Get ready to match the stars?

It has been a topic of discussion and speculation for a week, evidently, but I'm not in the loop, so it's news to me late tonight. 

I saw a Facebook post about an hour ago, inviting potential contestants to apply online to play Match Game. I didn't pay much attention to the details of the casting call, but it looked rather standard. 

After I did a little Googling I learned that the speculation regarding Match Game's return began about a week ago. At that time it was unclear who the show was for, where it was going be taped and who its host will be. 

I assumed the casting call was for Match Game's return to ABC prime time. The show churned out small batches of episodes for a handful of years with Alec Baldwin as host. It was part of ABC's brief obsession with prime time games, classic or otherwise, during the summer of 2016. Wikipedia tells me that 65 hours of Match Game were churned out from 2016 through 2021. 

ABC isn't overdosing on game shows these days, but solid performers continue to find their way back to the prime time schedule. 

Press Your Luck isn't a network darling, but ABC has been pleased with it and continues to churn out episodes. Celebrity Family Feud seems to be a valued commodity that the network has tried not to dilute by trotting it out 12 months of the year. Celebrity Jeopardy! seems to be a viable prime time format for ABC, as well. And we've still got episodes of Pat Sajak's post-retirement run of Celebrity Wheel of Fortune episodes waiting to drop, as far as I know. And after a bit longer than typical for a hiatus, ABC is favoring its audience with new episodes of Pyramid. 

But nobody expected Match Game to return to ABC, given host Alec Baldwin shot and killed a crew member on the set of a movie in 2021. It was deemed an accidental death, with the liability falling to another crew member who is responsible for the safe handling of firearms used as props in the film. Not everyone thinks Baldwin should have been exonerated, but I didn't follow the case closely and do not have an informed opinion about his liability, or lack thereof. 

It appears that the new episodes of Match Game will be filmed in Montreal, Canada. Does that mean the show is strictly for Canadian television? There has been a Canadian version of the show in the past. But the opinions I stumbled upon think the show is returning to ABC, given that the network's Facebook page for the show, which sat quietly with no recent activity, was spruced up in recent days. The cover photo for the page was updated and lots of old posts and discussion were scrubbed from the page, I read. I can't prove that, but when it is said more than once, I am inclined to believe it. ABC didn't do that randomly, but it doesn't prove the show is returning to the network. 

There's info suggesting that the show's new production is on a tight timeline. The casting call just went out during the past couple of days, and it looks like the show will be recorded in June. A comment suggested we'll see new episodes yet in 2025. 

I'm intrigued. I was lukewarm to the revival after it debuted in 2016. My God, it has been how long already? Time flies, and it goes by faster with each passing year, I swear. I can't believe it has been nearly nine years since the Baldwin version debuted. Wow. 

ABC's prime time version is rather faithful to the 1970s edition, but we all know some of the questions used 50 years ago wouldn't fly today. Questions meant to be silly and funny -- mocking weight, intelligence or ethnicity -- aren't so funny in 2025. The modern incarnation of the show is entertaining, but for whatever reason, it didn't become appointment television for me. 

I don't watch game shows because of who is hosting, but Baldwin didn't make the show more enjoyable for me. In his defense, he wasn't the only reason I lacked enthusiasm for the show. 

I don't expect to love new episodes of the show, but I'm curious to find out who the host will be. Absolutely no one expects Baldwin to return to the Match Game set. 

And I'd as curious to know why the show will be recorded in Canada instead of the United States. The Baldwin episodes were recorded in New York, and there are no shortage of celebs in Hollywood. So why not there? 

I haven't missed the show in its absence from ABC, and I don't expect to love it in 2025, but just as I was curious to see what it looked like in 2016, after decades of dormancy, I'm looking forward to seeing what Match Game looks like in 2025 after Baldwin's incident seemingly brought the show to its early demise, as well. 

UPDATE: TV's Randy West had this to say on Thursday afternoon: 
"The format is too good to not exploit it again... Same game, new host, new crew, and new studios, taping in Canada."

X gets the square, and that's not a good thing

Given my disappointment with the 2025 version of Hollywood Squares, I looked back at what I wrote last May, when I learned of the forthcoming show. What did I say then, knowing very little about what I'd see, or how disappointed I'd be with the end product? That text appears in black. My 2025 comments, responding to what I wrote seven months ago, appear in red. Additional thoughts appear at the end in purple. 

