The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => Game Show Channels & Networks => Topic started by: PeterMarshallFan on May 03, 2004, 06:18:28 PM
-
from Da Perf:
Star Search repeats are the latest additions to the revamped GSN summer lineup released Monday.
Reruns of the CBS talent contest will air daily at 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. (EDT) beginning June 14 when the new schedule takes effect.
In daytime and early evening Monday through Friday, Hollywood Squares and The $100,000 Pyramid drop off the schedule. Lingo moves to 6:30 p.m. as the lead-out to Match Game, which leaves the prime time schedule.
The nighttime schedule:
7:00 Star Search
8:00 WWTBAM
9:00 Dog Eat Dog
10:00 Various
11:00 Street Smarts
11:30 Various
The 10:00 lineup consists of: Mondays, World Series of Blackjack Mondays (to be replaced after the second run by Celebrity WWTBAM; Tuesdays, Extreme Dodgeball and Kenny vs. Spenny; Wednesdays, Average Joe; Thursdays, Kenny vs. Spenny and Extreme Dodgeball; and Fridays, Vegas Weddings and Spy TV.
At 11:30, GSN airs Who Dares Wins Mondays and Tuesdays, Vegas Weddings Wednesdays, Street Smarts Thursdays and Kenny vs. Spenny Fridays.
The 9-12 midnight weekend block framed by Games Across America includes: Street Smarts, Extreme Dodgeball, Spy TV, Vegas Weddings and Who Dares Wins.
EDITED TO ADD: Daily run? If it's only the Arsenio eps that's kind of a low number to draw on. Could it be that GSN aquired some classic episodes too? [I can't remember for the life of me if the original was on CBS or syndicated]
-
One word. Ew.
Now if it were just the old Ed episodes, then maybe I wouldn't mind.
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:18 PM\'] EDITED TO ADD: Daily run? If it's only the Arsenio eps that's kind of a low number to draw on. Could it be that GSN aquired some classic episodes too? [I can't remember for the life of me if the original was on CBS or syndicated] [/quote]
The original Star Search was syndicated.
-
Yeah. Although it's not THAT bad, well, the original was better.
But if "American Idol" winds up on GSN, then.....I better not tell ya. [although I wouldn't be TOO surprised if it happens]
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'May 3 2004, 05:18 PM\']
In daytime and early evening Monday through Friday, Hollywood Squares and The $100,000 Pyramid drop off the schedule. Lingo moves to 6:30 p.m. as the lead-out to Match Game, which leaves the prime time [/quote]
If this is true, then a show with four years in the same time slot(MG7x at 6:30PM EST) gets booted, the longest streak for a show in the same time slot in GSN history.
-
Opinion here:
I'm starting to believe that the new GSN is trying to draw viewers with so-called celebrity names. Seriously. The last few shows they've really promoted in PR has mentioned Arsenio, Joe Millionaire, the Average Joe chick on WSoBlackjack, and Darva Conger....
Do you see the trend here? Said the GSN Exec : "Hey, we know viewers are eating this reality crap up, so let's hire the reality contestants to be show hosts, and the viewers will eat our crap up too!"
The problem : it IS crap. D-list celebs don't fill couch seats....even Arsenio thought his name would be a draw to "Arsenio" the sitcom he did after the talk show with Vivica A Fox....and "Martial Law", the cop show with the sumo wrestler. It didn't, and they didn't last.
Free advice to GSN : Give me a reason to give you a half hour of my important TV watching time, and I'm there. So far in your new format, you haven't even come close.
-
Looks like the first prime-time casualties are "The Mole" and "Fake-A-Date". Unsurprising for FAD, since the show is, for the most part, unoriginal (what are there, like 10 other dating shows out there, and the genre is definitely running out of gas), but for a recent show like "The Mole" that had 4 seasons on a major (albeit struggling) network is a bit surprising.
That said, if they got rights to the classic Star Search, good move on GSN's part, considering how many stars came from that show. If it's Arsenio's OTOH, not so much.
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'Chief-O\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:53 PM\'] Yeah. Although it's not THAT bad, well, the original was better. [/quote]
Since the original was better, you know GSN will give us Arsenio for that reason.
If on the outside chance GSN did snatch up Ed McMahon, they should mention all the present-day stars that came from that series, and there have been a few. That's how CBS promoted Search when it debuted. The decision to show Arsenio's version on a daily basis would be easier if CBS renews it for next season, but that's not likely to happen, and IMO, the closest we will see to Ed McMahon's version is that episode of Full House when Joey goes on SS.
But if "American Idol" winds up on GSN, then.....I better not tell ya. [although I wouldn't be TOO surprised if it happens]
I would be really surprised if that happens. If GSN won't find a regular place for The Gong Show on their schedule because of music clearances, what makes you think they'll make a bid for Idol?
-
Interesting take on the schedule....
I hate the fact that they're getting rid of Bergeron Squares on Weekdays-I was hoping they would get to the 2002-2003 season next. At this rate, we probably won't get to them til next year, now...(that's even if GSN has the rights anyway).
I'm puzzled on the Star Search thing. I think there's only 35-50 eps, meaning we'd run out pretty darn quickly. Maybe the 80's version is the 11 am run and the current one is at night? Maybe?
Not surprised to see Mole gone. As much as the Mole was a great show, I think Reality shows don't rerun well- can you imagine watching the forthcoming reruns of Average Joe and think- "Oh! she picks the hot guy who turns out to be poor, and Adam is rich and gets his own show."
Happy to see the # of 100K pyramid down to one-a-day- just to see the uberfans twist in the wind. See what you get when you complain too much?
And don't shoot me for this, but I'm excited about Dodgeball, happy to see Kenny Vs. Spenny on it still, and estatic to see Street Smarts!
