Card Sharks pilot
Randy Amasia
advance is stuff is kinda disorganized, but I was writing
notes on my hand. And now...
C A R D
S H A R K S
"Look what they've done to my song, ma!"
- New Seekers, circa late 60s.
Brian Hamburg and I had mused on the phine a while back that
Card Sharks would be the perfect game for Pearson to
resurrect, because it would be so difficult to fuck up.
I'll leave it to the group to pass judgement on our
assessment. :-D
HOST
As Steve Beverly repeated, I mean, reported, Pat Bullard.
It was hard to get a sense of his performance, as they kept
stopping down as soon as he got momentum going. From those
instance where I drew the inference that the stop-down was
caused by his mistake, it seemd like they'd not spent very
long rehearsing with him. The excuse can be made that,
"Well, it's a pilot," but I've seen pilots shot where the
hosting was flawless.
DEALER
No Janice, no Kathleen... STOP! STOP at Daphne DuPleit!
(DuPlait?) (Pronounced "du-PLAY")
ANNOUNCER
Pre-taped, damed if I know who he is. Could be Randy West
(he was the warm-up guy -- more about him in a separate post
to ATGS), could've been Richardson, I just don't know.
PREMISE
Predict the outcome of a pre-taped "candid" bit to earn
control of the cards. First player to earn $1,500 (30% of
the top prize on MG 98!) has the opportunity to bring those
winnings to the Money Cards, where they can be parlayed to
over $50,000.
THE SET
Another Jimmy Cuomo special, it had kind of a glitzy, Las
Vegas, retro (Jet Set?) look to it. Lots of flashy neon and
a few blinking lights. (Did Cuomo finally learn that
blinking lights help dress-up a game show set?) Yes,
LogoBoy, the logo at www.cardsharks.tv is the Card Sharks
logo. A 4 x 4 video wall was camera-left, the cards were
center stage, and the contestant podiums were camera-right.
And, wowsers! Real, live score displays!
THE GAME
As I said above, a pre-taped "candid" (looked awfully
contrived to me) bit ("dilemma" -- think "Anything for
Money") was played on the video wall, and when they freeze
the action, the contestant (they begin with the up-stage
player) has to predict the outcome, whether the "victim"
will fall for the dilemma (a prank, really) or not. If the
player predicts correctly, (s)he earns control of the cards;
in incorrect prediction forfeits control to their opponent.
ROUND 1
Round one is played like Blackjack. First player to reach
21 wins $200; go bust, and your opponent wins the money.
Each time you earn control (correctly predict the outcome of
the dilemma or earn by default), you get a card. Like
Blackjack, when the sum of your cards is at least 12, you
can stand ("freeze") -- once you're frozen, your opponent
has to keep taking cards until they beat your hand or you go
bust.
ROUND 2
This plays sorta like the Card Sharks Sudden Death
situations with which we're all familiar. For the first
dilemma in this round, three cards are dealt -- not three
cards per player, but three cards total. Whoever wins
control sees the first card and decides to play or pass.
Whoever ultimately plays the cards has to call the remaining
cards correctly, otherwise, their opponent wins the money --
$300.
Play continues in a similar manner two more times, with four
cards for $400 and then five cards for $500.
"Are you following me?"
- Fish/Marillion, "Market Square Heroes"
ROUND 3 - "Classic Card Sharks"
Yep, that's what they call it, "Classic Card Sharks"! (I
guess the 1996 pilot was "New Card Sharks." Will they have
Bill Cosby doing promos?) Five cards for each player are
dealt *from the same deck*. Whoever earns control of the
cards plays the main game from Card Sharks, including the
option to freeze. I *guess* that if you make a mistake, you
go all the way back to your base card and your opponent gets
a shot -- all the cards were called correctly, so I dunno.
First player to go across the board wins $1,000.
Going into this round, the scores were:
UPSTAGE DOWNSTAGE
$200 $1200
The downstage contestant won the round (and thus, the
game -- remember, they play to $1,500), so I don't know what
would have happened had the upstage player won the round,
whether they would have played another $1,000 dilemma or
what.
MONEY CARDS
The Money Cards are played much like on the previous
versions of CS, but the scoring is different. Instead of
$200 in the bottom row and another $200/$400 in the center
row, the money won in the main game (in this case $2,200)
gets "spread out" across the rows thusly:
$700 __
$700 __ __
$800 __ __ __
(It's supposed to be shaped like a Pyramid.)
The player starts with $800 (in this instance) on the bottom
row, and wagers all or part of his/her money that the next
card is higher or lower, and (s)he has the option of
changing the base card *only*. As you see above, in the
bottom row, a player has three cards to call. The last card
from the bottom row moves up to become the base card for the
second row, the next portion of the main game winnings is
added in ($700), and the player again has the option to
change the base card (in other words, the "Change that
card!" option is played like the NBC version). In the
second row, there are only two cards to call higher/lower.
Once again, the last card in the row becomes the base card
in the top row, they add in the last part of the champion's
winnings ($700 -- 800+700+700 = 2200), from which (s)he
makes his/her "Major Wager" (oh, very cute, a rhyme!) --
which, as with the previous versions, must be at least half
the earnings. [Note to whomever wrote the script: it's not
"half *and* (emphasis mine) all the way up to...," the two
can not occur simultaneously.]
(BtW, CY$5000 and a Spin to the first person to correctly
identify the flaw.)
Recall that the champion is playing the Money Cards with
their winnings from the main game In other words, for all
the talk of $50,000, Pearson giveth, Pearson taketh away --
it is entirely possible to lose *all* your main game
winnings on the turn of the last Money Card. (Kevin,
Mandel, will there be a house minimum?) (INSERT PRE-EMPTIVE
"ZHIFoS!" HERE.)
RANDOM STUFF
THE DILEMMAS
The Dilemmas tend to be socially awkward or even gross
situations.
*One featured a woman (shill) in an upscale restaurant
approaching another woman (victim), explaining that she has
a run in her stockings (which we see) and has an important
meeting in 10 minutes -- she asks the victim if she can swap
panty hose with her right here/right now.
*Another featured Mandel Ilagan being stuck in a box by
another staffer. Mandel rocks the box, while the other
staffer asks a woman who just conveeeeeeeeeniently passes by
if she'll watch the box (OOOOOOoooooooOOOOOOO!) while he
runs inside the post office to buy more tape.
*My "favorite" had this sleazy-looking mid-20-ish guy who
claimed he could get any woman to give him her phone number
in 30-seconds. He approaches a woman sitting at a table by
herself in an expensive restaurant, delivers some lame-ass
pick-up line and then asks for her phone number.
The lighting and the mic-ing were far too good for these
dilemmas to have been anything but staged. One would hope
that, should this go to series, the bits will have a much
more candid look to them.
CONTESTANT PODIUMS
It was a little difficult to tell who won control -- the
podium flashes briefly, and that's about it. That Jimmy
Cuomo syndrome again.
PLAYBACK ON VIDEO WALL
As I explained, it's a 4 x 4 video wall, and 1/16 of video
plays on each monitor. But when they stop the action, the
freeze-frame takes-up only the nine upper right-most
monitors: the three top-left most monitors display a yellow
question mark, and the bottom bank has (get this) an
animated shark swimming back and forth -- I guess it's that
"branding" thing that we Marketing Pros love so much.
FACE CARDS
The king looked like Bullard; the queen was some hideous
creature -- Gaby Johnson? Wyleen May? Syd Vinnedge?
AND FURTHERMORE
The Chester Feldman-created Card Sharks was a very simple
game: everything was higher/lower, higher/lower. Then Mimi
O'Brien got her hands on it and made it look like
Mindreaders. Now, Pearson (Was it Kevin Bellinkof? Jeff
Merkin? Syd "Oh, by the way, which one's Pink" Vinnedge?)
has gotten their grubby mitts on it, and turned it into an
incomprehensible muddle, somewhat akin to Pyramid 97.
On the Randy's ANalytic ASSessment® (Randy's AN ASS) scale
of -2.575 to + 2.575, I give this Card Sharks pilot (INSERT
Scrabble LETTER SEARCH SFX HERE) a -1.414213562. Maybe this
was Steve Brown's baby, the game has that look. Despite its
flaws, though, it has a certain snarky charm that really
begs for Jimmy Kimmel.
BONUS POINTS! BONUS POINTS!
The cue card guy and the stage manager were incredibly cute!
For that alone, I'll bump the score up to -1.3.
I'll get this converted to HTML over Thanksgiving.
DIS-cuss!
--
Randy Amasia
http://www.geocities.com/randy_amasia
and http://www.geocities.com/aidswall/
and now http://www.moronionaire.com/
Dale Patterson
"Randy Amasia" <ran...@loop.com> wrote in message
news:8v5g0...@enews4.newsguy.com...
