The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: Bryce L. on February 01, 2019, 01:15:47 AM
-
... The Match Game-Hollywood Squares Hour. Episodes 2 to 5, from 4 to 8pm. No clue if it's going to the regular schedule or not.
http://buzzrplay.com/schedule/schedule_by_date/2019/02/17/America/New_York
-
Wow. Must've cleared up the rights issues.
-
I might be in the minority here but I really enjoyed this show. Looking forward to seeing the mini-marathon on the 17th!
-
I always thought they built a nice container (set, music, staging) but blew it on the content (writing, chemistry).
-
Since this and Classic Concentration were shows that had "cross-ownership issues", are there any other Goodson properties in the same boat?
-
Since this and Classic Concentration were shows that had "cross-ownership issues", are there any other Goodson properties in the same boat?
Not a Goodson show, but still Fremantle just the same (by way of them owning Grundy), Scrabble would on paper have issues (because of Hasbro owning the board game rights).
-
Woah. Was not expecting this. Weird that they're skipping the premiere, but hey.
Scrabble would on paper have issues (because of Hasbro owning the board game rights).
And, by extension, Scattergories.
As for other Fremantle properties that may hit snags due to cross-ownership...maybe Bill Carruthers' 1970s games due to being coproduced by Warner Bros. Television?
-
Article from Vulture confirms it, plus the plans to add it to the regular schedule later this year...
https://www.vulture.com/2019/02/match-game-hollywood-squares-hour-streaming-buzzr.html
-
Woah. Was not expecting this. Weird that they're skipping the premiere, but hey.
How do we know that? I didn't see any indication of episode numbers.
-
Woah. Was not expecting this. Weird that they're skipping the premiere, but hey.
How do we know that? I didn't see any indication of episode numbers.
If you look at the source code for the schedule page, it shows the episode numbers.
-
If you look at the source code for the schedule page, it shows the episode numbers.
Ah. Mea culpa.
So 4 eps from premiere week. Not bad!
-
Props to Buzzr for getting shows that never aired on GSN before.
MGHS was a hot mess, but at least we'll have a better idea of how much of a mess it was.
-
MGHS was a hot mess, but at least we'll have a better idea of how much of a mess it was.
From the episodes online, Squares (which was really the only bum part of the whole matter) wasn't too bad early on, with the questions being straightforward and sometimes open-ended rather than the convoluted either-or messes they later became, so I think the early shows will be easier to stomach.
-
https://www.facebook.com/BUZZRtv/videos/2341282752562462/
-
So, as soon as I saw this news this morning, I had two reactions:
Game Show Fan Side: "Wow; I've never seen this show on TV. I can't wait to see a new-to-me take on trying to merge two classic game shows!"
Rational Side: "Why would they have spent money to get the rights to *this*? Who would remember this show outside of game show geeks?"
I guess, as a business decision, this has me completely stymied. Since Fremantle would have had to pay money for this show due to the cross-ownership issue, where is the profit potential? At least there is a much better recognition with Classic Concentration to get some other people watching besides us game show geeks, and the show ran for six total years in daytime. This show didn't even make it a year and, from my second hand recollection (it was on before I was born), wasn't very popular.
I'm trying not to be a curmudgeon here, but I said the same thing when they got Strike it Rich. Even if it is a small number of episodes and exclusive to Amazon Prime, the name recognition is minimal outside of game show geeks.
So, what does this mean? Of course, I'll watch at least one episode of MGHS because of curiosity. That still doesn't mean I don't think it's a poor business decision.
On the brighter side, though, I do applaud Buzzr for trying out shows that add some variety to their lineup. I've always enjoyed their special weeks like "Lost and Found" for the same reason.
Here's to MGHS!
Anthony
-
Responding to Anthony's post here...perhaps they feel the name value of Hollywood Squares is worth it. As an aside, does anyone remember if it was one of the shows listed in that poll of interminable length they ran last year? Perhaps it scored highly.
-
I feel like there's wild overestimation of cost involved here.
-
I feel like there's wild overestimation of cost involved here.
The owner of the content is elated to be making money for their content. The lessee hopes to make a profit so if it maybe costs them in the thousands of dollars in rights per episode and they can make a profit on that, then it's a win for them. That's basically the profit motive.
-
Apparently Mark Goodson wasn't the only one who thought no bluffs was a good thing...
https://mobile.twitter.com/JonBowzerBauman/status/1091547703731867648
-
Just curious, did Bauman ever do the classic version of Squares with Peter Marshall?
-
Responding to Anthony's post here...perhaps they feel the name value of Hollywood Squares is worth it. As an aside, does anyone remember if it was one of the shows listed in that interminable poll they ran last year? Perhaps it scored highly.
That was my thought about his post as well. The BUZZR facebook page is always littered with posts asking them to add shows (and the same fans explaining why adding said show is not possible), so maybe because it's Hollywood Squares, it was added. Granted, not the best example of the show, but HS nonetheless.
-
At least there is a much better recognition with Classic Concentration to get some other people watching besides us game show geeks, and the show ran for six total years in daytime. This show didn't even make it a year and, from my second hand recollection (it was on before I was born), wasn't very popular.
