October 6, 2004
Chico: Anyway, we're back with what they call in China: Bald Freak and Scary
Fanboy Pummel Each Other.
Gordon: Or in this case, Accuracy or idiocy. Here's how the game works. We
give out a statement, and we decide if it's accurate or idiotic
Gordon: Here to argue is myself, Chico and Alex Davis.
Alex: I love idiotic things, perfect for me.
Chico: An example: People on Jeopardy! or Street Smarts, while smart, do not
have ready math skills needed to win. This can be said for any show with a
betting element. Accuracy or Idiocy?
Gordon: Ok - It's idiotic. Most of the Jeopardy players have to know their
skills, or they wouldn't be there. I think it's more based on pressure being a
factor than anything else.
Chico: So explain Street Smarts and to a certain extent, Balderdash.
Gordon: You need a Harvard professor with a PHD from MIT to explain the
betting system of Balderdash. I certainly don't blame the contestants for that.
Chico: "Elayne, can you give me some more time? I have to think about what
my opponent has for a bit!"
Alex: And Balderdash, people seem to forget that in the last bet is 2:1,
because you look for truth. People need to get use to that rule and bet
Chico: And that they have to bet half.
Gordon: Yeah - but that's the rules, not the contestant. Idiotic. I mean, how dumb is that - that they have to bet half.
What's the point of
showing up for the first three questions if the last question is going to decide
everything, regardless? Bad rules and bad games is a very good reason why to
yank your show from Prime Time. Don't blame the contestants for that.
Chico: Seems fair enough. Should be noted that said show is being yanked
from primetime, but as far as we know, it's only for Premiere Week of... well,
other shows. Including one with former Average Joe chick and long-time running
gag Larissa Meek.
Gordon: The shows are getting killed in the ratings. They need to be moved. It's not hard to get nailed in ratings for them. This is PAX. They
expect sucky ratings.
Chico: Agreed. It's Pax. It's a game show. It's a game show on Pax.
Expectations should be adjusted accordingly.
Gordon: But it's sucky, even for PAX. Idiotic.
Chico: Accurate. Pressure serves more than forgetfulness here.
Gordon: Don't hate the playa, hate the game
Chico: Let's move on. Next subject: Amazing Race. CBS says it's waiting for
a suitable time frame before they commit to airing it. But is that accurate or
just industrial strength smoke and mirrors?
Gordon: Do you want your cash cow on Saturday nights or Tuesdays? Accurate.
Chico: Sounds fairly accurate to me. You don't bite your nose off to spite
your face like ABC did with Millionaire, but still, you have to find something.
Alex: This is more of a tossup for me, but just to be in the majority,
accurate. Each and every day is equally important to networks, in my opinion.
They should work them both up.
Gordon: The ratings dictate otherwise. When you average a 12-17 rating from
Sunday-Thursday, and a 5-7 rating on Fridays and Sautrdays, then the balance is
Chico: You have to admit, Saturday is more of an uphill battle, because if
Joe Public is anything like me, they're out at the clubs or movies or what not.
Alex: Yeah, I am usually out on Saturday nights, so I really wouldn't know.
Gordon: You proved my point - you're not around on Saturday - and neither is
Chico: Okay, Gordon. Got one?
Gordon: Indeed I do - ESPN's Trivial Pursuit is a good game and deserves the
full-season renewal that it's going to get.
Chico: I'll have to admit, it's come a long way, but still has a long way to
go. Still to wit, pretty fun to watch. I'll say accurate and hope for the
Alex: ESPN is a blast to watch. It just needs a few tweaks.
Gordon: OK - I remember a few years ago when everyone was saying that the
Chair and The Chamber was going to be the next big thing and people were into it
just because they wanted a game show on the air. Well, I have to be the one to
say that... while we are hoping the same thing here, this emperor has no
clothes. The format is terrible, there is no interactivity with the team besides
the toss up question., I can run the board on a team without them having a
chance to stop me. What's the fun in that?
Chico: Isn't that the point?
Gordon: And then there's the Bonus Round, where I HAVE to win it to stay in
the game? Shouldn't this be a REWARD to winning the game?
Alex: That's why I said there is a really good game hidden under there, it
just needs tweaking. And anyway, it's not easy to run the board.
Gordon: There is no good game under there.
Alex: I beg to differ strongly, but OK.
Chico: And besides, it's more faithful to the original board game this way.
Gordon: You can't rate a show on the potential - you have to rate it on what's
Chico: Any good player can go one game of Trivial Pursuit without letting
anyone else play.
Gordon: And what's the fun, if I am another player, of sitting for there for
an hour watching someone else answer questions without being able to play?
We had to tweak Trivial Pursuit at our house for that reason
Alex: Not totally true. How about Match Game? I watched this first week
of MG 73 and it was very bland.
Gordon: Match Game only needed to make one minor tweak in terms of the
caliber of questions. This show needs a lot more than one change
Chico: Yeah, but you're not gauging by "player" standpoint, You're
just watching as viewer.
Alex: The fun is that I can sit and shout out the answers to the stupid
contestants. I can play along and answer the questions with the team, and that
is what I liked about it.
Gordon: Let's say you are ON the show. You lose the toss-up, then you see the
other team answer every question and after 10 seconds of playing, you get your Rice-A-Roni and are escorted off of the show. What's the fun or
interactivity in that?
