"Figure It Out"

[Kevin Prather]

I guess the $64 question from me would be how were the celebrities? Good chemistry? Were they trying hard to stop the contestants from winning? (Something that was broken with the old show, IMO).

It's been years since I've seen the original, but from what I remember, there was a pretty high win percentage for the kids, while Lori Beth Denberg seemed to be the only one who consistently guessed their secrets. She was almost the spoiler of the bunch, if you would.

That's how I remember it too.

[Jeremy Nelson]

I guess the $64 question from me would be how were the celebrities? Good chemistry? Were they trying hard to stop the contestants from winning? (Something that was broken with the old show, IMO).

It's been years since I've seen the original, but from what I remember, there was a pretty high win percentage for the kids, while Lori Beth Denberg seemed to be the only one who consistently guessed their secrets. She was almost the spoiler of the bunch, if you would.

That's how I remember it too.

Yeah, she was the only one on the panel to not ask stupid questions. Everybody else would ask silly questions (which is fine) or eat up a lot of clock fumbling over a question to ask. Even as a kid, I wondered why the panel didn't win as much as they should have.

[TLEberle]

Were they trying hard to stop the contestants from winning? (Something that was broken with the old show, IMO).

If I was producing, I would have a line in the contracts somewhere that if one of the panel is obviously not playing the game in the spirit it was meant to be conteested (eg: stalling, asking "Hey, do you like bacon?" and so on) that they forfeit their game check. Another fix is to do what Name's The Same did, and have the prize fund paid out of the panelists who blow it.

This is the problem, unless you're playing for smallish stakes. The panel either becomes Mean Ol' Spoilers because they're preventing the contestant from winning, or in order to be friendly they bag the game and goof around. If the prizes are props from Nickelodeon shows and small takeaways, sure, play full tilt. Once the top prize is Space Camp or a ranch getaway, that becomes a problem.

[parliboy]

If you were producing, you would tell them to play it straight, and they would have.  They kept rebooking people who did not take the game seriously, which should tell you clearly that the game was not the priority. That's a good thing.

[clemon79]

If I was producing, I would have a line in the contracts somewhere that if one of the panel is obviously not playing the game in the spirit it was meant to be conteested (eg: stalling, asking "Hey, do you like bacon?" and so on) that they forfeit their game check.

Then a) you're taking the whole exercise a lot too seriously than you should be, and b) good luck booking panelists.

Another fix is to do what Name's The Same did, and have the prize fund paid out of the panelists who blow it.

I would be very surprised if the panelists on TNTS weren't at the minimum reimbursed for those payouts, and more likely if those were even their own checkbooks.

If the prizes are props from Nickelodeon shows and small takeaways, sure, play full tilt. Once the top prize is Space Camp or a ranch getaway, that becomes a problem.

Honestly, why? I don't see it.

[snowpeck]

"Figure it Out" falls into that category of game show where the fun/laughs/jokes are more important than the game itself. And, like many of those other shows, if it's played as a straight game, it becomes rather boring. Especially when kids are your target audience. I say let the panel have fun.  That's what kids are tuning in for.

[Jeremy Nelson]

If the prizes are props from Nickelodeon shows and small takeaways, sure, play full tilt. Once the top prize is Space Camp or a ranch getaway, that becomes a problem.

Honestly, why? I don't see it.

I think what he's saying is that it's okay when a game is lighthearted when only low stakes. On shows like What's My Line and To Tell The Truth, the cash prize was more like "Hey, thanks for coming on the show- here's a little cash to cover your expenses while you're in New York." Once you raise the stakes, you put the panel in a compromising position. Nobody on that panel wants to be the one that denies a 9 year old the trip to space camp, so they try and stall actually playing the game as much as they can.

I agree it should be a lighthearted affair, and I'm sure a lot of kids go on the show just to show their talents. But I'd say make the grand prize reflect that.

[Matt Ottinger]

There's nothing wrong with the idea that the fun is more important than the game.  In fact, that's how it should be, especially on Nickelodeon.  Therefore, as I said earlier in this thread, it just doesn't make any sense at all for relatively decent prizes to be dependent on how well this goofball panel plays the game.  Because every once in a while, they're going to get one right, and then they're the bad guys.  It'll be covered up with cued applause and happy high-fives, but that doesn't change the fact that the only one with anything at stake loses when that happens.

And no, the answer is NOT to give the panel a stake in the proceedings.  The answer is to not play for real prizes.  Certainly give the kid real prizes, just don't make it dependent on the outcome.

[TLEberle]

And no, the answer is NOT to give the panel a stake in the proceedings.  The answer is to not play for real prizes.  Certainly give the kid real prizes, just don't make it dependent on the outcome.

I would be completely fine with "Thanks for sharing your talent/record/invention, let's go spin the wheel of prizes/go on a treasure hunt" to see what our intrepid contestant took home.

[Matt Ottinger]

And no, the answer is NOT to give the panel a stake in the proceedings.  The answer is to not play for real prizes.  Certainly give the kid real prizes, just don't make it dependent on the outcome.

I would be completely fine with "Thanks for sharing your talent/record/invention, let's go spin the wheel of prizes/go on a treasure hunt" to see what our intrepid contestant took home.

No problem with that at all.

[chad1m]

I think something we may be overlooking is that, at least in my experiences this weekend and even with my own sister, these prizes are not super important to the kids. They're already winners. They've been flown to L.A, are being put on Nickelodeon, get to meet celebrities they watch all the time, are being treated like rock stars and have the chance to be slimed. That seemed to pretty good for them, anything else afterward was gravy. No one that I saw was crushed that they didn't win the trip to Lake Wobegon.

[Matt Ottinger]

I think something we may be overlooking is that, at least in my experiences this weekend and even with my own sister, these prizes are not super important to the kids. They're already winners. They've been flown to L.A, are being put on Nickelodeon, get to meet celebrities they watch all the time, are being treated like rock stars and have the chance to be slimed. That seemed to pretty good for them, anything else afterward was gravy. No one that I saw was crushed that they didn't win the trip to Lake Wobegon.

You are uniquely ill-equipped to understand this, since you've been on 523 game shows, but how the kid feels about it isn't what's important.  On a happy-fun show, it is counter-intuitive to watch the "stars" try to deprive the kid of a prize.

[Jeremy Nelson]

And no, the answer is NOT to give the panel a stake in the proceedings.  The answer is to not play for real prizes.  Certainly give the kid real prizes, just don't make it dependent on the outcome.

Another suggestion, and I'm just throwing this out there- what if the kid got REWARDED when the panel guessed his or her secret? That way, when the panel wins, everyone wins. Make the clues a little easier to improve the win rate, and you're done.

Either way, just lower the prizes. Of all the stuff offered on Nick game shows over the years, I think the coolest thing was when kids got to take home actual props and cell drawings from Nick shows. I could have cared less about Roseland Ranch- give me the Hidden Temple prop.

[Dbacksfan12]

While I'm not disagreeing, Jeremy, we're probably in the minority.   I don't know many kids who would turn down a trip to Disneyland in favor of some plaster.

[PYLdude]

I could have cared less about Roseland Ranch- give me the Hidden Temple prop.

So where would Olmec fit in your house?