If they're able to get all 191 hour-long episodes, MGHS will have about 1.5x the total runtime of Celebrity Name Game (257 half-hours) and nearly 4 times that of Double Dare (96), both of which have also been on Buzzr.
Also if the "only get game shows that are popular" held that much weight, I don't think there would be as much grousing about Harvey Feud on GSN.
-
Responding to Anthony's post here...perhaps they feel the name value of Hollywood Squares is worth it. As an aside, does anyone remember if it was one of the shows listed in that interminable poll they ran last year? Perhaps it scored highly.
That was my thought about his post as well. The BUZZR facebook page is always littered with posts asking them to add shows (and the same fans explaining why adding said show is not possible), so maybe because it's Hollywood Squares, it was added. Granted, not the best example of the show, but HS nonetheless.
That and it's yet another version of MG hosted by Gene Rayburn, and a rare one at that. So for the Rayburn completist, there's that (coupled with them showing NBC's TMG from time to time as needed).
-
This quote from the Vulture article seems to explain Buzzr's rationale pretty well:
But reviving MGHSH also lets Buzzr give its game show diehards more episodes of the very popular Match Game format (the ‘70s version runs multiple times each day, while ABC is now airing a revival in primetime) as well as some form of Hollywood Squares, reruns of which haven’t been seen regularly in years. While Deetjen would likely be very open to the idea of airing the original Peter Marshall-hosted Squares, Buzzr parent company Fremantle doesn’t own the rights to it (unlike most of the other games on the channel). “This is a way to slide in Hollywood Squares to our lineup,” he says. “If you were to do a Mt. Rushmore of game shows, it and Match Game would both be on it.”
-
This quote from the Vulture article seems to explain Buzzr's rationale pretty well:
But reviving MGHSH also lets Buzzr give its game show diehards more episodes of the very popular Match Game format (the ‘70s version runs multiple times each day, while ABC is now airing a revival in primetime) as well as some form of Hollywood Squares, reruns of which haven’t been seen regularly in years. While Deetjen would likely be very open to the idea of airing the original Peter Marshall-hosted Squares, Buzzr parent company Fremantle doesn’t own the rights to it (unlike most of the other games on the channel). “This is a way to slide in Hollywood Squares to our lineup,” he says. “If you were to do a Mt. Rushmore of game shows, it and Match Game would both be on it.”
Quite possible, I mean they had to talk to MGM, didn't they?
Anyway...I will say that with all the complaints about elements of the show...I'm glad to see it again. Nostalgia and all that. It'll be surreal to have pristine copies on TV now, just like it is with Classic Concentration.
On the topic, and in line with what I've asked around about...there's two related items I wonder whether or not they can be (re-)found. One is a picture of the floor mural at the original location of the NBC Experience in NYC. As this featured shots of their shows over the years, and included Squares...but not the Marshall version. No, they not only chose a scene from the MG/HS version, but the PILOT set (host/contestant area is all grey, not red, yellow, and blue). That one's on par with the 80s magazines that did reports on video games and used CRAZY OTTO screenshots to represent Pac-Man.
Second thing is an interview I recall being posted online with Gene Rayburn. Notable because they did touch upon MG/HS, and while he was savage against BTB '85, Gene was much milder talking about the earlier show...even saying his "hated co-host" Bauman was a nice guy but didn't have hosting chops.
-
Second thing is an interview I recall being posted online with Gene Rayburn. Notable because they did touch upon MG/HS, and while he was savage against BTB '85, Gene was much milder talking about the earlier show...even saying his "hated co-host" Bauman was a nice guy but didn't have hosting chops.
And this reminds me, wasn't there an interview Gene Wood gave where he said Gene Rayburn was "dragged kicking and screaming" into MG/HS?
-
And this reminds me, wasn't there an interview Gene Wood gave where he said Gene Rayburn was "dragged kicking and screaming" into MG/HS?
There was, but Robert Sherman sorta called BS on that when I interviewed him for my book about Gene. Gene had a local talk show in New York that he had tried to expand to a national show for syndication. There weren't enough biters, which meant that "local" was as far as it was going to go, and you're only going to get paid so much for a local talk show. Mark Goodson opened his checkbook and Gene signed a contract. If Gene didn't want to be there, he wouldn't have been.
-
What was the reason for not bringing back Peter Marshall along with Rayburn for this, by the way? Was Peter not interested, or was Goodson/NBC not interested in Peter?
-
What was the reason for not bringing back Peter Marshall along with Rayburn for this, by the way? Was Peter not interested, or was Goodson/NBC not interested in Peter?
Peter said in his book he had hoped they would offer him the gig, but they didn't. Which then made him secretly happy when it got cancelled.
-
What was the reason for not bringing back Peter Marshall along with Rayburn for this, by the way? Was Peter not interested, or was Goodson/NBC not interested in Peter?
Peter said in his book he had hoped they would offer him the gig, but they didn't. Which then made him secretly happy when it got cancelled.
And if they had, it would've been one of the rare times a host had a show cancelled only to end up hosting (or co-hosting) the replacement.
-
I wonder how many of the die-hard Squares fans are going to go sour on this show when the discover:
(a) Each contestant gets paid for each square won, and not just in an interrupted game; and
(b) You can win a game on an opponent's miss, rather than "you have to earn the square yourself"?