The best news, perhaps, is that CBS is planning a prime time version of Hollywood Squares next winter. So far we know Drew Barrymore is going to be the center square, and that's about all we know. We don't know who will host or how it will be staged. Forget returning champions, I suspect, but expect bigger money than we've seen in the past, most likely. I was right and wrong. Given CBS is running the show in prime time, presumably once a week, it's not hard to guess that they'd not have returning champions. I didn't expect the show to be Million Dollar Squares, but I thought that the winner of a 30-minute episode would have a chance to walk home with more than $25,000. I would have thought $25K would be a second-tier prize in the bonus game, with a top prize of $50,000, or better. But CBS must have spent too much money to coerce Tyra Banks and Drew Carey to make an appearance.

I should be excited about such a development. A classic quiz show being reincarnated for the third time, or more, depending upon how you count versions such as Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour and Hip Hop Squares. 

I should be excited, but these days I'm expecting to be disappointed. And I was, but this wasn't exactly a bold prediction. Networks don't seem to want game show fans tuning into their game shows unless they're legacy game shows like Wheel of Fortune and The Price is Right. 

I have said, time and time again, that I miss the days of the basic quiz show served with a dash of lady luck. Take shows like Hollywood Squares, Tic Tac Dough, Joker's Wild, Sale of the Century and High Rollers. They were all quiz shows in some way. Hollywood Squares was played for laughs far more than Tic Tac Dough. High Rollers and Sale of the Century had plenty of trivia mixed in with general knowledge questions. But the outcome of each game depended, to some extent, on an element of luck.

I enjoy simple shows like that. I like Jeopardy, and there's a degree of luck involved, but less so than the others. And that's the only one out there five days a week, not counting anything GSN is producing, which I don't have access to. 

We have some fun games in syndication at the moment, but nothing that's a classic quiz show, interjecting a tic-tac-toe board or dice into the outcome. I miss those. 

So I should be excited about Hollywood Squares. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised. I hope they pick a good host, one that doesn't irritate me. I'm a broken record at this point. I don't want to watch a long-in-the-tooth comedian pretend to orchestrate a game. I just want a skilled emcee, a broadcaster who isn't trying to play to the crowd every chance s/he gets, or an actor who hasn't had a big hit movie in a while but would like a steady paycheck. So this surprised me. They didn't go with a Steve Harvey or an Elizabeth Banks. They went with a broadcaster, of sorts. CBS chose its knock off of Mike Strahan to host the show. Nate Burleson if a former NFL wide receiver who works as a talking head for CBS's NFL coverage and as a co-host for the CBS morning show. I can't say I see much of his work. I don't watch much NFL studio pre-game programming or weekday morning news programs. He might be really good, but I have no clue. But his career seems to be mimicking Strahan's career, as now Burleson is an emcee, too. But instead of being a traditional emcee, Burleson acts like he's hosting game night at his mansion, where his celebrity friends and his civilian friends all gather together to mix and mingle while Burleson makes small talk with all of them. So I got a broadcaster, but not exactly what I hoped for. Jimmy Fallon hosts the over-the-top Password farce on NBC. Jimmy Kimmel hosts Millionaire for ABC. The tone of Squares is a little too nauseating for my liking, so perhaps Stephen Colbert wouldn't have been the right fit for this show. But I can't imagine staging Squares with Colbert as host would have produced a worse end product. 

But I expect the worst. The few comments I've read about the new version of Hollywood Squares didn't exactly lavish praise on its choice of a center square. I don't think anyone considers Drew Barrymore to be quick-witted or naturally funny. She's had roles in comedy films, but she's not exactly telling knock-knock jokes in Vegas during her off weeks from her current talk show. She seems to have time for a second job, and somehow a prime time game show is the best way to showcase her talent. I'm skeptical. She didn't try to take over the show as its center square. She also didn't add the quick wit and sharp humor I hope for from the center square. That's not mandatory, of course, and Drew's performance didn't do much for me, but she wasn't the most painful aspect of the show, by a long shot. 