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:14 PM\'] [quote name=\'Chief-O\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:53 PM\'] Yeah. Although it's not THAT bad, well, the original was better. [/quote]
Since the original was better, you know GSN will give us Arsenio for that reason.
If on the outside chance GSN did snatch up Ed McMahon, they should mention all the present-day stars that came from that series, and there have been a few. That's how CBS promoted Search when it debuted. The decision to show Arsenio's version on a daily basis would be easier if CBS renews it for next season, but that's not likely to happen, and IMO, the closest we will see to Ed McMahon's version is that episode of Full House when Joey goes on SS.
But if "American Idol" winds up on GSN, then.....I better not tell ya. [although I wouldn't be TOO surprised if it happens]
I would be really surprised if that happens. If GSN won't find a regular place for The Gong Show on their schedule because of music clearances, what makes you think they'll make a bid for Idol? [/quote]
And if the latter happens, yet TPIR is not close to returning....
Silly, silly Dismantle....sad, but I wouldn't be surprised given the "brains" there too...
-
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:27 PM\'] Happy to see the # of 100K pyramid down to one-a-day- just to see the uberfans twist in the wind. See what you get when you complain too much?
[/quote]
If I'm not mistaken, Pyramid is effectively GONE from the schedule (SS is an hour, isn't it?).
My guess is that both PYL and LMAD will eventually get the heave-ho as well...it seems like GSN wants to detach itself from the stigma of that "old" network as soon as possible.
-
[quote name=\'catnap1972\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:48 PM\'] [quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:27 PM\'] Happy to see the # of 100K pyramid down to one-a-day- just to see the uberfans twist in the wind. See what you get when you complain too much?
[/quote]
If I'm not mistaken, Pyramid is effectively GONE from the schedule (SS is an hour, isn't it?).
My guess is that both PYL and LMAD will eventually get the heave-ho as well...it seems like GSN wants to detach itself from the stigma of that "old" network as soon as possible. [/quote]
We PYL fans (Jason H., Ian, and myself) believe that since their current package will be run through by around September (around the time their current contract expires, more than likely), that PYL will go altogether. Same for LMAD, since I recall reading that GSN signed a two year extension in August 2002.
Tyshaun
-
If I'm not mistaken, Pyramid is effectively GONE from the schedule (SS is an hour, isn't it?).
No-I think it's still on at 6:00.
My guess is that both PYL and LMAD will eventually get the heave-ho as well...it seems like GSN wants to detach itself from the stigma of that "old" network as soon as possible.
I don't think so. If they were, what's to stop them from doing that now?
-
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' date=\'May 3 2004, 08:02 PM\']
If I'm not mistaken, Pyramid is effectively GONE from the schedule (SS is an hour, isn't it?).
No-I think it's still on at 6:00.
[ [/quote]
No, it's not. Lingo (at 6:30) is the *Lead-Out* (IE: Show After) Match Game (most likely PM).
-
Hands up, anyone who thinks Star Search in any way encompasses the concept of a "game".
<crickets chirp>
Right. Onward.
-
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' date=\'May 3 2004, 08:02 PM\']
My guess is that both PYL and LMAD will eventually get the heave-ho as well...it seems like GSN wants to detach itself from the stigma of that "old" network as soon as possible.
I don't think so. If they were, what's to stop them from doing that now? [/quote]
Those are probably still under contract (until August at least) and they don't have anything viable to replace those shows with at the moment anyway.
-
My two Lincolns. . . (obviously, or I wouldn't be posting ;-) )
Isn't STAR SEARCH subject to the same musical hurdles that would preclude AMERICAN IDOL from being on GSN (I'd add GONG to that list, but I think it's more than just musical hurdles keeping GONG off the net)?
Also, the Hall/CBS version drew a lot of its appeal from having its TV audience vote for who to keep and who to dump (what, did we really care what Matty Lesham *really* thought of an act?). So it wouldn't make sense for GSN to air a program where they'd potentially have to tell viewers not to log on to CBS.com to vote (and keep telling them). So it'd make more sense to show the McMahon version, but that's where those music clearance hurdles could be more of an issue.
OK, your turn. Easy on the tomatoes. :)
Doug
-
There's also nothing in the book that says "Star Search" could be reedited to take out the numbers, but do include the winners. AI could easily be edited down to 1 hour a week to do the same thing.
-
Geez, what's next? Dream Job repeats on GSN? Yeah, like we want to see Al Jaffe or Tony what's-his-nose (whichever one of those two is DJ's answer to Simon) harp on that long-haired guy once again.
Or.....we might see those sole Queen For A Day episodes that Trio ran last year turn up on B&WO as well. (I'd love to see the 1969-70 Dick Curtis version, though. Used to watch it when I was a kid.)
Cordially,
Tammy Warner--the 'Jane Nelson of the Big Board!'
-
Hmm. Season one was good, season two was crappy. And I do think reruns will hold up of Star Search - it's got a name which people recognize, and not all that many people saw more than the first 9 eps of Arse's version.
Not that I *want* it on the sched, but in Cronin's position I think it's got a better chance than, say, Mole did.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:14 PM\'] [IMO, the closest we will see to Ed McMahon's version is that episode of Full House when Joey goes on SS.
[/quote]
Dave Coulier really did get his start on Star Search, and they showed a clip of it on Before They Were Stars. Incidentally, the routine Dave did on the Full House ep. is the same routine that he did on Star Search when he was originally on it.
-
Maybe "Mole" will stil get to be on the Sunday sched... I would be surprised to see them pull the same sked - with GAA - out for Sat and Sun.
OTOH, maybe I shouldn't be.
