Author Topic: Valentines Out (Read 8014 times)

The Pyramids · « **on:** March 07, 2006, 08:29:45 AM »

Any thoughts on the Ian Valentine era on GSN? From just about a year ago untill now I thought the network had the right combination of alternate programming for new viewers while keeping game show fans happy.

davemackey · « **Reply #1 on:** March 07, 2006, 03:34:49 PM »

[quote name=\'PaulD\' date=\'Mar 7 2006, 08:29 AM\']Any thoughts on the Ian Valentine era on GSN? From just about a year ago untill now I thought the network had the right combination of alternate programming for new viewers while keeping game show fans happy.

[snapback]112120[/snapback]

[/quote]
Valentine is a man who learned from his mistakes, and those of he who preceded him. He brought the focus back around to traditional game shows (particularly "Millionaire" and "Match Game") while including enough non-trad programming (the casino shows, the sometimes-interesting "Anything To Win") to keep people from totally tuning out.

The next programming manager has to realize the value of the library that GSN has access to and better exploit it. Extreme example: they've got a thousand episodes of "Street Smarts" and it only airs, what, three times a week? Meantime, "Greed" is on its umpteenth run.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #2 on:** March 07, 2006, 04:51:36 PM »

I'm going to sound like a curmudgeon, but the casino shows, "Anything to Win," etc. were and are a total turn-off to me personally and I've found my game show ha8er friends didn't like them either. They are chasing an audience that cannot be caught.

My suggestion is library product in the daytime, new mid-budget proscenium style shows at night. I'm talking about remakes of concepts they already own, such as "Eye Guess," "Chain Reaction," "Go," etc. To the average viewer they will be new concepts. Maybe contract with Ron Greenberg and revive "The Big Showdown" or "Who What or Where?"

I don't mind that "Street Smarts" is relegated to overnight. It is such an infuriating show to me that I'd rather watch the 17 millionth run of "Greed."

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #3 on:** March 07, 2006, 04:59:21 PM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Mar 7 2006, 05:51 PM\']I'm going to sound like a curmudgeon, but the casino shows, "Anything to Win," etc. were and are a total turn-off to me personally and I've found my game show ha8er friends didn't like them either. They are chasing an audience that cannot be caught.[/quote]
I see Anything to Win as a noble failure. I actually thought the idea looked good on paper, I thought the shows I saw were well done, and it might have gained more attention on a different network.

I totally agree wth that last statement, though. GSN, under whatever name they want to call it (or not call it) is always going to be perceived as a network with game shows on it, and anything else is going to run counter to that concept. They're never going to capture a hip, young audience, and they're wasting tons of money trying. Game shows can be done cheaply; there should be more original programming on GSN than on any other entertainment cable network out there.

DrBear · « **Reply #4 on:** March 07, 2006, 05:18:56 PM »

I suppose it's a matter of "be happy with the audience you have" rather than "let's try to increase it at the risk of offending those who were here before." Unfortunately, as the number of channels owned by large media companies increases, all are judged by the bottom line more than programming. So networks with a niche that is probably mature and can't be grown - I'm thinking the old Nashville Network and VH1, as well as GSN - are transformed into "anything goes" channels that try to catch the eye of anybody with a clicker in his/her hand. That's one way to build a short-term audience, but I think we're starting to see the damage it can cause. We might turn to, say, VH! for something that catches our eye, but do we stay?

And that's what GSN faces. I don't think the viewer of a documentary on Tonya Harding or the Soap Box Derby is going to come back for Greed reruns, or vice versa.

(And by the way - it seems like about the only thing I ever see in the public prints about GSN is somebody who says they love watching the old What's My Lines at 3 a.m. Which tells you something.)

cmjb13 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 07, 2006, 06:08:09 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 7 2006, 04:59 PM\']Game shows can be done cheaply; there should be more original programming on GSN than on any other entertainment cable network out there.