-
THIS JUST IN: We have a promo! (Really, one of the most anticipated shows in BUZZR's history?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWmkuMlzNYs
-
What was the reason for not bringing back Peter Marshall along with Rayburn for this, by the way? Was Peter not interested, or was Goodson/NBC not interested in Peter?
Chapter 17. (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B017H0T8S0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0) :)
Peter had actually been planning to pitch a revival of Squares himself (he owned a stake in it) at the time. He made a bad business deal and ended up losing his share of the show, and at the same time, two NBC executives got good and angry with him for kind of a stupid reason and made the deal for MG/HS behind his back.
-
I wonder how many of the die-hard Squares fans are going to go sour on this show when the discover:
(a) Each contestant gets paid for each square won, and not just in an interrupted game; and
(b) You can win a game on an opponent's miss, rather than "you have to earn the square yourself"?
Given how short-lived the GSN reruns of the Marshall version were, are there really that many die-hards who'd care about such matters?
-
Chapter 17. (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B017H0T8S0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0) :)
I know this isn't actually you saying "Buy my book;," but I really should buy your books, now that you've reminded me. And thanks for the detailed answer.
-
Bowzer: "Understand that this was the only completely honest version of Hwd Squares ever where no Squares were sitting there with the punch lines of the jokes in front of them."
The rest of us: "Yes, that was the problem."
-
Putting myself in the mindset of a hypothetical viewer in 1983: If they're not going to bring back Peter Marshall to host the second half of the game, then why have a second host at all? Why not just let Gene emcee both halves of the show? (That would also have eliminated the jarring shift back to Gene for one final act in order to play the bonus round.)
-
Putting myself in the mindset of a hypothetical viewer in 1983: If they're not going to bring back Peter Marshall to host the second half of the game, then why have a second host at all? Why not just let Gene emcee both halves of the show? (That would also have eliminated the jarring shift back to Gene for one final act in order to play the bonus round.)
After thinking about that for a few minutes, my mind started to wander to another question - how was Bauman come upon for this show? In looking at the timeframe...."Sha Na Na", which he was arguably best known for at the time, was already off the air for two years when MG/HS came along. Aside from an appearance on a special called "Magic With The Stars", and a Heroes vs. Villains week on Feud (both 1982), he hadn't done anything since. I know he simultaneouly hosted Pop 'n Rocker Game, but that one makes slightly more sense since it's tied to music.
-
Putting myself in the mindset of a hypothetical viewer in 1983: If they're not going to bring back Peter Marshall to host the second half of the game, then why have a second host at all? Why not just let Gene emcee both halves of the show? (That would also have eliminated the jarring shift back to Gene for one final act in order to play the bonus round.)
Goodson and company really, really fought for that, but for whatever weird reason, NBC insisted on two hosts.
After thinking about that for a few minutes, my mind started to wander to another question - how was Bauman come upon for this show?
According to Robert Sherman, Jon Bauman was NBC's call.
-
At the risk of bombarding you with questions, Adam, do you know who else other than Bowzer (including Peter) was considered? I'm guessing NBC wasn't sure what show would be canceled for this, leaving Fantasy up in the air and making Peter a question mark.
/Also guessing I need to get the Rayburn book
-
At the risk of bombarding you with questions, Adam, do you know who else other than Bowzer (including Peter) was considered? I'm guessing NBC wasn't sure what show would be canceled for this, leaving Fantasy up in the air and making Peter a question mark.
/Also guessing I need to get the Rayburn book
I dug up my notes from my interview with Robert Sherman (no audio). From what I'm seeing in my notes, Jon Bauman was pretty much foisted on Goodson for the job by NBC. It looks like some executive at the network saw some potential in Jon and wanted to give him that opportunity.
-
This is the problem. From watching episodes we can look back and say "Man, they chose poorly," and we can't get in the heads of those executives to figure out just why a fairly unknown when out of character could hold court on a level playing field with Gene Rayburn.
* still think Tom Kennedy would have been a decent if not spectacular choice.
-
This show has always intrigued me. Maybe out of morbid curiosity more than anything. But I thought it was at least a decent enough watch, rather than out-and-out terrible.
Regarding Bauman, he wasn’t good here, but I have a hard time crapping on him too much for that. Goodson just didn’t seem to get what made Squares work, and Bauman was thrown into a situation that I believe even Peter Marshall would have found difficult. The fact that he was without his Bowzer persona, in which he’d made most of his game show appearances, likely didn’t help. I can see where something like Pop N Rocker would have probably been more in his wheelhouse.
As for his Twitter comments, I have to think he’s just spinning, maybe to make this look better to casuals who may be viewing it for the first time. But if he really believes that... :o
And yeah, I think BUZZR getting MGHS was about getting some form of Squares into their library as much as anything. In theory, having another title like Hollywood Squares that casuals will recognize will look good to prospective advertisers and programming carriers.
-
Just a thought--
The writers on Match Game were able to come up with questions where there were two decent answers. If they had written Hollywood Squares where every question didn't demand a zinger but someone could choose between two reasonable options (so imagine Battlestars without the secret screen) then even if the game wasn't a laugh-a-minute at least it wouldn't be a horrible slog.
