RO
PLEASE! No more Paul Farrer or Marc Sylvan compositions, give us all a break and something different and refreshing for once! Lol
DE
Will Slater has also composed plenty of game show scores over the last 15 years, as has Dobs Vye - but I don't think either of them has composed *quite* as many as Paul or Marc. Would they do?
PLEASE! No more Paul Farrer or Marc Sylvan compositions, give us all a break and something different and refreshing for once! Lol
Will Slater has also composed plenty of game show scores over the last 15 years, as has Dobs Vye - but I don't think either of them has composed *quite* as many as Paul or Marc. Would they do?
SW
Well, I would agree that was the problem with the revived Celebrity Squares, but that was because when they extended it they introduced precisely one new round and the rest of the show was just the same round repeated several times, and in addition in the first episode one contestant won about three rounds in a row in exactly the same way with exactly the same celebrities. But that is not a problem with hour long game shows per se, that's a problem with Celebrity Squares being quite a dull format that doesn't really lend itself to an extended form unless you have a really great presenter who can make it sparkle (and Warwick Davis is a perfectly good presenter, but he is no Bob Monkhouse) or you add more to it.
But then back in 2001, they did a few half hour of episodes of The Weakest Link - https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbcone/london/2001-05-17#at-20.00 - presumably as it was easier to schedule, where they went down to seven contestants and cut the chat to a minimum. But they didn't work, because without all the jokes and the insults, it was really dull, and they didn't continue with half hour shows, presumably for that reason. Similarly, one of the problems with the first series of The People Versus was that it was painfully slow, so for the second series they sped it up massively. Did it help? No, because you didn't know anything about the contestants so you didn't give a toss if they won or not.
I know there are some formats that don't successfully stretch to longer than half an hour, but we don't know if that will be the case with Wheel of Fortune, so it's meaningless to slag it off in that regard.
I never understand the idea that light entertainment includes "filler" and "padding", as if it's some sort of chore to be got over with as quickly as possible. If you got rid of the chat you could play Pointless in about fifteen minutes, but what would be the point of that? I happen to enjoy the chat as much as I enjoy the quiz. Similarly the complaints Strictly is full of "filler" - the "filler" is dancing and talking about dancing, which is the whole point of the programme. It's no more important if the contestants get a 4 or a 9 than anything else on the programme, because none of it matters.
It's like going to see a pantomime and when they do the "it's behind you" routine, standing up and shouting "it's over there, hurry up!".
I think another issue with hour long gameshows, both old and new actually, is more often than not you just get the same round repeated multiple times rather than different rounds throughout the show. For some shows like Tenable and The Chase that makes sense, but others would benefit from more variation in gameplay.
Well, I would agree that was the problem with the revived Celebrity Squares, but that was because when they extended it they introduced precisely one new round and the rest of the show was just the same round repeated several times, and in addition in the first episode one contestant won about three rounds in a row in exactly the same way with exactly the same celebrities. But that is not a problem with hour long game shows per se, that's a problem with Celebrity Squares being quite a dull format that doesn't really lend itself to an extended form unless you have a really great presenter who can make it sparkle (and Warwick Davis is a perfectly good presenter, but he is no Bob Monkhouse) or you add more to it.
But then back in 2001, they did a few half hour of episodes of The Weakest Link - https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbcone/london/2001-05-17#at-20.00 - presumably as it was easier to schedule, where they went down to seven contestants and cut the chat to a minimum. But they didn't work, because without all the jokes and the insults, it was really dull, and they didn't continue with half hour shows, presumably for that reason. Similarly, one of the problems with the first series of The People Versus was that it was painfully slow, so for the second series they sped it up massively. Did it help? No, because you didn't know anything about the contestants so you didn't give a toss if they won or not.
I know there are some formats that don't successfully stretch to longer than half an hour, but we don't know if that will be the case with Wheel of Fortune, so it's meaningless to slag it off in that regard.
I never understand the idea that light entertainment includes "filler" and "padding", as if it's some sort of chore to be got over with as quickly as possible. If you got rid of the chat you could play Pointless in about fifteen minutes, but what would be the point of that? I happen to enjoy the chat as much as I enjoy the quiz. Similarly the complaints Strictly is full of "filler" - the "filler" is dancing and talking about dancing, which is the whole point of the programme. It's no more important if the contestants get a 4 or a 9 than anything else on the programme, because none of it matters.
It's like going to see a pantomime and when they do the "it's behind you" routine, standing up and shouting "it's over there, hurry up!".
BR
45 minutes is the obvious compromise but trickier to schedule, although in reality these almost exclusively air at the weekend now so no excuse really. Notable The Wheel was I think the first hour long game show commissioned by the BBC in some time - most recently have been 30-45 minutes.
PF
Maybe I'm in a very small minority here, but I couldn't give a toss about the contestants personal lives, and knowing who they are or the type of person they portray themselves to be in the 30 seconds of fluff before they start playing. I watch a show for the format and seeing the actual game being played. I don't care if its Sally from Yorkshire or Mark from Reading that's playing or what they do for a living or how funny and quirky they think they are to be on TV or if they are doing this for their dead family member... I just want to watch the games being played or the questions being asked. I wish shows would just get on with it. 🤷🏻♂️
TE
Presumably there won't be the usual spinning of the wheel with Covid regulations on sharing equipment.
MD
Except they can edit out the bits where they use sanitary sprays and wipes between spins
Presumably there won't be the usual spinning of the wheel with Covid regulations on sharing equipment.
Except they can edit out the bits where they use sanitary sprays and wipes between spins
DE
I'd argue that many of the changes made for the daytime series *did* help, regardless how much we were supposed to know about the contestants - obviously, the four-minute time limit to cover all five rounds, meaning more questions asked in each half-hour episode, and also most of the questions being straight general knowledge, as opposed to the primetime series' specialist subject frippery.