-
Interesting that Dog Eat Dog gets the leadout from Millionaire. Doesn't seem like the most compatible leadout, but it's better than trying to jerk the core game show audience into, say, Average Joe. I won't mind sampling the show. Only got a few glimpses of its original run, and I like silly stunt shows. I'll also take a peek at Street Smarts, which seemed funny enough the few times I've seen it.
Don't have much use for talent contests of any description, so I'll pass on Star Search. I'm a little surprised that KvS and Spy TV are still around, but they're probably dirt cheap and make for so-so filler in the 10:00 and 11:00 hours.
The weirdest note is the replacement of Blackjack by celeb Millionaire after the second series. GSN has said that a third series is on the way, and that Blackjack did the best numbers of any of the new shows. Maybe the Prof got his wires crossed with his source. Or maybe GSN doesn't want to rerun the shows into absolute dust.
The departure of the semi-rigged Hollywood Squares does not fill me with sorrow. Too bad about Pyramid, though. It's the one loss so far that I really don't like.
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:55 PM\'] We PYL fans (Jason H., Ian, and myself) believe that since their current package will be run through by around September (around the time their current contract expires, more than likely), that PYL will go altogether. Same for LMAD, since I recall reading that GSN signed a two year extension in August 2002.
[/quote]
Now that I think about it, depending on if GSN decides to run Star Search into the ground (and the fact that they like to run most of the schedule based on 7 days and not 5 + the weekend), there's a very real chance that PYL might also be dumped when the schedule change comes around since the 11a-12n timeslot(s) would be taken over with it.
-
[quote name=\'whewfan\' date=\'May 4 2004, 04:23 AM\'] [quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'May 3 2004, 06:14 PM\'] [IMO, the closest we will see to Ed McMahon's version is that episode of Full House when Joey goes on SS.
[/quote]
Dave Coulier really did get his start on Star Search, and they showed a clip of it on Before They Were Stars. Incidentally, the routine Dave did on the Full House ep. is the same routine that he did on Star Search when he was originally on it. [/quote]
Was this before or after Nick's "Out Of Control"?
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'May 3 2004, 09:23 PM\']
Isn't STAR SEARCH subject to the same musical hurdles that would preclude AMERICAN IDOL from being on GSN (I'd add GONG to that list, but I think it's more than just musical hurdles keeping GONG off the net)? [/quote]
I'm tempted to answer, "Because this is the 2000s, meaning a lot of that is not real music anyway." Oops, I just did.
-
Free advice to GSN : Give me a reason to give you a half hour of my important TV watching time, and I'm there. So far in your new format, you haven't even come close.
I was thinking the same thing. I always had GSN on C-band satellite, and they discontinued that signal on March 19th of this year. You know what, I haven't really missed it. When I see all these shows that they're adding, I almost think I can do without it. I can probably live on my 1700+ episodes I've acquired through the years. It doesn't seem like there's much worthwile there right now.
We PYL fans (Jason H., Ian, and myself) believe that since their current package will be run through by around September (around the time their current contract expires, more than likely), that PYL will go altogether.
That's the one thing about it I do miss, since they're still running episodes they've never run before. My guess is the current batch will never get repeated on GSN, and we're likely not to see the 1986 episodes again either. Too bad...
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'May 4 2004, 12:58 PM\']
Free advice to GSN : Give me a reason to give you a half hour of my important TV watching time, and I'm there. So far in your new format, you haven't even come close.
I was thinking the same thing. I always had GSN on C-band satellite, and they discontinued that signal on March 19th of this year. You know what, I haven't really missed it. When I see all these shows that they're adding, I almost think I can do without it. I can probably live on my 1700+ episodes I've acquired through the years. It doesn't seem like there's much worthwile there right now.
We PYL fans (Jason H., Ian, and myself) believe that since their current package will be run through by around September (around the time their current contract expires, more than likely), that PYL will go altogether.
That's the one thing about it I do miss, since they're still running episodes they've never run before. My guess is the current batch will never get repeated on GSN, and we're likely not to see the 1986 episodes again either. Too bad... [/quote]
Yeah more and more it's like the best route for a GS fan to go is to take the MSTie advice and "keep circulating the tapes."
And I think I'm accepting more and more that a haven for fans of any classic entertainment is just not feasible anymore. Not without at least a FEW things people will complain about. The GS in GSN doesn't mean "game shows" anymore, just like AMC's C is no longer for "Classics," the "M" doesn't mean Music in MTV (partially the programming, partially the lack of talent in today's so-called performers), and so forth and so on. Even the channels that still swear they're otherwise end up conforming....see: the '80s influx on TV Land (and '90s on N@N), and in radio, the no-50s format on WCBS-FM here in the NY area.
So sadly, our happy memories are too often too temporary, due to the dreaded words "demographics" and "advertising." It does frustrate me too, but this is probably all Woolery left Wheel.
-
[quote name=\'JMFabiano\' date=\'May 4 2004, 01:18 PM\']And I think I'm accepting more and more that a haven for fans of any classic entertainment is just not feasible anymore. Not without at least a FEW things people will complain about. The GS in GSN doesn't mean "game shows" anymore, just like AMC's C is no longer for "Classics," the "M" doesn't mean Music in MTV (partially the programming, partially the lack of talent in today's so-called performers), and so forth and so on. Even the channels that still swear they're otherwise end up conforming....see: the '80s influx on TV Land (and '90s on N@N), and in radio, the no-50s format on WCBS-FM here in the NY area. [/quote]
And I remember that a late-80s issue of Spy magazine did as a sort of parody a NAN program schedule for 2001 featuring "In Living Color" and "Moonlighting."
