The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: tvwxman on July 29, 2014, 08:33:55 PM
-
Yay!
http://www.deadline.com/2014/07/to-tell-the-truth-fremantlemedia-north-america-jeff-gaspin-producing/
-
"...with a surprising new twist that adds action and suspense and raises the stakes."
Pardon me if I withhold my "Yay!" for the time being. Still, it's intriguing.
-
"...with a surprising new twist that adds action and suspense and raises the stakes."
Pardon me if I withhold my "Yay!" for the time being. Still, it's intriguing.
Exactly. When I was told about it, I was excited at first. Then I read that exact sentence and went from excitement to tepid joy.
Definitely still interested, especially since they're going for a primetime version on a broadcast network and not a syndicated daytime affair. If they get it on the air, wouldn't this be the first primetime version of Truth since the 60s?
-
And if it makes it to air, I believe this and TPiR will be the only two shows to air in seven decades (1950s-2010s), no?
-
I can't imagine that the show would be revamped to where if the team can fool all four panelists that they divide a million dollar payout.
Maybe the panelists who guess wrong are dropped over the side of a 100 foot skyscraper.
-
Maybe the panelists who guess wrong are dropped over the side of a 100 foot skyscraper.
If they get Chris Jericho to host this, I am *totally* in.
-
Looking forward to possibly having a panel show on American TV again.
I also remember hearing last year that Whoopi Goldberg was working with Fremantle to possibly mount a revival of WML. Wonder if anything else will come out of that...
-
Anything that "raises the stakes" for any of the big three panel shows, or really, for ANY panel show, pretty much ruins it right there. If there's actual money at stake, the viewer's rooting interest is thrown completely out of whack, because you're either hoping that the celebrities play their own game badly, or you're hoping the contestant doesn't win the big money.
-
The only regulars from the original series still alive are Polly Bergen and Orson Bean.
-
The only regulars from the original series still alive are Polly Bergen and Orson Bean.
Not according to the 'pedia...
-
It was just a matter of time before they tried to bring back TTTT from the dead. I'm wondering who they're going to get as panelists for this go round.
-
Anything that "raises the stakes" for any of the big three panel shows, or really, for ANY panel show, pretty much ruins it right there. If there's actual money at stake, the viewer's rooting interest is thrown completely out of whack, because you're either hoping that the celebrities play their own game badly, or you're hoping the contestant doesn't win the big money.
John Charles Daly was purported to have contemplated quitting WML? after Mark Goodson was pitched an idea from CBS to increase its stakes, arguing that the show was about people, not prizes. I agree with Matt that if Gaspin/Moll/Fremantle's remake of TTTT were to go the big-money route, that would, on the surface, take away from the "people" aspect of it right there.
If the $1000 top prize on the old CBS primetime TTTT from 50 years ago were to be adjusted for inflation, it would be equal to well over $7500 today. Thus, if the TTTT remake were to stick to it being about people more than prizes, my idea of how to give away the money (divided amongst the 3 challengers) would simply be $750 per wrong guess, $7500 if all the guesses are wrong, or a consolation $300 if all the guesses are right.
-
Why bother with such small sums? $300 split ways (or is it two ways and the central character gets something else) isn't going to excite the viewers: it's the game that the viewers should care about. I have various ides about how they could handle it sanely but it deviates from the fact that the interrogation and vote is what we should focus on, not whether the impostors can win some big prize for a shutout. (If the game is being played for blood it should go to the panel every time and what fun is that.)
-
Views on comments page for the article:
If you want to bang your head against a wall, look at the comments fill with HIGH-larious jokes about politicians or Obama not appearing on the show. I am against both major parties, but really, we GET IT already.
Who is this SoCalGuy who mentions working on the 2000 version and how him and others "wished it would die"? I haven't followed the behind the scenes workings of that version, are there any nightmare stories I am missing?
Agree that Million Dollar Truth is a bit extreme (see also: a certain other Goodson revival from 5 years ago, one that would have in turn been better as a revival of another Bob Stewart creation). And as we saw from the 2K version, it's too easy to adjust the content to be in line with the "successful" Family Feud changes.
Also, (un)official ban for Paula Poundstone, please?
OTOH, wouldn't mind John O'Hurley returning if he's not busy.