I hope to be pleasantly surprised, and I'm not rooting against it. I'm just prepared to be disappointed, because I'm a traditionalist who doesn't need gimmicks and over production to enjoy a quiz show where knowledge is king and lady luck is queen. But I get it, I'm in the minority. Wow, I'm brilliant. The show feels overly produced, as if they coached a certain tone out of the host, celebrities and contestants. It doesn't feel organic, and, shockingly, I don't enjoy it. 

As annoyed as I am by the end product, I'm not surprised. And it's not a crime. 

I'm not a game show historian, but I know enough to know that the original Match Game was a rather straight forward game of matching words/phrases during the 1960s. The famous, beloved edition of the show debuted in 1973, and was less about wacky comedy questions and celebrity banter. But it wasn't winning over enough of an audience, and the humorous efforts of the show seemed to be connecting with the audience, so they dropped any pretense of formality in the game play and went wholly for laughs, and the show enjoyed a long run into the early 1980s. 

And lest we forget Family Feud. Richard Dawson interjected his humor as host back in the 1970s as a guy whose background wasn't in traditional radio and television broadcasting, as best I know. (I know him pretty much as a game show panelist and actor on Hogan's Heroes.) Five decades later the show is a success because of the sexual suggestiveness of some of the questions and the comedy stylings of Steve Harvey. The show doesn't appeal to me, but it's doing just fine without me. 

All of that is to say that as much as I dislike what CBS is selling in 2025, it's not a surprise. There's no reason a new version of a game show shouldn't be tweaked for a different market than past versions of the game. And CBS chose that route. I may have hoped for an end result that was akin to what some of us enjoyed from 1998 to 2004 in syndication, but no such luck. 

This is not your father's Hollywood Squares. Or mine.

"Premiere" night for Press Your Luck and Card Sharks

Despite the fact it was the second showing of Press Your Luck, ABC insists the second episode this week is the premiere. OK, if you say so.

I like the new format. Since this show does not have returning champions, I like the fact there's something else to play for if you win the game. It's prime time, so you need to raise the stakes, it seems. The bonus game does that.

As for the Wednesday night, June 12, episode: It was a fun game with a classic duel at the end to determine the champion. The winner went to the bonus round, where the level of drama wasn't as high as the first show. It was fun to watch. I like the show.

One side observation about the contestants, and seemingly every contestant on prime time games. Why are the contestants told to wave their arms, bounce around, dance and/or gyrate? I get that some people are excited. Some people can't contain their enthusiasm. But when every contestant seems to be playing to the camera, it feels so artificial. Again, I'm sure I'm the only person who is bothered by it.

As for the early reviews of PYL, many of which I read via threads on Facebook, as I don't belong to a game show forum: The reviews of Banks as host are mixed. Some people claimed she was great. Some said they didn't like her. Nobody explained why they felt that way.

As for the new bonus game, some folks think it is too long and is too drawn out. Some people want two 30-minute games packaged into an hour of TV. One person suggested that the bonus game could be the basis for the show. 

Other comments: The game play in the bonus game is akin to Deal or No Deal. You're trying to cash out at the best time, beating the house. But there's no competition in the bonus game.

Not many people professed a love of the bonus game, but several think it's too much. I'm not sure if they're going to boycott the show because of it, but my suggestion, if you find the bonus game to be an agonizing waste of your time, is to watch the main game and turn off the TV when there's a winner. Your problem is solved, and your life is better for it.

One petty gripe: Drop the claim that PYL is "television's most competitive game." I'm not sure why that was brilliant back in the 1980s, but it's lame, and it's lame today.

I watched the debut of the new Card Sharks, as well, on Wednesday. It's OK.

I have few complaints. I didn't think host Joel McHale was outstanding, but he didn't oversell his comedy routine while hosting, which I assumed he would do. He didn't yell like a high school cheerleader, which I greatly appreciated. My only criticism of his hosting is that he seemed a bit sedated. I don't need him to yell and dance, a la Banks, but I didn't sense he was punctuating the high points of the game all that well.

Ultimately, of all the hosts of ABC's six prime time game shows, he's the best. Easily.

As for the game play, having the contestants play one mega-game for a chance at the "money cards," which I don't think they referred to the bonus game as, is a bit slow and tedious. The format is otherwise familiar: Contestants answer survey questions, mostly, and whomever is correct controls the board and earns the perks that go with that. I expected "naughty" questions, because that's what today's viewers want, allegedly. But the questions avoided sexually suggestive content, and that was nice to see.