-
Regarding Bauman, he wasn’t good here, but I have a hard time crapping on him too much for that. Goodson just didn’t seem to get what made Squares work, and Bauman was thrown into a situation that I believe even Peter Marshall would have found difficult. The fact that he was without his Bowzer persona, in which he’d made most of his game show appearances, likely didn’t help. I can see where something like Pop N Rocker would have probably been more in his wheelhouse.
As for his Twitter comments, I have to think he’s just spinning, maybe to make this look better to casuals who may be viewing it for the first time. But if he really believes that... :o
Met and interviewed Bauman on my show last year. Down to earth, nice, and ridiculously intelligent. On the way out, mentioned casually "I have stories of why that wasn't a great experience for me".
-
And yeah, I think BUZZR getting MGHS was about getting some form of Squares into their library as much as anything. In theory, having another title like Hollywood Squares that casuals will recognize will look good to prospective advertisers and programming carriers.
Very good point. Casuals will see it as "Hey cool! They're adding Hollywood Squares!" and completely overlook the fact that it's played for the game and not for laughs.
-
Met and interviewed Bauman on my show last year. Down to earth, nice, and ridiculously intelligent. On the way out, mentioned casually "I have stories of why that wasn't a great experience for me".
I would not have let him escape without hearing them. Honestly, there might have been rope involved.
-
This show has always intrigued me. Maybe out of morbid curiosity more than anything. But I thought it was at least a decent enough watch, rather than out-and-out terrible.
Regarding Bauman, he wasn’t good here, but I have a hard time crapping on him too much for that. Goodson just didn’t seem to get what made Squares work, and Bauman was thrown into a situation that I believe even Peter Marshall would have found difficult. The fact that he was without his Bowzer persona, in which he’d made most of his game show appearances, likely didn’t help. I can see where something like Pop N Rocker would have probably been more in his wheelhouse.
As for his Twitter comments, I have to think he’s just spinning, maybe to make this look better to casuals who may be viewing it for the first time. But if he really believes that... :o
And yeah, I think BUZZR getting MGHS was about getting some form of Squares into their library as much as anything. In theory, having another title like Hollywood Squares that casuals will recognize will look good to prospective advertisers and programming carriers.
This. Mostly. I mean, we've seen other hosts come down the pike much worse than Bauman. I'll take him over Patrick Wayne, Pat Bullard, Rossi Moreale, Louie Anderson, and if we count pilots, CHARLENE TILTON.
Yeah it's fine to give a rookie host an opportunity, but when you put him in a task such as a revival of an iconic show like Squares...out of nice, cool ground, and straight into the fire. As for Peter fixing everything...to use yet another wrestling comparison, I liken it to the people who still insist that Goldberg, Sting, Flair, Nash, Steiner, etc. would have saved the inVasion angle. Sure it would be more interesting than the midcarders they got, but you know WWF is winning in the end still. (You can also see how most of the big WCW stars were booked when they DID come afterwards, but that's another topic and another message board...) Point is, how good would Peter be in masking that this was a watered down version of "his" show?
As for Goodson not understanding it, I don't think he wanted to put effort into understanding it as it originally was. Wasn't his idea, after all. But just speculation there.
I do like the idea of Tom Kennedy hosting Squares. Hey it's not like he never faced a panel of nine stars contestants had to agree with about answers.
But generally, there's worse shows out there than MG/HS. I wear the nostalgia colored glasses, yes, but I do highly look forward to seeing this. How it works out for Buzzr? Well as I said, they get another, rare form of Match Game hosted by Gene Rayburn. They get HS there at last, and really, the casual viewer isn't going to obsess over it being the Goodsonized version. If Fremantle is on good terms with MGM, it may open the way to one day introduce the "real" Squares series. I also can't help but wonder...is MG/HS a trial to see how hour-long shows fit on the schedule...hint, hint?
-
Would it be possible for you to write a post here that doesn't shoehorn in wrestling references? Pretty please?
-
This. Mostly. I mean, we've seen other hosts come down the pike much worse than Bauman. I'll take him over Patrick Wayne, Pat Bullard, Rossi Moreale, Louie Anderson, and if we count pilots, CHARLENE TILTON.
I think with the exception of Louie and Charlene, this is more of a case of rookies hosting a show produced by people who don't know what made the originals work, and instead thought making them loud and extreme worked because it was the '90s and 2000s. IMO, it was also an era where game shows were treated mostly as daytime fluff, whereas now they're taken more seriously.
Jim Perry himself wouldn't have made the most current Card Sharks or Temptation any more watchable, the way they were produced. With the latter, they wanted a young, attractive host who could win over the female viewers. Therefore, the game took a backseat to the prizes/home shopping and attractive people.
With a more experienced crew, the hosts probably shine a little more. They may not have won an Emmy, but they wouldn't be (unfairly) placed on the Worst Of lists either.
-
Would it be possible for you to write a post here that doesn't shoehorn in wrestling references? Pretty please?
I get that one a lot....
/So 80s cartoon analogies it is!
//Or Muppets! I like Muppets.
/// Ever tell you about those people I know online who remind me of Statler and Waldorf?
