"Raise The Dead" thoughts and notes
DrBear
including why "Raise the Dead' has never been used as a game-show title
COP OUT
First thought - Bedwetting jokes?
Why it didn't sell - Too many celebs, a very confusing and unfair scoring format.
Good points - Richard Dawson in good form, Lois Nettleton looking quite attractive.
Bad points - I know a lot of folks in ATGS like Geoff Edwards, but he was one of the weak points here. A game like this
needs more host-star interaction.
Possible changes - Cut the number of stars to four, two each with a connection (say carter-hovis of Hogans Heroes and
Farentino-Lee as a married couple). Have the star give their answer, the connected player guess cop-out (that phrase has
gotta go) or truth.
My wise wife says - "Not interesting at all."
GET RICH QUICK
First thought - Hello, Go!
Why it didn't sell - Robert Urich sucks as a clue giver. (And whatever happened to Lynnie Green?)
Good points - exciting end game which got you involved. The basic game was solid but the players needed practice.
Bad points - Who was that host? Steve Edwards? Imagine the game with, say, Dick Clark.....and an orange set.
Possible changes - Host, simplify the end game.
My wise wife says - "That was confusing."
SECOND GUESSERS
First thought -Let's all slouch!
Good points - Well, some of the hairstyles were a hoot....
Bad points - Where do I begin - tacky set, tacky audience, tacky prizes, tacky questions. Extremely tacky questions.
Makes "3's a Crowd" look like "Twenty-One" And the directing stunk; when the winner was decided, we get Jack and Brenda,
not the contestant excited about winning a tea set.
Possible changes - Erasing the videotape would be an improvement.
"My wise wife says - "I don't like this at all (at three different times)"
THe $10,000 SWEEP
First thought - Yeah! More miniskirts!
Good points - Well, you don't hear many contestants introduced as "artists who have dropped out of the system."
Bad points - Jack Clark. He kept trying to push the pressure - you MUST do this or lose... and was just annoying. And do
you think Stewart was pushing things a little by making the Peace Corps team big winners?
Possible changes - host, make the questions tougher, drop the "targets' for an unopposed question.
My wise wife says - "It's not fair they lose half their money if they're beaten. THey earned it."
DOLLAR A SECOND
First thought - WHo says Truth or Consequences is dead?
Good points - Well, the pie in the face "penalty" was cute.
Bad points - Bob Eubanks is no Bob Barker. And the whole show was set up to push players into the penalties; next time,
just make those the game.
Possible changes - Canyou raise the stakes and STILL be "Dollar a Second?"
MY wise wife says - "Are they showing that baseball game with the express written consent of the commissioner?"
TWISTERS
First thought - A better name for this one would have been "The Puck Stops Here."
Good point - Jim Perry did a good job as host. And the shuffleboard selector was pretty cool.
Bad point - The rest was warmed-over Jackpot, and that contestant who kept losing the final got on my nerves.
Possible changes - On the right day, this would have sold. Also a low-camera shot of the puck sliding wouldn't have been
bad.
My wise wife - went to bed.
SAYS WHO
First thought - Interesting set. (Which was done by Kathleen Ankers, a set designer at NBC, who appeared as the NBC
Bookmobile Library Lady and the Foul-Mouthed Chambermaid on Dave Letterman's Late NIght.
Good points - Fun for an "Ive got a secret" fan to see Betsy Palmer and Bill Cullen going against each other...Edwards
was better here than on Cop Out.
Bad points - confusing scoring, and a really weak bonus game.
Possible changes - Not worth it.
THE RIDDLERS
First thought - Y'know, Letterman's still doing the same schtick!
Good points -- Letterman, of course, a bit ahead of his time as a game show host.
Bad points - Too many players. The civilians were almost forgotten.
Possible changes - Remove the civilians and riddles, put Dave behind a desk and bring on the celebrities for
interviews.. Maybe he could read a list of 10 items or something.
And finally, a small salute to Game Show Network for packaging the whole thing with Elvira wraparounds. For a network
that has shown little imagination and less variety, this was something special and should be encouraged!
David Lynch
>Some scribbled thoughts during the GSSN 10-28 "Raise the Dead" Marathon...
With some of mine interspersed, on the premise that I've never seen anything
like it before.
>COP OUT
>Why it didn't sell - Too many celebs, a very confusing and unfair scoring
>format.
Agreed. It seemed like whoever got the last question won the whole game,
regardless of the rest of the show. I'd just make the correct answers +$100 and
wrong ones -100.
>GET RICH QUICK
>Good points - exciting end game which got you involved. The basic game was
>solid but the players needed practice.
>Possible changes - Host, simplify the end game.
The entire bit about having people alternate really bugged me, even if it was
the whole gimmick of the game. Have the civilian guess the answers to the
questions (the celebrities have spent years giving clues under pressure), and
eliminate the ringing of the bell and having to wait for a whole question.
Cut the endgame down to two people involved in any one answer, including the
answerer. As it was played, the middle person never gave any answers. Perhaps
each celebrity alternates giving the category and letter, then have the
contestant guess.
>SECOND GUESSERS
>Bad points - Where do I begin - tacky set, tacky audience, tacky prizes,
>tacky questions. Extremely tacky questions.
The weight one is tacky, but all of the other ones I've seen (the second airing
is currently on, and I missed the second half of the first) would have worked
as Card Sharks questions.
