How Much Is Enough?

[TheInquisitiveOne]

This show is really painful to watch. This show asks you, "How much can you take?"

At least Temptation involved Q&A.

The Inquisitive One

[Kniwt]

[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' post=\'174372\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 06:34 PM\']
This show is really painful to watch. This show asks you, "How much can you take?"
[/quote]

OK, I sat through the second edition tonight, and boredom is setting in.  Corbin's "well played"s are getting more annoying, and the structure of the show is already way too predictable.  That said, I do find the final one-on-one round at least mildly dramatic, so maybe I'll find something better to do for the first 27 minutes.  I don't really need to hear these folks' sanitized-for-teevee life stories.

[Thunder]

After a careful slow-motion replay analysis of tonight's show, I've noticed that GSN gave away $43 too much.

Derrick pressed his button (and the green lights went on his side) when the money clock read $8665. His name appeared on the back screen at $8708 and that's the amount they declared as the final total.

[tvwxman]

[quote name=\'Kniwt\' post=\'174375\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 10:06 PM\']
 That said, I do find the final one-on-one round at least mildly dramatic, so maybe I'll find something better to do for the first 27 minutes.  I don't really need to hear these folks' sanitized-for-teevee life stories.
[/quote]
Serious inquiry: How is the last segment dramatic? Watching two people hold hands over a button until one presses makes for dramatic television these days?

If they wanted to make the final round 'mildly dramatic', they'd do what they did all half hour long. Have the two players press a secret button, THEN reveal who was greedier. Greedier person on the big clock loses.

/The above comment merely fixes 30 seconds, or 1/60th of this half hour of dreck. Even with this change, the game is still crap.

[Kniwt]

[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'174380\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 07:49 PM\']Serious inquiry: How is the last segment dramatic? Watching two people hold hands over a button until one presses makes for dramatic television these days?

If they wanted to make the final round 'mildly dramatic', they'd do what they did all half hour long. Have the two players press a secret button, THEN reveal who was greedier. Greedier person on the big clock loses.
[/quote]

OK, perhaps I oversold it by calling it "dramatic."  Maybe "mildly interesting"?  For me, the out-in-the-open, look-the-opponent-in-the-eyeballs element makes it more interesting than pressing buttons in secret (which, obviously, wouldn't work in the earlier rounds), and the immediate resolution of the game seems slightly more satisfying than another long, drawn-out, conversation-laden reveal.

But yes, now we're splitting hairs on roughly 1/60 of the show -- and we're getting intellectual about a show that is anything but -- which is scarcely going to fix anything.

[Neumms]

Corbin tried, but I was rooting for this one and there's just nothing there. Even on "Press Your Luck," there was play-along value, shouting at the screen. Here, there's nothin.'

Maybe if they could do games within a game, they could package this, "Friend or Foe" and Art James' "Temptation." Call it "Mind Games" or something.

Also, on premiere night, did it strike anyone else that it's really stupid to twitch and feign that you're hitting your button on any round where the clock goes up? All that would do is encourage opponents to hit their buttons and cut you out.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'174412\' date=\'Jan 10 2008, 08:29 AM\']
Also, on premiere night, did it strike anyone else that it's really stupid to twitch and feign that you're hitting your button on any round where the clock goes up? All that would do is encourage opponents to hit their buttons and cut you out.
[/quote]
Yes, yes I did.

[tvmitch]

There could be a whole lot more to this game with the addition of trivia questions. Have four people play, locking in multiple choice guesses against a money clock...wrong answers cost money off the clock. Then play mind games with how well each person did. A show built around that basic premise could be very good.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' post=\'174443\' date=\'Jan 10 2008, 04:47 PM\']
Have four people play, locking in multiple choice guesses against a money clock...wrong answers cost money off the clock. Then play mind games with how well each person did. A show built around that basic premise could be very good.[/quote]
It is.  Ant and Dec hosted something in the UK that's almost exactly the show you describe, and it's wonderful.

[rigsby]

[quote name=\'Kniwt\' post=\'174375\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 09:06 PM\']
Corbin's "well played"s are getting more annoying
[/quote]
He isn't saying it to the players, he's saying it to himself for getting paid to host this thing.

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'174412\' date=\'Jan 10 2008, 10:29 AM\']
Call it "Mindless Games" or something.
[/quote]
There, fixed that for you.

[Allstar87]

I described the format to my friend; he thought I was making a joke.

And really, this show is a joke. I'm actually beginning to miss Friend or Foe; at least THAT had questions.

[lobster]

[quote name=\'Allstar87\' post=\'174519\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 09:49 AM\']
And really, this show is a joke. I'm actually beginning to miss Friend or Foe; at least THAT had questions.
[/quote]

The only problem with FOF was the fact that your winning money is completely out of your hands no matter how you played.  Well, and that you did not have the chance to bond with (or bs) your partner.   If they gave you the chance to interact with your partner at all (with the exception of the quick 10 second sell you get to do at the trust box) and perhaps build a "friendship", then the trust box becomes a little more meaningful, as opposed to having to come to terms with "do i really care if i screw over a complete stranger?" .. but the fact that during camera downtimes they made you face away from your partner, and you could not engage in off-camera conversation made it like "what's the test, here, really?"

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'lobster\' post=\'174525\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 08:39 AM\']
The only problem with FOF was the fact that your winning money is completely out of your hands no matter how you played.[/quote]
No, it really wasn't.

"what's the test, here, really?"

"Can I get through a half-hour of this crap without plunging a butter knife into my temple?"

[tvwxman]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'174536\' date=\'Jan 11 2008, 12:57 PM\']

"what's the test, here, really?"

"Can I get through a half-hour of this crap without plunging a butter knife into my temple?"
[/quote]
That's not a test. Matt Ottinger can do that with ....ah screw it.

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'Thunder\' post=\'174377\' date=\'Jan 9 2008, 10:22 PM\']
After a careful slow-motion replay analysis of tonight's show, I've noticed that GSN gave away $43 too much.
[/quote]
So how long is $43?

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'174451\' date=\'Jan 10 2008, 05:56 PM\']
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' post=\'174443\' date=\'Jan 10 2008, 04:47 PM\']
Have four people play, locking in multiple choice guesses against a money clock...wrong answers cost money off the clock. Then play mind games with how well each person did. A show built around that basic premise could be very good.[/quote]
It is.  Ant and Dec hosted something in the UK that's almost exactly the show you describe, and it's wonderful.
[/quote]
Hell, that's NTN (or whatever the restaurant trivia thing is called nowadays.  I have their book.)

I was thinking more along the lines of instead of getting money, the players buzz for control of a question at their clocked-in value, and the greediest getting locked out.  Repeat for a bit, perhaps an increased-value Round 2, and throw in a buzzer battle endgame and you have a show.