-
This. Mostly. I mean, we've seen other hosts come down the pike much worse than Bauman. I'll take him over Patrick Wayne, Pat Bullard, Rossi Moreale, Louie Anderson, and if we count pilots, CHARLENE TILTON.
I think with the exception of Louie and Charlene, this is more of a case of rookies hosting a show produced by people who don't know what made the originals work, and instead thought making them loud and extreme worked because it was the '90s and 2000s. IMO, it was also an era where game shows were treated mostly as daytime fluff, whereas now they're taken more seriously.
Jim Perry himself wouldn't have made the most current Card Sharks or Temptation any more watchable, the way they were produced. With the latter, they wanted a young, attractive host who could win over the female viewers. Therefore, the game took a backseat to the prizes/home shopping and attractive people.
With a more experienced crew, the hosts probably shine a little more. They may not have won an Emmy, but they wouldn't be (unfairly) placed on the Worst Of lists either.
Yes, which is why I don't think Peter would have been the quick fix some people think he was.
(something something banned wrestling analogies...)
-
Met and interviewed Bauman on my show last year. Down to earth, nice, and ridiculously intelligent. On the way out, mentioned casually "I have stories of why that wasn't a great experience for me".
I would not have let him escape without hearing them. Honestly, there might have been rope involved.
He was there to promote Bowzers Doo-wop Party...which he hosts here at the casino ...every year. In fact, he's been a guest on our show before (but never with me as the co-host). We had an opportunity to have him again last month - and passed - to give it space.
He gave me his card to keep in touch and I reached out but he never responded . Oh well. I figured i'd keep the game show fan-boy stuff off camera - and keep it for a budding friendship.
If you'd like to see the interview , here it is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDY94cqeMjk
-
Would it be possible for you to write a post here that doesn't shoehorn in wrestling references? Pretty please?
I get that one a lot....
Seems to me you don't get it at all.
-
Regarding Bauman, he wasn’t good here, but I have a hard time crapping on him too much for that. Goodson just didn’t seem to get what made Squares work, and Bauman was thrown into a situation that I believe even Peter Marshall would have found difficult. The fact that he was without his Bowzer persona, in which he’d made most of his game show appearances, likely didn’t help. I can see where something like Pop N Rocker would have probably been more in his wheelhouse
I think that was part of the problem - MGHS was during the brief period in his career when he tried to disassociate himself from Bowzer. The next time I saw him on TV was a year or two later, at a Washington DC concert (either Memorial Day or Independence Day), in full Bowzer mode; I want to say his band was called Bowzer and the Jive-Tones, but I can't find any reference to that name anywhere.
-
Goodson Squares was going to stumble no matter what, based on their approach to the jokes...but they did themselves no favors with Bauman's hosting style. Whether it was the producers' idea, or Bauman's alone, handling every question with the gravitas of a Barry & Enright game-winning-answer doesn't fit Hollywood Squares. Bowser's complete re-reading of each question after the agree/disagree decision, coupled with the "You were RIGHT to agree!"-type reveals make it all seem...melodramatic compared to similar games of the era.
Even excusing those two specific things, which were probably given to him to say, his delivery on the material was rarely as breezy as the material itself. When MGHSH comes up, it's a running gag among more than a few of us to shout a declarative statement like "You're an astronaut!!!" which was a frequent gambit by the writers on this show.
Break the Bank with Tom Kennedy wasn't a barrel of laughs, but Tom's way of handling the proceedings was just right. I liked Jon as a panelist on this show, and others, and ultimately think he could have left a better impression under other circumstances.
-Jason
-
Now after seeing this, I have one burning question . . . Phil Proctor and Skip Stephenson, where are they now?
-
Now after seeing this, I have one burning question . . . Phil Proctor and Skip Stephenson, where are they now?
Stephenson is six feet under while Proctor is making a nice living doing voice acting work.
-
No Twyla Littleton? I was amused her final roles 30+ years ago were as a hooker in a movie and as Lingerie Customer in a Feb. 1989 episode of Matlock. Talk about typecasting...
-
Now after seeing this, I have one burning question . . . Phil Proctor and Skip Stephenson, where are they now?
Stephenson is six feet under while Proctor is making a nice living doing voice acting work.
Proctor's "biggest" role was probably Phil & Lil's father on Rugrats.
-
On the Hollywood Squares, I wondered again yesterday what is actually the better strategy since you can lose a game on a wrong answer.
1) Trying to block and risk giving your opponent a win, or
2) Or try a square that if you get it right sets you up for a win when the opponent picks the square and gets it wrong.
-
My first thought (I only caught one of the episodes) was why was a MG semi-regular relegated to just playing Hollywood Squares?
-
My first thought (I only caught one of the episodes) was why was a MG semi-regular relegated to just playing Hollywood Squares?
They rotated the celebrities on a day-by-day basis. Even if you stacked a week full of MG regulars, each one would have to take at least one breather day only doing HS. I only caught the last episode last night, if someone who caught all four could run stats on who did just HS on a day-by-day basis for the week it'll be interesting to see if there were any trends.
-
My first thought (I only caught one of the episodes) was why was a MG semi-regular relegated to just playing Hollywood Squares?
