The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: weaklink75 on August 28, 2009, 12:14:27 PM
-
Based on the article this looks like a November Sweeps stunt.. (http://\"http://gameshows.about.com/b/2009/08/27/new-who-wants-to-be-a-millionaire-special-event-will-this-one-work.htm#gB3\")
I'm torn about this- obviously they want to have a MDW this year, and this is a good way to do it (I'd think anyone who was at the $100K level would risk $75K for a shot at the million), but this smacks of DOND-type desperation....
-
IMHO, this is a much better way for "Millionaire" to hold a Tournament of Champions (unlike the "Champions" edition that the ABC version held previously), of sorts. This also adds the element of the MDQ from "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" and "Don't Forget the Lyrics!". I don't know how the clock will factor into this, though.
-
Disappointing, to say the least. Because it's now been over six years since we had a million-dollar winner, I can understand why they want one. However, if they really feel they have to alter the rules to try to get one, why not just dumb-down the questions for a while?
I'm not really in favor of it as I'd like to see the game keep its intergrity, but some big winners have won with easier stacks. That way you can finally break the long streak of the jackpot not being won but by having played the game the way the rules were originally written, putting it in November sweeps and then going back to the usual difficulty level of the stacks.
-
The article specifically said that the details weren't all in yet, but so far I really don't have a problem with any of this. I'd be much more concerned about the "integrity of the game" (whatever that really means) if they started dumbing down the stacks just to get a winner. Playing a promotable stunt that brings back people who've done well in the past? I don't see the big deal. Jeopardy guarantees a large payout to its Tournament of Champions winner every year and doesn't even make its players risk their earnings to participate.
-
What I meant by "integrity of the game" is that I'd rather see a contestant answer all 15 questions to win the million.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'224337\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 01:01 PM\']What I meant by "integrity of the game" is that I'd rather see a contestant answer all 15 questions to win the million.[/quote]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I understood that's what you meant, but we have to remember that it's not our game. Why do we get to decide that anything less that fifteen questions isn't "right"? In several countries, they now only have to answer twelve. It's still their game, and these are just their rules.
-
The part I have a problem with is the "ranking" system. The explanation was pretty convoluted and so I hope this isn't how it actually works, but it makes it sound like all ten players are going to be required to answer their question regardless. Which doesn't seem right to me, because if the top-ranked player answers their question correctly, then all the #10 ranked player is playing for is not to lose their money.
(Obviously they would do it in reverse order, so that #10 goes first. But the overall effect is the same.)
It feels to me like a much fairer implementation would be to start with #1, and when someone gets theirs right, boom, that's it, everyone is done, and anyone who hasn't played yet keeps their original winnings.
-
I like the concept of a tournament, but I hate the concept of automatically throwing someone into the Million Dollar Question.
I like the concept of risking what you've won, but I hate the concept of automatically throwing someone into the Million Dollar Question.
I agree with letting the biggest winner go first, being it would suck that I win a quarter-mil, but I lose my shot at the million because some $16,000 winner went first and won the money. But, what do you do in the event of ties (i.e. three contestants who all walked with $100,000? Rank the contestants based on most time banked over their run? Blind number draw?*
*Get your Mega-Millions tickets, people!
/Actually, don't.
//That $325M is mine dammit
-
Here's what I would suspect based on the murk from the article.
-The stunt is like the old 100K tournaments in that it ends when it ends, but it ends if they run out of people, too.
-Since this is opt-in, if you elect to play and actually do, you forfeit the ability to walk
-This will likely run at the last segment of the 2 weeks (or less) of shows
Here's what needs to be answered:
-Who goes first and will it matter?
-How much time do you get?
-Whose MDQ? The one from your original stack or from elsewhere?
Another thing I've noticed is that this is another way to reduce the number of contestants cast for the season. The Ring of Fire Rescuees will easily take up a week of shows or more, and this will take up the space of another couple of contestant slots.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'224350\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 12:30 PM\']-The stunt is like the old 100K tournaments in that it ends when it ends,[/quote]
I would love for you to tell to me what in that explanation makes you draw that conclusion.
-Whose MDQ? The one from your original stack or from elsewhere?
You're really asking this? Really?
-
[quote name=\'weaklink75\' post=\'224328\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 09:14 AM\']I'm torn about this- obviously they want to have a MDW this year, and this is a good way to do it (I'd think anyone who was at the $100K level would risk $75K for a shot at the million), but this smacks of DOND-type desperation....[/quote] If indeed that's how it will play.
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'224331\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 09:21 AM\']IMHO, this is a much better way for "Millionaire" to hold a Tournament of Champions (unlike the "Champions" edition that the ABC version held previously), of sorts.[/quote]Not it isn't.
This also adds the element of the MDQ from "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" and "Don't Forget the Lyrics!".
No it doesn't.
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'224332\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 09:32 AM\']Disappointing, to say the least. Because it's now been over six years since we had a million-dollar winner, I can understand why they want one. However, if they really feel they have to alter the rules to try to get one, why not just dumb-down the questions for a while?[/quote] Because they can't afford to do that. For every person that wins $50,000, they probably need someone to win $1,000, or three to win $16,000, and so on. They probably can set aside a million dollar jackpot, but not have a bunch of people winning an extra level of money.
I'm not really in favor of it as I'd like to see the game keep its intergrity, but some big winners have won with easier stacks. That way you can finally break the long streak of the jackpot not being won but by having played the game the way the rules were originally written, putting it in November sweeps and then going back to the usual difficulty level of the stacks.
Which just rewards someone for showing up at the right time. Blech.
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'224350\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 12:30 PM\']Here's what I would suspect based on the murk from the article.
-The stunt is like the old 100K tournaments in that it ends when it ends, but it ends if they run out of people, too.
-Since this is opt-in, if you elect to play and actually do, you forfeit the ability to walk
-This will likely run at the last segment of the 2 weeks (or less) of shows[/quote] Why do you suspect these things? What in the article says "this is how it will be?"
-Whose MDQ? The one from your original stack or from elsewhere?
How does this make an iota of difference?
-
Read the linked three times and this still makes no sense to me. Both in the "how" and "why" departments.
-
An official release and announcement will come on Monday.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'224350\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 02:30 PM\']-Who goes first and will it matter?[/quote]
I imagine they'd start with the tenth ranked person and work upwards, to guarantee that it goes up to the last player. If you go from the top down, you risk the whole thing being over in a matter of 45 seconds.
I'm torn on this, for the mere fact that there's no real "head to head" competition between the players. Here's my idea for a Millionaire "ToC":
-Throw out the whole "risk" factor.
-Put the ten players into Fastest Finger. Winner plays for the million.
-Player chooses only 2 lifelines they'd like to take into the Hot Seat.
-Wherever the player ended their stack in the regular season is where they continue from. That way, there's an advantage to those who played better in their respective games.
-Lose, and you lose your progress and go back to Fastest Finger. Wash, rinse, repeat until someone completes their stack and wins the million.
Just a thought.
-
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'224381\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 01:49 AM\']I'm torn on this, for the mere fact that there's no real "head to head" competition between the players. Here's my idea for a Millionaire "ToC":
-Throw out the whole "risk" factor.
-Put the ten players into Fastest Finger. Winner plays for the million.
-Player chooses only 2 lifelines they'd like to take into the Hot Seat.
