Author Topic: Trust Me... I'm a Game Show Host Info (Read 5883 times)

chad1m · « **on:** May 12, 2010, 01:55:01 PM »

We at About.com Game Shows got details on the ABC pilot Trust Me... I'm a Game Show Host which taped yesterday. Here's the lowdown:

The game starts with around one hundred people. Several statements are posed (a mixture of trivia questions, did-you-know facts and Ripley's Believe it or Not! type stuff) and the two hosts give their answers. The contestants choose which host they trust by standing on one side of the stage or the other. If they select correctly they continue but an incorrect alignment gets them eliminated from the game. Sometimes the eliminations can have an embarrassing or fun quality to them: for instance, in one round, those eliminated were given a stink bomb after incorrectly answering a question about smell. The process continues until the pool of contestants is whittled down to seven remaining.

When the seven are left, the hosts will offer the contestants a prize to walk away. One host says it's worth a fortune while the other says it is worth very little. The contestants can either choose to walk away and trust the host saying the prize is worth a lot or they can forfeit the prize and remain in the game. The first contestant to buzz in eliminates themselves but gets the prize, valuable or not.

After the temptation, the questions continue in a similar fashion until there is only one contestant remaining. The last person standing wins $25,000 and gets to try for another $25,000. In the bonus round, if the contestant can identify three true facts out of five pairs, their total is augmented to $50,000. The first $25,000 is not put at risk, so if they lose the bonus round they still keep the original total.

It sounds pretty bland in my opinion, but hey. Stranger things have been greenlit.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #1 on:** May 12, 2010, 02:11:47 PM »

Sounds like a rip-off of "Runaround."

geno57 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 13, 2010, 01:58:13 AM »

[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'240739\' date=\'May 12 2010, 12:55 PM\']We at About.com Game Shows got details on the ABC pilot Trust Me... I'm a Game Show Host which taped yesterday. ... It sounds pretty bland in my opinion, but hey. Stranger things have been greenlit.[/quote]

It sounds like it could actually be a lot of fun, with the right hosts. I wonder who worked the pilot?

chad1m · « **Reply #3 on:** May 13, 2010, 02:22:09 AM »

[quote name=\'geno57\' post=\'240791\' date=\'May 13 2010, 01:58 AM\']I wonder who worked the pilot?[/quote]Bill Engvall and Mo Rocca.

WarioBarker · « **Reply #4 on:** May 13, 2010, 12:06:38 PM »

I could see Engvall handing out a certain trinket to the losers -- "Here's your sign."

[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'240739\' date=\'May 12 2010, 01:55 PM\']The last person standing wins $25,000 and gets to try for another $25,000. In the bonus round, if the contestant can identify three true facts out of five pairs, their total is augmented to $50,000. The first $25,000 is not put at risk, so if they lose the bonus round they still keep the original total.[/quote]
Only $50,000? In an era of, if you're in primetime and not touting mid-six-digit and up prizes, you're looked at as being on the cheap? The game is fine, despite it being from the guy who may or may not have been directly involved in rigging Our Little Genius.

Thinking about it, this could be similar to what Barry-Enright did with Concentration -- the low-ball prizes may be the point, to not arouse any suspicions of rigging.

Johnissoevil · « **Reply #5 on:** May 13, 2010, 12:15:35 PM »

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240807\' date=\'May 13 2010, 12:06 PM\']But, thinking about it, this could be similar to what Barry-Enright did with Concentration -- the low-ball prizes may be the point, to not arouse any suspicions of rigging.[/quote]

Just because they rigged one show doesn't necessarily mean they're gonna rig another. To quote Benny Hill and Felix Unger, you should never assume, because when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #6 on:** May 13, 2010, 02:53:31 PM »

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240807\' date=\'May 13 2010, 12:06 PM\']Only $50,000? In an era of, if you're not touting mid-six-digit and up prizes, you won't last too long? The game is fine, despite it being from the guy who may or may not have been directly involved in rigging Our Little Genius, but I think it's a bit too cheap for primetime.[/quote]
You're joking right?

-Singing Bee offered half that and I enjoyed it just fine.
-Wipeout offers the same amount and it's one the more successful summer shows in recent years.

I'm glad to see some game shows offer reasonable money for normal tasks, instead of a million dollars here and there.

Remember Show Me the Money? The show where some woman won $600,000+ for answering high-second-tier Millionaire questions? All that money to cover up a weak game...and the show still sucked. If the show is even half-competently produced, I can watch whether it gives away $500 or $50,000 (see Cab, Cash).

/And if you are joking, disregard everthing I said

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 13, 2010, 03:37:30 PM »

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240807\' date=\'May 13 2010, 11:06 AM\']Only $50,000?[/quote]You're just like the dinks who play at the casino I work at, get a $10 blackjack and whine about "only" winning $15; whereas, if they had matched their bet from the hand before, they'd win $22.50.

