I don't care what the survey says, Family Feud is still a boring show

I was reminded today that it's the 44th anniversary of Family Feud's premiere.

July 12, 1976, barely a week after our country celebrated its bicentennial, a fresh, new and exciting game show hit the daytime airwaves, back in the glory days of ABC, when morning chat fests weren't all the rage.

I'm still amazed. A show that I find to be a bit boring and slow has been on TV for most of the past 44 years.

Any game show historian can recite all sorts of trivia about the show. They can explain how the show is based upon the bonus game of TV's Match Game, how other hosts were considered and why Richard Dawson, a regular panelist on Match Game since its revamped debut in 1973, got the job.

I have watched the show in every incarnation, and I find it less appealing than ever.

As a kid who enjoyed game shows, it had its appeal. Generally I find that shows with a play-along factor are more fun to watch. I might not have been worldly as a kid, but I could play along with some of the questions. They were survey questions, not general knowledge trivia questions, so there were multiple answers, and wrong answers were those that simply didn't make the survey. I think the fact that you didn't have to be Jeopardy smart to play along was one factor that made it a success.

Richard Dawson (photo via laist.com)

Unquestionably, the show's success was due in large part to Dawson as host. He was quick-witted, charming and the show allowed him a little time to interact with members of a family, or spend a minute pontificating at the start of a show. The way 30-minute TV games shows are produced these days, he wouldn't have been afforded such luxury.

Thanks to cable television and digi-nets, we've had chances to review Dawson's work during the past 25 or so years. I get why the show worked back in the day, but I find it rather slow and dull at this point in my life. The bonus round was entertaining, but you had to sit through rounds of mundane questions to get to it.

The show was successful enough to earn a nighttime edition, in addition to the weekday morning slot over most of these ABC stations. And it inspired occasional celebrity editions, which ABC dropped into its prime time schedule. It had a nice run of about nine years.

It didn't take more than a few years before the show returned in the late 1980s for another several years. Most of that time it was helmed by Ray Combs. The show looked and played largely the same, although there was a tweak to it eventually. Under Combs, the host's banter had a bit more playful and mischievous of a tone, but it seemed to do well. I watched it now and again.

Combs was relieved of his duties after six years or so, and Dawson was brought back in an attempt to rejuvenate the show, nearly a decade after he had signed off as its host. That lasted a year. The show was dead again.

Approximately four years later, Feud was back again, circa 1999, with Minnesota-born comedian Louie Anderson as the host. The look and theme of the show were different, but for the most part it was that familiar show we all knew. If you would have told me in 1999 that the show would air uninterrupted for more than two decades, I'd have bet $100 you were wrong.

The show switched hosts after a few years, with Home Improvement's Richard Karn taking over for four years. Then came Seinfeld's John O'Hurley for four years. Each guy had his own style and personality, but none of them dazzled me. I can't speak to how the ratings were, but they were good enough to bring the show back for yet another year.

Then in 2010 Feud brought in Steve Harvey, and the show has done rather well for years.

I don't get the appeal, but it doesn't matter. Feud is doing quite well without me.

I get why it's successful, to a point. As my buddy and I say, we live in a Jerry Springer society. The show went from asking mundane questions, such as "Name something you need for a day at the beach?" to "Name an organ that only an idiot would donate while he's still alive?" People are going to say "his penis," and it makes the survey.

When a contestant answers "penis," Steve Harvey does a little routine, because that's what the audience wants, and the producers post a euphemism on the board, to the roar of the crowd. It might be "his ding-a-ling," or it might be "his baloney pony." The crowd will go wild, America has been entertained.

For some, Feud is fun. The old reruns offer nostalgic charm, or the new episodes offer "outrageous" answers that are hilarious. The game is a pretty good one, and timeless. Questions can be updated to reflect the times. Questions can be written with a specific audience in mind. After more than four decades, it's still making money for a lot of people.

For me, it has had its moments. Today, the nostalgic charm of Dawson is only good in small doses. Since I don't watch Family Feud to see a comedian do his act while hosting the show, Harvey does nothing for me. And I don't find his shtick to be that funny. But again, he doesn't need me.

Faster isn't always better, but after four decades I can say that Feud has given me something that is entertaining, and worth more than 30 minutes of my time in any given week, although I don't get a chance to watch it very often. The Game Show Network has a show called America Says, which is basically Feud against the clock. It's a more entertaining game than Feud, and it only took four decades of Feud success for somebody to come up with a knock off version I enjoy.

