What makes a game show set "cheap"?

[goldroadfanatic]

I have heard this about several game shows that are produced today and some others from years past, but for a set to be considered "cheap", what must be its characteristics?

[Off_trak]

Depends what you mean... Cheap in a monetary sense, or "cheap" in appearance?

[goldroadfanatic]

I would say both of them, giving characteristics for each.

[Scott5114]

Well, I would say it looks cheap if it looks like it took no effort to make, or was made out of shoddy materials (paint and cardboard?), or is in the process of falling apart...

Obviously today the first Jeopardy board (the pull cards) would be considered cheap if it were on the air...we'd wonder why they didn't spring for plasma screens.

[PriceFan14]

For the answer to this question, see "Catch 21" on GSN.

[Superballer]

If it looks like the set or computer graphics were put together by a grade schooler (the 2001 Card Sharks revival being a prime example), that's a pretty good hint. 

[nowhammies11]

Or if a set "wobbles" (i.e. Perry Card Sharks, the Money Cards podium [and for that matter, the main game podium] looked like it was about to fall off multiple times).

[Ponch8]

For the answer to this question, see "Catch 21" on GSN.

But those ads for mayonnaise on the back of each card are so classy!

[yabbaguy]

But those ads for mayonnaise on the back of each card are so not classy!

Fixed. 

[Scott5114]

But those ads for mayonnaise on the back of each card are so classy!

Ads for mayonnaise are ALWAYS classy. I don't know what you're talking about.

[AussieEvil]

If the set was on a USA Network game show.

[Alfonzo]

All-time cheapest game show was some "thing" called "100%" that was "hosted" by Casey Kasem. Hosted, I mean as there was NO LIVE HOST, just Casey doing a voice-over of the questions post taping! It was basically three people in a blue room answering questions by pressing buttons on the podiums with a fake chroma-key background! The contestants didn't even speak, for chrissakes!!!

[WarioBarker]

Crosswords was cheap in every way. Temptation sometimes gave away NOTHING. Both hosts needed to be pelted with bricks.

The Family Channel's Boggle/Shuffle/Jumble were a trio of cheapness - no cash, just a trip and a few other small trinkets.

And 100% had a Pilot with Mark Henning as host and a different set (http://usgameshows.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Pilot_100_Percent)...same format, though. Damn, that show was boring - and the UK started it, running their version from 1997-2003!

It was basically three people in a blue room answering questions by pressing buttons on the podiums with a fake chroma-key background! The contestants didn't even speak!

Which makes me wonder...how the CRAP did they stay awake through that - or better, how much were they paid to "play" such an Insomnia-curing program?
-Daniel

[Alfonzo]

Beat's the heck out of me! Here's a link to prove that it existed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_(game_show)
I actually saw this a couple of times on our independent Channel 67 station WNGS. Boring as hell! It came on immediately after the much-lamented Match Game '98.

[WarioBarker]

The UK like games that take their time...game's the same over there, but the thing was INCREDIBLY popular...

And here's the link, since the end was cut off from the above - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_(game_show) I have also taken the liberty to make the article easier to read.

...Oh, and it got two spinoffs - the senior's classic 100% Gold in 1998 (ooh, Amanda Walker as a female disembodied voice!) and a late-night version called 100% Sex (the single most misleading title in history).

Check here for all the info - http://www.ukgameshows.com/page/index.php?title=100%25 Now, seriously - who at Pearson looked at this show and went "Hey, this would be a great idea for an American series!", huh?
-Daniel