It was inevitable--as I see time go on, I expect NAN and TVL to start airing post-1980 material. Way back when Dick Bartley started syndication, he said at the time that he expected to add 70s music year-by-year as time went on. Of course, I didn't really expect the older material to get shut out, but there will always be newer shows that can enter the pantheon of "classics." (Of course, the problem that GSN has always had to deal with is that their chosen genre entered into a state of limbo during the 90s that it's never really gotten out of, with a few exceptions that you all know about.)
As for AMC, they had no choice--either make the programming decisions that they made or have cable systems drop them for being too expensive. Need I add that TCM is still a home for old movies (and IMHO, a much better programmed and packaged home for old movies than AMC ever was) and is a great example of how you can program post-1970 films (and foreign films and silents) without offending the most loyal viewers. And since that core library is bought and paid for, they don't have to worry about the studios jacking up the license fees (and then jacking up the subscriber fees in response).
-
Free advice to GSN : Give me a reason to give you a half hour of my important TV watching time, and I'm there. So far in your new format, you haven't even come close.
Really? No arguing about tastes, but I'd rank Blackjack as one of the three best originals GSN has produced (along with Lingo and RR). Interesting gameplay, some memorable contestants, genuine suspense right down to the last card of the last hand of every episode, alert and unobtrusive commentary, and a dash of eye candy. I'm happy to see that a couple more series will apparently follow.
I also enjoyed Celeb Mole, which fooled me on the Mole's identity and offered some fun stunts along the way. Too bad the reality-doesn't-repeat-well cliche nailed me on the first civvie series, and I lost interest.
Didn't have much use for the other three new shows. But for a while GSN gave me two hours a week of reasons to watch...which is more than I can say about most cablers.
As for AMC, they had no choice--either make the programming decisions that they made or have cable systems drop them for being too expensive.
And as I'm sure you know, those decisions have paid off with the best numbers AMC ever achieved. GSN doesn't appear to have been so lucky, but I can't blame them for trying to get beyond the niche audience.
Hands up, anyone who thinks Star Search in any way encompasses the concept of a "game".
My hand's up. Talent contests aren't my cuppa, but they sound pretty game-like to me. Contestants try to win a competition. That's not a game? What is it, a seminar?
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 4 2004, 02:55 PM\'] GSN doesn't appear to have been so lucky, but I can't blame them for trying to get beyond the niche audience. [/quote]
That's just it though. It was programming to the niche (Game Shows) which produced GSN's best ratings (March 2003). GSN tried to program outside the niche (Summer 2003), ratings tanked. GSN programmed to the niche (Oct 2003 - Mar 2004), ratings went up.
Get the picture. It's the niche audiences who are watching the network. And when GSN stops programming to the niches, numbers drop.
-
In fact, the best household count doesn't appear to have been in March, 2003. GSN scored big in a couple weeks of that month with the Larsen documentary, but the month as a whole appears to have seen a lower household count than January and February of 2004. Can't be sure because I don't have the exact numbers for this year. At any rate, even in its best months GSN has never cracked the top 25 ad-supported cablers. It's always been a niche network for fans of traditional studio game shows.
The main driver of those good months - Millionaire - isn't budging. And the other two shows, Lingo and MG, keep a lot of their exposure. The household count may be okay, but the demos are just what cable operators aren't interested in. We can wail and gnash dentistry all day long about this, but GSN can either resign itself to perpetual nichedom, or the network can try to appeal to a broader range of viewers.
Will that please the purists? Of course not. Will it get a more advertiser-friendly audience? We'll see.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 4 2004, 12:55 PM\'] Contestants try to win a competition. That's not a game? What is it, a seminar? [/quote]
The Bulwer-Lytton contest is contestants trying to win a competition, too. Is THAT a game?
-
Uh, yeah, it is. It's a joke game, but it's still a game. In fact, I suspect most of the contestants would tell you they're in it for the fun of the game.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'May 4 2004, 12:58 PM\'] I was thinking the same thing. I always had GSN on C-band satellite, and they discontinued that signal on March 19th of this year. You know what, I haven't really missed it. When I see all these shows that they're adding, I almost think I can do without it. I can probably live on my 1700+ episodes I've acquired through the years. It doesn't seem like there's much worthwile there right now. [/quote]
I'm in the same boat...we cut way back on the cable and lost GSN several months ago, and truly, I don't miss it much either. That, and since we had the baby, I've discovered that a lot of the newer shows are not always baby-friendly (on pretty much any network, not just GSN).
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 4 2004, 02:55 PM\']
[My hand's up. Talent contests aren't my cuppa, but they sound pretty game-like to me. Contestants try to win a competition. That's not a game? What is it, a seminar? [/quote]
By your definition, the Olympics, Miss USA Pageant, and the general election all constitute game shows. Just because there is a competition between people on television doesn't mean it should be classified as a game show. You are REALLY stretching now, Casey.
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 4 2004, 04:39 PM\'] [quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 4 2004, 12:55 PM\'] Contestants try to win a competition. That's not a game? What is it, a seminar? [/quote]
The Bulwer-Lytton contest is contestants trying to win a competition, too. Is THAT a game? [/quote]
I always thought the Bulwer-Lytton contest was a dark and stormy night.
-
By your definition, the Olympics, Miss USA Pageant, and the general election all constitute game shows.
The issue was whether Star Search "in any way encompasses the concept of a game," not whether it's a game show. And yes, Star Search does encompass much of that concept. Contestants compete in a staged setting according to agreed-upon rules for prizes of significant value.
Of course, Star Search isn't a traditional game show in the sense that Millionaire is, though it interestingly becomes something of a chore to pin down the exact difference.