The show's game play is clunky. When the "models" have to "change that card," they look awkward concealing the new card until they're ready to turn it over at the game board. It's a minor quibble, but the card flow is awkward.

The bonus game is rather close to the late 1970s/early 1980s version of the "money cards," but with minor changes I won't detail here. For some silly reason the players use giant poker chips to represent their bets. That's unnecessary, and silly.

Since the winner of the main game wins $10,000, he or she starts the bonus game with $10,000 in chips. If I did the math right, you could earn a maximum of $1.28 million in the bonus game. It will be interesting to see if anyone cashes for more more than $500,000 in the bonus game. With good luck and a little risk tolerance, I could see it happening.

It's unclear if the champion goes home with $10,000 even if he or she busts out during the bonus game. One contestant did that during the premiere.

Like other ABC prime time games, the show is ready made for splitting into independent, half-hour episodes.

I don't find the basic format of Card Sharks all that entertaining. Yeah, I can play along with the contestants during the survey questions they answer, and decide how I'd call the next card on their board, but that has never captivated me. I'll certainly watch McHale's Card Sharks again. It's unlikely I'll see an episode of Pyramid this summer. And there's no chance I'll be watching Celebrity Family Feud. The only reason I'd sit through an hour of Match Game, which I haven't enjoyed since its return, is if there's a fringe celebrity that I really want to see. And there are few of those.

Speaking of Match Game, I watched the first half of Wednesday night's episode, and that was enough. The humor is lacking, the questions aren't clever, or funny and the celebrities aren't very entertaining. I can't say that the show lacks star power, I'm no authority on today's crop of celebrities, but I didn't even know a thing about three, and perhaps four, of the six celebrity panelists. Of the two I knew, only one was truly noteworthy, and that was Jason Alexander. And he hasn't exactly been dazzling the masses in the 20 years since Seinfeld went off the air. Yep, his claim to fame has been wrapped up for two decades. But I gotta hand it to him, he doesn't look like he has aged much.

The new Press Your Luck: As good as I could have hoped for

As a youngster growing up in the Minneapolis area, I was a huge fan of Press Your Luck, despite the fact it was never broadcast in my TV market.

Our local CBS affiliate never aired the show. Sure, The Price is Right, was a fixture at 10 a.m., but somehow the local station had something more important to air at other hours of the morning.

Yet I was a huge fan of PYL, as I would watch it every chance I had while spending holiday breaks or parts of my summer vacation at my dad's house in Wisconsin. Having divorced parents wasn't all bad.

While I've rarely had access to cable TV's Game Show Network, I've had opportunities to watch reruns of the game throughout my life. Like other fans of the show, who have watched it take on a second life via Facebook games, casino slot machines and other interactive platforms, I've hoped the day would come when the excitement of the game show could be produced for a new generation. Yes, there was a new version produced by the Game Show Network more than a decade ago, and the tweaks to the format weren't all bad. But overall it didn't entertain me like the CBS daytime predecessor more than 15 years earlier. (Dang, it has been more than 15 years since the GSN version of PYL was produced. Time flies.)

ABC has been banking on game shows to fill hours of its summer schedule the past couple of years, with marginal success. I have yet to find one I enjoy and make a point of watching. As much as I have loved the 1970s era of Match Game, ABC's Alec Baldwin version just doesn't entertain me enough, despite the fact it remains rather faithful to the 1970s version.

So I had reservations about the new Press Your Luck. I was expecting that it would remain faithful to the 1980s version, (which was the second attempt at turning the game into a hit game show,) but I had my doubts I would enjoy it.

For the most part, I like it, and it's the first ABC game show that I will make a point of watching on a regular basis.

What I like: With one minor tweak, the main game is played the same as the original show.

The question-and-answer rounds that award spins aren't the most fascinating segments, as there's usually at least one gimme question to ensure every player earns at least one spin. But those two rounds are short segments of the game.

The game board has plenty of modern prizes, and more money available than 35 years ago, which you would expect. And it's prime time, you've got to offer more tempting prizes if you want people to watch. Good games are fun to watch, regardless of the prizes, but it's harder to get casual viewers to watch and dream of winning big if there's little on the line. As I have said before, Deal or No Deal fails completely as a game show if the top prize is $10,000.

