.
And I shall respect your perspectives and offer you a cold one of your choice should we ever cross paths. :)
-
Celebrities that have played the last few days include Justin Long, Tony Hale, Martha Stewart, Alfonso Ribeiro, Mario Batali and Snoop Dogg.
-
And I shall respect your perspectives and offer you a cold one of your choice should we ever cross paths. :)
Well met. Second one's on me.
-
Snoop Dogg.
Coolio...wasn't available? :D
-
And I shall respect your perspectives and offer you a cold one of your choice should we ever cross paths. :)
Well met. Second one's on me.
This is how all disagreements should be handled. I'll buy the third round. :)
-
I attended the afternoon taping yesterday and can confirm pretty much what everybody else has said: this is classic Pyramid delightfully updated for the modern era.
I was surprised at how well Michael blended in and seemed to compliment the celebrity guests rather than overpower them.
There were a number of scenarios that came up during gameplay that were handled perfectly...except one, but I suppose in today's world there isn't much you can do about it.
-
Are both the front game category titles and the Winners Circle categories like the original Bob Stewart categories, or were they still Donnymid-ish ("Things Regis Philbin's Coffee Mug Would Say", for example)?
The cutesy, category titles were fine on Win Ben Stein's Money, but not so on Donnymid.
-
Are both the front game category titles and the Winners Circle categories like the original Bob Stewart categories, or were they still Donnymid-ish ("Things Regis Philbin's Coffee Mug Would Say", for example)?
Based on the unequivocal praise, I suspect strongly if there were any weird categories, we'd know by now.
-
There were a number of scenarios that came up during gameplay that were handled perfectly...except one, but I suppose in today's world there isn't much you can do about it.
Flagging this until such a time when you're at liberty to discuss it.
-
Snoop Dogg.
Coolio...wasn't available? :D
Surprisingly, yes. (Well, maybe not surprisingly, but humor me because I looked it up :) )
He's joining Vanilla Ice, Salt-N-Pepa, Tone Loc, All-4-One, Biz Markie, and a few others on a tour starting next week. Depending on the date, different people might be performing. Coolio is booked for 22 of those dates.
http://www.mtv.com/artists/coolio/tourdates/
-
Are both the front game category titles and the Winners Circle categories like the original Bob Stewart categories, or were they still Donnymid-ish ("Things Regis Philbin's Coffee Mug Would Say", for example)?
The cutesy, category titles were fine on Win Ben Stein's Money, but not so on Donnymid.
They are Bob Stewart categories in both the main game (both title and content) and the Winner's Circle round. If you liked the cutesy puns, you're in for a treat.
-
So did the show employ punnery or not?
-
So did the show employ punnery or not?
Ish. Not heinous punnery, but I've seen a few that I gave me no earthly idea what the items in the category would be.
-
So did the show employ punnery or not?
Ish. Not heinous punnery, but I've seen a few that I gave me no earthly idea what the items in the category would be.
I thought of it like this: some are like Jeopardy categories, in the sense that it's nothing to do with the name but will make you chuckle a bit.
-
Ish. Not heinous punnery, but I've seen a few that I gave me no earthly idea what the items in the category would be.
Right, but there's a difference between the short-and-snappy titles where you only have three lines of twelve letters on the little plastic sheet, and the shaggy dog stories that would be smushed into eight point font on Win Ben Stein's Money. And there's a place for those set-ups--I don't think Pyramid is necessarily it.
-
Ish. Not heinous punnery, but I've seen a few that I gave me no earthly idea what the items in the category would be.
Right, but there's a difference between the short-and-snappy titles where you only have three lines of twelve letters on the little plastic sheet, and the shaggy dog stories that would be smushed into eight point font on Win Ben Stein's Money. And there's a place for those set-ups--I don't think Pyramid is necessarily it.
I felt it was the classy puns like from the Bob Stuart days. I wouldn't worry. I'm not sure any category was longer than what you could fit on a plastic sheet anyway.
-
First, forgive me for the metoo post, but I caught the morning taping on the last production day. I echo the sentiments above of really capturing the essence of the Clark Pyramid.
There was a tie in one of the front games, which had a new method of resolving the tie.
They also did two opens to the show: the first was for primetime, and the second was for a potential daytime pickup. It seems they are shooting more shows than were ordered, so they can choose the best ones to air in primetime. The remaining episodes could then be used for a new daytime game.
There was a rehearsal game for the second group of celebrities, and it was revealed that the contestant is encouraged to be the Winners Circle giver so that the fault for an illegal clue was on them. However, they said that it is still the contestant's choice.
-
They also did two opens to the show: the first was for primetime, and the second was for a potential daytime pickup. It seems they are shooting more shows than were ordered, so they can choose the best ones to air in primetime. The remaining episodes could then be used for a new daytime
Considering how seriously-good this show is soundng to be, the timing of Strahan's promotion to full-time at GMA and thus the ABC network exclusively now on weekdays (some of Live's affiliates are not ABC affils) , and the reported grumblings and constant changes of hosts at The View, It sounds like Pyramid is strongly being considered as an ABC daytime addition or replacement.
I like how this tide is starting to flow!!!
-
They also did two opens to the show: the first was for primetime, and the second was for a potential daytime pickup.
On the fair assumption they both used the standard "This is The $100,000 Pyramid" line, could you describe the intros, or is that part of the nondisclosure?
-
...and the reported grumblings and constant changes of hosts at The View, It sounds like Pyramid is strongly being considered as an ABC daytime addition or replacement.
Or a mid-season Millionaire replacement.
-
It seemed like the standard intro, except, of course "from ABC Studios in New York City." It was very hard to hear, though.
The different opening was to change Michael's opening line to be more generic and not reference primetime.
-
...and the reported grumblings and constant changes of hosts at The View, It sounds like Pyramid is strongly being considered as an ABC daytime addition or replacement.
Or a mid-season Millionaire replacement.
What makes you think that?
-
...and the reported grumblings and constant changes of hosts at The View, It sounds like Pyramid is strongly being considered as an ABC daytime addition or replacement.
Or a mid-season Millionaire replacement.
Different production companies, I believe. "Millionaire" is Disney, and I imagine "Pyramid" is still Sony. How is the former doing this season?
Would love to see another network daytime show. Without getting too excited, I like Tim's speculation quite a bit.
-
Different production companies, I believe. "Millionaire" is Disney, and I imagine "Pyramid" is still Sony.
Actually, I think Sony has production rights due to buying 2WayTraffic, and Disney still has syndie rights.
-
...and the reported grumblings and constant changes of hosts at The View, It sounds like Pyramid is strongly being considered as an ABC daytime addition or replacement.
Or a mid-season Millionaire replacement.
Different production companies, I believe. "Millionaire" is Disney, and I imagine "Pyramid" is still Sony. How is the former doing this season?
Would love to see another network daytime show. Without getting too excited, I like Tim's speculation quite a bit.
By luring Strahan off of "Live w/ Kelly", the ABC network owns Michael outright pretty much during the week:
This prevents most Strahan v Strahan programming in those markets where "Live w/ Kelly" does not air on an ABC affiliate and on a tape delay (10 AM instead of 9AM). There could still be a rare Strahan v Strahan conflict on Thanksgiving Day in parts of the country where NFL on Fox gets the early game.
This would also prevent a potential Strahan-a-Thon on ABC where potentially you could have 4-1/2 hours of Michael across 3 shows in-a-row in markets where "Live..." is on an ABC affil at 9AM and if Pyramid aired at 10AM to go against LMAD in some markets.
This would be a win-win for Strahan and ABC. Should Pyramid get greenlit for a 13-week daytime trial and they get decent ratiings, the worst that would happen is that Michael stays with Pyramid, goes back to part-time on GMA, yet retains a full-time check from the network as he would still be seen 5-days-a-week. Should a Daytime Pyramid bomb, no harm/no foul as Strahan still remains full-time on GMA.
I call this the Joe Garagiola TheoryŽ ;)
-
...
They also did two opens to the show: the first was for primetime, and the second was for a potential daytime pickup. It seems they are shooting more shows than were ordered, so they can choose the best ones to air in primetime. The remaining episodes could then be used for a new daytime game.
...
If the "You don't get your money until your show airs." rule is in effect, that's just lovely to the players whose games are just sitting in a file server somewhere.
-
Different production companies, I believe. "Millionaire" is Disney, and I imagine "Pyramid" is still Sony.
Actually, I think Sony has production rights due to buying 2WayTraffic, and Disney still has syndie rights.
But doesn't Disney own Valleycrest? I know they're still involved.
-
Different production companies, I believe. "Millionaire" is Disney, and I imagine "Pyramid" is still Sony.
Actually, I think Sony has production rights due to buying 2WayTraffic, and Disney still has syndie rights.
But doesn't Disney own Valleycrest? I know they're still involved.
You're right, they do. Mea Culpa.
-
Different production companies, I believe. "Millionaire" is Disney, and I imagine "Pyramid" is still Sony.
Actually, I think Sony has production rights due to buying 2WayTraffic, and Disney still has syndie rights.
But doesn't Disney own Valleycrest? I know they're still involved.
You're right, they do. Mea Culpa.
No issue here. Although Disney still does distribute so you had that much down. :)
More to the point, though, if they would be shopping Pyramid for syndication I'd guess it would be as a replacement for FABlife, no? Especially on the stations that didn't pick up RightThisMinute like the ABC O&O cluster did?
-
More to the point, though, if they would be shopping Pyramid for syndication I'd guess it would be as a replacement for FABlife, no? Especially on the stations that didn't pick up RightThisMinute like the ABC O&O cluster did?
Most likely. Would be fun to see it on a daily basis again.
-
More to the point, though, if they would be shopping Pyramid for syndication I'd guess it would be as a replacement for FABlife, no? Especially on the stations that didn't pick up RightThisMinute like the ABC O&O cluster did?
Most likely. Would be fun to see it on a daily basis again.
And how.
-
They also did two opens to the show: the first was for primetime, and the second was for a potential daytime pickup. It seems they are shooting more shows than were ordered, so they can choose the best ones to air in primetime. The remaining episodes could then be used for a new daytime game.
Hm, this wasn't what I heard when I attended. Although there was a brief discussion of how great it would be if the show was picked up for daytime, the alternate opening was to put the two shows together to make the hour block. There is a different opening if it is the first show of the hour or the second.
There were a number of scenarios that came up during gameplay that were handled perfectly...except one, but I suppose in today's world there isn't much you can do about it.
Flagging this until such a time when you're at liberty to discuss it.
Since this was already shared I suppose I can discuss it now - they have eliminated any additional rounds for ties in the maingame and instead whoever got to their score in the least amount of total time advances to the Winner's Circle.
-
Hm, this wasn't what I heard when I attended. Although there was a brief discussion of how great it would be if the show was picked up for daytime, the alternate opening was to put the two shows together to make the hour block. There is a different opening if it is the first show of the hour or the second.
Since this was already shared I suppose I can discuss it now - they have eliminated any additional rounds for ties in the maingame and instead whoever got to their score in the least amount of total time advances to the Winner's Circle.
On Point 1, the alternate opening has the celebs already seated at their desks. It's a shorter intro. On Point 2, that does eliminate time restraints for the game. I wondered how they would handle a tie-breaker. Plus I read here that contestants are encouraged to give the clues so if they give an illegal clue, it's on them. On the two shows I saw, the contestants gave clues all four times in the WC. The two male celebs were Randall Park and Dr. Ken. Both shows were exciting.
-
Since this was already shared I suppose I can discuss it now - they have eliminated any additional rounds for ties in the maingame and instead whoever got to their score in the least amount of total time advances to the Winner's Circle.
Wait, so the scores arent wiped, no choice of letters, just whichever team achieved their score in the smaller time won?
-
There were a number of scenarios that came up during gameplay that were handled perfectly...except one, but I suppose in today's world there isn't much you can do about it.
Flagging this until such a time when you're at liberty to discuss it.
Since this was already shared I suppose I can discuss it now - they have eliminated any additional rounds for ties in the maingame and instead whoever got to their score in the least amount of total time advances to the Winner's Circle.
Yeah, this is what I wanted to disclose when I first posted, but opted against it.
Since this was already shared I suppose I can discuss it now - they have eliminated any additional rounds for ties in the maingame and instead whoever got to their score in the least amount of total time advances to the Winner's Circle.
Wait, so the scores arent wiped, no choice of letters, just whichever team achieved their score in the smaller time won?
Yes. Michael explained the situation, who had the better time and they went off to the winner's circle. During the break when I saw it, Michael walked to the audience and explained how the old tiebreaker rules (the ones from the 80s) used to work and that they've changed it because of the time they have. Also, when I saw it (on 4/17), he said it was the first tie they had since they began. Don't know if he said that just for us, because he doesn't know when these will air, or if it actually was the first tie they had.
While I'm here, I don't know if it was mentioned in this thread, but when I went to the Rosie/Kathy taping it was only supposed to be one show. However, apparently Rosie and Kathy enjoyed doing the show much that they decided to do another show on the spot. After a 20 minute turnaround, in which Tom Kelly kept us entertained with mock games of Pyramid and The Dating Game (where I won that $20 I mentioned), they filmed the 2nd episode, pickups and all, in about 35 minutes. I was very impressed. My family and I had worried that if it ran long we'd jeopardize making it in time for the bus back to Baltimore (a non-issue since the damn thing ended up being late), but decided we'd rush after the taping. We were very happy that we didn't have to rush.
-
How is it handled? Do they just reveal who the winner is? (The Australian junior version handled this by increasing the value of each right answer and awarding bonus points for each second remaining.) I can't imagine that it goes well to say "You both have 21 points, the team that did it in the faster time was Tom and Harry, let's go to the winner's circle!"
-
I can ask a question that in no way will spoil anything............At my taping there was a "Pyramid Superfan" who had a $100K Pyramid jacket from the Davidson era. I wonder if said person is here on the forum!
-
I can't imagine that it goes well to say "You both have 21 points, the team that did it in the faster time was Tom and Harry, let's go to the winner's circle!"
I suspect that's exactly how they do it, and it does sound pretty unsatisfying (especially with how exciting a well-played tiebreak can be), but I understand needing to fit for time. What might be slightly better is (prior to the last round) "Tom, you need five in 18 seconds or less to win a tiebreaker, or six to win. Describe to your partner these...." And then just slap a graphic up on-screen during that read explaining the total-time thing.
-
I can ask a question that in no way will spoil anything............At my taping there was a "Pyramid Superfan" who had a $100K Pyramid jacket from the Davidson era. I wonder if said person is here on the forum!
Not sure if he is or not, but I can ask him.
-
How is it that a game show that has eight minutes of actual game play (plus the set-up and cool down periods, so ten minutes-ish) cannot bear to squeeze in another minute of content, especially when that content is frequently the most exciting part of the enterprise? Even Jeopardy has thirteen minutes of game time.
-
How is it that a game show that has eight minutes of actual game play (plus the set-up and cool down periods, so ten minutes-ish) cannot bear to squeeze in another minute of content, especially when that content is frequently the most exciting part of the enterprise? Even Jeopardy has thirteen minutes of game time.
I think if it were an hour-long show, and not two 30-minute episodes, it's more feasible, esp. if it uses one of the "Best of Three" formats proposed upthread.
I'm guessing a standard episode is 20-21 minutes; considering how rushed 80s episodes were with tiebreakers (and with an extra minute or two of actual show), I can understand why they eliminated it here.
-
How is it that a game show that has eight minutes of actual game play (plus the set-up and cool down periods, so ten minutes-ish) cannot bear to squeeze in another minute of content, especially when that content is frequently the most exciting part of the enterprise? Even Jeopardy has thirteen minutes of game time.
First off, to say "eight minutes of actual gameplay" is as disingenuous as saying that an NFL game is only 11 minutes long when you only count the time from hike to whistle. Is it a true statement? Yes. Does it accurately depict the running time of the total content of the program? In no way.
It's real simple: a half-hour of television has more ad time in it than it did 30 years ago. I don't like it, but I get it. And note that the tiebreaks were dicey enough time-wise on the Clark show; Dick would have to rush like hell when there was one. So if they say "we would like to play two full segments in a half-hour, like they did in the '80s," (and I thoroughly laud them for that decision) something has to give, and the first thing that gives is the thing they don't have to deal with all the time, because honestly without that one thing, BECAUSE of them rigid nature of the actual game content, the show becomes infinitely easier to time out to get where they need to be.
-
Please note that I did add on the time for set-up and for applause and discussion after a round of game play to an estimate of ten minutes.
Not knowing specifically how they're handling it, all I can do is guess given who the EP is. There's lots of situations where there might end up being a tie for banked time, and even a tie for zero banked time. There's the possibility that someone could win the Mystery Seven prize on their last go but not win the game because their bank isn't big enough. I think it would be a fine compromise if there's no bonus on the last turn that the final round is timed to reduce the timer so that the "banked time" would be enough to win, or the team loses 21-20. I hope they were clever enough to do that.
(For some reason I thought Michael Davies was in charge of this. Guess not.)
-
Please note that I did add on the time for set-up and for applause and discussion after a round of game play to an estimate of ten minutes.
Not knowing specifically how they're handling it, all I can do is guess given who the EP is. There's lots of situations where there might end up being a tie for banked time, and even a tie for zero banked time.
There is. But since they're running digital, if it's that close, they can stop down for five minutes, plug the time codes into an excel spreadsheet, and have an answer to a 60th of a second. And I am willing to bet that they have other tiebreakers in place (like highest score on the last round, for example).
-
It's real simple: a half-hour of television has more ad time in it than it did 30 years ago
Oh, absolutely! Ever go to the YouTubes and watch an old game show with the original commercials? Some do, some don't..personally, l like them. Well, sometimes it's no more than 2 commercials and back again to the show we go.
-
Oh, absolutely! Ever go to the YouTubes and watch an old game show with the original commercials? Some do, some don't..personally, l like them. Well, sometimes it's no more than 2 commercials and back again to the show we go.
When I went to the Museum of TV and Radio years ago, I was intrigued by the fact that mid-70s shows did precisely that: a minute of commercials and back to the show.
Nowadays, you won't even get Chuck Woolery's trademark "2 and 2" the way you did until the early-90s.
-
One thing I'm curious about (but don't expect anyone here to know) with the "fastest " tiebreaker is how they handle rounds where fewer than 7 points are scored. Does it go in the books as the full :30, or is it time to the last correct answer? If it's the latter, that could create some new incentives to pass on a word, especially if you can come back around to it.
-
Does it go in the books as the full :30, or is it time to the last correct answer? If it's the latter, that could create some new incentives to pass on a word, especially if you can come back around to it.
I suspect the latter, or else they wouldn't be able to break a tie where nobody got 7 out of 7 and ended knotted up at 17.
-
When I went to the Museum of TV and Radio years ago, I was intrigued by the fact that mid-70s shows did precisely that: a minute of commercials and back to the show.
And there were also longer breaks which consisted of a minute of commercial(s), then back for a quick ticket, car, or contestant plug, then another 30-60 seconds of commercial(s). At least those style of breaks made the overall commercial time go faster -- even if it was a 2 minute break.
SNL will be reducing commercial breaks by 30% this fall in order to provide more time for the actual show. http://adage.com/article/media/snl-air-fewer-commercials-season/303697/ . Perhaps other shows will start doing this as well.
-
They also did two opens to the show: the first was for primetime, and the second was for a potential daytime pickup. It seems they are shooting more shows than were ordered, so they can choose the best ones to air in primetime.
Not quite. My understanding is that they plan to air all 20 episodes ordered, but that they will be assembled into one-hour blocks rather than two discrete half-hours. The "second" opening (including Michael's "re-introduction") is to be used if that particular episode is the second half of an hour.
