The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: tvmitch on May 20, 2015, 09:11:14 PM
-
Okay, I'll start. No spoilers.
I like the game and the studio is wow but it's so slow. Richard Quest is really good. I do not care one iota about why the contestant decided to choose x over y. Ask the question already.
I think it would make a lot of sense that when the contestant chooses a category, they finish all 5 questions rapid fire. And the last question is special. That alone would double the questions asked in the show.
-
Richard Quest is really good. I do not care one iota about why the contestant decided to choose x over y. Ask the question already.
Quest is fine, but it feels like he's shouting throughout the entire hour and trying to play "British quiz presenter" a little too hard. I mostly agree with "get to the damn point" but there are some things he pointed out that were neat and were worth emphasizing. I fully agree with the pacing issue. If you choose a category, you should be committed either until you answer wrong or hit a special question. I don't think the # of questions would double, but I'm reasonably certain you would get to a more satisfying point in the game after night 1.
One thing I really appreciated was that either there were less post-production lines than the norm or they were just better executed.
-
At the rate its going, they won't hit 500 by the time they're done...I'd tell them that there are 10 special questions in each block of 50- at least one category has no special questions, and no category has more than two.
-
Is a grand prize mentioned for reaching the pinnacle? Is money stabilized if a contestant reaches a fifty-question plateau? How many questions were they able to play in the hour?
/only 497 to go.
-
Watched the premiere, and I thought it was a mixed bag.
WHAT I LIKED ...
-- Liked a majority of the questions. Difficult, but not impossible (felt like an hour of DJ! and FJ! questions to me). A few of the questions seemed designed to genuinely stump or trick the players and audience (the John Hughes "battle" and the first U.S. Landmarks question come to mind).
-- An impressive set, particularly the game board listing the categories.
-- Contestants were made to feel special and the reason to watch the game. To Richard Quest's credit, he did what he could to make them the stars of the show.
-- Loved the mini-games. "Battle" was a fast-paced version of a TTD Red category or "The Rich/Money List" that worked due to the fact that it seemed to go quickly. The "Top 10 Challenge" was a fun "quick recall" game that had the feeling of old-school quiz bowl bonus questions.
ON THE FENCE ...
-- Richard Quest has a commanding presence as host. When he talks with that booming voice of his, you're bound to stop and listen to what he has to say. But there were times he simply talked too much -- there's no need to ask the contestants why they went to a certain category, why they ignored a category, etc. He also had a bit of a quirk whenever contestant took too much time searching for an answer. Quest seemed to move his hands and limbs so much that I thought he needed to use the bathroom. There's no need to be overexcited as the clock counts down.
Having dealt with Quest before, what you see on TV is what you get in real life. He doesn't have an "off" button, so to say. What makes Quest unique has won him his fair share of fans, but I can also see him alienating some viewers (the quirks I mentioned above).
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE ...
-- To be honest, I liked the concept of only rewarding money if the contestant answered correctly on the first try. It's unique and challenges the contestants to prove they are geniuses. But I can also see viewers being turned off by the concept. Why are they not being rewarded for correct answers?
-- ABC should have put an explainer on how the game works on the show's website before it aired. Mini-games popped up without explanation beforehand. As mentioned above, some viewers would be confused as to why some right answers meant cash and others didn't. At Question 25, Quest mentions to contestant Dan that if he gets it right, he takes home $5000 "no matter what." How about explaining the milestone system online? Are milestones awarded for every 25 questions?
-- Any potential grand prize was not mentioned during the premiere telecast. Based on the early questions, you could win at least $500,000 (not including milestone bonuses) by answering all 500 questions on the first try. But does the money change the further you go up the question stack? Can you quit after certain milestones? Again, an online explainer would have been extremely helpful.
-- As mentioned previously, the game's pace needs to be quickened by, at the very least, cutting down on the banter. J! can get through 61 questions in 30 minutes. "Downfall" was able to get through 90-100 questions per show during its short run. "The Chase" has at least 100 questions per episode. Why can't "500 Questions" do the same?
Overall grade: C+
There is a lot of potential with this show. It's a hard quiz that kept me entertained. But it's bogged down by throwing too much at the viewer and expecting them to follow up.
JD
-
"The Chase" has at least 100 questions per episode. Why can't "500 Questions" do the same?
To be fair, on The Chase the object is to answer as many questions in a certain amount of time as possible. On 500 Questions, you need only get it right within 10 seconds. That should generally mean fewer questions on 500 Questions, although it shouldn't be as few as it was (38, IIRC).
I like the idea of going from one category to another rather than having to run the category in one go. Since the point is to avoid three consecutive wrong answers, it seems there ought to be a strategy to space out the questions in your weakest category if you think you're going to get all of those wrong.
-
What's the point of calling the show 500 Questions if they won't even ask that many over the course of the series?