>THe $10,000 SWEEP
>Bad points - Jack Clark. He kept trying to push the pressure - you MUST do
>this or lose... and was just annoying.
He was apparently unaware of the possibility of both sides getting a question
wrong. (Some sarcasm implied.)
>Possible changes - host, make the questions tougher, drop the "targets' for
>an unopposed question.
The game is easy enough without the unopposed question. If the first-place team
hits a target number and has a commanding lead, it's probably enough to put the
game away.
>My wise wife says - "It's not fair they lose half their money if they're
>beaten. THey earned it."
And I agree.
>DOLLAR A SECOND
>Bad points - Bob Eubanks is no Bob Barker. And the whole show was set up to
>push players into the penalties; next time,
>just make those the game.
What I'd do:
- Start off with 3:00 of time on the game clock. (Note that this clock is
completely divorced from the Dollar-a-Second clock.)
- Ask the contestant(s) 5 true/false questions. Each correct answer is worth 1
minute of extra time on the game clock. Each incorrect answer results in a
deduction of a second.
- Play the game as normal, perhaps with a small bonus for each correct
response.
- During a penalty, the contestant is not acquiring any money, but the game
clock is still running.
>TWISTERS
>Good point - Jim Perry did a good job as host. And the shuffleboard selector
>was pretty cool.
...but it was pretty gimmicky. I'd just go for a plunger in the middle of the
set and PYL-style bouncing lights.
>SAYS WHO
>First thought - Interesting set.
Interesting choice of frontgame displays, too, with the vertical flip cards. I
wouldn't have bothered with something that intricate, just a set of lights with
"myself" and the other person's name for those telling the story, but the
flipping cards look pretty cool.
>Bad points - confusing scoring, and a really weak bonus game.
First of all, have the contestant give their answer BEFORE the celebrity does,
since the celebrity has a better chance of knowing if the answer being given is
about themselves than a celebrity.
REALLY weak bonus game, on top of confusing scoring. Part of it was the way
Geoff hosted it. Lose the cardboard with the quotes on it, maybe even make it a
simple yes/no choice.
>THE RIDDLERS
>First thought - Y'know, Letterman's still doing the same schtick!
"Our first item up for bids is this lovely garage door opener."
>Bad points - Too many players. The civilians were almost forgotten.
To be fair, the civvies barely got a chance.
>And finally, a small salute to Game Show Network for packaging the whole
>thing with Elvira wraparounds. For a network
>that has shown little imagination and less variety, this was something
>special and should be encouraged!
And a big salute to the fact that they gave up commercial time for Elvira's
bits, even though they were still running a bit long by the end.
megam...@my-deja.com
> >And finally, a small salute to Game Show Network for packaging the
whole
> >thing with Elvira wraparounds.
UGH!!! Talk about raising the dead... Elvira appears as if she's been
completely dethawed after several years of non-existence. I think the
Elvira bits were getting old after the first question was asked. I mean,
you can only take so much of those contestants screaming at being
"shocked". I understand that GSN was making fun of the game show pilots,
and the "Raise the Dead" premise was almost as corny as some of the
pilots shown. However, they were milking a gag that's not really very
funny to begin with.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Zach Horan
>First thought -Let's all slouch!
>Good points - Well, some of the hairstyles were a hoot....
>Bad points - Where do I begin - tacky set, tacky audience, tacky prizes,
>tacky questions. Extremely tacky questions.
>Makes "3's a Crowd" look like "Twenty-One" And the directing stunk; when the
>winner was decided, we get Jack and Brenda,
>not the contestant excited about winning a tea set.
>Possible changes - Erasing the videotape would be an
WHo was the packager for this one?
Joe Klemm
>
>including why "Raise the Dead' has never been used as a game-show title
>
>COP OUT
>First thought - Bedwetting jokes?
>Why it didn't sell - Too many celebs, a very confusing and unfair scoring
>format.
Agree with the scoring format. With the exception of good old Dickie Dawson,
the points went back and forth with the celebrities.
>Good points - Richard Dawson in good form, Lois Nettleton looking quite
>attractive.
>Bad points - I know a lot of folks in ATGS like Geoff Edwards, but he was one
>of the weak points here. A game like this
>needs more host-star interaction.
>Possible changes - Cut the number of stars to four, two each with a
>connection (say carter-hovis of Hogans Heroes and
>Farentino-Lee as a married couple). Have the star give their answer, the
>connected player guess cop-out (that phrase has
>gotta go) or truth.
Another agreement there. However, have a regular player as well and do it kind
of like Says Who?
>My wise wife says - "Not interesting at all."
>
>GET RICH QUICK
>First thought - Hello, Go!
>Why it didn't sell - Robert Urich sucks as a clue giver. (And whatever
>happened to Lynnie Green?)
>Good points - exciting end game which got you involved. The basic game was
>solid but the players needed practice.
>Bad points - Who was that host? Steve Edwards? Imagine the game with, say,
>Dick Clark.....and an orange set.
>Possible changes - Host, simplify the end game.
>My wise wife says - "That was confusing."
The concept does work, as seen with Go and the bonus round of Chain Reaction.
My bet is that it was somewhat ahead of its time.
>
>SECOND GUESSERS
>First thought -Let's all slouch!
>Good points - Well, some of the hairstyles were a hoot....
