"Temptation" clears for fall

[LetsGoMets2003]

As long as Fremantle doesn't royally screw this up ala CS 2001, I'm stoked to see this come back.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'142753\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 01:51 PM\']Yes, rare is good, but there needs to be a distinction between rare and implausible.  [/quote] What's implausible? If you watched someone knock off the million bucks on Meredith's Millionaire every day, it would get old. Ditto a DSW. If you make a Lot Win easier just for the purpose of seeing it more often, you're cheapening the specialness of it.

My knowledge is poor about this, but I'm thinking that in the 80's version, one would require about 8-10 nights for a Lot Win (11 during the Winner's Board).  That's pretty long to me, seeing the lack of 3 and 4-time champions on other shows.  While still going above the "magic number of 5" is a good idea, not going too far beyond it would probably keep the spirit of a Lot Win intact.

I'm not even sure how to argue the point here. It's long because it should be. There was probably much gnashing of teeth and raising of voices at NBC when they decided at what levels to place the prizes. You don't think they came up with $85...$530, $640 and $750 by throwing darts, do you?

The second and more plausible thing the sub-bonus game could mean is that Fremantle would be making the most egregious error of not having returning champions, thus having the sub-bonus game serve as a chance to get the winner as much loot as possible.

Now you're on the trolley. But then again, England's version was a weekly, and I don't think they had returning champs, either. But that absolutely kills the building excitement of "is he gonna quit with the car, or play on?"

Chances of likelihood of either being the reason are <1%, because that's how I roll.>>

Whosajiggawha?

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'142744\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 03:21 PM\']
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'142735\' date=\'Jan 10 2007, 10:07 AM\']I'm not sure if a champ should have to use additional brainpower in the bonus round.  [/quote]Why not? The Ten Right bonus that Australia uses is a great add, because it adds the two-pronged excitement of "will the champ add an extra $50,000?" and "will the champ get to night seven in order to cash out?"

If shopping is the only thing happening in the final act, that's fine, but having a bonus round for the sole purpose of getting a player to the Lot faster is silly. A Lot Win should be a rare event, which is something that the kiddies who try to soil the memory of Sale of the Century don't get when they dream up revivals where five wins collects everything.
[/quote]

Doesn't have to be a bonus that only gets our champ to the Lot faster.  Maybe it's just enough to get you to the next level faster.  I'm thinking 60 seconds, get 10 questions right, you can have your choice: $25 in bankable cash or (making up a number here) $1000 per game won to take home regardless (as with an Instant Bargain/Gift Shop buy).

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'142874\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 09:41 AM\']
Doesn't have to be a bonus that only gets our champ to the Lot faster.  Maybe it's just enough to get you to the next level faster.
[/quote]
Well, by definition, if it does one, it does the other, right? You get that $25 three or four nights in a row, that adds up to a whole game's worth of money.

[rebelwrest]

Back in a thread which talked about reviving $OTC, I gave an idea for a bonus in which the winner for that day can earn extra money for their account (getting to a prize level faster).  However, due to my poor response ability (hey another puzzle i can use for Definition) I got laughed at by everyone.  Now in attempt to look smarter (everyone stop laughing), here is my idea for the bonus.

The game is played like Fortune Hunter on TPIR.  The board has five answers concealing different amounts of money.  The host gives a clue and from that clue the player has to eliminate one of the answers.  This is done until one answer is left.  The amount of money behind that answer is added to the player's account.  Amounts on the board are $5, $10, $15, $20, and $50.  First clue eliminates $5 answer, next clue eliminates $10 answer, and so on.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'142888\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 10:48 AM\']
Back in a thread which talked about reviving $OTC, I gave an idea for a bonus in which the winner for that day can earn extra money for their account (getting to a prize level faster).  [/quote]Why? No one has given me a reasonable answer as to why champions should earn more shopping money. If they only earn $55 on that day, then they should get $55. If that only gets them to $105, then, by golly, they have $105 to spend. I do not understand why some people here have this idea that people should be allowed to win the huge jackpot that much faster. The mind boggles.

[Jimmy Owen]

On the Perry show originally, if a champ won on a Thursday, you knew he would never get all the prizes on stage, because the prizes would change on Monday, so why bother showing them except to fill time and make sure they get plugged (and of course, to see the gals in their bikinis).  Then, you had people who won for a couple of days, lost and you're back to square one.  It might have been better called "No Sale of the Century" cause nobody bought anything.  What they need is a 'temptation' to buy and giving them a chance at extra spending money accomplishes this.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'142914\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 01:48 PM\']so why bother showing them except to fill time and make sure they get plugged (and of course, to see the gals in their bikinis).  [/quote] That, erm, seems like a perfectly fine reason to plug the ski boat and Aruba holiday.

Then, you had people who won for a couple of days, lost and you're back to square one.  It might have been better called "No Sale of the Century" cause nobody bought anything.  What they need is a 'temptation' to buy and giving them a chance at extra spending money accomplishes this.

Then the player who got owned on day three should have thought harder about quitting. As has been said before, the excitement takes place on the front side of the doors.