-
"367 Questions, More or Less" didn't look good on the logo.
-
I like the simplicity of this game: "3 strikes and you're out." I like "only your first answer earns money, but any right answer keeps you in the game." I like the mini-games, which keep things fresh as the hour goes on.
What happens to the winner's money at the end of each set of 50, I'm not clear about. If a player *ever* finishes a game and starts another, will the next game be worth more?
I wish the pace were a little perkier. Is 5 seconds per question too short?
There's a disconnect between the VERY! DRAMATIC! SHOUTING! HOST! and the two guys playing the game, who are as relaxed as if they were playing Trivial Pursuit at home. Whether this is a feature or a bug I can't quite tell.
The set and graphics package are attractive enough.
I'm glad there's another quiz show on TV.
-
What happens to the winner's money at the end of each set of 50, I'm not clear about. If a player *ever* finishes a game and starts another, will the next game be worth more?
I guess we'll find out on tonight's episode.
-
-- Richard Quest has a commanding presence as host. When he talks with that booming voice of his, you're bound to stop and listen to what he has to say...Quest seemed to move his hands and limbs so much that I thought he needed to use the bathroom. There's no need to be overexcited as the clock counts down.
When I first saw Richard Quest I pictured Robert Q. Lewis doing a Thomas Dolby impersonation ("She Blinded Me With Science"). And his "hurry up" hand motions to the contestant during the countdowns to me is a heck of a distraction. I'd much rather have him say something like a calmer Richard Dawson "3 seconds..." reminder.
It didn't feel like it was overly post-produced, but like others have said, they really need to pick up the pace in order to hit Question #500 on the final show.
/Then again, Letterman's final show went 18 minutes over.
//Quest: "Just a scheduling reminder, "Good Morning America" will be seen it's entirety immediately after tonight's final game..."
-
Ratings are in, and they are a little better than I expected ...
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/05/21/tv-ratings-wednesday-modern-family-black-ish-finales-fall-to-series-lows-supernatural-finale-flat/406854/
No way it was going to beat the "Survivor" finale, but matching "MasterChef" in the demo was a surprise, since that series typically has strong demos.
JD
-
I liked it. I think the pace is fine, but if it could move a little quicker, it wouldn't hurt. I'm allowing for explanations taking time on the first show. Host is a little over the top but tolerable. Contestants were good. I was rooting for the opponent, since I remember the game show he was previously on. .
The show is airing for TWO HOURS tonight (5.21).
-
trying to play "British quiz presenter" a little too hard.
By doing what?
-
The show is airing for TWO HOURS tonight (5.21).
Next Thursday (5/28) as well. The show will not air new episodes on Saturday or Sunday. This is how they are squeezing a "nine-day event" into seven days.
-
My only quibble so far is the pacing. If they could at least get up to 60 or 70 in an hour, I'd be happy. If there was some way to have the regular questions be rapid fire (Say, 60sec to get 10 questions, with special questions pausing the clock), that would be ideal.
I actually like the fact that they haven't touted any sort of Grand Prize, because that has seemed to be our complaint with a number of new game shows lately. They come out saying "You can win One Million Damn Dollars!", but it would require perfect play which is virtually impossible. A little more disclosure on some of the details would be nice, but better to steer clear of the grand prize discussion, IMO.
-
It reminds me a little of the Millionaire computer game: you'd enter your guess for the $300 question, Regis would say you're right, the little animation comes up, then the camera swings out to a wide view of the set, Regis says that the next question is for $500, then zooms back in and now we're rolling. Every question being its own event, plus Richard shouting at you about how you have two wrongs [gag!] so the challenger now steps into frame to nominate, then the question is played, it adds up to feeling like being stuck in stop-and-go traffic. Three wrong consecutively and no lifelines/multiple choice as well as free range to guess are interesting mechanics that we haven't seen much of. Having to stop the action after every question is going to sap the energy of the game.
(Piling on Kevin's idea, I wouldn't allow for any patter during a category gauntlet, just a warning siren when there's two strikes. The red box categories fail to interest me at all, mainly because we have to stop the game to asplain it and to say who will lead and who will follow and so on.)
I wonder if they haven't made mention of a grand prize because there isn't one, and that you win whatever money you pile up by answering questions.
-
Tonight is the first time I've watched...the pacing isn't too bad here. Did it improve from earlier in the week?
I like what I'm seeing so far...the trash talk makes it kinda fun, although the guy from Naperville, Illinois is kinda smarmy. Love a challenging quiz show, even though I only got three and a half questions right. :-P
I came in towards the end of this episode, so I'm a little confused. Does a right answer erase the strikes you've accumulated?
-
Love a challenging quiz show, even though I only got three and a half questions right. :-P
I came in towards the end of this episode, so I'm a little confused. Does a right answer erase the strikes you've accumulated?
