-
OK, I've heard that Blockbusters was a filler show on NBC's Daytime lineup until Classic Concentration was ready to go forward. But why though, wouldn't it make sense to make the decision for Classic Concentration to air 26 weeks sooner? (provided that it was ready)
I don't see the reason to produce a game show just for it to be replaced by another gameshow due to it "being not ready yet"
Wouldn't NBC just show a repeat of a sitcom and save money than to go through with a project with the intent to pull the plug on it anyways?
Does anyone know why the revival of Blockbusters decided to do the one-on-one format rather than the two heads v. one format?
-
[quote name=\'14gameshows\' date=\'May 2 2005, 09:49 AM\']OK, I've heard that Blockbusters was a filler show on NBC's Daytime lineup until Classic Concentration was ready to go forward.
[/quote]
...which is a crock...
I don't see the reason to produce a game show just for it to be replaced by another gameshow due to it "being not ready yet"
Congratulations, you've figured out why.
Does anyone know why the revival of Blockbusters decided to do the one-on-one format rather than the two heads v. one format?
Ostensibly because it's easier to get single contestants than it is family pairs.
-
I don't see the reason to produce a game show just for it to be replaced by another gameshow due to it "being not ready yet"
Most likely this was not the case. It costs money to build sets, acquire theme music, pay the host, etc. It's doubtful a network or production company would go through all that if they knew for sure it was only until something else was ready. NBC and Goodson were more than likely hoping for a much longer run with "Blockbusters", especially since it had been a moderate hit before.
As for "Classic Concentration", in the '70s and '80s there were always game show pilot ready to be made into series. When "Blockbusters" ratings were found wanting, it probably wasn't much of a problem to get "CC" ready for air.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'May 2 2005, 12:53 PM\']
I don't see the reason to produce a game show just for it to be replaced by another gameshow due to it "being not ready yet"
Most likely this was not the case. It costs money to build sets, acquire theme music, pay the host, etc. It's doubtful a network or production company would go through all that if they knew for sure it was only until something else was ready. NBC and Goodson were more than likely hoping for a much longer run with "Blockbusters", especially since it had been a moderate hit before.
As for "Classic Concentration", in the '70s and '80s there were always game show pilot ready to be made into series. When "Blockbusters" ratings were found wanting, it probably wasn't much of a problem to get "CC" ready for air.
[snapback]84101[/snapback]
[/quote]
And that de-bunks another "GAME SHOW MYTH"....
Tomorrow, was Trebek really drunk on the last episode of "High Rollers"?
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'May 2 2005, 01:55 PM\']
Tomorrow, was Trebek really drunk on the last episode of "High Rollers"?
[snapback]84102[/snapback]
[/quote]
And Wednesday.......Jim Peck's "Big Falldown"......Simple accident, or were the stairs doctored with something?
-
No game show packager would agree to a deal where he knew up front that his show would be gone after 26 weeks, and no network would offer a producer such a deal if they wanted to maintain favorable relationships with producers.
Which scenario makes more sense from a network's standpoint?
1. Low-rated show
2. 26-week run of a totally unknown quantity
3. Run the show that's been "in preparation"
or
1. Low-rated show
2. Extend the low-rated show on week-to-week renewals
3. Run the show that's been "in preparation"
Two problems with scenario #1:
1. It only takes about six to eight weeks to get a game show ready from concept to air. Why offer the intermediate show a 26-week run?
2. What happens if you've told the producers of the intermediate show and the replacement show about scenario #1 and the intermediate show turns into a hit? Do you cancel the intermediate show? Do you extend the intermediate show and cancel the replacement show? Do you cancel something else and rejigger your schedule to accomodate both shows? Basically you're screwed.
Game show urban myths often don't withstand the scrutiny of logic.
-
[quote name=\'14gameshows\' date=\'May 2 2005, 11:49 AM\']OK, I've heard that Blockbusters was a filler show on NBC's Daytime lineup until Classic Concentration was ready to go forward. But why though, wouldn't it make sense to make the decision for Classic Concentration to air 26 weeks sooner? (provided that it was ready)
[snapback]84098[/snapback]
[/quote]
One other fly in your question--BB87 premiered 1/5/87. ClCn premiered 5/4/87. That's not even 26 weeks.