I like that there is at least one huge prize on the board during round 2. Having a top cash square of $10,000 is twice what the old show offered, and seems appropriate. Having a prize worth nearly four times that amount -- a Jaguar during the debut episode -- on the board certainly makes the game more exciting.

And the new twist to the prime time show, a bonus round, is pretty well done. It has its flaws, but I like it. I'll dissect it in a moment.

Cosmetically, the show is well done. I don't need to see the audience, but the audience is visible in shots throughout the game. I didn't expect the show to recreate the 1980s technology of the original, but the style and sound effects were updates of the original show. There's comfort in familiarity.

Finally, when it comes to the Whammy, the animated character(s) that steal(s) your winnings when you land on it instead of cash or a prize, I have no complaints. The animation wasn't slick, and it mirrors the look and feel of the '80s era. The animations are contemporary, for the most part, but they've recreated a  few of the classic Whammy animations, reportedly, and we saw one during the premiere episode.

What I dislike: I don't dislike Elizabeth Banks, but I will always prefer an emcee over an actor as the host of my game shows. 

I'm not familiar with her work. I know her name, but I couldn't tell you five things about her career. I've never seen her work in the Hunger Games or Pitch Perfect film franchises. And I never will. I've seen her in small roles in a few movies, most notably as Betty Brandt in the original Spider-Man trilogy, which I know only because I scanned her Wikipedia page. She has done little in the realm of non-scripted film and television work, as best I can tell. I have no idea why she was picked to host a prime time game show, but it struck me as an odd choice from the start.

I'm no TV insider, but I have sensed that there was an ounce of pressure on ABC to choose a woman as host one of their new shows this year. Fine with me. I am not fascinated by the aura of Meredith Vieira, but she did just fine for more than a decade as host of the syndicated version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. She's allegedly returning to syndicated TV this fall with another game show, last I knew.

So man or woman, I don't care who hosts the new PYL. But I'd rather have a traditional emcee. Banks is very good in some ways, a little too Oprah for me in other ways.

At times during her hosting, Banks would whoop it up when a contestant hit a big prize, as if she were Oprah, giving away cars to her studio audience. (Her little dance routine prior to the start of a prize round was awkward.) Her cheerleading won't lead to the end of the world, but I'd rather have a host that punctuates the excitement than a host that cheers along with the audience.

I'm glad that Banks isn't cut from the same cloth of so many game show hosts of the past two decades: A known comedian who is looking for a gig to help keep his or her name in the public conscience. Those comedians are often expected to drop their little jokes into the show, it seems, which annoys me. I'm in the minority on this, but I don't care for it. Levity is fine, doing your act, a la Steve Harvey on Family Feud, ain't why I'm watching the game. And when your shtick isn't particularly funny, you've ruined the show for me. Again, I'm in the minority.

Banks isn't Chelsea Handler, thankfully, but she did drop a few quips and jokes into the show. It ain't the end of the world, but it doesn't entertain me, especially when those quips feel scripted and set up. Perhaps she's naturally that clever, but it didn't come off that way.

Her quips and commentary aren't unlike classic PYL host Peter Tomarken. But Tomarken's routine seemed natural. Banks' comments seem forced, and only distract from the game play.

Overall she did a good job of explaining the game and directing traffic. She was surprisingly comfortable during the first episode. I'm not a fan of her style, but I'd take her over Baldwin and Harvey, for sure. Banks might have been perfect for Match Game, actually.

The other complaint I have about the show is that when it gets to the bonus game, the producers seem to think they need to manufacture drama, much like Deal or No Deal or The Wall on NBC. Ish. More on that in a moment.

The bonus game: I wasn't sure what a PYL bonus game would look like. And I was quite surprised by what we got.

When you watch Match Game and $100,000 Pyramid on ABC, you can tell that they're carefully produced and edited so that they could easily be repackaged as two independent 30-minute episodes for future syndication and rerunning. I'm not sure about how they produce Celebrity Family Feud, I won't watch it.

I expected Press Your Luck to be similarly produced -- two games played in an hour, with a simple bonus game crammed into the end of each main game. Instead we get the winner of the main game playing a solo game, under different rules, for a chance at big money. I didn't see that coming.