-
Has anyone mentioned whether it's a silent Winners Circle, or if there's applause following correct answers? I always found the GSN Winners Circle a little less enjoyable without the audience reaction.
-
Has anyone mentioned whether it's a silent Winners Circle, or if there's applause following correct answers? I always found the GSN Winners Circle a little less enjoyable without the audience reaction.
There is indeed applause after each correct answer.
-
Has anyone mentioned whether it's a silent Winners Circle, or if there's applause following correct answers? I always found the GSN Winners Circle a little less enjoyable without the audience reaction.
That was one thing I did like about Donnymid, but I see what you mean. Hearing the audience on the 70s/80s versions get a little louder in anticipation of the sixth box was always a dramatic moment.
-
That was one thing I did like about Donnymid, but I see what you mean. Hearing the audience on the 70s/80s versions get a little louder in anticipation of the sixth box was always a dramatic moment.
It also covers up the ka-thunk! sounds of the various boxes being moved into position. When you have TV monitors changing from one graphic to another you don't really need applause as a linking device.
-
ABC posted three photos to its press section today. It's lookin' good.
(http://s32.postimg.org/kq31eikwl/143224_IDA4281_400x557.jpg)
(http://s32.postimg.org/i6zfe8ml1/143296_1_DA5715_400x572.jpg)
(http://s32.postimg.org/n0wyobn85/143373_OS_0864_400x561.jpg)
-
ABC posted three photos to its press section today. It's lookin' good.
(http://www.disneyabcpress.com/abc/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/01/143373_OS_0864-400x561.jpg)
(http://www.disneyabcpress.com/abc/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/01/143296_1DA5715-400x572.jpg)
(http://www.disneyabcpress.com/abc/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/01/143224_IDA4281-400x557.jpg)
The images are broken (and the links give 403 forbidden errors).
-
The images are broken (and the links give 403 forbidden errors).
Very odd, it all looked good locally. I've re-uploaded them and they should work now.
-
The way the logo is wedged into the front of that podium is going to fark with my OCD something fierce. :)
(Does anyone here have access to any EPKs the show might have put out? I feel Windows backgrounds coming on and a hi-res version of the logo (and some press shots / shots from tapings) would help with that a great deal.)
-
The way the logo is wedged into the front of that podium is going to fark with my OCD something fierce. :)
ACK! I was okay until I read this and went back to have a second look.
The Winner's Circle does look good - I am quite interested to see how smoothly the trilons flip around.
-
It's fairly smooth, and a little slower than the '70s-'80s. Then, again, it's no longer a 3-sided duratrans.
-
The way the logo is wedged into the front of that podium is going to fark with my OCD something fierce. :)
Mine, too. Another nit, I realize the pyramids never had pointy tops, but on the trylons here, they're so chopped off, they look odd.
A question of those who was there...do the lights on the big pyramid flash like GSN's, or do they chase (for lack of a better word) from bottom to top, like the bulbs on Dick Clark's?
-
Mine, too. Another nit, I realize the pyramids never had pointy tops, but on the trylons here, they're so chopped off, they look odd.
A question of those who was there...do the lights on the big pyramid flash like GSN's, or do they chase (for lack of a better word) from bottom to top, like the bulbs on Dick Clark's?
They flash like GSN's.
-
They flash like GSN's.
Thanks. And crud! But it sounds like the game itself is great.
-
It's good that we have our priorities straight.
-
Unless it was mentioned earlier and I missed it, Primetime himself, Deion Sanders, was one of the celebrities on the final taping day which I attended. Since he mentioned it on his social media, I don't have to worry about blowing the secret.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BElkZxFAH09/
-
Found another picture of Michael's lectern. For some reason, I thought it was a monitor within the stand, and not an actual printed logo.
*Beware...may trigger OCD*
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgNBeJ_UAAMLMAg.jpg)
/The faux wood grain's a nice touch
-
*Beware...may trigger OCD*
Actually, knowing about that metal(lic) strip at the bottom (which looks like it was added to address that precise issue) helps quite a bit there. :)
-
Here is a wide-view shot of the entire set:
https://twitter.com/gameshownewsnet/status/732189664128421890/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Looks great to me!
-
I particularly like that the set pieces describe the perimeter of a triangle.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2lwn0mD.jpg)
I'm guessing that the part I highlighted is a reflection from something else onto a monitor?
And I find that analog clock interesting in today's digital age, especially in such a slick prodcution studio.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2lwn0mD.jpg)
I'm guessing that the part I highlighted is a reflection from something else onto a monitor?
And I find that analog clock interesting in today's digital age, especially in such a slick prodcution studio.
Our Chelsea Thrasher is the source of that photo. That clock is in the master control suite she works in. :)
-
It's almost like what the Donnymid set would've looked like had they actually finished building it. :P Slick...very slick. I like it.
There were some complaints on FB saying the set is too dark, but given a) the pic with Ice-T (https://twitter.com/FINALLEVEL/status/721411033320042498) shows an orange background, and b) there's no celebs or Michael in the above pic, I'm guessing the set is simply darker for the intro?
-
It's almost like what the Donnymid set would've looked like had they actually finished building it. :P Slick...very slick. I like it.
One of those small things that bugged me about Pyramid '02 was that there was nothing at the top of the Pyramid, whether it was a stylistic choice to not have something up there (even Pyramid '12 had "The Pyramid" up there) or they just ran out of time/forgot to do it.
-
The whole promo is up on YouTube in which you'll get to at least see much better shots of the Pyramid set.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2izuFBJfXA
I like how they don't have any footage from Match Game yet (duh), so they just took a clip of Alec jumping around.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/fostergray82/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-16%20at%2010.45.08%20PM_zpsun7t9ka3.png)
I don't really get psyched over game show sets as much anymore, but seeing this shot makes me realize just how beautiful this set really is. Jim Ryan and Ed Flesh would be proud. :)
-
At the beginning of the show, the six pyramid symbols above the Winner's Circle dim and brighten as if they were backlit. In the correct pattern. Oh my gosh I want to see this show right now.
(So Snoop Dogg is appearing on both Pyramid and Family Feud?)
-
Oh my gosh I want to see this show right now.
We know the set is beautiful, we know the established rules are being followed and we know the powers running the operation have a fondness for the original. That fondness, however, does not extend so far as to bring back Teresa Ganzel and Charlie Siebert as celebrities. Let us not forget that when we see teams struggle to get their 5's and 6's in a round. I'm afraid a lot of us have so much pent-up excitement for this thing that anything short of perfect game play is going to come across as a disappointment.
-
We know the set is beautiful, we know the established rules are being followed and we know the powers running the operation have a fondness for the original. That fondness, however, does not extend so far as to bring back Teresa Ganzel and Charlie Siebert as celebrities.
I bet they're available, though Charlie is now 78 years young.
(Having watched more than a few painful exchanges on Celebrity Name Game I am going to point to what I said when the undertaking was first announced: cautiously optimistic.)
-
Obviously the quality of play we're used to only comes from the show being on the air for an uninterrupted 10 years. It'll take patience to get back into the swing. It would have been nice if Pyramid 12 had stayed in production, if only to provide a training ground for celebrities.
-
Obviously the quality of play we're used to only comes from the show being on the air for an uninterrupted 10 years. It'll take patience to get back into the swing. It would have been nice if Pyramid 12 had stayed in production, if only to provide a training ground for celebrities.
I promise there's a point to this even though it's out of the blue: When you were at Millionaire how long were you at the location? Did they have you practice the walk-on, where to stand, how to give your answers and what not, and how long was the down time? (I recall reading that The Chase had a whole lot of that.)
-
Obviously the quality of play we're used to only comes from the show being on the air for an uninterrupted 10 years. It'll take patience to get back into the swing. It would have been nice if Pyramid 12 had stayed in production, if only to provide a training ground for celebrities.
There's no such thing as a "gameshow celebrity" anymore like in the past. Today's celebrities on game shows seem to want to hit it and get their paycheck.
-
I promise there's a point to this even though it's out of the blue: When you were at Millionaire how long were you at the location? Did they have you practice the walk-on, where to stand, how to give your answers and what not, and how long was the down time? (I recall reading that The Chase had a whole lot of that.)
We spent about a half hour or so on the set for rehearsal. This consisted of each of us (there were about eight of us) stepping up to the plate to answer one practice question, and the rest of it was us just listening to instructions. We were explained how the walk-on would work, but we didn't physically practice it. Other briefings, mainly on what not to do, were done in the green room.
Obviously all the briefings took place on the first day for my session, which started around 9am. I was turned away about 1pm when it was obvious I wouldn't get to the front of the line in time. I reported on day 2 about 11am, and was immediately ushered into the waiting room right outside the studio. Someone else was taping an episode before me. I don't remember what time I was finished. Probably 1pm or so.
I was not in the studio except for when it was my turn, so I can't speak to how much downtime happened between episodes or during other people's games. As far as I know, there was enough downtime to shuffle the audience around, and not much more, and my game was about as close to real-time as you can get.
-
So here's my point: if they're keeping you all day they could be doing practice rounds, or even showing episodes of the old show in the green room or at lunch. While the winner's circle is a tough nut to crack if you don't already think that way or play along, the front game is basically talking to another person. I think it was the "silent butler" thread where I said that they're not going to trick you--all of the answers will be stuff that you've heard of.
Watching the GSN episodes it is amazing that as good as Dick Cavett could be in the winner's circle he could also be horrendous in the main game because he was being too clever. I don't think we need to expect perfect (or even 95th percentile) play, nor should we hide our eyes at a 5 or 6 point round, but I do think that whoever is in charge of booking the contestants could do the show a favor by giving the potential players lots of opportunities to play the game on the day of before the event.
-
Obviously the quality of play we're used to only comes from the show being on the air for an uninterrupted 10 years. It'll take patience to get back into the swing. It would have been nice if Pyramid 12 had stayed in production, if only to provide a training ground for celebrities.
There's no such thing as a "gameshow celebrity" anymore like in the past. Today's celebrities on game shows seem to want to hit it and get their paycheck.
There can't be anything like a "gameshow celebrity" because there wasn't really a daily or weekly game show that's celebrity or celeb/civilian and lasted more than one season since the end of Donnymid or Hollywood Squares until Hollywood Game Night and Celebrity Name Game premiered. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think there are plenty of celebrities out there who probably would enjoy appearing on game shows, but since there was this drought of a regular game show that involves celebrities, no one has been able to really stretch out their game show limbs. Hopefully with the success of HGN, CNG and the potential success of ABC's Sunday Fun & Games and potentially Password, an era can return where there are celebs who, in addition to their work in the field of entertainment, are really good game players and love coming on shows to show it off.
-
So here's my point: if they're keeping you all day they could be doing practice rounds, or even showing episodes of the old show in the green room or at lunch.
I neglected to mention that. The remainder of the time in the green room was spent watching episodes.
What I noticed with Pyramid 12 was that getting players who are good wasn't an issue. Oftentimes the players were better than the celebs. Hopefully whatever practice they give the contestants, they can also give the celebs.
-
I always think of two categories of game show celebrities: people whose main claim to being a celebrity was appearing as a celebrity on game shows (Brett and Charles come to mind, probably a few of the core group of Pyramid celebrities as well), and people whose acting careers would have given them a lasting measure of celebrity who also did a lot of game show appearances (Vicki Lawrence and Betty White come to mind.) Considering how often she appears on Hollywood Game Night and Celebrity Name Game as well as her performance on the GSN Pyramid, I think Yvette Nicole Brown is getting very close to the second category, despite the limited opportunities.
-
This is a weekly show, and the network likely wants to have new celebs to promote every week. We hope that the guest stars will be well briefed and practiced, but some will be better than others.
Perfect games on a regular basis would be nice, but we have to remember that we can see a good game play without a perfect score.
-
What day is the show starting?
-
Go back a page or so. (http://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,28147.msg348655.html?PHPSESSID=42947c7721fae6e8b17aa4dd4834682c#msg348655)
-
We know the set is beautiful, we know the established rules are being followed and we know the powers running the operation have a fondness for the original. That fondness, however, does not extend so far as to bring back Teresa Ganzel and Charlie Siebert as celebrities. Let us not forget that when we see teams struggle to get their 5's and 6's in a round. I'm afraid a lot of us have so much pent-up excitement for this thing that anything short of perfect game play is going to come across as a disappointment.
But what if the clues are simple?
"Describe these colors. These...are colors. Ready, go."
"Describe these nicknames of your fingers. Ready, go."
-
The first full promo for The $100,000 Pyramid aired tonight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE570srKfiw
-
Love the words appearing on the desk, in the form of a monitor. Love even more that it displays "WINNERS" for the winning team. :)
Sorry if it was mentioned upthread, but is there an announcer, and if so who?
-
The first full promo for The $100,000 Pyramid aired tonight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE570srKfiw
I caught two more nods to the Bob Stewart era in that promo:
1) Despite the scores being displayed on monitors, the numbers "flip" individually.
2) I heard the traditional 80's Bob Stewart buzzer when time ran out.
-
Love the words appearing on the desk, in the form of a monitor. Love even more that it displays "WINNERS" for the winning team. :)
Sorry if it was mentioned upthread, but is there an announcer, and if so who?
"Brad" is the announcer. Don't know his last name. He tells you details about the Mystery 7 prize (a trip) if you win it.
Yes, the words are actually on the desk now. No more superimposing.
-
Those bells played at the beginning of this promo sound an awful like they're pulled from an old Match Game episode.
-
Those bells played at the beginning of this promo sound an awful like they're pulled from an old Match Game episode.
Yes, definitely a Goodson(-Todman) "ding".
-
I know that gameplay won't be top shelf like it was in the 80s, but seeing the player describing "hips" without her hands even leaving the table makes me a little nervous. Hopefully the rest of the play is at least better than that.
-
The subjects in the promo photo above are from one of the shows I saw.
-
I know that gameplay won't be top shelf like it was in the 80s, but seeing the player describing "hips" without her hands even leaving the table makes me a little nervous.
Has it been confirmed whether using your hands for gestures and the like is allowed in this version? If they are, then there's really not much of an excuse for not pointing to said part and saying "these are your...".
(Although looking at the clip again, the fact the tables are shaped like they are wouldn't really communicate such clues to the studio or home audiences.)
-
She certainly hadn't read this treatise about how to win on $100,000 Pyramid. (http://thefinalwager.co/2016/04/15/100000-pyramid-strategy-with-michael-strahan/)
-
Hopefully the rest of the play is at least better than that.
I noticed two shots showing a scoreboard flipping from 20 to 21 and one with an 18 in the early part of the clip, and even if the 18 is more representative than the 21s, that's not that far below the level of play in the 80s.
-
Here's the full list of celebrity pairings to appear on the show:
http://www.buzzerblog.com/2016/06/01/see-which-celebrities-are-playing-abcs-the-100000-pyramid/
-
Here's the full list of celebrity pairings to appear on the show:
http://www.buzzerblog.com/2016/06/01/see-which-celebrities-are-playing-abcs-the-100000-pyramid/
Looking at the list, I don't think there's anyone on that list who did the old Stewart versions of the show (except Kathy Najimy as a contestant) but there are a lot of Osmond-alumni.
-
I like the in-cast matchups, i.e. Ken Jeong vs. Tisha Campbell-Martin and Barbara Corcoran vs. Daymond John. Pretty decent caliber of celebs here.
-
I like the in-cast matchups, i.e. Ken Jeong vs. Tisha Campbell-Martin and Barbara Corcoran vs. Daymond John. Pretty decent caliber of celebs here.
See, I always worry about those because it usually means they spent more time thinking "how can we pimp this ABC show" than they did "can they play the game?"
-
Like every other tidbit we've gotten about the show, this is an encouraging list.
-
I only count 19 pairings- so either someone is going twice or they want to hold one back...
-
I like the in-cast matchups, i.e. Ken Jeong vs. Tisha Campbell-Martin and Barbara Corcoran vs. Daymond John. Pretty decent caliber of celebs here.
See, I always worry about those because it usually means they spent more time thinking "how can we pimp this ABC show" than they did "can they play the game?"
I was at one of the "in-cast matchup" tapings. I believe your concern is (sadly) more than valid. At times, it felt like a commercial for the show, and quality of game-play was optional. I reiterate that the contestants were great, though.
-
I only count 19 pairings- so either someone is going twice or they want to hold one back...
While I'm here, I don't know if it was mentioned in this thread, but when I went to the Rosie/Kathy taping it was only supposed to be one show. However, apparently Rosie and Kathy enjoyed doing the show much that they decided to do another show on the spot. After a 20 minute turnaround, in which Tom Kelly kept us entertained with mock games of Pyramid and The Dating Game (where I won that $20 I mentioned), they filmed the 2nd episode, pickups and all, in about 35 minutes. I was very impressed. My family and I had worried that if it ran long we'd jeopardize making it in time for the bus back to Baltimore (a non-issue since the damn thing ended up being late), but decided we'd rush after the taping. We were very happy that we didn't have to rush.
-
I didn't see it mentioned in the thread: is the top prize available $100,000 or $150,000 if a contestant wins both halves and summits the pyramid both times?
-
I didn't see it mentioned in the thread: is the top prize available $100,000 or $150,000 if a contestant wins both halves and summits the pyramid both times?
The latter.
-
I only count 19 pairings- so either someone is going twice or they want to hold one back...
Rosie O'Donnell and Kathy Najimy did two shows. IIRC, I read after the first show, they decided to do a second one on the spot.
-
2nd promo:
https://youtu.be/H6OHeHGPMqM
(I hope they don't go to this particular well too often....though the TV-14 rating makes me wonder)
-
I'm pretty sure they cut that promo to attract some attention by making it look bawdy. The game play I saw is not that at all.
-
I'm pretty sure they cut that promo to attract some attention by making it look bawdy. The game play I saw is not that at all.
Maybe they farmed it out to Harvey's people.
-
I'm pretty sure they cut that promo to attract some attention by making it look bawdy. The game play I saw is not that at all.
Glad to hear it.
Was that "Weird Al" Yankovic I saw in there? Hm, that could be a hoot.
/How has "Weird Al" never been tapped to play Celebrity Jeopardy!?
-
I'm pretty sure they cut that promo to attract some attention by making it look bawdy. The game play I saw is not that at all.
Glad to hear it.
Was that "Weird Al" Yankovic I saw in there? Hm, that could be a hoot.
/How has "Weird Al" never been tapped to play Celebrity Jeopardy!?
Because they're afraid he'll write a song about it if he loses? Oh no, wait...
-
/How has "Weird Al" never been tapped to play Celebrity Jeopardy!?
Not 100% the same thing, but IIRC he did play on an all-celeb episode of Rock & Roll Jeopardy!...which he lost, so they played bits of the "I Lost On Jeopardy" music video during the credits.
-
I'm pretty sure they cut that promo to attract some attention by making it look bawdy. The game play I saw is not that at all.
Glad to hear it.
Was that "Weird Al" Yankovic I saw in there? Hm, that could be a hoot.
I saw Weird Al on Celebrity Name Game twice this week--once on our local station that airs CNG, and a different show last night on Pop. Not only is he a riot to watch, but he's also a real good game player; him and his civilian partners got 9 right answers in a first round with Weird Al giving, and would have gotten all 10 if they had another second.
-
Tonight's eps (6/20) feature Anthony Anderson & Sherri Shepard and Rosie O'Donnell & Kathy Najimy.
-
If I understood her correctly, Kathy said she appeared in three episodes and won enough to pay her rent for three months. Wiki said she never made it to the Winner's Circle.
Now I'm curious, how did she do as a contestant?