-Wherever the player ended their stack in the regular season is where they continue from. That way, there's an advantage to those who played better in their respective games.
-Lose, and you lose your progress and go back to Fastest Finger. Wash, rinse, repeat until someone completes their stack and wins the million.[/quote]
I'm liking this. No, I'm really liking this. It's a way to generate buzz and increase the chances of giving away the bundle whilst keeping the integrity of the game at least somewhat intact. The only stipulations I'd add is that you'd only do it if nobody won naturally (since there wouldn't be a need), and just have everyone play the upper tier over again. That way viewers don't have to keep track of juggling who needs how many questions in their heads.
-
[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'224382\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 11:46 PM\']I'm liking this....[/quote]If you were to do that, I would prefer something like the Last Man Standing episode on 1 vs. 100, and just allow everyone to play from their qualifying chair. No lifelines, just play questions until you have a Sole Survivor.
If you liked the Million Dollar Moment on Greed, you'll probably like it just as much on Millionaire. If you didn't then, the same is true here.
-
This idea is nothing more than DoND's Million Dollar Mission only with questions instead of cases. I see problems with this even though the $1M will be won somehow:
1) What if there were 2 or more players getting that $1M question right, how do you break ties? Higest ranked? Fastest time?
2) A player that won $25K will most likely get a "freebie" while a player who won $500K may not go for risking $475K. $100K seems to be a borderline call here for an opt-in chance.
3) If NO ONE gets the question right, then we start over again with the first player that tried the $1M the first time. This might go on for months. To counter something like that, make the top prize not such a garuntee so that if no one wins, so be it & a new quallifying period begins for the next 45 episodes.
I prefer the ToC option where whoever answers the $1M question correctly endes it right then & there & the other players that didn't get a shot keep their winnings
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'224384\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 02:24 AM\']If you liked the Million Dollar Moment on Greed, you'll probably like it just as much on Millionaire. If you didn't then, the same is true here.[/quote]
Oh, there were plenty of other things wrong with Greed before the MDM was even introduced.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'224384\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 02:24 AM\'][quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'224382\' date=\'Aug 28 2009, 11:46 PM\']I'm liking this....[/quote]If you were to do that, I would prefer something like the Last Man Standing episode on 1 vs. 100, and just allow everyone to play from their qualifying chair. No lifelines, just play questions until you have a Sole Survivor.
[/quote]
But ....
1.How do you keep it interesting? Part of what makes Millionaire interesting is hearing the player's though process aloud. You can't do that with 10 people. It's just 15/30/45 seconds of dramatic music.
2. There's the fact that this can very easily take just one day, especially if the questions increase in difficulty at the rate of a 15 question stack.
3. I'm assuming the lifelines are totally out of play here.
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'224386\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 03:41 AM\']1) What if there were 2 or more players getting that $1M question right, how do you break ties? Higest ranked? Fastest time?[/quote]
I believe it said that the highest ranked player who answers correctly wins the dough...although I imagine if two players who previously won $250K got their questions right, it would come down to who did it quicker.
-
For once in my life I can supply some 'inside scoop' regarding this!
The official name is "Tournament of Ten". The top ten winners from the first 45 shows (ties broken by most time banked and a rule regarding which questions' times were used-depended on if you stopped versus lost and fell to a safe level), come back, one at a time from 10 to 1 on the last segment of the show, one every day for two weeks in November.
They are asked one question, sans lifelines, but do NOT have to answer, in which case they keep their original winnings. Answer wrong and you go down to the nearest safety level below you (e.g., you had $100,000 and miss, you leave with $25,000). Answer right and you are *eligible* to win the million provided you're the highest ranking player of those who got it right. If no one gets it right, no one wins the million.
If someone in the top 10 says no to coming back, they move down to 11th and so on to secure 10 spots. Presumably anyone at $25,000 gets a free shot, although I'm guessing they assumed everyone in the top 10 would be high enough such that everyone would have to risk something, but there's no way to know for sure.
I asked if this would negate the usual 'wait 30 days to award the prizes', and they said yes-and I got the impression they never thought about that since it wasn't explicitly stated in our contestant rules. This became a running joke for our group since we were picturing people getting awarded the cash, and then having to write a check back to the show if they lost. I also wondered if it could affect everyone since they couldn't be sure all of the top 10 would be able to come back, in which case they'd have to wait until the top 10 were secured. I suppose that also depends on taping dates.
There was *almost* another surprise-a new money tree (values in thousands):
1 2-3-4-5 6-8-12-16-25 50-100-250-500-1,000
1st, 5th and 10th questions were the three safe levels. We were told after the Wednesday episode about this then got called back Thursday afternoon and told they would not be making the change, as they didn't like how the run-throughs went. I was surprised (and disappointed) such a change got nixed so late, on the day before the season 8 tapings began.
Matt
-
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'224407\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 07:38 PM\']Answer right and you are *eligible* to win the million provided you're the highest ranking player of those who got it right.[/quote]That seems kind of anti-climactic and/or lacking to me. "Congratulations, you kinda-sorta won a million dollars!....as long as smarty-pants at #1 doesn't get it right." followed a couple of days later by "Aww, sorry #1, you didn't get it right... but #4 who got it right on Tuesday did and he wins a million! Let's bring him out!"
-
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'224407\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 04:38 PM\']They are asked one question, sans lifelines, but do NOT have to answer, in which case they keep their original winnings.[/quote]
This leaves a much better taste in my mouth than the original description.
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'224410\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 05:01 PM\']"Aww, sorry #1, you didn't get it right... but #4 who got it right on Tuesday did and he wins a million! Let's bring him out!"[/quote]
If it's mine to do, anyone who has qualified to win the million is kept on-set in a King-Of-The-Hill-style chair to avoid exactly this. If someone else along the way answers, you do the reveal with a tension-filled split-screen. The only anticlimactic situation is when someone's qualified and they get to #1, he's stumped, and says "I walk. #4 wins."
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'224412\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 08:48 PM\']King-Of-The-Hill-style chair[/quote]I like it. (http://\"http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/2803/tracc.jpg\")
And here's (http://\"http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1180/newtree.jpg\") a mock-up of what the graphic for the new money tree would have looked like.
-
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'224407\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 07:38 PM\']There was *almost* another surprise-a new money tree (values in thousands):
1 2-3-4-5 6-8-12-16-25 50-100-250-500-1,000
1st, 5th and 10th questions were the three safe levels. We were told after the Wednesday episode about this then got called back Thursday afternoon and told they would not be making the change, as they didn't like how the run-throughs went. I was surprised (and disappointed) such a change got nixed so late, on the day before the season 8 tapings began.
Matt[/quote]
I'm glad this didn't happen. That just seems....silly and unneccesary. But then again, to me, so does the tourney of 10.
-
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'224407\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 07:38 PM\']Answer wrong and you go down to the nearest safety level below you (e.g., you had $100,000 and miss, you leave with $25,000).
......
Presumably anyone at $25,000 gets a free shot, although I'm guessing they assumed everyone in the top 10 would be high enough such that everyone would have to risk something, but there's no way to know for sure.[/quote]
This has "anticlimactic" written all over it, if I'm following everything. I think it would be extremely unlikely that over the course of the first 45 shows, you'd have ten players who each earned more than $25,000. So once the dust settles, we've got a bunch of people who've won $25K and now get a free shot at a million dollar question. And they go first. Your last guy, the one who [probably] won $250K or [maybe] $500K earlier, has serious money at risk, and therefore is a lot more likely to shrug and say "thanks for the extra night in NYC."