I like the way they structured the bonus game. You play multiple rounds with the prize values increasing during each round. You have to play every spin given to you at the start of each round, but you can quit when you complete each round if you don't want to risk losing your earnings in the subsequent round. And like always, four Whammys ends your game.

Also fun, they include prizes that are personalized to the player. If it were me, for example, one of the prizes on the board might be a limited edition pinball machine worth $10,000. It's a nice touch.

If I followed the explanation, the value of the "big bucks" goes up each round, starting at $10,000 in the first round, and finishing at $100,000 during the fifth, and final, round. And if you manage to bank $500,000 or more in cash and prizes at any point in the bonus game, you automatically win $1 million. How that $1 million is paid out isn't clear. I assume that $1 million includes the value of prizes already in your bank. But it doesn't matter. I don't foresee anyone winning $1 million on this show, but in contrast to ABC's other prime time games, there's potential for bigger winners than you'll get on Match Game or Pyramid. (Word is that Card Sharks will also have a chance at huge money. I'm guessing it'll be as unlikely on that show, too.)

Nobody is likely going to win $1 million on PYL because it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. With multiple rounds and a chance to stop the game at the conclusion of every round, most contestants aren't likely to risk $250,000 in prizes, if they get that far, on another round of game play. Yes, the cash and prizes are bigger in the later rounds, but one Whammy wipes out all that good fortune you've had in banking $250,000. I just don't expect many people to risk that kind of money

So it's a fun twist, and they dedicate half the show to it. That's fine. As you'd expect, there are commercial breaks during the bonus game, but it's as much fun to watch as the main game, despite the lack of competition between players.

The bonus game does have the potential for early disaster. If the player hits four Whammys quickly, the round will be over within a few minutes, and the show will have to tap dance to fill the remainder of the hour, or edit in more banter between Banks and the contestants in the main game.

A player could also stop after the first round, but that's unrealistic. Even a good run in round 1 isn't likely to net the player $50,000 in cash and prizes. And with bigger prizes forthcoming and Whammys to spare, risking $50,000 isn't that big of a risk, as it could easily be built back up with bigger prizes on the board.

So it all sounds like a fun, multi-layered bonus game, right? The big albatross of the bonus game is the manufactured drama.

In the debut episode, the main game winner, Stevey, (who doesn't have a last name, evidently,) was playing for big bucks in the bonus game. As we learned, he's married, and he and his husband have a newborn infant. During the bonus game, Stevey's husband is sitting on a bench off to the side, shown regularly during the bonus game. The husband dabs tears from his eyes more than a few times. After Stevey banks an SUV in a late round -- a prize added that round especially for Stevey, because his husband had to give up his dream vehicle in order for them to have a child via surrogate -- the husband joins Stevey at the podium for a consultation and hug at the end of the round. It's a teary, dramatic moment that people must love, because they do it on shows like Deal or no Deal and The Wall. I'm not people. I don't enjoy it. I don't mind emotion after a win, but when the drama is manufactured and exploited, you haven't improved your game show. You've cheapened it. And that's what America wants, I guess.

In conclusion: Overall it's a good effort at updating the game and ratcheting up the stakes. It's not perfect, and probably never will be unless I'm producing it. But I'm happy with the end product. It's easily my favorite of the ABC prime time games, and I look forward to watching it again.

UPDATE: Additional observations about the show, following night two, as well as a review of Card Sharks, is available in my following night's blog entry.

ABC's Match Game: Instant reaction

I'm watching the new Match Game one night after it aired. I have avoided reading critiques of it to this point, so here are reactions to my initial viewing of the first episode.

I don't mind the updated look to the set. I'm sure some people wanted the classic Gene Rayburn set recreated.

It's obvious after the first segment that banter by the host and celebrities is mandated in order to stretch out the game play. Alec Baldwin's jokes aren't great, and they seem forced.

What kind of stimulants did they pump the initial two contestants full of? Marissa isn't over the top, but middle-aged Alissa is whack-tastic. (The lack of last names and cities of residence for the contestants is annoying. I'm old fashioned.)

First question of the show: A question about the "adults only" section of Costco. Exactly what I feared.

But the next two questions were somewhat clever without being overly sexual. The fourth question seemed to lead to only one possible answer, which game Alissa an easy win.