I like the Card Sharks questions from the previous versions. In this version
it's a guess and if you're wrong the other person just gets control. In the
other Card Sharks you had to really think, and then it was harder to get
control of the cards.
> ROUND 1
> Round one is played like Blackjack. First player to reach
> 21 wins $200; go bust, and your opponent wins the money.
> Each time you earn control (correctly predict the outcome of
> the dilemma or earn by default), you get a card. Like
> Blackjack, when the sum of your cards is at least 12, you
> can stand ("freeze") -- once you're frozen, your opponent
> has to keep taking cards until they beat your hand or you go
> bust.
>
Well, Blackjack isn't bad, but I would have preferred a regular Card Sharks
game play here. (Although, I think that everyone would agree, if they had
named this anything BUT Card Sharks and this was like a whole new game show
instead of a revival we wouldn't be down on it as bad).
> ROUND 2
> This plays sorta like the Card Sharks Sudden Death
> situations with which we're all familiar. For the first
> dilemma in this round, three cards are dealt -- not three
> cards per player, but three cards total. Whoever wins
> control sees the first card and decides to play or pass.
> Whoever ultimately plays the cards has to call the remaining
> cards correctly, otherwise, their opponent wins the money --
> $300.
>
> Play continues in a similar manner two more times, with four
> cards for $400 and then five cards for $500.
>
> "Are you following me?"
> - Fish/Marillion, "Market Square Heroes"
>
Well, not bad. Again I think everyone would have prefferred a "Class Card
Sharks" round, use this as a Tie-Breaker like in the previous version and
throw out Blackjack all together.
> ROUND 3 - "Classic Card Sharks"
> Yep, that's what they call it, "Classic Card Sharks"! (I
> guess the 1996 pilot was "New Card Sharks." Will they have
> Bill Cosby doing promos?) Five cards for each player are
> dealt *from the same deck*. Whoever earns control of the
> cards plays the main game from Card Sharks, including the
> option to freeze. I *guess* that if you make a mistake, you
> go all the way back to your base card and your opponent gets
> a shot -- all the cards were called correctly, so I dunno.
> First player to go across the board wins $1,000.
>
> Going into this round, the scores were:
> UPSTAGE DOWNSTAGE
> $200 $1200
>
> The downstage contestant won the round (and thus, the
> game -- remember, they play to $1,500), so I don't know what
> would have happened had the upstage player won the round,
> whether they would have played another $1,000 dilemma or
> what.
Well, I guess now we're gettin' somewhere. At least we're getting game play
more similar to that of Card Sharks. Who knows, if they change it a bit this
may even go to air.
Hmm.. The Pyramid idea isn't all too bad, I think we may catch on to it.. I
don't like the idea that you may lose all your winnings just in the last
card.
Jim Ellwanger
<ran...@loop.com> wrote:
> ROUND 3 - "Classic Card Sharks"
> Yep, that's what they call it, "Classic Card Sharks"!
The placement of this within the show brings to mind modern-day video
games that contain a level where you get dropped into the original early
1980s version of said video game.
--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com>
<http://trainman1.home.mindspring.com/> has a refreshing mint center.
"You don't need pants for the victory dance."
Card Shark
ITSBRY
ITSBRY
its...@juno.com
------ Original Message ------
"Randy Amasia" <ran...@loop.com> wrote in message
news:8v5g0...@enews4.newsguy.com...
John
if not absolutely, like the original. This sounds like it's too much
divergence; they should call it something else (CARD PIRAHNAS?).
>DEALER
>No Janice, no Kathleen... STOP! STOP at Daphne DuPleit!
>(DuPlait?) (Pronounced "du-PLAY")
A single dealer this time. The budget must be low.
>PREMISE
>Predict the outcome of a pre-taped "candid" bit to earn
>control of the cards. First player to earn $1,500 (30% of
>the top prize on MG 98!) has the opportunity to bring those
>winnings to the Money Cards, where they can be parlayed to
>over $50,000.
>THE GAME
>As I said above, a pre-taped "candid" (looked awfully
>contrived to me) bit ("dilemma" -- think "Anything for
>Money") was played on the video wall, and when they freeze
>the action, the contestant (they begin with the up-stage
>player) has to predict the outcome, whether the "victim"
>will fall for the dilemma (a prank, really) or not. If the
>player predicts correctly, (s)he earns control of the cards;
>in incorrect prediction forfeits control to their opponent.
Don't tell me -- the original premise of the show was too FAMILY FEUD and was
rejected?
>THE SET
>Another Jimmy Cuomo special, it had kind of a glitzy, Las
>Vegas, retro (Jet Set?) look to it. Lots of flashy neon and
>a few blinking lights. (Did Cuomo finally learn that
>blinking lights help dress-up a game show set?) Yes,
>LogoBoy, the logo at www.cardsharks.tv is the Card Sharks
>logo. A 4 x 4 video wall was camera-left, the cards were
>center stage, and the contestant podiums were camera-right.
>And, wowsers! Real, live score displays!
I haven't seen the set, but I guess making it look like a Vegas casino kinda
makes sense. It would help if the logo weren't so cheesy.
>ROUND 1
>Round one is played like Blackjack. First player to reach
>21 wins $200; go bust, and your opponent wins the money.
>Each time you earn control (correctly predict the outcome of
>the dilemma or earn by default), you get a card. Like
>Blackjack, when the sum of your cards is at least 12, you
>can stand ("freeze") -- once you're frozen, your opponent
>has to keep taking cards until they beat your hand or you go
>bust.
Is this CARD SHARKS or GAMBIT meets STREET SMARTS?
>ROUND 2
>This plays sorta like the Card Sharks Sudden Death
>situations with which we're all familiar. For the first
>dilemma in this round, three cards are dealt -- not three
>cards per player, but three cards total. Whoever wins
>control sees the first card and decides to play or pass.
>Whoever ultimately plays the cards has to call the remaining
>cards correctly, otherwise, their opponent wins the money --
>$300.
>ROUND 3 - "Classic Card Sharks"
>Yep, that's what they call it, "Classic Card Sharks"! (I
>guess the 1996 pilot was "New Card Sharks." Will they have
>Bill Cosby doing promos?) Five cards for each player are
>dealt *from the same deck*. Whoever earns control of the
>cards plays the main game from Card Sharks, including the
>option to freeze. I *guess* that if you make a mistake, you
>go all the way back to your base card and your opponent gets
>a shot -- all the cards were called correctly, so I dunno.
>First player to go across the board wins $1,000.
Sounds like how they play CARD SHARKS in the Mirror Universe.
In any case, this is so unlike CARD SHARKS that I cannot imagine this being a
hit. They should scrap it and try to remake PASSWORD.
Card Shark
"Randy Amasia" <ran...@loop.com> wrote in message
news:8v5g0...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Jim
CONS:
- Round 1 sounds like Gambit. Too slow of a process to get through a game.
- The taped candid segments sound like Street Smarts (which I saw for the
first time yesterday, and grew tired of in three minutes.)
- Why they would do so many round 2's is confusing.
- It seems they should do the new Round 3 first (a la the old version), with
the new round 1 thrown in later as a tie breaker.
PROS:
- Lights and neon on a set.
- The shark swimming on the bottom of the screen might be cute. Maybe they
can make him talk and give him a personality.
- The Money Cards seems pretty normal.
ALL IN ALL: As I have said before, "I want more crash tv", er, make that,
"it's better to have more game shows than fewer", so bring it on.
BTW, who came up with this inane idea for Street Smarts? I can't believe
program affiliates said, "Yeah, that's what I need on my schedule!"
"Randy Amasia" <ran...@loop.com> wrote in message
news:8v5g0...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Card Shark
predominently,
> if not absolutely, like the original.
Indeed, too bad you don't work for Pearson :)
> A single dealer this time. The budget must be low.
What would you expect from Pearson?
Matt Ottinger
Card Shark wrote:
> > A single dealer this time. The budget must be low.
>
> What would you expect from Pearson?
Or maybe someone realized it didn't take two dealers to deal one deck
of cards?
--Matt
otti...@acd.net
Whit E. Screenname
"John" <cyber...@aol.compostheap> wrote in message
news:20001118102632...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> A single dealer this time. The budget must be low.
It was the same way on the 1996 pilot w/Tom Green.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
Randy Amasia
news:20001118102632...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
make it predominently,
it's too much
> divergence; they should call it something else (CARD
PIRAHNAS?).
LOL! I'll use this on the web site!
> >DEALER
> >No Janice, no Kathleen... STOP! STOP at Daphne DuPleit!