Probably the most significant difference for me is the enormous and unavoidable subjectivity in the judging. I know that subjective judgments are made on traditional game shows all the time, but talent contests take this element to an extreme. This leads to what often seem like unfair results, which is why talent contests aren't a personal fave of mine. Does this sound familiar to fans of the current American Idol series?
In fact, I would make much the same criticism of the Miss USA Pageant and some subjectively judged events in the Olympics. (Watch out for that French judge in the pairs figure skating event.) I'll leave the election alone.
But I don't see what is gained by saying there aren't elements of a game involved on Star Search.
I always thought the Bulwer-Lytton contest was a dark and stormy night.
That's the start of the game. Bulwer-Lytton went on for a while after the start.
-
It never ceases to fascinate me how often we get back to the "is it or isn't it?" argument. Star Search is obviously a talent competition, and as such is strictly speaking not a "game show". But does it "in any way encompasses the concept of a game"? Well, of course it does. That's a mighty broad statement. It certainly fits the new GSN concept a lot more than Spy TV.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 4 2004, 02:55 PM\']
As for AMC, they had no choice--either make the programming decisions that they made or have cable systems drop them for being too expensive.
And as I'm sure you know, those decisions have paid off with the best numbers AMC ever achieved. GSN doesn't appear to have been so lucky, but I can't blame them for trying to get beyond the niche audience.? [/quote]
Very true, and all the power to them. Still, the whole demographic thing is very frustrating to me sometimes. Of course I am biased and will wish for the good old days, and say that "my" programming (and more often, actually, a lot of yours) and my tastes are better. And that I wish I could keep it forever. Do I seem less crazy after saying so?
-
[quote name=\'JMFabiano\' date=\'May 5 2004, 03:07 PM\'] Do I seem less crazy after saying so? [/quote]
The thing that makes people seem crazy here is that most people keep wishing and wishing and wishing and wishing and wishing and wishing and wishing and wishing and wishing and wishing like it will actually make it so if they keep it up, instead of eventually realizing that it's Not Gonna Happen and getting on with their life. If they'd say "I wish it were this way, but I know it's not and won't be anytime soon", they wouldn't get nearly as much grief.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 4 2004, 02:55 PM\']
Hands up, anyone who thinks Star Search in any way encompasses the concept of a "game".
My hand's up. Talent contests aren't my cuppa, but they sound pretty game-like to me. Contestants try to win a competition. That's not a game? What is it, a seminar? [/quote]
Yeah, my hand's up too. It's not a "game show", but it most certainly is a game.
But I'm not surprised. 'Tis not a complete day around here until Chris Lemon serves up his traditional snarky post o' the day.
-
[quote name=\'inturnaround\' date=\'May 6 2004, 01:09 AM\'] Yeah, my hand's up too. It's not a "game show", but it most certainly is a game.
But I'm not surprised. 'Tis not a complete day around here until Chris Lemon serves up his traditional snarky post o' the day. [/quote]
I'm not as good at snarky, but I'll give it a try...
Yer high. :-)
We've established that the Olympics, Miss USA pageant, general elections, and Star Search all have game-type elements: competitions with tangible rewards. That's what most of us think of as the definition of a game show, but now that I think about it, in general, that is actually the definition of a contest. And the reason the line between reality competitions and traditional game shows has become more and more blurred is because they are both subsets of contests. Star Search, American Idol, Survivor, Big Brother, and even The Bachelor are all contests, but that doesn't make them game shows.
-
[quote name=\'GS Warehouse\' date=\'May 6 2004, 07:59 AM\'] We've established that the Olympics, Miss USA pageant, general elections, and Star Search all have game-type elements: competitions with tangible rewards. That's what most of us think of as the definition of a game show, but now that I think about it, in general, that is actually the definition of a contest. [/quote]
Exactly!
Coughlin's shot notwithstanding (and I bet he's as excited about killfiles coming as I am, to which I say: Good), I never suggested that Star Search was a "game show" in the sense that we know a "game show", and to do so would be silly since that is no longer GSN's focus. However, GSN's focus DOES allege to be "games" as a whole, and I'm standing firmly by my claim that SS isn't even a "game", much less a "game show". Why? A game (at least, a good one) is something you enjoy participating in for its own sake.
"But they love what they do, you can hear it in their dulcet tones!" you might say. And you'd be an idiot. I love what I do for a living. Doesn't mean it becomes a game when the guy down the hall tries to do my job better than I do.
Or, put it this way: How many of those people on SS would participate in the competition if there was NOTHING to show for it. No prize money, no publicity, no street buzz, no national exposure. No career advancement whatsoever. They all show up in an empty warehouse with nobody but them and the judges (oh, hell, throw Arsenio in there, too, it's not like HE has anything better to do), and someone walks out declared one of Life's Winners, and nothing else. I promise you that would be one empty warehouse.
And yet, at some time tomorrow night I bet you I will sit down to play Password for the same stakes. That's the difference between a game and a contest, in my eyes.
-
This thread is running off into semantics, but it's also getting kinda fun. We're bogged down in the difference between a "game" and a "game show."
Next week: how many angels can dance on Alex Trebek's chin?
Talent contests are obviously games. In fact, the online Merriam-Webster definition of "game" uses the word "contest" three times in the definition. Once you concede that Star Search is a contest, you've pretty much conceded that it's at least something of a game. As, in fact, are beauty pageants, sports events, and elections.
But "game show" means something else to most people. It's what happens on Wheel of Fortune. It's pretty much defined by actual examples. As Potter Stewart would certainly say, people know them when they see them.
When I tried to nail down the differences between talent contests and what most people call a "game show," I was a little surprised by how hard it was. The more I thought about it, the more game shows looked like talent contests themselves.