Yes
-
I didn't start recording last night until about fifteen minutes in, so I was trying to figure out the point of the whole "opponent" thing. Is that dude essentially in the on-deck circle?
-
I didn't start recording last night until about fifteen minutes in, so I was trying to figure out the point of the whole "opponent" thing. Is that dude essentially in the on-deck circle?
Yup. The opponent gets to nominate the next category if the player up to bat has two wrongs, and if the at bat player can get through all fifty questions the opponent is thanked for his participation and replaced.
It may not be the zenith of fatuousness, but it's another silly rule in a game that has far too many of those already.
-
I didn't start recording last night until about fifteen minutes in, so I was trying to figure out the point of the whole "opponent" thing. Is that dude essentially in the on-deck circle?
Yup. The opponent gets to nominate the next category if the player up to bat has two wrongs, and if the at bat player can get through all fifty questions the opponent is thanked for his participation and replaced.
It may not be the zenith of fatuousness, but it's another silly rule in a game that has far too many of those already.
I don't necessarily mind the rule, but sitting there twiddling your thumbs the whole time, except in a two-strike scenario or a "Battle" question is a bit tedious.
-
I didn't start recording last night until about fifteen minutes in, so I was trying to figure out the point of the whole "opponent" thing. Is that dude essentially in the on-deck circle?
Yes. He goes in if the main player gets three strikes, but he's replaced at the end of each fifty question set. The challenger seems too superfluous to me, since he has precious little ability to influence the outcome, no matter how much they suggest otherwise. Being able to pick a category in a broad general-knowledge quiz isn't as much of an advantage as they make it out to be. And winning a Battle is just worth one strike.
The last challenger in tonight's shows was building up an enormous bank of "bragging rights" by providing answers to the ones the main player missed, but he gets diddly for that.
-
Piggybacking off Matt's post, I have an idea that's a variant of a rule change I'd come up with tonight.
An incorrect answer isn't worth a strike, unless the opponent answers the question correctly. Maybe offer $500 for every strike the opponent forces.
Does it make the game better? Depends on how you feel about the show...but at least things a little more competitive, and the opponent actually does something besides stand there and talk trash for an hour, and hoping that he or she gets to go to the hot seat.
-
Piggybacking off Matt's post, I have an idea that's a variant of a rule change I'd come up with tonight.
An incorrect answer isn't worth a strike, unless the opponent answers the question correctly. Maybe offer $500 for every strike the opponent forces.
Does it make the game better? Depends on how you feel about the show...but at least things a little more competitive, and the opponent actually does something besides stand there and talk trash for an hour, and hoping that he or she gets to go to the hot seat.
Making the opponent answer correctly to get a strike just makes it even less likely that the primary contestant will get three wrong in a row.
If it were me and I was looking to bring in the second contestant more, I'd switch to some kind of king of the mountain thing where control goes back and forth between them. If the primary contestant doesn't get it but the opponent does or the opponent wins one of the special categories, they switch places. Whoever is in control at the end of question 50 gets the money in the bank and gets to continue on to compete against the next player. Three questions without a right answer by either player and they both go home empty handed. That kind of breaks the title "500 Questions" thing, but it seems like the producer could add some kind of jackpot for surviving 500 questions and be reasonably confident that the odds of it being hit are pretty low.
-
This does sort of prove my ongoing thesis--that Darnell and Burnett, alone or singly cannot create a coherent or compelling quiz show.
Bringing the opponent in turns it into an actual contest and not just a quiz against the writers, and right now the opponent is doing little more than what opponents do at the end of Trivial Pursuit. Personally I would have the opponent booby trap (some number) of the questions, and wrong answers on those incur some greater penalty.
-
Piggybacking off Matt's post, I have an idea that's a variant of a rule change I'd come up with tonight.
An incorrect answer isn't worth a strike, unless the opponent answers the question correctly. Maybe offer $500 for every strike the opponent forces.
Does it make the game better? Depends on how you feel about the show...but at least things a little more competitive, and the opponent actually does something besides stand there and talk trash for an hour, and hoping that he or she gets to go to the hot seat.
Making the opponent answer correctly to get a strike just makes it even less likely that the primary contestant will get three wrong in a row.
I forgot to add that the strikes are now cumulative...no more three in a row. Prolly should've added that part in. :-P
-
I forgot to add that the strikes are now cumulative...no more three in a row. Prolly should've added that part in. :-P
So in order to win the kajillion dollars, that event can only happen twice in 500 questions?
Seems really unlikely.
-
Twice in 450 questions. That makes winning the jackpot so much more likely.
-
"Alex, I'll take Geography for $200."
"Why?"
There's your pacing problem.
-
Or...
"Alex, I'll take Classic Novels for $2000."
"OK, this is the fifth clue in the category. You got one right, but three others went to your opponents. It therefore doesn't appear that this is your best category, but we'll see what happens...after the break."
