Author Topic: AYSTA5G review (Read 8033 times)

BrandonFG · « **Reply #30 on:** March 09, 2007, 04:37:22 PM »

And maybe I'M missing something. I don't understand how one can compare unannounced rule changes to what "Are You Smarter..." is doing.

Although the unannounced changes might cause a bit of confusion to the casual viewer, it's not straddling any S&P violations that I know of. I don't think the show is obligated to tell every single change they're making.

As for "Smarter", it's not necessarily a violation either, in the same sense that Pyramid wasn't. However, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth that the 5th graders don't know as much as we're being led to believe. I'm still curious how CBS plans to handle their special.

Better yet, why not go for the same caliber of kids that 1 vs. 100, or better yet, that child genius game show Dick Clark did a couple of years ago. I mean, your show's premise is to prove that the kids are smarter, why not actually go all out. Using "professional 5th graders" just kills a lot of authenticity for me.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #31 on:** March 09, 2007, 05:06:08 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'147704\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 02:14 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'147701\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 09:42 AM\']
This is the one part of your analysis I'm not sure I agree with. I just don't think a ten-year-old, even a precocious one with a SAG card, is going to make that leap of logic on his own. [/quote]
Fair enough. But how about a stage mom making that leap for them?[/quote]
Heck, I'm not completely ruling out the possibility of producers telling them which questions to miss, I just don't think they're making those decisions on their own.

In fact, the scenario I can't get out of my mind (admitting I have absolutely no proof) is that the producers told Alana to miss that math question, and in her nine-year-old naivete, she thought that missing it by one was the best way to make it look like she almost got the right answer.

More food for thought: On the FOX website, Alana's bio says that "math is her favorite subject." A fifth-grader who knows anything about math doesn't come up with an odd number on that question.

BTW, why is there a picture of Foxworthy's lookalike stand-in on the website?

cyberjoek · « **Reply #32 on:** March 09, 2007, 07:20:52 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'147709\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 05:26 PM\']
Yes. Because, unless I'm missing something REALLY major (I admit I don't watch IVC, so maybe I am), the difference is that IVC isn't trying to represent themselves as anything other than what they are, whereas 5th Grader clearly is. If anything, IVC is guilty of omission, whereas 5th Grader is guilty of flat-out deception. You DO see the difference, right?[/quote]
They both omitted information about the helps provided. They didn't accuratly indicate the level of help provided in either case. There is a difference but I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on how far apart that difference is.

Quote

Good, you do that. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has done that yet. We're just bothered that the production is being somewhat underhanded about what they are presenting, and that leads us to wonder if we have cause to distrust other facets of the production as well. Hey, more Kool-Aid for you, right?

I think we went into the show with two different sets of expectations. You went in expecting a bad quiz show. I went in expecting a Mark Burnett take on a quiz show for Jeopardy Rejects. Did that give it a lower bar to hurdle over? You better believe it. Am I suprised that the kids are actors? To be honest, no. Mark Burnett shows contain all kinds of manipulative elements outside of basic gameplay and yet they never seem to tamper with the basic gameplay on any of the shows. Perhaps I'm just drinking the Kool-Aid but there have been about 300 contestants on Mark Burnett shows over the last 7 years and people have said that Burnett manipulated the playing environment but not a one has ever accused him of tampering with basic gameplay (to the best of my knowledge, if I'm wrong point me in the direction of it and I'll happily admit I'm wrong). I haven't seen this week's episode so I can't comment on the math question. I'll admit that I can still be swayed that this is a major problem and I'll hold any further comments until after I watch the problem that seems to be the focus of the discussion now.

-Joe Kavanagh

clemon79 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 09, 2007, 07:45:05 PM »

[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'147713\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 04:20 PM\']
There is a difference but I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on how far apart that difference is.
[/quote]
Well, sell me. Explain to me what the gross injustice was that IVC foisted onto the world. As I said, I haven't seen the show since that first batch of episodes...maybe it's more egregious than I'm thinking.

Quote

I think we went into the show with two different sets of expectations. You went in expecting a bad quiz show. I went in expecting a Mark Burnett take on a quiz show for Jeopardy Rejects.