-
Thus, if the TTTT remake were to stick to it being about people more than prizes, my idea of how to give away the money (divided amongst the 3 challengers) would simply be $750 per wrong guess, $7500 if all the guesses are wrong, or a consolation $300 if all the guesses are right.
The second you started caring about adjusting the prize money for inflation is the second you contradicted the idea of it being "about the people".
It's a token amount of money for a reason, and that it doesn't buy as much today is really immaterial.
-
Views on comments page for the article:
If you read the comments, that's your own funeral.
Also, (un)official ban for Paula Poundstone, please?
Only if we can ban Caroline Rhea, too.
-
I don't get it; part of being a panelist is being amusing and Paula Poundstone delivers for me on that count (I admit that her being a regular on Wait Wait helps), what's the knock on Caroline Rhea?
-
Views on comments page for the article:
If you read the comments, that's your own funeral.
Also, (un)official ban for Paula Poundstone, please?
Only if we can ban Caroline Rhea, too.
Har, har, I see what you did there. Only difference is, Caroline did not suck at what she was supposed to do.
-
I suspect that this is one of those memes that rolls on, perpetuated by opinion as opposed to fact.
-
...my idea of how to give away the money (divided amongst the 3 challengers) would simply be $750 per wrong guess, $7500 if all the guesses are wrong...
It's a token amount of money for a reason, and that it doesn't buy as much today is really immaterial.
You might be missing his point--originally it wasn't a token amount of money. It dwindled in the 70s, but hardly because higher stakes got in the way.
Also, there's infinitely more game to TTTT than the other panel shows. The impostors actually affect the outcome. If they can win decent cash, it might not be a horrible thing.
I think GSN's I've Got a Secret got it right. Not crazy high stakes, but when the panel was close to getting stumped, Bil Dwyer played it up and it added something.
-
Show of hands: who watched the show (either first-run or reruns) because of the prizes on offer? Who didn't watch because you thought the prize did not befit the task at hand.
Anyone?
If we take the $25,000 top prize offered on Hollywood Game Night and transplant it to Truth, all that means is that there's a top prize of $25,000. I don't think it swings the needle a bit.
-
what's the knock on Caroline Rhea?
Just that Mr. Fabiano was (is?) such a "fanboi" of her work on the Bergeron Squares panel.
Of course, any member of the Phineas and Ferb cast can't be all bad... ;)
-
Show of hands: who watched the show (either first-run or reruns) because of the prizes on offer? Who didn't watch because you thought the prize did not befit the task at hand.
Anyone?
Evidently prizes mean something to audiences, or Jeopardy! wouldn't have doubled the prize money, or for that matter, ever multiplied it by 10.
-
Show of hands: who watched the show (either first-run or reruns) because of the prizes on offer? Who didn't watch because you thought the prize did not befit the task at hand.
Anyone?
Evidently prizes mean something to audiences, or Jeopardy! wouldn't have doubled the prize money, or for that matter, ever multiplied it by 10.
Jeopardy and To Tell The Truth are two different types of game.
And higher stakes didn't exactly help the two most recent editions of the show find an audience, now did they?
Me, I'd be okay keeping the $1,000 per incorrect vote that the 2000 series had, with ten large for a full stump because I always felt that was a big achievement and should be noted as such.
-
Evidently prizes mean something to audiences, or Jeopardy! wouldn't have doubled the prize money, or for that matter, ever multiplied it by 10.
To what value would you set incorrect votes or a total stump, then?
(To Chris P.'s point: I remember the double prize for stumping the panel and the crowd. It was rare enough to feel special, and importantly John didn't make such a fuss over the money that it overshadowed the game at hand.)
-
, wouldn't mind John O'Hurley returning if he's not busy.
Eh. What bugs me about O'Hurley is that he's playing a character. He's not himself.
-
Show of hands: who watched the show (either first-run or reruns) because of the prizes on offer? Who didn't watch because you thought the prize did not befit the task at hand.
Anyone?
If we take the $25,000 top prize offered on Hollywood Game Night and transplant it to Truth, all that means is that there's a top prize of $25,000. I don't think it swings the needle a bit.
I sorta did, because I liked the melody they used when Johnny described the Sarah Coventry parting gift.
-
To Chris P.'s point: I remember the double prize for stumping the panel and the crowd. It was rare enough to feel special, and importantly John didn't make such a fuss over the money that it overshadowed the game at hand.