Quote

In an era of, if you're not touting mid-six-digit and up prizes, you won't last too long?

Cash Cab. TPiR. LMaD. They all seem to be doing fine, don't they?

Quote

but I think it's a bit too cheap for primetime.

Of course you do.

Quote

But, thinking about it, this could be similar to what Barry-Enright did with Concentration -- the low-ball prizes may be the point, to not arouse any suspicions of rigging.

You're joking, right?

/probably not.

WarioBarker · « **Reply #8 on:** May 13, 2010, 08:31:27 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'240818\' date=\'May 13 2010, 02:53 PM\']/And if you are joking, disregard everthing I said[/quote]
I was joking. I know full-well that if a show has a good game and is well-produced, the prize budget is not really a problem (and no, the Crosswords-Temptation Hour doesn't count).

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'240821\' date=\'May 13 2010, 03:37 PM\']

Quote

In an era of, if you're not touting mid-six-digit and up prizes, you won't last too long?

Cash Cab. TPiR. LMaD. They all seem to be doing fine, don't they?[/quote]
I was thinking about primetime shows, actually. Should have clarified that.

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'240821\' date=\'May 13 2010, 03:37 PM\']

Quote

But, thinking about it, this could be similar to what Barry-Enright did with Concentration -- the low-ball prizes may be the point, to not arouse any suspicions of rigging.

You're joking, right?

/probably not.[/quote]
My theory was, this is Mark Burnett we're talking about -- a man who, whether he knew it or not, created a show which apparently had some rigging involved -- so he wants to make a lower-budget show that doesn't quickly give itself to having cries of "rigged". Our Little Genius had a $1,000,000 top prize, IIRC, but this show has a top prize of "just" $50,000.

I compared it to Barry-Enright and Concentration because, compared to the company's other games, Concentration was pretty freakin' low on the prize scale.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #9 on:** May 13, 2010, 08:46:10 PM »

Wait, what does B&E have to do with Concentration?

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #10 on:** May 13, 2010, 08:51:37 PM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'240834\' date=\'May 13 2010, 08:46 PM\']Wait, what does B&E have to do with Concentration?[/quote]
It was originally a Barry & Enright show.

NickS · « **Reply #11 on:** May 13, 2010, 08:51:58 PM »

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240807\' date=\'May 13 2010, 11:06 AM\']Only $50,000? In an era of, if you're not touting mid-six-digit and up prizes, you won't last too long?[/quote]

ABC's Wipeout would like to have a word with you.

Quite frankly, I think the payout scale - while a cool million is nice - reminds me of how pinball scores were exponential at a time and then went back down. I'm not against it; I'm not necessarily sure you need it.

/Here's your sign
//I thought Skunk Boy did decent on Millionaire

TLEberle · « **Reply #12 on:** May 13, 2010, 09:02:38 PM »

[quote name=\'TeppanYaki\' post=\'240836\' date=\'May 13 2010, 05:51 PM\']Quite frankly, I think the payout scale - while a cool million is nice - reminds me of how pinball scores were exponential at a time and then went back down. I'm not against it; I'm not necessarily sure you need it.[/quote]That's really a brilliant analogy. I realize that you can't compare one score to another, but when you say "ha, I scored 48 billion on Devil's Advocate, so I roxxor!" well, what does that mean unless everyone has played that game? When I saw that the NBA Pinball game had a score that was close to that of an actual NBA game, I was floored, and I wanted to play more than if it was one with a shitton of insignificant zeroes.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #13 on:** May 13, 2010, 09:05:33 PM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'240835\' date=\'May 13 2010, 08:51 PM\'][quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'240834\' date=\'May 13 2010, 08:46 PM\']Wait, what does B&E have to do with Concentration?[/quote]
It was originally a Barry & Enright show.[/quote]
Huh. I did not know that.

[quote name=\'TeppanYaki\' post=\'240836\' date=\'May 13 2010, 08:51 PM\'][quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240807\' date=\'May 13 2010, 11:06 AM\']Only $50,000? In an era of, if you're not touting mid-six-digit and up prizes, you won't last too long?[/quote]
ABC's Wipeout would like to have a word with you.[/quote]
It'll have to wait in line until The Singing Bee gets its turn.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #14 on:** May 13, 2010, 09:49:00 PM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'240839\' date=\'May 13 2010, 09:05 PM\']It'll have to wait in line until The Singing Bee gets its turn.[/quote]
Dan's point did seem to be that a prime time show couldn't be successful without a ginormous prize. Wipeout is an excellent example to refute that argument. In terms of success, I don't know that you could say the same about The Singing Bee.