A Thought on Game Shows

There is this theory floating out there that traditional game shows are being "dumbed down" to make them more "accessible" to everyday viewers. The lifelines on Millionaire, the lack of any skill whatsoever on Deal or No Deal, and the very title of Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader are cited as evidence.

I'm not so sure.

What seems to be disappearing is not the quiz itself, but the "game" element. Deal or No Deal is one player against the Banker. Millionaire and Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader are one player against the question stack. Even 1 vs. 100, a show which has come a long way since its dreadful early days, portrays the "Mob" as a faceless, nameless bogeyman present only to put an obstacle in the way of the One.

Not coincidentally, I think this is why so many of the other quizzes in the Prime Time Millioonaire era failed. 21, Winning Lines and their cousins had too much competition for the taste of the American consumer.

Even Jeopardy is not immune to anti-competitiveness. Remember when Jeopardy was the most-watched show on TV three years ago? Thank you, Ken Jennings. Ken turned Jeopardy into "one guy against the board," and America lapped it up. Since becoming an actual "game" again, Jeopardy's ratings have returned to their pre-Ken levels.

Need evidence? See if you can name these four Jeopardy legends. If you're a fan of the show, ask somebody who has heard of Ken Jennings but doesn't watch the show regularly.

1 -- Who won the Ultimate Tournament of Champions, breaking Ken's record for most money won?

2 -- Who finished third in the UToC Finals?

3 -- Who won the most recent Jeopardy Tournament of Champions?

4 -- Which Jeopardy champion won 19 games in a row over two seasons, second only to Ken Jennings?

As long as TV quizzes have "winners" and "losers," they will struggle in the ratings.

But if "everybody wins," everybody watches.

Blech.