My staff at Word Have Meanings would also like to talk to them about the definition of a "Tournament". These are ten isolated incidents, and, it would appear, ten different questions, which is something else I have a problem with. They could ask the first guy to name the 73rd digit of pi, and ask the last guy to identify what position on a baseball team wears a catcher's mask. Again, it's their game and their "integrity" to do with what they will, but the more specifics I'm hearing about this, the less sense it makes.
The woulda-been Money Tree just seems like a weird Mo' Money thing, as if they decided that $1000 was too small a consolation prize. Unless the idea was to have meaningful questions all the way along, in which case it would be even less likely that players would reach the upper levels.
-
Matt, if there is a $1,000,000 winner in those 45 shows, do you know what happens? I mean, isn't the $1,000,000 considered a "safe haven" just like the $1,000 or $25,000 values? It's highlighted in gold (and pre-2008, white) just like those other amounts. I would guess there are three potential situations if we get a $1M winner:
A) There's a clause in the rules saying $1,000,000 winners cannot participate.
B) If they don't consider $1,000,000 a safe haven, no contestant is going to give up their money just to try to win it back.
C) If a $1,000,000 winner plays and answers incorrectly he loses no money because they consider $1M a "safety level." If he answers correctly, he wins $2,000,000.
Some ideas are clearly more inane than others, but they're all possible.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'224419\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 07:07 PM\']1) There's a clause in the rules saying $1,000,000 winners cannot participate.[/quote]
Occam's Razor leads me to stop right here and not even bother with more inane what-ifs.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'224422\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 10:29 PM\']Occam's Razor leads me to stop right here and not even bother with more inane what-ifs.[/quote]Understandable, but option C could allow them to build up and promote the idea that someone could win two million dollars. If they're infected with Mo' Money Syndrome, why not go all-out? I'm not saying it's the best choice, but clearly they're hellbent on giving someone a lot of money.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'224423\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 07:32 PM\']Understandable, but option C could allow them to build up and promote the idea that someone could win two million dollars.[/quote]
I repeat:
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'224422\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 10:29 PM\']Occam's Razor leads me to stop right here and not even bother with more inane what-ifs.[/quote]
-
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'224407\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 06:38 PM\']They are asked one question, sans lifelines, but do NOT have to answer, in which case they keep their original winnings. Answer wrong and you go down to the nearest safety level below you (e.g., you had $100,000 and miss, you leave with $25,000). Answer right and you are *eligible* to win the million provided you're the highest ranking player of those who got it right. If no one gets it right, no one wins the million.[/quote]
So basically, because there's no risk in seeing the question, it's now a "warp zone" of sorts to the Million Dollar Question (insert Super Mario pipe SFX here) for people who weren't good enough players to do it the first time.. That is lame. Really lame.
Like Matt, I've got two huge problems with this, and it has to do with the fact that this is supposed to be a tournament. Tournaments, for the most part have some sort of head to head competition, as well as provide a challenge to win a top prize. There's no "competition", and as Matt said, these are ten isolated incidents. Even if they all played a set number of questions using the same category set, it would be a little less broken.
My verdict? This isn't a tournament. It's a "Second Chance Special". They were the 10 best players in a 45 day period, none of which could go the whole way. A game show of Millionaire's caliber shouldn't be giving away the lot like this....it cheapens the moment.
-
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'224430\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 09:51 PM\']My verdict? This isn't a tournament. It's a "Second Chance Special". They were the 10 best players in a 45 day period, none of which could go the whole way. A game show of Millionaire's caliber shouldn't be giving away the lot like this....it cheapens the moment.[/quote]If I have my choice between Millionaire Warp Zone (and ten points to you for that!) and Return of the Zero Dollar Winners, I pick the former.
I think that the excitement will be during the main game, where players have to decide if they want to move up a step (or more) at the risk of being wrong and falling back and possibly out of contention. I think you'll have more people playing the $100,000 question than before.
I'll pose this to anyone who says that a Fast Forward to Question 15 is so awful: how do you feel about specialty weeks? There are more big money winners during Movie or TV week than during regular play, and yet no one says anything about that; instead the reaction seems to be positive. Or what about special weeks where contestants win bonus prizes just for showing up/being a member of a particular demographic?
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'224419\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 09:07 PM\']Matt, if there is a $1,000,000 winner in those 45 shows, do you know what happens? I mean, isn't the $1,000,000 considered a "safe haven" just like the $1,000 or $25,000 values? It's highlighted in gold (and pre-2008, white) just like those other amounts. I would guess there are three potential situations if we get a $1M winner:
A) There's a clause in the rules saying $1,000,000 winners cannot participate.
B) If they don't consider $1,000,000 a safe haven, no contestant is going to give up their money just to try to win it back.
C) If a $1,000,000 winner plays and answers incorrectly he loses no money because they consider $1M a "safety level." If he answers correctly, he wins $2,000,000.
Some ideas are clearly more inane than others, but they're all possible.[/quote]
A, final answer.
There would be no 2nd million dollar chance-if you win $1 million you're ineligible for the tournament.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'224416\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 08:42 PM\']"thanks for the extra night in NYC."
Unless the idea was to have meaningful questions all the way along, in which case it would be even less likely that players would reach the upper levels.[/quote]
You wouldn't even say that-they don't pay for ANYTHING on the daytime version. They simply said "if you have to come back, stay at the Lucerne, they have a discounted rate for Millionaire contestants", which is apparently $175 given the 'bill' I saw when I checked out.
We were lucky in that they paid for our 2 extra nights in the Lucerne and return travel but did not give us the extra $64 per diem for the 2 additional days we had to stay.
As for the questions, without divulging game play, the earlier questions sure seemed more difficult, as if they had been kicked up a notch for the anticipated change in the money ladder.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'224413\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 08:55 PM\']And here's (http://\"http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1180/newtree.jpg\") a mock-up of what the graphic for the new money tree would have looked like.[/quote]
That would more look like a good Millionaire Hot Seat money tree than something else .
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'224431\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 01:03 AM\']I'll pose this to anyone who says that a Fast Forward to Question 15 is so awful: how do you feel about specialty weeks?.....Or what about special weeks where contestants win bonus prizes just for showing up/being a member of a particular demographic?[/quote]
Don't like them, either AND don't like them, either.
With the exceptions of Scrabble and The $100,000 Pyramid, I become a non-viewer during the tournament periods.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'224431\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 01:03 AM\'][quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'224430\' date=\'Aug 29 2009, 09:51 PM\']My verdict? This isn't a tournament. It's a "Second Chance Special". They were the 10 best players in a 45 day period, none of which could go the whole way. A game show of Millionaire's caliber shouldn't be giving away the lot like this....it cheapens the moment.[/quote]If I have my choice between Millionaire Warp Zone (and ten points to you for that!) and Return of the Zero Dollar Winners, I pick the former. [/quote]I choose neither. Just making the questions easier for two weeks is the simplest way of going about it.
I think that the excitement will be during the main game, where players have to decide if they want to move up a step (or more) at the risk of being wrong and falling back and possibly out of contention. I think you'll have more people playing the $100,000 question than before.
