Author Topic: "Temptation" clears for fall (Read 23992 times)

TLEberle · « **Reply #90 on:** January 16, 2007, 03:20:58 AM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'143457\' date=\'Jan 15 2007, 11:44 PM\']Over the course of the tenure, any or all prizes that a contestant bought via instant bargain, can be "bought" back for the price they originally paid. If you lose the next day, it's bye-bye prizes. Think of it as a "refund".

So, for example, you have that new $2,500 HDTV you bought for $11, and the $1,000 trip to the Grand Canyon that you paid $7 for. Do you sell to get $18 closer to another prize? At least it involves somewhat of a risk.
[/quote]Here's the thing. There's a reason that I bought the TV and the holiday, right? Because when they were presented, I thought I was going to win, or didn't care if I lost, by gum, I want to go to Arizon on Grundy's dime.

I think your tweak works better if the fenced goods are sold back at a loss. If you're $18 away from the Volvo XC 90, hell yes, where do I sign up, and sold American. But if I only get back half the money...then I might think about it. Then again, it's not really that interesting: if you're close, and get the Buyer's Remorse, then you sell back the stuff, buy the car and run like hell. If you're $50 away, then there's really no point. That is, of course, unless I'm being obtuse and missing something.

/I'll give you this; of all of the tweaks I've seen, this is far and away the best one I've seen. Then again, you actually thought it out, so you're among rarefied air.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #91 on:** January 16, 2007, 03:40:58 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'143458\' date=\'Jan 16 2007, 03:20 AM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'143457\' date=\'Jan 15 2007, 11:44 PM\']Over the course of the tenure, any or all prizes that a contestant bought via instant bargain, can be "bought" back for the price they originally paid. If you lose the next day, it's bye-bye prizes. Think of it as a "refund".

So, for example, you have that new $2,500 HDTV you bought for $11, and the $1,000 trip to the Grand Canyon that you paid $7 for. Do you sell to get $18 closer to another prize? At least it involves somewhat of a risk.
[/quote]Here's the thing. There's a reason that I bought the TV and the holiday, right? Because when they were presented, I thought I was going to win, or didn't care if I lost, by gum, I want to go to Arizon on Grundy's dime.
[/quote]
That does make sense, and that would be the reasoning behind give one or all prizes, although it would suck to go for a lower-priced TV or vacation and then sacrifice them to possibly win a Volvo, esp. if I lose the next day by $1 or on a tiebreaker. It's kinda like buying the ceramic Dalmation, Chuck/Pat/Rolf telling you it's yours, then forfeiting it on a Bankrupt.

Not that it would do much, but I'd maybe offer a cash incentive for selling a prize, such as $500 a pop, or make it so that the contestant may sell all but one. I know it's not much, but I think a cash buyback (even at a lower rate) could create a little temptation (forgive the bad pun).

/My, but spending other people's money is fun!

Quote

I think your tweak works better if the fenced goods are sold back at a loss. If you're $18 away from the Volvo XC 90, hell yes, where do I sign up, and sold American. But if I only get back half the money...then I might think about it. Then again, it's not really that interesting: if you're close, and get the Buyer's Remorse, then you sell back the stuff, buy the car and run like hell. If you're $50 away, then there's really no point. That is, of course, unless I'm being obtuse and missing something.

No, you're not missing anything, and you make an interesting note of how it could be anti-climatic on some days. Yeah, it could put a contestant $18 closer, which would be cool if they're, say $25 away from the car or a trip around the world. But on days where they would still need more than one day to buy the lot, it could get quite boring.

Quote

/I'll give you this; of all of the tweaks I've seen, this is far and away the best one I've seen. Then again, you actually thought it out, so you're among rarefied air.

Ahh gracias. :-)

Neumms · « **Reply #92 on:** January 16, 2007, 03:50:52 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'143459\' date=\'Jan 16 2007, 03:40 AM\']
That does make sense, and that would be the reasoning behind give one or all prizes, although it would suck to go for a lower-priced TV or vacation and then sacrifice them to possibly win a Volvo, esp. if I lose the next day by $1 or on a tiebreaker. It's kinda like buying the ceramic Dalmation, Chuck/Pat/Rolf telling you it's yours, then forfeiting it on a Bankrupt.
[/quote]

Eh. Seems weird. Like buying the ceramic dalmation, then saying, "you mean I can use that money on a trash compactor? Hell, I didn't have room for the stupid dog statue anyway."

Something that dawned on me, though, is that the title "Temptation" gives them more leeway than "Sale of the Century" when crafting an end game (or staging the denouement). Maybe it's more interesting if they tempt you to quit rather than tempt you to keep going. Let's say if you win 7 games, it's $250,000 cash. But each game they say quit now and we'll give you this. Sure it starts with the crummy jewelry, but maybe a car comes out after the 3rd win. Maybe at the 5th, it's that car plus another one. At the 6th win, it's everything they've turned down, plus some money. Then, when a player wins the 7th game and the dough, they're tempted to stay, to play once more for all the stuff they've turned down (essentially, the lot), plus cash to make it a double or nothing proposition.

