-
A funny thing happened. I never really gave BB87 the time of day last time it aired, back in '97 in the wee hours of the morning. Two players? No Bill Cullen? Forget it.
Well, maybe my tastes improve with age. I have found myself really taking a liking to BB87. Bill Rafferty's a good host, and I think the way they set up the rules (5 to win for red, 4 for white, vice versa in round 2, and then 4x4 in the tiebreaker), was a great idea, instead of the family pair.
I also find that the theme music has grown on me too....
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Apr 13 2005, 12:57 PM\']A funny thing happened. I never really gave BB87 the time of day last time it aired, back in '97 in the wee hours of the morning. Two players? No Bill Cullen? Forget it.
Well, maybe my tastes improve with age. I have found myself really taking a liking to BB87. Bill Rafferty's a good host, and I think the way they set up the rules (5 to win for red, 4 for white, vice versa in round 2, and then 4x4 in the tiebreaker), was a great idea, instead of the family pair.
I also find that the theme music has grown on me too....
[snapback]81745[/snapback]
[/quote]
This is my first time seeing BB87, and while I think I prefer the original, this revival is better than I thought it would be. While I don't think that doing away with the family pair was the best idea, I agree that they did a good job of adjusting the rules to even things out. The growing Gold Run jackpot was a great idea too, and so far Bill Rafferty has made a good impression on me. I also like the theme music more after hearing it in the context of the show, and while I'm not crazy about the superimposed board, I like the overall look of the set.
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Apr 13 2005, 10:57 AM\']A funny thing happened. I never really gave BB87 the time of day last time it aired, back in '97 in the wee hours of the morning. Two players? No Bill Cullen? Forget it.
Well, maybe my tastes improve with age. I have found myself really taking a liking to BB87. Bill Rafferty's a good host, and I think the way they set up the rules (5 to win for red, 4 for white, vice versa in round 2, and then 4x4 in the tiebreaker), was a great idea, instead of the family pair.
[/quote]
I'm enjoying it now more than I did then, but I can't put it in front of the Cullen version. Bill's a very good host, but he's no, well, Bill.
I further agree that they did a good job of adjusting the game to a two-solo-player format, but at the same time it saddens me that the entire "gimmick" of the show (to determine if "two heads are really better than one" went right out the window.
And I can't get past that Chyroned board. Ugh. Just freakin' ugh. I love Concentration in spite of the Chyroned board, not because of it.
-
I think what makes Classic Concentration forgivable for me is that the contestants were later allowed to interact with the board via green screen, thereby adding the illusion of physical interaction.
Does anybody who went to the show remember roughly what size of display the contestants were looking at inside that blue hexagon? How far of a leap would it have been to make that display camera ready?
-
This is my first time to watch this version, and I'm enjoying it a lot more than I expected to.
Rafferty is no Cullen, but he's a good host in his own right. (I'm enjoying his version of Card Sharks as well. It's too bad neither show lasted very long.)
Like others, I miss the "solo player vs. family pair" concept, but I think the game still works. The gameplay is good, although I notice that there seems to be a lot more questions related to household tips. Still, Bill's been humorous about it, like suggesting that advice "experts" such as Mary Ellen find real jobs.
I haven't warmed up to the theme music, really liking the original's much more, but that's a minor criticism.
Despite the various changes, I think it's an example of a good remake and I'm glad I'm finally getting the opportunity to see it.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Apr 13 2005, 02:25 PM\']
And I can't get past that Chyroned board. Ugh. Just freakin' ugh. I love Concentration in spite of the Chyroned board, not because of it.
[snapback]81747[/snapback]
[/quote]
That's my only minor gripe about the show is the Chyroned board. Although I wonder what the board looked like to the contestants.....
-
That's my only minor gripe about the show is the Chyroned board. Although I wonder what the board looked like to the contestants.....
It looked the same as it did to the viewer. There's one episode GSN aired the last time they ran the show, which shows the doors on the board opening to reveal a monitor that has the game board on it. I only recall seeing it on that one episode, so it was probably a mistake that they revealed it on camera. I even have that particular clip on tape...somewhere (wasn't too good at labelling the "clips" back then!)
-
[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Apr 13 2005, 11:31 AM\']I think what makes Classic Concentration forgivable for me is that the contestants were later allowed to interact with the board via green screen, thereby adding the illusion of physical interaction.
Does anybody who went to the show remember roughly what size of display the contestants were looking at inside that blue hexagon? How far of a leap would it have been to make that display camera ready?
