The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: tvwxman on October 21, 2006, 08:40:31 AM
-
Okay, I like this show, admittedly a lot more than I thought I would when I tried out at a contestant cattle call back in June.
But I noticed a glaring error last night with the player who went home emptyhanded:
How come he wasn't offered the 25% buyout? If he still wasn't sure on what Baby Jessica's last name was (and Gawd knows the lulus in the audience were TREMENDOUS help), then why wasn't he offered a deal to walk?
Isn't that part of the rules? Or not?
They really need to add a graphic telling the audience what 'lifelines' the player has left.
-
I'm thinking maybe they only offer the buyout starting the question after they use the 2nd help? Although I for one didn't know they could use both helps on the same question.....
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'135185\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 07:40 AM\']
Isn't that part of the rules? Or not?
[/quote]
Doesn't seem like it's part of the rules anymore. The person last week who used both helps also wasn't offered anything to walk away before the answer was revealed.
Meanwhile, my opinion about the guy who won nothing--hate to say this but he deserved his fate. I realize logic goes out the window a lot of times when you're on a stage, but adding up a few facts should've flat out told him that his answer was wrong before he went with it.
My numbers may be off, but at that point, I believe 49 people were left in the game. Four people chose his answer. That means 45 people didn't. (Again, my numbers might be off and it may have been more--I don't remember.) Assuming he's allowed to watch the game being played before his (no real reason to sequester him), he hopefully would've realized that a lot of these people are smart and unlikely to get tripped up on a lower-level question. Given that most of the mob did not share the same answer his was, unless he was counting on knocking out 40+ members of the mob on a level 5 question (which, again, was improbable at best) he should've realized that he was more likely to be wrong than they were.
Kind of a shame that the person who convinced him his answer was right got nothing for her performance, since she wasn't a surviving member of the mob.
Again, I know the lights, the cameras and everything, but taking an extra step back and thinking a little bit I think should've triggered at least a thought that his answer might not have been right. He had unlimited time to make his choice. And he didn't choose wisely.
Most of you will prolly disagree. I hope you don't, but if you do so be it.
Doug
-
The loser last night was INCREDIBLY STUPID. He should have realized that there was no chance in this lifetime that only four would say what he thought was the right answer. You have to play the odds. Incredibly stupid.
-
This coming from a child who quotes Spongebob Squarepants in his sig:
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'135198\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 11:07 AM\']
The loser last night was INCREDIBLY STUPID. He should have realized that there was no chance in this lifetime that only four would say what he thought was the right answer. You have to play the odds. Incredibly stupid.
[/quote]
Wrong. Again. If he stuck with his gut, thinking the bulk of the mob was wrong, it would have paid out for him tremendously, AND he would have been down to 4 people for the mil. Yes, it's a longshot, but since the producers seem to be trying to trip players up with semi-oft-kilter questions, I would not rule a longshot out.
-
I was under the impression that they were doing the surrender fee also. Maybe it comes out with the new chain, who knows. I was a bit disappointed about that as well.
BTW, maybe I'm just a moron, but I thought the questions were a bit more difficult last night. A few of them tripped me up.
-
The material seemed tougher to me, too, and I was awfully glad to see it.
I'd still be delighted if the contestant *wasn't* given multiple choice--had to answer blindly, and the mob got the choices. That'd impact the writing, though, and at least one of the Helps.
I don't remember hearing anything about a surrender fee. Herself says there ought to be one, but I say that makes it too Millionairesque. At these prices, seems to me taking the question means taking the risk.
-
Actually, wouldn't "the loser" in yesterday's game be the person who was randomly selected with the right answer in the mob? Since she went second, and the person who gave the wrong answer already gave her spiel, she should have played dumb and said she had only guessed to cement the 1's feeling about the wrong answer.
I still think I made the right decision in turning down the mob opportunity. Woo hoo! $714.29! I might as well have gone on The Gong Show.
--Mike
-
Jessica Lynch was the name that stood out to most to me, as well, with the actual answer finishing second.
It's a good thing the questions got harder, but I wonder if it was too early in the game to ramp up the difficulty.
-
As someone who's worked in television for a long time, I found the show very hard to watch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, shouldn't game shows be portrayed in real time? Forget Millionaire....I mean, shouldn't the host know his stuff?
1 vs 100 was full of dubbed in voice-overs and heavily edited. When I saw who the director was, it capped it. No wonder Game Show Marathon had the same feel....it was R. Brian.
Doesn't anyone know how to shoot and direct a gameshow without re-editing every single frame? An occasional flub will show that the host isn't perfect.....but the amount of edits last night was idiotic.
Since NBC is going back to more game shows, because of cost, I would hope that the producers and directors go over to Museum of Broadcasting and watch hour upon hour of gameshows to get a clue on how to do a gameshow in 22 minutes WITHOUT editing.
I did love the disclaimer at the end of the show "No money was on the set". Laughable.
-
[quote name=\'toddyo\' post=\'135215\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 12:44 PM\']
Doesn't anyone know how to shoot and direct a gameshow without re-editing every single frame? An occasional flub will show that the host isn't perfect.....but the amount of edits last night was idiotic.
Since NBC is going back to more game shows, because of cost, I would hope that the producers and directors go over to Museum of Broadcasting and watch hour upon hour of gameshows to get a clue on how to do a gameshow in 22 minutes WITHOUT editing.
[/quote]
I haven't seen the show yet, but I must ask. Since R. Brian has his hands all over this one, I'm guessing that he also gets a cutaway shot of the audience every chance he gets?
Hopefully, NBC can find some directors other than him to do their shows.
-
[quote name=\'toddyo\' post=\'135215\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 12:44 PM\']
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, shouldn't game shows be portrayed in real time? Forget Millionaire....I mean, shouldn't the host know his stuff?
1 vs 100 was full of dubbed in voice-overs and heavily edited. When I saw who the director was, it capped it. No wonder Game Show Marathon had the same feel....it was R. Brian.
Doesn't anyone know how to shoot and direct a gameshow without re-editing every single frame? An occasional flub will show that the host isn't perfect.....but the amount of edits last night was idiotic.