Alex: You are going from a players stand point. I am going from an at home
standpoint. I couldn't give a crap about the contestants. I watch a game
show to play along and enjoy myself.
Gordon: But you can't rate a game strictly on watcher. You also have to gauge
it on the ability on getting contestants, and as a contestant, there's no way
I would want to be on the show as it is now. There should never be a game
where if you miss the first question, you have potentially no chance to get back
into the game. This game, as is, won't make it out of the season. Crap crap
Gordon: Next - America's Next Top Model is eliminating people based on lack
of a story and not on talent.
Alex: OK, I'd rather stick a rusty fork in my eye than watch this, but from
what I have seen on some of the weekly review shows like The Soup, they are
Chico: It seems like this one's more indicative of THIS season than of
previous ones. Example, you have the former stripper, the legally blind woman,
the unwed mother. Seems like everyone who doesn't have some sort of hangup is
on... the outside looking in, and I don't like it. However, it's not Like, Not
Like, so I'll say accurate.
Gordon: It's called editing. Of course you are going to have to give these
people a background story, or they aren't going to be interesting. I think
Magdalena should have gotten cut because she didn't want it as badly as the
women did. Leah had a great back story with her being raised on a farm and
trying to get out of her life - she's the woman who got a cow for her birthday.
Chico: Well, let's just say that I was trying out to be a model, heaven forbid.
Should I get preferential treatment because my dad ran out when I was 14 or
because I know how to shake it?
Gordon: I think all of the women could shake it. In that case, they wouldn't
have cut Amy, who has a better story than all of them but who was skinny as a
beanpole. You have people coming from different walks of life. Both Kelle and
Ann come from complete families. Each of them have a compelling story - even
Magdalena, who gave up medical school to do this.
Chico: But the original question... Talent or backstory, what matters?
Gordon: I don't see how you can argue that people are advancing because they
have better background stories. Idiotic. Of all of the women there on the
first episode, I think they kept the right people. There was no one there that I
thought shouldn't have been there.
Alex: I assume most of the people that watch this show just want to see the
chick's breasts, so UPN is probably doing more of a story for them. However,
to save myself from going to hell, the story does matter.
Gordon: Exactly. Everything matters - but everyone has a back story. Who
should have made the show that didn't?
Chico: Couldn't tell you...
Gordon: Well, there you go. Idiotic.
Chico: Okay, moving on... Something I said last week: with establishing a
respectable niche, then abandoning it for taking a risk on utter nonsense, TBS
is the new Fox. I cite upcoming series "The Mansion" and "He's a Lady" and past
series "Outback Jack", which, try as I might,
couldn't stick past once the nice schtick got old.
Gordon: Well, I don't see how sticking a show on Saturday mornings would be
taking much of a risk. As for the other shows, I don't think Outback Jack was
wonderful, but I don't think that they are abandoning their niche, as She's a
Lady and Gilligan's Island are certainly in the comedy genre. Idiotic.
Chico: Funny ha-ha or funny uh-oh?
Alex: It's turning out to be both.
Alex: For god sakes, they picked up Yes Dear. That is a heavy sign of
desperation. If I want to laugh, I'll watch Comedy Central and Adult Swim.
Gordon: We'll have to see it to find out, but it will certainly be comedic,
albeit intentional or unintentional. What happened to the Superstation with
Atlanta Braves Games, Starcade, Chuck Barris shows up the gill and the National
Chico: Long drawn out answer: still on, moved to G4, loss of interest, and
bought out by the WWE. Short... er answer: That ended with the advent of Saved By the Bell reruns.
Gordon: Darn you, Screech. Last one - Last Comic Standing should have
eliminated 2 comics at a time first, then one by one at the end - and then the
ratings would have been better.
Chico: I say idiotic, only in that I don't think ANYTHING could've helped
LCS. Should've left well enough alone.
Gordon: I say idiotic, but for a different reason. I thought there should
have been a completely different format. When I heard the battle of the comics, I wanted a real mano a mano,
loser goes home battle. You could have had the battles done like Star Search, comedians going up against each other and the audience voting.
Chico: But would it have helped ratings any? I mean sure the quality goes
up, but once you've lost the viewers, they're lost and gone forever..
Gordon: That definitely would have been more fun, and we could have seen
rematches like Bodden Vs. Heffron. I think it would have. The viewers were there
for the first few episodes, then they dropped like a rock. I would have been
out of there if I had to see Tere' Joyce on my screen week after week.
Gordon: Instead of leaving the weaker comics in week after week, you could
have dropped them all out in the first episode or 2 and left the 12 strongest.
Make the first episode a non-final 6 revenge, and have the 4 eliminated comics
in each group challenge a comic who's there. You let the audience decide, and
then you can do a comic version of American Idol with them, having to deal
with certain topics (like a roast) instead of us listening to their same work
over and over again. Instead, they tried to drag it out with comics that we got
rid of in the early episodes, when all they really wanted to see was the best
ones - and that cost them.
Chico: Right. So to close up... Idiocy.
Gordon: Yep - we've accurately ended this segment. What's next, Chico?
Chico: Next, we have Trios with our little happy trio here... then we finish
with the Big Finish. This is WLTI, stay right there!
(Brought to you by John Kenney's "So Who Voted For Dolly?" The story of a mechanical bull operator/model/pimp
daddy/smartest son of a gun since Robarino to play the game. Read the new
HERE to continue