I was expecting a game show, because that is what was being advertised to me. I was willing to hold off judgment as to whether it was bad until I saw it. But I was expecting a GAME SHOW. Not Mark Burnett's Vision Of What A Game Show Should Look Like. So, yeah, maybe I expected too much.

Quote

people have said that Burnett manipulated the playing environment but not a one has ever accused him of tampering with basic gameplay

I could be wrong, but wasn't there an accusation that Burnett's production crew was giving food to the players on Survivor? That absolutely would be tampering with basic gameplay, to me.

(Again, though, this is my fuzzy memory talking; it could easily be incorrect.)

TimK2003 · « **Reply #34 on:** March 09, 2007, 11:13:45 PM »

I don't think anyone has asked this question yet:

If the adult contestant answers a question wrong, and their Cheat/Copy/Save option also trips up a wrong answer, does said contestant still have to look into the camera and say "I am NOT smarter than a 5th grader!"?

Of course, if this was an EnDammitol show, they'd probably stop tape for 4 hours and then decide to just throw out the question and ask a new one! :-P

parliboy · « **Reply #35 on:** March 09, 2007, 11:49:43 PM »

[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'147713\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 06:20 PM\'] Perhaps I'm just drinking the Kool-Aid but there have been about 300 contestants on Mark Burnett shows over the last 7 years and people have said that Burnett manipulated the playing environment but not a one has ever accused him of tampering with basic gameplay (to the best of my knowledge, if I'm wrong point me in the direction of it and I'll happily admit I'm wrong).[/quote]
You mean like this?

cyberjoek · « **Reply #36 on:** March 10, 2007, 03:43:20 AM »

As I said earlier,
I'm more than willing to admit I was wrong on my remembering Burnett's spotless history.

I'm also going to go back on the position I had earlier about this not affecting gameplay much.

This week's episode shot that credibility out of the water (I won't say more than that, it's for show summeries).

After the question in question all I'll say is, can we get some true, smart 5th graders on this show ASAP? In that position I might have gotten the question wrong but I'd love to know how the kid got there in her head.

-Joe Kavanagh

clemon79 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 10, 2007, 05:05:46 AM »

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'147724\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 08:13 PM\']
If the adult contestant answers a question wrong, and their Cheat/Copy/Save option also trips up a wrong answer, does said contestant still have to look into the camera and say "I am NOT smarter than a 5th grader!"?
[/quote]
God, I hope not. I don't think I could bear the humiliation.

/look into my eye

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #38 on:** March 10, 2007, 09:52:40 AM »

[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'147725\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 11:49 PM\']
[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'147713\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 06:20 PM\'] Perhaps I'm just drinking the Kool-Aid but there have been about 300 contestants on Mark Burnett shows over the last 7 years and people have said that Burnett manipulated the playing environment but not a one has ever accused him of tampering with basic gameplay (to the best of my knowledge, if I'm wrong point me in the direction of it and I'll happily admit I'm wrong).[/quote]
You mean like this?
[/quote]
While you guys poke at each other over semantics, I think it's important to note the distinction between Burnett tampering with gameplay and Burnett being accused of tampering with game play. None of the serious accusations of tampering have even been proven, and most sound like sour grapes. Burnett has admitted to restaging events for the camera, but not to doing anything that would manipulate the results.

parliboy · « **Reply #39 on:** March 10, 2007, 11:32:08 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'147743\' date=\'Mar 10 2007, 08:52 AM\']While you guys poke at each other over semantics, I think it's important to note the distinction between Burnett tampering with gameplay and Burnett being accused of tampering with game play. None of the serious accusations of tampering have even been proven, and most sound like sour grapes. Burnett has admitted to restaging events for the camera, but not to doing anything that would manipulate the results.
[/quote]
At risk of engaging circuitous logic, he wouldn't admit to such a thing, given that it's, well, illegal. That he hasn't admitted to it doesn't make me any more satisfied than Dan Enright saying, "What answers?"

I will concede, however, that this allows for a third possibility: that Alana's original answer was far away from the right answer, but at least internally logical, and that production inserted its own incorrect answer after the fact.