-
Yeah, I've tried about two hours of this, and I am finding that the shortcomings of the game annoy me more than the chrome entertains me - and it's pretty clearly counting on the chrome to entertain me, because the game couldn't be any thinner if it were devised by an Olsen twin. I fail to see how they are going to ask 500 questions over the course of the series, much less one person's game, so why the hell do I care? (ESPECIALLY when the host keeps making a running joke out of the fact that There's A Lot Of Damn Game To Go Yet.) Am I supposed to care that they bank money along the way? If so, why not call the show Blocks Of 50 Questions?
It's just not good. It's not Set For Life-bad, but it's not good. I utterly fail to see how the glaring flaws in the format didn't keep this from being produced.
/ABC had a shot at Poker Face, ffs
-
I think my bad idea is showing why shows should be fleshed out. I had what I thought was a simple fix, and I'm now seeing it works still be bad TV. :-)
-
"OK, this is the fifth clue in the category. You got one right, but three others went to your opponents. It therefore doesn't appear that this is your best category, but we'll see what happens...after the break."
And what isn't being mentioned is that all of Richard's lines are being delivered in a shouty and annoying voice all of the time. (For serious, his voice is just this side of Wendy Williams on the spectrum.) Particularly egregious is his trying to make a catchphrase of 'three wrong and you are gone.'
I'm not necessarily sold on all of the various improvements that I've heard around these parts, but it goes to show that a handful of TV watchers show more creativity and understanding of what makes a decent product than two guys who are paid to do same.
Other thing that I don't think has been touched on: how are people enjoying the questions? They seem to be right in the Jeopardy wheelhouse and certainly not "times ten." There were four times that the questions could have been toughened up but they weren't (particularly the ones where the correct answers were Suzanne Collins, Hershey, Penn., Sleepy Hollow and Dune), while others seemed to be quite a bit harder.
-
Other thing that I don't think has been touched on: how are people enjoying the questions? They seem to be right in the Jeopardy wheelhouse and certainly not "times ten."
Yeah, the questions are fine. A little generic, frankly, but there's nothing really wrong with that. They're terribly overplaying the THESE PEOPLE ARE GENIUSES angle. These are simply people who are good at trivia, which is frankly a welcome change-of-pace compared to most shows these days that cast interesting characters instead of good game players.
-
Not trying to say it's perfect, but I'm thoroughly enjoying the show. It's definitely the best new game in a while.
-
Now that I've watched the first four hours, I keep thinking that if you sent the exact rules of this game back in time to the 70s or 80s and made G-T or B&E produce them, it would probably be a beloved old classic among this bunch, but this particular version of the game doesn't work very well.
With the exception of how difficult it is for the challenger to unseat the champion, everything that's wrong about this show is a production decision that seems to be specific to the post-Millionaire era--the unnecessarily dark set, the slow pacing, the overloud and overcaffeinated host, the drama being ratcheted up too high over fairly low stakes.
-
It's a good game. It's a sub-par show.
-
Now that I've watched the first four hours, I keep thinking that if you sent the exact rules of this game back in time to the 70s or 80s and made G-T or B&E produce them, it would probably be a beloved old classic among this bunch,
I vigorously disagree with this because any of the production companies of yore wouldn't have produced this, or at the very least they would have done so in such a fundamentally different way that you wouldn't be able to connect the dots between the two versions. Matt's right in that the contestants have shone through in a way that it is rare for prime-time game show contestants to do so (and I particularly love the no-selling of "why'dya pick that category?" because it's such a silly question) and Cory is right--what little scope there is to enjoy the actual game play is washed out by noxious producerial decisions.
-
I feel like this could be a good show if instead of the lame 500 Questions gimmick which no one will come close to getting to, speed the game up a little, make each episode self-contained and call the show 50 Questions instead. Get rid of the strikes, and have the challenger always pick the category for the player in control. Only the player in control can bank money, but on any wrong answer the challenger gets a chance to answer. If right, they steal control of the game and their roles are reversed. Whoever is in control after the 50th question wins the money they've banked and becomes returning champion.
-
I feel like this could be a good show if instead of the lame 500 Questions gimmick which no one will come close to getting to, speed the game up a little, make each episode self-contained and call the show 50 Questions instead. Get rid of the strikes, and have the challenger always pick the category for the player in control. Only the player in control can bank money, but on any wrong answer the challenger gets a chance to answer. If right, they steal control of the game and their roles are reversed. Whoever is in control after the 50th question wins the money they've banked and becomes returning champion.
I would watch this. I would even let them keep their precious title by having a ten-game maximum for returning champions.
-
The only real problem is that one player can get the first 49 questions right, screw up the last, and lose the game. Kinda like Merv Griffin's Crosswords in that regard.