>Bad points - Where do I begin - tacky set, tacky audience, tacky prizes,
>tacky questions. Extremely tacky questions.
>Makes "3's a Crowd" look like "Twenty-One" And the directing stunk; when the
>winner was decided, we get Jack and Brenda,
>not the contestant excited about winning a tea set.
>Possible changes - Erasing the videotape would be an improvement.
>"My wise wife says - "I don't like this at all (at three different times)"
This is definitely a big clunker. It's no wonder it didn't make it out of pilot
stage.
>THe $10,000 SWEEP
>First thought - Yeah! More miniskirts!
>Good points - Well, you don't hear many contestants introduced as "artists
>who have dropped out of the system."
>Bad points - Jack Clark. He kept trying to push the pressure - you MUST do
>this or lose... and was just annoying. And do
>you think Stewart was pushing things a little by making the Peace Corps team
>big winners?
>Possible changes - host, make the questions tougher, drop the "targets' for
>an unopposed question.
>My wise wife says - "It's not fair they lose half their money if they're
>beaten. THey earned it."
Good concept. However, would have worked better is the cash at stake is more
that $10,000 (considering that it was easy to get $10K on some 1970's game
shows, including MG and the $10K Pyramid.
>DOLLAR A SECOND
>First thought - WHo says Truth or Consequences is dead?
>Good points - Well, the pie in the face "penalty" was cute.
>Bad points - Bob Eubanks is no Bob Barker. And the whole show was set up to
>push players into the penalties; next time,
>just make those the game.
>Possible changes - Canyou raise the stakes and STILL be "Dollar a Second?"
>MY wise wife says - "Are they showing that baseball game with the express
>written consent of the commissioner?"
IMO, it was a good pilot that I thought would work as a good weekly show. As
for the reason why it didn't make it as a regular series, my guess is that
networks didn't want to touch this after the diaster known as "Camelflouge".
>TWISTERS
>First thought - A better name for this one would have been "The Puck Stops
>Here."
>Good point - Jim Perry did a good job as host. And the shuffleboard selector
>was pretty cool.
>Bad point - The rest was warmed-over Jackpot, and that contestant who kept
>losing the final got on my nerves.
Agreed that it was a warmed-over Jackpot, but it was still exciting.
>Possible changes - On the right day, this would have sold. Also a low-camera
>shot of the puck sliding wouldn't have been
>bad.
>My wise wife - went to bed.
Another pilot that would have made a good game show. It could have been
possible if the pilot was made:
1. During the 1970's (This was made in 1982).
2. When USA was picking up Chain Reaction for its game show repeats line-up.
(With Twisters replacing the revival of Jackpot, though Jackpot was a good show
in the USA game show stable).
>SAYS WHO
>First thought - Interesting set. (Which was done by Kathleen Ankers, a set
>designer at NBC, who appeared as the NBC
>Bookmobile Library Lady and the Foul-Mouthed Chambermaid on Dave Letterman's
>Late NIght.
>Good points - Fun for an "Ive got a secret" fan to see Betsy Palmer and Bill
>Cullen going against each other...Edwards
>was better here than on Cop Out.
>Bad points - confusing scoring, and a really weak bonus game.
>Possible changes - Not worth it.
Good concept, though.
>THE RIDDLERS
>First thought - Y'know, Letterman's still doing the same schtick!
>Good points -- Letterman, of course, a bit ahead of his time as a game show
>host.
>Bad points - Too many players. The civilians were almost forgotten.
Also, I think David Letterman, though very funny even in 1977, was a little bit
too witty to keep control in this game show.
>Possible changes - Remove the civilians and riddles, put Dave behind a desk
>and bring on the celebrities for
>interviews.. Maybe he could read a list of 10 items or something.
That or simply get a host that can keep order in a game show while still being
witty.
Joe Klemm
DrBear
Who else on this marathon? Bob Stewart
Paul Duca
David Lynch wrote:
> raybea...@hotmail.com (DrBear) writes:
> >Some scribbled thoughts during the GSSN 10-28 "Raise the Dead" Marathon...
>
> With some of mine interspersed, on the premise that I've never seen anything
> like it before.
>
Same here...
>
> >COP OUT
> >Why it didn't sell - Too many celebs, a very confusing and unfair scoring
> >format.
>
> Agreed. It seemed like whoever got the last question won the whole game,
> regardless of the rest of the show. I'd just make the correct answers +$100 and
> wrong ones -100.
This show reminded me why I never really liked celebrity-driven shows. And
when you remember than James Farentino later got in trouble for abusing Michelle
Lee, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
>
>
> >GET RICH QUICK
>
> >Good points - exciting end game which got you involved. The basic game was
> >solid but the players needed practice.
> >Possible changes - Host, simplify the end game.
>
> The entire bit about having people alternate really bugged me, even if it was
> the whole gimmick of the game. Have the civilian guess the answers to the
> questions (the celebrities have spent years giving clues under pressure), and
> eliminate the ringing of the bell and having to wait for a whole question.
>
> Cut the endgame down to two people involved in any one answer, including the
> answerer. As it was played, the middle person never gave any answers. Perhaps
> each celebrity alternates giving the category and letter, then have the
> contestant guess.