This may not be all that much different, but I think the change in emphasis could make for a more dramatic climax each night, especially if you don't know what the champ will be tempted with.

TLEberle · « **Reply #93 on:** January 16, 2007, 09:09:35 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'143494\' date=\'Jan 16 2007, 12:50 PM\']
Something that dawned on me, though, is that the title "Temptation" gives them more leeway than "Sale of the Century" when crafting an end game (or staging the denouement). Maybe it's more interesting if they tempt you to quit rather than tempt you to keep going. Let's say if you win 7 games, it's $250,000 cash. But each game they say quit now and we'll give you this. Sure it starts with the crummy jewelry, but maybe a car comes out after the 3rd win. Maybe at the 5th, it's that car plus another one. At the 6th win, it's everything they've turned down, plus some money. Then, when a player wins the 7th game and the dough, they're tempted to stay, to play once more for all the stuff they've turned down (essentially, the lot), plus cash to make it a double or nothing proposition. [/quote] That's exactly what they do now, just worded differently, or from a different perspective. If you stop on day one you get the $10,000 prize, but if you come back you're playing for $15,000. Whether you're tempted to quit or tempted to continue, the basic idea is exactly the same.

Quote

This may not be all that much different, but I think the change in emphasis could make for a more dramatic climax each night, especially if you don't know what the champ will be tempted with.

How so? You're merely changing words on the cue card. You still have the on-screen graphic that shows the prize ladder.

DrJWJustice · « **Reply #94 on:** January 17, 2007, 12:48:16 AM »

[quote name=\'BMaurice06\' post=\'143396\' date=\'Jan 15 2007, 08:19 PM\']
Okay, now that we're all excited about Temptation coming to America, allow me to present my idea on how Temptation USA should be done:

I would use the current jackpot format they have in the Aussie version, but I wouldn't let 7-day winners play the "10 in 60 Seconds" round at the end of the show if they decide to come back because I feel that it's pointless to do so; IMO it would evoke the impression that the show is simply shoving money up the champ's throat. As for the cash jackpot itself, I'd adjust the figures to assure reasonably-high-but-budget-friendly stakes:
[/quote]
If I'm reading you correctly, the champ would have the chance to take home $25k and a prize on the first show, and then raise the pot the amount-o-de-day amount if they stay on? Let me know if Im off-base on that.

I dunno about the idea of doing away with it. Of the episodes I've seen of the show, I find that it's a welcome change, especially after that last bonus round on US "Sale." That round may be the reason why 10 in 60 has its opponents here, but I'd like to see it stay. It is meant to add heightened suspense to later shows, particularly if the contestant is able to do well nightly at this part of the game. It's cheaper to give $200,000 in cash if a contestant decides to bail on night 6 than to double a $250,000 pot and give all the prizes for playing one night more.

What I might suggest is the version of this round from Aussie Temptation's first season, namely a pot that progresses in smaller steps at first, then takes larger steps later, depending on how many questions the champ gets right. The original version re-set the pot to $0 if the champ missed, and this can be kept or jettisoned. Maybe do it as 7 in 30 instead, if time is a problem.

BMaurice06 · « **Reply #95 on:** January 17, 2007, 01:28:09 AM »

[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' post=\'143562\' date=\'Jan 17 2007, 12:48 AM\']

If I'm reading you correctly, the champ would have the chance to take home $25k and a prize on the first show, and then raise the pot the amount-o-de-day amount if they stay on? Let me know if Im off-base on that.

[/quote]

I meant to say that if the champion decides to play on, then he/she would play "10 in 60" to build up their personal cash jackpot, which can be claimed as a result of seven straight wins. At that point, the champion can leave with all the money or come back one more time and try for "the lot" (double the jackpot and all of the prizes).

Neumms · « **Reply #96 on:** January 17, 2007, 12:39:33 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'143529\' date=\'Jan 16 2007, 09:09 PM\']

Quote

This may not be all that much different, but I think the change in emphasis could make for a more dramatic climax each night, especially if you don't know what the champ will be tempted with.

How so? You're merely changing words on the cue card. You still have the on-screen graphic that shows the prize ladder.
[/quote]

I'd get rid of the prize ladder--that's the difference. 7 games for a flat $250,000 (or $97 billion, or whatever), but the inducements to quit are a surprise each night. Maybe there's a game or bonus round involved in determining what it is, anything so that it's not simply "here's that trip we've been talking about you buying the whole show, now Jay will tell us about it, then you can tell us you're not taking it."

TLEberle · « **Reply #97 on:** January 17, 2007, 01:31:58 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'143582\' date=\'Jan 17 2007, 09:39 AM\']I'd get rid of the prize ladder--that's the difference. 7 games for a flat $250,000 (or $97 billion, or whatever), but the inducements to quit are a surprise each night. Maybe there's a game or bonus round involved in determining what it is, anything so that it's not simply "here's that trip we've been talking about you buying the whole show, now Jay will tell us about it, then you can tell us you're not taking it."
[/quote]What company is going to buy single spots for their merchandise prize or vacation? That's part of how game shows make back some of their budget. You don't think Ed relentlessly pimps the night five prize by brand name out of the goodness of his heart, do you? Hell no. The Volvo company is paying good money to have their name (and car, and hood ornament) getting as much screen time as possible. I think your idea would be interesting for the sake of variety, but it makes for more work for the stage hands-who have to strike the backdrops, shuffle the prizes, and so on. Better to leave everything up and then take it down at the end of the day. The production company is probably banking on the fact that no one (or very few people, anyway) are going to quit with a low level prize.