> >(DuPlait?) (Pronounced "du-PLAY")
>
> A single dealer this time. The budget must be low.
The original CS didn't really need two dealers, it just
looked cuter.
> >THE GAME
> >As I said above, a pre-taped "candid" (looked awfully
> >contrived to me) bit ("dilemma" -- think "Anything for
> >Money") was played on the video wall, and when they
freeze
> >the action, the contestant (they begin with the up-stage
> >player) has to predict the outcome, whether the "victim"
> >will fall for the dilemma (a prank, really) or not. If
the
> >player predicts correctly, (s)he earns control of the
cards;
> >in incorrect prediction forfeits control to their
opponent.
>
> Don't tell me -- the original premise of the show was too
FAMILY FEUD and was
> rejected?
(snicker!)
> >THE SET
> >Another Jimmy Cuomo special, it had kind of a glitzy, Las
> >Vegas, retro (Jet Set?) look to it. Lots of flashy neon
and
> >a few blinking lights. (Did Cuomo finally learn that
> >blinking lights help dress-up a game show set?) Yes,
> >LogoBoy, the logo at www.cardsharks.tv is the Card Sharks
> >logo. A 4 x 4 video wall was camera-left, the cards
were
> >center stage, and the contestant podiums were
camera-right.
> >And, wowsers! Real, live score displays!
>
> I haven't seen the set, but I guess making it look like a
Vegas casino kinda
> makes sense. It would help if the logo weren't so cheesy.
I wouldn't say it looks like the *inside* of a Casino, but
the logo does kinda fit with the entire production design.
- R
Randy Amasia
"Card Shark" <card_...@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:YpxR5.427$TE3....@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
> Just out of curiosity, Randy, what studio was this shot
at?
Studio 9 at NBC, "Home of the Bayside Tigers"!
Randy Amasia
"ITSBRY" <its...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:vaxR5.29$75.1...@news1.iquest.net...
> What was the theme like?
It sounded like some sort of piano-based thing - in general,
the audio mix for the audience was poor, but that has
nothing to do with Pearson.
MSTieScott
> - The shark swimming on the bottom of the screen might be cute. Maybe
they
> can make him talk and give him a personality.
(has flashbacks to TTD90)
(curls up in a ball and starts to cry)
--
Scott Robinson
(if e-mailing a reply, please replace my-deja with hotmail)
Founder of the Pick-a-Number Defense League
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Jeremiah [Marshall-]Williams-Soria (Jeremy Soria)
Vegas look and feel. Especially when I've taken a glimpse of the forthcoming
logo.
They're also trying to cross a minor hit, Street Smarts, with Card Sharks.
They've mildly succeeded...
So, Randy Amasia.... is that your final answer?
>HOST
>As Steve Beverly repeated, I mean, reported, Pat Bullard.
>It was hard to get a sense of his performance, as they kept
>stopping down as soon as he got momentum going. From those
>instance where I drew the inference that the stop-down was
>caused by his mistake, it seemd like they'd not spent very
>long rehearsing with him. The excuse can be made that,
>"Well, it's a pilot," but I've seen pilots shot where the
>hosting was flawless.
Might have been a spur-of-the-moment thing. How long ago was it announced that
Pat would be the new host?
>DEALER
>No Janice, no Kathleen... STOP! STOP at Daphne DuPleit!
>(DuPlait?) (Pronounced "du-PLAY")
There's that Pearson machine churning again. Janice and Kathleen are gone,
unless they just weren't available for the pilot :)
>ANNOUNCER
>Pre-taped, damed if I know who he is. Could be Randy West
>(he was the warm-up guy -- more about him in a separate post
>to ATGS),
You can read more about him on www.musicradio77.com and www.reelradio.com ...
>THE SET
>Another Jimmy Cuomo special, it had kind of a glitzy, Las
>Vegas, retro (Jet Set?) look to it. Lots of flashy neon and
>a few blinking lights. (Did Cuomo finally learn that
>blinking lights help dress-up a game show set?) Yes,
>LogoBoy, the logo at www.cardsharks.tv is the Card Sharks
>logo. A 4 x 4 video wall was camera-left, the cards were
>center stage, and the contestant podiums were camera-right.
>And, wowsers! Real, live score displays!
The wall should be stage center and the cards should be stage right, much like
what Wheel has done for ages. It looks like the star of this version of Card
Sharks will be the folks on the candid shots.
>THE GAME
>the contestant (they begin with the up-stage
>player) has to predict the outcome, whether the "victim"
>will fall for the dilemma (a prank, really) or not. If the
>player predicts correctly, (s)he earns control of the cards;
>in incorrect prediction forfeits control to their opponent.
No human nature questions, apparently. They could go back to that... instead
of forcing a prank on an unsuspecting victim, why not "borrow from Street
Smarts" and ask folks in a heavily trafficked area (like a mall, a beach,
downtown) what their opinion about a particular question is.
>ROUND 1
>Round one is played like Blackjack. First player to reach
>21 wins $200; go bust, and your opponent wins the money.
>Each time you earn control (correctly predict the outcome of
>the dilemma or earn by default), you get a card. Like
>Blackjack, when the sum of your cards is at least 12, you
>can stand ("freeze") -- once you're frozen, your opponent
>has to keep taking cards until they beat your hand or you go
>bust.
So, apparently, whoever gets control gets the "player" role while the other
player gets the "dealer" role. Is there is there a hole-card and up-card dealt
for the "dealer" role? Makes Basic Strategy much easier.
>ROUND 2
>This plays sorta like the Card Sharks Sudden Death
>situations with which we're all familiar. For the first
>dilemma in this round, three cards are dealt -- not three
>cards per player, but three cards total. Whoever wins
>control sees the first card and decides to play or pass.
>Whoever ultimately plays the cards has to call the remaining
>cards correctly, otherwise, their opponent wins the money --
>$300.
>
>Play continues in a similar manner two more times, with four
>cards for $400 and then five cards for $500.
>
>"Are you following me?"
> - Fish/Marillion, "Market Square Heroes"
>
>ROUND 3 - "Classic Card Sharks"
>Yep, that's what they call it, "Classic Card Sharks"! (I
>guess the 1996 pilot was "New Card Sharks." Will they have
>Bill Cosby doing promos?) Five cards for each player are
>dealt *from the same deck*.
Were the cards from Round 2 dealt from the same blackjack deck? Also, each
player does NOT have their own deck of cards?
>First player to go across the board wins $1,000.
>Going into this round, the scores were:
>UPSTAGE DOWNSTAGE
>$200 $1200
>
>The downstage contestant won the round (and thus, the
>game -- remember, they play to $1,500), so I don't know what
>would have happened had the upstage player won the round,
>whether they would have played another $1,000 dilemma or
>what.
They could make the Card Sharks purists happy by making this one round the one
that counts. None of that Round 1 or 2 stuff, just make it worth enough money
so the player can win this round alone and still win.
>MONEY CARDS
>(BtW, CY$5000 and a Spin to the first person to correctly
>identify the flaw.)
I'll start with some less-than-obvious ones and some questions:
-- it's supposed to be 3-3-1 cards
-- if a player busts on the first AND second levels, he's ALREADY lost half
his money (as opposed to all the money); fix it by making it 25%/25%/50%
-- what's the minimum bet? still $50, or have they changed the table limits?
-- is the Push Rule in effect here?
-- saying "half and all they way up to" for the Big Bet is incorrect; the sum
would be more than the amount he has to bet!
Another general comment - the reason for the separate rounds is that they
don't want a returning champion (at least I don't see it); they want to keep
the game self-contained instead of straddled.
>AND FURTHERMORE
>The Chester Feldman-created Card Sharks was a very simple
>game: everything was higher/lower, higher/lower. Then Mimi
>O'Brien got her hands on it and made it look like
>Mindreaders. Now, Pearson (Was it Kevin Bellinkof? Jeff
>Merkin? Syd "Oh, by the way, which one's Pink" Vinnedge?)
>has gotten their grubby mitts on it, and turned it into an
>incomprehensible muddle, somewhat akin to Pyramid 97.
But they're going for what I think are late-night or early fringe/prime access
slots for this show. I think they're seeing the mild success that Street
Smarts is getting, and they want to use some of those elements to a classic
game show.
And speaking of elements, what about the theme?
- Jeremy Inhibitions? Leave 'em in the car. AUSTIN
NTRA - Go Baby Go! 3:16
--
"You're gonna yell... You get real quiet, then you scream and call us ladies."
"No... I'm gonna kiss you. And then I'm gonna lean in, very close, and talk,
yes, very softly. You see, that's even scarier, isn't it."