[snapback]112138[/snapback]

[/quote]
I think the problem was the quality & amount of original programming that was aired. The majority of their original programming was pretty bad. And programming that was good (even bad), didn't have enough shows to sustain a schedule that didn't lead to immediate rerun abuse. Then again, maybe the general public doesn't notice stuff like that. Going forward it would be nice to see a balance between quality & quantity.

Wasn't the structure at GSN over the years was that production companies had to pitch & pay GSN to air their shows rather than vice versa?

PYLclark86 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 07, 2006, 06:09:23 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 7 2006, 05:59 PM\']I see Anything to Win as a noble failure.

[snapback]112138[/snapback]

[/quote]

It didn't help that several of the documentaries had nothing to do with games at all. As much as I liked the DeLorean, GSN was the wrong place to put a documentary about its creator.

Quote

GSN, under whatever name they want to call it (or not call it) is always going to be perceived as a network with game shows on it, and anything else is going to run counter to that concept.
[snapback]112138[/snapback]

Nail. On. Head. Any of my friends and associates still refer to it as "Game Show Network," and these are people who never watch GSN.

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #7 on:** March 08, 2006, 08:58:30 AM »

Quote

The next programming manager has to realize the value of the library that GSN has access to and better exploit it. Extreme example: they've got a thousand episodes of "Street Smarts" and it only airs, what, three times a week? Meantime, "Greed" is on its umpteenth run.

While I like the idea of more library product

, it seems that in GSN's eyes, so much of it is unusable. It probably means there won't be that much more variety than we're getting now anytime in the near future. I do agree that they should run shows like "Street Smarts" more - not because I'm a huge fan of the show (which I'm not) but since they've spent the money to acquire all those episodes, they might as well run them.

sshuffield70 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 08, 2006, 09:24:15 AM »

Has anyone thought to make new product, maybe even to the point of making it all original, even if it's all remakes of previous shows?

(yes I know it's a long winded question.)

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 08, 2006, 10:18:36 PM »

[quote name=\'PYLclark86\' date=\'Mar 7 2006, 06:09 PM\']Nail. On. Head. Any of my friends and associates still refer to it as "Game Show Network," and these are people who never watch GSN.
[/quote]
Exactly. When I asked my cable company (in a letter) to drop RFD-TV, and add GSN, the response was:

"Thank you for your request for Game Show Network..."

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #10 on:** March 08, 2006, 10:45:23 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 8 2006, 11:18 PM\']Exactly. When I asked my cable company (in a letter) to drop RFD-TV, [/quote]
You got a problem with Porter Wagoner reruns?

trainman · « **Reply #11 on:** March 08, 2006, 11:34:37 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 8 2006, 07:45 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 8 2006, 11:18 PM\']Exactly. When I asked my cable company (in a letter) to drop RFD-TV, [/quote]
You got a problem with Porter Wagoner reruns?

[snapback]112273[/snapback]

[/quote]

Or shows about trains?

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #12 on:** March 08, 2006, 11:42:45 PM »

[quote name=\'trainman\' date=\'Mar 9 2006, 12:34 AM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 8 2006, 07:45 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Mar 8 2006, 11:18 PM\']Exactly. When I asked my cable company (in a letter) to drop RFD-TV, [/quote]
You got a problem with Porter Wagoner reruns?[/quote]

Or shows about trains?[/quote]
Who gives a flying fig about trains? It's the Australian rodeos that really draw the viewers.

Don Howard · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2006, 03:58:37 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 8 2006, 11:42 PM\']It's the Australian rodeos that really draw the viewers.

[snapback]112279[/snapback]

[/quote]
Pat O'Brien could host while topless. I'm thinkin' of the demo, people.
NOW! Could Now You See It be revived on the cheap? Certainly.
I still don't understand why Hollywood Showdown was discontinued. Plus, since they produced a third season of shows (which was news to me when Todd Newton came right out and said so last summer), why don't they run 'em?

PYLclark86 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2006, 09:04:45 PM »

I was honestly thinking either Hit Man or Top Secret, two shows that I think didnt't get a fair shot. Both could fit into GSN's budget. Both Jay Wolpert and Wink Martindale have done cable shows before.