[/quote]
Somebody on the tvbarn2 newsgroup posted Ken Jennings' comments from his blog - apparently his experience of being on "1 vs. 100" has been ... mixed.
http://ken-jennings.com/blog/ (http://\"http://ken-jennings.com/blog/\")
To your point, Jennnings wrote:
"My intended `hour or two' had turned into a long weekend in L.A. The next day, behind schedule, the producers had to tape two shows rather than one, and it was clear that this was going to be a slow, agonizing process. The first ten minutes of the premiere episode took, literally, hours to complete, both for technical reasons (lighting, camera, and blocking glitches) and human ones. Bob Saget’s a quick study, but he’d only been on board for a week or two, and the gameplay wasn’t quite second nature to him yet. What’s more, the producers kept stopping tape to fine-tune his delivery, even giving him word-for-word `line readings' when Bob misphrased something they were hoping to turn into a `final answer'-style catchphrase."
I attended several tapings of the original "Pyramid" in New York back in the 1970s - and yes, with the exception of the occasional re-do because of a mistake, the shows were done more or less in real time. (Can't imagine what it must be like to sit through the taping of just one episode of "1 vs. 100" or "Deal or no Deal.")
-
I'm thinking maybe they only offer the buyout starting the question after they use the 2nd help? Although I for one didn't know they could use both helps on the same question.....
That's what I was thinking, too...and I was surprised that there was no mention of it. I'm thinking like others here and that it was a rule instated starting with next week's episode and on.
There was one slight complaint I had about last night's episode: for the first contestant (name escapes me, but she was the one finishing up from last week), she was debating whether to go on or not, and still had both of her helps left. I would think, especially since that was the logic she used last week to keep going, that Saget would have said something like, "You do realize you have both of your helps left..." before accepting a decision to stop. That statement might have been enough for her to keep going.
However, that was only a slight complaint...I'm really enjoying this show and would love to see it as a regular show on NBC! :)
Anthony
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'135211\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 11:25 AM\']
Actually, wouldn't "the loser" in yesterday's game be the person who was randomly selected with the right answer in the mob? Since she went second, and the person who gave the wrong answer already gave her spiel, she should have played dumb and said she had only guessed to cement the 1's feeling about the wrong answer.
[/quote]
I thought she did play dumb, as she really didn't give a convincing reason why he should change his mind. The guy still went with his wrong first instinct.
El Bandito and I agreeing? Hmmm.
Doug
-
[quote name=\'MrBuddwing\' post=\'135224\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 01:49 PM\'](Can't imagine what it must be like to sit through the taping of just one episode of "1 vs. 100" or "Deal or no Deal.")[/quote]
Since you asked... (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=11056&view=findpost&p=124564\") And that was for the first ~70 minutes of the season premiere.
-
[quote name=\'MrBuddwing\' post=\'135224\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 12:49 PM\']
Somebody on the tvbarn2 newsgroup posted Ken Jennings' comments from his blog - apparently his experience of being on "1 vs. 100" has been ... mixed.
http://ken-jennings.com/blog/ (http://\"http://ken-jennings.com/blog/\")
[/quote]
Terrific read. When he's right, he's right.
Doug
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'135185\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 07:40 AM\']
How come he wasn't offered the 25% buyout? If he still wasn't sure on what Baby Jessica's last name was (and Gawd knows the lulus in the audience were TREMENDOUS help), then why wasn't he offered a deal to walk?
Isn't that part of the rules? Or not?
[/quote]
The contestant was offered the buyout, but did not take it. The interchange was edited out.
When the second help was used and the same mobster was randomly selected to explain her incorrect answer again, tape was stopped and the producers conferred to make sure that everything was within the rules.
Tim H.
Mobster #11
-
I really don't see why people constantly complain about no incentive to go on. There is a gigantic incentive: $1,000,000. If you want to win, you have to take those kinds of risks. Otherwise, enjoy 1/10th of that (if you don't get that far or aren't brave enough). I still think the show would be much better with the formula that the Dutch use, though. I don't know, I might just be greatful that we have this format instead of the one previous. If anyone was expecting the experience to be like on Millionaire or Jeopardy, they really should have read a bit more online, because I (not connected whatsoever) full expected this taping to be DoND form.
The major issue, IMO, is the help system. I've given up on them choosing which one to use. You can be a genius person and bluff The One into choosing the wrong answer. This means you chose the wrong answer. What are you rewarded by? Nothing. If I know I'm going to be eliminated, what point is there in me wanting The One gone? I'd rather them just remove like 50% of the player's bank for using a help, like every other edition on earth uses.
The new money chain should help a bit with getting people to get going more, especially since the money doesn't get truly significant until the 9th or 10th question. More than anything, I'm just happy that we actually have a trivia show back in primetime, although I am looking foward to The Rich Li$t much more than I was for 1v100.
-
If I were to be chosen for this show, i wouldn't think "YAY a chance to win a million bucks", I'd think "YAY a guaranteed hundred thousand bucks".
I figured I'd get tired of this quickly. Turns out it took just long enough for me to see the returning blonde was wearing slacks this time. :)
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'135239\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 12:33 PM\']
I really don't see why people constantly complain about no incentive to go on. There is a gigantic incentive: $1,000,000. If you want to win, you have to take those kinds of risks.
[/quote]
Which goes back to a point I've made many times before that seems to be lost on those people who get all starry-eyed at the number "1,000,000": most people CANNOT FATHOM THAT KIND OF MONEY. Chri$ L. got it just right.
Psychologically, the difference between a couple hundred thousand and that million is minimal if not nonexistent, since most people have never seen that kind of money anyhow. So, basically, the question they are being asked is "do you want to risk losing a life-changing amount of money for a small chance of winning...a life-changing amount of money?" The answer to that is almost always gonna be "to me, they're functionally the same, so why would I take that chance?"
And THIS is why DoND (and, really, 1 vs 100) is horribly broken.
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'135198\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 10:07 AM\']
The loser last night was INCREDIBLY STUPID. He should have realized that there was no chance in this lifetime that only four would say what he thought was the right answer. You have to play the odds. Incredibly stupid.
[/quote]
That and the fact that of the non-four who did not choose Jessica Lynch was #13, Jen Kenn,...er Ken Jennings!
There was your bonus lifeline right there! If you were paying attention to the Mob board and saw that Ken was in the vast majority who did not pick Jessica Lynch, that should be a big hint that you *might* be wrong.
And just when I thought that Ken Jennings could be considered a player's unofficial lifeline, the wheel came up Red 1!!!