-
I feel like this could be a good show if instead of the lame 500 Questions gimmick which no one will come close to getting to, speed the game up a little, make each episode self-contained and call the show 50 Questions instead.
That's exactly what I was thinking. There's a good idea for a game format there, but there are so many other things happening. I could see this as a one-hour 50-question show on GSN.
I'm enjoying the show, but it'll never come back after this first run.
Get rid of the strikes, and have the challenger always pick the category for the player in control. Only the player in control can bank money, but on any wrong answer the challenger gets a chance to answer. If right, they steal control of the game and their roles are reversed. Whoever is in control after the 50th question wins the money they've banked and becomes returning champion.
But then you get into the problem with Australia's WWTBAM: Hot Seat: The person who is in the chair for the last question is all that matters. Player A may run the table and get 49 questions right, but if he's wrong on #50 and Player B answers it, then he's the big winner after answering just one question.
EDIT: Maybe he's suggesting that each player has their own bank that they carry with them when they switch? If so, then my last statement means nothing and Player B gets $1,000 only.
Dean
-
EDIT: Maybe he's suggesting that each player has their own bank that they carry with them when they switch? If so, then my last statement means nothing and Player B gets $1,000 only.
...and the right to play again, which is almost as offensive.
-
What exactly is the significance of the 500 questions?
I love Bruce Forsyth. This guy's no Bruce Forsyth. A tip for him--it helps your catch phrase to have some alliteration.
They make a big deal out of it being tougher because it's not multiple choice, but then, it's the first quiz in which you can keep spitting out wrong answers until you hit the right one. And that's neat, but if it's correct enough to wipe away your strikes, it should be correct enough for money, too.
-
What exactly is the significance of the 500 questions?
It's a BIIIIIG Number! It's really biiiiig!
-
The timer should have started at, say, $1,000 or $5,000 and trickled down during the ten seconds.
-
EDIT: Maybe he's suggesting that each player has their own bank that they carry with them when they switch? If so, then my last statement means nothing and Player B gets $1,000 only.
...and the right to play again, which is almost as offensive.
All fair points, but on the whole, i think Veggiemaster* is on the right track. A self-contained 50-question game is a good idea, though obviously the current format isn't conducive to that, because the game could be over in three. As a seventies daytime game, they'd do fifty in thirty minutes, easy. These days, it would be nice to force them to squeeze fifty into an hour.
*Can't possibly be what it stands for.
-
A self-contained 50-question game is a good idea, though obviously the current format isn't conducive to that, because the game could be over in three.
As long as they come up with a better title, because right now near as I can tell the only meaning 500 Questions has is that's when they throw your ass off the show.
-
500 questions and 200 of them are "Why?"
-
500 questions and 200 of them are "Why?"
Hi-yo!
-
One of my agents in the field says that it is possible to survive the marathon and win no money. Is it possible to miss out in the milestone money for 25 and 50 questions?
-
One of my agents in the field says that it is possible to survive the marathon and win no money. Is it possible to miss out in the milestone money for 25 and 50 questions?
Based on what I've seen, it is possible, but only on a theoretical level. You only get money if you answer correctly on your first answer, but any subsequent answer within the ten seconds keeps you alive and in the game. So if you manage to answer a decent percentage of the 500 Questions, yet fail to get a single one of them on your first response, yeah, you'd go home with nothing. Otherwise, you pocket your bank every 50 questions. Unless there's some gambling they introduce at a higher level.
-
I will simply say this about "500 Questions," this show gets so repetitive and has such sluggish pacing that it borders on annoying. Thank goodness I can skip over the commercials on my DVR otherwise I'd doze off.
This is tough for me to watch ...to the point that I have already made a drinking game out of 500 Questions. This is the only way to watch it. My favorite one is "2 drinks every time Richard Quest counts to three with his fingers for 'three strikes in a row' to a contestant's face."
/Also, +1 drink if the crowd follows that with everyone saying "GONE!"
//I might be more than a little buzzed tomorrow...
-
One of my agents in the field says that it is possible to survive the marathon and win no money. Is it possible to miss out in the milestone money for 25 and 50 questions?
Yes, as you don't get the money for the 25 milestone unless you would normally get $1000 (or $3000 for a Triple Threat) for that question.
Also, you have to lose every Battle and Top Ten Challenge you are in, as well as miss every Triple Threat, and (as already said) not answer any of the "normal" questions correctly on your first guess, but get enough of them right in order to keep from getting three questions in a row wrong.
-
Just caught it for the first time tonight. So...okay. Tons of visual sizzle, wafer-thin steak. Almost one of the versions of You Bet Your Life with flashy graphics replacing repartee with a master wit. Groucho's version of the game was also lame (4 in a row right, win, two wrong in a row and you're...gone!), but at least you actually had games completed in minutes. I'm rooting along with you for a good game or quiz show of some kind to come back, but still, these hour-long stretch fests are snoozers.