...and losing. Joy. That's a great way to save on the budget...again.
I'll pose this to anyone who says that a Fast Forward to Question 15 is so awful: how do you feel about specialty weeks? There are more big money winners during Movie or TV week than during regular play, and yet no one says anything about that; instead the reaction seems to be positive. Or what about special weeks where contestants win bonus prizes just for showing up/being a member of a particular demographic?
1) Are you really equating someone still having to answer all 15 questions (even if it was their chosen subject) and risking their five- or six-figure payday again and again by answering Questions 12, 13 and 14 to someone who may not have done either? You don't risk anything to go for $50,000, and how many people hit that level in a 45-day span? Above that? One slow month, and all of a sudden you've got someone who eenie-meenie-minie-moed on Q11 having just as much a shot of winning the million as someone who scratched and clawed their way to $500K. I understand you hating "right place, right time", but not enough to justify something this crappy.
2) Is the question difficulty raised during those weeks, to make up for it? If so, then I don't mind. If a $100,000 question for me (who watches maybe a movies a year) is a $100,000 question for a film buff, then I'd have a problem with that.
3) How big are the bonus prizes during these special weeks?
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224468\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 04:21 PM\']3) How big are the bonus prizes during these special weeks?[/quote]Nothing like a new car. A year of Netflix (Movie Week) or a gift card to Walgreen's (Teacher Week).
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'224469\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 04:29 PM\'][quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224468\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 04:21 PM\']3) How big are the bonus prizes during these special weeks?[/quote]Nothing like a new car. A year of Netflix (Movie Week) or a gift card to Walgreen's (Teacher Week).
[/quote]
Meh. Not enough to ruffle my feathers.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224468\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 01:21 PM\']I choose neither. Just making the questions easier for two weeks is the simplest way of going about it.[/quote] And I said why they're not going to do that.
...and losing. Joy. That's a great way to save on the budget...again.
Not if they know the answer. That's the whole thing about why Millionaire is a great format. It's real money, and it's BIG money. For me, risking $25,000 to win another $50,000 is a BIG deal. It will be a big deal for most of the people who mount the Hot Seat. To ask people whether they want to play another question for 50,000 more points on the way so that they can try two more questions before getting to the money is just silly.
1) Are you really equating someone still having to answer all 15 questions (even if it was their chosen subject) and risking their five- or six-figure payday again and again by answering Questions 12, 13 and 14 to someone who may not have done either? You don't risk anything to go for $50,000, and how many people hit that level in a 45-day span? Above that? One slow month, and all of a sudden you've got someone who eenie-meenie-minie-moed on Q11 having just as much a shot of winning the million as someone who scratched and clawed their way to $500K. I understand you hating "right place, right time", but not enough to justify something this crappy.
I really don't understand your point here. I'm not joking; I really don't get it.
2) Is the question difficulty raised during those weeks, to make up for it? If so, then I don't mind. If a $100,000 question for me (who watches maybe a movies a year) is a $100,000 question for a film buff, then I'd have a problem with that.
Beats me. The $250,000 question I remember from Movie Week was "What was the movie where Michael Bolton got the idea to rob Initech in Office Space?" (no, not in those words, but that was the jist of it.) Once you get beyond the realm of about $50,000, question difficulty is so subjective for anyone that I think it reaches irrelevant.
3) How big are the bonus prizes during these special weeks?
Teachers got a $1,000 CVS gift card. Movie Week players got a free year of Netflix. Wedding Week couples won a prize such as having the dress bought for them, a honeymoon, a dinnerware set, and so on. And if there were couples that didn't get to play that week? They still won the prize chosen specially for them.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'224457\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 01:03 PM\']With the exceptions of Scrabble and The $100,000 Pyramid, I become a non-viewer during the tournament periods.[/quote]
You skip the Jeopardy! ToC? If so, you're the first I've seen.
-
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'224476\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 05:33 PM\'][quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'224457\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 01:03 PM\']With the exceptions of Scrabble and The $100,000 Pyramid, I become a non-viewer during the tournament periods.[/quote]
You skip the Jeopardy! ToC? If so, you're the first I've seen.
[/quote]
I'll watch the two-day finals, but that's it.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'224474\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 04:56 PM\']And I said why they're not going to do that.[/quote]I replied why they should. If they are so intent on giving away the million, 10 or 11 people going a level or two higher can't hurt them too much. Question difficulty may be subjective, but it can be controlled. I don't think it's a stretch to believe that a question originally valued at $100,000 will be answered correctly less often than a $25K question. If you revalue it at $25K (and do the same down the line) for a week or two between sweeps, you can get the budget back on track.
Not if they know the answer. That's the whole thing about why Millionaire is a great format. It's real money, and it's BIG money. For me, risking $25,000 to win another $50,000 is a BIG deal. It will be a big deal for most of the people who mount the Hot Seat. To ask people whether they want to play another question for 50,000 more points on the way so that they can try two more questions before getting to the money is just silly.
True. But this tournament wrinkle adds an artificial second carrot, almost a distraction. It's the main reason I didn't like $100,000 Pyramid way of qualifying for the tournament. It wasn't enough for you to go up to the top. You had to speed things up. With a tie between $25K and $50K winners being likely, time now becomes a more important factor, as well.
I really don't understand your point here. I'm not joking; I really don't get it.
Let me try again, then.
If you were on during Movie Week, even though you have your favorite category, you still have to get all 15 questions right to win the million. You still have to risk $475K on the final question to win it. However, this could be a tournament:
Player 1: Won $50K first time out
Player 2: $50K
Player 3: $50K
Player 4: $50K
Player 5: $100K
Player 6: $100K
Player 7: $100K
Player 8: $100K
Player 9: $250K
Player 10: $500K
Everyone's playing for the same million dollars, but Players 1, 2, 3 and 4 would risk only $25,000 to answer, compared to Player 10, who'd have to risk $475K. Also, Player 10 will have to answer a 15th question correctly to win the million, whereas Player 1 will have only answered 12. How is that possibly fair? Player 10 has risked their money 3 more times than Player 1. How can you have less of a problem with that than someone answering 15 arguably slightly easier questions? Essentially, I was trying to add to Matt Ottinger's point. If I've made a mistake somewhere, please correct me.
Teachers got a $1,000 CVS gift card. Movie Week players got a free year of Netflix. Wedding Week couples won a prize such as having the dress bought for them, a honeymoon, a dinnerware set, and so on. And if there were couples that didn't get to play that week? They still won the prize chosen specially for them.
Again, that's not enough for me to raise a stink.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224482\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 04:31 PM\']replied why they should. If they are so intent on giving away the million, 10 or 11 people going a level or two higher can't hurt them too much.[/quote]But it will, because they cannot afford that. They're giving away $25,000 a head. For ten people to move up a level, you need ten more people to go for it and be wrong. There just isn't that kind of time.
Question difficulty may be subjective, but it can be controlled. I don't think it's a stretch to believe that a question originally valued at $100,000 will be answered correctly less often than a $25K question. If you revalue it at $25K (and do the same down the line) for a week or two between sweeps, you can get the budget back on track.
And now screwed the players who were unfortunate enough to draw that tape day. Not only didn't they get the easy stack, but they have to fight that much harder to win the big money.