Perhaps I'll be reminiscing about America Says in four decades. I'd be happy with that.

"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.

And the next host of Jeopardy! should be?

All of us who follow game shows, and plenty of people who don't, learned last month that Jeopardy! host Alex Trebek has pancreatic cancer. It's beatable, but the general consensus is that the odds are against him.

There are rumors that Sony, which produces Jeopardy!, is already considering possible replacements. Nobody wants to see Trebek replaced any time soon, but Sony is preparing for the unfortunate scenario that Trebek might not be returning to the helm. Several suggestions for the next host have been discussed wherever game show nerds congregate online. Some I like better than the others. Here's a list of potential hosts, and my response to them.

Jeff Probst: Game show fans suggest the host of TV's Survivor because he hosted Rock & Roll Jeopardy! from 1998 through 2001 on VH1. I never saw much of the show back in the day, but Probst was a rather straight forward host. He could handle Jeopardy with aplomb, but the guy irritates me, and I'd rather not be reminded of that when I watch the show.

I'm jealous of Probst, I'll be the first to admit it. He gets paid decent money for his idiotic hosting gig on Survivor. I've never been a fan of the show, but when I stop to watch 10 minutes of it now and then, listing to him do play-by-play during some goofy competition between the competing teams is painful. The guy has a great gig for which he clearly sold his soul to the devil. I don't want to be reminded of how annoying and silly his career has been by hearing him read questions about Shakespeare on weekday afternoons.

While the new host need not be a guy who will hold the job for 35 years, Probst is 57. Perhaps they should skew younger.

Chris Harrison: Nobody is suggesting this clown, but if you're going to consider Probst, I say consider Harrison, too.

Harrison is as worthless as Probst when it comes to The Bachelor franchise on ABC. I've watched The Bachelor for a few years, mostly because my buddy can't resist it, and it makes for great fodder when we talk. It's so stupid sometimes, I feel dirty for watching it, and can't believe my buddy has been tuning in for years. Harrison only adds to the stupidity. But again, it's a great gig. It's pointless, and it beats working for a living, although I have to believe the guy is basically a puppet.

For the past couple of years he's been holding a second job, hosting Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? He's decent at that, despite how annoying he is on The Bachelor. It's widely assumed that Millionaire is about to have its plug pulled. If so, Harrison could use a new second gig, and he's 47. He's got a few more years ahead of him than Probst, presumably.

I'm not rooting for either guy to garner any consideration, but I'd take Bachelor guy over Survivor guy.

Meredith Vieira: The first host of syndicated Millionare was suggested by somebody. She held that gig for more than a decade, and did fine. As for Jeopardy!, it ain't happening.

She has a new game show in the works for this fall called 25 Words or Less. So she's booked. She'd be fine as Jeopardy's host, but I'm an ageist, evidently. I seem to want the show to skew young in its hire. Meredith is 65 and quite capable, but let's look elsewhere.

Ken Jennings: There have been suggestions that the king of Jeopardy! take over as host. I like the idea. He's been on TV enough that he's comfortable in front of the camera. He's well known, thanks to the fact Jeopardy! trots him out every chance it gets for some new tournament. And at 44, he's about the age that Trebek was when he started hosting the revival. I like it. I'm no authority, but I gotta believe we've never had a popular game show contestant ascend to host of the show. It's unorthodox, but I have no problem with it.

If you really want to have fun with Jennings as the host, have him play along with Final Jeopardy! during each episode before learning who the day's champion is. A new twist for the show without changing the game play. I'll take it.

Brad Rutter: Jennings received plenty of mainstream media attention for his 74-game run on Jeopardy!, but Rutter is actually the king. Rutter's reign predated Jennings, when champs had to retire after winning five games. In all the super tournaments Jeopardy! has held in the years since Jennings dazzled the nation, Rutter has won every time, defeating Jennings in the process.

Rutter doesn't have the household cachet of Jennings, but he's just as smooth, is just as smart and is trying to carve out a career as an actor or host at this point, so he's more than ready to ascend to the Jeopardy! throne. He's 41, so he has a lot of years ahead of him, and Jeopardy! is running out of excuses to trot him out for special events. He could likewise play along with Final Jeopardy each day.

