-
Was it originally supposed to be a straddling format? Originally, Gene Wood DID introduce the new challengers at the end of the show. Maybe if a family won the game in 3 rounds, Family Feud could have been a show with a straddling format....
-
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 10:21 AM\']Was it originally supposed to be a straddling format? Originally, Gene Wood DID introduce the new challengers at the end of the show. Maybe if a family won the game in 3 rounds, Family Feud could have been a show with a straddling format....
[snapback]101208[/snapback]
[/quote]
That's a question of debate on these boards over the years. SOme have said straddling Feud would have been fairer than some of the scoring systems they have used over the years. Straddling to best of five questions with no point score is one way to do it, another way is to play single valued questions to 200 points.
-
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 11:21 AM\']Was it originally supposed to be a straddling format? Originally, Gene Wood DID introduce the new challengers at the end of the show. Maybe if a family won the game in 3 rounds, Family Feud could have been a show with a straddling format....[/quote]
Having watched the series from day one, it's my considered opinion that the show was originally not intended to be self-contained, and it just occurred to them after doing it for a little while that it could be. Naturally, I wasn't there to know for sure, and there are people here who disagree with me, but I still maintain that realizing the shows could be self-contained was a happy accident rather than a considered plan.
-
Early episodes featured Richard introducing the next family before "time ran out". IF Richard hadn't spent 7 minutes fooling around; they easily could have straddled.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 11:31 AM\']Early episodes featured Richard introducing the next family before "time ran out". IF Richard hadn't spent 7 minutes fooling around; they easily could have straddled.
[snapback]101213[/snapback]
[/quote]
On the other hand, since the show was meant to be a comedy show, it didn't hurt anything (and one of the reasons for the current version's inferiority was/is Anderson and Karn's inability to ad lib and do the give-and-take with the contestants). Little did anyone know that Dawson was going to turn into the holy terror success made him.
As for Matt's comment, I also have the feeling that "Pyramid" was also meant to straddle and that the fact that two self-contained games could be played in a half-hour--or 25 minutes in its CBS days--was also a happy accident.
-
I can agree with Mr. Jeffries on Pyramid, especially since the contestants were treated very in-and-out at the beginning. As for Matt, I'm not so sure. I saw scattered episodes from the very beginning of the run and on one the intro of the next family occured at the end. It looked to me like just a way to fill time. If they were really there to straddle, it would've functioned like many other shows where the host says something like, "welcome to our show, we'll have time to talk tomorrow, but right now, heads of families - it's time for the first faceoff" and go right into a question.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 09:53 AM\']As for Matt's comment, I also have the feeling that "Pyramid" was also meant to straddle and that the fact that two self-contained games could be played in a half-hour--or 25 minutes in its CBS days--was also a happy accident.
[snapback]101227[/snapback]
[/quote]
Maybe with the ABC run, but on the CBS run, it was quite intentional, mainly because of the mechanism used to decide who came back the next day. I also remember from VERY early on in the run of the show, Dick would say during his "This is the Winner's Circle" rattle specifically they they played two games a day.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 01:09 PM\'][quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 09:53 AM\']As for Matt's comment, I also have the feeling that "Pyramid" was also meant to straddle and that the fact that two self-contained games could be played in a half-hour--or 25 minutes in its CBS days--was also a happy accident.
[snapback]101227[/snapback]
[/quote]
Maybe with the ABC run, but on the CBS run, it was quite intentional, mainly because of the mechanism used to decide who came back the next day. I also remember from VERY early on in the run of the show, Dick would say during his "This is the Winner's Circle" rattle specifically they they played two games a day.
[snapback]101234[/snapback]
[/quote]
I was referring to the first CBS run as "The $10,000 Pyramid." Of course by the 80s it was self-contained and designed to remain so.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Nov 3 2005, 01:53 PM\']As for Matt's comment, I also have the feeling that "Pyramid" was also meant to straddle and that the fact that two self-contained games could be played in a half-hour--or 25 minutes in its CBS days--was also a happy accident.[/quote]
See, you'd think I'd be a good boy and appreciate the support, but my gut instinct was just the opposite for Pyramid. Maybe I'm giving Bob Stewart too much credit as a game designer, but I always felt like Pyramid was designed from day one to have two matches per show. I realize that before they solved the problem of the interminable tiebreakers, they'd occasionally have three Winner's Circles in one program. Still, I always saw that as a cool little quirk of necessity, and they always moved a little faster on those episodes to get back on track.