Plus Kaye Adams was noticeably better than Kirsty Young at building a warm rapport with each contestant - and how could one not like her rhyming couplets? "The higher the rounds, the greater the pounds."
The two things that hurt the daytime series more than anything else, however, were the Bong Game (worked on Chris Tarrant's Capital FM breakfast show, but who on earth thought it would work on a general knowledge TV quiz?) and the fact that it was opposite the Weakest Link. Adding obviously-canned applause midway through the run wasn't a good move, either - it worked perfectly well without audience noises of any kind.
Similarly, one of the problems with the first series of The People Versus was that it was painfully slow, so for the second series they sped it up massively. Did it help? No, because you didn't know anything about the contestants so you didn't give a toss if they won or not.
I'd argue that many of the changes made for the daytime series *did* help, regardless how much we were supposed to know about the contestants - obviously, the four-minute time limit to cover all five rounds, meaning more questions asked in each half-hour episode, and also most of the questions being straight general knowledge, as opposed to the primetime series' specialist subject frippery.
Plus Kaye Adams was noticeably better than Kirsty Young at building a warm rapport with each contestant - and how could one not like her rhyming couplets? "The higher the rounds, the greater the pounds."
The two things that hurt the daytime series more than anything else, however, were the Bong Game (worked on Chris Tarrant's Capital FM breakfast show, but who on earth thought it would work on a general knowledge TV quiz?) and the fact that it was opposite the Weakest Link. Adding obviously-canned applause midway through the run wasn't a good move, either - it worked perfectly well without audience noises of any kind.
NJ
There is a fine balance to strike on this. It depends on the game in question. Some formats lend themselves to little chat (Tipping Point for example you just say hey and off you go, and any filler chat is usually because the episode's run short, but that doesn't happen very often), and others just lend themselves to copious filler chat because the main format isn't full enough. Crystal Maze is the obvious example here, and in fact both incarnations fell into their equivalent camps - the original just got on with it and the revival didn't have enough "key material", so it was full of (in the words of Private Fraser) useless blather.
Strike it Lucky/Rich is probably an exception to the rule, as the main game is such a lousy format with absolutely no substance to it at all. But the only reason the show as a whole worked was because of the secondary role of the host, turning it into effectively ad-hoc stand-up comedy wrapped around the format. On its own played straight (as happened on the original version in the States), its as dull as ditchwater. Add somebody who's good with the public like Michael Barrymore was, and some eccentric contestants (and a totally off the wall revival a few years later) and you have something that's quite unique and ran for many years.
Neil Jones
Founding member
Maybe I'm in a very small minority here, but I couldn't give a toss about the contestants personal lives, and knowing who they are or the type of person they portray themselves to be in the 30 seconds of fluff before they start playing. I watch a show for the format and seeing the actual game being played. I don't care if its Sally from Yorkshire or Mark from Reading that's playing or what they do for a living or how funny and quirky they think they are to be on TV or if they are doing this for their dead family member... I just want to watch the games being played or the questions being asked. I wish shows would just get on with it. 🤷🏻♂️
There is a fine balance to strike on this. It depends on the game in question. Some formats lend themselves to little chat (Tipping Point for example you just say hey and off you go, and any filler chat is usually because the episode's run short, but that doesn't happen very often), and others just lend themselves to copious filler chat because the main format isn't full enough. Crystal Maze is the obvious example here, and in fact both incarnations fell into their equivalent camps - the original just got on with it and the revival didn't have enough "key material", so it was full of (in the words of Private Fraser) useless blather.
Strike it Lucky/Rich is probably an exception to the rule, as the main game is such a lousy format with absolutely no substance to it at all. But the only reason the show as a whole worked was because of the secondary role of the host, turning it into effectively ad-hoc stand-up comedy wrapped around the format. On its own played straight (as happened on the original version in the States), its as dull as ditchwater. Add somebody who's good with the public like Michael Barrymore was, and some eccentric contestants (and a totally off the wall revival a few years later) and you have something that's quite unique and ran for many years.
LL
Strike it Lucky/Rich is probably an exception to the rule, as the main game is such a lousy format with absolutely no substance to it at all. But the only reason the show as a whole worked was because of the secondary role of the host, turning it into effectively ad-hoc stand-up comedy wrapped around the format. On its own played straight (as happened on the original version in the States), its as dull as ditchwater. Add somebody who's good with the public like Michael Barrymore was, and some eccentric contestants (and a totally off the wall revival a few years later) and you have something that's quite unique and ran for many years.
France 2's Tout le monde veut prendre sa place has taken that element of Strike it Lucky/Rich where the host speaks to contestants for a prolonged period to pad it out as the actual format isn't very good with a touch of comedy.
It also helps that it's very cheap to produce as they film at least a weeks worth in a day, alas why it's on for at least 50/52 weeks per year.
London Lite
Founding member
Strike it Lucky/Rich is probably an exception to the rule, as the main game is such a lousy format with absolutely no substance to it at all. But the only reason the show as a whole worked was because of the secondary role of the host, turning it into effectively ad-hoc stand-up comedy wrapped around the format. On its own played straight (as happened on the original version in the States), its as dull as ditchwater. Add somebody who's good with the public like Michael Barrymore was, and some eccentric contestants (and a totally off the wall revival a few years later) and you have something that's quite unique and ran for many years.
France 2's Tout le monde veut prendre sa place has taken that element of Strike it Lucky/Rich where the host speaks to contestants for a prolonged period to pad it out as the actual format isn't very good with a touch of comedy.
It also helps that it's very cheap to produce as they film at least a weeks worth in a day, alas why it's on for at least 50/52 weeks per year.