Yes, the end game WAS interesting--if you want to drop to two, fine. I
also found it confusing that the contestant wasn't in the middle of the panel. I
spent several minutes trying to identify them, thinking THEY were celebs, too (and
wondering for whom they were playing)
>
>
> >SECOND GUESSERS
> >Bad points - Where do I begin - tacky set, tacky audience, tacky prizes,
> >tacky questions. Extremely tacky questions.
>
> The weight one is tacky, but all of the other ones I've seen (the second airing
> is currently on, and I missed the second half of the first) would have worked
> as Card Sharks questions.
Too many game elements--outside interviews, celebrity guest, audience
members.
I thought Jack Carter was the only good thing about...anyone with all that time on
the Borsch Belt can handle ANYTHING that comes up.
>
>
> >THe $10,000 SWEEP
> >Bad points - Jack Clark. He kept trying to push the pressure - you MUST do
> >this or lose... and was just annoying.
> He was apparently unaware of the possibility of both sides getting a question
> wrong. (Some sarcasm implied.)
>
> >Possible changes - host, make the questions tougher, drop the "targets' for
> >an unopposed question.
>
> The game is easy enough without the unopposed question. If the first-place team
> hits a target number and has a commanding lead, it's probably enough to put the
> game away.
>
> >My wise wife says - "It's not fair they lose half their money if they're
> >beaten. THey earned it."
> And I agree.
I don't think the "biggest cash money in daytime" claim is all THAT
impressive, when it takes four games to get $10 grand, AND it's divided by two
people.
>
>
> >DOLLAR A SECOND
> >Bad points - Bob Eubanks is no Bob Barker. And the whole show was set up to
> >push players into the penalties; next time,
> >just make those the game.
>
> What I'd do:
> - Start off with 3:00 of time on the game clock. (Note that this clock is
> completely divorced from the Dollar-a-Second clock.)
> - Ask the contestant(s) 5 true/false questions. Each correct answer is worth 1
> minute of extra time on the game clock. Each incorrect answer results in a
> deduction of a second.
> - Play the game as normal, perhaps with a small bonus for each correct
> response.
> - During a penalty, the contestant is not acquiring any money, but the game
> clock is still running.
>
> >TWISTERS
> >Good point - Jim Perry did a good job as host. And the shuffleboard selector
> >was pretty cool.
>
> ...but it was pretty gimmicky. I'd just go for a plunger in the middle of the
> set and PYL-style bouncing light
>
> >SAYS WHO
> >First thought - Interesting set.
> Interesting choice of frontgame displays, too, with the vertical flip cards. I
> wouldn't have bothered with something that intricate, just a set of lights with
> "myself" and the other person's name for those telling the story, but the
> flipping cards look pretty cool.
>
> >Bad points - confusing scoring, and a really weak bonus game.
>
> First of all, have the contestant give their answer BEFORE the celebrity does,
> since the celebrity has a better chance of knowing if the answer being given is
> about themselves than a celebrity.
>
> REALLY weak bonus game, on top of confusing scoring. Part of it was the way
> Geoff hosted it. Lose the cardboard with the quotes on it, maybe even make it a
> simple yes/no choice.
>
> >THE RIDDLERS
> >First thought - Y'know, Letterman's still doing the same schtick!
> "Our first item up for bids is this lovely garage door opener."
>
> >Bad points - Too many players. The civilians were almost forgotten.
> To be fair, the civvies barely got a chance.
That's because Letterman's interaction with the celebs was so good...he
brought them out and made them funnier ("Don't give ME line readings, lady!"). I
really think that Dave could have made a real impact if he had gone the game show
route--maybe even reinvigorated the genre.
>
> >And finally, a small salute to Game Show Network for packaging the whole
> >thing with Elvira wraparounds. For a network
> >that has shown little imagination and less variety, this was something
> >special and should be encouraged!
>
> And a big salute to the fact that they gave up commercial time for Elvira's
> bits, even though they were still running a bit long by the end.
Here, here!
Paul Duca
Jake Tanner
wrote:
>And a big salute to the fact that they gave up commercial time for Elvira's
>bits, even though they were still running a bit long by the end.
Running a bit long? They were nearly an hour overtime! Of course, it
worked perfectly with the time change. Let's also give GSN the big
thumbs-up for not messing up the end credits on any of the pilots!
Jake
Don Del Grande
> Some scribbled thoughts during the GSSN 10-28 "Raise the Dead" Marathon...
> including why "Raise the Dead' has never been used as a game-show title
Try finding a format that you could use at, say, Christmas (or around
Easter without getting a lot of letters from religious types) that
would fit the title.
> COP OUT
> First thought - Bedwetting jokes?
My first thought was "Larry Hovis is smoking through the entire show".
(Note that it was after the cigarette commercial ban had started.) Of
course, you don't see that now, mainly because smoking in studios is
pretty much illegal.
> Why it didn't sell - Too many celebs, a very confusing and unfair scoring format.
As already mentioned, the problem is that the first seven questions
are meaningless, except to decide who controls the final (and paying)
question.
> GET RICH QUICK
> First thought - Hello, Go!
> Why it didn't sell - Robert Urich sucks as a clue giver. (And whatever happened to Lynnie Green?)
According to "The Complete Directory to Prime-Time Network and Cable
TV Shows", "On Our Own" (which lasted one season) was her only regular
series. The Internet Movie Database lists her most recent TV/Movie
appearance in 1995. But then again, what was JM J. Bullock in after
"Too Close for Comfort"?