-
First of all, can we give some appreciation to the fact that they are actually seeking out smart, reasonable people to be on the show, as opposed to... whatever kind of pseudo-people as contestants the Endemol craze started?
I like that smart people are answering tough questions. That's a good start. The set is great. The questions are a little generic, but the battles and the top tens spice it up some. The way contestants can keep guessing to avoid a 'wrong' is a nice touch. Richard Quest's hosting works for me. He's charged up, but I think he's staying well behind the line of being obnoxious, and if that's the trade-off for having contestants that don't act like lunatics, I'll take it.
People here are correct that the challenger has too little affect on the game. I'm not sure how to tweak it though. One idea is to have the challenger take over if they win three battles in a row. Rare, but at least it's something the challenger has some control over, and gives some meaning to the battles other than "oh darn, that's a wrong" which happens regularly anyway.
Yeah, the big problem is the pacing, which is mostly down to the awful conversations that the host incites, surely at producers' behest. The current champion, this poor guy, has had to explain why he's leading or following at least ten times now, and I'm getting that eye twitch from excessive insipid conversations that plagued me when The Weakest Link was on. This show becomes a lot more digestible on DVR when you can skip all of the chit-chat, and that's not a good thing for live ratings. And there's definitely some hypocrisy at play when you boast that all of your contestants are GENIUSES, then turn around and ask them over and over why they're leading or following like it's some deep strategy, or saying things like "WHOA! You've answered one question in that category and got it wrong! WHY WOULD YOU CHOOSE THAT CATEGORY, YOU'RE TERRIBLE AT IT??"
-
Boy, you guys aren't kidding.
"I skipped a grade in school."
"Which one?"
"Second."
"Why?"
Nice of the show to add some eye candy, though.
(In case I need to spell it out, that's a knock on the show, not the challenger - we all know what she's capable of, but tonight she was on stage for 45 minutes and answered all of one question.)
-
After watching half of one episode:
- Richard Quest comes across as an ill-conceived mating of Richard Dawson in The Running Man and Jim Henson's Creature Shop.
- "Wrongs." You're trying too hard. Three red "X"s are strikes to every viewer you have across all demographics. Don't try to overhaul common parlance into an exclusively-branded concept.
- Why is this big-money big-bombast prime-time network TV game show EVENT dribbling out cash at $1000 per question (with rare exception)? Jeopardy offers up a $900/question average five days a week for a full season. Did you blow all the budget on the set?
- I like Cory's idea of a money clock/decreasing value. My idea: The starting value for the question is n, and each incorrect response drops it by 0.1n or 0.25n.
- Another possible improvement: if a challenger wins a Battle, the strike goes up, and the contestants stay at their Battle Stations (hey, I made a semi-clever TV thingy!) until the main contestant wins one, or gets struck out and sent off. This is allegedly a head-to-head contest in some aspects; give me some legitimate freaking stakes from time to time, not just under a very special set of circumstances.
- I like the questions. I like the set. I like the contestants. Everything else is holding this back to an absurd degree.
- It's a sentiment everyone else seems to have, but this show should be a whole lot better than it is. This is a botched job.
-
First of all, can we give some appreciation to the fact that they are actually seeking out smart, reasonable people to be on the show, as opposed to... whatever kind of pseudo-people as contestants the Endemol craze started?
Because it's not really a plus considering Endemol and the like gave the pseudo-people a chance at way, way more money on shows in the past?
Yeah, they're seeking out smart and reasonable people for this show and the questions are good, but I agree with Sodboy -- pretty much everything else is botched.
-
First of all, can we give some appreciation to the fact that they are actually seeking out smart, reasonable people to be on the show, as opposed to... whatever kind of pseudo-people as contestants the Endemol craze started?
Because it's not really a plus considering Endemol and the like gave the pseudo-people a chance at way, way more money on shows in the past?
Yeah, they're seeking out smart and reasonable people for this show and the questions are good, but I agree with Sodboy -- pretty much everything else is botched.
Botched? This sounds like a job for Dr. Dubrow.
-
- "Wrongs." You're trying too hard. Three red "X"s are strikes to every viewer you have across all demographics. Don't try to overhaul common parlance into an exclusively-branded concept.
This reminds me of the Australian version of 1 vs. 100. At the beginning Eddie would refer to the bits of assistance as lifelines, and why not? That was his most famous TV show. Apparently someone on production got a bug in his ear because he abruptly started calling them 'helps' and he looked annoyed every time the words crossed his lips.
- Why is this big-money big-bombast prime-time network TV game show EVENT dribbling out cash at $1000 per question (with rare exception)?
This I don't mind as much. Since it's supposed to be 500 questions there's not a great way to dole out money with each question (on the other hand it could have been another money tree paradigm.)