-
[quote name=\'thgames65\' post=\'135238\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 02:27 PM\']
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'135185\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 07:40 AM\']
How come he wasn't offered the 25% buyout? If he still wasn't sure on what Baby Jessica's last name was (and Gawd knows the lulus in the audience were TREMENDOUS help), then why wasn't he offered a deal to walk?
Isn't that part of the rules? Or not?
[/quote]
The contestant was offered the buyout, but did not take it. The interchange was edited out.
When the second help was used and the same mobster was randomly selected to explain her incorrect answer again, tape was stopped and the producers conferred to make sure that everything was within the rules.
Tim H.
Mobster #11
[/quote]
Thank you for the update, Tim -- I don't know what to shake my head at first... how shitty the reports of contestant/audience culling that the shows have been doing, seeing how bad GSN's Chain Reaction contestants are or last night's loser not comprehending on how to use a help.
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'135198\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 10:07 AM\']
The loser last night was INCREDIBLY STUPID. He should have realized that there was no chance in this lifetime that only four would say what he thought was the right answer. You have to play the odds. Incredibly stupid.
[/quote]
I have to take exception to that extreme judgment. "Incredibly stupid" is flat out wrong here. I question his strategy to play against the numbers and to use both of his helps, and I'm sure he's now embarrassed about his not-so-great job of keeping up with current events in 1987 and 2003. But I've seen far, far worse on game shows. Mind you, I knew the correct answer was "McClure" (Lynch was the captured and rescued reservist in Iraq), but that woman who talked about the family discussion at her house was very convincing. Obviously she was misleading at best (held back the "I was only seven" part, not smart for her) but I could see him fixating on that one argument and that's what cost him.
"Incredibly stupid" would be...
"During which month do most pregnant women start to show?"
"September."
"Name a time most people wake up."
"Morning."
"Name something you put in tea."
"A teabag."
You're on Password and you just get the password...and the first clue you give is the exact password. Even worse: doing it again in the same show. (See Paar, Jack.)
Chain Reaction words: HOT on top of PINK. Contestant says "I dunno, 'hot pinky'?" Correct answer: Hot Pink. (Or any variation of this.)
From Greed: "Chuck, I've followed your career pretty closely and I'm sure you never hosted Wheel of Fortune."
I could go on.
-
Gotta agree with Dixon. I will admit that once that guy decided to go with "Jessica Lynch" as his answer, I said, "Oh, you poor schmuck" -- but that was because I had heard the name "Jessica McClure" ad nauseam in the late '80s and the name "Jessica Lynch" ad nauseam just a few years ago. However, he wasn't incredibly stupid; he was listening to his gut. How many times on "Match Game" have we seen a contestant in the Audience Match choose their own answer instead of choosing one given by Brett, Charles, or Richard, only to have their answer be the $500 response? Or seen a contestant disagree with Charley Weaver on a Secret Square question, only to be right?
One of the biggest things they always said on game shows (although maybe they don't say this anymore) was to go with your first instinct and follow your gut. I will concede that with only 4 people agreeing with his answer that early in the game, he might have wanted to think it out logically before sticking with his original answer. However, think of how mad he would have been (and how much more we'd be ragging on him) if he went against his gut and was wrong.
This may have been an error in judgment or logic, but incredibly stupid? Not in my opinion.
Brendan
-
The most interesting line from Ken's expose:
"Many not-yet-eliminated Mob players just wandered off and refused to come back."
How bad is your game when people just don't feel like playing anymore?
In the abstract, I do like the rule that mob members can theoretically stay even after defeating the One. A decent player with a lucky streak could eventually run up some serious pocket change. Still, just pocket change. Unless you're a local with absolutely nothing else to do, I'm not sure the long, uncomfortable hours are worth the chance of maybe winning a few hundred dollars.
--Matt
-
Could this be fixed by doing what, yet again, each other country on earth does: the new One comes from the surviving mob members?
-
[quote name=\'pyrfan\' post=\'135269\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 09:20 PM\']
This may have been an error in judgment or logic, but incredibly stupid? Not in my opinion.
[/quote]
Let's throw some Monty Hall statistics in to the mix:
When he was presented with three choices, the probabilities of each answer being correct, should the person randomly guess, were:
A. McClure (1/3), B. Lynch (1/3), C. Sierra (1/3).
If the mob's choice of answers were completely random, on average 18 people should answer each: A, B and C. The probability of 4 or less people in a group of 54 randomly selecting Lynch is 7.20E-6, or about 1 in 138,825. Of course, not every member of the mob chose at random! To see his answer so unpopular should have been cause for alarm (didn't he ever watch WWTBAM's "Ask the Audience"?)
Yes, the contestant had no feel for the Sierra vs. McClure support in the mob, but the minute Sierra was removed, the simple probabilties shifted to:
A. McClure (2/3), B. Lynch (1/3).
Hmmm... NOW what should he have done?
===
On a separate note-perhaps someone can clarify for me: is the selection of 2 mob members meant to be random? I can't recall the disclaimer... is it set to be that the two picked must have different answers? Must one of the two picked match the contestant's response?
Similarly, what if neither of the two chosen agree with the player's response (e.g., the mob votes unanimously for a different response than the player)?
-
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'135276\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 11:17 PM\']
On a separate note-perhaps someone can clarify for me: is the selection of 2 mob members meant to be random? I can't recall the disclaimer... is it set to be that the two picked must have different answers? Must one of the two picked match the contestant's response?
Similarly, what if neither of the two chosen agree with the player's response (e.g., the mob votes unanimously for a different response than the player)?
[/quote]
One mob member is randomly selected from each of two groups: those who chose the correct answer and those who did not. So the player was going to hear from someone who chose McClure and from somebody else, it just was his poor luck that he heard from the same mistaken Mobster from his first Help. It was possible that he could have heard from someone who picked Sierra and someone who picked McClure.
I have no idea what they would have done if the Mob had been unanimous.
Tim H.
-
This is not a complaint, just reality. It is not worth it to be a mob member, period. The $1,000,000 prize will NEVER be given to a mob member. If you are a one that is a different story.
Unless you are a local and have nothing better to do, it is a complete waste of time. I will fill in more later.
Tim :-)
-
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'135276\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 11:17 PM\']
Of course, not every member of the mob chose at random! To see his answer so unpopular should have been cause for alarm (didn't he ever watch WWTBAM's "Ask the Audience"?)