> Possible changes - Host, simplify the end game.
How about getting rid of the "string of lights" timing system?
Digital count-up / count-down timers had been used before - on
"Showoffs", for example.
> SECOND GUESSERS
> Possible changes - Erasing the videotape would be an improvement.
Was this meant to be a nationally syndicated show? (Maybe they could
sell the idea to different stations, the way "Dialing for Dollars" was
handled.)
Also, they acted as if the Jack Clark segments were live, but that
would mean the Seaquarium is located somewhere inside Miami Airport.
> THe $10,000 SWEEP
> My wise wife says - "It's not fair they lose half their money if they're beaten. THey earned it."
Could the players stop after any win and keep what they had? If not,
it made no sense to use the "doubled" values - they should just say
$500 for one win, $1500 for two, $3000 for three.
> DOLLAR A SECOND
> the whole show was set up to push players into the penalties; next time, just make those the game.
Well, the longer you avoid the penalty, the more money you make.
Maybe use the question-and-answer system used in the most recent
version of "The Joker's Wild"?
> TWISTERS
> Bad point - The rest was warmed-over Jackpot, and that contestant who kept losing the final got on my nerves.
I would have liked to see how a "car" question worked. Would it have
been THAT hard to put magnets under the board? You never do see the
puck come to a stop very closely. (And something tells me that's just
what they did, just to make sure they could get a second end game in
before the end.)
Question: did anybody other than NBC use the "square digits" clock in
game shows? (CBS had one back then, but it was pretty much limited to
sports, like track/swimming meets.)
> SAYS WHO
> Bad points - confusing scoring, and a really weak bonus game.
I liked the end game, although they should have showed the other
answers when the contestant got one right. (How many funny answers
were ignored because of this?)
> THE RIDDLERS
> First thought - Y'know, Letterman's still doing the same schtick!
> Good points -- Letterman, of course, a bit ahead of his time as a game show host.
> Bad points - Too many players. The civilians were almost forgotten.
> Possible changes - Remove the civilians and riddles, put Dave behind a desk and bring on the celebrities for
> interviews.. Maybe he could read a list of 10 items or something.
And have Edwin Newman read the news every half-hour or so? (Which
actually happened on Dave's daytime show.)
----------------------------------------------
Don Del Grande, del_g...@netvista.net
And there's only one word for Elvira's appearances: Shocking
Jason Compton
: First thought - Bedwetting jokes?
They were pretty funny, I thought. :)
: Why it didn't sell - Too many celebs, a very confusing and unfair scoring format.
: Bad points - I know a lot of folks in ATGS like Geoff Edwards, but he was one of the weak points here. A game like this
: needs more host-star interaction.
I thought he did as well as he could, given your "why it didn't sell"
reason: had he yukked around with the celebrities, there would have been
no time left for what little game was actually present.
: TWISTERS
: First thought - A better name for this one would have been "The Puck Stops Here."
<laugh>
: Bad point - The rest was warmed-over Jackpot, and that contestant who kept losing the final got on my nerves.
But that could well happen on a real show. The advantage of the "Bob
Stewart Week-Long Gallery Of Contestants" format is that you get to see
personalities develop, something that Sande and Todd Newton have done a
very good job of cultivating on Hollywood Showdown.
: Possible changes - On the right day, this would have sold. Also a low-camera shot of the puck sliding wouldn't have been
: bad.
Or an overhead shot every now and then.
: And finally, a small salute to Game Show Network for packaging the whole thing with Elvira wraparounds. For a network
: that has shown little imagination and less variety, this was something special and should be encouraged!
And might I add to all the naysayers that GSN did NOT split-screen the
credits? They may not ALWAYS care what the hardcore fans think, or at
least may not always be willing to accommodate, but I think everyone who
said "f'n GSN is just going to f'n ruin everything again" should feel
properly shamed.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
RMK
Don Del Grande wrote:
> According to "The Complete Directory to Prime-Time Network and Cable
> TV Shows", "On Our Own" (which lasted one season) was her only regular
> series. The Internet Movie Database lists her most recent TV/Movie
> appearance in 1995. But then again, what was JM J. Bullock in after
> "Too Close for Comfort"?
>
"Hollywood Squares", "The Jm J and Tammy Fae Show", "Match Game '98"
Elvira did a good job hosting...is this the first time they've had a
non-game show associated person host a special event on GSN? I wonder if
she'd make a good Vanna White to the Inquizitor's Pat Sajak..:)
Was there another show that used the misleading question starts
gimmic "Twister" used <i.e. 'What General.........Electric owned network
broadcasts "Love, Sidney" and "Late Night with David Letterman"'>. It
seemed familiar, but I can't place where I may have seen it before.
Jason Compton
: Cut the endgame down to two people involved in any one answer, including the
: answerer. As it was played, the middle person never gave any answers. Perhaps
: each celebrity alternates giving the category and letter, then have the
: contestant guess.
The roles should have been fixed and predetermined, ideally with the
contestant always giving the actual answer, but the way they tried to
bounce it back and forth just didn't work. At least it wasn't the Double
Talk endgame, which I was afraid it was going to be when I saw the little
flippy boxes in a row...
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
Richard Hudson
>: TWISTERS
>: First thought - A better name for this one would have been "The Puck Stops
>Here."