As for the show itself, f**kin' AWESOME. The little things that the GSN version missed, this one more than made up for. Bravo!
-
After seeing that Rosie/Kathy game, I totally understand why they wanted to do another.
-
As for the show itself, f**kin' AWESOME. The little things that the GSN version missed, this one more than made up for. Bravo!
I'm a little more muted watching the first episode. I wish they could play the main game without the think music and deviating from the two-shot of the players and desk. The play when good is great, and Michael Strahan is very good in his role. If they fixed the things that are still there from Pyramid 2002 it would be an A+ endeavor.
And not for nothing, but your lead-off episode has a win with a score of 14 points after two rounds? Ponderous.
The prophecy has (largely) been fulfilled.
-
Now I'm curious, how did she do as a contestant?
The Wiki is correct; she was only on one episode, and didn't win either maingame. She did win a computer from the Mystery 7, so at least she had something to show for her efforts.
-
She probably won rent money on Family Feud.
-
Thanks for the clarification guys. I'm willing to overlook this, being it's been more than three decades ;)
-
Thanks for the clarification guys. I'm willing to overlook this, being it's been more than three decades ;)
Well, except that it sound like she's lying just to tell a good story. Trust me, you remember your experiences on a game show. If she was only on one episode, and she says she was on three episodes and made rent money for three years, that's not misremembering. That's embellishing, and rather brazenly at that. As lies go this one is fairly harmless, but I just don't see why it was necessary.
-
Well, except that it sound like she's lying just to tell a good story. Trust me, you remember your experiences on a game show. If she was only on one episode, and she says she was on three episodes and made rent money for three years, that's not misremembering. That's embellishing, and rather brazenly at that. As lies go this one is fairly harmless, but I just don't see why it was necessary.
Pretty bizarre indeed. Debra Jo Rupp had no problem talking about how she soon parting gifts when she was on the show.
Count me as someone who will be a loyal viewer.
-
I thought they did a great job with the production and the material, other than one judgement call that I disagreed with (not accepting "types of hair" for "hair colors", but at least they didn't insist that Shari say both "hair" and "colors" in the same answer like Donnymid probably would have) and the obvious stopdown right after the last category in the first round, although that was an unusual enough combination of circumstances that I'll forgive a new host for not getting it right immediately.
-
Ratings are in....and it's pretty good, at least in the overnights:
http://programminginsider.com/network/positive-start-abc-sunday-night-game-shows/
The half hours were:
CFF: 5.2-5.7 (2nd place- Big Brother on CBS, 3.6-3.2)
100KP-5.4-5.3 (2nd place- Gymnastics on NBC, 3.7-3.7)
MG: 4.8-4.3 (2nd place- Gymnastics on NBC, 3.6-3.7)
They won all six half-hours on the night...only concern to me is the half-hour drop on Match Game..
and one thing on Pyramid..In the first WC of the 2nd game, shouldn't she have been buzzed on "Things that Lift" for saying "heavy things"? Or is the word things not considered part of the category?
-
I thought so, too, weaklink...going by the usual letter of the rule, she should have been buzzed on the word "things".
-
Well, except that it sound like she's lying just to tell a good story. Trust me, you remember your experiences on a game show. If she was only on one episode, and she says she was on three episodes and made rent money for three years, that's not misremembering. That's embellishing, and rather brazenly at that. As lies go this one is fairly harmless, but I just don't see why it was necessary.
Maybe psychologically she didn't want to tell her partner she lost both of her games. Wouldn't exactly inspire confidence.
One gameplay question--does the contestant always to give in the WC, or can they choose to receive and we just haven't seen it yet?
-
Well, except that it sound like she's lying just to tell a good story. Trust me, you remember your experiences on a game show. If she was only on one episode, and she says she was on three episodes and made rent money for three years, that's not misremembering. That's embellishing, and rather brazenly at that. As lies go this one is fairly harmless, but I just don't see why it was necessary.
Maybe psychologically she didn't want to tell her partner she lost both of her games. Wouldn't exactly inspire confidence.
One gameplay question--does the contestant always to give in the WC, or can they choose to receive and we just haven't seen it yet?
They can choose to receive, though the producers strongly suggest to the players they give so they don't lose the big money if the celeb fouls up...
-
They can choose to receive, though the producers strongly suggest to the players they give so they don't lose the big money if the celeb fouls up...
Interesting--complete opposite approach from the classic versions, where the celebs primarily did the heavy lifting (and it was rare to see the contestant who wanted to give). Thx!
-
The demos and total viewers are out:
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2016/06/27/tv-ratings-sunday-june-26-2016/
CFF- 1.5 in demo 7.79 million viewers (tied in 18-49's with BB, better in viewers)
100KP- 1.7 in demo, 7.97 million viewers
MG- 1.5 in demo, 6.66 million viewers
If these numbers hold next week, I think ABC will be very happy...
-
Someone mentioned the camera shots cutting away from the two players/table during the clue giving; I don't mind that but I wish they kept the clock and the word being described on-screen during these cutaways.
With regards to Anthony's playing, I noticed during the last round of the female contestant giving the clues to Sherri, he was shaking her chair during the round as to distract her. I hope producers gave a stern warning to others not to deliberately distract the others during the game play like that.
-
They can choose to receive, though the producers strongly suggest to the players they give so they don't lose the big money if the celeb fouls up...
Years ago on ATGS, I said that if I were to ever become a contestant, I'd give for that very reason. The late Randy Amasia offered a good counterpoint that we saw play out last night: you can give great clues, but the celebrity can still have a brain fart. Case in point: Sherri Shepherd during the second Winner's Circle. Even Michael noted how great the clues were; Sherri simply drew a blank. It happens.
-
With regards to Anthony's playing, I noticed during the last round of the female contestant giving the clues to Sherri, he was shaking her chair during the round as to distract her. I hope producers gave a stern warning to others not to deliberately distract the others during the game play like that.
Anthony was so busy being a class clown, it cost both contestants another possible trip to the Winner's Circle. But overall, great revival, best Pyramid revival in decades. Pyramid was the best show in the whole block.
-
Just finished watching the whole block on Hulu while ironing. I felt like such a 1975 housewife.
FEUD is Feud. I don't like the hyper-naughty writing, but it's what it is and has been for some years. And although this may seem heretical, I prefer Harvey to Dawson's smarminess in kissing every female contestant.
MATCH GAME works very well. I'd like to see more game play, but given the constraints of time and the possibility of a tie, a 3-round game would be problematical. There's a bit of naughty writing here, too, but this show is on at 10 PM, and it doesn't have the word FAMILY in the title.
PYRAMID is a freaking gem, start to finish. If I have to choose one thing to quibble about, it's the tiebreaker--not the method of breaking the tie by using time, but that there's no prove-out of it. "You win 'cause you were faster by a half second" feels odd to me. I don't see any reason it couldn't be, "You got your 18 points in x seconds, and you got your 18 points in y seconds, so you win!" But, hey, ties are the exception rather than the rule, so it's really not a big deal.
Terrific work all around. It's going to be a fun summer!
-
Some notes and observations:
- Nice update on the theme. Didn't know announcer Brad Abelle had such a resume. Had to look him up once I found out who he was.
- Strahan's a good choice for host. Had his fun but never forgot that there was a game to play. I guess I can get used to him only giving the description of the category once after all these years of Dick Clark doing it twice.
- Samples of original sound effects? Yes please. Music during main play and that drone under the clock? No thanks. Harry Friedman can have those back. He can also take those other camera angles during the main game.
- Anthony Anderson seemed to be having a lot of fun (maybe too much), and that made me have fun. Nice acknowledgment of Kathy Najimy's turn as a civilian on the '80s version.
- Am I just imagining that the judge missed Sherri's player cluing "a handshake" with "shaking hands" while Anthony was shaking her chair?
- My jury is still out on the set. Definitely not a fan of the distractingly low-resolution displays in the players' desks. Someone blew it there.
- 'Nuf said about the tiebreaker. I suspect they're doing it this way to avoid the potential for the double- and triple-tiebreakers that ate so much time in the older versions.
Overall, a solid 8.
-
- 'Nuf said about the tiebreaker. I suspect they're doing it this way to avoid the potential for the double- and triple-tiebreakers that ate so much time in the older versions.
There was enough clowning and down time that they could have done a Tiebreaker sprint: one team plays four words as fast as they can, measured to the tenth of a second. The other team then tries to beat that time. Done deal.
-
I had two less-than-major gripes about the production, but that was pretty much it.
-During the celeb interview part at the start of the match, the camera seemed very intent on rapidly cutting back and forth between very tight shots of Michael and whoever he was talking to. It was a little annoying.
-The new tables look great, but the output looked decidedly lo-fi compared to the rest of the production. Text borders looked jagged and not very good. It was easy enough to not notice, but when I did, it stuck out.
-
In the first WC of the 2nd game, shouldn't she have been buzzed on "Things that Lift" for saying "heavy things"? Or is the word things not considered part of the category?
Only GSN Pyramid buzzed for use of the word "things". Otherwise, only the essence of the answer is forbidden. In this case, the word "lift".
-
- 'Nuf said about the tiebreaker. I suspect they're doing it this way to avoid the potential for the double- and triple-tiebreakers that ate so much time in the older versions.
There was enough clowning and down time that they could have done a Tiebreaker sprint: one team plays four words as fast as they can, measured to the tenth of a second. The other team then tries to beat that time. Done deal.
I think four words would come off awkward and still slightly rushed like the old version. I'm reading that as the producers having to tell the celebs and Michael to keep it down and play straight more often, which could make Michael more stiff than he already is (and I'm not saying that's he's a board or anything), and all of it would be to accommodate the possibility of a tie.
-
- Am I just imagining that the judge missed Sherri's player cluing "a handshake" with "shaking hands" while Anthony was shaking her chair?
Sherri. the clue giver, mimed a handshake and said "you... with your..." The contestant guessed "shake your hands." Both parts of the compound word were said, so she was dinged and went on to the Winner's Circle.
-
Well, except that it sound like she's lying just to tell a good story. Trust me, you remember your experiences on a game show. If she was only on one episode, and she says she was on three episodes and made rent money for three years, that's not misremembering. That's embellishing, and rather brazenly at that. As lies go this one is fairly harmless, but I just don't see why it was necessary.
Maybe psychologically she didn't want to tell her partner she lost both of her games. Wouldn't exactly inspire confidence.
One gameplay question--does the contestant always to give in the WC, or can they choose to receive and we just haven't seen it yet?
They can choose to receive, though the producers strongly suggest to the players they give so they don't lose the big money if the celeb fouls up...
One of the producers wrote on Facebook that they reminded the contestants that while they might have practiced the game, the celebrities haven't. That led to what we're seeing now. Didn't we see something similar on MDPW, or was that a set rule?
-
IIRC on Million Dollar Password, all but one contestant chose to give the clues in the bonus game (Craig Ferguson gave the clues to his partner in a bonus round).
Watched the show on DVR this morning and I liked what I saw. Pleasantly surprised that the ratings went up, in both demo and overall, from CFF. Definitely helps when O'Donnell and Najimy essentially delivered a doctoral course on how to play "Pyramid" in the second half.
Regarding the tie-breaker -- if you are worried about playing multiple rounds of tie-breaks, simply edit out the draws and only broadcast the final round, where a winner is determined. To me, playing another round is a more fair outcome than "who's the fastest".
Strahan was a nice surprise. He's become quite the natural behind the mic, and his transition from the gridiron to broadcasting has been nothing short of remarkable. He looked comfortable and understood when to step aside and let the contestants and celebrity players shine. The people who put this together understood the first rule of "Pyramid" -- the game is front and center.
Yes, Anthony Anderson was a dud as a celebrity player. You don't have the luxury that earlier incarnations had of a stable of capable players that provide consistently good play at your disposal. As the show continues and hopefully has future seasons, you can build that bank of good celebrities and bring them back, then pass on those who struggled.
JD
-
I think four words would come off awkward and still slightly rushed like the old version. I'm reading that as the producers having to tell the celebs and Michael to keep it down and play straight more often, which could make Michael more stiff than he already is (and I'm not saying that's he's a board or anything), and all of it would be to accommodate the possibility of a tie.
The one-question tie-break round from Card Sharks says "Hey, I realize that it would be easy for a person to forget I existed, but I'm here."
So is Showoffs, Blackout, Body Language, Family Feud and even Match Game. We could discuss whether what I've proposed would be better than the magic adding machine divining who the winner is, but it's not like I just made up a thing that's never been done before.
-
Yes, Anthony Anderson was a dud as a celebrity player. You don't have the luxury that earlier incarnations had of a stable of capable players that provide consistently good play at your disposal. As the show continues and hopefully has future seasons, you can build that bank of good celebrities and bring them back, then pass on those who struggled.
I'm going to catch some flak for this, but I don't think Anthony was a dud- let me explain.
Anthony obviously didn't know the nuances of the game, especially when yelling the same answer over and over again, but his energy and effort showed me that he could, with some practice (and a little focus), turn into a decent partner. I recall anytime I'd see bad celebs on the Clark version, they were lethargic, kinda slow to respond, and just not fun to watch at all. To me, Anthony is the equivalent of the 6 year old who's excited to finally play football, but runs the wrong way when getting a handoff.
At the end of the day, Sherri was markedly better, and because of that, both contestants got a shot at the Winner's Circle.
Re: the tiebreaker, if we can't do two, can we just auction the right to play Words Starting with M? Let both teams auction down the clock from 30 seconds to get all 7.
-
From what I noticed in the commercials, Terry Crews showed a lot of that same enthusiasm. I guess we'll see if he's more successful as a player though...
-
Anthony obviously didn't know the nuances of the game, especially when yelling the same answer over and over again, but his energy and effort showed me that he could, with some practice (and a little focus), turn into a decent partner.
No, the SECOND HE TRIED TO PHYSICALLY INTERFERE WITH A CIVILIAN CONTESTANT PLAYING THE GAME, that sealed the deal: he should never be allowed near a game show ever again. That was as bush league as bush league gets.
-
Just a thought: I was thinking that, in a game where the last team can only tie their opponents, Michael could tell that team they need to get all 7 in less than x seconds to win. Similarly, if one team is 6 points behind, they'd be told to score either 6 in less than x seconds or all 7 to win.
Saw the premiere, loved it, looking forward to more! Well done, ABC and Sony!
-
Anthony obviously didn't know the nuances of the game, especially when yelling the same answer over and over again, but his energy and effort showed me that he could, with some practice (and a little focus), turn into a decent partner.
No, the SECOND HE TRIED TO PHYSICALLY INTERFERE WITH A CIVILIAN CONTESTANT PLAYING THE GAME, that sealed the deal: he should never be allowed near a game show ever again. That was as bush league as bush league gets.
Agreed, he should never do that, but it was clearly obvious he was going to lose, and he knew it. Keep him on Feud and TTTT. Put him on Match Game.
-
They can choose to receive, though the producers strongly suggest to the players they give so they don't lose the big money if the celeb fouls up...
One of the producers wrote on Facebook that they reminded the contestants that while they might have practiced the game, the celebrities haven't. That led to what we're seeing now. [/quote]
In the old days, when the celebs did five shows, they came in before the tapings and rehearsed with old material. I'm guessing they're not doing that now.
Of the three game shows on Sunday, I like this one best. Looking forward to seeing the Pyramid shows I saw in person with Randall Park and Dr. Ken. Those were exciting - you'll see.
-
Anthony obviously didn't know the nuances of the game, especially when yelling the same answer over and over again, but his energy and effort showed me that he could, with some practice (and a little focus), turn into a decent partner.
No, the SECOND HE TRIED TO PHYSICALLY INTERFERE WITH A CIVILIAN CONTESTANT PLAYING THE GAME, that sealed the deal: he should never be allowed near a game show ever again. That was as bush league as bush league gets.
That, and the static he gave the female player when she made the decision to give clues. Unprofessional as it gets, yo.
-
I'm going to get off the "Anthony Anderson is a jerk" train for just a moment to remind everyone that the last time that he was involved in a game show for ABC, it was a game where there was no prize at stake, and the game was just a vehicle for interaction between the people on the stage.
I'm willing to posit that if he wasn't familiar with the source material before he got on stage, and nobody told him that he has to play the game straight, then he may have made his own assumptions.
(OTOH, if someone in-the-know wants to say that he just blew off prep and didn't care, then this can be a case of "F that guy".)
-
Agreed, he should never do that, but it was clearly obvious he was going to lose, and he knew it.
No. No but. You don't do that, period. It's a game to him, but it's a chance to make a whole damn lot of money to the contestants. This wasn't a celebrity acting a fool on their own time and screwing over a charity in the process, this was WAY over the line. I hope someone ripped him a new arsehole after that, but I suspect I'd be disappointed.
-
I'm willing to posit that if he wasn't familiar with the source material before he got on stage, and nobody told him that he has to play the game straight, then he may have made his own assumptions.
Huh-uh. Doesn't matter. If you are so tone-deaf to civilian life to realize that $50K (hell, $5K, and you pretty much have to be a garden slug not to pick up at least $5K in that Winner's Circle) is a non-trivial amount of money worth being a little serious over, then, as you say, fark that guy. That's not a "he wasn't briefed" thing, that's just common sense and common courtesy.
-
I'm willing to posit that if he wasn't familiar with the source material before he got on stage, and nobody told him that he has to play the game straight, then he may have made his own assumptions.
Huh-uh. Doesn't matter. If you are so tone-deaf to civilian life to realize that $50K (hell, $5K, and you pretty much have to be a garden slug not to pick up at least $5K in that Winner's Circle) is a non-trivial amount of money worth being a little serious over, then, as you say, fark that guy. That's not a "he wasn't briefed" thing, that's just common sense and common courtesy.
Maybe. But how is that different from Hollywood Game Night? Does anyone take that super-seriously with 25k on the line?
I'm not saying invite him back, because he's not strong enough at the game to justify it anyway. I'm just saying we're not in the room to know exactly why it happened the way it did. We're exposed to so much Pyramid that we get it. To him, this is a revival of some old game show that hasn't been on the air in 15 years (outside of a quickie cable series that most people don't remember).
Did they sit him down and make him watch Pyramid first? Or was he doing it cold? Did they do meaningful practice before the broadcast? How did they prep the celebrities? These are all important factors. And if the production does not do their part to get him ready before he went out there, they have to share the responsibility for that.
-
Did they sit him down and make him watch Pyramid first? Or was he doing it cold? Did they do meaningful practice before the broadcast? How did they prep the celebrities? These are all important factors.
There's plenty of celebrity briefing and practice OFFERED. If you're a big-deal sitcom star, you might blow it off. And in the heat of the moment, knowing your partner was about to lose, you might do something you'd never do with a little more reflection. While the Winner's Circle hand straps are frequently discussed, I doubt anybody ever said, "Oh, and by the way, don't mess with the other team." BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. That was a stupid thing to do, obviously. If there was any chance it affected the outcome of the game, I'm confident steps would have been taken. (And if it had been on any other than the winning clue, it probably would have been edited such that we'd never have known it happened.)
-
I'm kinda on the fence here. I took it as him possibly having too much fun, to the point of being disruptive, kinda like "That Guy" who takes Game Night a little too seriously. Yeah, it crossed the line and there's 50K on the line here...but at the same time it's also moot because a) he stunk at the game and b) the contestant needed, what? Two or so correct responses (I forget)?
The opponent more or less had the win in the bag; if it were a 21-14 scenario or had she picked the Mystery 7, then yeah, I'd be more willing to pull a yellow card. Regardless, props to her for not being rattled by it. I could see that going a much different way, esp. if it's a close game.
But again, moot point because Anthony was terrible, so I wouldn't be calling him for future episodes anyway.
