What went wrong with 1 vs 100? (part 1 of 5)

[Lingofan97]

Game play wise, if something changes on a show and I find it to be a benefit for the show, then I'm all for it. If I don't think it adds something good to the game, makes the show stand out better, makes the format go more smoothly, etc., then I won't care for it.

NBC's 1 vs. 100 is really one of the very small number of network primetime game shows in the past few years where I've actually enjoyed pretty much the entire run of the series, even with a couple of the changes that endured. I compare this show's run to other shows in that time frame like DoND where I grew tired of the show for various reasons, or flat out hot messes of attempts like Show Me The Money, Set for Life, and Who's Still Standing. It's a shame that a revival didn't work.

I get the whole "smoothing out the gameplay", since with some game shows it actually needed to be done with, take for example the first season of GSNs The Newlywed Game, and Chain Reaction. But sometimes rules of game shows change to much, like the bankroll / Bullseye rounds on Family Feud.

Still too bad NBC only gave 1 vs. 100 a limited number of episodes, while Deal or No Deal....

[phgellis]

OK; here's my challenge: Find me ONE thread in which the majority of the posters approve of a revival and/or change on ANY show. If you can, I'll concede the point. But my money says you won't find one.

[Lingofan97]

OK; here's my challenge: Find me ONE thread in which the majority of the posters approve of a revival and/or change on ANY show. If you can, I'll concede the point. But my money says you won't find one.

On the general forum go to the "game show revivals thread" (I forget exactly what its called) and it has a few hundred posts.

EDIT: Its called "Your ideas of game show Revivals" and it has a couple hundred posts.

[matchgame74fan]

People are pretty happy about $25,000 Pyramid in the Pyramid discussion thread and let's not forget that's actually a revival. The show was off the air for over a year before it came back in the fall of 1982. That version has a different theme music arrangement with no guitar riffs and no organs in play; set was a different color. Prepositional phrases no longer allowed in the bonus round like the original.

[Lingofan97]

People are pretty happy about $25,000 Pyramid in the Pyramid discussion thread and let's not forget that's actually a revival. The show was off the air for over a year before it came back in the fall of 1982. That version has a different theme music arrangement with no guitar riffs and no organs in play; set was a different color. Prepositional phrases no longer allowed in the bonus round like the original.

Those still arent huge changes like we experience on 1 vs 100, although I wouldnt consider changes from the NBC version to the GSN version as huge.

[matchgame74fan]

He said ANY revival with ANY change tho. And the fact that some people credit a show's demise to things like theme song changes. A few aggravated posters on a message board ≠ all of game show fans. If he didn't imply that the majority of game show fans can't accept new things because of simple difference than what came before, that'd be a different story.

OK; here's my challenge: Find me ONE thread in which the majority of the posters approve of a revival and/or change on ANY show. If you can, I'll concede the point. But my money says you won't find one.

You know, what I don't understand is why it's okay for you to call Carrie Ann's hosting on this show awful for your reasons; and let's be real: her style of emceeing let alone the fact that she was a completely different person was a CHANGE on this show compared to Bob Saget and his hosting on the NBC version. But when people say they don't like her hosting for some other reason, or they don't like the video mob or the prize budget for whatever reason, and even when there's some elaboration, then the fandom can't accept change simply because it's different.

I'm sorry but that's hypocritical.

[Lingofan97]

I still dont blame GSN for the poor hosting choice on this show. Originally, they were going to get Arsenio Hall but sort of at the last minute he jumped out on the deal. Buf im sure someone else was available for the hosting job too that was good for GSN but was either unavailable or $$$.

Im sure Inaba wasnt cheap either seeing her role onDWTS and the millions those judges make

[matchgame74fan]

Bob Saget did a great job as a host but I was willing to accept that someone else was going to come and host the show on GSN. I actually had faith in Carrie Ann; I really like her, and I was hoping that'd she'd improve over time. It was especially disappointing after watching her on other shows. I've seen DWTS in first run, for example. She has so much more viable energy and interacts with everyone so well elsewhere compared to her job here. I don't know if she was taking advice of producers or what, but whatever the case, the end result showed that she didn't work for me here.

[Lingofan97]

Bob Sagets hosting job actually surprised me in a good way. Saget actually carried the show well. Too bad GSN blew money on Improv instead of trying to get Saget, or giving him a better offer.

[Melyssa56]

OK; here's my challenge: Find me ONE thread in which the majority of the posters approve of a revival and/or change on ANY show. If you can, I'll concede the point. But my money says you won't find one.

Let's see how this one change to a game show goes: The introduction of the Star Wheel on Match Game 70s and PM. Vote early, vote often! LOL

[Lingofan97]

Let's see how this one change to a game show goes: The introduction of the Star Wheel on Match Game 70s and PM. Vote early, vote often! LOL

Let's not give GSN any more ideas for editing classic game shows.

[GeminiGirl24]

I'm a little to this party, but here's my two cents. I did not care much for the half-hour 1 vs 100, just as I didn't care for the half-hour version of Deal or No Deal. I think the main problem with both of those shortened shows was that contestants had to play pretty much the same games as the hour long versions for much, much less money. On 1 vs 100 the contestant still had to eliminate 100 mob members to win, but they racked up significantly less money in the process. I think I saw one contestant win $10,000 once, but most left with less than $5,000, even after eliminating most of the mob. Same with DOND. They only cut back the number of cases by one, to 25, but drastically lowered the top amount you could win plus they cut out more of the high money amounts, again resulting in the contestants leaving with very little money. They should've looked to the daytime, half-hour version of Millionaire. I thought ABC did a bang up job of shortening the show without cheating the contestants.

The video mob was less of a problem for me than the money, but I did prefer the live mob more. Carrie Ann was ok has a host, although I was so annoyed with how ridiculous the judging had become on DTWS, that I refused to watch the first run episodes of 1 vs. 100! I eventually watched the reruns, but was not very impressed.

[Lingofan97]

The ABC Daytime version for 1 vs 100 would work as you just mentioned. And all your other points I agree with.

The video mob was less of a problem for me than the money, but I did prefer the live mob more. Carrie Ann was ok has a host, although I was so annoyed with how ridiculous the judging had become on DTWS, that I refused to watch the first run episodes of 1 vs. 100! I eventually watched the reruns, but was not very impressed.

The video mob wasn't a problem, but some of the time Carrie Ann was. After some coaching, she could have been a better host, and not repeating the same thing as much. Looking back, I didn't think she was too bad of a host, but maybe I'll have to watch some of the episodes again