>
><laugh>
>
>: Bad point - The rest was warmed-over Jackpot, and that contestant who kept
>losing the final got on my nerves.
>
Hey, most of Stewart's shows were "warmed-over" somethingIt just proves that
his formats usually work eventually.
>
>But that could well happen on a real show. The advantage of the "Bob
>Stewart Week-Long Gallery Of Contestants" format is that you get to see
>personalities develop, something that Sande and Todd Newton have done a
>very good job of cultivating on Hollywood Showdown.
>
Now if GSN could get a good host and hire
Sande Stweart to produce the show Id' love to see a new version of Twisters on
the air.
Richard Hudson
Oriole Adams
>
>According to "The Complete Directory to Prime-Time Network and Cable
>TV Shows", "On Our Own" (which lasted one season) was her only regular
>series. The Internet Movie Database lists her most recent TV/Movie
>appearance in 1995.
I actually used to watch "On Our Own" 'way back when.....Bess Armstrong was the
other star, IIRC. In any case, if you ever watch "Golden Girls" (always in
reruns on a "Lifetime" network near you!), Lynnie Green plays a young Dorothy
whenever they have a flashback sequence, and she has Bea Arthur's mannerisms
and manner of speaking down pat.
RMK
I remember that show too...they worked in an advertising agency, and
a pre-Designing Woman Dixie Carter played a character named April. I
guess that's why I never make the cut on TVLand's Ultimate Fan
tryouts...I know things like this, but couldn't tell you a thing about
"Alley MacBeal".
Zach Horan
>
>My first thought was "Larry Hovis is smoking through the entire show".
>(Note that it was after the cigarette commercial ban had started.)
This was done in the early 70s, and the stars were smoking on MG7x through the
Daily Syndicated run.
Zach Horan
>"Too Close for Comfort"?
He did Hollywood Squares through 1989, I think Too Close ended its daily
syndicated run in 1986-87. He also did the Jm. J and Tammy Faye show in
Syndication a few years ago.
T. Jay
> Was there another show that used the misleading question starts
> gimmic "Twister" used <i.e. 'What General.........Electric owned network
> broadcasts "Love, Sidney" and "Late Night with David Letterman"'>. It
> seemed familiar, but I can't place where I may have seen it before.
I thought Twisters was the best show out of the bunch. And Jim Perry was
a perfect match for that show -- no matter if it was similar to Jackpot.
In answer to your quiery, I almost want to say that after shooting the
pilot, they tinkered around with this idea a little more and came up
with Your Number's Up.
Instead of What General...., they went with What 'G'....
T. Jay
Andy Averill
> SAYS WHO
> First thought - Interesting set. (Which was done by Kathleen Ankers, a set
designer at NBC, who appeared as the NBC
> Bookmobile Library Lady and the Foul-Mouthed Chambermaid on Dave
Letterman's Late NIght.
> Good points - Fun for an "Ive got a secret" fan to see Betsy Palmer and
Bill Cullen going against each other...Edwards
Possible alt.showbiz.gossip cross-post: Did Bill Cullen and Betsy Palmer
have an affair? I'm pretty sure I heard her imply that when they were on
some show together. Bill did not pursue the topic....
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Steve Jeremiah [Marshall-]Williams-Soria (Jeremy Soria)
>RMK wrote:
>
>> Was there another show that used the misleading question starts
>> gimmic "Twister" used <i.e. 'What General.........Electric owned network
>> broadcasts "Love, Sidney" and "Late Night with David Letterman"'>. It
>> seemed familiar, but I can't place where I may have seen it before.
>In answer to your quiery, I almost want to say that after shooting the
>pilot, they tinkered around with this idea a little more and came up
>with Your Number's Up.
Didn't they use the exact same idea for "Sports on Tap" way back in the '90s?
- Jeremy - BC2K 11/4 CD - AUSTIN
Vote GREEN on Nov. 7 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 ...
David Lynch
of "Get Rick Quick" under "Cameras." Surely it's not *THAT* Gene Wood?
Curt Alliaume
>I thought Twisters was the best show out of the bunch. And Jim Perry was
>a perfect match for that show -- no matter if it was similar to Jackpot.
To be truthful, I didn't think the format for Twisters was any better or worse
than Get Rich Quick (whose front game was Go and whose end game, although never
used on a series, was pretty decent). The difference was Perry -- having
actually hosted a game show regularly before this one made all the difference
in the way he handled the game and himself in front of the camera. (I should
note Get Rich Quick had some very weak celebrities. No wonder we never saw
John Ritter on game shows.)
Of the others, Geoff Edwards didn't host a series until 1973 (Cop Out was from
1972 and Says Who? from 1971), Steve Edwards, Jack Carter, and David Letterman
never hosted a series, and Jack Clark only did three episodes of 100 Grand and
a few substitute runs on Password. (Of course, Eubanks had 15 years of
experience coming into Dollar a Second, but some things are beyond saving.)
-- Curt Alliaume
----------------------
Game Shows '75
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Bungalow/2827/gameshow.html
EPaddon
>a few substitute runs on Password
He also was a frequent sub for Bill on TPIR during the ABC daytime years,
including a four week stint in early 1965.
Eric Paddon
DrBear
>>
>>: TWISTERS
>Now if GSN could get a good host and hire
>Sande Stweart to produce the show Id' love to see a new version of Twisters on
>the air.
