Why do we have to be hit over the head with Kardashian ass nowadays? This happens every time I watch a modern day game show. There are no clever or witty responses. They just go straight for the obvious vulgar or crude answer. What's fun about that?
shareWell I think the innuendos were there because they were very limited in what they could say back in the 70s. Now you can basically say anything on tv.
shareThe original went with the straight forward answer a lot too.
This panel was unfair to all four contestants on Sunday. Stupid, unexpected answers across the board. Adam Goldberg didn't provide a single logical answer.
TOTALLY AGREE. Not that I am like "offended" but it is not even funny. What a difference a week makes. I'm already DONE with the show. Clever innuendo is funny. Juvenile things like I "I Put My Ding Dong in her Ho-Ho" was enough for me. And what's with Rosie having and Titus reminding us over and over and over they are homosexual. You are, we know...now make us laugh. Oh I miss Charles Nelson Reilly.
shareDitto. In the 70's, people were just more respectful of others. Today, they have to be "out" liberals, so proud of themselves and "how far they've come." How far they sank. Charles, Brett and Richard any day over the current group. Their social views may all be the same, but we never knew it on the 70's Match Game.
This version is akin to reviving All in the Family without Archie. Iron sharpens iron. A little Meathead goes a long way. 4 of them is Match Game 2016.
Ditto. In the 70's, people were just more respectful of others. Today, they have to be "out" liberals, so proud of themselves and "how far they've come." How far they sank. Charles, Brett and Richard any day over the current group. Their social views may all be the same, but we never knew it on the 70's Match Game.
This panel was unfair to all four contestants on Sunday. Stupid, unexpected answers across the board. Adam Goldberg didn't provide a single logical answer.
Watching the 70s version, sometimes there were non-PC moments, from everyone regardless of orientation. Only a couple times did I cringe over something anti-gay being mentioned but usually everyone was well-behaved. But Brett, Charles, Gene, and Richard were definitely class acts. Especially Charles, there were the occasional ant-gay questions and comments put out. But it was the 1970s. People have come a long way since then, in both good and bad ways.
This show will not last. It's too painful to watch.
shareI never thought I'd see "boner" as a response on a game show. =/ Thank goodness for the reruns.
shareI'd been avoiding this show because of Alec, Rosie, et al. But tonight it was on in the background, and the first question I hear contains the phrase "...I get to have sex with her..." It's not necessary to the concept of the show. Just lame writers going for some kind of juvenile giggle factor.
shareThe fun might be for the panelists to try to not say the loaded answer. Maybe the contestants like to feel awkward in having to say what they think panelists will say. Most questions that try to get under the censors' radar are just crude from the get-go, instead of being playful and dancing around "suggestive" that the original was. They still keep that format, but I too get the vibe they're just trying to be gross.
Other observations of this new show, warning there are spoilers regarding the format (not actual questions):
1. The 70s classic show was not PC. The new one, with the episodes I've seen so far, disallows answers like "fat" in favor of forced tripe like "rich" yet goes out of its way to slam actual people by using actual names of people (and companies) instead of creating fake names. The original show had a sense of fun that allowed people to laugh at themselves. I'm not getting that vibe in this remake, which is the best remake since the 70s classic ended in the early 80s.
2. They have a good host and selection of panelists. Leslie, Jack, Rosie and Tituss all had good chemistry. Alec baldwin seems forced, but any new show is going to be rough going at first. Not fond of fall the bleeped swearing. Bleeps can be funny if the situation feels natural, but this show feels forced with the comedy being attempted, as if swearing for the sake of it is funny. It wasn't in 1990, it still isn't now.
3. If the host asks the audience to examine their life choices because they watch the show, if audiences did that the show would lose ____ real quick.
I'm disappointed in the new version. Richard Dawson, Charles Nelson Reilly, Brett Sommers, and Fannie Flagg are totatlly missed. (Of course the first three are dead.) It does not have the charm and good humor of the original. Give me the old reruns instead. :-)
share