-
I doubt anybody ever said, "Oh, and by the way, don't mess with the other team." BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. That was a stupid thing to do, obviously. If there was any chance it affected the outcome of the game, I'm confident steps would have been taken. (And if it had been on any other than the winning clue, it probably would have been edited such that we'd never have known it happened.)
Very much this. Especially the first line. Yes, moot point because it was in the bag anyhow, but it was still a dick move however you slice it and Anderson's a dick for doing it.
And it's too bad, because up until Sunday night I liked the guy. (And I even say that after TTTT. :)) But that was a dick move.
-
Yes the game was in the bag.
However, this a contestant on a game show for the first time
She could possibly be upset enough at Anderson violating her personal space it could distract in the winner's circle.
-
Yes the game was in the bag.
However, this a contestant on a game show for the first time
She could possibly be upset enough at Anderson violating her personal space it could distract in the winner's circle.
Spoken like a true lawyer. :)
-
Did they sit him down and make him watch Pyramid first? Or was he doing it cold? Did they do meaningful practice before the broadcast? How did they prep the celebrities? These are all important factors.
There's plenty of celebrity briefing and practice OFFERED.
There is? Well then, F that guy.
-
How is it not a glaring S&P violation to interfere with game play like that?
I recall he won a pile of money for Alzheimer's research on Millionaire when Cedric was hosting, so it's curious that he's so poor here. I get that the network wants to push him, but this was the wrong vehicle.
-
There was enough clowning and down time that they could have done a Tiebreaker sprint: one team plays four words as fast as they can, measured to the tenth of a second. The other team then tries to beat that time. Done deal.
This. Give both the same letter for "words beginning with __" to cut out a couple of seconds choosing.
My other choice would be announce the game is tied, go to commercial, come back with winners in the winners' circle and say that they won a tie-breaker during the commercial. They could stick the tie-breaker online, but even if you don't bother to watch, it's no less satisfying than how they did it and it's way more fair. They could make it as many words as they wanted.
-
Just spitballing here, but they could take a page from the 70s nighttime version and if they just can't do a tiebreaker they could let the two contestants play the winner's circle and split the proceeds. Given that the players are giving the clues I bet they'd be OK with this as a choice.
If they're not going to do that, at least be more transparent about how they get to the results. "Wow, you had nine seconds left over, so we'll give you $100 per second saved and put $900 in your bank," and update that every time a team goes 7 for 7.
-
That, and the static he gave the female player when she made the decision to give clues. Unprofessional as it gets, yo.
Aw, it was funny. Strahan gave him proper grief and took her side, after all.
I go easier on Anderson's interference, too. No harm was done, and now that it's happened once, it'll never happen again. Especially if Strahan had gone over and beaten the hell out of him. (Frankly I keep hoping the panel on a football pre-game will start throwing punches, too. Heck, Brent Musburger and Jimmy the Greek got into it, and they weren't even 'roided up ex-pros.)
-
I go easier on Anderson's interference, too. No harm was done,
That you know of.
-
That you know of.
He didn't shake the chair THAT hard.
-
That you know of.
Did she lose the game due to it? It was at the time the score was tied and she was giving the final clue to win the game. Should he have done it? No, but I'm not sure it needs to be the federal case that is being made...
-
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition over this.
-
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition over this.
No one does.
-
There's plenty of celebrity briefing and practice OFFERED. If you're a big-deal sitcom star, you might blow it off.
One of the celebrities during my taping was taking advantage of the practice session as I was walking in. There was a stand in host and partner to help them play both the main game and Winner's Circle.
There was a noticeable improvement made between the beginning of the practice session and the actual show. It was almost like the person's stunt double came out to play.
-
My gut feeling is that he was trying to cover his nerves by turning the comedy up to 11, and it only got worse when he wasn't doing well. It's not the worst instinct for a comedian to have, but this was a situation that called for more restraint.
If I were the producer, I wouldn't have him banned from the studio, but I'd probably think twice before inviting him back.
-
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition over this.
What a show. . .
/Happy 90th, Mel.
-
There was a noticeable improvement made between the beginning of the practice session and the actual show. It was almost like the person's stunt double came out to play.
(http://orig08.deviantart.net/ee0d/f/2014/289/2/a/profile_picture_by_damiensandowplz-d830w7t.png)
"I'm available!"
-
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition over this.
No one does.
Bravo!! :D
EDIT - I think a mountain is being made of a molehill - if he had interfered and cost the civilian the point it's a different story.
-
EDIT - I think a mountain is being made of a molehill - if he had interfered and cost the civilian the point it's a different story.
Why does it make him less of a dick if his effort to distract worked as opposed to not?
In sports, everyone has a shiatfit if two athletes commit the exact same infraction, but one is punished more than another based on the level to which the offended party was affected. What's the difference?
(To those of you saying "what's the big deal?": obviously, in the grand scheme of things, it's not. This is a discussion of intent and etiquette.)
-
This is a discussion of intent and etiquette.
*DING*
No, he didn't cost the other player the game.
Doesn't mean he came off like a giant asshat in the process and -- stop me if I'm off-base here, Mr. Lemon -- this is the track we're traveling on. IMO, those saying "it was harmless" are just like the majority of this board and want as close as possible a replica of the original show. I'm going to bet money that nobody would have had a problem with a Dick Clark stare-of-death at Anderson, because that's exactly what I would have done.
-
EDIT - I think a mountain is being made of a molehill - if he had interfered and cost the civilian the point it's a different story.
Why does it make him less of a dick if his effort to distract worked as opposed to not?
In sports, everyone has a shiatfit if two athletes commit the exact same infraction, but one is punished more than another based on the level to which the offended party was affected. What's the difference?
(To those of you saying "what's the big deal?": obviously, in the grand scheme of things, it's not. This is a discussion of intent and etiquette.)
Sorry - I should have been a little more clear. I agree with your point about the etiquette and intent - my thinking was that in the end it didn't cost her the game and I didn't think I spelled that out completely - my fault.
Is he a dick? Absolutely.
-
stop me if I'm off-base here, Mr. Lemon
I will not, as you are spot-on. He's a dick, or at the minimum he had a moment of dickishness (and a lack of self-control). I don't like dicks or loose cannons booked on my shows.
I'm going to bet money that nobody would have had a problem with a Dick Clark stare-of-death at Anderson, because that's exactly what I would have done.
Yes. It's my hope that someone at the minimum said something to him, even though the incident didn't have an immediate tangible effect.
-
The first thing I thought was, "What would Dick Clark have said if that happened on his watch?"
-
I agree that what Anthony Anderson did was extremely unsportsmanlike (to put it politely). However...
Yes. It's my hope that someone at the minimum said something to him, even though the incident didn't have an immediate tangible effect.
I'd be willing to wager that didn't happen. The other team already won, Anderson's participation in that episode was over, and the odds of him coming back for a future tape date were low. What does the show gain by reprimanding one of ABC's favorite celebrities?
-
The first thing I thought was, "What would Dick Clark have said if that happened on his watch?"
I think NickS hit it dead on with the Stare "O" Death. He wouldn't need to speak, and the message would have been conveyed in a hurry.
-
I'd be willing to wager that didn't happen.
Oh, so would I, which I find regrettable, because when people are dicks they need to be called out for being dicks, or else they don't know not to be a dick in the future. But I suspect you are right for all of the reasons (political and otherwise) that you state.
-
The first thing I thought was, "What would Dick Clark have said if that happened on his watch?"
Do people think Clark would have torn him a new a--hole on camera? He'd have played the shock for a laugh and mildly chastised him.
Granted, Anderson was a lousy player, but I appreciate the enthusiasm.
-
No, but I'm not sure it needs to be the federal case that is being made...
It's not a federal case we're making. We're saying "you don't do that."
Celebrities are humans and God's children just like everyone else. One thing people aren't saying is that in service of pushing this guy on the show because of synergy the show essentially deprived both contestants of a chance at winning the $100,000. The guest stars are supposed to be there to help the contestants win money, not the other way around, and it seems like people forget that.
-
Do people think Clark would have torn him a new a--hole on camera? He'd have played the shock for a laugh and mildly chastised him.
I very, VERY seriously doubt this.
-
I very, VERY seriously doubt this.
When Tony Randall cursed on camera, he howled. After Bill Shatner chucked furniture, they had him play one round alone. Sure, Anderson's breach was during the game, but Dick was too smooth on camera to be outraged like a Senator on a committee.
-
When Tony Randall cursed on camera, he howled. After Bill Shatner chucked furniture, they had him play one round alone.
I don't have a horse in this race like others here, but these moments aren't even comparable. The cursing was Tony trying to rattle him during a light pre-game interview. And you have a few Shatner moments mixed up. Bill threw a chair years after the solo round you describe (orange set vs. blue set). I believe the reason the solo Winners Circle was done was in consolation after a rough week of play.
There are countless times when Dick tried to settle everybody down after they were having fun. I think he took the game & the contestants' welfare in it pretty seriously. Some of the few times he gets caught on camera during the Winner's Circle, he can be seen calming the audience applause if there are less than 10 seconds left. His shout of "NEXT" seemed to be more for the stagehands to hurry it along, and not wait for a cue in their headset to turn the next box.
-Jason
-
His shout of "NEXT" seemed to be more for the stagehands to hurry it along, and not wait for a cue in their headset to turn the next box.
I'm reminded of one WC with Adrienne Barbeau. One unfortunate stagehand was taking too long to turn the box, and was greeted with a nasty "PASS!!!" from Adrienne, and an equally nasty "TURN IT!!!" from Dick.
-
Finally got around to seeing this. From all the good reports about the taping process, my anticipations and expectations were largely satisfied and correct, respectively. Several of the quibbles already mentioned (cut shots during the game, too many music beds, etc.) take away from what is an otherwise stellar production. The gameplay, for the most part, was fantastic. From little things such as the trilion monitors, to having an announcer announcing prize plugs for the Mystery 7 prize, it was great that the feel of the classic show was not lost.
And I want to mentioned specifically how well the Winner's Circle was executed. Thanks for keeping the classic camera angles and clock sound. It made the show.
Very pleased. Here's hoping if there's a season two they can clean up some of the flaws, but wow, it was so nice to see modern and classic so well mixed.
-
... Several of the quibbles already mentioned (cut shots during the game, too many music beds, etc.) take away from what is an otherwise stellar production.
No, they don't. At least from my household where we don't nitpick minutia like that. We liked what we saw and enjoyed the show.
-
Well then--it's settled. Nobody can ever say anything nuanced or negative about a game show ever again lest they start a Thunder storm.
-
I see what you did there, and I'll give that a Half True. Help yourself to a plateful of negativity, but when it comes to nuances as nitpicky as that... I draw the line and am going to return fire.
Dick Clark & Bob Stewart are dead. Some change is inevitable just considering the difference from then to now.
-
but when it comes to nuances as nitpicky as that... I draw the line and am going to return fire.
Why is it that you get to draw the line? It seems that the population in general does a good enough job of saying "Nope, that's over the line," and there are a handful of things I wish they would do differently. (For example, I miss the count-up on a failed winner's circle. It doesn't ruin the show that they're not doing it, but it was one of those little things that I thought added something to the post-play discussion.)
-
I agree with Thunder, at least in that it seems like a lot of the nitpicks people are bringing up are things that have changed about game show production in general in the last 30 years. No, the music wasn't essential and wasn't there in the golden age of Pyramid, but having music where they had music is pretty standard now and it was mixed pretty low. No, we don't really need to see that closeup of the host mid-round, but, in 2016, there's no way a director would sit on a static shot of two seated people for 30+ seconds.
They clearly went out of their way to replicate the production design of the old show, and it feels more like a legacy show than a completely new production, but there's only so much you can do to stop the march of time.
-
but when it comes to nuances as nitpicky as that... I draw the line and am going to return fire.
Why is it that you get to draw the line?
Because I'm the one getting upon my own Box-O-Soap and speaking my opinion. It's subject to challenge and I highly encourage people to do just that if they think I'm an idiot. That forces me to defend my opinion and learn more about others.
-
It's far worse when they use such music beds in what is supposed to be news.
-
No, we don't really need to see that closeup of the host mid-round, but, in 2016, there's no way a director would sit on a static shot of two seated people for 30+ seconds.
I challenge that ideology, but seeing as I'd lose that battle, I say at least keep the clock on screen when you do that. Losing it was probably more annoying than the changing of shots itself.
-
but when it comes to nuances as nitpicky as that... I draw the line and am going to return fire.
Why is it that you get to draw the line? It seems that the population in general does a good enough job of saying "Nope, that's over the line," and there are a handful of things I wish they would do differently. (For example, I miss the count-up on a failed winner's circle.
Does that truly take away from your viewing of the show? It adds (or takes away) very little, especially when your host struggles with math and can't calculate $650 correctly.
-
No, we don't really need to see that closeup of the host mid-round, but, in 2016, there's no way a director would sit on a static shot of two seated people for 30+ seconds.
I challenge that ideology, but seeing as I'd lose that battle, I say at least keep the clock on screen when you do that. Losing it was probably more annoying than the changing of shots itself.
I don't particularly defend the practice, just assert its inevitability. I mentioned cutting to Michael mid-round because that bugged me in a way that the different shots of the people actually playing the round didn't, and I'm with you on the clock, as well as the word in play. I remember one moment when I didn't know what the clue-giver was going for because the previous word had just been guessed and they weren't showing the front of the desk at that moment.
-
Possibly the best souvenir that I got from the day I went to a taping was this picture of me and a woman in the audience. She picked me in that Dating Game minigame that I talked about earlier. We danced on the set while Michael watched and Kathy and Rosie got prepared for the next show. Tom Kelly, the warm up guy, took the picture and recently sent it to me. I didn't even notice Strahan photobombing us in the background. It's definitely a picture I'll cherish.
(http://i.imgur.com/nLZdpEll.jpg)
-
That is awesome!
-
Possibly the best souvenir that I got from the day I went to a taping was this picture of me and a woman in the audience. She picked me in that Dating Game minigame that I talked about earlier. We danced on the set while Michael watched and Kathy and Rosie got prepared for the next show. Tom Kelly, the warm up guy, took the picture and recently sent it to me. I didn't even notice Strahan photobombing us in the background. It's definitely a picture I'll cherish.
(http://i.imgur.com/nLZdpEll.jpg)
That...is AWESOME.
As for my take on this Pyramid, I love it. This is a good idea on how to update the look while keeping core gameplay. My only nitpick (which is extremely small in nature) is the challenge of the Winner's Circle categories. The difficulty could be upped by a little bit when big money like this is on the line. However, that's just the thinker in me talking. Strahan is a great host and carries the show very well. I hope this gets shopped for Five-day-a-week syndication sometime in the future.
The Inquisitive One
/good to be back
// <--- is this still a thing?
-
I hate to take away from JJ's good times and all, but talking about the new and old ways: I think I would be OK with either the think music or cutaways (I would prefer the think music if it built to a crescendo like on Celebrity Name Game) but having both in one round is distracting.
OK, I must prevail upon the tribunal, because in the first winner's circle the cluegiver was buzzed for saying "memories" as conveying the answer "Things you Remember." Michael says that it was an inadvertent buzz so she picked up a further $4,000, but it seems like that was a perfectly legitimate buzz.
Aw, and she Bobbled on the "what a Thing would say" box as well.
-
Give her the car anyway!
-
Give her the car anyway!
That'll be next on Match Game. Choose Rosie for the head-to-head and she'll guilt-give you whatever thing you were looking to win money to buy your own damn self.
-
It's Your Chance of a Lifetime!
-
Give her the car anyway!
That'll be next on Match Game. Choose Rosie for the head-to-head and she'll guilt-give you whatever thing you were looking to win money to buy your own damn self.
I think she did that last week with the first contestant that lost. The lady wanted to go on the new kids on the block cruise, and Rosie said that she knows them and she'll get her on the cruise since they didn't match in the head to head.
-
FYI. Running the $10,000 top prize (in 1973) through the CPI inflation calculator shows that is now worth about $54,000 in today's money. So in actuality, they are playing for less now than in '73.
-
Except that in actuality they aren't.
-
OK, I must prevail upon the tribunal, because in the first winner's circle the cluegiver was buzzed for saying "memories" as conveying the answer "Things you Remember." Michael says that it was an inadvertent buzz so she picked up a further $4,000, but it seems like that was a perfectly legitimate buzz.
Assuming Da Rules are as we remember them from the 80's, I guess the question boils down to Do you accept nouns as synonyms for verbs? "Memorize" comes up as a synonym for "remember," so a case could be made that "memories" should be zapped as well. However, I'd also be okay with it being an acceptable clue and that a judge who was already extra-primed on the buzzer thanks to box 3 heard the wrong thing.
I'd also wager that this is a different discussion if she wasn't already buzzed once.
-
I think she did that last week with the first contestant that lost. The lady wanted to go on the new kids on the block cruise, and Rosie said that she knows them and she'll get her on the cruise since they didn't match in the head to head.
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/132/thatsthejoke.jpg)
-
Assuming Da Rules are as we remember them from the 80's, I guess the question boils down to Do you accept nouns as synonyms for verbs? "Memorize" comes up as a synonym for "remember," so a case could be made that "memories" should be zapped as well.
Seems to me that "memory" and "remember" are forms of the same word.
-
To Joe's point: are you saying that the rules change based upon the previous game state? Because that's news to me.
-
Except that in actuality they aren't.
Explain.
-
OK.
The top prize is $25,000. $25,000 is more than $5,000.
Or if you meant for Pyramid: $50,000 is more than $10,000, and $100,000 is twice as much more than the $10,000.
-
In all fairness, he said, when you adjust the $10K top prize for inflation, it comes to about $54K. So yes, when adjusted for inflation, the current 50K is slightly lower. Just a fun fact, no more, no less.
-
Quoted for repetition:
So in actuality, they are playing for less now than in '73.
And they're not. More money is more than less. In actuality.
-
Quoted for repetition:
So in actuality, they are playing for less now than in '73.
And they're not. More money is more than less. In actuality.
So in your world, the words "buying power" have no meaning? Because most assuredly, $10,000 in 1973 buys you a bit more than $50,000 does in 2016. Inflation is a real thing, even though it appears you just want to be pedantic.
-
But in 1973, the top prize was $5,000, not $10,000. The higher top prize did not come about until there was the Star Wheel. Once the other celebrities get fed up with Rosie O'Donnell answering all the head-to-head matches, then we should see that return.
Doot-doot-doot...doot..........dooooot. "For $50,000, you must match J.B. Smoove exactly...."
-
But in 1973, the top prize was $5,000, not $10,000. The higher top prize did not come about until there was the Star Wheel. Once the other celebrities get fed up with Rosie O'Donnell answering all the head-to-head matches, then we should see that return.
Doot-doot-doot...doot..........dooooot. "For $50,000, you must match J.B. Smoove exactly...."
Pssst....this is the Pyramid top prize argument. Match Game's down the hall, past the water fountain. ;)
-
I'm confused ... when is Matlock coming on?
Somewhere in there, we mentioned both shows, so to get my comment back on to Pyramid....
The titular prize is $100,000, but a contestant can actually win $150,000 for clearing both Winners Circles. Much more than the CPI-adjusted Pyramid grand prize.
-
Assuming Da Rules are as we remember them from the 80's, I guess the question boils down to Do you accept nouns as synonyms for verbs? "Memorize" comes up as a synonym for "remember," so a case could be made that "memories" should be zapped as well.
Seems to me that "memory" and "remember" are forms of the same word.
