“Match Game” Revival Being Developed

Scott Meckley says:

I agree with the list of celebrities that Wheeloon suggested I’m thinking this someone different at the top left spot. wanda sykes where Brett was. Bruce Vilanch where charles nelson riley was someone different alot at the 4 spot. I would like Ray Romano where Richard Dawson was and the 6th spot rotate Betty White, Ellen Degeneres and another female celebrity. Also I think they should do like the rayburn version or even Ross Shafer version would be fine with me that way all celebrities would get to play in every round. Match are worth $100 the first round $200 the second round and $300 for third round. $2100 is a perfect score. Then in the supermatch top score is $2500 second answer $1000 and the third worth $500 times 10. After that then you would spin the star wheel and play for either $50,000, $20,000, $10,000 or $5,000 if you don’t pick any of the three. Also i like the thought of a revival someone was saying about having a Card Sharks revival but more like either perry, eubanks or rafferty version. I dont’ see why they can’t do it like the classic versions with the poll questions it would be interesting to hear what people think about certain things. If Fremantle reads this please bring back match game and card sharks more like the classic versions.

MrQuiz says:

Sam,Sam, Sam…
If anyone is even remotely coming off as “snarky,” I’m sorry…but in my eyes, it looks like YOU.

I think DeNo1 is using the term “held hostage” as both a figure of speech, and as a form of rightous indignation. To be fair, Fremental, er, uh, Fremantle isn’t the only one withholding some classic game shows, for whatever reason. The late Ralph Edwards’ estate, for some reason, has been “holding back” all those classic episodes of TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES, (the 1970′s versions of) NAME THAT TUNE, and THE (original) CROSS-WITS. Yet, there seems to be little complaining there.

DeNo1…As much as all of the controversy behind the scenes on TPIR when Barker took over as Executive Producer has swirled around him like a maelstrom, he may have been the hatchetman. But, could it be remotely possible that he was merely carrying out the whims & wishes of Fremental, er, uh, Fremantle? As I see it, I compare all of that happy horses**t with a bar, nightclub/danceclub, or restaurant in dealing with unruly patrons; it’s way easier to cop out by not taking whatever necessary action is needed, for the sake of maintaining/protecting a certain image, than it is just to simply do the right thing, and let come what may. I will say this; outwardly, what happened to Holly, Dian, and especially Janice, who was there from Day One, and Paul Alter, who had also directed the original TPIR (when Bill Cullen hosted it from 1956-65), shouldn’t have happened to a dog! But, as long as there’s this thing called “politics,” these kinds of things will invariably happen again and again and again.

Am I taking any sides with Barker & company. Not at all. But, bear in mind that behind the scenes, he had a reputation that reputedly in stark contrast to what we saw in public. Still, even HE had people to answer to, namely the mucky-mucks at Fremantle.

Jordan Hass says:

I would gladly sign up to be a contestant…

I know everyone feels like this would be a syndicated format, so I have 3 versions…

The Syndie, The GSN, and the Prime-Time version

————-

Syndie:

6 Stars
2 Contestants
Standard Rules 6 stars to match for six points.
Celebs can’t play once matched.
Most points goes on to the supermatch.

With the amounts being

$2,000
$1,500
$1,000

And then they have a match with a star for 10x that amount for $20,000; $15,000; or $10,000

If they don’t match, they get $500 and continue playing for $5,000.

With the winner coming back for up to 5-days.

===========

GSN

Knowing GSN’s classic $5,000 budget. It would be like Match Game ’98.

2 Contestants,
3 rounds
5 stars

First Round – 1 pt
Second Round – 1 pt
Third Round – 2 pts

The most points wins.

The SuperMatch does not change

$500
$250
$100

and they play for 10x that amount with the star of their choice.

But that is it. No Return, and probably a cheap looking set.

====

Prime Time Version

It would follow a prize tree format

Two Contestants. Up to $500,000 and 6 stars.

