"The 'High' Concept And The Death Of Million Second Quiz"

[DoorNumberFour]

A Buzzerblog feature written by yours truly. Check it out: http://www.buzzerblog.com/2014/05/26/the-high-concept-and-the-death-of-the-million-second-quiz/

[TLEberle]

What's unfortunate is that there's no way such a simple and straight-forward quiz game gets on the air these days without that "high concept." Double unfortunate is that the high concept got in the way of what was a fun li'l game when you strip away the Thunderdome, Winner's Row and the various trappings that a game show is expected to have.

[parliboy]

The show needed another 30 days in development.  Really, that was the difference between a show and a good show.  You could just see in that first night that they were beta testing as they went.  Never a good idea.

[Thunder]

For me, I lost interest once I was told that only four people were going to win money. That blew the interesting concept of "Come to New York City and you could pick up an easy $500 playing a simple game."

I expect flashy lights, elaborate sets and all that stuff on any new game show now, as sorta stated above.

[J.R.]

What's unfortunate is that there's no way such a simple and straight-forward quiz game gets on the air these days without that "high concept."

I know I've said this before, but I wonder if today’s producers are worried that when people think "game show", they think of Wink Martindale in his plaid jacket, on a set made of wood and shag carpeting, offering blenders to shrill housewives.

So they do whatever they can to dance around it by making the set big and flashy, adding in stuff like human interest stories/cinematic contestant profiles and surprise family reunions and marketing them as "reality competition" or "an event of life-changing stakes" and such.

I agree that this was a fun, little game. NBC made a big mistake in trying to market this as a bold, historic stunt. They probably hoped this would be an annual event on par with their competitions like The Voice or AGT. I think if things were done differently, they might've achieved it.

[gameshowcrazy]

Of course that's what NBC wanted, they did as much promotion as they could, including features on local newscasts.  This was their platform to promote their upcoming season, and get a jump in viewers just prior to the start of the ratings season.

Considering it had (from what I remember) between 4 and 6 million viewers a night, I thought they might change a few things and bring it back; but I guess that's not happening at all.

[TLEberle]

I expect flashy lights, elaborate sets and all that stuff on any new game show now, as sorta stated above.

I would prefer that the game was solid in the first place, the set design is a pleasant bonus. One of the things that amazed me is the set and music for the British version of Duel. From go you can tell what's about to happen, and the set and background music actually serve the show instead of detracting from it.

Fascinating fact that I pondered on the way to work: for all the fun we (justifiably) poke at Fifth Grader, it didn't change up the rules, do tearful reunions, double the stakes or anything. The most I can recall is swapping out or adding to the assistance pool. It was a stupid derivative game but they stuck to their guns.

[BrandonFG]

What's unfortunate is that there's no way such a simple and straight-forward quiz game gets on the air these days without that "high concept."

I know I've said this before, but I wonder if today’s producers are worried that when people think "game show", they think of Wink Martindale in his plaid jacket, on a set made of wood and shag carpeting, offering blenders to shrill housewives.

I think that's more NBC than anything. I remember reading a fall preview on their site years ago, and seeing D/ND labeled as a "reality" show. That one really irritated me, as if "game show" is antiquated or politically incorrect. My problem with NBC is how their shows take themselves way too seriously, then turn around and contain crap like pony reveals.

I can't think of the last prime time show that I could say was truly competently produced and didn't feature NBC-style gimmicks.

[TLEberle]

Power of Ten?

[BrandonFG]

Power of 10 works. It was a simple concept that worked nicely, and put the gameplay first. Yes, I'll accept that.

They also handled that million perfectly for a big money game. It felt natural and not forced, compared to the two wins on D/ND.

[Neumms]

Double unfortunate is that the high concept got in the way of what was a fun li'l game when you strip away the Thunderdome, Winner's Row and the various trappings that a game show is expected to have.

If you take all that away, you have two people taking a multiple-choice quiz. That's awfully li'l.

For me, I lost interest once I was told that only four people were going to win money. That blew the interesting concept of "Come to New York City and you could pick up an easy $500 playing a simple game."

Yes. The concept, high or not, was a 24-hour live game show where anyone--even you--could show up, play and win cash. The excitement is in the unexpected, an unlikely player getting on a run. Instead, the focus was the winner's defense and the four dorks in the hostel.

The hourglass wasn't the problem. The whole event should have been in there, and it should have been on the street, where people could look in even at 3 in the morning. If the unlikely run happened at that hour, it could be shown later. The show should have aired way more than the one stilted hour a day, with slots across the NBC family of networks, covered more like Big Brother. The problem wasn't that it was marketed as a bold historic stunt, it's that it wasn't one.

Speaking of Big Brother, that fell far short of expectations its first year, but got overhauled and has (for better or worse) been with us ever since. It's a shame MSQ won't be.

[TLEberle]

If you take all that away, you have two people taking a multiple-choice quiz. That's awfully li'l.

So was "Duel," and at least in England it was mounted well. There was a pilot back in the fifties that combined Winner Take All with the Barry&Enright payoff model: the champion would bet some of his stake on whether he could defeat the next challenger. If he won he got his bet paid at even oddds, if not that money went to the new champion who started his own run. I think that would have been much more interesting than $10/second in vapor bucks. Of course you no longer have the conceit of the million seconds but most people were only consuming the content via the TV show, so you could drop the offnetwork portion.

Answering trivia questions by themselves isn't a game. MSQ actually had a decent game; it was all of the other junk that dragged it down. I don't think airing it as a 24-hour quiz was the answer especially when the other 23 hours of the day was the very vanilla version of the game. Plus nobody cares about looking in on Winner's Row because the winners aren't engaging in hijinks--they're either studying or asleep or eating their sponsored lunch.

[Neumms]

So was "Duel," and at least in England it was mounted well.

Answering trivia questions by themselves isn't a game. MSQ actually had a decent game; it was all of the other junk that dragged it down.

I liked the germ of Duel, and didn't realize it aired overseas so I'm eager to see that. That, to me, had far more intrigue, far more game in it, weighing the risk of using up your chips with getting the question wrong.

MSQ had the doubling, sure, but if you made a conventional half-hour of it, say, a Barry-Enright deal where the winner wins a pot, plays a luck-filled bonus round, then faces a new challenger, that's pretty weak soup.

[TLEberle]

I liked the germ of Duel, and didn't realize it aired overseas so I'm eager to see that.

Search for Duel, ITV, Rob Woods. That should give you your fill.

MSQ had the doubling, sure, but if you made a conventional half-hour of it, say, a Barry-Enright deal where the winner wins a pot, plays a luck-filled bonus round, then faces a new challenger, that's pretty weak soup.

Then it's a good thing I didn't advocate for that (or at least the luck-filled bonus round.)

(The name of the pilot in question was Play for Keeps and can be found at usgameshows.net.)

You're right; the quiz against the clock would not be enough by itself to carry a five-a-week show since it didn't carry the two week extravaganza. I do believe that if seasoned appropriately it could get there.