As long as I'm drumming up support for my position on Feud, keep in mind that similar Goodson-Todman games from that period frequently straddled. Match Game, the Passwords, Card Sharks, even obscurities like The Better Sex were more concerned about their rounds of play than they were in how long those rounds took. The original structure of Feud -- the idea that you couldn't be sure whether the game would end in three or four or even five rounds -- certainly suggests to me that they weren't originally thinking about wrapping everything up neatly in half an hour.
-
Based on one early $10,000 Pyramid episode I've seen from the first year, it was definitely meant to straddle. They stopped a main game with only four of the six categories played at the end of the show. Plus they had an opening (since this episode was starting with the Winner's Circle) that would have made Brent Musburger blush.
--Mike
-
I remember a couple of the $20KP episodes during the Dark Period bumped a Winner's Circle to the next episode. Beyond the good reasons for not straddling the show later on, it just looked distracting to have the champion sitting in the middle of the stage while the celebrities were being introduced.
-
Well, that would have been easy enough to fix by seating the contestant after the show opened.
-
Does anyone have an opinion of how 'H2' was straddled in its last season? I liked it. It made you less aware of the usual short 19 minute show time.
-
[quote name=\'PaulD\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 12:54 PM\']Does anyone have an opinion of how 'H2' was straddled in its last season? I liked it. It made you less aware of the usual short 19 minute show time.
[/quote]
I liked the straddling that last season, it made the game refreshing to watch and took pressure off of everyone (more than likely) to fit the game into a self-contained half-hour.
If I were to bring a show on the air, straddling would be the way to go.
-
[quote name=\'PaulD\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 11:54 AM\']Does anyone have an opinion of how 'H2' was straddled in its last season? I liked it. It made you less aware of the usual short 19 minute show time.
[snapback]101453[/snapback]
[/quote]
Liked it much better, made the game more relaxed, and allowed for more spontaniety. The self-contained format made it seem like they were struggling to fill the main game, and most of the time, it was just anti-climatic by the third round, the same problem that the Marshall nighttime episodes had.
-
[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 01:18 PM\']If I were to bring a show on the air, straddling would be the way to go.[/quote]
I think that would depend on the show. I mean hey, Jeopardy! could theoretically straddle if making sure every clue got played every game was more important to them, but I think we'd all agree that wouldn't work as well.
Certain formats lend themselves to straddling more than others. What irks me are the shows that clearly OUGHT to straddle but don't. I was delighted to see HS make the change back to straddling. And as I've said many, MANY times, even blue-haired old ladies know that you don't play bingo against a clock. As good a GSN original as it is, Lingo is flawed by focussing on the score when time runs out rather than the business of getting five in a row.
-
[quote name=\'PaulD\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 11:54 AM\']Does anyone have an opinion of how 'H2' was straddled in its last season? I liked it.
[snapback]101453[/snapback]
[/quote]
As did I. It was five years overdue. Just like Whoopi leaving was four years overdue. Too bad so many stations were committed to Dreamboat O'Brien's celebrity gawkfest. H2 might still be on.
-
[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 12:18 PM\']If I were to bring a show on the air, straddling would be the way to go.
[/quote]
I'd go exactly the opposite route, for the reason of keeping a viewer hooked for the entire half-hour. Gotta see how it turns out!
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 04:15 PM\'][quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 12:18 PM\']If I were to bring a show on the air, straddling would be the way to go.
[/quote]
I'd go exactly the opposite route, for the reason of keeping a viewer hooked for the entire half-hour. Gotta see how it turns out!
[snapback]101467[/snapback]
[/quote]
Well, if you straddle the game, then the viewer has to turn in tomorrow to see how it turns out. Then they might as well stay and see the rest of the show as well.