- Dwight meets pro wrestling coach Jupiter, "Nikki", 10/8/2000
Buddy, Andre, Kerry, Eddie, Gordon, Yoko, Flyin' Brian, Owen Hart ... Sigh ...
This nickname is false.
>(has flashbacks to TTD90)
>
>(curls up in a ball and starts to cry)
I think that's a new ATGS record for highest action-word ratio in a single
post!
But really, that is NOT a good idea. Just let the shark swim.
<a href="www.maxpages.com/monarxsite0073">My Web Site!</a>
Krebappel: "Whose calculator can tell me what 7x8 is?"
Milhouse: "Ooh! Low battery?"
Vote RIGHT in 2k4!
www.frankforpresident.com
The Official Musicman of ATGS
>Just got back from the Card Sharks pilot. Apologies in
>advance is stuff is kinda disorganized, but I was writing
>notes on my hand. And now...
>
>C A R D
>S H A R K S
That's what the new logo looks like?! Nice improvement!
>"Look what they've done to my song, ma!"
> - New Seekers, circa late 60s.
"Things aren't the way they were before
You wouldn't even recognize me anymore"
-Linkin park, circa early 2000
>Brian Hamburg and I had mused on the phine a while back that
>Card Sharks would be the perfect game for Pearson to
>resurrect, because it would be so difficult to fuck up.
>I'll leave it to the group to pass judgement on our
>assessment. :-D
It's not your fault...
>HOST
>As Steve Beverly repeated, I mean, reported, Pat Bullard.
>It was hard to get a sense of his performance, as they kept
>stopping down as soon as he got momentum going. From those
>instance where I drew the inference that the stop-down was
>caused by his mistake, it seemd like they'd not spent very
>long rehearsing with him. The excuse can be made that,
>"Well, it's a pilot," but I've seen pilots shot where the
>hosting was flawless.
I've only seen Pat on Suprise Wedding (I can't believe I sat through
that...well flipping between that and Millionaire only to see 5 yes's. It was
so predictable). Any more bad jokes?
>DEALER
>No Janice, no Kathleen... STOP! STOP at Daphne DuPleit!
>(DuPlait?) (Pronounced "du-PLAY")
Ooooooooooh. DuPleit. I like it.
>ANNOUNCER
>Pre-taped, damed if I know who he is. Could be Randy West
>(he was the warm-up guy -- more about him in a separate post
>to ATGS), could've been Richardson, I just don't know.
It would be nice (well interesting) if they could've gotten "Scary FOX Voice"
(Greed and stupid FOX specials)
>PREMISE
>Predict the outcome of a pre-taped "candid" bit to earn
>control of the cards.
?!
>First player to earn $1,500 (30% of
>the top prize on MG 98!) has the opportunity to bring those
>winnings to the Money Cards, where they can be parlayed to
>over $50,000.
I heard about this money cards...I smell something's fishy. OOH! The crappy's
burning! (get it?)
>THE SET
>Another Jimmy Cuomo special, it had kind of a glitzy, Las
>Vegas, retro (Jet Set?) look to it. Lots of flashy neon and
>a few blinking lights. (Did Cuomo finally learn that
>blinking lights help dress-up a game show set?) Yes,
>LogoBoy, the logo at www.cardsharks.tv is the Card Sharks
>logo.
Darn.
> A 4 x 4 video wall was camera-left, the cards were
>center stage, and the contestant podiums were camera-right.
>And, wowsers! Real, live score displays!
Ooooooooo. Real live score displays. Pearson spares no expence (wait till the
money cards)
>THE GAME
>As I said above, a pre-taped "candid" (looked awfully
>contrived to me) bit ("dilemma" -- think "Anything for
>Money") was played on the video wall, and when they freeze
>the action, the contestant (they begin with the up-stage
>player) has to predict the outcome, whether the "victim"
>will fall for the dilemma (a prank, really) or not. If the
>player predicts correctly, (s)he earns control of the cards;
>in incorrect prediction forfeits control to their opponent.
I've said it once, I'll say it again: ?!
>ROUND 1
>Round one is played like Blackjack. First player to reach
>21 wins $200; go bust, and your opponent wins the money.
>Each time you earn control (correctly predict the outcome of
>the dilemma or earn by default), you get a card. Like
>Blackjack, when the sum of your cards is at least 12, you
>can stand ("freeze") -- once you're frozen, your opponent
>has to keep taking cards until they beat your hand or you go
>bust.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK. And I guess to Pearson, this makes sense.
>ROUND 2
>This plays sorta like the Card Sharks Sudden Death
>situations with which we're all familiar. For the first
>dilemma in this round, three cards are dealt -- not three
>cards per player, but three cards total. Whoever wins
>control sees the first card and decides to play or pass.
>Whoever ultimately plays the cards has to call the remaining
>cards correctly, otherwise, their opponent wins the money --
>$300.
Sounds nice considering what we're working with.
>Play continues in a similar manner two more times, with four
>cards for $400 and then five cards for $500.
And this is supposed to be a half hour, right? Why does it sound like this'll
take an hour to me?
>"Are you following me?"
> - Fish/Marillion, "Market Square Heroes"
"Forfeit the game / Before somebody else
Takes you out of the frame / And puts your name to shame"
-Same guys (They're excellent writers, what can I say?)
>ROUND 3 - "Classic Card Sharks"
>Yep, that's what they call it, "Classic Card Sharks"!
It's nice of them to not only recognize the classic Card Sharks, but to realize
that they DID completely mess up a classic.
>(I
>guess the 1996 pilot was "New Card Sharks." Will they have
>Bill Cosby doing promos?) Five cards for each player are
>dealt *from the same deck*.
Is this really fair?
>Whoever earns control of the
>cards plays the main game from Card Sharks, including the
>option to freeze. I *guess* that if you make a mistake, you
>go all the way back to your base card and your opponent gets
>a shot -- all the cards were called correctly, so I dunno.
Aren't pilots RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGEEEED for
this reason?
>First player to go across the board wins $1,000.
>Going into this round, the scores were:
>UPSTAGE DOWNSTAGE
>$200 $1200
>
>The downstage contestant won the round (and thus, the
>game -- remember, they play to $1,500), so I don't know what
>would have happened had the upstage player won the round,
>whether they would have played another $1,000 dilemma or
>what.
^ read my above
>MONEY CARDS
>The Money Cards are played much like on the previous
>versions of CS, but the scoring is different. Instead of
>$200 in the bottom row and another $200/$400 in the center
>row, the money won in the main game (in this case $2,200)
>gets "spread out" across the rows thusly:
>
> $700 __
> $700 __ __
> $800 __ __ __
Well hey big spender (there's more)
>(It's supposed to be shaped like a Pyramid.)
The $58,200 Pyramid in this case
>The player starts with $800 (in this instance) on the bottom
>row, and wagers all or part of his/her money that the next
>card is higher or lower, and (s)he has the option of
>changing the base card *only*. As you see above, in the
>bottom row, a player has three cards to call. The last card
>from the bottom row moves up to become the base card for the
>second row, the next portion of the main game winnings is
>added in ($700), and the player again has the option to
>change the base card (in other words, the "Change that
>card!" option is played like the NBC version). In the
>second row, there are only two cards to call higher/lower.
>Once again, the last card in the row becomes the base card
>in the top row, they add in the last part of the champion's
>winnings ($700 -- 800+700+700 = 2200), from which (s)he
>makes his/her "Major Wager" (oh, very cute, a rhyme!) --
hehe
>which, as with the previous versions, must be at least half
>the earnings. [Note to whomever wrote the script: it's not
>"half *and* (emphasis mine) all the way up to...," the two
>can not occur simultaneously.]
>
>(BtW, CY$5000 and a Spin to the first person to correctly
>identify the flaw.)
Yeah, game shows aren't supposed to make you take a Tylenol after explaining
the rules.
>Recall that the champion is playing the Money Cards with
>their winnings from the main game In other words, for all
>the talk of $50,000, Pearson giveth, Pearson taketh away --
>it is entirely possible to lose *all* your main game
>winnings on the turn of the last Money Card. (Kevin,
>Mandel, will there be a house minimum?) (INSERT PRE-EMPTIVE
>"ZHIFoS!" HERE.)
A-HA! Once again, Pearson reaks of cheapness. Let's hope there are returning
champion so champs DON'T walk away with (In the word of debt) NOTHING.
>RANDOM STUFF
>
>THE DILEMMAS
>The Dilemmas tend to be socially awkward or even gross
>situations.
Given the way game shows are going right now, why am I not suprised?
>*One featured a woman (shill) in an upscale restaurant
>approaching another woman (victim), explaining that she has
>a run in her stockings (which we see) and has an important
>meeting in 10 minutes -- she asks the victim if she can swap
>panty hose with her right here/right now
<sigh>
.