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have flown under as the synonym rule as they treated it in the 80s, given that the category is almost literally the dictionary definition of the clue ("something that is remembered", according to Merriam-Webster.com). On the other hand, I don't think that you can make an argument that they're forms of the same word (they have a common root, but you have to go several steps back into the etymology to find it) and I can accept a ruling that it's technically a legal clue because it's not actually listed as a synonym according to their word authority.
Then again, I'm also pretty sure that the 80s version would have had "THINGS YOU REMEMBER (MEMORIES)" in the box just to avoid this exact can of worms, and I wouldn't be shocked if exactly that came up at one point.
-
I recorded last night's "Pyramid" on DVR and watched it with the Mrs. She knows little about "Pyramid" and was more interested, at first, to see what host Michael Strahan was doing in between his "Live" and "GMA" gigs.
A little more than halfway through the first match (Ana Gasteyer vs. Rachel Dratch), she turned to me and said "These SNL ladies are great at this game".
Then she spouted off a clue or two during the second Winner's Circle. I think "Pyramid" won her over :)
-
So in your world, the words "buying power" have no meaning? Because most assuredly, $10,000 in 1973 buys you a bit more than $50,000 does in 2016. Inflation is a real thing, even though it appears you just want to be pedantic.
He didn't say "buying power", he said "in actuality." I'm just saying that numbers have meanings like words.
In 1973, $10,000 was a massive prize to be won on a game show in the span of sixty seconds anyway, but it also comes on the heels of about fifteen years where the most any show gave away was a thousand dollars. The paradigm had shifted forever when "$10,000" became a prize on a game show again. Witness that Play for Keeps used thousand-dollar bills for bets on their pilot for a Winner Take All revival. They did so because that was the zeitgeist of the time. If they had started out with ten bucks nobody gives a darn.
In 2016 "$50,000" doesn't pop because we are over-exposed to massive jackpots. It's generally one step past a milestone, or an outright grand prize for something like Wipeout or Fear Factor. You would not say that Who Wants to be a Millionaire would have only had a top prize of $265,000 in 1973 because it purposefully neglects the history of the medium. In 1985 "$100,000" popped because to win it you either had to win a tournament of champions, back yourself and win eight games of Sale of the Century, overcome long odds to unlock your Dream House, or be the lucky soul who manages to climb the $100,000. In 2001 we mocked "Our first game of Twenty-one is for $100,000" because again it neglects that history that a huge cash prize is hard to win. $10k in 1973 might buy $55,000, but nobody cares that the top prize for the first victory in the winner's circle buys less than some index says forty years ago because it's still Fifty Thousand Dollars.
-
Geez... I post a fun little fact and some get whacked out over it. Thanks for the chuckle... back to lurking mode for a few more years. LOL
-
The titular prize is $100,000, but a contestant can actually win $150,000 for clearing both Winners Circles. Much more than the CPI-adjusted Pyramid grand prize.
Is that accurate? My understanding was that if you played both Winner's Circles, whatever you won in the first one is bumped to $100,000 if you win the second one.
-
I was at a party, so I couldn't hear any audio last night. But from one of last week's episodes, I thought Michael indeed said the 100K from the second WC would be added to the initial 50K.
-
I was at a party, so I couldn't hear any audio last night. But from one of last week's episodes, I thought Michael indeed said the 100K from the second WC would be added to the initial 50K.
Correct. The $100,000 is added to your winnings. Two perfect WCs equate to $150,000.
-
Fair enough. I sit corrected.
-
So I hate to come across as cantankerous, but I really don't understand the logic of keeping the contestants' last names a secret. Each time the celebs deflect to some unfitting adjective to stave off saying their last name in the introduction, so I really don't understand why they don't just say them.
Also, apologies if I missed it somewhere earlier in the thread, but the shows are airing as they were taped, and by that I mean part game two was taped immediately after game one and they're not putting together games from two different taping sessions, correct?
-
Also, apologies if I missed it somewhere earlier in the thread, but the shows are airing as they were taped, and by that I mean part game two was taped immediately after game one and they're not putting together games from two different taping sessions, correct?
No, they're airing the shows in random order. I saw the first two shows taped, which haven't aired yet.
I liked the second show of the two aired on July 3rd. Mario Cantone really calmed down and played the game well. Robin Roberts was decent but had some brain farts. At least nobody shook anyone else's chair, thank goodness.
-
No, they're airing the shows in random order. I saw the first two shows taped, which haven't aired yet.
I think you mean to say "out of order." I'm guessing they're not drawing program possibilities from a hat.
-
Also, apologies if I missed it somewhere earlier in the thread, but the shows are airing as they were taped, and by that I mean part game two was taped immediately after game one and they're not putting together games from two different taping sessions, correct?
Definitely out of order. Reports earlier in the thread said Strahan taped two intros for each show so they could play as either half of the show. They also taped two shows with Rosie and Kathy back-to-back and only one has aired so far.
-
So I hate to come across as cantankerous, but I really don't understand the logic of keeping the contestants' last names a secret. Each time the celebs deflect to some unfitting adjective to stave off saying their last name in the introduction, so I really don't understand why they don't just say them.
Is it, perhaps, a privacy issue? In some states, lotto winners are allowed to retain their anonymity. With decent sums of money on the line, I can't say I'd want my full name and hometown out there, lest some scammers and unsavory people try and make contact with me.
-
Definitely out of order. Reports earlier in the thread said Strahan taped two intros for each show so they could play as either half of the show. They also taped two shows with Rosie and Kathy back-to-back and only one has aired so far.
The point Chad is making is that there is definitely some planning and intent as to what episodes they air when, which is the opposite of "random."
-
With decent sums of money on the line, I can't say I'd want my full name and hometown out there, lest some scammers and unsavory people try and make contact with me.
If you really have concerns about that, DON'T APPEAR ON NATIONAL NETWORK TELEVISION.
-
Definitely out of order. Reports earlier in the thread said Strahan taped two intros for each show so they could play as either half of the show. They also taped two shows with Rosie and Kathy back-to-back and only one has aired so far.
The point Chad is making is that there is definitely some planning and intent as to what episodes they air when, which is the opposite of "random."
I wasn't speaking to Chad's point. I was adding my two cents to answering the question posed.
-
ABC's press releases (available on thefutoncritic) always gove the players' full names, so privacy doesn't seem to be the concern.
-
I noticed that the synopsis on the WatchABC app on Roku (and presumably other platforms) mentioned everyone by full name as well.
-
With decent sums of money on the line, I can't say I'd want my full name and hometown out there, lest some scammers and unsavory people try and make contact with me.
Are they not trying to do that now? Sure, there's a difference between someone trying to snooker you out of a hundred grand and the person who asks if you have spare change so you'll open your wallet and be bludgeoned by her partner-in-crime, but it's one of degrees. Are you saying that you're not up to the task of protecting your windfall? Because I'm sure that you're careful about your earnings the rest of the times.
-
This has been a trend for shows going back to Weakest Link, 15 years ago. Although the idea makes sense, I doubt it's about privacy laws or a state by state thing, considering Millionaire displayed full names on screen, even when it taped in NYC.
I'm thinking it's just one of those things where the producers don't do it "because". And I don't mean that to be a smartass; it's just a thing where they feel you don't need to know the players' surnames. If I meet someone at the bar or some event, I don't usually tell them my full name because, unless we decide to become Facebook friends or network, it's not really pressing information I need right then and there.
So yeah, I could see the same idea applying to the full name of someone I'm only watching on TV for half an hour. I know we're used to the formalities and all, but some shows do it, others don't.
-
Not for nothing, I always liked that Tic Tac Dough displayed the names, and disliked that Joker's Wild did it. I can see why $25,000 Pyramid didn't, but there y'are. I've always looked at Millionaire choosing to do it as part of that getting to know you, similar to Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune.
/Chopped and Guy's Grocery Games do it, Cutthroat Kitchen doesn't really do it.
//Every contestant who summits the Pyramid giving the clues owes Keefe Ferrendini a cut of the money.
-
Are you saying that you're not up to the task of protecting your windfall? Because I'm sure that you're careful about your earnings the rest of the times.
I have no problem telling some scammer to cram it, but it shouldn't be as easy as doing a Google search to obtain people's personal information, including their home address.
-
Thirty years ago entrants in the TPIR Home Viewer Play Along events were including their social security number on the entry postcard. It's a different world that we live in now and refusing to adjust for that is going to close you off from lots of opportunities.
-
Thirty years ago entrants in the TPIR Home Viewer Play Along events were including their social security number on the entry postcard. It's a different world that we live in now and refusing to adjust for that is going to close you off from lots of opportunities.
Back in my college days, exam scores were posted on the window of the professor's office and usually listed by social security number, as they wanted to keep student's names confidential. My how times have changed.
Going back a bit further about 50 years ago, you had game shows announcing home contest winners which included their home street address in addition to their city and state. That was common for radio stations as well.
Now off my lawn!
-
Proposed: This version of Pyramid is even more exciting a show to watch than $25K was in its heyday.
Hear me out. Game play isn't as good, and that's my point. In the old days, game play was all, so much so that Stewart eventually had his cadre of great game players who rotated through the final years. And if, god forbid, Teresa Ganzel only got six in one round, it meant she was probably going to lose 21-20. Today, everybody's trying hard, but nobody's perfect. Fives and sixes are just as likely as sevens, and if you stumble and waste a lot of time on one clue, you may get even less. It's still early (and we're probably due for a clunker or two buried in the middle of the run), but right now I find the lack of perfection refreshing and more fun to watch.
Put another way, back in the old days, seven was assumed. Now, seven happens often enough, but it's still a cause for celebration, not a sure thing.
-
Put another way, back in the old days, seven was assumed. Now, seven happens often enough, but it's still a cause for celebration, not a sure thing.
Amen
-
And if, god forbid, Teresa Ganzel only got six in one round, it meant she was probably going to lose 21-20.
Great point, and why Donny's 6-in-25-seconds may have been good in theory, but the celebs weren't bright enough.
On another topic, I always loved when Dick would play out unanswered subjects and was annoyed that Donny didn't, but it's so obvious that Strahan is handed a clue on his way back out, I'm not sure what to think.
-
but it's so obvious that Strahan is handed a clue on his way back out, I'm not sure what to think.
Since you clearly have your own preconceived notions about Strahan and this show I certainly won't suggest what you should think, but for the benefit of the class I will point out that I don't find it "obvious" in the least.
-
but it's so obvious that Strahan is handed a clue on his way back out, I'm not sure what to think.
Since you clearly have your own preconceived notions about Strahan and this show I certainly won't suggest what you should think, but for the benefit of the class I will point out that I don't find it "obvious" in the least.
Since I'm certain more than a few of us agree with your assessment, for the sake of knowing where both sides stand I would ask Neumms to elaborate on this ax he is grinding.
-
It wasn't obvious to me at all. If it's not obvious to me then for how many other people is it also not an issue?
-
So I can comment on a specific thing from Sunday's show here?
"Mouse" for "Mice" in the "spelled with America's letters" round should have never been accepted, even with the long-standing rule that they will take plurals/singulars.
-
Wasn't there a round where Strahan said they had to give the exact word?
-
but it's so obvious that Strahan is handed a clue on his way back out, I'm not sure what to think.
Since you clearly have your own preconceived notions about Strahan and this show I certainly won't suggest what you should think, but for the benefit of the class I will point out that I don't find it "obvious" in the least.
At first I was inclined to believe he was being given clues but was convinced (or at least nudged in the direction of) otherwise since (a) he doesn't always have one and (b) I would hope that no one on staff gave him "finger foods" as a clue for "Things You Eat With Your Hands" because I would expect that to get buzzed.
I didn't see the first week's episodes, but based on what I saw this week, my only criticism of Strahan is that he tends to rely on the same stock phrases ("That was a good round," "What would you do with $xx,000?", etc.). But he's an experienced live broadcaster, so I would expect him to come up with some other things to say as he becomes more comfortable with the format.
-
I didn't see the first week's episodes, but based on what I saw this week, my only criticism of Strahan is that he tends to rely on the same stock phrases ("That was a good round," "What would you do with $xx,000?", etc.). But he's an experienced live broadcaster, so I would expect him to come up with some other things to say as he becomes more comfortable with the format.
Dunno if I would call it a gripe, but the "What would you do with the money?" was used on the opening episodes of both Pyramid and Match Game, and it seemed like such a crutch IMO. I get that it's a question hosts have asked since the beginning of time, but it stood out when I watched.
-
Dunno if I would call it a gripe, but the "What would you do with the money?" was used on the opening episodes of both Pyramid and Match Game, and it seemed like such a crutch IMO. I get that it's a question hosts have asked since the beginning of time, but it stood out when I watched.
I am starting to feel like they are being told specifically to ask that first. And honestly in 99% of the cases I could give a tin shiat as to what they would do with the money. :)
-
I am starting to feel like they are being told specifically to ask that first. And honestly in 99% of the cases I could give a tin shiat as to what they would do with the money. :)
Ditto, but I'm sure it's a question on the audition, and possibly a weeder one, because who wants to see a parade of people who are good at a game show and would use the money sensibly to improve their lives a little bit.
-
I forget which show it was that I auditioned for, but I remember a contestant coordinator telling us, "When they ask you what you would do with the money, don't say that you're going on vacation. Everybody always says that and it's boring."
/used his money to go on vacation
-
Ditto, but I'm sure it's a question on the audition, and possibly a weeder one, because who wants to see a parade of people who are good at a game show and would use the money sensibly to improve their lives a little bit.
Yeah, they are clearly looking for stories. Which is a shame because I would love for one of them to smile up and Strahan and reply "Hookers and blow, Michael. Hookers and blow."
-
I think my go-to response moving forward is going to be that my next glass eye will have a wee little (but still functional) Magic Eight ball suspended in aqueous humor. Because what are they going to do; check in on me years from now to make sure that I followed through with my amusing anecdote?
There are literally three times that I remember somebody's tale (one from Millionaire, two from Greed). In watching the nighttime Sale of the Century, the two top prize winners so far have said they're going to use their windfalls like sane people. My least favorite question when it comes to Final Tribal Council Sponsored by Preparation H is "what are you going to do with the money/how much to charity?" because I've always felt that shouldn't enter into it, even though at least one winner probably became Sole Survivor because he had the better story. Blarg.
-
I didn't even think of the fact that they want inspiring stories for how to spend the money (damn you Endemol USA...damn you!). And here I thought paying off some credit cards/medical bills, with a little savings account and tithing for good measure was enough.
/Humdrum
//But.....I'm riiiich biotch!!
///Honk honk
-
Aw, I am disappoint: Jeopardy Archive doesn't have anything corroborative about Marvin Shinkman's desire to take the $100,000 prize and spending it on rare stamps that Marvin would then spread out on his bed and roll around on.
/and you're welcome for that visual
-
Proposed: This version of Pyramid is even more exciting a show to watch than $25K was in its heyday.
[...]
Put another way, back in the old days, seven was assumed. Now, seven happens often enough, but it's still a cause for celebration, not a sure thing.
An interesting idea, and I agree with your overall point. I'm charged up when I see them literally discover the next generation of great players as they get their first at-bat, like Ana Gasteyer & Rachel Dratch. But I'm honestly fast-forwarding when somebody like Robin Roberts struggles to say anything about a few simple words. Not to mention the contestants who have the same problem. The re-evolution of the show is encouraging, yes, but I'll be ready to call it exciting when the consistency comes back up a notch. I agree the 21-21 lather/rinse/repeats were dull.
The biggest upside, comparing this to the last attempt on GSN, is that they're likely to learn from their mistakes here and continue to schedule better players over better bookings. At one point, GSN ran $25,000 episodes back to back with Mike Richards episodes, and my dad found himself changing the channel in the second half of the hour because the quality of play discouraged him. He also called me last weekend wondering why the players had such a hard time with the Winner's Circle on ABC, and I told him about the benefits they had in the '80s vs. now when the show's been (largely) off television for a decade. Fingers crossed!
-Jason
-
I was going to use a metaphor of one is the Isner v. Mahut endless tiebreaker and the other is your kid's elementary school orchestra recital. Jason covered the point about taking forever to describe a simple word so I won't belabor the point, but when the players are getting spun up to the point where they can't communicate it isn't fun to watch. The two strikes against are the limited run and airing shows out of order so we don't get to see the evolution of the show in the same way that we get to see the 1982 version making tweaks and changes so that the final product is Emmy-worthy.
-
Ditto, but I'm sure it's a question on the audition, and possibly a weeder one, because who wants to see a parade of people who are good at a game show and would use the money sensibly to improve their lives a little bit.
Yeah, they are clearly looking for stories. Which is a shame because I would love for one of them to smile up and Strahan and reply "Hookers and blow, Michael. Hookers and blow."
There are times when this board needs a Like button.
(Sidebar: The application for a major theatre-writing award requires an essay about why you need the award. A couple of times, I've begun mine with, "I plan to squander the Foundation's support recklessly on housing and food."
Since I haven't won yet, I assume that's not what they're looking for.)
-
I was going to use a metaphor of one is the Isner v. Mahut endless tiebreaker and the other is your kid's elementary school orchestra recital. Jason covered the point about taking forever to describe a simple word so I won't belabor the point, but when the players are getting spun up to the point where they can't communicate it isn't fun to watch. The two strikes against are the limited run and airing shows out of order so we don't get to see the evolution of the show in the same way that we get to see the 1982 version making tweaks and changes so that the final product is Emmy-worthy.
Michael may get smoother as the episodes progress (in taping order, not broadcast order), but since the guest stars don't repeat and there aren't returning champions, I don't think there'll be any gameplay "improvements." But that's fine. For this run, the job is to be a good enough show that ABC issues a pickup order for another season or a daytime run. I believe it is.
-
For this run, the job is to be a good enough show that ABC issues a pickup order for another season or a daytime run. I believe it is.
The thing I find encouraging is that the *middle* show in a three-hour block is the one pulling the best numbers.
-
The shows airing on July 10 feature Snoop Dogg vs Martha Stewart (??) and Ken Jeong (Dr. Ken) vs. Tisha Campbell Martin. I saw the second show in person. I will say no more.
-
ABC announced during tonight's Pyramid that a rerun will air Tuesday night, replacing the canceled Uncle Buck.
Brian
-
I saw the second show in person. I will say no more.
We thank you for that, and would appreciate your inside observations tomorrow after the show has aired.
-
So...if someone wins $100K in the second Winner's Circle, the money is additional, not "bumped" to a total of 100K. Tonight's contestant won $104,500.
-
So...if someone wins $100K in the second Winner's Circle, the money is additional, not "bumped" to a total of 100K. Tonight's contestant won $104,500.
Yes, we knew this. Top prize on offer is technically $150,000.
-
My mistake. Just clarifying, that's all, since I think if that's the first time it happened this season.
-
ABC announced during tonight's Pyramid that a rerun will air Tuesday night, replacing the canceled Uncle Buck.
Brian
I figured it was a late addition, but didn't bother to look up what was originally on. Thanks!
-
One little game show "throwback" Pyramid has that I am starting to notice and like: The "Ka-Chunk" sound the trilons make when turning. Just like how some people loved the noise of the trilons on the original Concentration.
-
Scattershot thoughts:
The Ken/Tisha episode was my favorite so far, and Snoop/Stewart ranked dead last.
I can deal with the cutaways and the think music during the main game (are they toning that down now? It seemed much less intrusive.)
It seems to me like the difficulty for the $5,000 box is the middle row of the 80s version. None of the subjects has felt to me like those amorphous ones where you have to put together three or four things and use lateral thinking.
-
It seems to me like the difficulty for the $5,000 box is the middle row of the 80s version. None of the subjects has felt to me like those amorphous ones where you have to put together three or four things and use lateral thinking.