[/quote]
Which was my point. With all due respect to Dixon and Brendan, an immediate red flag should have been triggered.
While there have been moments where a contestant goes against the grain on MG or HSq (to use the examples cited), and while sometimes they can luck into making the right call, more often than not when they go against the grain it's because they know an answer flat out cold that's better than the one provided. That was not the case here. Here was a guy who was so clueless to the answer that he didn't pick up on the obvious clues that his answer might have been wrong.
I won't stoop to El Bandito's level and call him "extremely stupid." But he clearly deserved to lose, because he didn't weigh all of the factors properly. We rag on people who make extremely poor judgment decisions on TPiR (which happens with a fair degree of frequency). This isn't all that different.
Doug
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'135274\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 08:26 PM\']
Could this be fixed by doing what, yet again, each other country on earth does: the new One comes from the surviving mob members?
[/quote]
It could be fixed by not preproducing the living crap out of the show.
-
Clearly, the guy who missed the Baby Jessica question didn't have his head in the game here. He used his helps. Problem was, he simply didn't recognize that SAME mobster(from his 1st help) was selected at random on his 2nd help & should've just changed over to McClure instead of staying with Lynch. That's a judgemental error to me right there, not really stupid or anyrthing.
The last player on this episode gave a textbook example of how this game SHOULD be played. He used his helps judiciously & walked off with a nice sum of money.
As far as the carry-over from last week, she should've kept going despite racking up all that loot(over $200K+). Under those circumstances, unless you really needed the cash, go with the Nob for as long as you can knowing full well you still have your helps if you get stuck anywhere along the way. She chickened out too soon I thought.
-
[quote name=\'Timsterino\' post=\'135278\' date=\'Oct 22 2006, 12:55 AM\']
This is not a complaint, just reality. It is not worth it to be a mob member, period. The $1,000,000 prize will NEVER be given to a mob member. If you are a one that is a different story.
Unless you are a local and have nothing better to do, it is a complete waste of time. I will fill in more later.
Tim :-)
[/quote]
There is an easy way to fix this :
Have a qualifying game with the 100 players to pick the 1...
I've made a similar complaint with Deal and SyndieMillionaire...i strongly dislike the fact that they just pick a player to play (and , likely, win a boatload of money) offstage. Have a qualifying game to earn your right into the hot seat and big bucks!
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'135280\' date=\'Oct 22 2006, 12:16 AM\']
With all due respect to Dixon and Brendan, an immediate red flag should have been triggered.
[/quote]
...Which is actually the point Brendan and I both made. The contestant didn't play well at all and I was yelling at my TV but even then I've yelled at my TV plenty of times without considering the question "incredibly stupid." Employed poor strategy, yes (and therefore deserved to lose) but someone else presented an involved mathematical formula and I really don't see a guy who appears so adverse to newspapers also being a math whiz. I'm just not one of those people who thinks every missed answer on a game show is a sign of ignorance.
I've yelled at my TV plenty of times (including this one) for wrongheaded contestants, from lame answers on Match Game to the poor schmuck on Millionaire who insisted the answer to the "Brave New World" question had to be anything but Henry Ford (he taught at a school where BNW was required reading). Ouch. But even then it takes a special kind of moment to rise (or lower) to the level of "incredibly stupid" and I just don't think this was it.
Groucho: Don't worry, no one leaves here broke. Now for ten dollars, what city is famous for Boston baked beans?
Contestant: France!
(audience howls, Groucho is initially speechless)
Groucho: France is right! Pay that man ten dollars!
Now that was incredibly stupid.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'135292\' date=\'Oct 22 2006, 05:39 AM\'] [quote name=\'Timsterino\' post=\'135278\' date=\'Oct 22 2006, 12:55 AM\']
The $1,000,000 prize will NEVER be given to a mob member. If you are a one that is a different story.[/quote]
There is an easy way to fix this: Have a qualifying game with the 100 players to pick the 1.[/quote]
If there were to be one, I would say do it like Aussie Deal: Ask 3 questions with 3 choices, and the person who plays is the overall fastest of those who got all 3 questions right.
However, I would only do this among the eliminated Mob members.
-
[quote name=\'WhammyPower\' post=\'135303\' date=\'Oct 22 2006, 11:54 AM\']
If there were to be one, I would say do it like Aussie Deal: Ask 3 questions with 3 choices, and the person who plays is the overall fastest of those who got all 3 questions right.
However, I would only do this among the eliminated Mob members.
[/quote]
But surely you mean uneliminated...
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'135292\' date=\'Oct 22 2006, 03:39 AM\']
There is an easy way to fix this :
Have a qualifying game with the 100 players to pick the 1...
[/quote]
And you already know this, I'm sure, but for the benefit of our less clueful members, here's why this will never happen:
In the current form, the Mob doesn't have to be "good contestant material". They can be minimally interesting schlubs, since for the most part all they have to do is push a button
If you pull your One out of the Mob, you either have to a) fill your Mob with "good contestant material", which makes your contestant coordinators do 100x more work than they have to do now, or b) run the risk of an uninteresting schlub ending up as your One, and in the current climate of prime-time game shows, that Just Won't Do.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'135312\' date=\'Oct 22 2006, 02:08 PM\']
If you pull your One out of the Mob, you either have to a) fill your Mob with "good contestant material", which makes your contestant coordinators do 100x more work than they have to do now, or b) run the risk of an uninteresting schlub ending up as your One, and in the current climate of prime-time game shows, that Just Won't Do.
[/quote]
An excellent point. For the contestant coordinators reading here :
A . Do your damn job better.
B . If the title of a show is "1 vs. 100", and you need to find 100 people who are "good contestant material", then get it done, or go back to waiting tables.
I agree with clemon, but only in theory. If a show has 3 contestants, contestant coorinators have to find 3 good players. If the show involves 100 contestants, then you better get cracking. "Deal or No Deal" models need not apply. I have no problem with them having to do 100x more work. The people at Endemol calling themselves "contestant coordinators" , to me, have proven they need the practice.
Wheres Laura Chalmers when you need her!
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'135315\' date=\'Oct 22 2006, 11:37 AM\']
I agree with clemon, but only in theory. If a show has 3 contestants, contestant coorinators have to find 3 good players. If the show involves 100 contestants, then you better get cracking. "Deal or No Deal" models need not apply. I have no problem with them having to do 100x more work. The people at Endemol calling themselves "contestant coordinators" , to me, have proven they need the practice.
