"To Tell The Truth" coming back?!

[clemon79]

Views on comments page for the article:

If you read the comments, that's your own funeral.

Also, (un)official ban for Paula Poundstone, please?

Only if we can ban Caroline Rhea, too.

[TLEberle]

I don't get it; part of being a panelist is being amusing and Paula Poundstone delivers for me on that count (I admit that her being a regular on Wait Wait helps), what's the knock on Caroline Rhea?

[JMFabiano]

Views on comments page for the article:

If you read the comments, that's your own funeral.

Also, (un)official ban for Paula Poundstone, please?

Only if we can ban Caroline Rhea, too.

Har, har, I see what you did there.  Only difference is, Caroline did not suck at what she was supposed to do. 

[TLEberle]

I suspect that this is one of those memes that rolls on, perpetuated by opinion as opposed to fact.

[Neumms]

...my idea of how to give away the money (divided amongst the 3 challengers) would simply be $750 per wrong guess, $7500 if all the guesses are wrong...

It's a token amount of money for a reason, and that it doesn't buy as much today is really immaterial.

You might be missing his point--originally it wasn't a token amount of money. It dwindled in the 70s, but hardly because higher stakes got in the way.

Also, there's infinitely more game to TTTT than the other panel shows. The impostors actually affect the outcome. If they can win decent cash, it might not be a horrible thing.

I think GSN's I've Got a Secret got it right. Not crazy high stakes, but when the panel was close to getting stumped, Bil Dwyer played it up and it added something.

[TLEberle]

Show of hands: who watched the show (either first-run or reruns) because of the prizes on offer? Who didn't watch because you thought the prize did not befit the task at hand.

Anyone?

If we take the $25,000 top prize offered on Hollywood Game Night and transplant it to Truth, all that means is that there's a top prize of $25,000. I don't think it swings the needle a bit.

[Tony Peters]

what's the knock on Caroline Rhea?

Just that Mr. Fabiano was (is?) such a "fanboi" of her work on the Bergeron Squares panel. 

Of course, any member of the Phineas and Ferb cast can't be all bad...

[Neumms]

Show of hands: who watched the show (either first-run or reruns) because of the prizes on offer? Who didn't watch because you thought the prize did not befit the task at hand.

Anyone?

Evidently prizes mean something to audiences, or Jeopardy! wouldn't have doubled the prize money, or for that matter, ever multiplied it by 10.

[PYLdude]

Show of hands: who watched the show (either first-run or reruns) because of the prizes on offer? Who didn't watch because you thought the prize did not befit the task at hand.

Anyone?

Evidently prizes mean something to audiences, or Jeopardy! wouldn't have doubled the prize money, or for that matter, ever multiplied it by 10.

Jeopardy and To Tell The Truth are two different types of game.

And higher stakes didn't exactly help the two most recent editions of the show find an audience, now did they?

Me, I'd be okay keeping the $1,000 per incorrect vote that the 2000 series had, with ten large for a full stump because I always felt that was a big achievement and should be noted as such.

[TLEberle]

Evidently prizes mean something to audiences, or Jeopardy! wouldn't have doubled the prize money, or for that matter, ever multiplied it by 10.

To what value would you set incorrect votes or a total stump, then?

(To Chris P.'s point: I remember the double prize for stumping the panel and the crowd. It was rare enough to feel special, and importantly John didn't make such a fuss over the money that it overshadowed the game at hand.)

[geno57]

, wouldn't mind John O'Hurley returning if he's not busy.

Eh.  What bugs me about O'Hurley is that he's playing a character.  He's not himself.

[Jimmy Owen]

Show of hands: who watched the show (either first-run or reruns) because of the prizes on offer? Who didn't watch because you thought the prize did not befit the task at hand.

Anyone?

If we take the $25,000 top prize offered on Hollywood Game Night and transplant it to Truth, all that means is that there's a top prize of $25,000. I don't think it swings the needle a bit.

I sorta did, because I liked the melody they used when Johnny described the Sarah Coventry parting gift.

[Neumms]

To Chris P.'s point: I remember the double prize for stumping the panel and the crowd. It was rare enough to feel special, and importantly John didn't make such a fuss over the money that it overshadowed the game at hand.

O'Hurley's version had it right, not crazy money, but enough to make it worth offering. For this new version, it's hard to say. They're shooting for prime time, and we don't know what the "surprising twist" is yet.

Maybe the celebrity panel still does the interrogating--and guessing, but for fun--but civilians guess for their own prize money and to determine what the impostors get. If they're right, they get to keep playing and multiplying their money.

[J.R.]

O'Hurley's version had it right, not crazy money, but enough to make it worth offering. For this new version, it's hard to say.

O'Hurley's TTTT was pretty decent until they descended into this "Jerry Springer Lite" thing with the occupations/claims-to-fame being either "lowbrow" or sexual in nature.

[BrandonFG]

O'Hurley's version had it right, not crazy money, but enough to make it worth offering. For this new version, it's hard to say.

O'Hurley's TTTT was pretty decent until they descended into this "Jerry Springer Lite" thing with the occupations/claims-to-fame being either "lowbrow" or sexual in nature.

Agreed. Season 1 was much better. They tried too hard to spice it up the second half-season, with the sexual nature and audience "oohing" over every little mention.