"Take The Money And Run"

[vexer6]

So, anyone else heard about this new game show? It premieres tomorrow night on ABC, it sounds pretty decent, might watch it if there's nothing else on.  Here's some more info on the show
http://abcmedianet.com/assets/pr%5Chtml/051611_17.html

[TLEberle]

So, anyone else heard about this new game show?

Yes I have, Geoff.

(Yes, I plan to watch. It may be summer fluff, but it looks like an interesting idea, at least from what the teasers tell us.)

[Bertie Bott]

Sounds similar to the Russian game show "The Intercept" but with money instead of a stolen car.

[chris319]

will take reality television to a whole new level.

This statement could be interpreted more than one way (emphasis added).

[knagl]

The show had me hooked.  It's fun to play along, at least with the concept of "where would I hide it if I had the opportunity?".  I don't think the show has huge long-term potential, but it'll be fun to watch for a few episodes, at least.

If you missed it or didn't know about it, you can watch the first episode online:

abc.go.com/takethemoneyandrun

Don't click on the spoiler if you don't want to know the outcome.  Also, do NOT read any of the comments on the webpage with the episode player as they also spoil the outcome.

The brother that spilled the beans -- what a maroon!  That part frustrated me.  I think I could hold it together for 48 hours in solitary.

[SFQuizKid]

I have to agree with knagl on this.  The show has potential, but this episode left me really unsatisfied.  I'm not sure whether it was bad editing, bad contestant screening, or a flaw in the game.  

For the first 40 minutes or so I kept wondering if they'd pull out some sort of "Prisoner's Dilemma" deal ("Here, we'll give you $25,000 if you tell us where it is.")  Of course, that would mean that it would make more sense to make up teams of people who aren't related and could more easily choose to break the team and play for themselves.  Perhaps we might see this in a future show?

[mathwhiz]

The part of the first episode that rubbed me the wrong way was that it was the interrogators that got the location of the briefcase out of the brother, and the investigators just had to go pick it up.  I felt that they didn't do much work to win the prize.  I enjoyed the 2nd episode a lot more.

Rich

[TLEberle]

For the first 40 minutes or so I kept wondering if they'd pull out some sort of "Prisoner's Dilemma" deal ("Here, we'll give you $25,000 if you tell us where it is.")

That isn't the prisoner's dilemma, that's a bail out button.

One of the problems I have is that I don't know what rules are in play during the interrogation. Do players have to answer questions, even with just gibberish or an outlandish lie? It looks like they can't deprive the runners from food or sleep, nor have them stay in a stress position either, so like we saw in the second episode all a team has to do is get away sufficiently from their car and the detectives are in a pickle.

The other big problem I had was when the female questioner tried to take away the moral high ground by going on and on about "do your teach your kids that lying is bad?" That really irritated me, since deception is an acceptable part of the game, and the game does not take place within the bounds of normal life.

[clemon79]

The other big problem I had was when the female questioner tried to take away the moral high ground by going on and on about "do your teach your kids that lying is bad?"

Hey, if the detective wants to waste her time asking utterly irrelevant questions, I see no reason to stop her. 'Cuz if it's me, I look her dead in the eye and say "Absolutely!" with no moral twinges whatsoever for exactly the reason you describe.

I then follow up by inviting her to play some poker, if she has such a hard-on for the truth.

[mathwhiz]

From the TiVo forums I visit, I got this link that explains some of the rules: http://blog.jbfilms.com/?p=795  The biggest question that seems to surface - is that Yes the contestants need to answer the questions they are asked - they don't have to tell the truth, but they have to give at least a plausible answer.

Rich

[knagl]

I got this link that explains some of the rules: http://blog.jbfilms.com/?p=795  The biggest question that seems to surface - is that Yes the contestants need to answer the questions they are asked - they don't have to tell the truth, but they have to give at least a plausible answer.

That was implied by the female detective in the 2nd episode -- she said, "you have to answer" at one point.  Thank you for that link -- it tied up a few loose ends in my mind (especially that they have to remain together while hiding the briefcase -- that foiled my plan).  At the same time, though, it'd sure be nice if the full rules for the game were made available to the public.  This isn't a clear-cut Q & A quiz show -- it's a game where the full rules, whatever they are, aren't clear just by watching an episode, and that's a little bit of an issue.

[clemon79]

Okay, so I'm watching this for the first time.

I agree that the full ruleset needs to be available someplace, because the strongarm techniques COMPLETELY perplex me otherwise. You get this lady yelling at the contestant about being a smartass and about lying to her, and I'm sitting here thinking "Um, duh, there's no rule that says she has to be PLEASANT while you're making completely toothless threats." And while I understand they are required to answer all questions, if they're permitted to lie, why bother calling them on it? Yes, they're lying, it's legal, and playing Bad Cop might be good TV, but if I'm the contestant I'm going to sneer at you and keep giving you the same plausible lie over and over and over again and you're just wasting your time looking like an asshat.

I dunno. I just don't get it. At all.

[TLEberle]

Imagine getting an hour to hide the case somewhere and then having to endure two days in Val's octagon, because that's what it seems like. The game doesn't take place in a vacuum, these are real people, and two of the games have ended in favor of the detectives because the crooks cracked under the stress of the investigation.

[clemon79]

Imagine getting an hour to hide the case somewhere and then having to endure two days in Val's octagon, because that's what it seems like.

...except you know Val isn't going to put you through anything worse than a verbal tongue-lashing and you can sleep whenever you're not being questioned or recording confessionals for the show.

The game doesn't take place in a vacuum, these are real people, and two of the games have ended in favor of the detectives because the crooks cracked under the stress of the investigation.

Then that goes back to my issue about not knowing what the rules really are, because in the absence of any other information, it seems absolutely trivial to come up with a theoretically possible lie, stick to it, and laugh at the cops when they use techniques that only really have an effect when the possibility of genuine criminal punishment exists.

[Neumms]

You have a gub?