This. I was discussing this same thing with a friend of mine about how Things That Are Congested wasn't in the top box (IMO, I thought that was a killer. Of course, YMMV). Why the writers are afraid of putting a "Things That Are Cultivated" or a "Things That Are Enshrined" in the $5K square is beyond me.
-
Why the writers are afraid of putting a "Things That Are Cultivated" or a "Things That Are Enshrined" in the $5K square is beyond me.
Because when the show is finding its legs again, playing with celebrities that may not be the best to find out who could the best, it's good to have winners now and again on medium difficulty instead of running into a roadblock 20 times in a row. At this point, I'm perfectly content with "Things That Are Congested" and "Things You Adjust" as the final two subjects to encounter.
/"Things You Encounter?"
-
The sound seemed much lower during parts of last night's episode. There was a point where I could barely hear the theme song, and when one of the clues got "Cuckoo'd", it seemed kinda low.
Or do I just need to clean my ears? :P
-
That was one exciting win for $100K Sunday evening. I was in the audience for that. The whole place exploded when that happened. Everyone was on their feet, including the opposing team and crew. Mind you, this was only the second show they had taped.
Tonight (July 12), they're showing encore eps of Celeb FF and Pyramid. The bad news is they're showing the Kellie Pickler and Anthony Anderson eps, respectively. Ugh.
-
Mind you, this was only the second show they had taped.
What's interesting to me is that I thought Strahan seemed much looser and better able to ad lib on this episode (and the Martha/Snoop one) than he did on last week's episodes, at least one of which had to have been taped after this one. Then again, it may be that some of the good stuff got edited out of those other ones.
-
Anyone know if ABC is going to rerun tonight's (July 17) "Pyramid" on a Tuesday or Wed. or Thurs. in a week or two?
-
Anyone know if ABC is going to rerun tonight's (July 17) "Pyramid" on a Tuesday or Wed. or Thurs. in a week or two?
Not sure, but with the upcoming conventions, there isn't as much of a need for filler programming. The listings I have from TV Weekly have sitcoms on Tuesday. That could change. I'm presuming Dave doesn't have on-demand capability. Generally all the ABC game shows are available the next day.
-
What Jimmy said - the RNC will take up the 10pm timeslot this week Monday-Thursday, and Friday night is the usual 20/20 at 10.
Even in looking at updated listings on TV Guide's website, no encore presentations.
-
Watching the first half I thought the second half winner's circle was significantly more brutal than that in round one and indeed any episode thus far. Re: the $3,000 box, how many other answers were there?
-
Watching the first half I thought the second half winner's circle was significantly more brutal than that in round one and indeed any episode thus far. Re: the $3,000 box, how many other answers were there?
If u are talking about the Weird Al WC...
The player should have added the "the" article to his clues. Maybe it's me, but saying "the mini" instead of "mini" would get the partner closer to the answer.
Another way to do size for clues -- ankle length, knee length
I presume "Scottish kilt" would be an acceptable clue as well
JD
-
Another potential issue I thought was with the emergency room category. I don't remember which round it was but the contestant said "A doctor... an urgent doctor." That would probably definitely be a buzzed clue in the 80s for a illegal lead to a clue (like "a long rose" for things with a stem) but now with these Urgent Care Centers (the step between a regular physician and the ER), is the correct title of a physician there an "urgent doctor?"
-
Watching the first half I thought the second half winner's circle was significantly more brutal than that in round one and indeed any episode thus far. Re: the $3,000 box, how many other answers were there?
The $3,000 box was a category where you were either going to be able to make the connection quickly or having a million years wouldn't help. In terms of other clues, "poodle", "christmas tree," and "Catholic schoolgirl's plaid uniform" came to mind.
$4,000 would have been gettable if the clue-giver had been able to stay calm. Al was almost there, but he only ever got a couple mediocre clues and some nodding.
$5,000 was not impossible, but if you don't get it from the figurative meaning the clue-giver used, I don't think it's possible to circle around and try the literal meaning. There is one clue I can think of that points directly to the word, but it requires knowledge of a relatively recent Broadway musical, which might or might not work.
-
but it requires knowledge of a relatively recent Broadway musical, which might or might not work.
FWIW, we thought of this too. Dunno if I'd have gotten it under the actual pressure of the situation, but as a swerve it's a decent clue.
After a few of "butt-plugs, ball gags, nipple clamps, a gimp suit", throwing in "Some garden hoses" might turn the light on.
-
"50 Shades of Grey"?
The first thing that came to mind was handcuffs, but that probably leads to Al guessing "Things a police officer uses..."
-
but it's so obvious that Strahan is handed a clue on his way back out...
...for the benefit of the class I will point out that I don't find it "obvious" in the least.
I'm warming to him. When he's loose and joshing with the players, he's good fun and, in that way, pretty different from Dick Clark. And he's been doing it for, what, a month.
At the Winners' Circle, though, he doesn't seem as into the game. When Dick had the perfect answer--it often came up when he was leaning on the railing--you could sense his eureka. When Michael walked over and said "Ouija," for example, he spat it out flat and moved on. There was no sense--at least to me--that it was HIS answer.
-
I don't get why that's such a big deal. He doesn't have to be a carbon copy of Dick Clark, he needs to move the game along and offer a little guidance. Besides, there's a lot less airtime to work with, compared to 30 years ago...
-
After a few of "butt-plugs, ball gags, nipple clamps, a gimp suit", throwing in "Some garden hoses" might turn the light on.
Good weekend for you, then?
-
and "Catholic schoolgirl's plaid uniform" came to mind.
Sorry, but I'd be buzzing this one for describing the word skirt instead of being a type of skirt. (Bob Stewart's mileage may have varied.) Reasonably good clue in the front, game, however.
Pleated and hoop haven't been given, I don't think.
-
Good weekend for you, then?
I debated whether to go for the "I call that 'Tuesday'" joke or not. :)
-
Overnight ratings are still holding strong for the ABC Game Night, with Pyramid the most dominant in it's hour. :
7 p.m. 60 Minutes (CBS) 0.8/3 7.85
Celebrity Family Feud (ABC) R 0.8/3 4.38
Dateline (NBC) R 0.7/3 3.96
The Simpsons (FOX) R 0.4/2 1.23
7:30 p.m. Bobs Burgers (FOX) R 0.5/2 1.23
8 p.m. Big Brother (CBS) 1.8/7 5.85
Celebrity Family Feud (ABC) 1.5/6 7.48
The Simpsons (FOX) R 0.6/3 1.51
Hollywood Game Night (NBC) R 0.4/2 2.02
8:30 p.m. Brooklyn Nine-Nine (FOX) R 0.5/2 1.17
9 p.m. The $100,000 Pyramid (ABC) 1.4/5 7.02
American Ninja Warrior (NBC) (9-11 p.m.) R 0.8/3 2.61
Family Guy (FOX) R 0.7/3 1.60
Madam Secretary (CBS) R 0.4/2 3.04
9:30 p.m. The Last Man on Earth (FOX) R 0.4/2 0.98
10 p.m. Match Game (ABC) 1.2/5 5.81
Elementary (CBS) R 0.3/1 2.47
-
$4,000 would have been gettable if the clue-giver had been able to stay calm. Al was almost there, but he only ever got a couple mediocre clues and some nodding.
Given it seems that lots of the contestants are lifelong fans of the show and have waited a long time to get to do this I am curious as to why more of the contestants are not taking advantage of the easier material and using your words to pinpoint categories and locations. "My Honda Civic owner's manual". "$20 gas money." "A tire pressure gauge." Using answers that focus in on "ok, it pertains to cars, now what?" Sure, everyone's giving a list but it seems like a little more thought into some of the middle level boxes would have helped the team to a victory.
-
Given it seems that lots of the contestants are lifelong fans of the show and have waited a long time to get to do this I am curious as to why more of the contestants are not taking advantage of the easier material and using your words to pinpoint categories and locations.
Because theorizing in your TV room and playing for keeps can be like comparing apples and orbital mechanics.
-
Right on. Let me know when you want to contribute to the thread.
-
Right on. Let me know when you want to contribute to the thread.
"Oh yeah? So's your face!" would have been more adult-like.
-
And also to you.
/things that go BOOM!
//so we can call clues mediocre but can't say that practice can make perfect or indeed another $45k or $95k.
-
and "Catholic schoolgirl's plaid uniform" came to mind.
Sorry, but I'd be buzzing this one for describing the word skirt instead of being a type of skirt. (Bob Stewart's mileage may have varied.) Reasonably good clue in the front, game, however.
Pleated and hoop haven't been given, I don't think.
I'll admit that that exact wording came to mind well after the buzzer, and I'll agree that it's risky. To me, it's veering into "things with a skirt" territory more than to a description of a skirt, but I figure that the biggest thing in the WC is getting the word out "skirt" out of my partner, so it's a risk I'd consider.
-
Anyone said "a tutu" yet?
-
I'm pretty sure "grass" is a legal, albeit terrible, clue.
Ones I'm less sure about (and are also terrible) are "steak" and "excess tablecloth".
-
Ones I'm less sure about (and are also terrible) are "steak"
Isn't this the other way around, that skirt steak is a kind of steak and not a kind of skirt.
-
I'll admit that that exact wording came to mind well after the buzzer, and I'll agree that it's risky. To me, it's veering into "things with a skirt" territory more than to a description of a skirt, but I figure that the biggest thing in the WC is getting the word out "skirt" out of my partner, so it's a risk I'd consider.
Drop the word "plaid" and you're probably fine. At that point, you're putting the uniform in your list, not a part of the uniform.
-
This Sunday we have shows featuring Terry Crews and Randall Park, among others. I saw the Randall Park show in person. This was the first episode they taped.
-
Second WC of tonight's second episode is brutal on a number of levels.
-
Second WC of tonight's second episode is brutal on a number of levels.
Near Tom Poston levels of bad. I think she showed that she was much better at giving than receiving. Perhaps the contestant shoud've elected to have her give.
-
In the $100,000 winner's circle, for the subject "underwater" do you zap "a scuba diver" as including the answer or not?
-
In the $100,000 winner's circle, for the subject "underwater" do you zap "a scuba diver" as including the answer or not?
At first I thought no, because it did fit the category and didn't seem like it'd be dangerous. Then I remembered what the U in "scuba"- remember, it's not just a word but also an acronym- stood for. Obvious buzz for saying the word, even though it would be unintentional.
-
I buzz for "under", I buzz for "water", I buzz for "underwater". I don't buzz for a word whose etymology has the "u" coming from "underwater". That's being excessively anal, even by 80s standards.
-
I buzz for "under", I buzz for "water", I buzz for "underwater". I don't buzz for a word whose etymology has the "u" coming from "underwater". That's being excessively anal, even by 80s standards.
I agree with this, even if I can't see it.
(Seriously, is there a way of moving this thread to the Show Summaries? If we're going to talk about episodes -- and I think that we want to -- I'd rather it all didn't look like a redacted spy document.)
-
Now I'll have to go back and watch the second show in its entirety. I came in during the second Winner's Circle, which my wife told me about.
My reaction to the first game (other than "Holy crap, Anna Camp's beautiful") was, considering you had two celebs who had no experience playing the game, it went really well. Did someone here say that was the first show taped?
-
My reaction to the first game (other than "Holy crap, Anna Camp's beautiful") was, considering you had two celebs who had no experience playing the game, it went really well. Did someone here say that was the first show taped?
Yes, I said that. I was in the audience for this show and the show with Dr. Ken.
-
My reaction to the first game (other than "Holy crap, Anna Camp's beautiful")
You too, huh? I was not familiar with her.
-
You too, huh? I was not familiar with her.
Probably best known for being in both of the Pitch Perfect movies at this point (look up the ending of the first one on YouTube to get the idea), but she's recurring on The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and has done some other series and movie work.
-
Remember the overarching cuckoo rule is "conveying the essence of the answer" and the credo "we deal in sounds." When you have words like laser and radar that are no longer functionally acronyms, the /l/ sound in laser conveys the L that stands for light. The ubiquitous example from Clark was "FBI for investigation," where you enunciate a letter that abbreviates the clue. Using the letter conveys an abbreviated word, just as you can't say "it begins with an I." This is also why "the superhero with an S on his chest" conveys the answer for Superman.
In the above-redacted example, the essence of the answer was not conveyed, so it was acceptable. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a note on the game sheet indicating it was an acceptable clue.
-
Well, the "super" in "superhero" also conveys "Superman". :-p I do recall somebody on the 80s version getting the cuckoo for just the S. though.
-
Also "with an S" would also be the dredded prepositional phase that is always too descriptive.
-
Second WC of tonight's second episode is brutal on a number of levels.
Nobody's yet mentioned the first subject, and I cry foul on that one. The essence of the answer is "popular," and aside from listing websites with the most hits, how you convey popular with such a noun is brutal for a first subject. It's akin to "famous losers."
It's not impossible, just too dang difficult for the first box. It should have swapped places with the fourth one, if for no other reason, because "what [subject] might say" should always be on the bottom row.
Also, how the heck do you get credit for "Parts of the American flag" without saying "American"
-
That's why they accepted "websites" and not "popular websites." I agree with the semantic point, but that was absolutely placed properly in the $50-spot because it's one that you should knock out in two seconds to build momentum. I think that's also why they gave credit for a partial-answer--that it would be foul TV waiting for Anna to come up with the word that was missing because the clue giver wasn't going to say "the colonial thirteen stripes" or "the baseball and apple pie fifty stars."
Compound answers are a bad scene in the end game.
-
That's why they accepted "websites" and not "popular websites."
Did they? I thought they passed on that one and never got credit. Either way, I agree with your point that if you're going to accept "websites," it's fine as a $50, though if that's what you're going to accept, then just put "websites" in the box.
I think that's also why they gave credit for a partial-answer--that it would be foul TV waiting for Anna to come up with the word that was missing because the clue giver wasn't going to say "the colonial thirteen stripes" or "the baseball and apple pie fifty stars."
True, but a little repetition with emphasis ("the thirteen stripes, the fifty stars"), making it very clear you're talking about a specific flag should be enough of a trigger for the guesser to utter "American."
-
That's why they accepted "websites" and not "popular websites."
Did they? I thought they passed on that one and never got credit. Either way, I agree with your point that if you're going to accept "websites," it's fine as a $50, though if that's what you're going to accept, then just put "websites" in the box.
They only got the second box for $1,500.
/Sorry, Matt
-
One thing about the compound subject is that it can narrow the clues that the giver can say (If it's about the American flag, you wouldn't say a maple leaf or the union jack) without constricting the answer space.
-
I feel bad for that last contestant. I've heard this said about Tom Poston as well, but it's almost as if Natasha Leo had a stroke during that WC. On the last attempted category, he gave two very good clues and was greeted with the response of "Uh-huh?..." By that point, he was on tilt.
-
I feel bad for that last contestant. I've heard this said about Tom Poston as well, but it's almost as if Natasha Leo had a stroke during that WC. On the last attempted category, he gave two very good clues and was greeted with the response of "Uh-huh?..." By that point, he was on tilt.
Didn't that same contestant say "your partner" for Things You Hit, as if he was giving an insult to Natasha? I knew he then said "your wife" which quickly took my attention away from the former clue.
-
Didn't that same contestant say "your partner" for Things You Hit, as if he was giving an insult to Natasha? I knew he then said "your wife" which quickly took my attention away from the former clue.
He said "a person," but I like your clue. :)
-
Well, the "super" in "superhero" also conveys "Superman". :-p I do recall somebody on the 80s version getting the cuckoo for just the S. though.
Ha! The funny thing was that I used "superhero" because was avoiding the word "man" in my example!
-
My reaction to the first game (other than "Holy crap, Anna Camp's beautiful") was, considering you had two celebs who had no experience playing the game, it went really well. Did someone here say that was the first show taped?
Yes indeed, and to get a $100K win right out of the box. Then they tape the second show with Dr. Ken and Tisha Campbell get another $100K win. I never imagined that happening. I purposely did not go back to see more shows taped. I saw two $100K wins, it's not going to get better than that. I will continue to watch on Sundays to see if anyone else wins the $100K.
-
That's why they accepted "websites" and not "popular websites."
Did they? I thought they passed on that one and never got credit. Either way, I agree with your point that if you're going to accept "websites," it's fine as a $50, though if that's what you're going to accept, then just put "websites" in the box.
If they didn't buzz "Bing" for not fitting the category, I think it's pretty obvious the word "popular" didn't mean anything.
-
Given that the interview segment is the only chance we get to know the contestant partners it annoys me that they seem to be edited to the point where we get "I'm a theater professor here in New York City" and an abrupt jump cut. Boo.
/Well done to Daymond John for being tonight's best celebrity more or less by default.
-
I would love to see a celebrity comment that his contestant partner has no last name, but it would never make it past post-production.
-
/Well done to Daymond John for being tonight's best celebrity more or less by default.
Why are you hating on Mario Batali? I thought he was Rosie-levels of outstanding.
-
What got me is how ridiculously calm he was. Maybe its the crocs?
-
What got me is how ridiculously calm he was. Maybe its the crocs?
He talked more about his crocs at the taping, but that wound up on the cutting room floor.
-
/Well done to Daymond John for being tonight's best celebrity more or less by default.
Why are you hating on Mario Batali? I thought he was Rosie-levels of outstanding.
And then some. His Winners Circle play was particularly good.
-
There was a promo for two weeks airing on August 14. Is Pyramid being preempted on August 7 for some reason?
-
There was a promo for two weeks airing on August 14. Is Pyramid being preempted on August 7 for some reason?
The whole Sunday Fun & Games lineup is doing reruns next week rather than throw new episodes up against Night 3 of the Olympics.
-
What got me is how ridiculously calm he was. Maybe its the crocs?
He talked more about his crocs at the taping, but that wound up on the cutting room floor.
Mario was the definition of calm, cool and collected in the WC both times he was there. Other than having no idea who Daniel Radcliffe is, Daymond John played the game well too.
For "Things that are strict," I wonder if they would have accepted "A Disciplinarian." Other clues I thought of were "A drill sergeant" and "Judge Judy."
-
The WC which included the category "Credit Cards" was brutal as well. The contestant fell right into the Mastercard trap.
-
For "Things that are strict," I wonder if they would have accepted "A Disciplinarian." Other clues I thought of were "A drill sergeant" and "Judge Judy."
"A stern taskmaster."
/As usual, one "M".
-
For "Things that are strict," I wonder if they would have accepted "A Disciplinarian." Other clues I thought of were "A drill sergeant" and "Judge Judy."
"A stern taskmaster."
/As usual, one "M".
I might have to buzz you on that. Synonyms.
-
I would have said, "A martinet", but most people's eyes would have glazed over, I think.
-
Other than having no idea who Daniel Radcliffe is, Daymond John played the game well too.
I agree, but I thought he handled the "Daniel Radcliffe" thing really, really badly. He just shut down and shook his head. At least say "It's a guy's name," and I bet there would be a good chance that his partner would guess it. By the time he mumbled something to that effect it was too late.
-
I would have said, "A martinet", but most people's eyes would have glazed over, I think.
Aristophanes!
-
I would have said, "A martinet", but most people's eyes would have glazed over, I think.
No joy:
"A strict disciplinarian, especially in the armed forces."
/I see martinet and I think of the v/o artist who supplies Mario's voice.
-
The WC which included the category "Credit Cards" was brutal as well. The contestant fell right into the Mastercard trap.
That was an easy trap to fall into. I played along at home, and rattled off "Visa, Chase, Masterca...." and realized I would've made the same mistake.
-
I might have to buzz you on that. Synonyms.
I don't agree, but Oxford agrees with you, so whatever. Interestingly, Oxford only agrees with you in one direction: it lists "stern" as a synonym for "strict" but not the other way around.