>*Another featured Mandel Ilagan being stuck in a box by
>another staffer. Mandel rocks the box, while the other
>staffer asks a woman who just conveeeeeeeeeniently passes by
>if she'll watch the box (OOOOOOoooooooOOOOOOO!) while he
>runs inside the post office to buy more tape.
<yawn>
>*My "favorite" had this sleazy-looking mid-20-ish guy who
>claimed he could get any woman to give him her phone number
>in 30-seconds. He approaches a woman sitting at a table by
>herself in an expensive restaurant, delivers some lame-ass
>pick-up line and then asks for her phone number.
<giggle>
>The lighting and the mic-ing were far too good for these
>dilemmas to have been anything but staged. One would hope
>that, should this go to series, the bits will have a much
>more candid look to them.
>
>PLAYBACK ON VIDEO WALL
>As I explained, it's a 4 x 4 video wall, and 1/16 of video
>plays on each monitor. But when they stop the action, the
>freeze-frame takes-up only the nine upper right-most
>monitors: the three top-left most monitors display a yellow
>question mark, and the bottom bank has (get this) an
>animated shark swimming back and forth -- I guess it's that
>"branding" thing that we Marketing Pros love so much.
Oh well...
>FACE CARDS
>The king looked like Bullard; the queen was some hideous
>creature -- Gaby Johnson? Wyleen May? Syd Vinnedge?
<gag>
>AND FURTHERMORE
>The Chester Feldman-created Card Sharks was a very simple
>game: everything was higher/lower, higher/lower. Then Mimi
>O'Brien got her hands on it and made it look like
>Mindreaders. Now, Pearson (Was it Kevin Bellinkof? Jeff
>Merkin? Syd "Oh, by the way, which one's Pink" Vinnedge?)
>has gotten their grubby mitts on it, and turned it into an
>incomprehensible muddle, somewhat akin to Pyramid 97.
The quotes summed it up pretty well :-D
>On the Randy's ANalytic ASSessment® (Randy's AN ASS) scale
Love the name...
>of -2.575 to + 2.575, I give this Card Sharks pilot (INSERT
>Scrabble LETTER SEARCH SFX HERE) a -1.414213562.
That sounds about right.
>Maybe this
>was Steve Brown's baby,
I would trust a human baby with a pack of wolves before I trust my game show
babies with Pearson.
Proud member of the ATGS Freedom Brigade
Joe Coughlin
wrote:
<snip>
>DEALER
>No Janice, no Kathleen... STOP! STOP at Daphne DuPleit!
>(DuPlait?) (Pronounced "du-PLAY")
If my spelling memory serves, it's former Playboy playmate Daphnee
Duplaix.
JoeC...I know that solely from reading the articles...
The Official Musicman of ATGS
Of course it would be...
Michael Clifford
Cool!
Stephan Mynarkiewicz
"The Official Musicman of ATGS" <ews...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001118142842...@ng-mg1.aol.com...
> A-HA! Once again, Pearson reaks of cheapness. Let's hope there are
returning
> champion so champs DON'T walk away with (In the word of debt) NOTHING.
Well, they probably still have some cheap (Jeep) Boomboxes and TV sets left
over from MG'98 :)
Stephan Mynarkiewicz
> >it's former Playboy playmate
>
> Of course it would be...
>
Lemme take two more wild stabs in the dark here--blonde? could be future
"Baywatch" material?
megam...@my-deja.com
> >
> >ROUND 2
> >This plays sorta like the Card Sharks Sudden Death
> >situations with which we're all familiar. For the first
> >dilemma in this round, three cards are dealt -- not three
> >cards per player, but three cards total. Whoever wins
> >control sees the first card and decides to play or pass.
> >Whoever ultimately plays the cards has to call the remaining
> >cards correctly, otherwise, their opponent wins the money --
> >$300.
> >
Sounds to me as if the second round is really unnecessary. I know
they're trying to "pad" the show so that it doesn't straddle, but I
think it's possible to have a self contained game with just the
Blackjack and Classic Card Sharks rounds.
>
> >MONEY CARDS
> >
> > $700 __
> > $700 __ __
> > $800 __ __ __
> >
> >(It's supposed to be shaped like a Pyramid.)
> >
> >The player starts with $800 (in this instance) on the bottom
> >row, and wagers all or part of his/her money that the next
> >card is higher or lower, and (s)he has the option of
> >changing the base card *only*.
So, this means, with lucky cards, you could win up to $58,200
800- 1600-3200-6400-7100-14200-28400-29100-58200
Curt Alliaume
<cats...@newsguy.com> writes:
>Lemme take two more wild stabs in the dark here--blonde? could be future
>"Baywatch" material?
Try again. Daphne Duplaix is multiracial (most would probably identify her as
African-American). And she's actually got some non-Playboy acting credits
(http://us.imdb.com/Name?Duplaix,+Daphne).
Playboy and Goodson-Todman have had a long history together -- Janice
Pennington, Ann Pennington, Nikki Ziering, and Julie Cialini were all Playboy
centerfolds and G-T personalities, not to mention the endless Playmate
appearances on Family Feud. So this isn't really out of left field.
-- Curt Alliaume
----------------------
Game Shows '75
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Bungalow/2827/gameshow.html
Richard Hudson
>hit. They should scrap it and try to remake PASSWORD.
>
>
>
If these idiots can screw up Card Sharks, think what they might do to Password.
Password All-Stars, anyone?
Richard hudson
MrGameShw
>ANNOUNCER
>Pre-taped
WRONG. The guy was there. I'm not sure of his name, but I do know for a fact
that he's an African-American and this was his first game.
>THE SET
>Another Jimmy Cuomo special
WRONG. This was designed by Bente Christensen.
>I *guess* that if you make a mistake, you
>go all the way back to your base card and your opponent gets
>a shot
You *guess* WRONG. Although it never happened, if a contestant makes a
mistake, they go all the way back to their base card, but their opponent does
NOT get to play their cards. At least those were the rules designed for this
pilot.
The rest of your opinions you're entitled to, but your facts are, as usual, not
always correct. And, by the way, two more pilots were taped today with some
changes to the set. But Jimmy Cuomo had nothing to do with them.
pc_m...@my-deja.com
You know, I was just watching an AMC movie bumper on the 1973 Walter
Matthau film "Charley Varrick", where they said that Matthau, upon
seeing a pre-release print of the film, commented, "Well, it's a
pitcure all right - but can anyone tell me what it's *about*?"
That pretty well sums up my take on this from Randy's as-usual
rollicking reportage - it could be a fun show, but it's about as far
removed from the original as it could be and still *be* "Card Sharks".
It sounded actually, with all the different games and the extra add-
ons, like a souped-up remake of "Dealer's Choice" (I'm only grateful
Edawrds/Billett and Fishman/Freer have kept that format out of
Pearson's domain!) crossed with "Anything for Money" or "Candid Camera"
(the acted-out scenarios and such).
Patrick Patterson
The guy that announced Greed is the same guy from the show "Guiness Book
of World Records" (he's not the host, but he's the guy that is seen almost
always). I believe he is under contract exclusively to Fox.
Sincerely,
Patrick Patterson
The Official Musicman of ATGS wrote in message
<20001118142842...@ng-mg1.aol.com>...
Josh Eldridge
cyber...@aol.compostheap (John) wrote:
>> In any case, this is so unlike CARD SHARKS that I cannot imagine this
being a
> hit. They should scrap it and try to remake PASSWORD.
>
OH DEAR GOD! Don't give them any ideas. They'll only end up with a
cheaper knock-off of "The Diamond Head Game..."
--
Josh Eldridge
A man who is adept at losing his mind and
looking quite good at it in the process.
John Sergent
>
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:55:10 -0800, "Randy Amasia" <ran...@loop.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >No Janice, no Kathleen... STOP! STOP at Daphne DuPleit!
> >(DuPlait?) (Pronounced "du-PLAY")
>
> Duplaix.
>
> JoeC...I know that solely from reading the articles...
That name sounds familiar. Did she appear on any of the numerous Feud
Playmate specials?
--
"Pro wrestling is stupid"
DaveMackey
>Playmate specials?
Only if they were made after July 1997... the date the issue with Daphnee's
gatefold pictorial.
Dave
ITSBRY
>
> It sounded like some sort of piano-based thing - in general,
> the audio mix for the audience was poor, but that has
> nothing to do with Pearson.
What did you think if it though? Was it gameshow-ish? :-)
Did it have any similarity to any of the previous themes for CS?
ITSBRY
its...@juno.com
John
>can make him talk and give him a personality.