They rotated the celebrities on a day-by-day basis. Even if you stacked a week full of MG regulars, each one would have to take at least one breather day only doing HS. I only caught the last episode last night, if someone who caught all four could run stats on who did just HS on a day-by-day basis for the week it'll be interesting to see if there were any trends.
Here's a list of which celebrities were held for the Hollywood Squares half for the whole week. Of note, Alison Arngrim played Match Game all five days and Phil Proctor played Match Game four out of five.
Monday: Tom Villard, Barbi Benton, Bill Daily
Tuesday: Jimmie Walker, Twyla Littleton, Phil Proctor
Wednesday: Skip Stephenson, Twyla Littleton, Bill Daily
Thursday: Tom Villard, Barbi Benton, Jimmie Walker
Friday: Skip Stephenson, Twyla Littleton, Bill Daily
-
Thanks!! That definitely makes more sense.
-
On the Hollywood Squares, I wondered again yesterday what is actually the better strategy since you can lose a game on a wrong answer.
1) Trying to block and risk giving your opponent a win, or
2) Or try a square that if you get it right sets you up for a win when the opponent picks the square and gets it wrong.
This was something I was thinking of while watching the show as well. And, based on my rudimentary thoughts and computations, it seems better to try and block. Here's a scenario to illustrate:
Number the boxes on the board from 1 through 9, with 1 being the top left and 9 being the bottom right. Assume, by way of argument, that X controls boxes 4 and 5, and O controls box 1. Further, we assume that, for each question, the player has a 50% of getting it right, and each correct answer is independent of all others.
O really has two logical moves here: (1) go for box 6 and the block, or (2) go for box 3 to try and set up for a win.
Notice that, in either case, X has a 50% chance of the win with box 6, either on his own, or with a miss from O. So, let's see what happens to O in each case:
(1) O has a 50% chance of a successful block, forcing X to go elsewhere to try and establish a new winning path (likely box 7).
(2) O has a 50% chance of getting box 3, but then also needs X to miss box 6. If this happens, then O has two paths to victory, but, by our assumptions, this is only a 25% chance. Should O go for 3 and miss, then, even if X misses 6, box 7 can now give X the win.
The way I see it, O is counting on two questions in a row going his/her way in (2) for it to be a favorable outcome, but only needs one question going his/her way in (1), and the onus is now back on X to start over again. Plus, regardless of what happens to X in box 7, O goes for box 3 and, if successful, now has two paths to victory anyway. Thus, in (1), the ball is fully in O's court, and it's his/her game to lose at that point. Otherwise, in (2), O is counting on an X miss.
So, in this scenario, it is definitely better for O to just go for the block, even with the risk of a miss and giving X the game. Too many things need to go right for O to try any other strategy and have the outcome be better.
I tried designing other scenarios and pretty much came up with the same idea; namely, I don't see any competitive advantage (assuming the questions are 50-50 toss-ups) to not trying for the block.
That's my quickie argument for trying for the block, but, as HS is not a mathematical game, obviously, YMMV. :)
/yes, I analyzed a game show that's been off the air for 36 years...
//wouldn't be the first time!
Anthony
-
Okay. But here's a scenario I saw in one of the episodes that aired this weekend:
___|_O_|___
___|___|___
_X_|___|_X_
It's O's turn. Do you take the center square and try to set up the dual implication pick for X, or go for the block with a 50/50 chance of losing the game, but setting up a possible win on the next turn if X misses?
It's a tougher game as a result of this change - and not necessarily a better one.
-
It's been said several times before, but the fatal flaw here was a lack of appreciation for what made MG or HS work. A lot of the banter felt like several side conversations going on at the same time, the result of literally throwing 6/9 random celebrities in a box with no guidance. MG needed 2 anchor celebrities who could knock things off track strategically when things got too dry, and who could reign it back in when things got too sloppy. HS needed the comedy sweeteners to keep the celebrities from rambling on all day, or swinging and missing wildly. Celebrity positioning in both games was key, and they were placed seemingly randomly.
Rayburn was badly neutered here. He came across very scripted, and didn't have anyone to use his schtick on. Likewise, Bauman was relegated to playing traffic cop to the celebrities.
Had they appreciated the essence of MG and HS, I think the net result would have been significantly different, even if that were the only change made.
-
It just occurred to me that to the Match Game side of "what made Match Game work," they faced a couple of big problems:
1. They were starting from scratch, so they had to try to find a new panel chemistry. Match Game 73 had Richard Dawson as its one-liner ringer from the outset, but it took a while for them to discover the Brett/Charles chemistry that added a different type of levity. I'm going to assume that MGHS never found that chemistry. And even if they had, the only way to maintain it would be to have one or two additional regulars in the first half of the show every day, thereby limiting the participation of the other guest celebrities. (For maximum efficiency, Jon Bauman should have been part of that chemistry, but he was likely preoccupied with learning how to be a game show host.)
I acknowledge the counterargument that the current Match Game doesn't have any permanent regulars, yet it's in its fourth season now.