These are not just abstract numbers and shadows of people. You have to work within the boundaries of a budget, and know that there are real people looking to win real money here.
True. But this tournament wrinkle adds an artificial second carrot, almost a distraction. It's the main reason I didn't like $100,000 Pyramid way of qualifying for the tournament. It wasn't enough for you to go up to the top. You had to speed things up. With a tie between $25K and $50K winners being likely, time now becomes a more important factor, as well.
Really? What would you have done differently? I thought that it was a great way to do it.
Let me try again, then.
...
How is that possibly fair?
How is it fair that some players get to play Plinko, and some get to play Double Prices? Or that some people get on a show and the jackpot prize is a foreign holiday while the next group plays for a trip to Florida. Game shows are not an egalitarian exercise, and sometimes you do things that aren't fair just because they look good on TV.
Again, that's not enough for me to raise a stink.
That's fine. I still don't like that you can show up, not play, and still win a spiffy prize just for being the right kind of contestant. Whether it's being in the Oprah audience when she decides to give away space stations, or Deal or No Deal awards the entire audience the value of the deal done, I don't like it. I get on with my day just the same, but I don't like it.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'224491\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 05:31 PM\']Whether it's being in the Oprah audience when she decides to give away space stations, or Deal or No Deal awards the entire audience the value of the deal done, I don't like it. I get on with my day just the same, but I don't like it.[/quote]
"YOU get $63,000 and a pony! YOU get $63,000 and a pony! YOU get $63,000 and a pony!..."
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'224511\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 09:49 PM\']"YOU get $63,000 and a pony! YOU get $63,000 and a pony! YOU get $63,000 and a pony!..."[/quote]
I lol'd.
/how much taxes does one pay on a pony?
-
One thing I'm not sure about is how aware contestants later in the 45-day period will be of what's needed to get into the tournament-the only time the leaderboard is shown is at the end of the show, and none of us were aware of where we stood. I knew only because I saw the graphic on one of the monitors while I was waiting to play.
One problem will be that, especially for later players, it may encourage them to answer really fast to bank as much time as possible. Since the clock starts as Meredith reads the answers, contestants can simply talk over her to answer. We were encouraged to do this, but as a viewer I doubt it would be enjoyable to never hear Meredith finish reading the choices-it's akin to someone at home shouting out the answers before you've had the chance to play along.
I guess with the 'pruned' money tree and the lack of attention to detail (I found three errors in the daytime contestant rules which I mentioned to the attorney briefing us, and one of which was serious enough for them to print up new copies for everyone to sign) the tournament feels to me like another half-baked idea that wasn't completely thought out as to its potential to make for uninteresting television. Maybe it's just me-I like when the contestant has a few seconds to say a few more words other than "C, final answer." Your time is so short in the chair; at least give everyone a chance for the audience to get to know someone and root for them rather than have the whole thing reduced to rapid-fire responses... a la that other game show of answers and questions.
In my opinion, the clock's introduction started them on the road to this. I think the editing in post-production could result in a better product without the clock, but then I'm not sure if they would rather have all the shows in the can rather than whether or not they gave viewers something enjoyable to watch. I got the impression that the 5 shows on my taping day were under a very tight schedule and that was the driving force. It was clear to us from the lack of per diem and lodging per policy that the daytime show was not bankrolled the way the ABC primetime series was. I'm only speaking for myself, of course, but if there's no emotional connection with the contestants the material isn't strong enough on its own to make for compelling television. Meredith is a wonderful person-let her work with the contestants to bring out their best too rather than reduce her to reading script-this isn't Today, after all.
Oh, and the way I read things, the entire season will have been taped by November.
-
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'224522\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 10:52 PM\']One thing I'm not sure about is how aware contestants later in the 45-day period will be of what's needed to get into the tournament-the only time the leaderboard is shown is at the end of the show, and none of us were aware of where we stood. I knew only because I saw the graphic on one of the monitors while I was waiting to play.[/quote]
Yeah, that's another whiff of "not entirely thought out". A fairly good analogy is the Wild Card slots for players in one of Jeopardy's tournaments. If you have a sense of where things stand before it's your turn to play, it can have a serious effect on your strategy. Jeopardy tournament players are sequestered until it's their time to play for precisely that reason. It sounds as though you found out and others in your group didn't, which gave you an ever-so-slight advantage. Good for you for paying attention, and even better for the players on day 43 and day 44 and day 45 who pay attention. But to be fair to everybody, nobody should know. Millionaire should have realized that.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'224491\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 08:31 PM\']But it will, because they cannot afford that. They're giving away $25,000 a head. For ten people to move up a level, you need ten more people to go for it and be wrong. There just isn't that kind of time.[/quote]There are, I believe, 75-80 episodes during sweeps out of 195. Maybe I can't make it easier for all the shows, but half sounds feasible. That would give me 155 shows to reclaim the money in the other 40. What I would really like is a run of five or six contestants in a row going deep. That kind of buzz could last the rest of the sweeps period.
And now screwed the players who were unfortunate enough to draw that tape day. Not only didn't they get the easy stack, but they have to fight that much harder to win the big money.
Which, again, I'm ok with. Just as I'm ok with the people who go on TPIR a week after they give away a $90K+ motorhome playing for cheaper prizes and having little shot at winning anything big. It's simply the price you pay for having big wins on the show.
These are not just abstract numbers and shadows of people. You have to work within the boundaries of a budget, and know that there are real people looking to win real money here.
Yes, but I'm also working with the timings of sweeps. It's not that I don't want or care whether someone hits it big outside of sweeps, but if it's not doing anything for my ad rates (which seem more important than ever), then frankly it's not doing as much as it could. If I'm the producer, and I'm not getting maximum benefit from the few big wins I get every year, I don't think I'd be producer much longer.
True. But this tournament wrinkle adds an artificial second carrot, almost a distraction. It's the main reason I didn't like $100,000 Pyramid way of qualifying for the tournament. It wasn't enough for you to go up to the top. You had to speed things up. With a tie between $25K and $50K winners being likely, time now becomes a more important factor, as well.
Really? What would you have done differently? I thought that it was a great way to do it.
Winning once in 35 seconds could be a fluke. Winning multiple times makes that less likely. To tell the truth, I quite liked the way Donnymid did it, with making winning twice in a day the requirement. I'd go for either that or going by most wins in the Winners' Circle during a championship run, with total score money and WC attempts being the tie-breakers.
How is it fair that some players get to play Plinko, and some get to play Double Prices? Or that some people get on a show and the jackpot prize is a foreign holiday while the next group plays for a trip to Florida. Game shows are not an egalitarian exercise, and sometimes you do things that aren't fair just because they look good on TV.
What makes you think that blatantly forcing a million dollar question several days in a row makes for good TV? Assuming they haven't changed the channel after yet another person bombs mid-stack, they have to readjust to the tournament format (with likely lots of explanation from Meredith). If someone answers it wrong, then it's just another loss. If they walk away, it's just another walk away. But if they get it right early on, you can't really celebrate, because they haven't actually won the money yet. They've won a chance at the money.
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'224522\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 10:52 PM\']Since the clock starts as Meredith reads the answers, contestants can simply talk over her to answer. We were encouraged to do this, but as a viewer I doubt it would be enjoyable to never hear Meredith finish reading the choices-it's akin to someone at home shouting out the answers before you've had the chance to play along.[/quote]...