YEAH! Every time a contestant loses, they should have the shark do something
funny!
Too PRESS YOUR LUCK, eh?
Whit E. Screenname
"Patrick Patterson" <patters...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:diIR5.6983$xd3.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Kinda totally off subject but,
>
> The guy that announced Greed is the same guy from the show "Guiness Book
> of World Records" (he's not the host, but he's the guy that is seen almost
> always). I believe he is under contract exclusively to Fox.
That would be Mark Thompson, weatherman at KTTV (Ch. 11), the LA fox O&O,
who also did both Challenge of the Child Geniuses specials.
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> If they're going to bring back CARD SHARKS, they should make it predominently,
> if not absolutely, like the original. This sounds like it's too much
> divergence; they should call it something else (CARD PIRAHNAS?).
I'd rather see it be more like the original, but if they changed it and
came up with something *good*, I wouldn't really mind. This is just so
unnecessarily complicated that I can't imagine it working very well. And
the whole premise of "try to guess what the person on the tape will
do"--how the F should I know? That's no fun for me...predicting what a
random sample of people would say, as in the old show, takes a certain
understanding of human nature. Predicting what one person will do with
no information about that individual is like flipping a coin.
This game seems to require virtually no real skill (assuming that
everyone can figure out what cards to go lower/higher on and which are
most likely to win).
John Sergent
Thanks.
--
"Is this ice considered fat-free?"
Randy Amasia
afternoon...
"MrGameShw" <mrga...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001118221456...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> Let's see how much Amnesia is wrong about:
Hey, Fred, why are you so obsessed with me? Do you have a
crush on me or something?
> >ANNOUNCER
> >Pre-taped
>
> WRONG. The guy was there.
WRONG AGAIN, FRED! Gee, MrGameShw, is he wasn't pre-taped,
why did they open with the same dilemma each time? Because
his V-O was already recorded!
> I'm not sure of his name, but I do know for a fact
> that he's an African-American and this was his first game.
As for him being African-American, NO DUH, but his ethnicity
is irrelevant -- that you've chosen to make it so reveals
you for the bigot you are.
> >THE SET
> >Another Jimmy Cuomo special
>
> WRONG. This was designed by Bente Christensen.
Lessee, first, Randy West said that it was designed by Jimmy
Cuomo, then, as the afternoon dragged on (and I do mean
dragged -- I've seen pilots done and in the can inside of
45-minutes), he mentioned that it was designed by Bente
Christensen.
> >I *guess* that if you make a mistake, you
> >go all the way back to your base card and your opponent
gets
> >a shot
>
> You *guess* WRONG. Although it never happened, if a
contestant makes a
> mistake, they go all the way back to their base card, but
their opponent does
> NOT get to play their cards.
Yup, that happened yesterday.
> The rest of your opinions you're entitled to, but your
facts are, as usual, not
> always correct.
Well, MrGameShw, that's why I went back, to make sure I was
accurate. But as for facts "as usual, not always correct,"
let's not forget your assertion that they'd be using a
newbie (to game shows) announcer on Feud, and then, when you
were nailed, you suddenly back-pedaled that "it was true at
the time." And then there's that To Tell the Truth thing...
I can admit my mistakes, it's too bad you're not adult
enough to admit yours, Fred.
> And, by the way, two more pilots were taped today with
some
> changes to the set.
No shit!
Yeah, they added some necessary color to the card "table,"
and they used more wacky-ish lettering on the podium. Oh
yeah, and they no longer shrink the display to 3 x 3 when
they freeze the video -- but the shark (gotta love that
branding thing!) now swims across center-screen. And I
think they *added* a shark fin to the opening, but maybe I
just didn't notice it Friday.
Steve Jeremiah [Marshall-]Williams-Soria (Jeremy Soria)
>John wrote:
>>
>> If they're going to bring back CARD SHARKS, they should make it predominently,
>> if not absolutely, like the original. This sounds like it's too much
>> divergence; they should call it something else (CARD PIRAHNAS?).
>
>I'd rather see it be more like the original, but if they changed it and
>came up with something *good*, I wouldn't really mind. This is just so
>unnecessarily complicated that I can't imagine it working very well. And
>the whole premise of "try to guess what the person on the tape will
>do"--how the F should I know? That's no fun for me...
They're trying to take advantage of Street Smarts' mild success, I think.
>predicting what a
>random sample of people would say, as in the old show, takes a certain
>understanding of human nature. Predicting what one person will do with
>no information about that individual is like flipping a coin.
That's why it's a pilot. They probably might give some very minimal
information about the victim in the dilemma.
Also, they're trying to make this game self-contained instead of straddled,
like on all previous versions.
>This game seems to require virtually no real skill (assuming that
>everyone can figure out what cards to go lower/higher on and which are
>most likely to win).
Jim Perry was right: you *do* gain an advantage if you know how to count
cards, like in blackjack.
Randy Amasia
"Card Shark" <card_...@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:zFyR5.986$Be3....@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net...
> > If they're going to bring back CARD SHARKS, they should
make it
> predominently,
> > if not absolutely, like the original.
>
>
Change, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Neither the
TPiR nor the MG for which we hold ardor bear much
resemblance to their respective antecendents.
--
Randy Amasia
Vote for Frank, the RIGHT! choice in 2000. WOW! Frank2K!
---
Randy Amasia
news:8v6iud$t5t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > - The shark swimming on the bottom of the screen might
be cute. Maybe
> they
> > can make him talk and give him a personality.
>
>
> (curls up in a ball and starts to cry)
Perhaps some Dolphins and Friends will brighten your day!
:-D
--
Randy Amasia
Randy Amasia
"ITSBRY" <its...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:HjTR5.53$75.3...@news1.iquest.net...
From what I could hear (like I said, the audience mix was
poor), it bore no resemblance to either of the previous
themes. It was, however, composed by Mark Northam, who
composed the theme to $hopping $pree and provided
spontaneous background music for It Takes Two.
Back when his name was "in lights," Northam was gracious
enough to answer fan mail, so a shout out to him, and I hope
he's doing well.
--
Randy Amasia
Vote for Frank, the RIGHT! choice in 2000. WOW! Frank2K!
---
Randy Amasia
"Joe Coughlin" <jt...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:uipd1to1sb2jet03e...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 00:55:10 -0800, "Randy Amasia"
<ran...@loop.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >DEALER
> >No Janice, no Kathleen... STOP! STOP at Daphne DuPleit!
> >(DuPlait?) (Pronounced "du-PLAY")
>
> If my spelling memory serves, it's former Playboy playmate
Daphnee
> Duplaix.
C'est she. No wonder all the high school kids started
howling when they heard her name!
ITSBRY
> poor), it bore no resemblance to either of the previous
> themes. It was, however, composed by Mark Northam, who
> composed the theme to $hopping $pree and provided
> spontaneous background music for It Takes Two.
Thanks for the info...I enjoyed reading your critique. It's not
like I'll ever actually see the show if it gets bought. The Indy
market is pretty barren of game shows these days.
ITSBRY
its...@juno.com
Chris Lambert!
now. There's a guide to the area on the OGSP!
--
Chris Lambert * Indiana University '97
Visit the Original Game Show Page!
at www.chris-lambert.com
-
Go Pacers and IU Hoosiers
"ITSBRY" <its...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:6A%R5.64$75.4...@news1.iquest.net...
Frank Genovay
Card Sharks Pearson Is Butchering up Game Shows.Like They Did With The
Price Is Right.
Frank J. Genovay III
Trenton, NJ
--------------------------------------------------------
Visit FRANK'S GAME SHOW WEBSITE At:
http://community.webtv.net/FrankJGenovay/WelcomeToFranksGAME
Home Of The Pyramid Shrine Site
Frank Genovay
Sharks is Going to Be a Game Show BOMB.
Curt Alliaume
>> >That name sounds familiar. Did she appear on any of the numerous Feud
>> >Playmate specials?
>> Only if they were made after July 1997... the date the issue with Daphnee's
>> gatefold pictorial.
If memory serves, she was on the Playmates team that appeared on the Louie
Anderson version during the past year.
John
>and they used more wacky-ish lettering on the podium. Oh
>yeah, and they no longer shrink the display to 3 x 3 when
>they freeze the video -- but the shark (gotta love that
>branding thing!) now swims across center-screen. And I
>think they *added* a shark fin to the opening, but maybe I
>just didn't notice it Friday.
Sounds like they're fine-tuning it (well, tuning it at least).
sonic...@my-deja.com
> They're trying to take advantage of Street Smarts' mild success, I
think.
That's just great. Now they're going to relegate the Sharks to the
late night period. I think it deserves a better fate, don't you?