>
>Richard Hudson
Good heavens ...what if these were disguised pilots for future GSN shows after it loses Goodson-Todman?
It's the all new....SECOND GUESSERS! And here's your host, Frank Edwards!
Steve Jeremiah [Marshall-]Williams-Soria (Jeremy Soria)
>And might I add to all the naysayers that GSN did NOT split-screen the
>credits? They may not ALWAYS care what the hardcore fans think, or at
>least may not always be willing to accommodate, but I think everyone who
>said "f'n GSN is just going to f'n ruin everything again" should feel
>properly shamed.
Now, if only they can leave the closing credits alone for every other
legitimate game show they air.
I stop tape and prepare to record the next show right after Dick Clark says
"So long" on Pyramid. If GSN isn't going to air ticket plugs, fee plugs, and
prize plugs, why can't they spend the money to at least edit them out and put
the two pieces back together instead of interrupting for more commercials or
rubber-stamping their "write to GSN" message over those elements?
Brett A. Pasternack
> >DOLLAR A SECOND
> >First thought - WHo says Truth or Consequences is dead?
> >Good points - Well, the pie in the face "penalty" was cute.
> >Bad points - Bob Eubanks is no Bob Barker. And the whole show was set up to
> >push players into the penalties; next time,
> >just make those the game.
> >Possible changes - Canyou raise the stakes and STILL be "Dollar a Second?"
> >MY wise wife says - "Are they showing that baseball game with the express
> >written consent of the commissioner?"
>
> IMO, it was a good pilot that I thought would work as a good weekly show.
Wow, you *liked* that? I mean, we're talking about a game show where the
*object* of the game is *for time to pass*. Oooooh. Everything else was
just filler, at the heart of it, and not very entertaining filler. And
the only real "game" is guessing whether the "outside event" will end in
the next segment, but since the outside events are actually phony
anyway, even that is just pure luck.
Ugh. I thought the show was horrible (or could you figure that out
already? B^)
RMK
thanks. :) If not revive "Twisters" in total, some packager should do a
new show with this type of question. With a good mixture of hard qs that
seem easy, easy qs that seem hard, and qs that seem to be exactly what
they are, you would add an automatic level of interest no matter what
the format. Maybe even "Dollar a Second" would work with these qs in the
main game <and no robots>.
> >RMK wrote:
> >
> >> Was there another show that used the misleading question starts
> >> gimmic "Twisters" used <i.e. 'What General.........Electric owned network
> >> broadcasts "Love, Sidney" and "Late Night with David Letterman"'>. It
> >> seemed familiar, but I can't place where I may have seen it before.
>
> Didn't they use the exact same idea for "Sports on Tap" way back in the '90s?
>
Fred McKinney
<39fc5554....@news.earthlink.net>:
Given the success of Pyramid and some other minor successes, I'm surprised
he had so many ideas for game shows that didn't go anywhere
Doug
call...@aol.comnospam (Curt Alliaume) wrote:
> In article <39FCB5...@ohio.net>, "T. Jay" <net...@ohio.net>
writes:
was from
> 1972 and Says Who? from 1971), Steve Edwards, Jack Carter, and David
Letterman
> never hosted a series, and Jack Clark only did three episodes of 100
Grand and
> a few substitute runs on Password. (Of course, Eubanks had 15 years
of
> experience coming into Dollar a Second, but some things are beyond
saving.)
I know you were talking about about game shows only, but I believe
Steve Edwards co-hosted AM CHICAGO on WLS-TV with Sandi Freeman before
Robb Weller took over (AM CHICAGO now better known as OPRAH). Also,
weren't there rumblings that a Steve Edwards-hosted syndicated run of
SCRABBLE was going to happen before NBC opted to revive it in 1993?
As for my own opinion on the marathon, I also enjoyed TWISTERS and
thought it might do well as a series. Is it safe to assume that since
it was done at NBC Burbank that NBC had commissioned the pilot for
daytime airing (since they were doing so well with their primarily soap
line-up in 1982)? I wouldn't think syndication would have made a big
play for the show since it wasn't established, and it was rare in those
days for a network show not to tape at its own facility.
Doug
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Zinkin
wrote:
> Also, weren't there rumblings that a Steve Edwards-hosted syndicated
> run of SCRABBLE was going to happen before NBC opted to revive it in
> 1993?
Yes -- I distinctly recall seeing ads for it in issues of Broadcasting
magazine around that time. (Not sure when the name of the magazine
switched to its current incarnation, Broadcasting & Cable.)
-- DZ
--
My home page is at http://www.davidzinkin.com
Proud member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and the ATGS Freedom Brigade
VOTE BUSH/CHENEY THIS NOVEMBER!
Jim Ellwanger
<dzinkin2-4F3694...@news-server.rochester.rr.com>, David
Zinkin <dzin...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <8tkar9$qil$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Doug <sri...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Also, weren't there rumblings that a Steve Edwards-hosted syndicated
> > run of SCRABBLE was going to happen before NBC opted to revive it in
> > 1993?
>
> Yes -- I distinctly recall seeing ads for it in issues of Broadcasting
> magazine around that time. (Not sure when the name of the magazine
> switched to its current incarnation, Broadcasting & Cable.)
1993, when they also stopped using the front cover as advertising space.