-
[quote name=\'TV Favorites\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 03:33 PM\']Well, if you straddle the game, then the viewer has to turn in tomorrow to see how it turns out. Then they might as well stay and see the rest of the show as well.
[snapback]101469[/snapback]
[/quote]
True enough--if you get to that point where there's critical mass of interest. Think of Millionaire--you've had a big win halfway show: now, somebody's gotta start at the bottom of the stack. Interested? Maybe not...
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 12:42 PM\'][quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'Nov 5 2005, 01:18 PM\']If I were to bring a show on the air, straddling would be the way to go.[/quote]
I think that would depend on the show. I mean hey, Jeopardy! could theoretically straddle if making sure every clue got played every game was more important to them, but I think we'd all agree that wouldn't work as well.
Certain formats lend themselves to straddling more than others. What irks me are the shows that clearly OUGHT to straddle but don't. I was delighted to see HS make the change back to straddling. And as I've said many, MANY times, even blue-haired old ladies know that you don't play bingo against a clock. As good a GSN original as it is, Lingo is flawed by focussing on the score when time runs out rather than the business of getting five in a row.
[snapback]101463[/snapback]
[/quote]
This may sound odd, but, to me, the length of a match is almost too variable for Lingo to straddle well. Best two out of three could reasonably be over in 5 words if one team is both good and lucky, or feel interminable with two boneheaded teams with bad luck. I'll concede that a lot of shows, on a purely theoretical basis, had the same issue with game length -- With Hollywood Squares' straddling format, a full match could run as few as six questions and three five-square wins would be at least 27, but Lingo seems to have more variability in practice with how long the game takes.
Also, Bonus Lingo is one of the longer endgames out there. When you add together rules explanations, a prize plug, two minutes of guessing, and the drawing round, I figure it's got to be timed at at least three minutes, if not four. If a team wins a match with a little more than two minutes of actual show remaining, there's either a lot of slack time to fill, or a lot of editing to do. There is a third option, splitting the words from the drawing, but I don't think even GSN is that cruel.
-
I figure it's got to be timed at at least three minutes
For what it's worth, Chris Clementson or SplitSecond or somebody said the average endgame comes out around 3 minutes between all the pagentry and the actual game play therein.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' date=\'Nov 6 2005, 03:41 AM\']This may sound odd, but, to me, the length of a match is almost too variable for Lingo to straddle well.
Also, Bonus Lingo is one of the longer endgames out there. [/quote]
I'm not entirely sure I get your first point. The very fact that a match length could be variable is precisely why I believe Lingo should straddle and not just stop when a buzzer sounds. You also test to make sure your contestants can play, you don't just pick 'em because they're cute and demographically friendly.
And believe me, if I'm changing the game, that ridiculous and anti-climactic Bonus Lingo thing is the first piece to go.
I thought the original Lingo with Michael Reagan was a hidden gem of the eighties. The five-letter-word game is so engaging that it's almost impossible to screw up, which in my opinion is why the game remains successful on GSN despite being seriously screwed up.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Nov 6 2005, 10:42 AM\']
I thought the original Lingo with Michael Reagan was a hidden gem of the eighties. The five-letter-word game is so engaging that it's almost impossible to screw up, which in my opinion is why the game remains successful on GSN despite being seriously screwed up.
[snapback]101501[/snapback]
[/quote]
Except of course, the producers screwed up by offering cash prizes they eventually could not pay.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Nov 6 2005, 10:42 AM\']I'm not entirely sure I get your first point. The very fact that a match length could be variable is precisely why I believe Lingo should straddle and not just stop when a buzzer sounds. You also test to make sure your contestants can play, you don't just pick 'em because they're cute and demographically friendly.[/quote]Why would that stop them from picking "demographically friendly" contestants? Wouldn't they still just rather have cute contestants that take a long time to win? The matches would take as long as they do now, but they'd be free to talk whilst the stupidity commences. It'd be like Martindale High Rollers or Eubanks Card Sharks, where you aren't even assured that you'll see a complete front game/end game cycle any given day.