Chico
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> So, Brett A. Pasternack.... is that your final answer?
>
> >John wrote:
> >>
> >> divergence; they should call it something else (CARD PIRAHNAS?).
> >
> >I'd rather see it be more like the original, but if they changed it and
> >came up with something *good*, I wouldn't really mind. This is just so
> >unnecessarily complicated that I can't imagine it working very well. And
> >the whole premise of "try to guess what the person on the tape will
> >do"--how the F should I know? That's no fun for me...
>
*There's* a winning business plan! B^)
>
> >predicting what a
> >random sample of people would say, as in the old show, takes a certain
> >understanding of human nature. Predicting what one person will do with
> >no information about that individual is like flipping a coin.
>
> That's why it's a pilot. They probably might give some very minimal
> information about the victim in the dilemma.
Maybe. I'd still rather see the old survey type questions used. To me
both a better challenge and more interesting.
> Also, they're trying to make this game self-contained instead of straddled,
> like on all previous versions.
You could do that with the survey questions. You'd still want to make
*some* tweaks, and maybe some of the new ideas will actually work.
> >This game seems to require virtually no real skill (assuming that
> >everyone can figure out what cards to go lower/higher on and which are
> >most likely to win).
>
> Jim Perry was right: you *do* gain an advantage if you know how to count
> cards, like in blackjack.
Not much, though, as even in the money cards you're not using all that
much of the deck.
> Buddy, Andre, Kerry, Eddie, Gordon, Yoko, Flyin' Brian, Owen Hart ... >Sigh ...
Does Joe C count as a wrestling personality? B^(
MrGameShw
defend his misstatements as fact. It's yet another to read him doing so with
the inflated tone of self importance that he does, especially when he's still
WRONG!
Let's have a look:
>> >ANNOUNCER
>> >Pre-taped
>>
>> WRONG. The guy was there.
>
>WRONG AGAIN, FRED! Gee, MrGameShw, is he wasn't pre-taped,
>why did they open with the same dilemma each time? Because
>his V-O was already recorded!
Once again, Amensia is WRONG. The announcer, whose name is Lou Ray Cooper (I'm
not sure of the spelling), was at the tapings of all pilots. Your question as
to why they opened with the same dilemma each time is best directed at Mr.
Belinkoff or perhaps Mr. Mirkin. But just because you didn't actually see the
announcer, Amnesia, doesn't mean he wasn't there.
> I'm not sure of his name, but I do know for a fact
>> that he's an African-American and this was his first game.
>
>As for him being African-American, NO DUH, but his ethnicity
>is irrelevant -- that you've chosen to make it so reveals
>you for the bigot you are.
No Duh? You obviously didn't see him, so your remark means you assumed his
race based on his voice. That makes you the bigot. I chose to include that
information as further proof that I SAW HIM THERE. That's really the only way
you can tell the color of someone's skin, right? Instead you call me a bigot
when you have the offensive and disgusting notion that all African-Americans
can be identified as such based on their voices. Sad.
>> >THE SET
>> >Another Jimmy Cuomo special
>>
>> WRONG. This was designed by Bente Christensen.
>
>Lessee, first, Randy West said that it was designed by Jimmy
>Cuomo, then, as the afternoon dragged on (and I do mean
>dragged -- I've seen pilots done and in the can inside of
>45-minutes), he mentioned that it was designed by Bente
>Christensen.
Lessee, first you come here and publically state that the set was designed by
Jimmy Cuomo and even take shots at him. Then I straighten the matter out for
ATGS readers, and you attempt to defend yourself by quoting the warm-up guy?
Face it, you're WRONG!
>Well, MrGameShw, that's why I went back, to make sure I was
>accurate
If that's why you went back, you did a horrible job, since your statements are
still WRONG!
>But as for facts "as usual, not always correct,"
>let's not forget your assertion that they'd be using a
>newbie (to game shows) announcer on Feud, and then, when you
>were nailed, you suddenly back-pedaled that "it was true at
>the time.
Nothing I stated was untrue. And my sources are better than Randy West.
>And then there's that To Tell the Truth thing...
You mean your bold-faced lie that I said that Burton Richardson would not be
announcing To Tell The Truth? I never said that, and it's pathetic that you
know that and still can't own up to your misstatements. You really do suffer
from Amnesia.
>and they used more wacky-ish lettering on the podium.
WRONG! The lettering used on the podium was IDENTICAL to that used on Friday
evening. You think that just because you don't see the Announcer that he's not
there, but what's your lame excuse for this?
>And I
>think they *added* a shark fin to the opening, but maybe I
>just didn't notice it Friday.
You didn't notice it on Friday. Like you didn't notice the announcer. Or that
the set was designed by Christensen. Or the lettering on the podium. If you
really have nothing better to do with your life than attend game show pilot
tapings, at least get your facts straight. Oh, that's right. There's nothing
straight about you.
Anyone who cares to find out the truth should contact Pearson or Card Sharks
directly. Amnesia can't be trusted, especially since when the truth is pointed
out, he continues to lie and defend himself.
Randy Amasia
> It's one thing for Amnesia to be wrong.
But it's OK for Fred to resort to name calling when he
hasn't got an intelligent argument.
It's another for him to continue to
> defend his misstatements as fact. It's yet another to read
him doing so with
> the inflated tone of self importance that he does,
especially when he's still
> WRONG!
>
> Let's have a look:
>
> >> >ANNOUNCER
> >> >Pre-taped
> >>
> >> WRONG. The guy was there.
> >
> >WRONG AGAIN, FRED! Gee, MrGameShw, is he wasn't
pre-taped,
> >why did they open with the same dilemma each time?
Because
> >his V-O was already recorded!
>
> Once again, Amensia is WRONG. The announcer, whose name
is Lou Ray Cooper (I'm
> not sure of the spelling),
YOU'RE NOT SURE?! My whole world is turned upside-down, I
may as well end it all now!
was at the tapings of all pilots. Your question as
> to why they opened with the same dilemma each time is best
directed at Mr.
> Belinkoff or perhaps Mr. Mirkin. But just because you
didn't actually see the
> announcer, Amnesia, doesn't mean he wasn't there.
>
> > I'm not sure of his name, but I do know for a fact
> >> that he's an African-American and this was his first
game.
> >
> >As for him being African-American, NO DUH, but his
ethnicity
> >is irrelevant -- that you've chosen to make it so reveals
> >you for the bigot you are.
>
> No Duh? You obviously didn't see him, so your remark
means you assumed his
> race based on his voice. That makes you the bigot. I
chose to include that
> information as further proof that I SAW HIM THERE.
It is one thing to infer ethnicity by visual or aural
qualities, Fred, still another to make it an issue.
That's really the only way
> you can tell the color of someone's skin, right? Instead
you call me a bigot
> when you have the offensive and disgusting notion that all
African-Americans
> can be identified as such based on their voices. Sad.
>
> >> >THE SET
> >> >Another Jimmy Cuomo special
> >>
> >> WRONG. This was designed by Bente Christensen.
> >
> >Lessee, first, Randy West said that it was designed by
Jimmy
> >Cuomo, then, as the afternoon dragged on (and I do mean
> >dragged -- I've seen pilots done and in the can inside of
> >45-minutes), he mentioned that it was designed by Bente
> >Christensen.
>
> Lessee, first you come here and publically state that the
set was designed by
> Jimmy Cuomo and even take shots at him. Then I straighten
the matter out for
> ATGS readers, and you attempt to defend yourself by
quoting the warm-up guy?
> Face it, you're WRONG!
I'm merely identifying my source of information, which is
far more than you've ever done.
> >Well, MrGameShw, that's why I went back, to make sure I
was
> >accurate
>
> If that's why you went back, you did a horrible job, since
your statements are
> still WRONG!
>
> >But as for facts "as usual, not always correct,"
> >let's not forget your assertion that they'd be using a
> >newbie (to game shows) announcer on Feud, and then, when
you
> >were nailed, you suddenly back-pedaled that "it was true
at
> >the time.
>
> Nothing I stated was untrue.
So Burton Richardson is not and never has been the announcer
for Feud?
> And my sources are better than Randy West.
And these sources are...? Please MrGameShw, reveal your
wisdom, that we who are insignificant might serve You
better.
> >And then there's that To Tell the Truth thing...
>
> You mean your bold-faced lie that I said that Burton
Richardson would not be
> announcing To Tell The Truth? I never said that, and it's
pathetic that you
> know that and still can't own up to your misstatements.
You really do suffer
> from Amnesia.
You're really obsessed with that, aren't you? Well, sorry
to disappoint you, Fred, but I was referring to your claim
of having broken the news that Kitty Carlisle-Hart would
appear on TTTT.
