Game Show Philosophy: A Series of Collages (1/5)

Hello, folks:

I recently completed a project for the "Digital Manipulation" class I'm taking this quarter (Winter 2008), and thought I'd share it with all of you. I decided to start this series with an image that established my game show philosophy...and give examples of game shows I've seen that are either consistent or in conflict with each of my three "directives." Feel free to check out the "My Philosophy on Game Shows" series if you need to be brought up to date. Here is the first image:


For the most part, this is pretty self-explanatory...but there may be some who want to know why I've picked these six shows as examples:

1) Consistent: "Wheel of Fortune." When a contestant ends the game without having solved a puzzle, he/she is given $1,000 as a consolation prize. Aside from that, there is a house minimum of $1,000 for every puzzle that a contestant does solve...very useful for when someone gains control of the wheel with only one or two consonants remaining in the puzzle.

Conflict: "Greed." As Chuck Woolery reminds each group at the beginning of a game: if the group misses any question, they lose everything...even if they'd made it to $200,000, $500,000 or $1,000,000. It was only during "Super Greed" that the group acquired a guarantee of $200,000 after correctly answering the $1,000,000 question. While that certainly is nice...the players who were "terminated" before the $1,000,000 question still ended up with nothing. None of this ever sat very well with me, especially when the players who were "challenged" were eliminated (the player who is chosen by the Terminator to receive $10,000 for challenging another player for his/her share of the money was the "challenger"; the player chosen by the challenger was the "challenged.").

I'll explain the rest of this image in the next post. Stay tuned....