[/quote]
Agreed on all counts, but we both know the reality of the situation. They're getting boffo (enough) ratings with the dimbulbs they're casting now, there is no reason to change, they will simply ride this wave out until The Sheeple get tired of it, and then drop it like a hot rock and come up with another retread.
It's the same reason Richard Karn held a job for as long as he did. The days of coming up with a concept and then carefully cultivating it into another Jeopardy or Wheel are over.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'135320\' date=\'Oct 22 2006, 03:37 PM\']
The days of coming up with a concept and then carefully cultivating it into another Jeopardy or Wheel are over.
[/quote]
In the "Rules for Creating A Game Show : 2006 Edition", This should be on page one.
Oh, and "Sheeple"? You continue to make me laugh. Rock on.
-
[quote name=\'cweaver\' post=\'135302\' date=\'Oct 22 2006, 10:30 AM\']
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'135280\' date=\'Oct 22 2006, 12:16 AM\']
With all due respect to Dixon and Brendan, an immediate red flag should have been triggered.
[/quote]
...Which is actually the point Brendan and I both made. The contestant didn't play well at all and I was yelling at my TV but even then I've yelled at my TV plenty of times without considering the question "incredibly stupid." Employed poor strategy, yes (and therefore deserved to lose) but someone else presented an involved mathematical formula and I really don't see a guy who appears so adverse to newspapers also being a math whiz. I'm just not one of those people who thinks every missed answer on a game show is a sign of ignorance.
[/quote]
Then I misunderstood where you both were going. Mea culpa.
Doug
-
The contestant was offered the buyout, but did not take it. The interchange was edited out.
Going back up a few posts...who else here has a problem with this? In two shows we didn't know if this was even a rule or not, and the fact that they edited out offering the contestant the option is inexcusible to me. The home audience should at least know all the options the contestant has.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'135325\' date=\'Oct 22 2006, 05:35 PM\']
The contestant was offered the buyout, but did not take it. The interchange was edited out.
Going back up a few posts...who else here has a problem with this? In two shows we didn't know if this was even a rule or not, and the fact that they edited out offering the contestant the option is inexcusible to me. The home audience should at least know all the options the contestant has.
[/quote]
Absolutely correct. I too have a problem with it.
I think (Speculation alert), that after shooting the 5 eps back to back, they realized that EVERY contestant with a brain cell in em, bailed around 100-200K, before being faced with an "Oh-my-Gawd-I-don't-know-this-answer-yet-i'm-out-of-lifelines-moment", so they just edited them out. Another reason the producers, and this show, is flawed.
But again, Number 1 for the night. do you think they care?
-
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'135276\' date=\'Oct 21 2006, 11:17 PM\']Similarly, what if neither of the two chosen agree with the player's response (e.g., the mob votes unanimously for a different response than the player)?[/quote]
Technically, no one in the mob has to agree with the contestant -- they just need to find two mob members with different answers, one right and one wrong. But if all of the mob chooses the same answer (or all of them choose one of the two wrong answers), I'd put my money on, "They would stop tape for two hours and panic because they didn't foresee it as a possibility, then ultimately wind up throwing out the question." This is also what I predict happens if there is only one mob member left and the contestant asks if they can use their second help.
I liked that the questions were more challenging in this episode.
Unfortunately for Bob Saget, Ken Jennings had the funniest line.
(The mob members are standing up the whole time? They look like they're sitting. Why couldn't the set have been built so they were sitting?)
--
Scott Robinson
-
[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' post=\'135383\' date=\'Oct 23 2006, 11:45 AM\']
(The mob members are standing up the whole time? They look like they're sitting. Why couldn't the set have been built so they were sitting?)
[/quote]
They didn't want to spring for a hundred office chairs?
-
What I'm afraid we have to accept is that this is what game shows are today. While we can see how the formats are horribly "broken", and we can hear about near-mutinies on set, huge production delays, and the scrapping of game elements left on the cutting room floor, the bottom line is that these shows are finding an audience, and the next half-dozen or so examples that have been announced all look like they're working off that same template.
Millionaire had enough traditional elements that we maybe didn't stress about its flaws, and shows like Greed were put together by traditionalists like Bob Boden, so they seemed OK to us too. This new type of show is being made by people who aren't reverential to the genre's history. They're just trying to make a TV show that people will watch, and right now, they're succeeding.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'135388\' date=\'Oct 23 2006, 03:18 PM\']
Millionaire had enough traditional elements that we maybe didn't stress about its flaws[/quote]
I'm genuinely curious - in what ways do you feel WWTBaM was flawed? (To me, it's a model of perfection.)
-
[quote name=\'MrBuddwing\' post=\'135390\' date=\'Oct 23 2006, 03:30 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'135388\' date=\'Oct 23 2006, 03:18 PM\']
Millionaire had enough traditional elements that we maybe didn't stress about its flaws[/quote]
I'm genuinely curious - in what ways do you feel WWTBaM was flawed? (To me, it's a model of perfection.)
[/quote]
I know you're asking Matt, but I will chime in with an observation. WWTBAM started a trend of shows not being played out in real time; in other words, heavily edited. If a player took more than a couple of minutes to answer a question, we at home never knew that. The flaw is the lack of a time limit on answering the question.
-
[quote name=\'MrBuddwing\' post=\'135390\' date=\'Oct 23 2006, 12:30 PM\']
I'm genuinely curious - in what ways do you feel WWTBaM was flawed? (To me, it's a model of perfection.)
[/quote]
I'll chime in, too.
Is it a good show? Yeah. Is it a great, deeply strategic game? Not at all.
Are there flaws in the writing? (Most notably, the "if it happened before we were born, it's ancient history" attitude of the writing staff?) Yes.
Is it an utter waste of time when played with celebrities? Yeah. Because you take away (what was, pre-Meredith) the main drawing factor of the show: the concept that any schlub, even YOU (and I mean the global "you" here) could wind up in that chair and become a millionaire.
To me, the model of a truly great show is one in which you can answer the question "would I play this game if no money or prizes were on the line?" affirmatively. I can't say I would do that with Millionaire.