2. The '70s Match Game taped five (or six) half hours in a day, and it's a known fact that the social interaction (and alcohol) between tapings made the celebrities looser and more fun during the program. MGHS, on the other hand, had to power through five hour-long shows in a day -- I'm guessing that there was a real pressure to get everybody changed and ready for each subsequent episode. Possibly not much time to chat and have fun when the cameras weren't rolling. And probably not as much liquor, because I'm guessing Hollywood Squares doesn't work as well when the celebrities are inebriated.
Okay. But here's a scenario I saw in one of the episodes that aired this weekend:
___|_O_|___
___|___|___
_X_|___|_X_
It's O's turn. Do you take the center square and try to set up the dual implication pick for X, or go for the block with a 50/50 chance of losing the game, but setting up a possible win on the next turn if X misses?
But does your question assume that O would definitely claim the center square? Because if O goes for the center and misses, they are well and truly screwed anyway. So in that situation, O should definitely play for the bottom center.
-
MGHS, on the other hand, had to power through five hour-long shows in a day -- I'm guessing that there was a real pressure to get everybody changed and ready for each subsequent episode.
Tapings for one show week were split over two days - most often (AFAIK) 3 shows on Saturday and 2 on Sunday. I'm sure there could have been variations; but in one schedule I've seen, the relative times they were in studio were 3 to 9 PM on Saturday and 1 to 5:00 PM on Sunday. That surely includes rehearsal/makeup/et al. All of this probably contributes to the odd bookings MGHSH seemed to get.
-Jason
-
Tapings for one show week were split over two days - most often (AFAIK) 3 shows on Saturday and 2 on Sunday. I'm sure there could have been variations; but in one schedule I've seen, the relative times they were in studio were 3 to 9 PM on Saturday and 1 to 5:00 PM on Sunday. That surely includes rehearsal/makeup/et al. All of this probably contributes to the odd bookings MGHSH seemed to get.
I hadn't thought of this. Those aren't particularly great times, and there's no great solution to that problem - unlike MG '7X, it's likely the Thursday/Friday shows were less interesting (going on a separate day altogether), rather than better.
Was Gene still flying out from New York (or Cape Cod) to do tapings?
-
As insignificant as it may have seemed to some and while the set was cool because of the video wall, I think part of the problem with this version was the optics...the original HS was eye-catching to the viewer because the celebs were in this monster tic-tac-toe board with lights surrounding each celeb and those spiral staircases going to the upper tiers...the MGHSH was more of a case of "Hollywood Panel"...it just didn't have the same feeling of playing giant tic-tac-toe as the original did...and the producers of the versions that followed must have agreed because they returned to the original big board configuration for those that followed...
The original HS board felt, for lack of terms, "classy" and the MGHSH celeb area just looked kinda cheap (flying upper-tier aside) and drab...
JakeT
-
I don't get Buzzr anymore, but all the talk about MG/HS (this may be the most excited fans have got over reruns of a show popping up on GSN or Buzzr since Marshall HS appeared on GSN) got me to check out some clips of MG/HS episodes on YT.
-- As MsTieScott noted, the MG portion desperately needed a comic regular or two to help the panel gel and make the whole format feel less scripted. I think the show did spot that problem when they started booking stand-up comics on a regular basis (Leno, Arsenio, Gallagher, etc.), and it seemed those comics sat on the MG panels all week. But it would have been wise to find two celebrities to fill the "Brett/Charles" void and have them sit as panel regulars with Jon (you could have them switch off as the center square for the HS portion as well).
-- Someone earlier mentioned that it seemed odd that an MG semi-regular (Bill Daily) was restricted to HS for one episode. I seem to recall a later episode where CNR was dealt the same fate, and he's arguably "Mr. Match Game". Producers should have been a bit wiser to the show's history and have them serve on the MG panel all week as, like the comics I mentioned above, they could have helped with getting the panel gel and feel a little more loose.
-- Rayburn just seemed miserable all around. He wasn't happy with MG being fused with HS, he hated being tied with Bauman (though he should have taken the high road instead of bash him left and right post-cancellation), and his performance at times came off as forced.
-- I felt bad for Jon. He seems like a decent guy, and I give him credit for trying to expand out of his "Bowzer" persona and become a star as himself. But he was extremely out of his element here as a host, especially when he's facing the pressure of having big shoes to fill. While "Pop and Rocker Game" wasn't memorable, it was a better fit for Jon, given his music background and the fact he's the face of a fresh game, not a revival of an iconic program.
-- MG/HS reminds me a lot of Jim Lange's "Bullseye". Both were shows that I loved as a child, but when I go back to watch them today, I ask myself if I lacked a good deal of common sense back then. :) Like Bullseye, MG/HS had a lot of bells and whistles that I enjoyed -- the theme music, the back wall, the wall "opening up" for the hosts, the celebs walking out with their names in big letters in the back, the MG panel becoming the HS panel, etc. But, just like Bullseye, behind those bells and whistles is a weak format that doesn't hold up over time. And as JakeT noted, the look of the HS set is quite lame compared to the Marshall/Davidson/Bergeron versions. It came off more as someone putting on an HS tribute show on a cruise or convention than the "big event" the other versions felt like.
JD
-
If there was anything good that came out of the MGHS version, it was this -- unlike the later years of MG 7x, where there was heavy editing during the answer writing, they left more of the deliberations in.
