Major Goof on 1 vs 100?

[Matt Ottinger]

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.

[MrBuddwing]

[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.)

[Jimmy Owen]

[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.

[clemon79]

[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.

[TLEberle]

[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.

[MrBuddwing]

[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.

[toddyo]

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!

[TravisP]

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.

[cweaver]

[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.

[Neumms]

[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.

[Ian Wallis]

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?

[clemon79]

[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."

[TimK2003]

[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.

[SRIV94]

[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

[Matt Ottinger]

[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.