There will be 5 rounds of play. Instead of points, it will be cash (like Match Game 90s)

But in a Prize Tree Format.

1 match- $1,000
2 matches – $2,000
3 matches – $3,000
4 matches – $4,000
5 matches – $5,000
6 matches – $10,000

Whoever has the most money at the end goes on to play Super Match

With a possibility of $50,000 up for grabs, the supermatch is for the possible-

10x
5x
3x

If not, they are playing for 2x the amount won.

If they match the star of their choice, they win the money.

If they fail, they still leave with the amount won during the main game.

====

I know they all sound weird, but one of those could be the format.

Sam says:

DeNo1,

I think the 1998 version is only an insult because you say it is so. I think the memory and the legacy of the 70s Match Game is only diluted if a person perceives it to be so. I don’t believe either of those things, and I think we’re going to have to leave it at that. Is that okay?

Like I said, an unfortunate situation, and it does reflect badly on both parties. That’s all I care to take out of that.

MrQuiz says:

Here’s something else to consider about MG’98. What time did it air? In lots of markets (including WGN in Chicago) it was on at, say 2am, 3am, whatever. Why do you suppose that?
Well, for one thing, the “tone” (re:language/content, etc.) of the show was by no means suitable for being aired at practically any other time of day. Sometimes, program scheduling issues are the reason. Or, some shows are sold to local stations at a package price; included with a predominatly more attarctive show. The latter two are hypothetical examples. However, even in the wee hours, how many of the masses will fall over one another for [in this case, a classic] game show that has traded on [what at one time, was just cons "racy," for what has since been considered] “politically incorrect,” for outrightly scatoliogical humor? After all, we’re not talking Def Jam comedy on HBO, here. Any questions?

Fremental, er, uh, Fremantle almost nailed TO TELL THE TRUTH. But, once again, the producers made that fatal mistake by getting B-List celeb’s; and worse yet, only Mescach Taylor was smart, or at least estute enough to understand HOW this game was to be played. More times than not, the rest of the panel either never “got it” when it came to playing the game as it was supposed to be played, or, they seemed more interested in spewing one-liners (arguably, the guiltiest of the lot was Paula Poundstone). Speaking of Miss Poundstone, she was involved in a controversy over alleged mistreatment of either some foster or adopted children (I can’t remember exactly) of hers, and beacuse of the media attention surrounding it, she became poison to the show. Evidently, whatever action the producers took appeared to be too late. While, this unto itself didn’t kill TTTT, it didn’t help much, either.

MrQuiz says:

Granted, overall the TTTT revival wasn’t all that bad. It wasn’t good enough to get past two seasons, however.

As I’ve said before, I’m “old skool.” This hardly makes me an expert. However, age sometimes has its advantages, and having grown up watching game shows since I was barely old enough to understand them (being inspired by them and the DJ’s I grew up listening to on the radio to want to persue a career in broadcasting), and seeing them “evolve” over the course of several decades, I’m hardly a dummy, either.

It’s not so much that we want to keep these shows as we remember them (GSN has taken care of that for us). It’s that we don’t have the creative resources via the Mark Goodsons, the Bob Stewarts, the Merv Griffins, even the Chuck Barris’ and the people associated with their respective organizations; brainstorming, free-associating, building, rebuilding honing, tweaking, and polishing what became the classic game shows that have become part of our lives.
As (passionate) game show fans, we rip into the Fremantles of the world, who in their (well-meaning) attempts to update our old friends for new audiences, they somehow overlook, ignore, or just plain don’t “get it,” when it comes to these shows. In the end, what they’ve done is deconstruct a classic.

What might they “not get?” Depending on the show, it may be that they disregard a certain “dynamic” that made that show run like a Swiss watch in the first place. It may be that they feel compelled to do anything from a tweak to a wholesale reinvention of that show, for the sake of pandering to that coveted 18-34 demographic, (and in the case of the most recent versions of CARD SHARKS, BEAT THE CLOCK, and above all, MATCH GAME) with disasterous results. Fremantle’s track record is such, that it’s no wonder that people (like me and those of a certain generation, for instance) have become leery of them when they bring back an old game show, especially if it’s one from the old Goodson-Todman library.