Speaking of not-good TV...why the hell does the clock still start when Meredith's reading the answers?
Oh, and the way I read things, the entire season will have been taped by November.
And I thought it was only cheapie, fly-by-night operations like Temptation that needed to "get 'em all in the can"
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224534\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 09:47 PM\']Speaking of not-good TV...why the hell does the clock still start when Meredith's reading the answers?[/quote]
So let me cherry-pick this one point to ask you a question:
What if they DIDN'T start the clock until Meredith finished reading the answers, but the clock had, say, 5 seconds less per question on it? Are you okay with it then?
And I thought it was only cheapie, fly-by-night operations like Temptation that needed to "get 'em all in the can"
This is a business. The only thing that shooting in this fashion costs them is the ability to ask questions based on current events. If shooting three days a week, five shows a day saves them a ton of money because they can wrap up the shooting season in four months, why shouldn't they do it?
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224534\' date=\'Aug 31 2009, 12:47 AM\']
Oh, and the way I read things, the entire season will have been taped by November.
And I thought it was only cheapie, fly-by-night operations like Temptation that needed to "get 'em all in the can"
[/quote]
That's nothing new though. A lot of 70s shows taped their episodes during the summer.
-
[quote name=\'vtown7\' post=\'224516\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 09:28 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'224511\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 09:49 PM\']"YOU get $63,000 and a pony! YOU get $63,000 and a pony! YOU get $63,000 and a pony!..."[/quote]
I lol'd.
/how much taxes does one pay on a pony?
[/quote]
$62,995, obviously.
-
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'224522\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 10:52 PM\']Oh, and the way I read things, the entire season will have been taped by November.[/quote]
IIRC, every season of SyndieBAM has taped from August until around Thanksgiving, so this isn't new.
JD
-
Got a call today from WWTBAM saying that they've changed their mind (again) and will be using a new money tree:
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
25,000
With the rest the same as before.
Oddly enough, this money tree won't take effect until after us 9 carryovers are all finished (6th episode, presumably). Then they're going to change our "Tournament of Ten" standings to match the new money tree. But the payouts will be based on the *old* money tree.
Can't wait to hear Meredith explain that one... "so we're updating everyone's position, but for those who would have won more cash with the new tree, we're NOT giving them the money".
I wonder what the next change will be... perhaps our episodes won't be shown at all. "Remember what we said at the end of Regis' last episode? We lied."
-
Got a call today from WWTBAM saying that they've changed their mind (again) and will be using a new money tree:
Not impressed with the new tree. If it ain't broke...don't try to go and fix it. It'll seem odd if they air 6 episodes with the old figures and all of a sudden change them.
Oh well...at least times are interesting!
-
Don't like the new tree at all - i'd like to hear Davies reasoning behind it.
-
I still haven't quite figured out for myself why the original tree was replaced. The "current" one is fine, this new one is bizarre.
Hey, at least they didn't place the UK tree here. That's a plus.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'224586\' date=\'Aug 31 2009, 03:10 PM\']I still haven't quite figured out for myself why the original tree was replaced. The "current" one is fine, this new one is bizarre.
Hey, at least they didn't place the UK tree here. That's a plus.[/quote]
I'd rather see the UK tree than that goofy thing. $12,500? Nuh-uh.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'224586\' date=\'Aug 31 2009, 05:10 PM\']Hey, at least they didn't place the UK tree here. That's a plus.[/quote]
What's wrong with the new UK tree? After I got used to it, I rather liked it.
I'd actually prefer if they adopted the 12-step tree instead of the one they're gonna use now. (Hell, even the proposed one was slightly better)
/Maybe I'd like more it if there was a $17,500 in there.
//In-joke.
///The right people will get it.
-
Is it just me, or is there no risk whatsoever here? The $5,000 to 7,500 is okay, but after that, you're really not risking too much money. Honestly, I'd love $15,000, but I wouldn't be THAT bummed about going back down to $5,000, as opposed to $1,000. Granted, I'd be pissed, but $5,000 is nothing to sneeze at either. Part of what made the original tier so cool was after hitting that $1,000 question, everything doubled, so you saw big money, but you saw a big risk as well. From $5,000 on, you basically get an extra $2,500 for every question you get right, until you reach the $25,000 mark.
Honestly, I can't see a way to alter the tree without a) making too many close dollar values (the new $2,500 increments), and b) eliminating the risk and incentive.
Perhaps 200/300/500/1000/2500/4000/5000/7500/15000/25000/50000/100,000/250,000/500,000/1 million
-
15 is a nice number of questions, and makes a nice, tidy three sets of five questions per level. The current UK system seems lopsided with two at the bottom, then two sets of five. I realize that the shortening of the bottom tier was probably just to quicken the pace, but it just seems weird. Also, 50,000 is high for a safe haven.
(All my opinion.)
-
15-step idea: $500/$1,000/$1,500/$2,500/$5,000/$7,500/$10,000/$15,000/$25,000/$50,000/$75,000/$100,000/$250,000/$500,000/$1,000,000
Yeah, it looks kinda "Mo'money", but it's slightly more risky and if the questions are gonna get harder, I think this might be appropriate. (Risking $20,000 to win $25,000 more)
12-step idea: $500/$1,000/$2,500/$5,000/$10,000/$15,000/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000/$250,000/$500,000/$1,000,000
-
Well, got an idea for an eventual Millionaire TOC...
Get top 10 players from whatever period of time , invite them to play again. All ten players are isolated from studio audience.
Contestant #1 gets into stage , starting at Question 6 , NO lifelines , standard money tree. Contestant can walkaway at any time (they are not aware of the performance that the other players made , if any) .
When first contestant elected to walkaway/ miss a question , save their score, put them into the audience then repeat with every other contestant.
Whoever has the best score at the end (time acts as tiebreaker) get $100,000 or value of their last question correctly answered , whichever is better.
If you desperately want a million $$ moment , offer the tournament winner a bonus MDQ - answer it correctly and you get a million $ - answer it wrong and your tournament winnings goes back to 25k.
What do you think about it ?
-
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'224578\' date=\'Aug 31 2009, 05:17 PM\']12,500[/quote]That rolls off the tongue.
Does this mean that the fifteen-second first tier will actually be getting harder?
As unique as it is to watch a contesant walk away under a graphic saying "$0", I guess the almost-guarantee of a $500 consolation prize is more palatable to the general viewing audience.
-
[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' post=\'224600\' date=\'Aug 31 2009, 07:18 PM\']I guess the almost-guarantee of a $500 consolation prize is more palatable to the general viewing audience.[/quote]I was under the impression that the $500 was just a regular question, like the original $100 and unlike the almost-chain's $1,000. Mr. Sittel?
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'224602\' date=\'Aug 31 2009, 06:24 PM\'][quote name=\'MSTieScott\' post=\'224600\' date=\'Aug 31 2009, 07:18 PM\']I guess the almost-guarantee of a $500 consolation prize is more palatable to the general viewing audience.[/quote]I was under the impression that the $500 was just a regular question, like the original $100 and unlike the almost-chain's $1,000. Mr. Sittel?
[/quote]
I'm hoping you could put up a mock graphic of what this tree will look like on screen; the last one was pretty cool.