Still stinks to high heaven if it's true, and gives the (unfair) impression of the girl being not so bright.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #40 on:** March 10, 2007, 12:41:03 PM »

[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'147747\' date=\'Mar 10 2007, 11:32 AM\']
At risk of engaging circuitous logic, he wouldn't admit to such a thing, given that it's, well, illegal. That he hasn't admitted to it doesn't make me any more satisfied than Dan Enright saying, "What answers?"[/quote]
Pat Sajak hasn't admitted giving the contestants answers on Wheel of Fortune either. You seem to be saying that since Burnett has been accused, he therefore must be under suspicion until his innocence is proven. I'm saying that all the Survivor accusations I've heard just sound like sour grapes from losing contestants, except for a few cosmetic things that didn't affect the game.

In general, I'm predisposed to believing that the rules are being followed behind the scenes. That's why I'm as surprised as anybody to find myself wildly suspicious of Fifth Grader.

parliboy · « **Reply #41 on:** March 10, 2007, 01:44:39 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'147751\' date=\'Mar 10 2007, 11:41 AM\'] [quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'147747\' date=\'Mar 10 2007, 11:32 AM\']
At risk of engaging circuitous logic, he wouldn't admit to such a thing, given that it's, well, illegal. That he hasn't admitted to it doesn't make me any more satisfied than Dan Enright saying, "What answers?"[/quote]
Pat Sajak hasn't admitted giving the contestants answers on Wheel of Fortune either. You seem to be saying that since Burnett has been accused, he therefore must be under suspicion until his innocence is proven. I'm saying that all the Survivor accusations I've heard just sound like sour grapes from losing contestants, except for a few cosmetic things that didn't affect the game.

In general, I'm predisposed to believing that the rules are being followed behind the scenes. That's why I'm as surprised as anybody to find myself wildly suspicious of Fifth Grader.
[/quote]

Pat Sajak has never been accused or suspected of shinanigans before this. Mark Burnett has. While legally there's no difference, in practicality there is, and we both know it. And while Wheel of Fortune is edited, what gets edited is generally dead air.

The big reason you've never paid attention to this sort of thing from him before is because he's applying his brand of producing to a game show instead of a reality show. It's much easier to give the benefit of the doubt to something that is "scripted" from the footage that they shoot to generate tension and a plot that might not otherwise exist. Every producer of reality TV does it, but not all of them cross the line into influencing results. Here, it seems like he is, and in a genre of programming that we both enjoy. So it's kind of hard to ignore things like this.

Chuck Sutton · « **Reply #42 on:** March 10, 2007, 03:09:03 PM »

Just a couple weeks ago a teen lost the Jeopardy teen tournment becuase he couldn't multiply by 2 under pressure.

Why is is so hard to beleive a 5th grade couldn't divide by 2 under pressure.

I know i missed more than one college math test question becuase under pressure I thought something like 16/2 = 9.

clemon79 · « **Reply #43 on:** March 10, 2007, 03:26:50 PM »

[quote name=\'Chuck Sutton\' post=\'147758\' date=\'Mar 10 2007, 12:09 PM\']
Just a couple weeks ago a teen lost the Jeopardy teen tournment becuase he couldn't multiply by 2 under pressure.

Why is is so hard to beleive a 5th grade couldn't divide by 2 under pressure.
[/quote]
Because, given paper, I still don't believe that a teen would blow multiplying by 2.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #44 on:** March 10, 2007, 04:07:12 PM »

[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'147752\' date=\'Mar 10 2007, 01:44 PM\'] While legally there's no difference, in practicality there is, and we both know it. [/quote]
Well...no. I understand the "where there's smoke there's fire" logic, but that doesn't make it true. And despite what you said above, I have been paying close attention to the Survivor stories. That's why I feel confident in saying that no one's ever been able to come close to making a convincing case that Burnett ever manipulated the outcomes.

On the other hand, with Fifth Grader, we know several things to be facts:

1) The kids are actors, without being identified as such.
2) The kids are wearing earpieces.
3) A disclaimer that appears on the screen in tiny print for only a second or two says that the kids have been quizzed in advance, and that some of the questions they were asked may turn up on the show.

We can talk about degrees, but given the contestants' reliance on the kids' answers, that third one clearly affects the outcome of the game. The others just raise suspicions.