So, absolutely, they hit more than they miss most of the time. But to call it "a model of perfection" sounds a little fanboi-ish to me.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'135388\' date=\'Oct 23 2006, 12:18 PM\']
What I'm afraid we have to accept is that this is what game shows are today. While we can see how the formats are horribly "broken", and we can hear about near-mutinies on set, huge production delays, and the scrapping of game elements left on the cutting room floor, the bottom line is that these shows are finding an audience, and the next half-dozen or so examples that have been announced all look like they're working off that same template.
This new type of show is being made by people who aren't reverential to the genre's history. They're just trying to make a TV show that people will watch, and right now, they're succeeding.[/quote]They're succeeding because 1) people really do want to see people winning piles of money. (Focus groups were shown episodes of Deal or No Deal, and were disappointed when the contestant won less than $50,000.) 2) there's no competition. If you want a game show in prime time, there are two choices, both made by the same production company, and when you get down to it, 1v100 is The Deal with trivia questions. There's zero incentive to be innovative, or even competent really. If the networks are satisfied with 10 million viewers per night, then it's suddenly OK to have the show microproduced down to the host's lines, and for taping days to take eight hours for an episode.
If people were to turn off the set and do something else, perhaps we'd go back to the days of booming announcers, colorful moving sets and competent production teams, because the people in charge would have to work at putting out a decent product. There's no reason for them to do that when you have so many people watching shows just to see how much money people will win. I'm only one person out of 300 million now, but I'm not going to watch a sub-standard product.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'135392\' date=\'Oct 23 2006, 04:02 PM\']
Is it a good show? Yeah. Is it a great, deeply strategic game? Not at all.
Are there flaws in the writing? (Most notably, the "if it happened before we were born, it's ancient history" attitude of the writing staff?) Yes.
Is it an utter waste of time when played with celebrities? Yeah. Because you take away (what was, pre-Meredith) the main drawing factor of the show: the concept that any schlub, even YOU (and I mean the global "you" here) could wind up in that chair and become a millionaire.
To me, the model of a truly great show is one in which you can answer the question "would I play this game if no money or prizes were on the line?" affirmatively. I can't say I would do that with Millionaire.
So, absolutely, they hit more than they miss most of the time. But to call it "a model of perfection" sounds a little fanboi-ish to me.
[/quote]
Right, and haven't I told myself a million times *never* to exaggerate.
I called WWTBaM a "model of perfection" (not perfection per se) because I honestly can't find anything wrong with the basic concept. Of course, any concept can be messed up, and with Millionaire, the idea that we'd rather see rock stars or supermodels in the hot seat instead of regular Joes and Janes is just lunacy. And yes, badly written questions will hurt, too.
But I was really captivated by Millionire's seeming simplicity. The plateaus at $1,000 and $32,000 (now $25,000) I thought were a stroke of genius, because they avoided the pitfall of an all-or-nothing format. (In a documentary about the "Twenty-One" scandal of the 1950s, they showed a clip of the show being done honestly - if you missed a question, you dropped to zero. Both contestants goofed, and two-thirds of the way through, the score was nothing-nothing, to the visible annoyance of the host. The producer decided the show needed fixing, and that's what it got - in the worst way.)
I liked that Millionaire was a deliberately paced show, free of the usual hyped excitement and filled with genuine suspense. As for being a heavily edited show - yes, but not as severely as DoND or 1 vs. 100. I actually thought at one point it would have been fun to do Millionaire live - can you imagine someone in the hot seat thinking, thinking, thinking for 15 minutes or so on the ABC network?
As a counter-example to Millioinaire's smoothness, I think of the revamped "Twenty-One" starring Maury Povich. Now *that* was a flawed show. And what with the producers thinking all they had to do was literally pile money in front of the cameras to get people to watch - now that was misguided.
As for a game show that would be fun to do even without prize money - I think of the original "Password." Playing with or opposite celebrities who were really good at it and took it seriously (e.g., Carol Burnett, Alan King, Buddy Hackett) would have been a real treat in and of itself.
-
What shows would work without any major modifications? Look at GSN. Match Game, Password (or Password Plus - but not Super Password), Hollywood Squares (H2 was pulled too fast....they finally got it), Joker's Wild, Press Your Luck, the original version of Pyramid (not the Goth hideous version). These will work today and for minimal cost.
What's driving up the costs? Poor production standards. Get producers who know the product, respect timing issues and get true video directors and not video editors turned directors or people who will "fix it in post". All of the gameshows listed above did zero or minimal post production. What was the record for a weekend of Pyramid? 23 episodes?
Show the warts and all. How many times did Match Game has a technical issue with the round boards misfiring? Or a fire engine in the background?
TV doesn't have to be an absolute polished product. Treat TV live, close-up emotion, true speed of the game. Nothing says it like "here's your first subject GO!".
Oh yeah......AND AUDIENCE INVOLVEMENT!
-
I haven't seen the NBC version yet but I'm disliking the whole "asking the mob" as isn't the formula of the show is that 100 people are against you and out to beat you? Why ask help from someone who is out for your cash?
The format here in the UK is more leaning towards the original Dutch version. Where we have got three dodges. If the 1 isn't sure of that question they could pass while the 100 still answer (and therefore the incorrect ones will be eliminated but no cash is added) however your current winnings will be cut in half. Also we got an extra lifeline called Double where when used each person eliminated is doubled (£2,000 per person).
Most importantly to the British version here (mainly due to budgeting reasons as its a BBC Lottery show). You HAVE to beat all 100 to at least walk away with something. Only when you have beaten them you can either bail with the cash amounted up to that point, or risk your final answer to win an extra £50,000. Therefore we have more games where its down to one against 10-30 people.
-
[quote name=\'TravisP\' post=\'135449\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 11:44 AM\']
I haven't seen the NBC version yet but I'm disliking the whole "asking the mob" as isn't the formula of the show is that 100 people are against you and out to beat you? Why ask help from someone who is out for your cash?
[/quote]
The longer you stay in the game, the more money you win, hence it's in their interest to generate more money to be split by the mob when you lose. The second help (two members who gave different answers) is the one where you're more likely to be lied to. But then again, they can't really say they picked B when they really picked C. They can just bluff on their logic, not unlike The Hollywood Squares.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'135430\' date=\'Oct 23 2006, 10:15 PM\']
They're succeeding because 1) people really do want to see people winning piles of money. (Focus groups were shown episodes of Deal or No Deal, and were disappointed when the contestant won less than $50,000.)