-
Today I learned that language is funny sometimes. How about that deal. (My understanding is that stern is harsh and demanding, strict is adherence to the rules to a high degree. So it might be a legal clue but is it a good one?)
/Yes, "Credit cards" is a grisly bear trap, but it's still up to the clue giver to tiptoe around the trap and not fall headfirst into it.
-
/Yes, "Credit cards" is a grisly bear trap, but it's still up to the clue giver to tiptoe around the trap and not fall headfirst into it.
While this is true, I put "trap" subjects on the same level as "swerve" questions in a lockout-based trivia game. I think they are lazy writing and a bit of a power trip on the part of the writer.
If the only thing that makes a subject interesting is the fact that a VERY obvious clue is illegal (and in this case, not even illegal because of the main identifying adjective, but because of the mundane collective noun), that category should get pitched. The Winner's Circle is about coming up with a clever list of items, not tiptoeing around landmines.
-
Maybe they're already in "budget mode"
-
I might have to buzz you on that. Synonyms.
I don't agree, but Oxford agrees with you, so whatever. Interestingly, Oxford only agrees with you in one direction: it lists "stern" as a synonym for "strict" but not the other way around.
That's...strange. Never heard of that before.
-
The WC which included the category "Credit Cards" was brutal as well. The contestant fell right into the Mastercard trap.
The rest of it wasn't bad at all. There's much better clues for "Things That Jump" than "bean" and "rope", and as Michael pointed out, the top box had a very-gettable pop culture reference.
-
The rest of it wasn't bad at all. There's much better clues for "Things That Jump" than "bean" and "rope", and as Michael pointed out, the top box had a very-gettable pop culture reference.
Well, yeah, that's when you have to dip into the adjective pool. "A Mexican bean." "A Double Dutch rope". But it's always a lot easier in my chair than in their chair.
-
Maybe they're already in "budget mode"
Maybe they should have thought of that before they made the first trip to the Winnar's Circle worth Fifty Thousand Damn Dollars. :)
-
Maybe they're already in "budget mode"
We're not seeing the shows in anything remotely close to the order in which they were taped, so that's a hard claim to make.
-
The first two shows they taped saw back-to-back $100K wins. I was in the audience for those, and I don't think anyone was counting on that happening. Both of those shows have aired.
-
The whole Sunday Fun & Games lineup is doing reruns next week rather than throw new episodes up against Night 3 of the Olympics.
Canada's Much Music has been airing episodes following their first run on ABC Thursdays at 11 PM and the following Sunday at 5 PM. While this Sunday's a repeat, this coming Thursday's and the early Sunday's airings are presently listed to be episode seven, featuring Steve Schirripa versus Melissa Peterman and Teri Polo versus Zachary Levi--before it airs on ABC next Sunday night.
I'll see if they do actually air it early.
-
The rest of it wasn't bad at all. There's much better clues for "Things That Jump" than "bean" and "rope", and as Michael pointed out, the top box had a very-gettable pop culture reference.
Well, yeah, that's when you have to dip into the adjective pool. "A Mexican bean." "A Double Dutch rope". But it's always a lot easier in my chair than in their chair.
Calaveras County's frog
-
Judging question from August 14:
Shouldn't "blown-up balloon" have been buzzed for "things you inflate?" They seem synonymous, and the clue is wrong, since one doesn't inflate a blown-up balloon.
-
Judging question from August 14:
Shouldn't "blown-up balloon" have been buzzed for "things you inflate?" They seem synonymous, and the clue is wrong, since one doesn't inflate a blown-up balloon.
Yeah, I said "oh, that's gonna get buzzed" when it happened, and was surprised when it wasn't.
-
I was still distracted by their pathetic excuse for a tiebreaker. There's something really wrong with the team getting fewer correct answers in the final round still ending up the winner, especially if they flub one of the answers with an unacceptable clue. Is it really impossible to do a game show in this day and age without a "hurry-up offence" ready to move a bit faster through the proceedings if a tiebreaker round is necessary?
-
I would have buzzed her for coughing while describing Reasons Why You Cough...
-
I was still distracted by their pathetic excuse for a tiebreaker. There's something really wrong with the team getting fewer correct answers in the final round still ending up the winner, especially if they flub one of the answers with an unacceptable clue.
I don't disagree that their current tiebreaker isn't the optimal solution, but when in Pyramid has it ever mattered in what round order you scored your points? 18 is 18, whether it comes in 6-6-6 or 7-7-4.
-
The problem I have is twofold: they're not revealing how close it was ("for every second you don't use, we'll give you $100" is a two-prong solution) and the other is whether or not there's a premium on seven-point rounds or not, because in that case someone who gets a seven point round wins over someone who doesn't.
Watched the second half last night and there was at least one point where I blipped ahead thirty seconds between the end of one round and the beginning of another without missing any game play. They absolutely could tighten it up and have a tiebreak sprint if they cared.
-
The problem I have is twofold: they're not revealing how close it was ("for every second you don't use, we'll give you $100" is a two-prong solution) and the other is whether or not there's a premium on seven-point rounds or not, because in that case someone who gets a seven point round wins over someone who doesn't.
The main unfair premium is the difference between someone getting five quickly and then getting hung up on the sixth and the time expiring, and the one who gets five, but has to pass on one in the middle they took a lot of time on. Same issue; it's just luck of the draw as to when the stumper showed up.
Quick tiebreaker? Three words, timed to the tenth of a second, Go-style: the team who caused the tie sets the time, the other has to beat it.
-
I wouldn't mind a tiebreak format that was based on who had the most/fastest 7-point rounds, especially since the post-1983 tiebreaker rounds basically ended up being a version of that anyway, but I'm not sure that there's a lot to be learned from comparing who got their sixth point when.
-
when in Pyramid has it ever mattered in what round order you scored your points? 18 is 18, whether it comes in 6-6-6 or 7-7-4.
It doesn't, and I'm not suggesting it should matter, but when I'm watching the show and I just notice the team that scored fewer points in the final round to make a tie ends up getting the win, my natural inclination is that there should be some credit for having scored more points earlier in the game; but the only proper solution is a tiebreaker round.
Quick tiebreaker? Three words, timed to the tenth of a second, Go-style: the team who caused the tie sets the time, the other has to beat it.
I like it, but do you get just three words, or is truly like Go and you have a stack and can pass if you desire? It would fit except for the fact it flips the game on its head and you've suddenly got a team playing a category with an upward-counting clock. That would stick out more sorely than the way they slapped the logo on the front of Michael's lectern.
-
I like it, but do you get just three words, or is truly like Go and you have a stack and can pass if you desire?
Honestly I didn't think about it that hard, but since passing through words "to get to the easy ones" would be a really bad time-wasting strategy, I'd be cool with a stack of ten or so words.
It would fit except for the fact it flips the game on its head and you've suddenly got a team playing a category with an upward-counting clock. That would stick out more sorely than the way they slapped the logo on the front of Michael's lectern.
The tiebreaker as it is now sticks out with the weird explanation and the dramatic reveal. If the count-up bothers you that much, start a clock at 30 for the first team. and let that be the maximum time, a la the 99 second time on Scrabble. If they somehow crash and burn and can't score 3 farking points with Words That Begin With This Letter, the other team simply has to tie in less than the 30 seconds. I'm not going to worry about the one-in-a-million "they also got 2 in exactly 30 seconds" situation.
/"I have nothing better to do than to ask you what happens if both teams get 0."
//if that happens, fire the contestant coordinator AND celebrity wrangler
///and get outside more, I beg of you
-
The tiebreaker as it is now sticks out with the weird explanation and the dramatic reveal. If the count-up bothers you that much, start a clock at 30 for the first team. and let that be the maximum time, a la the 99 second time on Scrabble. If they somehow crash and burn and can't score 3 farking points with Words That Begin With This Letter, the other team simply has to tie in less than the 30 seconds. I'm not going to worry about the one-in-a-million "they also got 2 in exactly 30 seconds" situation.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said a count-up clock would stick out, but just about anything would be better than what they've got.
Although, really, I'd go back to the standard best-out-of-7-in-30-or-less since, y'know, it's got a proven track record.
-
Although, really, I'd go back to the standard best-out-of-7-in-30-or-less since, y'know, it's got a proven track record.
Well, obviously, so would I, but their complaint is that they don't have time for a regular tiebreaker because we need to waste that minute on Michael rolling his eyes at someone making fun of his gapped teeth. So I'm trying to streamline it and minimize the possibility of either team having to play out the full time.
-
Thoughts from last night...
Either the game has been watered down a ton, or Fred Willard was much better than I expected.
I'm pretty sure that we're not going to see a celebrity give in the Winner's Circle this season. Are we sure that they were even given the option?
The less said about the second half-hour, the better. I don't think I've ever seen as many illegal clues given as I did in those 30 minutes.
-
Are we sure that they were even given the option?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Contestants are allowed to give or receive, but are encouraged to give because they've had more time to practice the game than the first-season celebrities, and giving "keeps the game in their hands" so if an illegal clue is given, it's not because of the celebrity.
-
Thoughts from last night...
Either the game has been watered down a ton, or Fred Willard was much better than I expected.
I'm pretty sure that we're not going to see a celebrity give in the Winner's Circle this season. Are we sure that they were even given the option?
The less said about the second half-hour, the better. I don't think I've ever seen as many illegal clues given as I did in those 30 minutes.
I was surprised that Fred Willard was so subdued on last nights episode. He played well, but I thought he would be a little more animated.
The 1st Winners Circle in the first half hour was somewhat heartbreaking -- knocking on the door of at least a civilian WC record time but slipped up on the top subject. I was definitely wishing that he won it all, as he was truly a contestant that liked the game, knew the game, wanted to win the game, and was truly likeable.
I'm glad that my wife and I were muting the gameplay in the second hour and playing the rounds ourselves. Even without the sound on most of the time, Behar looked as dumb as a box of rocks on many occasions...But then again,... ;D
-
I wasn't paying close enough attention, but were Fred and Yvette introduced already seated?
Behar looked as dumb as a box of rocks
And as we learned from Melissa Peterman last week, rocks are what you throw at people.
-
Either the game has been watered down a ton, or Fred Willard was much better than I expected.
I was happy that he did well. Both he and Martha are pretty up there. It makes me wonder the oldest known celebrity to appear on any version.
I'm pretty sure that we're not going to see a celebrity give in the Winner's Circle this season. Are we sure that they were even given the option?
A celebrity will give this season.
I hope they change their minds and relax on the suggestions. I think there have been some celebrities this season who would've been great giving in the Winner's Circle. I suppose they knew they might not get the best celebs out of the gate for the first primetime version of the show, but I don't think it's that necessary.
-
I was happy that he did well. Both he and Martha are pretty up there. It makes me wonder the oldest known celebrity to appear on any version.
I was actually going to say Bill Cullen in the 80s version, but I had no idea Fred was 76. Come to think of it, Betty White was 80 when she did Donnymid.
I'm pretty sure that we're not going to see a celebrity give in the Winner's Circle this season. Are we sure that they were even given the option?
A celebrity will give this season.
I hope they change their minds and relax on the suggestions. I think there have been some celebrities this season who would've been great giving in the Winner's Circle. I suppose they knew they might not get the best celebs out of the gate for the first primetime version of the show, but I don't think it's that necessary.
This reminds me of a comment the late Randy Amasia made years ago. I mentioned that I would want to give for the reasons Chad explained. Randy countered (and we've seen this several times during the current run) that you can give stellar clues, and the celebrity still draw a blank. The guy who infamously said "Your wife" for THINGS YOU HIT actually had decent clues prior to that, but Natasha Lyonne just sat there. There was another guy in the first few episodes who even Michael admitted gave excellent clues.
Joy's partner during the second WC is another example, although she sat there flustered for a couple seconds. That's something I notice happening a lot more during this run.
-
The only solution I can think of is to allow the contestant to both give and receive in the winner's circle, but it's a team game.
-
I don't mind the contestants giving on most occasions (seriously, how did you make it to the WC if you have Joy Behar give the clues?), but it's been frustrating over the last two weeks to see both Melissa Peterman and YNB receive and then see no one win the big money.
Also, I am now automatically wary of any celebrity who says that they played the game at home as a child...
What was the average number of Winner's Circle wins per week in the Clark era? 2? 3?
-
I wasn't paying close enough attention, but were Fred and Yvette introduced already seated?
They were. I got the feeling that Fred isn't moving especially quickly these days and might have asked to skip the walk-out.
-
This reminds me of a comment the late Randy Amasia made years ago. I mentioned that I would want to give for the reasons Chad explained. Randy countered (and we've seen this several times during the current run) that you can give stellar clues, and the celebrity still draw a blank. The guy who infamously said "Your wife" for THINGS YOU HIT actually had decent clues prior to that, but Natasha Lyonne just sat there. There was another guy in the first few episodes who even Michael admitted gave excellent clues.
Okay, but that isn't especially insightful...the celebrity can ALSO give excellent clues and it's just a subject you happen to blank on that day.
All you can really do is ascertain who is more likely to give excellent clues and then hope for the best. As Travis said, it's a team game.
In the WC, I'm giving every single time and I'm confident that gives me the best chance of winning, and that is regardless of the person in the chair across from me.
-
I wasn't paying close enough attention, but were Fred and Yvette introduced already seated?
They were. I got the feeling that Fred isn't moving especially quickly these days and might have asked to skip the walk-out.
I too noticed the Bill Cullen-like intro but there were some shots of Fred walking over to the Winners Circle; he was indeed moving a little slower than others (and as stated is 76 so perfectly understandable).
The only solution I can think of is to allow the contestant to both give and receive in the winner's circle, but it's a team game.
Some people are bad at that too:
https://youtu.be/Rq4K8LTgZHk
Also on I think the third W/C where the contestant started to give a way-off clue on the easy first-box, I still don't get why they buzzed her right away even though she didn't get much of any clue out from that. The 80s judge did the same to David Graff on the "States ending in 'O'" on his "It's between--" clue.
-
Also on I think the third W/C where the contestant started to give a way-off clue on the easy first-box, I still don't get why they buzzed her right away even though she didn't get much of any clue out from that. The 80s judge did the same to David Graff on the "States ending in 'O'" on his "It's between--" clue.
In both instances, they weren't giving a list of words, they were giving descriptions of words, which isn't what the subject is looking for. I assume in both cases, they were fearful of saying "Z" and "O," even though it's okay.
-
The less said about the second half-hour, the better. I don't think I've ever seen as many illegal clues given as I did in those 30 minutes.
And even with that, I noticed at least one case of a clue giver giving enough of the sound at the start of the word before catching themselves that I assumed that they would be zapped for it, but they weren't.
I too noticed the Bill Cullen-like intro but there were some shots of Fred walking over to the Winners Circle; he was indeed moving a little slower than others (and as stated is 76 so perfectly understandable).
I was expecting the full Bill Cullen treatment until he stood up to walk to the Winner's Circle. It looked like he had to steady himself on his partner for the step down from the platform, so doing the reverse could easily have made the usual entry a no-go.
-
I was expecting the full Bill Cullen treatment until he stood up to walk to the Winner's Circle. It looked like he had to steady himself on his partner for the step down from the platform, so doing the reverse could easily have made the usual entry a no-go.
He took his time for sure. The entrance at the top of the show needs to be done quickly, the walk to the WC not so much. The Cullen treatment was mostly because he asked not to be seen walking on camera. I think this was just an issue of logistics.
-
Either the game has been watered down a ton, or Fred Willard was much better than I expected.
I know nothing about Fred Willard, but I was surprised by his performance too. As far as the game goes, I haven't been keeping score, but I'm seeing a lot of "not X, but..." leads to answers, which isn't bad in and of itself, but when 5% of the clues in a given hour are that, it sticks out. It's no fun to be a contestant on the receiving end of a subject that's people's names, but tough categories like that are so much more fun to watch.
/I guess with seven words per six-subject round multiplied by four is 168 answers if you cover all of them, so 8.4? OK, maybe that's a little high, but it still sticks out when you've heard it multiple times through an hour.
So how many more episodes are in the can for this run? Zap2It's got a tag on this coming Sunday's show that says it's the finale, but I thought somebody said earlier in this thread a second show with Rosie O'Donnell and Kathy Najimy was taped.
-
Just got word today from ABC that the season finale of Pyramid will air in a different time slot. It will be on Monday, September 12th at 10:01pm.
No word on Match Game's season finale yet.
-
Also on I think the third W/C where the contestant started to give a way-off clue on the easy first-box, I still don't get why they buzzed her right away even though she didn't get much of any clue out from that. The 80s judge did the same to David Graff on the "States ending in 'O'" on his "It's between--" clue.
The category was "Words that Begin With 'Z'". Literally any word that doesn't start with a Z is an illegal clue.
Even if we ignore that, "where" is a preposition--is starting a prepositional phrase grounds for a buzz? (It would also explain your other example.)
My question is--how is "saggy" a synonym for "droop" yet "replica" isn't a synonym for "fake"?
-
My question is--how is "saggy" a synonym for "droop" yet "replica" isn't a synonym for "fake"?
Your semantic mileage may vary? I don't know. I mean, a replica does not necessarily imply fraud, whereas saggy and droop are pretty much the same thing. If you uttered "counterfeit" on that clue, I think you'd deserve the buzz.
-
No word on Match Game's season finale yet.
It looks like that's currently scheduled for a week later in the same slot. Monday, September 19th at 10pm. Interesting placement - this is the third night that these shows have aired this summer season (but only the second in new episodes).
My question is--how is "saggy" a synonym for "droop" yet "replica" isn't a synonym for "fake"?
Webster defines droop as "sink, bend, or hang down" and sag as "to bend or hang down." Listed synonyms for droop include hang, sag, and wilt.
A fake is "not true or real" along with "meant to look real or genuine but not real or genuine" while a replica is "an exact or very close copy of something" - a close distinction, but there is one, since a replica can be a duplication of the real article. Fake's synonyms include artificial, bogus, faux and sham, but no replica.
-
Just got word today from ABC that the season finale of Pyramid will air in a different time slot. It will be on Monday, September 12th at 10:01pm.
I take it this special Monday episode (and probably 1 hour-long episode each of Feud and MG) is due to adding the week of reruns on the first Sunday of the Olympics and now they have an extra set of episodes that need timeslots? Emmys are on the 18th and the new primetime Sunday Night season starts the 25th.
-
Just got word today from ABC that the season finale of Pyramid will air in a different time slot. It will be on Monday, September 12th at 10:01pm.
I take it this special Monday episode (and probably 1 hour-long episode each of Feud and MG) is due to adding the week of reruns on the first Sunday of the Olympics and now they have an extra set of episodes that need timeslots? Emmys are on the 18th and the new primetime Sunday Night season starts the 25th.
Yeah, I think it was a last second decision to push things back to avoid that first Olympic Sunday. It isn't a bad move putting the shows on after the season premiere of Dancing with the Stars and (in Match Game's case) the subsequent second week.
-
My question is--how is "saggy" a synonym for "droop" yet "replica" isn't a synonym for "fake"?
Here's the official rule for what constitutes a synonym: It must fall into the same lexical category for it to be a synonym (nouns for nouns, verbs for verbs, etc.). Having said that, saggy actually is NOT a synonym for droop; the former is an adjective, the latter can be either a noun or a verb, it can only be an adjective if the word is "droopY".
OTOH, replica and fake actually are synonyms; they are both nouns.
Hope this helps.
-
I can imagine Bob Stewart in the control room letting out an anonymous buzz if Dick Clark tried this argument, and everybody on stage having a good laugh at the "judge".
-
OTOH, replica and fake actually are synonyms; they are both nouns.