Anderson Cooper: In the past, Cooper has been suggested as a possible host, and he brings the air of authority you seek in a Jeopardy! host. I'd have no problem with it, but there is a faction that is rubbed the wrong way by the 51-year-old because he's a liberal pawn of CNN. I don't know how many people would boycott Jeopardy! if Cooper hosted it, but I have a feeling a few people would make a stink about him. Enough to keep him from getting the gig? Seems unlikely, but never underestimate a studio making the safe choice.

Tom Bergeron: Did somebody throw out his name somewhere? I think so. The former host of Hollywood Squares is a career emcee, and he hosts light fare, mostly. Despite the fact his paychecks since Hollywood Squares have been the C-list celebrity dance-a-thon and the funny video show, both on ABC, Bergeron would slide nicely onto the Sony set. But he's 63, so that might work against him.

Ricki Lake: Somebody suggested the part-time actress because she did a mediocre job of hosting a summer game show homage years ago. I'm sure she could do it, and I'm sure she'd dazzle nobody in the process.

Those are the names that come to mind. Of all of them, I'm inclined to choose Rutter if it's up to me. I like the idea of him or Jennings, and I think Rutter would be the better choice of the two.

There are suggestions that the new host should be a minority or female because we've had too many white guys historically, I guess. I don't care if the host is male or female, or what ethnic background the host possesses. Hire the best person, not a minority because it seems like the progressive thing to do.

Trebek had an established career in game shows when his Jeopardy! career began. He had hosted shows that skewed toward the intellectual, and shows that were less serious, and had elements of luck woven into the game play. Jeopardy's next host, whenever the day comes, need not be a brainiac who is considered the smartest person in the room. But Trebek lends an air of authority to the proceedings, and I have to think the next host will bring a similar tone to the job.

Why do we hate game shows?

I didn't really expect to appreciate the Snoop Dogg version of "Joker's Wild," and Snoop Dogg did not disappoint.

If you haven't seen the show, all you need to know is that it's the basic idea of "Joker's Wild," built around Dogg's persona. There are occasionally questions about general knowledge, although they're presented in reference to Snoop's life. Many questions are about pop culture topics, some of which nobody of reasonable intelligence could be expected to know. Category names, if not categories themselves, reference drugs. Talking about marijuana use makes the show appealing to today's modern game show viewer, evidently.

Plenty of questions use video segments featuring "celebrities," or other interactive elements. Some of these are just plain stupid.

The show is produced for TBS, so I didn't expect a traditional presentation of the classic game. Snoop is quite adept at hosting the game, and the set is well done. It is colorful and modern. It doesn't appear they went cheap on the set design. The audience is seated in a "lounge," which fits the vibe the show is trying to create with Snoop as the host.

I've come to accept that I'm in the minority. I enjoy a simple quiz show with an element of luck added to the game. The old "Joker's Wild" posed general knowledge and pop culture questions, but the pop culture questions weren't as ridiculous as Snoop trots out. "Sale of the Century" was not the most fascinating game, but it had a lot of elements throughout the game play. "High Rollers" was simple, but it was fun to watch each game unfold. "Joker's Wild" and "Tic Tac Dough" had interesting elements that made them enjoyable to watch, too. But I guess that's not enough for today's Twitter attention spans.

I guess if it's not "Jeopardy!" then we aren't interested.

Game shows will never be the same, fo shizzle.

The title of this is misleading. Wheel of Fortune evolves, and it has its flaws, but it's largely the same game I've known for 40 years. Yes, it has been around longer than Pat and Vanna want you to think.

Jeopardy! continues to be true to its format. Very little gimmickry finds its way into a broadcast.

And for all the changes and updates that have come along in the 10 years Drew Carey has hosted The Price is Right, it still feels like I'm watching the same game show from my youth.

But today's TV audience doesn't seem to be very impressed with the traditional game show.

It seems like any game show on TV, be it a 30-minute show plugged into an odd hour of a TV station's schedule or a 60-minute prime time affair, needs to have one of three things in order to capture an audience, if not all three.

Big money needs to be part of the equation in many instances. Watching people play Deal or No Deal for a $50,000 prize wasn't going to garner much attention. There had to be a huge prize out there. This all started with ABC's prime time showcase for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Suddenly every network wanted to draw huge ratings with a prime time game show. Fox rolled out Greed, and dangled a $2 million prize, for example.