The other thing is, game shows like MATCH GAME have had their day, and while time has opened a new generation to Gene Rayburn & company, it has also shown to be more of a liability, rather than an asset to revival. (one can also make a similar argument over the remakes of some movies-sometimes more than once over.)

Martin says:

So I am watching ‘To Tell the Truth’ on GSN right now and I am really thinking that Paula Poundstone would be great on a re-make of Match Game.

MrQuiz says:

Sam;
It’s not that I take it “hard” (I may have of overstated that), but you finally understand my point. But, even so, you’ve seen the shows in reruns. They haven’t changed since when they originally aired. It’s not unlikely that in the attempts to update these shows, the current generation of producers and creative people apparently fail to understand that co-called “dynamic.” While in the case of MATCH GAME, one can’t “create” the chemistry between the host and celebrities, as that was nothing short of serindipity; on the other hand, they do need to understand that shows like TO TELL THE TRUTH are more “cerebral,” and shouldn’t book celebrities who don’t understand that these (kinds of) shows aren’t supposed to be an extension of a comedy club (as in the case of Paula Poundstone), where their “schtick” upstages the game play. They also need to make sure the stars also understand HOW to play the game. In the sase of PASSWORD, (on the surface, anyway) the idea of simply attaching a million-dollar payoff seems both out of place; not to mention questioning the need for every other game show has a million-dollar payoff. IMO, despite its popularity (I watch it), it seems DEAL OR NO DEAL is getting old; by now, SOMEONE should’ve won the million bucks!

MrQuiz says:

I still find this speculating on who’d be “perfect” for a new MG revival very interesting.

Despite what I said about the sad truth being its time has come and gone, let’s pretend all’s hunky and dorry in Gameshowland, except for the following fact: you can plug in the name(s) of any celebrity for a MG revival. But you are all overlooking something that’s been pointed out, time and time again: what made MG7_, and MG-PM work the way it did, was…

A) the chemistry between the emcee and panel (sometimes the right contestant was gravy); you
can’t just throw six stars and add a Bil Dwyer, or whoever to emcee the thing, and hocus-
pocus-abracadabra-alakazam-VOILA! A NEW GENERATION OF MATCH GAME that can at least
rival, if not surpass the iconic ’73-’82 version.

B) One big reason MG’90 failed after one year & change, was that the suits at ABC in
their infinate wisdom, felt compelled to (over)expose their so-called “stable of
stars.” Unlike the CBS version, ABC never understood the need to “diversify”
the mix. Just because Charles Nelson Reilly was essentially the “anchor,” and
occasional appearances by Brett Somers, Vicki Lawrence, and Betty White were attempts
to “balance things out,” as well as attract the old fans of the show, you still had
all-to-frequent appearances by such show-biz legends as Bill Kirkenbauer (or
whatever the hell his name was), Pam Stone (I admit it; at the time, I thought she
was H-O-T!), and the rest of that B-through-Z-List of forgotten castmembers of ABC shows. I
mean, where are they NOW? And, how many off the top of your head (you’re on your
honor, here) can you rattle off? (BTW, I also liked that ventriloquist, Ron Lucas.)

I’d be remissed if I didn’t say something about Ross Schaffer: Despite the fact
that he’d never be able to fill the shoes that were left him, DAMN, HE WAS GOOD!!!

I thought of this…but, frankly, even if you took the Paula Poundstones, Roseanne
Barrs’, Jm J. Bullocks, etc, and could coax the likes of Betty White (and nobody,
but NOBODY bothered to mention: FANNIE FLAGG, PATTI DEUTSCH, ELAINE JOYCE,
nor guys like SCOEY MITCHLLL. Hell, I bet even DAWSON would consider wanting in),
you still have no guarantee of a “great” mix, here. And even so, the bar
has been lowered to the floor since the ’98 version. “Potty” humor has replaced
merely politically incorrect (by today’s standards, anyway) humor.