I guess I have to disagree with this. When I hear the word "replica", I think of something that was authorized for purchase, such as a Super Bowl ring. A "fake" is what you see at mall kiosks hawking purses and sunglasses.
-
My question is--how is "saggy" a synonym for "droop" yet "replica" isn't a synonym for "fake"?
My feeling at first was that saggy/droop was kind of iffy because it was possible to droop without sagging (as with a fruit hanging from a tree), but Merriam-Webster's definition of "sag" literally starts with "to droop," so it's kind of difficult to argue that "sag" doesn't always mean "droop."
Replica/fake felt alright to me. Yes, "replica" is double-talk for "fake" when it's used in the term "replica handbags", but it's kind of a bank shot off of both words being able to apply to a third concept (imitation,) and the two aren't necessarily the same thing otherwise.
Here's the official rule for what constitutes a synonym: It must fall into the same lexical category for it to be a synonym (nouns for nouns, verbs for verbs, etc.).
Official based on who? Because if that's the rules Pyramid actually plays under, I'll eat my hat.
-
Here's the official rule for what constitutes a synonym: It must fall into the same lexical category for it to be a synonym (nouns for nouns, verbs for verbs, etc.).
Official based on who? Because if that's the rules Pyramid actually plays under, I'll eat my hat.
Yeah, I'd be curious to know the source for this as well. (And I'm not accusing anyone of there not being one.)
-
Just got word today from ABC that the season finale of Pyramid will air in a different time slot. It will be on Monday, September 12th at 10:01pm.
I take it this special Monday episode (and probably 1 hour-long episode each of Feud and MG) is due to adding the week of reruns on the first Sunday of the Olympics and now they have an extra set of episodes that need timeslots? Emmys are on the 18th and the new primetime Sunday Night season starts the 25th.
Yeah, I think it was a last second decision to push things back to avoid that first Olympic Sunday. It isn't a bad move putting the shows on after the season premiere of Dancing with the Stars and (in Match Game's case) the subsequent second week.
They're also avoiding the first week of Sunday Night Football on NBC, which pretty much takes up Sunday evenings and cleans up in the ratings. Of course, this means they go up against Monday Night Football on ESPN, but something has to air then, I suppose.
-
Just got word today from ABC that the season finale of Pyramid will air in a different time slot. It will be on Monday, September 12th at 10:01pm.
I take it this special Monday episode (and probably 1 hour-long episode each of Feud and MG) is due to adding the week of reruns on the first Sunday of the Olympics and now they have an extra set of episodes that need timeslots? Emmys are on the 18th and the new primetime Sunday Night season starts the 25th.
Yeah, I think it was a last second decision to push things back to avoid that first Olympic Sunday. It isn't a bad move putting the shows on after the season premiere of Dancing with the Stars and (in Match Game's case) the subsequent second week.
They're also avoiding the first week of Sunday Night Football on NBC, which pretty much takes up Sunday evenings and cleans up in the ratings. Of course, this means they go up against Monday Night Football on ESPN, but something has to air then, I suppose.
I know NFL is king among the Big 4 sports in the ratings right now, but even then, it's still on ESPN. DWTS and other Monday night programming such as Big Bang Theory pull in just as good if not better ratings. Monday Night Football will also be hurt later on down the road when they're stuck with less than desirable games without the ability to flex its games like NBC can on Sundays.
-
Using the same word in two different front-game categories in the same round?
[shakes head dolefully]
-
Turkey?
-
Last night, one of the categories was "You Got Served", and one of the items in that category was Serena Williams.
Am I the only one who thought the judges should not have let just "Williams" be accepted, given that Serena has a sister who's as popular in the sport as she is?
-
Meh. It's a word game, not a trivia contest. I have no problem with sticking to a rule that says that just the last name is acceptable unless the common thread defined by the category somehow makes the first name relevant to the answer (like every name having the same initials.)
-
Am I the only one who thought the judges should not have let just "Williams" be accepted, given that Serena has a sister who's as popular in the sport as she is?
I have a vivid memory of the '80s judges taking "Joan Collins" for "Jackie Collins" or vice-versa with a Dick Clark explanation afterwards. There's precedent.
-
Turkey?
It was "bones" in one category (slang words for money) and "bone" in another. Not just the same half-hour, but the actual set of six categories. I shook my head too.
-
Yes; bones/bone was the one I had in mind.
And they absolutely should have accepted just Williams for Serena Williams. (Now if they were playing Password....)
-
During the final WC, "milk" and "orange juice" were accepted for "Parts of a refrigerator". Is that a correct ruling, or could it be that the judge was being charitable since the round was going poorly anyway?
-
Is that a correct ruling
Since the '80s, "parts" have been accepted for things that aren't actual vital components in making the object function, like "the music" for "parts of a guitar."
-
My gut tells me "clothes" would be allowed for "parts of a washing machine" in the 80s as well. That sort of clue doesn't violate the letter of the rules, so far as I can tell. It veers near that unwritten rule (but later written, as I understand it) where you couldn't get too "cute" for lack of a better term (see: Thomas for Things You Doubt). A lot of people go down this road of buzzing things that don't fit the spirit of the category, but if that were the case, the Why You/Might Say boxes wouldn't play well at all.
-Jason
-
Methinks that this was the producers throwing the contestant a $4000 bone, seeing as boxes 2 through 4 had already gone wanting. I think the judges are willing to err on the side of generosity as long as it doesn't trigger a full win or upset the game balance (which is immaterial once you get to the WC anyway).
Did anyone keep track of the win percentage over the course of the summer? If I had to guess I'd say it was in the neighborhood of about 30%.
-
Here's the official rule for what constitutes a synonym: It must fall into the same lexical category for it to be a synonym (nouns for nouns, verbs for verbs, etc.).
Official based on who? Because if that's the rules Pyramid actually plays under, I'll eat my hat.
Official based on anyone who is a lexicologist, who would most likely same something similar, if not identical. As for Bob Stewart, he would most likely contact a relevant professor at UCLA or USC if a contestant was to challenge what constitutes a synonym, as it is common practice when a ruling is challenged based on the accuracy of the judging.
-
A factual error does not necessarily translate into an illegal clue. For the box "U.S. PRESIDENTS," if I said "Benjamin Franklin" and my partner said "U.S. Presidents," we'll still get the box. Pyramid isn't a trivia game. It's all about the conveyance of words.
-
A factual error does not necessarily translate into an illegal clue. For the box "U.S. PRESIDENTS," if I said "Benjamin Franklin" and my partner said "U.S. Presidents," we'll still get the box. Pyramid isn't a trivia game. It's all about the conveyance of words.
"Give a list of clues that fit the subject."
-
A factual error does not necessarily translate into an illegal clue. For the box "U.S. PRESIDENTS," if I said "Benjamin Franklin" and my partner said "U.S. Presidents," we'll still get the box. Pyramid isn't a trivia game. It's all about the conveyance of words.
Not so much....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY3F01_MQXU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY3F01_MQXU)
-
The posted video relates a buzzer for "a dog's bugs" as Things in a Flea Market. That's more in the realm of the unwritten rule I mentioned earlier; you could conceivably find a dog's bugs at a flea market, but the only reason you're saying that is try to surreptitiously convey "flea" to your partner.
I'm surprised there's a growing group of people who think a factually incorrect clue was illegal in the Winner's Cricle. If you had said "a Granny Smith apple" for Things that are Red, I've seen no episode that leads me to believe the judge would have slammed on the buzzer in the '80s; I think Bob Stewart would breathe a sigh of relief that they're wasting time with incorrect information.
-Jason
-
I'm surprised there's a growing group of people who think a factually incorrect clue was illegal in the Winner's Cricle. If you had said "a Granny Smith apple" for Things that are Red, I've seen no episode that leads me to believe the judge would have slammed on the buzzer in the '80s; I think Bob Stewart would breathe a sigh of relief that they're wasting time with incorrect information.
Probably, but when the instructions are to "give a list of things that fit each subject," which Granny Smith applies don't for Things that are Red, I'd say it's buzz-worthy.
A lot of people go down this road of buzzing things that don't fit the spirit of the category, but if that were the case, the Why You/Might Say boxes wouldn't play well at all.
Those categories, to me, by their very nature, are the exception to the rule since you can pretty much get away with saying anything. Theoretically, Why You/Might Say could include anything, though they're always designed to have a definitive answer since they're suppose to be an easy first-row knock-off. It's not like the aforementioned Granny Smith applies which would be factually incorrect for Things that are Red.
-
"Conveying the essence of the answer". That catch-all term is there for a reason, folks. No need no reinvent the proverbial wheel.
-
I'm surprised there's a growing group of people who think a factually incorrect clue was illegal in the Winner's Cricle. If you had said "a Granny Smith apple" for Things that are Red, I've seen no episode that leads me to believe the judge would have slammed on the buzzer in the '80s; I think Bob Stewart would breathe a sigh of relief that they're wasting time with incorrect information.
Probably, but when the instructions are to "give a list of things that fit each subject," which Granny Smith applies don't for Things that are Red, I'd say it's buzz-worthy.
Here's the thing, it's not Jeopardy! or whatever quiz show. The keyword in this case is "apple", even though it's technically incorrect. Therefore, the judges aren't that anal, and prolly aren't even thinking about which apple is which color.
-
Here's the thing, it's not Jeopardy! or whatever quiz show. The keyword in this case is "apple", even though it's technically incorrect. Therefore, the judges aren't that anal, and prolly aren't even thinking about which apple is which color.
Fair enough.
-
Probably, but when the instructions are to "give a list of things that fit each subject," which Granny Smith applies don't for Things that are Red, I'd say it's buzz-worthy.
That was the host language instruction on how to play the game. David Ruprecht used to say "everything you see is up for grabs" but that didn't mean you could put the cameraman's camera in your cart.
-Jason
-
And again, if you're saying a Granny Smith it means you're not saying "a cherry, a fire truck, a clown nose, an embarrassed face, a panic button" which are all short, quick, evocative of the answer and all correct.
-
I'm surprised there's a growing group of people who think a factually incorrect clue was illegal in the Winner's Cricle. If you had said "a Granny Smith apple" for Things that are Red, I've seen no episode that leads me to believe the judge would have slammed on the buzzer in the '80s; I think Bob Stewart would breathe a sigh of relief that they're wasting time with incorrect information.
Probably, but when the instructions are to "give a list of things that fit each subject," which Granny Smith applies don't for Things that are Red, I'd say it's buzz-worthy.
Here's the thing, it's not Jeopardy! or whatever quiz show. The keyword in this case is "apple", even though it's technically incorrect. Therefore, the judges aren't that anal, and prolly aren't even thinking about which apple is which color.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji_ZFRqYsp8
Shelley Smith gives a factually incorrect clue and wins her partner $100K.
-
Shelley Smith gives a factually incorrect clue and wins her partner $100K.
Heck, between "the nine players," "the six players," "Jack's peppers" and "Japanese women," you could argue she gave up to four factually incorrect clues and won $100,000.
-
Shelley Smith gives a factually incorrect clue and wins her partner $100K.
Heck, between "the nine players," "the six players," "Jack's peppers" and "Japanese women," you could argue she gave up to four factually incorrect clues and won $100,000.
Basketball is rather ticky tacky. The box didn't say an NBA game or even a professional basketball game. You could say "the two players" for that and still be correct.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrjtIzrIlH4
"Ontario" for "Cities in Canada".
-
"Ontario" for "Cities in Canada".
And "I'm a bird up north" for "What a penguin might say."
-
So now that season one is done, do we give a wrap-up commentary on how wonderfully produced this was? Well, never in this day and age did I ever expect to see Pyramid done so well, so major props to all involved, who nodded to the Pyramid traditionalists so many ways through this version. It truly was a treat.
The quibbles I have with this first run are, really, minor things that could be easily fixed for season two, such as letting the contestants say their last names and let them shine ahead of the celebs a bit more, and having Michael announce what the Mystery 7 commonality was.
They done good, so good that if my schedule permits, I'll trek down to New York to watch a taping of season two. Alas, I wish they would open contestant eligibility to those of us north of the 49th.
-
I am very tepid on the production side, certainly not "wonderfully." The game element was fine, though they could save back a minute or two for a proper tiebreak by not clowning so much, and doing away with the rules®s/what would you do with the money/let's dim the lights and get serious every single time. Perhaps Michael could introduce the contestant instead of the celebrity. I also know that they're not doing this just for my consumption, but I turn the volume way down because the main game borders on obnoxiously frenetic.
-
I am very tepid on the production side, certainly not "wonderfully." The game element was fine, though they could save back a minute or two for a proper tiebreak by not clowning so much, and doing away with the rules®s/what would you do with the money/let's dim the lights and get serious every single time. Perhaps Michael could introduce the contestant instead of the celebrity. I also know that they're not doing this just for my consumption, but I turn the volume way down because the main game borders on obnoxiously frenetic.
I agree on all those points, and I would have mentioned them save for I was trying to keep to things that realistically might happen. I would love for them do do away with all those time wasting measures you described. Is it likely to happen? Probably not, but it should.
-
I'm going to disagree on the "clowning" analysis. At no point while watching the moments of levity did I think, "Just get back to the game already!" I thought the tangents were of a reasonable length and a welcome addition -- after all, I like to watch people actually having fun on a game show. It always felt uncomfortable when Dick Clark would forcibly steer the conversation back toward the game because he was worried about bringing the show in on time.
Do I like the current tiebreaker? Not really. But I suspect that no one really likes the current tiebreaker -- it's a concession they had to make so the show wouldn't run long. It would have been equally as bad, in my opinion, to institute the traditional tiebreaker and then speed through the Winner's Circle to make up the time.
I do agree that the constant rules recitations grew tiresome, but this is a show which hadn't been seen outside of cable for over ten years, which is long enough that casual viewers needed to be reminded of how things work. Every "new" game show moves more slowly in its first season because of this. Watch early episodes of Millionaire -- it takes forever for Regis to tell us how the game is played. Pyramid will probably be able to streamline some of that next season now that the show is in the public eye again.
-
I feel like there was a lot of time spent in the second half of each episode repeating (usually verbatim) the rules explanations that were already given in the first half. Between that and the "I'm the biggest Pyramid fan ever" and "What would you do with the money?" pieces, I suspect that there's enough slack that you could fit in one old-school tiebreaker per hour without having anything feel too rushed. But if you ever have two front-game ties in the same half hour or a lot of tiebreakers in a batch of episodes, you're screwed.
One advantage the 80s version had over the current one was that they had five days to get the celebrity's plugs in whenever there was time to spare, whereas the current one has to get them in on the one-and-only appearance.
-
I'm going to disagree on the "clowning" analysis. At no point while watching the moments of levity did I think, "Just get back to the game already!" I thought the tangents were of a reasonable length and a welcome addition -- after all, I like to watch people actually having fun on a game show.
I would agree if it was the contestants being allowed to go on tangents. The celebs dominated over the contestants in the personality department, which was really a shame because a lot of the contestants had really interesting backstories I wish had been given a greater chance to develop.
It would have been equally as bad, in my opinion, to institute the traditional tiebreaker and then speed through the Winner's Circle to make up the time.
I'd rather that. If you're not going to record live-to-tape, it at least forces you to act live-to-tape.
I do agree that the constant rules recitations grew tiresome, but this is a show which hadn't been seen outside of cable for over ten years, which is long enough that casual viewers needed to be reminded of how things work. Every "new" game show moves more slowly in its first season because of this. Watch early episodes of Millionaire -- it takes forever for Regis to tell us how the game is played. Pyramid will probably be able to streamline some of that next season now that the show is in the public eye again.
Point well taken, but it took how many years on the current incarnation of Feud before they realized they didn't need to explain the rules to Fast Money every single show? The current industry doesn't paint a picture of hope that they'll come to the realization that viewers catch on quickly.
I feel like there was a lot of time spent in the second half of each episode repeating (usually verbatim) the rules explanations that were already given in the first half.
That's what happens when you piece together two half hours taped on different days.
To that end, one thing I would like to see in season two is an effort to ensure such things as the same word never coming up in the front game in both halves of an hour show. If I remember correctly, Bob Stewart's rule was a two-week minimum rest before content could be recycled. If my math is right, that means you'd need 1,680 different words to fill ten hourlong shows. A tall order for the writers, but not impossible by any means.
But if you ever have two front-game ties in the same half hour or a lot of tiebreakers in a batch of episodes, you're screwed.
Or you just edit down the blabber and stick to the game.
I haven't got the technology handy to perform this experiment, but I dare say in each hourlong show, you could easily trim 3-4 minutes of content without sacrificing any gameplay and still keep a decent amount of interplay. Considering how double tiebreakers under CBS rules were extremely rare, I doubt they really need to worry about getting pressed for time on multiple tiebreakers.
-
I feel like there was a lot of time spent in the second half of each episode repeating (usually verbatim) the rules explanations that were already given in the first half.
Remember that these are two episodes "interwoven" into a single hour seamless time-slot. If and when they decide to break these down to individual 30 minute episodes in reruns on ABC, GSN, etc..., the redundancy will not look as awkward. And like a previous poster said, if you have been living on "Rabbit Ears" or have been GSN-less on cable for a good many years, you may not be keen on all the Pyramid rules as us older "get off my lawn" folks are.
-
I don't think most people care about how someone will spend money they don't have because the vast majority of people will spend it the same way. On today's episode of $25k, roughly ten seconds were spent on "bills or fun?" and that was enough. As for the celebrities getting to plug whatever project they're working on, isn't that what social media is for, or "From Trapper John M.D/Quincy"?
-
Although I thought they spent too much time on the celebrities, one thing I did kinda like about Donnymid was, while John Cramer intro'd the celebrities and their projects at the top of the show, you'd also get their names/TV shows displayed on screen during interviews. I say "kinda" because they displayed the name every single time they showed the celebrity outside of game play. However, it still worked because, if I joined a game in progress and don't recognize "that girl who used to be on that show with the guy and the dog", at least CG triggers my memory.
I dunno why, but it kinda bugs me that there's not a lot of CG in this version; I loved how the 70s-90s versions showed the stars' names as they walked onto the set. I'm equally bugged by them not flashing $50K/100K...showing the confetti animation at the top of the Pyramid isn't the same IMO.
It's a very minor nitpick, it's just the little things, I suppose.
-
The reason that the show is remembered fondly is that it was done so well on all counts. I get what you're putting down about the CG element, especially if you recognize, say for example Peri Gilpin from Frasier, but don't know why she'd be on Pyramid 15 years after that show ended.
-
One issue with the old tiebreaker that could have been smoothed out in the digital age was letter selection. Everything was based on slow, clear enunciation and the teams had to closely pay attention to the instructions -- sometimes in the exciting aftermath of a buzzer beater or near miss.
A solution I though might work would be to put the tiebreaker letters on the category board in the upper 3 boxes. (Yes, 3.) This could facilitate an edit better by having a cutaway, and it would give visual reinforcement to players and the audience. Also, by offering 3 letter choices, the second team could have a selection from the remaining 2, and the other one gets recycled for another game.
There certainly was room to trim, and from the shows I was in the audience for, they did cut down a some of the chatter.
-
Although I thought they spent too much time on the celebrities, one thing I did kinda like
I dunno why, but it kinda bugs me that there's not a lot of CG in this version; I loved how the 70s-90s versions showed the stars' names as they walked onto the set. I'm equally bugged by them not flashing $50K/100K...showing the confetti animation at the top of the Pyramid isn't the same IMO.
This. I'm not saying I want "TRIP TO BELIZE" flashed on-screen every show, but it just feels a little empty not having anything on the screen during a big money win. The "WINNERS" graphic is very well done, however.