The hosts of most shows of the past 17-plus years have not been your traditional emcees. That seems to be important, too. Deal or No Deal chose Howie Mandel, known to many either for his acting or for his comedy. He wasn't exactly a hot commodity at the time he was tapped to host the game. If anything, it resurrected his career.

Regardless, he represented a trend in emcees that emerged with the resurrection of the prime time game show. Your emcees of yesteryear typically brought a sense of humor to the proceedings, but they weren't there to interject it. More often than not these days, the emcee is chosen as much to be an entertainer as to be the host.

Bob Barker had great comedic timing as host of The Price is Right. But he didn't overuse it. He never made the show about him. I can't say the same for Steve Harvey and Family Feud.

And finally, many of the big money game shows need to interject human drama into the game. That must reel viewers in somehow. Plenty of Mandel's Deal or No Deal contestants had some sort of external situation that was played up and used to sell the game. "Marcia, you're a single mother, you have five kids, you work three full-time jobs and you're going to college to try to better you life. $85,000 would mean so much to your family....."

I happened to catch a few minutes of the latest NBC get-rich-quick affair, The Wall. I haven't seen enough of the show to have the slightest idea of how it works. But during those two or three minutes I watched, host Chris Hardwick built up the drama regarding the big cash prize while the husband-and-wife duo vying for it had an overly emotional exchange on stage. I needed a barf bag.

The old days of watching  people play a competitive quiz game for nice prizes just doesn't seem to hold much interest to today's viewers. Simple games built around general knowledge, such as Sale of the Century, High Rollers and Tic Tac Dough, really don't stand a chance. Perhaps the closest we've come outside of Jeopardy! during the past 20 years is the six-year run of Hollywood Squares, and that ended more than a decade ago.

GSN, formerly known as Game Show Network, has had some success developing traditional games that lasted for more than a year, but nothing set the world on fire. And if it ain't Jeopardy!, it has to have one of today's criteria mentioned above, and usually more than one.

When I read today that there's going to be a new version of Joker's Wild, I quickly lost my enthusiasm.

Rap music's Snoop Dogg is going to host a new version on TBS, a cable channel with a poor track record of developing game shows. I'm not going to tell you I will hate it, because I might be surprised. But I'm not as excited as I should be.

Joker's Wild had a simple format, offering a game of "strategy, knowledge and fun." It was a quiz show with an element of luck. That's all I needed.

The new TBS version promises an update to the game. It will be more than the simple quiz show that went off the air more than 30 years ago. (I'm ignoring the short-lived, mostly unnoticed one-year revival from the early 1990s.)

But I have a hard time believing Snoop Dogg will play it straight. He might not be a comedian, but I suspect he'll interject his personality into the show more than I'll care for, and he'll probably take on the role of cheerleader during the show. That seems to be something hosts do today. I don't need to be prompted as to when I should be excited for a contestant, and I don't need to see my hosts celebrating with the contestants. But I suspect Snoop Dogg will work the audience and celebrate as if he's the winner when somebody walks away with a nice prize. I guess that's what people watching game shows want to see these days, but to me it takes away from the game.

Then again, the game doesn't seem to be as important to people watching a game show in 2017. At least not Family Feud. I'm sure plenty of people watching Family Feud today would never come back if Harvey were to be replaced by Todd Newton tomorrow. Todd Newton is younger than Harvey, but more traditional in his hosting style. I guarantee you the show would take a huge dip in the ratings were Newton to replace Harvey. That's the world I live in. (I watched plenty of Family Feud in my life. It has a play-along factor, but I've never loved it. I'm never going to watch it religiously, no matter who the host is.)

I'm guessing that since the new Joker's Wild is on TBS, it's not going to have a ridiculous prize budget. Given that, and the fact Snoop Dogg is the host, I'm not expecting the show to drip with personal drama as contestants compete for a bonus round prize of $10,000 or $20,000. So in order for the show to connect with todays' game show viewers, it's going to have to attract people who find Snoop Dogg to be entertaining enough to watch go through the motions of hosting a game show.

If it succeeds, odds are it won't be because of me. If it turns out that I think it's a good show, you can bet it will have a short lifespan. Fo shizzle my nizzle.

'Big Money' brings Michael Larson and Press Your Luck back to life

Never in my wildest dreams did I consider that a game show episode I watched as a teenager would one day be recreated on a theatrical stage.

Been there, done that.

Note: I will rely upon my memory occasionally, and it's a bit cloudy more than 30 years later. And I assume you have basic familiarity with the show, given you're reading a game show blog.