[Joe Mello]

It has been noted on other sites that not everyone went for broke.  I remember one site showing a contestant stopping with a lovely dining group in the endphase.  Hell, if I had a narrow escape after one or two straight shows, I'd consider quitting.

Here's a potential reason why you'd want to expedite Lot Wins: If you have too many people build up a run only to have them all fall short, you may lose viewers who dismiss the idea of a Lot Win as unattainable.  Granted, that's not the greatest of reasons to turn the show off, but people who like Big Wins would start to look elsewhere.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'142944\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 08:19 PM\']
Here's a potential reason why you'd want to expedite Lot Wins: If you have too many people build up a run only to have them all fall short, you may lose viewers who dismiss the idea of a Lot Win as unattainable.  Granted, that's not the greatest of reasons to turn the show off, but people who like Big Wins would start to look elsewhere.
[/quote]
1. If you're only looking at this, or any other game show for "Big Wins", you are an idiot. I don't want this show giving away buttloads of money every single day. Where's the suspense if everyone's going to win $50,000 every single day?
2. That argument doesn't even make sense. People don't watch Millionaire for Big Wins, despite the title. If the show is well-produced, it shouldn't matter whether they give away $500,000 or $5,000.
3. People watched Ken Jennings play on for 75 episodes, and the ratings went up for J! You get a good contestant keep playing day-to-day, and you might be on to something.

I'm sorry, but I'm tired of people thinking game shows need to all give money away like it's air, just to get ratings.

[rebelwrest]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'142944\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 08:19 PM\']
Here's a potential reason why you'd want to expedite Lot Wins: If you have too many people build up a run only to have them all fall short, you may lose viewers who dismiss the idea of a Lot Win as unattainable.  Granted, that's not the greatest of reasons to turn the show off, but people who like Big Wins would start to look elsewhere.
[/quote]

You saying that reminded me of when the Aussie $OTC went one year without a lot winner (the cash jackpot was finally won at AU $508,000).  

If that would happen, would the implentation of an escalating cash jackpot (similar to the one in early episodes of $OTC) keep it from cancellation or could it survive during that time with the current Temptation format of personally building you own cash account?

[Jimmy Owen]

I don't think people want to see big wins every day. They would like to see the possibility of a big win every day.  Take "The Big Showdown."  In six months there were only two big winners, but there was always the possibility for a big win every day.  A well-earned big win is not just a payoff for the winner, but also to the audience.  On Sale, there were days when you knew there couldn't possibly be a big win.  I'd usually switch it to "Child's Play" for their bonus round after watching the first 20 mins of Sale.

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'142875\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 12:54 PM\']
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'142874\' date=\'Jan 11 2007, 09:41 AM\']
Doesn't have to be a bonus that only gets our champ to the Lot faster.  Maybe it's just enough to get you to the next level faster.
[/quote]
Well, by definition, if it does one, it does the other, right? You get that $25 three or four nights in a row, that adds up to a whole game's worth of money.
[/quote]

Well, yes, of course.  But there's always the possibility that a champ will amass enough to buy the <car, or whatever large prize is a couple layers below the Lot> and decide to quit while s/he's ahead.

[pownster]

Is it just me - or is there an obsession recently with having huge prizes available to win every night by whatever contestant on EVERY game show?

Temptation/Sale is a format which deservedly defies this trend - and should be celebrated for that fact. Contestants who can truly compete against, and defeat, more than a handful of contestants over 9 days of competition, not only deserves to receive a handsome monetary reward, but also the prized distinction of being a top quiz champion. For many players (and so many of the contestants on such shows are trivia nuts), this title is as important as any prize won (just consider Ken Jennings). And even those who don't make it all the way through (either through being defeated or leaving early) - still feel satisfaction of being a winner on a premier quiz (whilst taking away a decent parting gift or ten).  

Sale/Temptation has survived in its numerous reincarnations in this country for more than 25 years - and that's on primetime, network television. It is still regarded in this country (despite the flood of quiz shows of recent years) as the "creme de la creme" of quiz formats. Is the American pysche so much different from ours that they will be forced to tamper with the format so much that it will destroy the essence of the format.  I sure hope not!

As an Aussie - I truly LOVE our version, it works really well, and I hope the Yanks don't mess it up!

[Chelsea Thrasher]

[quote name=\'pownster\' post=\'143009\' date=\'Jan 12 2007, 03:18 AM\']
Is the American pysche so much different from ours that they will be forced to tamper with the format so much that it will destroy the essence of the format.
[/quote]

When it comes to what they like in their game shows in 2007, the mentality of the "average" American seems to usually fall along the lines of "OMG BIG MONEY, SHINY THINGS, PRETTY COLORS, OOH OOH OOH".  The games that catch on and are successes tend to be more sizzle, less steak, and it's a shame.  

Sale/Temptation is one of those wonderful shows that I think, if done properly, can both attract the "average" viewer as well as those who prefer their game shows to, you know, have a game.  What concerns me is that Fremantle's track record has spoken largely for itself on it's revivals, and they tend to break what didn't need to be fixed.