And believe me, if I'm changing the game, that ridiculous and anti-climactic Bonus Lingo thing is the first piece to go.
Sooooo, would you reinstate the No Lingo Bonus Round, since every ball counts the same as the other?
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' date=\'Nov 6 2005, 09:14 PM\']Why would that stop them from picking "demographically friendly" contestants? Wouldn't they still just rather have cute contestants that take a long time to win? The matches would take as long as they do now, but they'd be free to talk whilst the stupidity commences. It'd be like Martindale High Rollers or Eubanks Card Sharks, where you aren't even assured that you'll see a complete front game/end game cycle any given day.[/quote]
You pick people who are attractive and can play your game. If your contestant coordinator can't find those people, you get another contestant coordinator. If you're a decent producer you find ways to control the pace of your game, ways that don't involve blowing a horn and stopping everything at the 22 minute mark.
[quote name=\'CarShark\' date=\'Nov 6 2005, 09:14 PM\']And believe me, if I'm changing the game, that ridiculous and anti-climactic Bonus Lingo thing is the first piece to go.
Sooooo, would you reinstate the No Lingo Bonus Round, since every ball counts the same as the other?[/quote]
I had no problem with the No Lingo round. It was a decent twist on the main game, you still had to be able to play, and every draw was a tense moment.
Zach's right about the money thing, though. A shame about that, especially when that single $64000 win is just about my favorite bonus round of all time.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Nov 6 2005, 10:37 PM\']You pick people who are attractive and can play your game.
[snapback]101544[/snapback]
[/quote]
That second part seems to not be in the mind(s) of the current Feud CC(s).
-
But didn't most NLRs take about as long as the match itself? That's what I seem to recall. They even pulled a trick out of the Bullseye book by splitting the bonus round on some occasions
-
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 09:23 AM\']But didn't most NLRs take about as long as the match itself? That's what I seem to recall. They even pulled a trick out of the Bullseye book by splitting the bonus round on some occasions
[snapback]101583[/snapback]
[/quote]
Lingo and Bullseye are not the only offenders of splitting a bonus round between shows. TTD(a few times circa 1981-82), Hot Potato(only once IIRC), Play the Percentages(during the couples format), Bumper Stumpers(the 30 second solve-the-plates portion on one show, and the "avoid the stop sign" or whatever bonus format they were using at the time on the next), MG7x/daily Syndie(playing Audience Match on one show and the head to head on the next), and Card Sharks(Eubanks/Rafferty, where they'd play the MOney Cards on one show and the Car game on the next) also did this.
-
Someone once mentioned what would happen if Blockbusters were to be revived in this time frame. If you were to revive BB, would you have kept the straddling? Or would you have made so that each match was timed?
And for the longest time, I would of never though that someone would make a post about Feud having a straddling format. I dunno about that.
-
[quote name=\'megamanj1986\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 10:52 AM\']Someone once mentioned what would happen if Blockbusters were to be revived in this time frame. If you were to revive BB, would you have kept the straddling? Or would you have made so that each match was timed?
[snapback]101609[/snapback]
[/quote]
When I become King Of All Cosmos, timed game shows will be punishable by death. (I will also not wear such a fruity outfit.) There is NEVER anything interesting in "That bell means that time is up!" Blockbusters as a self-contained show would, quite simply, blow.
Nutshell, if you're throwing a time constraint on a game just to shoehorn it into the half-hour, it needs to straddle. Blockbusters wants to be two-of-three. Don't make it something else.
-
I can't think of another game that would suffer more than BB from not being allowed to straddle. If players were evenly matched, you'd end up with one game decided the way it's supposed to be and one decided by having the most boxes when time runs out.
-
While I agree that straddling is the way to go for many formats (such as Lingo), I don't think I have ever seen any daily cable game shows straddle, just broadcast ones. Has anyone here ever seen an orginal daily cable game show with a straddling format? I think the constraints of cable scheduling (i.e. multiple runs of a given show) might preclude such a thing from ever happening. While (for me anyway) it would be nice to see Lingo go to syndication so that it could straddle, that market is drying up for the genre.