[snapback]81749[/snapback]
[/quote]
Yeah, except watching people who have never done bluescreen before try to do bluescreen has always been painful for me. :)
From what little I've seen, I think the inner blue hex is what opened up to reveal what was probably a 32" or so television monitor. The best chance with 1987 technology to make that system camera-ready would have been to use a rear-projection television, which never does tape well, especially under all of that television light - I think the glare would have been horrid. Plus there were the issues back then with the poor pictures when looking at the protection monitor at anything other than head-on.
Going back to my obsession with the centerpiece of the American Idol set, had the tech been available at the time, THAT would have been a FINE gameboard for BB.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Apr 13 2005, 02:52 PM\']
From what little I've seen, I think the inner blue hex is what opened up to reveal what was probably a 32" or so television monitor. The best chance with 1987 technology to make that system camera-ready would have been to use a rear-projection television, which never does tape well, especially under all of that television light - I think the glare would have been horrid. Plus there were the issues back then with the poor pictures when looking at the protection monitor at anything other than head-on.
[snapback]81765[/snapback]
[/quote]
Is that why we never saw the game screen from "Wordplay", save for the board turning for the bonus? On rare moments you could see the projection screen and what was on it, and it wasn't pretty.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Apr 13 2005, 02:37 PM\']Is that why we never saw the game screen from "Wordplay", save for the board turning for the bonus? On rare moments you could see the projection screen and what was on it, and it wasn't pretty.
[snapback]81779[/snapback]
[/quote]
Probably. It wasn't until the 90's that projection screen televisions were on the market where the image was decent when looked at at a wide angle, and I'm thinking that a floodlight hitting the top of that corrugated screen would just wash the thing out completely.
Come to think of it, when TJW was on and they had a visual clue, didn't they dim the lights on that side of the set so that the players could see it properly?
-
With both runs of Blockbusters being on at the same time now, it's easy to compare them. The 87 version seems inferior in just about every way. The "family pair" was one of the premises of the first version, and it was dropped for no apparent reason. The set is cheaper, the contestants seem dumber, the questions less interesting. And Rafferty played the role of "carnival barker" in comparison to the smooth "quizmaster" that Cullen was.
Why wasn't Cullen tapped for BB 87? Was he simply unable to host anything by then?
-
[quote name=\'melman1\' date=\'Apr 13 2005, 05:23 PM\']With both runs of Blockbusters being on at the same time now, it's easy to compare them. The 87 version seems inferior in just about every way. The "family pair" was one of the premises of the first version, and it was dropped for no apparent reason. The set is cheaper, the contestants seem dumber, the questions less interesting. And Rafferty played the role of "carnival barker" in comparison to the smooth "quizmaster" that Cullen was.
Why wasn't Cullen tapped for BB 87? Was he simply unable to host anything by then?
[snapback]81788[/snapback]
[/quote]
Cullen was retired by then. His last TV apparance was sometime in 87 on 25k Pyramid, IIRC.
Don't hold to me this, but I suspect that Rafferty may have been under contract for CS and they decided simply to use him since he was already available and under contract.
-
I just saw it for the first time this morning, and that the Raff is no Cullen, but he is a good host, and holds his own. He doesn't need to replicate the skill of Cullen, but he really should avoid (at all costs) to be a Bullard (I mean, Pat).
My only gripe is that board, but for 1987, its fine enough.
-
[quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'Apr 13 2005, 08:31 PM\']Don't hold to me this, but I suspect that Rafferty may have been under contract for CS and they decided simply to use him since he was already available and under contract.
[snapback]81804[/snapback]
[/quote]
Cripes. Since lately its been easy to not hold you to squat, why should this be any different?
Being under contract with one show has NOTHING to do with another. If he were available, fine. If he were the best for the job, even better. But because he was in the company break room with time to kill doesn't make him the host.
Were you there? Are you Cronin's secretary? Cause you seem to be making a lot of false speculation lately.
-
[quote name=\'David Lawrence\' date=\'Apr 13 2005, 02:06 PM\']
Like others, I miss the "solo player vs. family pair" concept, but I think the game still works. The gameplay is good, although I notice that there seems to be a lot more questions related to household tips. Still, Bill's been humorous about it, like suggesting that advice "experts" such as Mary Ellen find real jobs.
[/quote]
Speaking of which, from what we've seen of BB87 so far, would you say that Mary Ellen was to Blockbusters as...
Davis Research was to Hot Potato?
Dr. Joyce Brothers was to Hollywood Squares?