Who the hell is this JB Smooth and why does he think he's the star of the show? His dance session in the middle of the game with Alissa didn't entertain me, it annoyed me. A lot.

This Sutton Foster woman in the sixth celebrity seat is the opposite of Smooth. I don't know who she is, but at least she's not annoying.

And Rosie O'Donnell is rather sedate on this show, much to my surprise.

Two segments into the show and Baldwin has lost me as host.

After two segments Alissa is playing the audience match for up to $5,000, and she is nuttier than a fruitcake. It's hard to root for her.

Smooth is dancing again. Make him stop.

Alissa just lost the head-to-head match with O'Donnell, and I'm not the least bit disappointed.

So with one game in the books Baldwin has disappointed me as host, the emphasis on celebrity wisecracking is more than I care for and JB Smooth is insufferable. Despite all that, it's not a horrible update of the game. Perhaps today's game show viewers want the celebrity antics that I have little patience for.

Game 2: First question has a pun about Uranus, and the celebrities are making gay sex and genital wart jokes. And JB Smooth is canvassing the celebrities again for their answers. This guy is 10 times more annoying than I expected O'Donnell to be.

Question about Donald Trump wakes O'Donnell from her coma, predictably.

Smooth is not only annoying, he sucks at Match Game. Worst celebrity on the panel by a country mile.

Baldwin just threw to a commercial by suggesting sexual innuendo about Debra Messing. Why not, this ain't 1976.

I expected Michael Ian Black to be more entertaining than he has been. He's not bad, but I feel like he's underwhelmed by the show.

Round 2: Mick Jagger question about Viagra, followed by a Mr. Potato Head question suggesting drug or alcohol use.

I thought a couple of the questions from the first week of the show were creative and fun, but it's hard to applaud the writers when they go for cheap, obvious answers like "boner" in the Mick Jagger question.

I've got one final super match round to go for episode 1. I'll forgo further critique.

Overall the show isn't as lowbrow as I expected, but it certainly panders to that crowd. I doubt it's going to win over game show purists. Perhaps there's a large enough audience for what ABC is selling, but I'm skeptical this show has legs, either as a summer prime time offering or as a future syndicated program.

The new Match Game: Rooting for it, betting against it

Last week the world learned that we're getting a new version of Match Game this summer. 

This is far from the first time there has been talk of a new version of the 1970s classic, and it's at least the fourth crack at it in the United States. Most Match Game fans know that the show, in the classic format we all love, hosted by Gene Rayburn, went off the air in 1982. It had been on CBS daytime for much of the '70s and eventually added a syndicated version that hung on until 1982. 

The first revival was a version on NBC that lasted about a year, and was combined with Hollywood Squares into one hour. This version is routinely panned by the fans. Although there were a lot of things wrong with the product, the idea of putting the two games together into one 60-minute show wasn't horrible. Rayburn co-hosted the program.

The show returned for one year in 1990-91 on ABC, sans Rayburn. An attempt at a syndicated version lasted one year during the 1997-98 season. 

A new version of the show had some success on Canadian television a few years ago. I've seen clips of it online, and it's very similar to the classic, with mostly unknown comedians serving as the celebrity panel. The only notable comedian (for me, anyway) on the panel in this low quality clip is Norm Macdonald. (Online reviews of the show suggest that the questions and answers are mostly lowbrow, and that the panel is more annoying than entertaining. Perhaps that's why I didn't stream episodes of this show regularly when I discovered it a few years ago.)

Several years ago cable network TBS considered bringing the show back, using the classic set and going so far as to tape a pilot, but the show never got off the ground. (The host didn't impress me during the few seconds I was able to sample his work in the clip below.)

Let's do the math. Since the classic Rayburn version went off the air in 1982 we've had three failed versions of the show and a pilot for TBS that was never picked up. Yet 34 years later ABC is going to try to reignite the show yet again? In prime time? Good luck. 

I want the show to succeed. I really do. But I'm also skeptical that it will. And if by some act of God it does succeed, I'll likely be disappointed. 

The classic version worked because it had the right formula at the right time. The game play was competitive, yet funny. In the 1970s you couldn't be sexually explicit on television. References to boobs were made occasionally, but it wasn't overdone. If the questions suggested that the answer could be penis, it was never said to the best of my knowledge, even by a slang name. That kind of thing didn't fly on TV in the 1970s. 

