|
Post by SpeedAndStrategy on Mar 11, 2015 6:58:18 GMT -5
He at least has more substantial TV hosting experience than Dylan Lane, with his experience hosting Live! and all. I'll reserve judgment. I do have a feeling they're going to go in the Harvey Feud/Engvall Lingo direction with the material, but we shall see.
|
|
|
Post by manekineko on Apr 20, 2015 0:42:42 GMT -5
I also heard word last night that there was a production meeting yesterday (2/5) on a gay game show that may or may not surface on GSN. Check back at GameShowNetworkNews later for that. you saw how well that worked with I've Got A Secret '06. Seriously, I wish these people would quit pandering and just make shows that are good. do you think anyone gave a damn about Paul Lynde on Hollywood Squares? No, and they didn't make a big deal about him. My honest opinion on Catherwood? The game will make or break him as a host. If they keep the format the way it is, it will be another turd. If they get rid of that stupid gambling round and just play a $400 per word game, that would make it successful.
|
|
|
Post by Mandoli on Apr 20, 2015 12:46:42 GMT -5
I also heard word last night that there was a production meeting yesterday (2/5) on a gay game show that may or may not surface on GSN. Check back at GameShowNetworkNews later for that. you saw how well that worked with I've Got A Secret '06. Seriously, I wish these people would quit pandering and just make shows that are good. do you think anyone gave a damn about Paul Lynde on Hollywood Squares? No, and they didn't make a big deal about him. You quoted a post that's more than two years old to complain about this? I don't care about people bumping old threads, but bumping threads to talk to someone from a few months ago (with no relevance to the actual topic) shouldn't be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by carpetcrawler on Apr 22, 2015 5:05:40 GMT -5
and they didn't make a big deal about him. ahahahahahahaha
|
|
|
Post by wildjackmonroe on Apr 22, 2015 6:41:16 GMT -5
and they didn't make a big deal about him. ahahahahahahaha Yeah, really, as much as I wish this was the case, let's not act as if no one in that time cared that Paul Lynde was gay. And there's also the fact that according to Buzzerblog, it was the cost of filming IGaS '06 that cost it from getting a season 2. Even with the $1,000 prize.
|
|
|
Post by caseyabell on Apr 22, 2015 7:38:44 GMT -5
"And there's also the fact that according to Buzzerblog, it was the cost of filming IGaS '06 that cost it from getting a season 2. Even with the $1,000 prize."
How did that show cost any money? The panel was hardly A-level talent. They couldn't have cost much. Dwyer couldn't have commanded big bucks, either. And as you note, prize money was practically nonexistent.
My guess is that the usual culprit did in the show: the Nielsen Company.
Anyway, I agree with a previous poster that the new Chain Reaction will get more off-color. You don't bring in Catherwood if you want a squeaky clean show.
|
|
|
Post by wildjackmonroe on Apr 22, 2015 8:02:09 GMT -5
I don't understand it either. There might have been some budget issues that no one knows about. But that was the reason that was stated and since it came from a reliable source, I'm inclined to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by thekid965 on Apr 22, 2015 9:54:13 GMT -5
I have a feeling that the show may have had a very low budget to begin with, and it ended up exceeding even that amount, which certainly wouldn't have made the bean counters happy no matter what. Add that to low ratings and you see the results.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Apr 24, 2015 16:40:15 GMT -5
to get back onto Chain Reaction, I like the set. It looks more vibrant. The old gsn version had a dark and gloomy set that made the show look like it had a top prize of $1,000,000.
|
|
|
Post by manekineko on May 8, 2015 23:31:44 GMT -5
you saw how well that worked with I've Got A Secret '06. Seriously, I wish these people would quit pandering and just make shows that are good. do you think anyone gave a damn about Paul Lynde on Hollywood Squares? No, and they didn't make a big deal about him. You quoted a post that's more than two years old to complain about this? I don't care about people bumping old threads, but bumping threads to talk to someone from a few months ago (with no relevance to the actual topic) shouldn't be allowed. I wasn't on the board for 3 1/2 months because of the overall treatment of me back in December. It was a new topic to me coming back. Not for nothing but given the fact you were ready to throw me off the board, I figured a break might have been in order.
|
|
|
Post by SpeedAndStrategy on May 10, 2015 18:51:11 GMT -5
Hollywood Junket has a preview of the new Chain Reaction up, and just as I and others suspected... I guess it's inevitable at this point that game shows will go for the types of jokes that Beavis and Butt-head find hilarious - hopefully they at least do this in moderation. Not too thrilled with the return of the betting round either. But Catherwood should be a more lively host than Dylan Lane, and it's probably for the better that they're abandoning the original bonus round in favor of something based on the main game. Interesting to see that they're keeping the budget low here - that makes me think is destined for the 6:30 PM slot where Lie Detectors recently bombed, rather than prime time.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on May 10, 2015 19:45:14 GMT -5
The bonus round in my guess will be a rehash of the edwards hosted. I really hope the banter that was at the end of Edwards version
|
|
|
Post by S_SweepFan3 on May 10, 2015 19:56:53 GMT -5
Hollywood Junket has a preview of the new Chain Reaction up, and just as I and others suspected... I guess it's inevitable at this point that game shows will go for the types of jokes that Beavis and Butt-head find hilarious - hopefully they at least do this in moderation. Not too thrilled with the return of the betting round either. But Catherwood should be a more lively host than Dylan Lane, and it's probably for the better that they're abandoning the original bonus round in favor of something based on the main game. Interesting to see that they're keeping the budget low here - that makes me think is destined for the 6:30 PM slot where Lie Detectors recently bombed, rather than prime time. Sigh, looks like Amy Davis is going to ruin another classic. The same thing happened with Lingo when Engvall hosted it and now it appears that Chain Reaction is following suit with the crude humor.
|
|
|
Post by WarioSajak on May 12, 2015 0:29:57 GMT -5
It's because of Family Feud, sad to say. it's probably for the better that they're abandoning the original bonus round in favor of something based on the main game. Hey, I liked Instant Reaction! Still, based on the (vague) description it seems to be a timed version of the Emmons/Edwards (1986-91) bonus round. Not too thrilled with the return of the betting round either. Oh, yeah, definitely. It was an unnecessary addition to the Lane version, and it's probably gonna feel unnecessary here. As for the article itself, it seems to suggest each episode will have a different "gimmick" for its teams. Be...cause battle-of-the-sexes worked so well on the Lane version? No. No, it isn't. Mainly because this reminds me a whole hell of a lot of the Lane-era players who tended to fall into the "head-slappingly bad" category...particularly that one chain in Season 1 where the teams couldn't figure out the last word even when it was literally completely spelled out in front of them! /ohandalsomy100thpost
|
|
|
Post by SpeedAndStrategy on May 12, 2015 4:30:31 GMT -5
Hey, I liked Instant Reaction! Still, based on the (vague) description it seems to be a timed version of the Emmons/Edwards (1986-91) bonus round. I liked it in the original version (and I loved Go!). But on the Dylan Lane version, they just couldn't make it work. So at this point, they might as well give up on it. That said, someone on another board said they could "confirm everything [about the report] except the bonus round". So who knows what we're really getting here?
|
|