Why can't gameshows to be 'jolly' anymore?

Why is it that gameshows have to take themselves so seriously nowadays? I mean, practically every gameshow on TV has ridiculous 'suspense' music, tiresome waits between the contestant putting in his answer and the answer actually being revealed, and the stupid, STUPID way that every contestant feels obliged to break down in tears whenever they lose.

The one exception is Countdown , but that's been running for a quarter of a century, so comes from the days when these gameshows were a lot more light-hearted. No doubt if it had been thought up today, the contestants would be standing in a darkened studio, with heartbeat tension music while the computer searches the dictionary for the word they've just entered. Of course, this would be while we all wither into skeletons on the sofa waiting for the answer.

I think Millionaire really started this trend in 1998, and almost every new gameshow since then has been unbelievably pompous, tedious and serious, even over poxy amounts of money like £5. Of course it's a bit different when you're dealing with millions and millions of pounds, but it's becoming far too clichéd for my liking.

You can even hear it in the theme tunes. The only time they feel 'happy' any more is when the contestant wins, at which point they feel obliged to jump around and look like an utter pregnant goldfish.

[/rant] anyway, that's how it seems to me. Your thoughts please.

Totally agree. Now BBC1 have even got in on the act with a derivative "psychological" game show in the former Murder She Wrote slot - and one that promotes dishonesty.

Sadly even Countdown isn't completely immune - is there any real need for the show to be 45 minutes when 30 sufficed previously, or has there been an increase in rounds?

The irony is this "psychological" element is ruining what could otherwise be good games in their own right. Oh for the days of Bullseye where Bully would come in if you didn't answer within five seconds. I don't want to know why the contestant is answering the way he/she is, or conferring with nearest and dearest in the audience - just answer the damn question FFS!

Deal Or No Deal might be watchable if the contestant had to decide which box to open immediately and we lost all that "good luck" rubbish from those opening their choice.

Think shows such as In It To Win It aren't too bad on the dramatic take. They do have alot of light banter and wit about them especially with Dale presenting.

Oh, don't get me started about that programme. It's daft twits jumping around going 'ooh, I'm on the telly!' before sobbing because of getting a question wrong and being hugged and kissed by Dale Winton (who simply scares me).

I honestly don't mind Countdown being 45 minutes long - in fact, I prefer it that way. And the most suspense that gets is when the lights are dimmed if there's a crucial conundrum.

I can't imagine how the 'open immediately' would work on Deal or No Deal though - open it in five seconds or Mr Blobby comes on and squashes you?

Wining Lines for the win,

Bring Strike it lucky so much fun!

"In it to Win it" irritates me because Dale has to ask the question so slowly, then check the answer is the one the contestant actually wants to give for about 5 minutes before revealing whether it's correct or not!! Add to that the fact that the questions are so simple the average 10 year-old could answer them, and they are "multiple guess" anyway, there is no suspense.

I prefer "Deal or no Deal". There is alot of banter with (and between) the players. They are there for a couple of weeks making it and they all get to know each other quite well by the time their game comes about. I have a couple of friends on facebook who've been on DOND and they've said all the contestants have a great time making the show - I think that comes across very well in the programme. Plenty of humour, but abit of suspense towards the end. A nice balance.

True DOND does have a good balance of drama and friendly nature

Completely agree re: In it To Win It. Always felt there is a good show in there somewhere, but it's slow pace completely ruins it with contestants saying they definitely think it's "B" - but then spending 5 minutes confirming it. The same with Eggheads.

It works for Millionaire, but many shows have been ruined by that practice in the last few years.


Deal or No Deal arguably goes too much the other way at times, deviating a bit much from the game into some sort of tomfoolery. The Ed and Pottsy romance the other day was very annoying.

Well, if you'd watched it any time in the past... five years... you'd know. Or is all the excercise you get from jumping to conclusions?

There's an extra set of letters' rounds, and a third numbers game.

Yes, not sure why they brought that back after weeks of not mentioning it. It was funny to start off with. I assumed that one had complained and it was quietly dropped, so it was odd to resurrect it for their games a couple of weeks later.

The running joke of Jean being the Banker's "bit on the side" was well played up to the end, as was the "Planet Joan" gag.

I simply cannot watch Deal Or No Deal, chiefly because the contestants appear so false. All this mock-camaraderie, coupled with the immense greed of so many that appear, puts me right off from the outset.

just don't mention golden balls