The problem I have is that the money is banked along the way and referred to rarely--similar to Jeopardy in fact but Jeopardy has a compelling game and there's always a winner at the end of every show. Here there's no real sense of tension at all because so much of the money is safe and the Genius is only risking what's in the current pot. Since the "risk" pot doesn't get very big, that doesn't give the tension a chance to rise all that much.
-
I haven't added very much to this; but Mark Labbett favorited my tweet about the show, so I'll just drop that here instead (https://twitter.com/parliboy/status/603623158462193664).
-
Someone is keeping count, right? I really want to see if they even *ask* 500 Questions over the run of the series. Near as I can tell they are well behind schedule at this point.
-
BuzzerBlog is. (http://www.buzzerblog.com/blog/) (For the record, they're counting two-hour episodes as two one-hour shows.)
-
BuzzerBlog is. (http://www.buzzerblog.com/blog/)
I'll pass, thanks.
-
Someone is keeping count, right? I really want to see if they even *ask* 500 Questions over the run of the series. Near as I can tell they are well behind schedule at this point.
I haven't watched yesterday's yet, but the current Genius is between 100 and 150, and the previous one got to 50 but not much more. Through the four hours up to Memorial Day I figure it's a little more than 200 questions asked.
-
BuzzerBlog is. (http://www.buzzerblog.com/blog/)
I'll pass, thanks.
Here's a Twitter account called How Many Questions? (http://twitter.com/HowManyQs)
No idea who runs it though.
-
Oh, funny thing about this show (depending on your definition of "funny"): one of the show's writers is on Twitter, and noted earlier today that not only did the show have a pretty low prize budget, but the producers complained that they were giving away too much money. The producers were expecting a much higher contestant turnover, resulting in smaller wins.
Source (https://twitter.com/123arnie/status/603587697358151680)
-
Oh, funny thing about this show (depending on your definition of "funny"): one of the show's writers is on Twitter, and noted earlier today that not only did the show have a pretty low prize budget, but the producers complained that they were giving away too much money. The producers were expecting a much higher contestant turnover, resulting in smaller wins.
Source (https://twitter.com/123arnie/status/603587697358151680)
That's the conversation Gene referenced above.
-
How can it be that they're giving away too much money? The current genius was on $99,000 on Monday and the first winner took down less than fifty grand, and that's it. They are giving away per hour about as much as The Singing Bee.
-
Evidently, that's too much money for the producers' liking.
That's the conversation Gene referenced above.
I...didn't notice that. :(
Still, I did want to point out that the cheapness was intentional and the winning was way more than the producers wanted.
-
Did they honestly think the show would be a smash hit with stakes this low?
-
Did they honestly think the show would be a smash hit with stakes this low?
If the amount of money being given away determines how long a show will last, we should be celebrating The $1,000,000 Chance of a Lifetime's 30th year on television.
-
Obviously, the money isn't everything -- the format and execution are. There's enough issues with the execution of this show to overshadow the fact not much is being offered, but the fact the producers were expecting a high contestant turnover to keep the winning minimal is a bit eyebrow-raising, especially since they were looking for legit-smart people to begin with.
[EDIT: Then again, 500 Questions beat the return of Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? by a million viewers, so what do I know? :P]
-
Yeah, if you wanted higher contestant turnover, maybe you should have given that "challenger" you put up there an actual shot more than twice an hour. You wrote the rules, pal.
-
Did they honestly think the show would be a smash hit with stakes this low?
If the amount of money being given away determines how long a show will last, we should be celebrating The $1,000,000 Chance of a Lifetime's 30th year on television.
A show can be successful with stakes this low.
This show can't be successful with stakes this low.
-
The new challenger is Pam Mueller and for "what makes her a genius?" winning Jeopardy a bunch of times rates third.
-
[EDIT: Then again, 500 Questions beat the return of Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? by a million viewers, so what do I know? :P]
Because Burnett & Co. spoiled the first 50 minutes of the show during the show's opening -- giving the Neilsen audiences an excuse to flip over to 500 Questions long enough for that show to count in their diaries instead of ATSTA5G.
-
[EDIT: Then again, 500 Questions beat the return of Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? by a million viewers, so what do I know? :P]
Because Burnett & Co. spoiled the first 50 minutes of the show during the show's opening -- giving the Neilsen audiences an excuse to flip over to 500 Questions long enough for that show to count in their diaries instead of ATSTA5G.
Nah, I think people just didn't want to watch it.
5th Grader is a lot like your sister's annoying kid. Yeah, sure when everyone looks back at the memories in still pictures, there's a certain cuteness. Then she brings the little demon over and asks if you can watch him for a minute.
-
Speaking from experience there, Gene?
(I kid.)