[/quote]
This, friends, is what's the matter with focus groups: It takes a brain to interpret what they're saying. Of course they're disappointed when the contestant doesn't win much. The producers take this to mean, "make sure nobody wins less than $50,000." What this really means is "wow, the viewers really got involved--we've got a winner here." If they understood that you can't serve desert all the time, they could have a winner in syndication. Instead, people will be sick of it by then.
-
I actually thought at one point it would have been fun to do Millionaire live - can you imagine someone in the hot seat thinking, thinking, thinking for 15 minutes or so on the ABC network?
I believe a few of the British episodes have been done live. I believe the 300th episode, which is circulating, is one of them.
Show the warts and all. How many times did Match Game has a technical issue with the round boards misfiring? Or a fire engine in the background?
And that was part of the charm. I miss that sort of thing today. Taking it further, I remember one Match Game where they had to go to four tie-breakers before finally determining a winner. How much do you want to be they'd edit all that out today?
-
[quote name=\'cweaver\' post=\'135451\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 09:51 AM\']
But then again, they can't really say they picked B when they really picked C. They can just bluff on their logic, not unlike The Hollywood Squares.
[/quote]
It's not much of a bluff, though, really. If you KNOW you have the right answer, all you have to do is decide whether you want the person to stay in the game or not. (And, really, all THAT question boils down to is one of whether they are likely to walk immediately following the current question, since that's all you can really control.) If you do, then you make a case for your answer honestly. If you don't, then you simply say "I picked B. It was a wild-assed guess."
-
[quote name=\'TravisP\' post=\'135449\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 11:44 AM\']
I haven't seen the NBC version yet but I'm disliking the whole "asking the mob" as isn't the formula of the show is that 100 people are against you and out to beat you? Why ask help from someone who is out for your cash?
[/quote]
Look at it as combination of "Greed" and "Friend Or Foe".
An "Ask The Mob" member kinda makes the decision to try to take the existing money split it with the remaining 'team' and run (by trying to mislead the contestant)...
or...they risk losing a shot at a share of the winnings by being honest and hoping the contestant will play on, creating a bigger jackpot.
So during Ask The Mob, the contestant is playing "Friend Or Foe" while the Mob is playing "Greed" in a strange twisted way.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'135463\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 01:22 PM\']
An "Ask The Mob" member kinda makes the decision to try to take the existing money split it with the remaining 'team' and run (by trying to mislead the contestant)...
[/quote]
I made this assumption before, and maybe it's the wrong one to make, so let me clarify something. You have the incorrect answer, but you are selected to explain yourself via either of the One's helps. The One sides with you and goes with your incorrect answer. The One's obviously out as a result, and the mob splits the One's winnings. Are you, as one who gave the incorrect answer, entitled to any portion of the winnings, because you're out too?
Because if that's not the case, there's no real impetus for you to give a real convincing bluff, as you're not going to get rewarded for it other than the surviving members giving you a hearty "thank you." Unless I'm missing something. (Which isn't a stretch.)
Doug
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'135469\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 03:01 PM\']I made this assumption before, and maybe it's the wrong one to make, so let me clarify something. You have the incorrect answer, but you are selected to explain yourself via either of the One's helps. The One sides with you and goes with your incorrect answer. The One's obviously out as a result, and the mob splits the One's winnings. Are you, as one who gave the incorrect answer, entitled to any portion of the winnings, because you're out too?
Because if that's not the case, there's no real impetus for you to give a real convincing bluff, as you're not going to get rewarded for it other than the surviving members giving you a hearty "thank you." Unless I'm missing something. (Which isn't a stretch.)[/quote]
Your analysis seems to assume that the chosen mob member knows that his answer is wrong. Typically, a mob member is going to assume (or at least hope) that he's got the right answer. But no, unless there's a rule we don't know about (always a possibility with this show, it seems), a wrong player is out, even if that player convinced the One to go out too.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'135474\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 02:31 PM\']
Your analysis seems to assume that the chosen mob member knows that his answer is wrong. Typically, a mob member is going to assume (or at least hope) that he's got the right answer. But no, unless there's a rule we don't know about (always a possibility with this show, it seems), a wrong player is out, even if that player convinced the One to go out too.
[/quote]
You're right--which is not how I intended it (my analysis being flawed, not your correctness). Although in the case of last Friday's show, the Mob member who it seems wound up winning nothing seemed as though she kinda figured her answer was wrong from her little dig at the contestant. That, and the fact that only three other people wound up agreeing with her.
Again, it's too bad that her convincing of the contestant nets her absoutely nothing because she was wrong too.
Doug
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'135469\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 12:01 PM\']
Are you, as one who gave the incorrect answer, entitled to any portion of the winnings, because you're out too?
[/quote]
Nope. They knock out the people who missed it before awarding the money to the Mob.
Because if that's not the case, there's no real impetus for you to give a real convincing bluff, as you're not going to get rewarded for it other than the surviving members giving you a hearty "thank you." Unless I'm missing something. (Which isn't a stretch.)
Exactly. Either you're right, or you THINK you're right, since you would never ever ever intentionally select a wrong answer. (Unless, of course, you'd been standing there 12 hours, desperately needed to take a leak, and didn't want to soil yourself.) So it goes back to the point I made above, as to whether you think it's in your best interest to try to keep the player around or not. If so, you defend your answer as best you can. If not, then you simply say you guessed. Doing anything else either sells the contestant on your answer, or would make 'em think you were full of crap about how you think you're wrong, because _there is never any benefit to answering incorrectly_...and therefore they pick your answer. As a Mobster, you never stand to gain unless some point comes where the contestant picks a different answer than you did and you end up being right.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'135477\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 03:44 PM\']
So it goes back to the point I made above, as to whether you think it's in your best interest to try to keep the player around or not. [/quote]
From the little we've seen, the game seems so weighted against the mob that I think you'd want to take any opportunity you can to get the One out, no matter how many mob members are left or how small your payoff will be. Therefore, if I'm in the mob and get a chance to dialog with the One, I'm going to do everything I can to bluff him AWAY from my answer, probably by giving a patently false logic for chosing it.
-
Ya know, this makes me think of something. In Susan Sackett and Cheryl Blythe's book, "You Can Be A Game Show Contestant And Win", IIRC, there are some sample contestant guidelines...I want to say they're for Family Feud. And I distinctly want to remember that one of the guidelines was that if you needed to use the restroom, you should absolutely speak up and say so, and they would be happy to stop down tape and have someone escort you there.