-
[quote name=\'golden-road\' post=\'224603\' date=\'Aug 31 2009, 07:42 PM\']I'm hoping you could put up a mock graphic of what this tree will look like on screen[/quote]Certainly.
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8196/moneytree.png (http://\"http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8196/moneytree.png\")
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'224586\' date=\'Aug 31 2009, 06:10 PM\']I still haven't quite figured out for myself why the original tree was replaced. The "current" one is fine, this new one is bizarre.[/quote]I wouldn't be surprised if it was yet another budget move. They pay $7000 less for answering 10 questions, $14,000 less for 11, and $25,000 less for 12. Multiply that by five seasons, and they've probably saved at least a million from that. Hoo-ray.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224647\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 12:46 AM\']Multiply that by five seasons, and they've probably saved at least a million from that. Hoo-ray.[/quote]
And you're still watching, so they're hoo-raying all the way to the bank. TV is a business.
-
I liked the money tree we have now. This new one's gonna cause problems from episode 6 on in regards to tourney rankings. Looks like they tinkered too much on the money tree. Can't they leave a good thong alone? Apparently not. OY!
-
If they want a $5k safe point then why not:
1k/2k/3k/4k/*5,000*/7.5k/10k/15k/20k/*25,000*/50k/100k/250k/500k/1m
Or for a lower safe point:
500/1k/1.5k/2k/*2,500*/5k/10k/15k/20k/*25,000*/50k/100k/250k/500k/1m
I don't like either of those trees all that much but it's better then there being a 12,500 step. The only place I'm ok with seeing that kind of a number is right before the 25k mark -- doubling money is fine but that being a random number mid tree? Why?
-Joe
-
[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'224653\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 04:17 AM\']If they want a $5k safe point then why not:
1k/2k/3k/4k/*5,000*/7.5k/10k/15k/20k/*25,000*/50k/100k/250k/500k/1m[/quote]
On question 9, you're risking $10,000 to win another $5,000. On question 10, you're risking $15,000 to win another $5,000. No good.
Or for a lower safe point:
500/1k/1.5k/2k/*2,500*/5k/10k/15k/20k/*25,000*/50k/100k/250k/500k/1m
Same problem as before, only magnified.
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'224650\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 01:27 AM\']Can't they leave a good thong alone?[/quote]
Would like a word with you. (http://\"http://trendliest.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/sisqo2.jpg\")
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'224650\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 04:27 AM\']Can't they leave a good thong alone?[/quote]
That's not a question for the staff of "Millionaire." The "Show Me the Money" dancers might be able to help, though.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'224662\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 11:42 AM\'][quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'224650\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 01:27 AM\']Can't they leave a good thong alone?[/quote]
Would like a word with you. (http://\"http://trendliest.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/sisqo2.jpg\")
[/quote]
Great, now that insipid song is stuck in my head. Should I thank you or Karlberg and his typos?
/I thank people using only one finger
-
I was under the impression that the $500 was just a regular question, like the original $100 and unlike the almost-chain's $1,000.
I hope we still get a joke D answer for the first question.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'224648\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 03:57 AM\'][quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224647\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 12:46 AM\']Multiply that by five seasons, and they've probably saved at least a million from that. Hoo-ray.[/quote]
And you're still watching, so they're hoo-raying all the way to the bank. TV is a business.
[/quote]
Actually, I haven't been watching regularly since they skimmed off the top. Signaled the entirely unwelcome oncoming of The Cheap to me. If you use a big money name, you need to play a big money game. The dearth of big winners is pretty much what's driven me away. Yes, I'll give them some time at the beginning of the new season to win me back, but usually by Thanksgiving, I'm not even recording it anymore. I watched it a bit more this year, so I could get used to the clock format, but I'd pretty much lost interest by Christmas. The last win I remember seeing the same day without prompting from a spoiler was when KenJen helped a family pair win $250,000.
As for money trees, I'd advocate something more radical, like:
10 $1 MILLION
9 $250,000
8 $100,000
7 $50,000
6 $25,000
5 $10,000
4 $5000
3 $2500
2 $1000
1 $500
20 seconds on Level One
40 on Two
60 on Three
60+time banked on #10
No awkward half-steps like Question 10 is now. Every question at least doubles your money. Quite like the numbers, as well. Part of me really wanted to make $50K the second milestone, to make answering the Big Fella a little less risky, but decided that forcing a contestant to risk 90% of their money at #7 and only 80% on the final question didn't make much sense, since it'd still be a $200,000 drop, anyways.
I really think that they're missing a trick by not having a "Choose Your Own Category" or "Favorite Category" lifeline. I think that would consistently be a more helpful lifeline than Ask the Expert.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224677\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 04:11 PM\']I really think that they're missing a trick by not having a "Choose Your Own Category" or "Favorite Category" lifeline. I think that would be a consistently better lifeline than Ask the Expert.[/quote]That would be lame, both on-screen and behind the scenes. The questions are written to be entertaining and challenging for both the contestant and the viewer. When the contestant exclaims "Meredith, I'd like to use a lifeline for my favorite category, Undergarments of 13th Century Monks," I'm not interested. Plus, the writers have to write extra questions at each level for each individual person, only one of which (if that) will end up being used, instead of just cycling some unused questions throughout stacks like they do now.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'224678\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 04:18 PM\']When the contestant exclaims "Meredith, I'd like to use a lifeline for my favorite category, Undergarments of 13th Century Monks," I'm not interested.[/quote]Heh. I wasn't thinking along the lines of Debt-level specialization. I was thinking more of a couch potato replacing a "Literature" question with a "TV" question.
-
I would actually like to see a "Stop the Clock" lifeline, where a contestant can nullify the clock for one question, and not have to worry about a time constraint.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'224678\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 03:18 PM\'][quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224677\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 04:11 PM\']I really think that they're missing a trick by not having a "Choose Your Own Category" or "Favorite Category" lifeline. I think that would be a consistently better lifeline than Ask the Expert.[/quote]That would be lame, both on-screen and behind the scenes. The questions are written to be entertaining and challenging for both the contestant and the viewer. When the contestant exclaims "Meredith, I'd like to use a lifeline for my favorite category, Undergarments of 13th Century Monks," I'm not interested. Plus, the writers have to write extra questions at each level for each individual person, only one of which (if that) will end up being used, instead of just cycling some unused questions throughout stacks like they do now.
[/quote]
What if they brought back "Switch the Question", only allowing the contestant to choose their question from one of three or four categories instead of using one predetermined question? Unused questions could still be recycled, and the contestants would get questions that played somewhat better to their strengths without requiring more-specialized-than-usual content.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'224678\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 01:18 PM\']"Meredith, I'd like to use a lifeline for my favorite category, Undergarments of 13th Century Monks,"[/quote]
Huh. I always figured they went commando.
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'224681\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 01:54 PM\']I would actually like to see a "Stop the Clock" lifeline, where a contestant can nullify the clock for one question, and not have to worry about a time constraint.[/quote]
And they could have Catherine Rahm on as a contestant, so she could forget to use it.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224677\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 01:11 PM\']As for money trees, I'd advocate something more radical, like:
10 $1 MILLION[/quote]Why? Contestants are already shuttled up to the chair and back off stage as quickly as possible, and this certainly doesn't help things. Why not change the game to "Congratulations for passing the test: pick a letter in "MILLIONAIRE" and see what you've won."
