> > Although some of these (such as Squares, Match Game, and
> > Feud)
> > expanded to five nights a week by the '80s, viewers seemed
>
> > to prefer
> > PM Magazine, ET, and shows of that type.
> >
> Being a game show fanatic in the 70s, I've never quite
> gotten my head around why people in the 80s suddenly lost
> interest in them, especially the night-time versions that
> aired at 7:30. I realize that the 80s were markedly
> different from the 70s in many many ways, but I wonder what
> cultural factors may have turned people away from game
> shows. Any thoughts?
>
I don't think it was a cultural shift as much as overexposure
of the games. In 1975, for example, there were some 30 game
shows on the networks and in syndication; although that number
decreased gradually between 1975 and 1980, there were still
a LOT of them on the air, and people simply got tired of them.
One thing that didn't help the network daytime games was the
expansion of the soaps to an hour. The classic case is
ABC's Break The Bank, which aired at 2:30 (ET) in the spring
of 1976. Good ratings to the contrary, ABC dumped it in July
of that year, replacing it with a 45-minute One Life To Live
(which went to an hour in January 1978, along with General
Hospital). Likewise, Family Feud, which had done well for
ABC at 1:30, was moved to 11:30 AM in the spring of 1977 to
make way for an hour-long All My Children. NBC had been
running games at 1:30 as well, until Days Of Our Lives went
to an hour in 1975. And the second half of Guiding Light
(if you get it in the afternoon) is where Match Game was
in the '70s.
Add to that the fact that the networks found it more and
more difficult to get the affiliates to clear 10-11 AM
(ET), noon-12:30 (ET) (where the original Jeopardy! once
aired), and 4-4:30 (ET) (where Tattletales, among other
games, aired). All those time slots were given back to
the affiliates, which put talk and courtroom shows into
the time as a rule, except at noon, when most of them
air local news.
Whatever people are looking for in their games, Price, Wheel,
and Jeopardy! obviously have it. With Price, you get to
test your shopping skills; Wheel is about guessing the puzzle
before the contestants do (and anyone of reasonable intelligence
should be able to), and with Jeopardy! you get to test your smarts
against the contestants. Despite the difficulty of some Jeopardy!
material, all three shows are very viewer-friendly.
Another factor, I think, is the host. Some have the skills to
replace a well-known predecessor and do it well; few people today
know that Bill Cullen, not Bob Barker, was the original host of
TPIR; that Chuck Woolery was the original host of Wheel; or that
Art Fleming was the original host of Jeopardy! But too many don't.
Family Feud has never been as good without Richard Dawson (and even
he wasn't up to form when he came back in '94), Let's Make A Deal
just doesn't work without Monty Hall, The Newlywed Game doesn't
work without Bob Eubanks. And look how many people have tried
and failed to make To Tell The Truth work since Garry Moore
retired in '77 (Joe Garagiola, Robin Ward, Gordon Elliott, Lynn
Swann, John O'Hurley, even Alex Trebek couldn't make it a hit again),
despite the fact that it may be the closest thing to the perfect
game show (the viewer and the panel are on an equal footing, and
most of the impostors lie so well we all get fooled).
Finally, there's plenty of competition from video games, where
a person is actively, not vicariously, participating. Also, the
reality shows do fill in a gap where the games were, even though
it's network primetime.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by bpatrick on 12/27/05 02:14 AM.</FONT></P>