Jeopardy tests the talents of quick memory and wide knowledge. Lingo tests the talents of language ability and pattern-recognition. Wheel of Fortune tests the talent of hugging Pat when you win.
In fact, many of the talents tested on game shows are much more useful to most people than the ability to warble a tune or dance a fancy step. After all, the ability to hug Pat always comes in handy.
The biggest difference I hit on was the judging, which is necessarily so much more subjective in talent contests. The best-designed game shows try to limit subjectivity in judging to a minimum. It can't be eliminated entirely, of course, but talent contests don't even try, nor should they. Controversy over the winners helps talent contests generate interest. Ask the guys at American Idol.
Oh well, it's a fun bull-session topic.
EDIT: Just saw Chris' interesting idea that a game must involve something you enjoy participating in for its own sake. Sorry, but this idea doesn't convince me at all that Star Search isn't a game.
Personal example: my wife's a classical soprano and she LOVES singing, even in an empty warehouse, even if there's no prize money, publicity, street buzz or national exposure involved. In fact, of course, these things are never involved for my wife, unless you count a page on my web site as national exposure. I'm sure she loves using her considerable talent every bit as much as the trivia mavens on Jeopardy love displaying their knowledge.
So I don't see this distinction between the warblers (and others) on Star Search and the question-phrasers on Jeopardy as being real - at least in many, many individual cases. Truth to tell, it looks more like a similarity between talent contests and game shows than a difference.
Some folks might go on Jeopardy for the sheer joy of showing off their knowledge, just as some folks might go on Star Search for the sheer joy of cracking jokes or dancing silly dances.
Other contestants on either show might be more interested in the, uh, more tangible rewards. So basing a supposed difference between talent contests and game shows on an alleged difference in the motivations of the contestants doesn't hold water with me. I'd guess the motivations - probably a mix for most contestants on both types of shows - are pretty similar.
But hey, we're talking about things where exact proof is impossible.
-
Star Search is a "game" in loosest sense of the term. No one is going to sit at home and play Star Search (or Average Joe, for that matter) with their friends and family. But, back to the original question, does this qualify as a game under GSN's new standards? The answer is yes, since apparently GSN thinks of SPY TV, Vegas Weddings and Average Joe as "games". Now, to get back to playing the home game of the Miss USA Pagaent. ;)
Tyshaun
-
The last time we went over this, Chris C. proclaimed that a game show is essentially an unjudged competition that tests skill, luck or instincts, no matter if there's a prize offered or not. Under his definition, *all* talent contests and shows like "Survivor" aren't game shows because they depend on a judged decision for the winner, even if they do contain unjudged competition elements. However, "TWL" does count as a game show because even if most of the game's outcomes are judged, the winner in the end is the one with the most correct answers in the final round. Something I would easily agree with.
However, for the layman game shows are mixed in with all other unscripted programming, including talent contests, relationship shows, hidden-camera shows, etc. All of which allows GSN to widen its programming net.
While thinking this over, I just came to a realization that in many ways, "Truth or Consequences," the show considered the granddaddy of all non-quiz game shows, is not really a game show. Yes, some of the stunts were competitions against the house or others (particularly the "Hush/Walking Man" contests on the radio version). However, so many stunts on the show were just observations of human nature, practical jokes or set-ups for reunions, with the contestants receiving the prizes no matter what the outcome. Also, the basic "game" of "if you don't tell the truth, you must pay the consequnces" had become by the Barker era purely a mechanic, since the contestants were going to participate in the stunt no matter what and the questions had gone from obscure knowledge to silly riddles like the catch-up round on "Cram" (much of the time Barker didn't even do the question, especially since he spent more time on the contestant interviews than his predecessors or successors).
Something to think about.
-
Chris C. proclaimed that a game show is essentially an unjudged competition that tests skill, luck or instincts, no matter if there's a prize offered or not.
So Chris C. also hit on the judging - or lack of it, or minimization of it - as a critical identifier for what most folks call a game show.
I could say something about great minds here, but I could also catch a lotta grief.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 6 2004, 08:48 AM\'] Personal example: my wife's a classical soprano and she LOVES singing, even in an empty warehouse, even if there's no prize money, publicity, street buzz or national exposure involved. [/quote]
But that's the same trap that I mentioned in my post. Your wife enjoying singing FOR THE SAKE OF SINGING. At worst, she does it for the joy of performing for herself, if not for others. (And there's nothing wrong with that.)
But the act of being on Star Search is not just singing (or dancing, or telling jokes, or whatever), it is the act of being judged arbitrarily against someone else to see who they thought was better at the activity. THAT is the part that I question whether your wife (or anyone else) would be willing to take part in with nothing to be gained. And I mean NOTHING. No tangible prize, no public recognition, and I'll go so far as to suggest that the "contestants" would have to sign a waiver swearing never to reveal the results to a soul. At BEST they walk out knowing that four people thought their performance was better than someone elses, and then we start getting into issues of psychological justification.
-
But the act of being on Star Search is not just singing (or dancing, or telling jokes, or whatever), it is the act of being judged arbitrarily against someone else to see who they thought was better at the activity. THAT is the part that I question whether your wife (or anyone else) would be willing to take part in with nothing to be gained.
Sorry, but my wife has done this. Many times, in fact. She has often gone to auditions at volunteer singing groups - no money, publicity, street buzz, etc., involved at all - where she was judged (let's hope not completely arbitrarily, but there have been cases...) against other people trying to get into the group.
She purely LOVED the competition. It stimulated her, got her interested in perfecting her craft, motivated her practicing, etc.
And she didn't get a dime for it. She got no publicity for it. She got NOTHING for it (I should know, I keep track of our bank account) except personal satisfaction. These were (and are) unpaid groups who sing in pretty thorough anonymity. It really is very similar to your empty-warehouse thought example.