The San Quentin (sp?) prison was to Card Sharks?
re: the '87 theme, no substitute for the Cobert theme, but all right. I do like when they use the beginning part when the new contestant comes in. BTW, I swear I heard the BB87 theme elsewhere.
-
The computer graphics used for the game board and theme song certainly helped in "jazzing things up" for a revival of "Blockbusters". The set had that futuristic look.
Rafferty's no Cullen -- but then again, Cullen's one hell of a tough act to follow.
While this was a daytime show, still, there were too many "helpful hints"/Mary Ellen questions. Nice to see Rafferty have a field day with that one. :)
While the advantage swings for dueling solo players weren't too bad, still, "Blockbusters" should always be two against one. To the best of my knowledge, every BB series in the UK was two against one.
Plus the prize money on BB87 -- PUH-lease. If you win a game and had to capture at least five hexagons, you only get a hundred bucks (down from 500 in the early '80s) Further, IIRC, after you won five matches, you had to retire undefeated.
The early 80s Blockbusters had great writing, memorable contestants who put together nice long winning streaks (John Hatten, Pat and Liz McCarthy) and of course Cullen. A great show that should've lasted much longer than a year and a half.
Had BB87 allowed for two players against one and perhaps a top prize of at least $10,000 in the gold run, I bet it would've lasted longer than four months.
-
In chatting with a friend today, this is something that I actually pondered:
BB87 was not on very long - from January until the end of April, IIRC. The show that replaced it was Classic Concentration, which had a much longer life. Was BB87 simply a placeholder for CC?
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Apr 15 2005, 08:56 AM\']In chatting with a friend today, this is something that I actually pondered:
BB87 was not on very long - from January until the end of April, IIRC. The show that replaced it was Classic Concentration, which had a much longer life. Was BB87 simply a placeholder for CC?
[snapback]82002[/snapback]
[/quote]
No. If that were the case, Bill Cullen would have hosted.
-
[quote name=\'JMFabiano\' date=\'Apr 15 2005, 06:49 AM\']The San Quentin (sp?) prison was to Card Sharks?
[snapback]81997[/snapback]
[/quote]
San Quentin wasn't the only prison CS used for polls. They also used Folsom State Prison (yes, as in Johnny Cash's "Folsom Prison Blues").
As an aside, I've done projects with Davis Research as a part of my day job (comes with being involved in the field of market research). Good firm.
Doug
-
[quote name=\'dmota104\' date=\'Apr 15 2005, 08:53 AM\']
Plus the prize money on BB87 -- PUH-lease. If you win a game and had to capture at least five hexagons, you only get a hundred bucks (down from 500 in the early '80s) Further, IIRC, after you won five matches, you had to retire undefeated.
[snapback]82001[/snapback]
[/quote]
It was a ten match limit on BB87. And they did, however, go to the progressive jackpot for the Gold Run later in the run. New champs always started at the $5K level a la Hot Potato, regardless of whether the last Gold Run played was a win or loss. I do think they could have kept the maingame wins at $500 per game, however.
-
[quote name=\'JMFabiano\' date=\'Apr 15 2005, 04:49 AM\']BTW, I swear I heard the BB87 theme elsewhere.
[/quote]
I've heard it a boatload of places used as a generic music bed, but one place we both might have heard it was when CBS was using it as a network promo bed for a while.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Apr 15 2005, 09:14 AM\'][quote name=\'dmota104\' date=\'Apr 15 2005, 08:53 AM\']
Plus the prize money on BB87 -- PUH-lease. If you win a game and had to capture at least five hexagons, you only get a hundred bucks (down from 500 in the early '80s) Further, IIRC, after you won five matches, you had to retire undefeated.
[snapback]82001[/snapback]
[/quote]
It was a ten match limit on BB87. And they did, however, go to the progressive jackpot for the Gold Run later in the run. New champs always started at the $5K level a la Hot Potato, regardless of whether the last Gold Run played was a win or loss. I do think they could have kept the maingame wins at $500 per game, however.
[snapback]82005[/snapback]
[/quote]
MO' MONEY SYNDROME! Oops, sorry, reflex...
As for my status, was Cullen BB better? Yes. Was Rafferty BB a bad show? No. They made do with the new players format, and did it the best way they could (switching advantages, even tiebreaker board). The show otherwise was pretty much the same, aside from the majority of domestic questions (was this the assumption that only housewives were watching daytime TV coming into play?)
One nitpicky thing I missed: different pitch bells for each player when they score a hexagon, and it sounding WHEN the red or white block goes up.