In 1984 a simple, exciting CBS game show called Press Your Luck was competing for viewers in the crowded daytime schedules of the major networks. There was a time when all three networks were in the game show business, and it was glorious.

Press Your Luck was a great game. It wasn't intellectually stimulating, it didn't have much of a play along factor, and occasionally the games were less than spectacular. But the format provided some great competition and amazing outcomes in its final round.

Michael Larson did something incredible in May 1984. As a contestant on the show he won $110,000 in cash and prizes. Rarely would a contestant win $25,000 in a single show on Press Your Luck, but Larson shocked the game show world with his incredible win.

And I saw him do it during the summer of 1984. His game lasted so long that it didn't fit into the show's 30-minute format, which was unheard of. They had to split his game between two 30-minute episodes. I'm not sure if I saw both episodes that summer, but I definitely saw the second part.

How did he win so much more than anyone had ever considered trying to win? It was rather simple.

We didn't have fancy home computers in 1984, but personal computers were available. We had them in school and used them for a variety of simple applications by today's standards. You'd think a game show that relied upon 18 television monitors with alternating screens and a light indicator bouncing around those 18 monitors would have a basic computer providing complete randomization of the game play. But that wasn't the case.

Larson figured out, by watching videotapes of the game over and over, that the light indicator moved about the board in patterns. There was more than one pattern, and he memorized them all so that he'd know when the light indicator would stop on one of two monitors. There were three different screens in each monitor. The screens might contain a cash amount, a prize or a "whammy," which wiped out your bank account. The odds of hitting a whammy were 1-in-6, as I recall reading somewhere.

The two monitors Larson focused upon had six screens offering cash, plus an additional spin. Players earned a limited number of spins for each of two rounds by answering a few trivia questions. By hitting squares that always offered an additional spin, Larson could potentially play for hours, if he had the stamina and focus to continue following the pattern.

It took him a few spins to get his timing down, but by round two he was hitting his buzzer and stopping the board repeatedly with the light indicator on one of the two key squares, allowing him to run up a total of $102,000 before he decided he had better play it safe and pass his remaining spins to another player, which the game allowed him to do. He had a few spins passed back to him and added another $8,000 to his total. The game came to an end moments later, cementing his place in game show history.

I've seen the Larson episodes a few times over the years. His big win aired one time, and was all but forgotten by CBS and the show's producers. They were embarrassed. They aired the show, awarded him his cash and prizes and never acknowledged him again during the next two years of the show's run.

Even when reruns of the show were aired on cable TV in the 1990s, the Larson episodes were blacklisted.

It wasn't until GSN, the cable network formerly known as Game Show Network, aired a documentary in 2003 about Larson's improbable win that the average Joe had a chance to revisit Larson's incredible accomplishment. The documentary, as well as the original episodes, are readily available on Youtube.

A month or so ago my girlfriend told me about a play at a St. Paul theater that was coming in January. She hates the fact I'm a game show fanatic, but will take any avenue available to entice me to see live theater with her. She read the synopsis of "Big Money." It was they story of Larson's life.

The original production by Sandbox Theatre tells the life story of Larson. I wouldn't call it must-see theater, even for game show fanatics, but it was pretty amazing to see his life adapted to live theater.

The play opens with a recreation of Larson's game. From host Peter Tomarken's comments, to the interviews with the contestants, and the four trivia questions that begin round 1, it was very faithful to the original broadcast. The main deviation: Larson is introduced third. He was in the second seat, but given he's the focal point of the play, his introduction is third.

After the opening segment of the TV show, the play deviates from the broadcast. Larson steps out from behind his podium for a monologue about his life.

Most of the play features snippets of his life, before and after the show. We learn that he was always looking for a way to make an easy buck. We see him covertly selling candy bars at his grade school, we see him opening up bank accounts all over town -- sometimes under a fake name -- to receive a $500 bonus for opening a new account, we see him explaining to his brother how he created a dummy company in order to collect unemployment insurance and we see him studying his tapes of Press Your Luck, trying to crack the code, much to the disappointment of his on-again, off-again wife, who just wants him to get a job and earn a steady paycheck.

The play revisits the game two more times: When Larson was on his roll during round 2, racking up thousands of dollars, and at the end of the show, when Tomarken was interviewing Larson about his game play and his down-on-his-luck tale of being an unemployed ice cream truck driver.