[EDIT: Then again, 500 Questions beat the return of Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? by a million viewers, so what do I know? :P]
Because Burnett & Co. spoiled the first 50 minutes of the show during the show's opening -- giving the Neilsen audiences an excuse to flip over to 500 Questions long enough for that show to count in their diaries instead of ATSTA5G.
Nah, I think people just didn't want to watch it.
I'd say a little from Column A, and a little from Column B. Mostly A, though.
-
BuzzerBlog is. (http://www.buzzerblog.com/blog/)
I'll pass, thanks.
You're too kind.
-
Oh, funny thing about this show (depending on your definition of "funny"): one of the show's writers is on Twitter, and noted earlier today that not only did the show have a pretty low prize budget, but the producers complained that they were giving away too much money. The producers were expecting a much higher contestant turnover, resulting in smaller wins.
Let me make sure I have this straight...they've built a show around the concept of one person trying to survive for 500 questions, and they were stunned that a contestant survived for 167 questions?
-
I'm as surprised as you are.
-
And the 500 Questions special engagement has wrapped up, having asked a total of 371 questions.
-
So the question is Will it return or does ABC give it three strikes and it's GONE.
-
So the question is Will it return or does ABC give it three strikes and it's GONE.
Trust me, there's no question.
-
All of the clips that I grabbed from the Watch ABC app on night one said "Wednesdays 9/8", so one never knows. But I know what they ought to do.
-
All of the clips that I grabbed from the Watch ABC app on night one said "Wednesdays 9/8", so one never knows. But I know what they ought to do.
I checked internal sources at ABC, and the regular Wednesday lineup is back next week. So it doesn't have a regular time slot for the foreseeable future.
-
I think I will beat Matt to this one. They couldn't get to 500 questions in 9 hours.
Jeopardy in 9 hours has 1098 "answers" or "clues"
-
Jeopardy in 9 hours has 1098 "answers" or "clues"
*And* gives away more money, I think.
-
Jeopardy in 9 hours has 1098 "answers" or "clues"
*And* gives away more money, I think.
I think you're right. 500Q averaged about $25,000 per hour iirc. If you include consolation money, Jeopardy beats that handily.
On a per match basis, though, I think they're comparable. (Also per episode since it was 9 matches over 9 "episodes")
-
On a per match basis, though, I think they're comparable. (Also per episode since it was 9 matches over 9 "episodes")
...and both of those are completely moronic comparisons.
-
Jeopardy in 9 hours has 1098 "answers" or "clues"
*And* gives away more money, I think.
$225,000 for the series, so Joe's $25,000/hour is spot on. That's an average of $12,500 per half hour, whereas Jeopardy's winner usually comes in somewhere between $15-25,000. Plus every match is guaranteed a payout.
Bottom line, give me Jeopardy over 500Q any day.
-
Jeopardy in 9 hours has 1098 "answers" or "clues"
And theirs are cleverly, frequently amusingly written.
The biggest question...how did this make the air? If ABC is willing to try a hard quiz, why one with a stale look, unexciting stakes, dull play and a nonsensical title premise?
-
The biggest question...how did this make the air? If ABC is willing to try a hard quiz, why one with a stale look, unexciting stakes, dull play and a nonsensical title premise?
Worse shows have made it to air. It's summer programming, and the powers that be decided that the chrome and big money hides the show's flaws. As such, beta testing seems to be an afterthought.
/Like 90% of the other prime time shows that have premiered over the last decade
-
The biggest question...how did this make the air? If ABC is willing to try a hard quiz, why one with a stale look, unexciting stakes, dull play and a nonsensical title premise?
It's summer programming, and the powers that be decided that the chrome and big money hides the show's flaws.
Yes, but since it didn't have big money, the original question stands.
-
And it didn't have big money because it didn't have much of a prize budget.
If you're gonna have geniuses (their term) as contestants, you don't get to complain if somebody's winning "too much money" and ruins your "I expected a really high contestant turnover because more turnover = less money" mentality.
-
The biggest question...how did this make the air? If ABC is willing to try a hard quiz, why one with a stale look, unexciting stakes, dull play and a nonsensical title premise?
It's summer programming, and the powers that be decided that the chrome and big money hides the show's flaws.
Yes, but since it didn't have big money, the original question stands.
Okay, it's not big money by modern quiz show standards, but my point still stands. The producers played up the "tough trivia" and smart contestants, and hoped it would lead to larger paydays. With that and the flawed rules, they pretty much failed.
-
Okay, it's not big money by modern quiz show standards, but my point still stands. The producers played up the "tough trivia" and smart contestants, and hoped it would lead to larger paydays. With that and the flawed rules, they pretty much failed.
And the network takeaway won't be, "There needed to be a better game." The network takeaway will be "Straight trivia games don't work." And Sony will continue to laugh all the way to the bank.
-
The producers played up the "tough trivia" and smart contestants, and hoped it would lead to larger paydays.
I'm getting the impression that the paydays were already too large.