Instead the show relied upon the wittiness of Richard Dawson and Charles Nelson Reilly, among others. Add to that the goofiness of Brett Somers, Patti Deutsch, Joyce Bulifant and others, and you had an amusing show. Rayburn added his own humorous touch for good measure. Sometimes that meant reading questions while doing characters that would be politically incorrect today. A white guy doing a Chinese accent while reading a question about Confucius would be lambasted in 2016. 

GSN produced a documentary about Match Game many years ago, and it contained a lot of interview clips with celebrities and off-the-air staff members. I don't remember who said it, but somebody explained that after so many years the novelty of questions featuring double entendres and sexual innuendo no longer held the same charm. 

The appetite for Match Game wasn't there in 1990, and from the occasional episodes I have sampled online, the panel and host, Ross Shafer, just didn't have the chemistry to recreate the frivolity and entertainment of its predecessor, even with Charles as a regular panelist and Brett as a guest panelist during some weeks. (I need to find online clips of those episodes.)

I don't remember much about the 1998 version, I'm not sure if it even aired locally, but of the few clips I've seen of it, the show was more dependent upon sexual explicitness. A clip of the show from some "funniest game show moments" compilation show features every panelist giving some slang term for penis as an answer. This shouldn't be surprising, as broadcast standards had been lowered quite a bit between 1982 and 1998.

So here we are, 17 years after the last run of Match Game went off the air, waiting for ABC to try to rekindle magic we haven't seen in more than three decades. I wonder why I'm skeptical.

Baldwin seems like a good choice for emcee. He's witty and charismatic, and he has a variety of broadcasting experiences that should help him grow into the role quickly. A lot of what will make or break the show is the caliber of the celebrities it recruits for the panel. We're not going to see A-list celebrities on the show, but it had better not try to sell us washed up sitcom stars, long-in-the-tooth comedians or the uninteresting reality TV personalities that will be begging for a seat on the panel. And the panelists better be witty and sharp, because that's a lot of what people want from the show. Standard game play with funny questions and obvious answers won't cut it. 

Yet even with a winning panel and host, will that be enough? Will people still want to tune in for an hour each Sunday night to see if celebrities match the silly answers given by contestants to questions about Dumb Dora? 

I hope that the show tries to succeed without being "edgy." Will we see a lot of questions with sexual overtones and hear a lot of euphemisms for the penis? Questions begging for those types of answers will get old in a hurry. Then again, there's still an audience for the crap Jerry Springer is peddling, so maybe that's a key to the success. 

So yes, I'm rooting for the show to succeed, but I'm selfish. I want it to succeed on my terms. And I'm skeptical that can happen. I suspect that its best chance to succeed is by following the formula Steve Harvey and Family Feud have mastered, dropping periodic sexual references into the show.

There are some folks who have already decided that they don't want the show to succeed, as they are certain a 2016 version could never be as much fun as the classic edition.

ABC probably isn't interested in pleasing them. I'm sure the network will be trying to draw viewers who don't wax nostalgic for the 1970s, and don't incessantly watch the '70s reruns.

I find the idea of rooting against the show to be silly. My expectations are incredibly low, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility we could end up with a show that is as good, or better, than the show we love from the 1970s. 

Match Game, after all, started as a straightforward game with Rayburn as its host during the 1960s. Airing more than 1,700 episodes on NBC, the show lacked the comedic elements that the 1970s gave us. 

Even during its early episodes from 1973, the new Match Game had some straightforward questions that had no element of humor to them. As the story went, according to that GSN documentary, the show wasn't doing so well out of the gates and the producers opted to go full throttle with the humor since they figured they were about to be canceled, and therefore had nothing to lose. 

Had the producers remained faithful to the formula that worked so well in the 1960s, we'd never have had a 10-year run, staring in 1973, that is still highly regarded today.

It's unlikely that lightning will strike again in 2016, and odds are that any success by Baldwin and company won't resonate with me, or others who cherish the classic episodes. But I'm glad to see that ABC and Fremantle, the company that owns Match Game, are going to take another stab at it. Perhaps we'll all be pleasantly surprised, and laugh our blanks off this summer.