-
[quote name=\'megamanj1986\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 02:52 PM\']And for the longest time, I would of never though that someone would make a post about Feud having a straddling format. I dunno about that.[/quote]
As I said before, it would be no different than Password Plus, Match Game, Double Dare, The Better Sex, Card Sharks (and that's just G-T) or any number of other shows that straddled during that period. You play a certain number of rounds until one side wins, then you play the bonus round. Rinse and repeat.
Family Feud is and always has been manipulated, through editing and top-heavy late questions when necessary, to fit one game into a half-hour slot. It would probably seem weird at this point to change it, and it's certainly not as bad as those shows that just stop when time is up. But a Family Feud that straddled and didn't rely on the trigger finger of your Uncle Henry in position five on that last ridiculously easy question would be a fairer and more interesting game. Whether it would make a better show is a different issue.
-
[quote name=\'Tony\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 11:28 AM\']Has anyone here ever seen an orginal daily cable game show with a straddling format?
[snapback]101613[/snapback]
[/quote]
Bumper Stumpers comes immediately to mind. I'm sure there are others, and I'm sure one of our more socially-challenged members will be providing an exhaustive (and exhausing) list in a few moments.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 01:10 PM\'] There is NEVER anything interesting in "That bell means that time is up!"
[snapback]101610[/snapback]
[/quote]
I'd dispute that on, say, "College Bowl" or similar shows where the objective is to get the most points in a period of time.
But I'd agree with you on Blockbusters, Concentration, H2, etc. where the game itself is not timed.
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 04:21 PM\']But I'd agree with you on ... Concentration[/quote]
That particular one is interesting. Despite my pretty vehement rantings in this thread, I really didn't have any problem with the way Classic Concentration managed to adjust the game to fit its non-straddling mandate. At its heart, as Hugh Downs so often told us, "the object of the game is to solve the puzzle." So what if the puzzle had to be revealed a little more quickly if time was short? Somebody still had to solve it. Also, like Wheel of Fortune, it wasn't a case of "time's up, so the game's over." It was "time is running short, so here's what we're going to do." I liked the later, better Scrabble format for the same reason.
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 12:21 PM\']I'd dispute that on, say, "College Bowl" or similar shows where the objective is to get the most points in a period of time.
[/quote]
And I'd agree with you, which is why I tried to qualify that with the "just to shoehorn it into a half-hour" part. The time constraints on CB are built into the game as a PART of the game, not slapped on there for the sole purpose of getting it over with in time. Does that make sense?
I'm especially reminded of the Pat Sajak one-off special that NBC aired, which featured a prominent scoreboard with a time-clock at center stage. One would imagine if such a beast were attempted today, it would be done as a FoxBox or something of that ilk, but the point is, if the clock is on the screen and/or visible to the players, it's now part of the game instead of a just "Oh, we're done now!" thing.
In fact, that's a fine way to put it: if the clock is available to be used strategically by the players (as opposed to fudging it with "it feels like time is running out and I have to make up ground, I'd better speed up!"), it seems like a far more palatable notion.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 04:59 PM\']In fact, that's a fine way to put it: if the clock is available to be used strategically by the players (as opposed to fudging it with "it feels like time is running out and I have to make up ground, I'd better speed up!"), it seems like a far more palatable notion.[/quote]
Given that there are many similarities between game shows and sports, it's surprising that the clock-as-strategic-element hasn't been used more often. I'm not talking about the timers that are an ever-present part of almost any bonus round, I'm talking about a clock you can control as part of the game, the way you would in a sport. The only two examples I can think of offhand are the Wonderwall bonus in Winning Lines and the obscure seventies show Three for the Money.
-
"Jackpot" was another straddling cable show--Monday through Thursday. Just like the original, the Friday show was played to time--and when time ran out, they either went to the Jackpot riddle (or, if it hadn't been called yet, made the last call a Jackpot riddle) and ended it that way.