--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com>
<http://trainman1.home.mindspring.com/> keeps picking up steam.
"Hats off to the New Age hairstyle made of bones."
cast...@aol.com
After watching the Bob Stewart pilots, you really realize how much this
man loved to recycle his game show themes. I mean 2 shows in a row had
the same theme for crying out loud! (Second Guessers and $10,000
Sweep), and I believe that theme was used on a Bob Stewart game show
that actually made it on the air. I believe "Three On A Match"
or "Personality". Not to mention the SFTS/Jackpot '85 theme used on
the "Twisters" pilot.
Paul
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> In article <39fc61fa...@news.pacbell.net>,
> jata...@pacbell.net (Jake Tanner) wrote:
> > On 29 Oct 2000 05:40:54 GMT, dlwxa...@aol.com-nospam (David Lynch)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >And a big salute to the fact that they gave up commercial time for
> Elvira's
> > >bits, even though they were still running a bit long by the end.
> >
> > Running a bit long? They were nearly an hour overtime! Of course, it
> > worked perfectly with the time change. Let's also give GSN the big
> > thumbs-up for not messing up the end credits on any of the pilots!
> >
> > Jake
>
> After watching the Bob Stewart pilots, you really realize how much this
> man loved to recycle his game show themes. I mean 2 shows in a row had
> the same theme for crying out loud! (Second Guessers and $10,000
> Sweep), and I believe that theme was used on a Bob Stewart game show
> that actually made it on the air.
Yeah, but why not? You've commisioned a theme, presumably the pilot
didn't fail because of the theme--if you think it's a good theme, keep
using it until it gets paired up with an idea that sells.
Zach Horan
>weren't there rumblings that a Steve Edwards-hosted syndicated run of
>SCRABBLE was going to happen before NBC opted to revive it in 1993?
>
Yes indeed. A 1990 issue of TV Guide indicated that Scrabble was to be one of
the few game show offerings for sale at the 1991Natpe Syndicators Convention.
The 1991 Fall preview issue indicated Scrabble would be making a comeback on
USA, hosted by Steve Edwards, when it turned out to be reruns of the 80s
version.
> (since they were doing so well with their primarily soap
>line-up in 1982)?
NBC was in third place in 1982 Daytime, as it had been for several years prior
and has been since. Their big move in 1982 was purging all game shows from
Daytime(Except for WOF, and adding Fantasy in the 3-4PM time slot, which did
have a lot of game show elements), and grabbing Search for Tomorrow after CBS
axed it, and moving Texas to 11AM EST, and airing Chips reruns at 3PM that
Summer.
Doug
well" with the primarily soap line-up, and I did recall that WoF and
DIFF'RENT STROKES were the only non-soap offerings offered once
BLOCKBUSTERS, PASSWORD PLUS and BATTLESTARS were all axed. I hadn't
realized that CHiPS was tabbed for NBC daytime duty, though. I guess I
lost interest in NBC after they canned CARD SHARKS, not to mention that
I was still in high school and was still about a year away from my
first VCR (I think I got it about a month or so after $oTC, HIT MAN and
JUST MEN premiered).
Paul Duca
RMK wrote:
> Oriole Adams wrote:
> >
> > >(And whatever happened to Lynnie Green?)
> > >
> > >According to "The Complete Directory to Prime-Time Network and Cable
> > >TV Shows", "On Our Own" (which lasted one season) was her only regular
> > >series. The Internet Movie Database lists her most recent TV/Movie
> > >appearance in 1995.
> >
> > I actually used to watch "On Our Own" 'way back when.....Bess Armstrong was the
> > other star, IIRC. In any case, if you ever watch "Golden Girls" (always in
> > reruns on a "Lifetime" network near you!), Lynnie Green plays a young Dorothy
> > whenever they have a flashback sequence, and she has Bea Arthur's mannerisms
> > and manner of speaking down pat.
I didn't realize that until now...
>
>
> I remember that show too...they worked in an advertising agency, and
> a pre-Designing Woman Dixie Carter played a character named April. I
> guess that's why I never make the cut on TVLand's Ultimate Fan
> tryouts...I know things like this, but couldn't tell you a thing about
> "Alley MacBeal".
I made the cut in Boston, but got beaten by the buzzer in the semi-finals.
I watched OUR ON OWN, as well...I still remember the theme song.
"We've got a way at looking at life that's really great
A certain way of feeling life is fine
Put it all together
Take a look and see
We've found a way, we're on the way
We're On Our Own!"
Paul Duca
Mark J.
>One other thing that I noticed... there was a Gene Wood listed in the credits
>of "Get Rick Quick" under "Cameras." Surely it's not *THAT* Gene Wood?
In 1977, our Gene Wood was doing something at ABC (where the "Get Rich Quick!"
pilot was shot for the network, most likely), but not running cameras in New
York--he was stepping up to a mike at Prospect and Talmadge in Hollywood and
saying, "It's time for the 'Family Feud!'..."
Mark Jeffries
Vote for Frank, the RIGHT! choice in 2000. WOW! Frank2K!
KeithD1282
>He also was a frequent sub for Bill on TPIR during the ABC daytime years,
>including a four week stint in early 1965.
He was also the host of the 1970s syndicated game shows "Dealer's Choice"
(1974-75) and the original version of "The Cross Wits" (1975-80).