Doug
-
There is only one case that I know of where a show was only there until another was ready and that is the "Scrabble/Scattegories" hour. Source is Dick Clark on a radio interview, however I guess someone can still ask Chuck Woolery to double check. "John and Leeza" wasn't ready yet, so the two games were put in production. The show replaced was "Santa Barbara," which I'm assuming had a bigger payroll than any game show (or two).
-
I've also heard the same thing about Second Chance being a stop gap until The Better Sex was ready, since ABC wanted a companion piece to Feud so badly. But I digress.....
Jake Tauber mentioned how he felt Blockbusters still had some life left in it when it was canceled in '82 (it was pulling a 17 share, which was so-so in those days). I don't think he would've bothered if he knew that the show would be gone in 4 months.
Some people seem to think that because they began plugging Concentration at the end of the run, that BB was simply a placeholder.
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'May 2 2005, 03:39 PM\']
Some people seem to think that because they began plugging Concentration at the end of the run, that BB was simply a placeholder.
Tyshaun
[snapback]84128[/snapback]
[/quote]
Right, but don't think for a second that, had BB's ratings been any good, CC would not have seen the light of day (at that point). Same goes for Second Chance, same goes for Scrabble/Scattergories....
Even if a show was a "stop gap" while another show was on, if there was life in the ratings, the "place holder" would have likely become a "place keeper".
-
I'm just going by what Dick Clark said, he knew going in that it was a temporary job, and that the shows were in the can and production wrapped by Spring. If you remember, J&L wasn't even ready when the new S/S shows ran out, so instead of taping more new S/S eps, NBC ran a couple of weeks of reruns. Anybody got Charlie Tuna's number?
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'May 2 2005, 04:39 PM\']I've also heard the same thing about Second Chance being a stop gap until The Better Sex was ready, since ABC wanted a companion piece to Feud so badly. But I digress.....
Jake Tauber mentioned how he felt Blockbusters still had some life left in it when it was canceled in '82 (it was pulling a 17 share, which was so-so in those days). [snapback]84128[/snapback]
[/quote]
If Blockbusters' ratings were still respectable back in '82, I wonder why Goodson didn't try launching the show in syndication. Who knows, maybe it would've pulled a Wheel.
-
[quote name=\'FeudDude\' date=\'May 2 2005, 07:04 PM\'][quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'May 2 2005, 04:39 PM\']I've also heard the same thing about Second Chance being a stop gap until The Better Sex was ready, since ABC wanted a companion piece to Feud so badly. But I digress.....
Jake Tauber mentioned how he felt Blockbusters still had some life left in it when it was canceled in '82 (it was pulling a 17 share, which was so-so in those days). [snapback]84128[/snapback]
[/quote]
If Blockbusters' ratings were still respectable back in '82, I wonder why Goodson didn't try launching the show in syndication. Who knows, maybe it would've pulled a Wheel.
[snapback]84151[/snapback]
[/quote]
Bill and G-T were already booked with "Child's Play" by that fall, however, Firestone had offered "Blockbusters" reruns to local stations as they had with "Card Sharks" and of course CBN had them both in their game show block for a season.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'May 2 2005, 04:03 PM\'][Right, but don't think for a second that, had BB's ratings been any good, CC would not have seen the light of day (at that point). Same goes for Second Chance, same goes for Scrabble/Scattergories....
[snapback]84132[/snapback]
[/quote]
And same goes, no doubt, for Break the Bank '76, which all of have cited as a sample of Fred Silverman's dislike of game shows, no matter what the ratings. The ratings period shown in the EOTVGS for '75-'76 ended after Break the Bank had been on for three weeks. There's no doubt in my mind that if the show had maintained high ratings, some other ABC show would have gotten the boot.
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'May 2 2005, 01:15 PM\']And Wednesday.......Jim Peck's "Big Falldown"......Simple accident, or were the stairs doctored with something?
[snapback]84104[/snapback]
[/quote]
So that's where I left my banana :)
-
My original thought on Blockbusters 87 was nobody was really sold on Bill Rafferty as host. I thought Bill did a very good job hosting BB87; that and the syndicated Card Sharks (his Money Cards traits were right up there with Jim Perry's in the categories of suspense and drama).