I know the heavy edits were made due to time restraints and to make room for selected questions with funny chatter, but it was frustrating when before I could think of a good answer at home, they already jumped to the contestant's answer.
-
Adding to James's thoughts: Mark Goodson was supposed to set the standard for game shows in terms of quality. Even if the show was a dud, it had a certain level of effort put into it and it would show in the final product. To me it seems that even if Mark hated the fact that both shows were more about the laughs than the game, and that HS wasn't really about the questions at all, that he would have done what was necessary to make it work. Instead it comes off as a potboiler place-holder.
-
I don't get Buzzr anymore,
If you have internet, you have Buzzr.
http://buzzrtv.com/
-
I don't get Buzzr anymore,
If you have internet, you have Buzzr.
http://buzzrtv.com/
Not to mention the PlutoTV and/or Stirr apps available on multiple devices.
-
Has anyone posted the 4 episodes Buzzr ran yet? I can't find them anywhere.
-
Has anyone posted the 4 episodes Buzzr ran yet? I can't find them anywhere.
Someone posted links in the link description of this YT video since YT blocked full uploads.
video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfr9gsmR4n8)
EDIT: I posted kind uploader's Google Drive links in Video and Audio Clips section.
-
Thank you! Curious that YouTube yanked these so quickly while leaving many other episodes untouched.
-
Not really -- they only yanked the episodes they were airing. In my opinion that was a good strategic move vs yanking all episodes like Sony is known to do.
-
the MGHSH celeb area just looked kinda cheap (flying upper-tier aside) and drab...
Did it really look worse than Break the Bank?
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYzSFMd3/break-the-bank-1976-game-show-c401227d-9916-459b-8b17-84c9da2bd3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
the MGHSH celeb area just looked kinda cheap (flying upper-tier aside) and drab...
Did it really look worse than Break the Bank?
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYzSFMd3/break-the-bank-1976-game-show-c401227d-9916-459b-8b17-84c9da2bd3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
...yeah I definitely think so. The artsy part of me feels that the celeb area color scheme of MGHS was way too cold with its mid to dark blues and violet. Drab sounds about right.
Break the Bank's color scheme was earthy, but at least felt very warm. And I for one LOVED that big board, didn't look cheap at all IMHO!
-
An answer, please, for someone who does not watch Buzzr regularly, much less figure out their program schedule weeks in advance: Have they started airing MG/HS regular-like yet, or was that first-week marathon all we've gotten so far? DO we know when it becomes part of the regular lineup?
-
An answer, please, for someone who does not watch Buzzr regularly, much less figure out their program schedule weeks in advance: Have they started airing MG/HS regular-like yet, or was that first-week marathon all we've gotten so far? DO we know when it becomes part of the regular lineup?
No official word yet. Maybe once they have 3 or 4 more weeks of episodes digitized...
-
the MGHSH celeb area just looked kinda cheap (flying upper-tier aside) and drab...
Did it really look worse than Break the Bank?
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYzSFMd3/break-the-bank-1976-game-show-c401227d-9916-459b-8b17-84c9da2bd3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
...yeah I definitely think so. The artsy part of me feels that the celeb area color scheme of MGHS was way too cold with its mid to dark blues and violet. Drab sounds about right.
Break the Bank's color scheme was earthy, but at least felt very warm. And I for one LOVED that big board, didn't look cheap at all IMHO!
Props to BTB. AND to the MG/HS set.
It looked really tiny when it was MG. But somehow, the camera work makes the Squares panel look larger than it really is.
And filling the square with the symbol = should have been lifted by a legit HS series.
-
An answer, please, for someone who does not watch Buzzr regularly, much less figure out their program schedule weeks in advance: Have they started airing MG/HS regular-like yet, or was that first-week marathon all we've gotten so far?
That first week is all we've gotten. Nothing further expected through 3/24.
-
the MGHSH celeb area just looked kinda cheap (flying upper-tier aside) and drab...
Did it really look worse than Break the Bank?
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYzSFMd3/break-the-bank-1976-game-show-c401227d-9916-459b-8b17-84c9da2bd3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
...yeah I definitely think so. The artsy part of me feels that the celeb area color scheme of MGHS was way too cold with its mid to dark blues and violet. Drab sounds about right.
Break the Bank's color scheme was earthy, but at least felt very warm. And I for one LOVED that big board, didn't look cheap at all IMHO!
Props to BTB. AND to the MG/HS set.
It looked really tiny when it was MG. But somehow, the camera work makes the Squares panel look larger than it really is.
And filling the square with the symbol = should have been lifted by a legit HS series.
Re: The MGHSH set, if you polled people who weren't around when it first came out, most would probably guess it was a Primetime show -- Dark set and an hour long.
-
An answer, please, for someone who does not watch Buzzr regularly, much less figure out their program schedule weeks in advance: Have they started airing MG/HS regular-like yet, or was that first-week marathon all we've gotten so far? DO we know when it becomes part of the regular lineup?
No official word yet. Maybe once they have 3 or 4 more weeks of episodes digitized...
In the Vulture article on the initial batch, Deetjen says they hope to add it to the regular lineup later this year and that they're working on preparing a bigger batch of shows.