O'Hurley's version had it right, not crazy money, but enough to make it worth offering. For this new version, it's hard to say. They're shooting for prime time, and we don't know what the "surprising twist" is yet.
Maybe the celebrity panel still does the interrogating--and guessing, but for fun--but civilians guess for their own prize money and to determine what the impostors get. If they're right, they get to keep playing and multiplying their money.
-
O'Hurley's version had it right, not crazy money, but enough to make it worth offering. For this new version, it's hard to say.
O'Hurley's TTTT was pretty decent until they descended into this "Jerry Springer Lite" thing with the occupations/claims-to-fame being either "lowbrow" or sexual in nature.
-
O'Hurley's version had it right, not crazy money, but enough to make it worth offering. For this new version, it's hard to say.
O'Hurley's TTTT was pretty decent until they descended into this "Jerry Springer Lite" thing with the occupations/claims-to-fame being either "lowbrow" or sexual in nature.
Agreed. Season 1 was much better. They tried too hard to spice it up the second half-season, with the sexual nature and audience "oohing" over every little mention.
-
Maybe the celebrity panel still does the interrogating--and guessing, but for fun--but civilians guess for their own prize money and to determine what the impostors get. If they're right, they get to keep playing and multiplying their money.
That would certainly make sense and not make a total travesty of the proceedings but now you've confused the audience: are you rooting for the contestant to get it right so he can move up from $10,000 to $25,000; or do you root for the impostors because they're trying to fool everyone?
-
That would certainly make sense and not make a total travesty of the proceedings
You don't think adding a money ladder to TTTT would make a total travesty of the proceedings?
-
I got crossed up in there; I read his reply but didn't perceive it. Yay, the panel plays "for fun," BOO to just about everything else. I think I carried forward the idea of $1,000 per incorrect vote as making sense and not being out-and-out-stupid, without internalizing that no one cares about $1,000 if the contestant is on $125,000 and going for $250,000.
-
Maybe "multiplying" is the wrong word for him to use, and "increasing" makes more sense. But I'm a fan of asymmetry, so let's play with this, just for funsies.
The subject of the story is playing for cash, and the imposters are playing to become a civilian voter. Not a big panel, maybe three people, and they cast a group vote, and split any money not won by the subject. When the civilian group votes wrong, one of them is replaced by the successful imposter. The "eldest" civilian in terms of time on the show is always the captain, and always settles any ties, but is also the one who leaves when the vote goes wrong. This means that each civilian stays on for three incorrect guesses.
-
The "eldest" civilian in terms of time on the show is always the captain, and always settles any ties, but is also the one who leaves when the vote goes wrong. This means that each civilian stays on for three incorrect guesses.
I am entertained by the potential dynamic of the two lesser voters deciding the captain is an asshat and intentionally finding an impostor in order to eject him. :)
-
There will always be evil inherent in any game system I write.
-
I am entertained by the potential dynamic of the two lesser voters deciding the captain is an asshat and intentionally finding an impostor in order to eject him. :)
Seems like that was the reason for the Terminator on Greed--to get rid of an asshat captain--but wasn't used that way very often.
As far as the team of guessers for TTTT, I don't think you need the group thing. Three or four people sit in front of the studio audience. Each one guesses. If he's right, he wins $5000, which doubles each time he's right. With three games in a prime time hour, it's a $20,000 grand prize--nice, not too wild.
Each impostor wins $5000 per wrong vote, or the team splits it. With only three civilian guessers, the celebrities' guesses could be tallied and combined into a single fourth vote. (A 2-2 tie could count as two half-votes.)
Who knows what the producers are thinking, but this is one way to add stakes and possibly add an interesting wrinkle without wrecking the game. It's basically the point of the $25,000 on Hollywood Game Night--enough to give the show a climax, not so much that it becomes too serious.
-
The reason for the Terminator was to add conflict, tension, drama and risk as well. I suppose on reflection this rates higher than your fixes for High Rollers.
-
Late to the party, but it occurred to me today that maybe the new twist is something else. Since they're pitching it for a network run rather than syndication, perhaps the home audience also votes via text. For example, the three contestants are questioned, but rather than going right to the voting after the questioning ends, they go to commercial and indicate what number to text for your choice. After commercial, the panel reveals their votes, and the percentage breakdown of the home audience is superimposed on the screen.
It's a theory; I have a lot of those.