> >and they used more wacky-ish lettering on the podium.
>
> WRONG! The lettering used on the podium was IDENTICAL to
that used on Friday
> evening. You think that just because you don't see the
Announcer that he's not
> there, but what's your lame excuse for this?
None at all. You are God, MrGameShw, please let me know how
i might worship You better. Please don't damn me.
> >And I
> >think they *added* a shark fin to the opening, but maybe
I
> >just didn't notice it Friday.
>
> You didn't notice it on Friday.
What did I just say?
Like you didn't notice the announcer. Or that
> the set was designed by Christensen. Or the lettering on
the podium. If you
> really have nothing better to do with your life than
attend game show pilot
> tapings,
Pot...kettle...black, Fred? Heh, imagine that, a game shw
fan going to see a game shw pilot being taped, how stupid.
at least get your facts straight. Oh, that's right.
There's nothing
> straight about you.
Nor you, Fred! But at least *I'm* out, while you're still
cowering in the closet!
> Anyone who cares to find out the truth should contact
Pearson or Card Sharks
> directly.
Oh, I'm certain they'll be an unbiased source of
information!
Amnesia can't be trusted, especially since when the truth is
pointed
> out, he continues to lie and defend himself.
"I can't be trusted. These aren't the 'droids we're looking
for."
Burton Richardson, Fred. The show's in trouble, Fred.
Who's got amnesia, Fred?
--
Randy "I have no life, I go see game shw pilots being taped"
Amasia
John
outcome of pretaped skits. You ask me, they're trying to get a TV-PG rating.
Why? The same reason the producers of THE GRINCH were trying to get a Movie-PG
rating.
T. Jay
>
> "Card Shark" <card_...@whoever.com> wrote in message
> news:zFyR5.986$Be3....@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net...
> make it
> > predominently,
> > > if not absolutely, like the original.
> >
> >
>
> Change, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Neither the
> TPiR nor the MG for which we hold ardor bear much
> resemblance to their respective antecendents.
However, the second reincarnations of both TPIR in '72 and MG in '73
were redone more or less by the same staffers who took great care in
keeping many of the elements intact in the new editions.
Pearson's attempts at Card Sharks from what I've heard from your report,
as well as Match Game '98 seemed to have changed too many of the
foundational elements, making them look like totally different shows
than their predecessors.
If you look at their current remake of Family Feud, they have reverted
back to the original Dawson elements (5 family members/team, no
Bullseye/Bankroll, 30 Minute show) and it became good enough to see a
second season.
And despite Paula Poundstone's obnoxious presence on TTTT2K, they also
reverted back to some of the original Collyer elements (no head-to-head,
audience casts the 5th vote), and it looks like it has a shot to see the
2001-02 season.
In short, if CS wants to have a chance to be picked up for next season,
Pearson should keep the Perry format intact (or at least the Eubanks
format), and maybe a little tweaking off of that and try not to turn it
into an Extreme Gong-type monster.
T. Jay
Steve Jeremiah [Marshall-]Williams-Soria (Jeremy Soria)
>Pearson's attempts at Card Sharks from what I've heard from your report,
>as well as Match Game '98 seemed to have changed too many of the
>foundational elements, making them look like totally different shows
>than their predecessors.
Things evolve. Not necessarily for the worse. As I said, they're going for a
Vegas-style atmosphere. And think about it, a card shark is someone who's
really good at playing card games like blackjack and poker. Why not
incorporate a blackjack game in an early round.
The last round seems to me like the one that's going to count. Note that
according to Randy's description, it is exactly like the usual main game from
the Card Sharks we all know and love, freeze bars and all.
>If you look at their current remake of Family Feud, they have reverted
>back to the original Dawson elements (5 family members/team, no
>Bullseye/Bankroll, 30 Minute show) and it became good enough to see a
>second season.
Bullseye/Bankroll lasted three seasons.
Also, in all of Ray Combs' versions of the Feud, the stealing family didn't
"huddle" and we didn't have an all-shouting-at-once-buzz-buzz-buzz affair once
the opposing team got three strikes - it was "Give me one answer to help the
head of your family".
They did restore the play/pass rule and made it more important with the
one-strike rule for the final Triple round.
>In short, if CS wants to have a chance to be picked up for next season,
>Pearson should keep the Perry format intact (or at least the Eubanks
>format), and maybe a little tweaking off of that and try not to turn it
>into an Extreme Gong-type monster.
Pearson wants a self-contained Card Sharks, not a straddling one. (Or at the
very least, if you all insist on straddling, make it a self-contained week,
like the syndie Match Game.) We'll see what happens with it soon enough.
- Jeremy Inhibitions? Leave 'em in the car. AUSTIN
NTRA - Go Baby Go! 3:16
--
"You're gonna yell... You get real quiet, then you scream and call us ladies."
"No... I'm gonna kiss you. And then I'm gonna lean in, very close, and talk,
yes, very softly. You see, that's even scarier, isn't it."
- Dwight meets pro wrestling coach Jupiter, "Nikki", 10/8/2000
Buddy, Andre, Kerry, Eddie, Gordon, Yoko, Flyin' Brian, Owen Hart ... Sigh ...
Pearson's Worst Nightmare
"T. Jay" <net...@ohio.net> wrote in message
news:3A1C3B...@ohio.net...
> Randy Amasia wrote:
> >
> > "Card Shark" <card_...@whoever.com> wrote in message
> > news:zFyR5.986$Be3....@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net...
> > > > If they're going to bring back CARD SHARKS, they
should
> > make it
> > > predominently,
> > > > if not absolutely, like the original.
> > >
> > > Indeed, too bad you don't work for Pearson :)
> > >
> >
> > Change, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Neither
the
> > TPiR nor the MG for which we hold ardor bear much
> > resemblance to their respective antecendents.
>
> However, the second reincarnations of both TPIR in '72 and
MG in '73
> were redone more or less by the same staffers who took
great care in
> keeping many of the elements intact in the new editions.
Excuse me, what elements? Prices? Matching? Neither of
these shows remotely resembled the earlier versions. And
it's second incarnation; first reincarnation.
> Pearson's attempts at Card Sharks from what I've heard
from your report,
> as well as Match Game '98 seemed to have changed too many
of the
> foundational elements, making them look like totally
different shows
> than their predecessors.
MG 98, save for scoring and one less celebrity, wasn't much
different from MG 7x. Except that Pearson hired themselves
a Scooter to provide them that much-needed negative PR.
--
Randy Amasia
John Sergent
That may be it.
John Sergent
If the show comes out matching its description then no, it doesn't.
John Sergent
>
> "T. Jay" <net...@ohio.net> wrote in message
> news:3A1C3B...@ohio.net...
> > Randy Amasia wrote:
> > >
> > > "Card Shark" <card_...@whoever.com> wrote in message
> > > news:zFyR5.986$Be3....@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net...
> > > resemblance to their respective antecendents.
> >
> > However, the second reincarnations of both TPIR in '72 and
> MG in '73
> > were redone more or less by the same staffers who took
> great care in
> > keeping many of the elements intact in the new editions.
>
> Excuse me, what elements? Prices? Matching? Neither of
> these shows remotely resembled the earlier versions. And
> it's second incarnation; first reincarnation.
>
just like contestants' row, only they kept bidding on more stuff? And
it has been posted that the questions in MG73 were of the same form as
the original? So they had to match 6 people instead of two, and the
contestants didn't get the same question.
Then again, it sounds like they're doing with Card Sharks much the way
they did PIR: Take what used to be the whole show, and build other
stuff around it for variety.
> > Pearson's attempts at Card Sharks from what I've heard
> from your report,
> > as well as Match Game '98 seemed to have changed too many
> of the
> > foundational elements, making them look like totally
> different shows
> > than their predecessors.
>
> MG 98, save for scoring and one less celebrity, wasn't much
> different from MG 7x. Except that Pearson hired themselves
> a Scooter to provide them that much-needed negative PR.
>
> --
> Randy Amasia
> http://www.geocities.com/randy_amasia
> and http://www.geocities.com/aidswall/
> and now http://www.moronionaire.com/
--
Happy Thanksgiving!
Mark J.
>Card Sharks Pearson Is Butchering up Game Shows.Like They Did With The
>Price Is Right.
As much as we may not like Janice, Kathleen and Alter getting the ax, we have
not seen any of the shows with the new models or Eskander permanently in the
director's chair. I have the feelilng that the Dec. 18 show will look, sound
and feel like the Dec. 15 show, only with two models inexperienced in "TPIR"
and a different director.
Mark Jeffries
A man who believes that Debbie Bartlett was much hotter than Jennifer Cole will
ever be...