Oh, and one more thing, you need the right WRITERS. Nobody can replace
Dick DeBartolo (who was head writer going back to the original sixties-era version
of MG).

So, speculate all you want. Fantasize all you want. Just remember…be careful of
what you wish for. What’d happen if there WERE a revival, only for it to be cancelled
because it too, stunk like an outhouse in July.

devares says:

As far as the other incarnations go, Match Game Hollywood Squares Hour wasn’t too interesting. For one, the set looked like a cheap, futuristic studio. Also, many NBC affiliates (like KTAL in Shreveport) dropped the show midway through its run (so you knew it wouldn’t last long). MG ’90 was good, problem was ABC put it in the noon/11c timeslot where most affiliates (particularly in the East Coast) were airing the news. they couldn’t put it at the 11a/10a time slot because it would’ve gotten clobbered by The Price Is Right. And there was no help for the ’98 version, problem with that was many station (including KTBS in Shreveport) put it on real late at night so nobody would be able to see it unless you had a VCR and recorded it (TiVo wasn’t around back then, I think). As for the new version I think there should be 2 versions of MG, one for GSN, the other for syndication. The syndicated version would be a perfect companion for Family Feud (which, ICYDK, is a spinoff of Match Game). As for the panel, some of you have some good names like Martin Mull, Wanda Sykes, Ben Stein, and (my favorite) Jerry Springer, who wouldn’t be bad as the host. But, whoevers in the panel, i assure you that Fremantle will do a great job.

MrQuiz says:

There is one surviving episode of the 1971-74 version of PASSWORD which has aired twice on GSN.
(I’m aware of there being one lone surviving 1975 episode -the last episode of the series- on the trading circuit, but I don’t count that one, because it was from the post-PASSWORD ALLSTARS era, which is just about universally agreed upon that P-A-S had “jumped the shark”)

Big Match Game Fan says:

Bill Dwyer would be good as a host – but here is some real out of the box thinking: how about getting Match Game on NBC in Prime Time and getting Keith Olbermann as host Seriously! Whether or not you agree with him, he is smart, humorous, and while no one will ever replace Gene Rayburn, he would add the charisma needed to make the revival a success! And PLEASE – no second rate celebrities on the panel! Dwyer would be good as host, but what I do NOT want to see is a second rate version on GSN – it would last a year if they are lucky, if thats the case, then leave it alone. If they do it, do it RIGHT, get it in syndication or network TV.

Big Match Game Fan says:

Well, I would agree that NBC would not or should not put it on against Olbmermann’s MSNBC gig at 8 pm eastern – why not another timeslot? And why not if it is in syndication? If syndication, odds are it would be either 7:00pm or 7:30 pm or later in the evening. Just think – another forum for him to use his comedy material on Bill O….and about being sarcastic, wasnt that the charm that Gene Rayburn brought to the role? I know this maybe just a pipedream, but think about it, Keith has the name appeal, the charm, and the “sarcasm” might not be such as bad thing.

MrQuiz says:

Here’s the 64 bazillion dollar question…if asked, would Keith Olbermann WANT to do it?

MrQuiz says:

I dunno ’bout that. But, hey, if you’re gonna go that route, then why not try Bill O’Reilly?
If you’re a regular viewer of COUNTDOWN, y’know that O’Reilly’s always good for a laugh…NOT!!!!

But, seriously, just because the likes of Julie Chen has no compunctions about compromising HER image (even if she IS the boss’ wife), what makes you seriously think Olbermann would trade in his role as a pundit, and sell [himself] out to become (as Lou Grant once rubbed the topic in to Ted Baxter, on an episode of THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW)”…a QUIZZZZMASSSSTER?”