The rest of the play shows scenes from the studio on the day he was chosen as a contestant, and after his big win. There's a scene recreating Larson's audition to be a contestant, and a scene showing the producers panicking about his win, and how the network would respond. Did Larson cheat somehow? Or did he simply make them look like fools by exposing a flaw in their game play?

Scenes from his life following his win include a scene showing him eagerly investing $35,000 in an effort to increase his windfall. It takes money to make money, after all. There's also a scene showing Larson, his wife and daughter searching through $1 bills Larson had withdrawn from the bank, trying to match a serial number announced on a radio station in order to win $30,000. According to the play, he had withdrawn $50,000 in $1 bills.

There are also scenes showing Larson working at Walmart within a year or two of his big winning. His money was gone. His investments fizzled and his bags of $1 bills were stolen while he was at a Christmas party. He suspected his wife had something to do with their disappearance.

The  play also recreates his 1994 interview on ABC's Good Morning America. He was interviewed because of the popularity of the movie "Quiz Show," which was about game show scandals of the 1950s. I'm not sure if I saw the interview in 1994 or simply read a synopsis of it on TV Guide. (Does anyone know where to find Youtube video of his Good Morning America appearance?)

Sometime in the 1990s Larson wound up running some sort of lottery scam, which had him on the run from the FBI. He was estranged from his wife and daughter at that point, as well as his brother. We learn that he was diagnosed with throat cancer too late to adequately treat it.

The final scene of the play imagines Tomarken talking with Larson about the end of his life, on the set of a game show. Using dialogue mimicking the scenes we saw at the beginning of the play, we hear Larson reflect on his life.

I know the story of Larson better than most people, I'm sure, but I'm no expert. The GSN documentary did a good job of fleshing out details of his life. It explained how the producers disagreed upon whether or not they wanted to use Larson as a contestant when he showed up from Ohio to audition. They also talked about the concerns and embarrassment we see recreated in the play.

His tale of woe regarding the $1 bills and their burglary is well known by those who know the story of his life after the show. To the best of my knowledge the case was never solved.

But I didn't know about his life before Press Your Luck. I had never heard about the candy bars, the unemployment insurance scheme or the bank account fraud. I was left wondering what the source material was. I've never seen it.

I was familiar with most of the events from his life after the show, however.

So, did I like it?

I had mixed feelings.

On the whole, I liked it. It's a small theater, and it's a modest production. There are seven cast members, most of whom play multiple parts. Only the actor playing Larson is limited to a single role. But the cast does a nice job of morphing from one character to another.

The guy playing Larson was a bit exaggerated when recreating Larson's enthusiasm during the game play, but overall he seemed to embody the spirit of Larson. One of Larson's competitors on the show was a guy named Ed Long. The actor playing Long clearly studied him, as he did an outstanding job of replicating him. The actor playing Tomarken didn't remind me of the deceased emcee at all.

The props were limited, but the play did a nice job of using what little it had to work with. The creation of the game board was as simple as it could be, but one of prize squares depicted was a flokati rug. Diehard Press Your Luck fans will appreciate that.

I have to assume most people don't know the story of Larson. The play imagines the internal struggles Larson wrestled with in his lifelong quest to beat the system, and the price he paid. But it's not simply a cautionary tale. There's levity thrown in, and sometimes it didn't make sense.

My girlfriend characterized the play as eccentric, and theorized that they added the odd visuals and inexplicable moments to simply amuse audience members who aren't as hardcore about Larson's history. At one point there was nearly a song-and-dance routine, and plenty of times I found myself thinking, "That was wacky."

You won't find this play on Broadway any time soon. After this weekend it may never be seen again. The show was slated for a run barely more than two weeks, (13 total performances,) and it didn't get a lot of mainstream promotion locally, as far as I can tell, so I suspect other game show geeks in the Twin Cities don't even know they're missing it.

This wasn't community theater, but it certainly didn't have the sparkle and polish of a major theatrical production. Tickets are $40 to $60, evidently, but I attended on a discount night, so I have no complaint about the value of the production.

Bill Murray was allegedly going to play Larson in a biopic shortly after Larson's death, but that didn't happen. "Big Money" was a low-budget alternative to that unfulfilled promise, and I enjoyed it, despite its quirkiness.

I'm not sure why the folks at Sandbox Theatre dedicated their time and talent to the story of Larson, but I'm glad they did. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who has been captivated by his story all these years.