I liked one of his famous text-lines:
"You need to win this one, or else it's the land of parting gifts for you."
-
And same goes, no doubt, for Break the Bank '76, which all of have cited as a sample of Fred Silverman's dislike of game shows, no matter what the ratings. The ratings period shown in the EOTVGS for '75-'76 ended after Break the Bank had been on for three weeks. There's no doubt in my mind that if the show had maintained high ratings, some other ABC show would have gotten the boot.
Actually, Jimmy posted some ratings for later in "Break the Bank's" run a while back, and it DID maintain high ratings all the way through. So it was cancelled in spite of those ratings.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'May 2 2005, 04:03 PM\'][quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'May 2 2005, 03:39 PM\']
Some people seem to think that because they began plugging Concentration at the end of the run, that BB was simply a placeholder.
Tyshaun
[snapback]84128[/snapback]
[/quote]
Right, but don't think for a second that, had BB's ratings been any good, CC would not have seen the light of day (at that point). Same goes for Second Chance, same goes for Scrabble/Scattergories....
[snapback]84132[/snapback]
[/quote]
Wordplay probably would have gotten the boot if BB87 had done well enough, no, as that was the newest show? Whether it was the lowest rated of the other five NBC games on at the time is another story. But as Chris C. said, it would require rearranging the schedule and possibly cancelling another show, especially when WLOD came into the picture later that year.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'May 3 2005, 08:57 AM\']Wordplay probably would have gotten the boot if BB87 had done well enough, no, as that was the newest show?
[snapback]84217[/snapback]
[/quote]
Wordplay premiered one week before BB87. But I bet you knew that. I refuse to believe that a man who knows what contestants played on Jeopardy on 11/15/88, and who won, and what color outfit they were wearing, would also know NBC 1987's schedules backwards and forwards, or have an encylcopedia at arms length to find out,
no?
If you're going to go all out rainman on us, don't play stupid just to post something.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'May 3 2005, 09:01 AM\'][quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'May 3 2005, 08:57 AM\']Wordplay probably would have gotten the boot if BB87 had done well enough, no, as that was the newest show?
[snapback]84217[/snapback]
[/quote]
Wordplay premiered one week before BB87. But I bet you knew that.
[snapback]84218[/snapback]
[/quote]
I meant that Wordplay was the newest of the OTHER NBC game shows at the time
-
"Santa Barbara" replaced "MG/HSH" on the NBC schedule. Because of the long lead time needed to develop soaps, there at least was an indication all throughout "MG/HSH"'s run that it was a placeholder for "Santa Barbara" (of course, if it had clicked, it could've been moved elsewhere). The fact that it seemed to be getting week-to-week renewals near the end could also be a hint.
-
I thought Bill did a very good job hosting BB87; that and the syndicated Card Sharks (his Money Cards traits were right up there with Jim Perry's in the categories of suspense and drama).
Not to mention his version moved faster than Eubanks'...the prize cards were also a nice touch, especially when one was worth $5K in cash and both players found it in their respective desks...who would win it?
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'May 3 2005, 07:44 PM\']
I thought Bill did a very good job hosting BB87; that and the syndicated Card Sharks (his Money Cards traits were right up there with Jim Perry's in the categories of suspense and drama).
Not to mention his version moved faster than Eubanks'...the prize cards were also a nice touch, especially when one was worth $5K in cash and both players found it in their respective desks...who would win it?
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
[snapback]84263[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think they're getting about the same total number of questions/trips to the maingame board and Money Cards playings as the CBS run did.
-
Got some hard numbers on that, Zach?
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'May 3 2005, 08:01 PM\']Got some hard numbers on that, Zach?
[snapback]84265[/snapback]
[/quote]
They got only five questions and a Money Cards on today's show and several of the YPW shows aired on Saturday. They averaged around five or six and a MC round in the audience/car round era of Eubanks.
-
To be fair, we're still early enough in the run for the aces to be askew when they play the Money Cards, so I can't blame them for pacing when the network run hadn't figured it out yet either. And YPW takes longer due to...well, the young people, but also the constantly changing contestants, additional jokers and other hoo-hah.
-Jason