BMaurice06 · « **Reply #98 on:** January 17, 2007, 02:27:32 PM »

I think doing the prize ladder during the first year that Aussie Temptation was on was a mistake for two reasons:

A. It was a ripoff of the one from "The Weakest Link," and
B. The payoff weren't that big; it was virtually impossible for someone to actually reach the original winnings maximum of AUS$600,000, which is possibly why they originally added the extra $500,000 in gold.

This is based on what I know. Anyway, that's why I think they should use the much more perfect second-year format for the new version. Also, somehow I can't picture this show being Bargain Hunters for the 21st century in terms of Fox and Fremantle's plans to offer the Instant Bargains to the home viewers as well.

TLEberle · « **Reply #99 on:** January 17, 2007, 03:03:47 PM »

[quote name=\'BMaurice06\' post=\'143594\' date=\'Jan 17 2007, 11:27 AM\']
I think doing the prize ladder during the first year that Aussie Temptation was on was a mistake for two reasons:

A. It was a ripoff of the one from "The Weakest Link," and[/quote] And any show where you can double your money or lose it all is a 'ripoff' of Take it or Leave it, by your standards. Nuh-uh.

Quote

B. The payoff weren't that big; it was virtually impossible for someone to actually reach the original winnings maximum of AUS$600,000, which is possibly why they originally added the extra $500,000 in gold.

They're not expecting to give away $1.2 million to every champion. Possible winnings means just that. Possible winnings.

I knew you'd come around, just not this fast.

Neumms · « **Reply #100 on:** January 17, 2007, 03:22:31 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'143588\' date=\'Jan 17 2007, 01:31 PM\']
What company is going to buy single spots for their merchandise prize or vacation? That's part of how game shows make back some of their budget. You don't think Ed relentlessly pimps the night five prize by brand name out of the goodness of his heart, do you? Hell no. The Volvo company is paying good money to have their name (and car, and hood ornament) getting as much screen time as possible. I think your idea would be interesting for the sake of variety, but it makes for more work for the stage hands-who have to strike the backdrops, shuffle the prizes, and so on. Better to leave everything up and then take it down at the end of the day. The production company is probably banking on the fact that no one (or very few people, anyway) are going to quit with a low level prize.
[/quote]

Heck, the stagehands are union--we don't have to worry about them. And there's probably a way to get the car mentioned somewhere, maybe mid-show as a "here's something our players might be offered." And they could leave everything back there that the player has turned down, so we get to keep seeing it--and in fact it gets more impressive as his or her run goes on, sort of like Monty's "you turned down this, you turned down that, what if I offered you______."

1984Gameshowsfan · « **Reply #101 on:** February 28, 2007, 03:34:04 PM »

just got an e-mail from somebody who works at KMYQ the local My Network affilate and she said that KMYQ is going to air Temptation this fall, sweet!

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #102 on:** February 28, 2007, 03:44:09 PM »

[quote name=\'1984Gameshowsfan\' post=\'147182\' date=\'Feb 28 2007, 02:34 PM\']
just got an e-mail from somebody who works at KMYQ the local My Network affilate and she said that KMYQ is going to air Temptation this fall, sweet!
[/quote]
Could someone be bothered to explain exactly how "My Network" works, or exactly what it is? Perhaps I've been out of the loop too long, but I'm fairly sure that we don't have one here in Iowa.

clemon79 · « **Reply #103 on:** February 28, 2007, 03:54:29 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'147184\' date=\'Feb 28 2007, 12:44 PM\']
Could someone be bothered to explain exactly how "My Network" works, or exactly what it is? Perhaps I've been out of the loop too long, but I'm fairly sure that we don't have one here in Iowa.
[/quote]
My Network is something Fox cooked up so that stations (and I think they specifically had their O&O's in mind, but I could be wrong there) who lost affiliation due to the UPN/WB merger would have somewhere to go. The idea was that they were going to launch it with American telenovelas and then build from there, but that doesn't seem to be working out so well for them, and I think they've sinced zagged from that a little.

Iowa has four MyNetwork affils, based on this list.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #104 on:** February 28, 2007, 03:55:01 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'147184\' date=\'Feb 28 2007, 03:44 PM\']
Could someone be bothered to explain exactly how "My Network" works, or exactly what it is? Perhaps I've been out of the loop too long, but I'm fairly sure that we don't have one here in Iowa.
[/quote]
More of less, it's what popped up when UPN and WB announced they were becoming The CW. FOX announced its plans to start MNTV maybe two or three weeks after The CW announcement.

It's lineup is cheesy 13-week soap operas (telenovelas), but they're looking to add other programming, such as movies and UFC, I believe.