And, of course, all the other people who auditioned for the groups similarly got nothing for their pains except personal satisfaction. There are literally tens of thousands of people across the country who have auditioned for such volunteer classical singing groups.
Now I'm sure that passing an audition is more fun than failing, and happily my wife has rarely failed at anything involving vocal ability. But many, many people have done exactly what you suggest nobody would be willing to do.
I'm also sure that many contestants on Star Search are somewhat similar to these folks. They're in it - at least to some extent - for the fun of the competition and to show off their skills. Just as I'm sure that some contestants on Jeopardy are in it to show off their knowledge and to enjoy the game.
Yes, there's an obvious monetary motivation in both cases as well. For some contestants on both shows, it may be the primary motivation. As I said before, I'd guess that almost all contestants on both shows have a mix of motives.
So, indeed, this looks more like a similarity between the two types of shows rather than a difference.
But I noticed you slipped in a bit about the judging on talent contests. And I agree with Chris C. that the real difference lies here.
-
The definition of game, paraphrasing Merriam-Webster.com, is a competition where the contestants play directly against each other and can affect each other's participation. A contest is one where a participant is not affected by another, but is decided by a third-party, such as a judge or supervisor. Therefore, shows such as Jeopardy! or WOF can be considered true "games", since the outcome is decided by the players, whereas shows such as Star Serach and American Idol differ becasue they are decided, not by the players, but by outside parties.
Tyshaun
-
A contest is one where a participant is not affected by another, but is decided by a third-party, such as a judge or supervisor.
You mean the participants in a "contest" aren't affected by one another? I don't understand. If somebody else does better than me in a contest, I lose. If everybody else does worse than me, I win. My outcome is very directly affected by what the other participants do. This doesn't look like any real distinction between a "contest" and a "game". In fact, it looks like a hair that failed to get split.
Now, I think the comment about judging is the real difference, but not between a "contest" and a "game." I don't think there's much real difference between a contest and a game at all. That's why people often use the words interchangeably to describe, say, three Jeopardy CONTESTants playing against each other.
I do think there's a real distinction between what most people call a "talent contest" and what most people call a "game show." And it has to do with the subjectivity of the judging, which is extreme on talent contests and held to a minimum on game shows.
Wow, this is getting weird. But it's still kinda fun.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 6 2004, 01:08 PM\']
A contest is one where a participant is not affected by another, but is decided by a third-party, such as a judge or supervisor.
You mean the participants in a "contest" aren't affected by one another? I don't understand. If somebody else does better than me in a contest, I lose. If everybody else does worse than me, I win. My outcome is very directly affected by what the other participants do. This doesn't look like any real distinction between a "contest" and a "game". In fact, it looks like a hair that failed to get split.
Now, I think the comment about judging is the real difference, but not between a "contest" and a "game." I don't think there's much real difference between a contest and a game at all. That's why people often use the words interchangeably to describe, say, three Jeopardy CONTESTants playing against each other.
I do think there's a real distinction between what most people call a "talent contest" and what most people call a "game show." And it has to do with the subjectivity of the judging, which is extreme on talent contests and held to a minimum on game shows.
Wow, this is getting weird. But it's still kinda fun. [/quote]
But their and your performance in a contest is not for you or them to decide, it's someone else's. Like what happened on American Idol a couple of weeks ago, the stronger singer lost out to a couple of generally considered weaker ones. As opposed to a game, where YOU control you and your opponent's fate (unless it's the R word ;)). Finally seeing the difference?
You are assuming that just because your performance in a contest is better than someone else's, you'll automatically win. This has consistently been proven to be not the case. Whereas in a game, if you don't do better than your opponent, you lose. The end.
Tyshaun
-
You are assuming that just because your performance in a contest is better than someone else's, you'll automatically win. This has consistently been proven to be not the case. Whereas in a game, if you don't do better than your opponent, you lose.
I'm sorry, but this is really losing me. Are you saying that Jeopardy ISN'T a contest between the three, er, CONTESTants? What else is it then? Again, I think the distinction you're trying to make between a "contest" and a "game" is simply unjustified by the common usage of the two words. I would use both words to describe Jeopardy, and I think most people would agree with me.
This is clearly territory where exact proofs are impossible. But it's still fun to shoot the breeze.
-
star search was a cool show in the 1980s; i dunno the specific date in 1983 it aired on, but it did premiere in 1983.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 6 2004, 02:08 PM\'] You mean the participants in a "contest" aren't affected by one another? I don't understand. If somebody else does better than me in a contest, I lose. If everybody else does worse than me, I win. My outcome is very directly affected by what the other participants do. This doesn't look like any real distinction between a "contest" and a "game". In fact, it looks like a hair that failed to get split. [/quote]
But they don't have the ability, for example, to make you sing worse because they sing better. Their actions do not have a bearing on your actions. Except in a psychological way, but that's really just you doing it to yourself when you think about it. Everybody just does whatever it is they do independently of one another, and in the end somebody wins.
In a similar sense, there are a lot of people who don't consider golf to be a sport because there's no defense. True, there's no judging, there is a specific, identifiable way of seeing which person did better. Still, I can't block your shot or impede you from doing what you do, I can only try to do better than you at around the same period of time. That would also appear to be true of most track events.
I definitely see that distinction, and if that's how the dictionary separates a game and a contest, so be it. Still, in a thesaurus, contest and game both appear alongside "competition". Like Casey says, debating the nuances and the hair splitting is fun as long as we all stay friendly about it.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 6 2004, 01:30 PM\']
You are assuming that just because your performance in a contest is better than someone else's, you'll automatically win. This has consistently been proven to be not the case. Whereas in a game, if you don't do better than your opponent, you lose.