But since "Blockbusters" was brought up, in the UK, did it straddle or did they play it to time?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 03:04 PM\'][quote name=\'Tony\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 11:28 AM\']Has anyone here ever seen an orginal daily cable game show with a straddling format?
[snapback]101613[/snapback]
[/quote]
Bumper Stumpers comes immediately to mind. I'm sure there are others, and I'm sure one of our more socially-challenged members will be providing an exhaustive (and exhausing) list in a few moments.
[snapback]101616[/snapback]
[/quote]
Some of the shows on the Playboy Channel featured straddling. No wait, those weren't game shows.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 01:19 PM\']But since "Blockbusters" was brought up, in the UK, did it straddle or did they play it to time?
[snapback]101628[/snapback]
[/quote]
The fact that (in the photos I've seen) the players had a score readout in front of them leads me to believe the game was played to time, since I can't see a scoring system being pasted on for any other reason. I could be wrong, however, and our friends in the UK would obiviously know more conclusively than I.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 12:59 PM\']if the clock is on the screen and/or visible to the players, it's now part of the game instead of a just "Oh, we're done now!" thing.
[snapback]101623[/snapback]
[/quote]
Thank you for saving QuizBusters and $ale of the Century, not to mention 2-Minute Drill. ;)
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 01:26 PM\'][quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 01:19 PM\']But since "Blockbusters" was brought up, in the UK, did it straddle or did they play it to time?[/quote]The fact that (in the photos I've seen) the players had a score readout in front of them leads me to believe the game was played to time, since I can't see a scoring system being pasted on for any other reason.[/quote]
I saw one episode a while back, and going from my fuzzy memory, I believe there was a certain (fairly small) amount of money won for making a connection, but the real reason was that each correct answer netted £5.
Still, IIRC, the numbers in front of the players never really meant anything to the actual gameplay, as it was still a best-of-three match.
-
Re: having control of a clock on a game show: TPIR's Split Decision.
Stretching more for these next two: Whew! (stopping the clock for a Longshot) and Blackout (did the contestants have a way of knowing exactly how much time they had left for blacking out the description?).
And, of course, premiering on GSN in 2008, Extreme Chess.
-
As long as we're taking Pyramid apart lately, was the clock always visible to the receiver in the Winner's Circle? It was obviously visible at least to some ("hurry!"), but a lot of other contestants would wonder how much time was left--were they just not paying attention to it?
-
I think it was always visible to Dick - the celeb and civvie, IIRC, had no clue about how much time left until either a) they got to the top of the Pyramid, or b) time ran out.
I also seem to remember they'd show the actual clock on the occasion of a real close win (either with 1 or 0 left), but I could be mistaken.
-
My bad--my "hurry!" was actually quoting the occasional contestant. In the clip of the ugly 100K loss on Davidson's Pyramid, posted somewhere a while back, the contestant certainly seems to have an eye on the clock.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 03:04 PM\'][quote name=\'Tony\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 11:28 AM\']Has anyone here ever seen an orginal daily cable game show with a straddling format?
[snapback]101613[/snapback]
[/quote]
Bumper Stumpers comes immediately to mind. I'm sure there are others, and I'm sure one of our more socially-challenged members will be providing an exhaustive (and exhausing) list in a few moments.
[snapback]101616[/snapback]
[/quote]
Love Me Love Me Not straddled as well, as well as the aforementioned USA Jackpot.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 03:25 PM\']Stretching more for these next two: Whew! (stopping the clock for a Longshot) and Blackout (did the contestants have a way of knowing exactly how much time they had left for blacking out the description?).
[/quote]
One would think they had a monitor somewhere or a clock in the wings that showed their remaining Blackout time. But I'm speaking wholly ex rectum there, I was never on the set.
-
One would think they had a monitor somewhere or a clock in the wings that showed their remaining Blackout time. But I'm speaking wholly ex rectum there, I was never on the set.