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'224705\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 10:55 PM\'][quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224677\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 01:11 PM\']As for money trees, I'd advocate something more radical, like:
10 $1 MILLION[/quote]Why? Contestants are already shuttled up to the chair and back off stage as quickly as possible, and this certainly doesn't help things. Why not change the game to "Congratulations for passing the test: pick a letter in "MILLIONAIRE" and see what you've won."
[/quote]
Because as I said in another thread, the first two levels don't really interest me at all. I made this so it takes only 6 questions to get to Level Three, where the fun starts.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224724\' date=\'Sep 2 2009, 09:01 AM\']Because as I said in another thread, the first two levels don't really interest me at all. I made this so it takes only 6 questions to get to Level Three, where the fun starts.[/quote]
So you're not there for the questions / game at all, you're there for the money. Am I right?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'224731\' date=\'Sep 2 2009, 01:20 PM\'][quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224724\' date=\'Sep 2 2009, 09:01 AM\']Because as I said in another thread, the first two levels don't really interest me at all. I made this so it takes only 6 questions to get to Level Three, where the fun starts.[/quote]
So you're not there for the questions / game at all, you're there for the money. Am I right?
[/quote]
No. I'm there the questions/game AT the big money level. Not one or the other. BOTH.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224738\' date=\'Sep 2 2009, 12:35 PM\']No. I'm there the questions/game AT the big money level. Not one or the other. BOTH.[/quote]
Then I fail to see what is so uninteresting about the second-tier questions that you feel the need to zip by them so fast.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'224740\' date=\'Sep 2 2009, 03:50 PM\'][quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224738\' date=\'Sep 2 2009, 12:35 PM\']No. I'm there the questions/game AT the big money level. Not one or the other. BOTH.[/quote]
Then I fail to see what is so uninteresting about the second-tier questions that you feel the need to zip by them so fast.
[/quote]
I don't find them UNinteresting. I find them much LESS interesting than third-tier questions, and I'm seriously wondering aloud, "Why have such a long exposition before the climax?" Now before someone mindlessly snarks, "So you wanna just start them at $25K? Or will they have to answer one question?" I'm not saying that the first two levels aren't important at all or shouldn't be there, I'm saying that it's not nearly as important or worthwhile as some here are making it out to be. With less time per show, what does this game seriously lose by asking five fewer questions? Not game time, as it just gets displaced further up the chain. Not talk time, as that happens primarily outside the questions now and is rushed or chopped currently. In fact, depending on how interesting they are, Meredith could be chatting MORE per contestant than she would under the current format.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224749\' date=\'Sep 2 2009, 06:25 PM\']"Why have such a long exposition before the climax?"[/quote]
That's what she said.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224749\' date=\'Sep 2 2009, 04:25 PM\']"Why have such a long exposition before the climax?"[/quote]
Well, if you don't, you're doing it wrong.
Now before someone mindlessly snarks
And you wonder why nobody likes having these discussions with you?
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224749\' date=\'Sep 2 2009, 07:25 PM\']I don't find them UNinteresting. I find them much LESS interesting than third-tier questions, and I'm seriously wondering aloud, "Why have such a long exposition before the climax?" Now before someone mindlessly snarks, "So you wanna just start them at $25K? Or will they have to answer one question?" I'm not saying that the first two levels aren't important at all or shouldn't be there, I'm saying that it's not nearly as important or worthwhile as some here are making it out to be. With less time per show, what does this game seriously lose by asking five fewer questions? Not game time, as it just gets displaced further up the chain. Not talk time, as that happens primarily outside the questions now and is rushed or chopped currently. In fact, depending on how interesting they are, Meredith could be chatting MORE per contestant than she would under the current format.[/quote]
Rather than Wall O'Text in response, I offer the following analogy:
If you eat dessert with every meal, dessert isn't as good anymore.
What you're proposing is eating just dessert, and removing the meal.
I understand that you're disappointed that there's almost never any dessert these days. You could even argue that the... well, Millionaire Menu-setters have explicitly taken dessert off the menu.
But even if there's no dessert, you're still guaranteed a meal with Millionaire.
For an example of what happens when a show gorges on dessert, see Deal or No Deal. Or even the new money tree on the UK version, where they cut the size of the meal, so it's not as filling anymore.
-
[quote name=\'Speedy G\' post=\'224756\' date=\'Sep 2 2009, 08:54 PM\']Rather than Wall O'Text in response, I offer the following analogy:
If you eat dessert with every meal, dessert isn't as good anymore.
What you're proposing is eating just dessert, and removing the meal.
I understand that you're disappointed that there's almost never any dessert these days. You could even argue that the... well, Millionaire Menu-setters have explicitly taken dessert off the menu.
But even if there's no dessert, you're still guaranteed a meal with Millionaire.
For an example of what happens when a show gorges on dessert, see Deal or No Deal. Or even the new money tree on the UK version, where they cut the size of the meal, so it's not as filling anymore.[/quote]
Great analogy.
Millionaire, up until last year, came on during the 4:00 hour, which worked perfectly with my work schedule. And with the horrible big money game shows that have emerged in just the last five years, Millionaire was the only one I watched on a regular basis (wait, that and 1 vs. 100). I didn't watch for the big dollar amounts thrown about randomly, I watched to test my mind, and watched others do the same. The dollar amounts offered were secondary because, in the end, I knew I was getting a challenging quiz show, something that is sorely lacking on TV nowadays, other than Jeopardy! (Gotta get those insipid VH1 shows in there somewhere I guess!)
A shorter money tree just to get contestants closer to the million is going to turn me off the same reason all the other shows did: boatload of money thrown about for absolutely no effort (see Or No Deal, Deal, Money, Show Me the, and Life, Set for). Even though it's a cheesy gimmick, I can respect Wheel because they still make the million somewhat difficult to win (there it's circumstancial more than skill-based).
Long story short, I watch to see contestants rack their brains over what should be difficult trivia. Not saying it's why you should watch, but to shorten the tree just to expedite the process cheapens the thrill IMO. I want to see the road to the million...it's like me watching my football team play in the Super Bowl without seeing how they got to that point, or watching some college squad win the National Championship without at least watching the March Madness road to the Final Four.
/Just my two copper Lincolns
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'224677\' date=\'Sep 1 2009, 01:11 PM\']10 $1 MILLION[/quote]Unless you have a bunch of PHBs running the show, game shows rarely come about by accident. Things are tested to see what works, what doesn't, and what people liked. Before the show went to series, the producers fiddled around with a twenty-question game, with prizes from £10 and redoubling up to 5.2 million pounds. Other early contenders were £25 up to 13 million. There was also £100 to £52m, as well as twenty-one questions from £1 and doubling up.
But they eventually came up with fifteen questions because they thought it would make the best show.
The first five serve as a practice round, to familiarize players with the chair, the screen, the surroundings, and so on. And a chance to get in some humor before the "real" game begins. (And if the contestant really believes that the itsy bitsy spider climbed up the fire escape, well, tough beans.) To squeeze the game like that removes that practice portion of the game, and I don't think that's fair to the contestant.
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'224762\' date=\'Sep 2 2009, 06:34 PM\']Jeopardy![/i] (Gotta get those insipid VH1 shows in there somewhere I guess!)[/quote]I think this is a brilliant point, and should not be overlooked. The money has meaning; it is not just numbers on a board.