I'm sorry, but this is really losing me. Are you saying that Jeopardy ISN'T a contest between the three, er, CONTESTants? What else is it then? Again, I think the distinction you're trying to make between a "contest" and a "game" is simply unjustified by the common usage of the two words. I would use both words to describe Jeopardy, and I think most people would agree with me.
This is clearly territory where exact proofs are impossible. But it's still fun to shoot the breeze. [/quote]
I wasn't talking about Jeopardy!, I referenced American Idol and Star Search in my post; you're dragging Jeopardy! into it. What I'm saying is that any competition that is decided by a 3rd party is defined as a contest, and one that is decided directly by the players is a game. SS and AI are decided by judges (voters), not necessarily by the participants, and J! is decided by the direct performance of the players.
I will admit, this argument could go on for days, though, so I will just let this topic die (for now ;)).
-
[quote name=\'JacksonBrowne1980\' date=\'May 6 2004, 01:47 PM\'] star search was a cool show in the 1980s; i dunno the specific date in 1983 it aired on, but it did premiere in 1983. [/quote]
And once again, Erik comes along and makes this seem irrelevant doesn't he? ;)
Tyshaun
-
In a similar sense, there are a lot of people who don't consider golf to be a sport because there's no defense.
This would cut out a fair number of what most people would consider sports. You mention track and field, but we could also toss out figure skating, speed skating, rowing, skiing, bobsled and luge, swimming and diving, gymnastics, weightlifting, bicycling, marksmanship and archery, equestrian events...man, we're starting to get rid of a lot of the Olympics. How will NBC fill all that time?
This doesn't have anything to do with game shows. I'm just maundering along.
I wasn't talking about Jeopardy!, I referenced American Idol and Star Search in my post; you're dragging Jeopardy! into it.
The only reason I'm using Jeopardy is that it's a classic example of what most people would call a game show. And I think there is a difference between such a show and a talent contest. I just don't think it has anything to do with an at best miniscule (and to me invisible) distinction between a "contest" and a "game."
In fact, I've lost track of why you wanted to draw the distinction in the first place. Maybe one of these days I'll go back over the thread and see why we got side-tracked. For now, I'll agree to give the whole subject a rest.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 6 2004, 03:41 PM\']
In a similar sense, there are a lot of people who don't consider golf to be a sport because there's no defense.
This would cut out a fair number of what most people would consider sports. You mention track and field, but we could also toss out figure skating, speed skating, rowing, skiing, bobsled and luge, swimming and diving, gymnastics, weightlifting, bicycling, marksmanship and archery, equestrian events... [/quote]
Uh...yeah, precisely. With the possible exception of bicycling which, like auto racing, has a lot strategic components with respect to other competitors, these would all be examples of contests rather than games. And despite your protestations, I believe you do see the distinction or else you would have included other Olympic events (water polo, soccer, even curling) that we would consider "games".
Also, you mentioned common usage, and I think there is a relevant point here. In sports, you tend to think of a baseball "game" and a football "game" and a basketball "game". But you don't as naturally think of a figure skating "game" or an archery "game". You don't even think of a golf competition as a "game", although that's usually the term people give to their own individual skill level ("My golf game has improved ever since I stopped watching GSN.") People tend to naturally use some word other than game (meet, event, race, competition, match) to describe events like that.
Naturally, there would be individual exceptions. A boxing "match", for example, is judged, but the two competitors definitely have an influence on each other's performance and the match can be won on something other than a judgment. And again, we're all agreed that this is preopostrously narrow hair splitting. Still, it's an interesting distinction that's a little more clear-cut than you seem willing to admit to.
-
Oh Lordy, I'm getting sucked into this again. But does that make Lingo a contest and not a game? After all, you can't do anything to defend against the other team in Lingo. Well, I guess you could go over and beat them up, but Chuck wouldn't like that. All you can do is try to guess the words. It's you against the board.
Maybe you could argue that if you guess all the words the other team will never get a chance to play. But once the other team is playing, you can't do anything to make the, er, contest tougher for them.
Same for Wheel of Fortune. It's basically you against the board, and the only way you can "defend" against the other contestants is to guess the puzzles. But that's like saying that you can defend against your opponents in golf by shooting a score so low nobody can catch you.
OTOH, consider Russian Roulette, where you can directly force your opponent to play on a nasty question. I'll admit there's real "defense" involved there. So is RR more of a "game," while Lingo and WoF lean more towards "contests"? Yikes, we could go down a list of game shows and start separating them into "game," "contest," "more game than contest," "more contest than game," "heck if I know," etc., based on how possible "defense" is.
This is getting too subtle for me. I'll just check out of the conversation.
-
I think the definition should be left to the producers. If they want the show to be considered a game show, it is. If they don't, it is not.
-
[quote name=\'JacksonBrowne1980\' date=\'May 6 2004, 11:47 AM\'] star search was a cool show in the 1980s; [/quote]
Golly.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'May 6 2004, 02:41 PM\']
In a similar sense, there are a lot of people who don't consider golf to be a sport because there's no defense.
This would cut out a fair number of what most people would consider sports. You mention track and field, but we could also toss out figure skating, speed skating, rowing, skiing, bobsled and luge, swimming and diving, gymnastics, weightlifting, bicycling, marksmanship and archery, equestrian events...man, we're starting to get rid of a lot of the Olympics. How will NBC fill all that time? [/quote]
The same way they currently do -- endless sob stories about how the participants overcame every hardship from ailurophobia to inflamed halluces (and a thousand others we can't even imagine) to qualify for the Olympics. :-)