This is not proof at all either way, but on the premiere ep., somebody went to blackout with 0 seconds left and seemed surprised there was no censoring.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 06:21 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 01:26 PM\'][quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 01:19 PM\']But since "Blockbusters" was brought up, in the UK, did it straddle or did they play it to time?[/quote]The fact that (in the photos I've seen) the players had a score readout in front of them leads me to believe the game was played to time, since I can't see a scoring system being pasted on for any other reason.[/quote]
I saw one episode a while back, and going from my fuzzy memory, I believe there was a certain (fairly small) amount of money won for making a connection, but the real reason was that each correct answer netted £5.
Still, IIRC, the numbers in front of the players never really meant anything to the actual gameplay, as it was still a best-of-three match.
[snapback]101644[/snapback]
[/quote]
It did straddle. And the score display was your total pounds won during your time on the show, not just for the current match.
--Mike
-
[quote name=\'Tony\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 02:28 PM\']Has anyone here ever seen an orginal daily cable game show with a straddling format?
[/quote]
Are we forgetting Meredith's Millionaire, or not counting that as cable? Or "orginal"?
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 08:41 AM\'][quote name=\'Tony\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 02:28 PM\']Has anyone here ever seen an orginal daily cable game show with a straddling format?
[/quote]
Are we forgetting Meredith's Millionaire, or not counting that as cable? Or "orginal"?
[snapback]101702[/snapback]
[/quote]
That show is syndicated, as you know, not cable.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 04:08 PM\']Given that there are many similarities between game shows and sports, it's surprising that the clock-as-strategic-element hasn't been used more often.
[snapback]101625[/snapback]
[/quote]
But since the most effective use of a clock as a strategic element is letting time run as long as you possibly can to prevent your opponent from playing, and that's not a good strategy unless you're in the lead, it doesn't make for good television to watch the leader doing nothing to ensure that they'll win.
--
Scott Robinson
-
Which is why, if you have a 2:1 lead over your nearest opponent in Double J!, they won't permit you to just hem and haw over your selection until time runs out.
It seems to me that one bit of clock management could happen on Lingo. Situation: Late in the game, you have a narrow lead. You solve your word and pull a wild-card ball (whatever they call it). Making a Lingo would extend your lead, but it would also cause you to lose control. You might consider choosing the number that helps you the least so that you keep on playing.
ETA: Obviously, that's giving Lingo players way too much credit. I'm just saying it's conceivable.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 09:01 AM\'][quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 08:41 AM\'][quote name=\'Tony\' date=\'Nov 7 2005, 02:28 PM\']Has anyone here ever seen an orginal daily cable game show with a straddling format?
[/quote]
Are we forgetting Meredith's Millionaire, or not counting that as cable? Or "orginal"?
[snapback]101702[/snapback]
[/quote]
That show is syndicated, as you know, not cable.
[snapback]101703[/snapback]
[/quote]
I stand corrected. Actually, I sit on the sofa with the laptop, thinking I ought to get to work, but you get the idea.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Nov 9 2005, 12:58 AM\']Making a Lingo would extend your lead, but it would also cause you to lose control. You might consider choosing the number that helps you the least so that you keep on playing.
[/quote]
I can speak that, when we play in Palace...teams have done exactly this--and are successful in doing so 95% of the time.
-
[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' date=\'Nov 8 2005, 05:11 PM\']But since the most effective use of a clock as a strategic element is letting time run as long as you possibly can to prevent your opponent from playing, and that's not a good strategy unless you're in the lead, it doesn't make for good television to watch the leader doing nothing to ensure that they'll win.[/quote]
What you're talking about is clock management, a similar but separate idea that -- you're right -- would make lousy TV. But that's not what I mean. People have come up with a few other extremely limited examples, like calling "longshot" in Whew! that are more along the lines of what I'm talking about. The idea that there's something going on besides just getting your assignment done before the clock runs out. I'm talking about a game that presents a handful of strategies (think the 70s Break the Bank), but has those strategies possibly change depending on the clock.
I'm realizing now that my own appearance on Jeopardy! is another example of what I mean, even though there's no visible clock. I'm not nearly the only one to ever do this, of course, but near the end of the game, I skipped over one clue in the hopes of landing on the Daily Double, something I probably wouldn't have done earlier in the round.