So, that said, why in the purple tapdancing hell are the 1 vs. 100 folks not allowing their contestants this same courtesy?
-
I should point out that my comments about focus group testing in the other thread were made satirically -- as far as I'm aware, no focus group testing has specifically pointed out sub-$50,000 winnings as disappointing. Unless I have amazing psychic abilities, in which case I have got to try out for Deal or No Deal.
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'135469\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 02:01 PM\']You have the incorrect answer, but you are selected to explain yourself via either of the One's helps. The One sides with you and goes with your incorrect answer. The One's obviously out as a result, and the mob splits the One's winnings. Are you, as one who gave the incorrect answer, entitled to any portion of the winnings, because you're out too?[/quote]
No, but I like to think that somebody in that mob treated that woman to dinner or something. But there's no reason to sound so confident of your now-apparently-wrong answer except for a sense of loyalty to the other folks in the mob and the sadistic pleasure of knowing that if you're going down, you're taking the One with you.
--
Scott Robinson
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'135479\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 12:55 PM\']
From the little we've seen, the game seems so weighted against the mob that I think you'd want to take any opportunity you can to get the One out, no matter how many mob members are left or how small your payoff will be.
[/quote]
Agreed.
Therefore, if I'm in the mob and get a chance to dialog with the One, I'm going to do everything I can to bluff him AWAY from my answer, probably by giving a patently false logic for chosing it.
But, from my way of thinking, that is going to have one of two effects: either he's gonna buy into your false logic, and choose your answer, or he's going to know your logic is false...and if he knows enough to know that, he's gonna choose your answer.
Unless I'm missing something? Seems to me you benefit most from offering as little information as you can get away with, because then you have a wrong player defending their answer, and the right player (you) saying "Hell, I have no idea." Given no help and a little help, they're gonna go for a little help most of the time.
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'135469\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 02:01 PM\']
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'135463\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 01:22 PM\']
An "Ask The Mob" member kinda makes the decision to try to take the existing money split it with the remaining 'team' and run (by trying to mislead the contestant)...
[/quote]
I made this assumption before, and maybe it's the wrong one to make, so let me clarify something. You have the incorrect answer, but you are selected to explain yourself via either of the One's helps. The One sides with you and goes with your incorrect answer. The One's obviously out as a result, and the mob splits the One's winnings. Are you, as one who gave the incorrect answer, entitled to any portion of the winnings, because you're out too?
Because if that's not the case, there's no real impetus for you to give a real convincing bluff, as you're not going to get rewarded for it other than the surviving members giving you a hearty "thank you." Unless I'm missing something. (Which isn't a stretch.)
Doug
[/quote]
My bad. My mind was stuck on the mob member who had the right answer, but had the opportunity to be 100% honest (in order to keep building the jackpot).
If that Mob member (who had the right answer) thought there was enough money in the jackpot for the rest of the mob to win, they could always add in their reasoning the "it's just a wild guess" factor. The more they can convince the contestant that the wrong mob member sounds more believable with the "wild guess", the better.
This is where Greed meets Friend or Foe -- One Mob member can pretty much decide for the rest of the remaining mobsters when to try to quit, and/or when to put out a fake sense of trust.
-
[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' post=\'135481\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 01:00 PM\']
I should point out that my comments about focus group testing in the other thread were made satirically -- as far as I'm aware, no focus group testing has specifically pointed out sub-$50,000 winnings as disappointing. Unless I have amazing psychic abilities, in which case I have got to try out for Deal or No Deal.[/quote]On Penn Jillette's Free FM radio show, Howie Mandel was a guest on the August 30, 2006 show, ostensibly to talk about the return of "his stupid game show," at least in Penn's words. So, during the discussion they're talking about people turning down huge sums of money, and Howie mentions that there was in fact focus testing saying that people didn't like it when people won less than $50,000. I wouldn't make this stuff up, friends. :)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'135480\' date=\'Oct 24 2006, 03:57 PM\']
And I distinctly want to remember that one of the guidelines was that if you needed to use the restroom, you should absolutely speak up and say so, and they would be happy to stop down tape and have someone escort you there.
So, that said, why in the purple tapdancing hell are the 1 vs. 100 folks not allowing their contestants this same courtesy?
[/quote]
I have a class with 11 kids in it. I can let one of them run to the loo without having to stop everything. 101 dalmatians players, each of whom can cause a stopdown any time s/he needs to tink? They'd never get anything on tape. Sounds like a situation where you need to schedule breaks.
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'135760\' date=\'Oct 27 2006, 06:07 AM\']
I have a class with 11 kids in it. I can let one of them run to the loo without having to stop everything. 101 dalmatians players, each of whom can cause a stopdown any time s/he needs to tink? They'd never get anything on tape. Sounds like a situation where you need to schedule breaks.
[/quote]
Understood. Still, though, it strikes me that when a contestant actually pisses themselves because you told them they couldn't go to the bathroom, then you need to take a good hard look at your policies and make some changes, or you need to take a good hard look at your format and decide whether it's really feasible as a television production.
Or else, give out T-shirts that say "I Was In The Mob On 1 vs. 100 And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt And Pissy Pants".
(Hint: the contestants are your guests, not cattle. If you can't treat them as such, you do not have a feasible production.)
Maybe they can hide it and get boffo ratings for a little while, but so far they've already had one high-profile Mobster go public about his experiences. They get a couple more, and they're going to be in trouble.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'135738\' date=\'Oct 26 2006, 11:27 PM\']
So, during the discussion they're talking about people turning down huge sums of money, and Howie mentions that there was in fact focus testing saying that people didn't like it when people won less than $50,000. I wouldn't make this stuff up, friends. :)
[/quote]
And that's one reason not to trust focus groups (another is because focus groups initially rejected "Friends" back in 1994). It's easy for them to get pissy when it's not their money.
/Screw focus groups...the hell do they know?
//Bitter? No, why do you ask? ;-)
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'135738\' date=\'Oct 26 2006, 10:27 PM\']So, during the discussion they're talking about people turning down huge sums of money, and Howie mentions that there was in fact focus testing saying that people didn't like it when people won less than $50,000. I wouldn't make this stuff up, friends. :)[/quote]
(jaw drops)
I'm goin' to Vegas.
--
Scott Robinson
(who also despises focus group testing)