"$100,000 Pyramid" primetime this summer on ABC

[JasonA1]

The posted video relates a buzzer for "a dog's bugs" as Things in a Flea Market. That's more in the realm of the unwritten rule I mentioned earlier; you could conceivably find a dog's bugs at a flea market, but the only reason you're saying that is try to surreptitiously convey "flea" to your partner.

I'm surprised there's a growing group of people who think a factually incorrect clue was illegal in the Winner's Cricle. If you had said "a Granny Smith apple" for Things that are Red, I've seen no episode that leads me to believe the judge would have slammed on the buzzer in the '80s; I think Bob Stewart would breathe a sigh of relief that they're wasting time with incorrect information.

-Jason

[Nick]

I'm surprised there's a growing group of people who think a factually incorrect clue was illegal in the Winner's Cricle. If you had said "a Granny Smith apple" for Things that are Red, I've seen no episode that leads me to believe the judge would have slammed on the buzzer in the '80s; I think Bob Stewart would breathe a sigh of relief that they're wasting time with incorrect information.

Probably, but when the instructions are to "give a list of things that fit each subject," which Granny Smith applies don't for Things that are Red, I'd say it's buzz-worthy.

A lot of people go down this road of buzzing things that don't fit the spirit of the category, but if that were the case, the Why You/Might Say boxes wouldn't play well at all.

Those categories, to me, by their very nature, are the exception to the rule since you can pretty much get away with saying anything.  Theoretically, Why You/Might Say could include anything, though they're always designed to have a definitive answer since they're suppose to be an easy first-row knock-off.  It's not like the aforementioned Granny Smith applies which would be factually incorrect for Things that are Red.

[parliboy]

"Conveying the essence of the answer".  That catch-all term is there for a reason, folks.  No need no reinvent the proverbial wheel.

[BrandonFG]

I'm surprised there's a growing group of people who think a factually incorrect clue was illegal in the Winner's Cricle. If you had said "a Granny Smith apple" for Things that are Red, I've seen no episode that leads me to believe the judge would have slammed on the buzzer in the '80s; I think Bob Stewart would breathe a sigh of relief that they're wasting time with incorrect information.

Probably, but when the instructions are to "give a list of things that fit each subject," which Granny Smith applies don't for Things that are Red, I'd say it's buzz-worthy.

Here's the thing, it's not Jeopardy! or whatever quiz show. The keyword in this case is "apple", even though it's technically incorrect. Therefore, the judges aren't that anal, and prolly aren't even thinking about which apple is which color.

[Nick]

Here's the thing, it's not Jeopardy! or whatever quiz show. The keyword in this case is "apple", even though it's technically incorrect. Therefore, the judges aren't that anal, and prolly aren't even thinking about which apple is which color.

Fair enough.

[JasonA1]

Probably, but when the instructions are to "give a list of things that fit each subject," which Granny Smith applies don't for Things that are Red, I'd say it's buzz-worthy.

That was the host language instruction on how to play the game. David Ruprecht used to say "everything you see is up for grabs" but that didn't mean you could put the cameraman's camera in your cart.

-Jason

[TLEberle]

And again, if you're saying a Granny Smith it means you're not saying "a cherry, a fire truck, a clown nose, an embarrassed face, a panic button" which are all short, quick, evocative of the answer and all correct.

[Fedya]

I'm surprised there's a growing group of people who think a factually incorrect clue was illegal in the Winner's Cricle. If you had said "a Granny Smith apple" for Things that are Red, I've seen no episode that leads me to believe the judge would have slammed on the buzzer in the '80s; I think Bob Stewart would breathe a sigh of relief that they're wasting time with incorrect information.

Probably, but when the instructions are to "give a list of things that fit each subject," which Granny Smith applies don't for Things that are Red, I'd say it's buzz-worthy.

Here's the thing, it's not Jeopardy! or whatever quiz show. The keyword in this case is "apple", even though it's technically incorrect. Therefore, the judges aren't that anal, and prolly aren't even thinking about which apple is which color.

Shelley Smith gives a factually incorrect clue and wins her partner $100K.

[chad1m]

Shelley Smith gives a factually incorrect clue and wins her partner $100K.

Heck, between "the nine players," "the six players," "Jack's peppers" and "Japanese women," you could argue she gave up to four factually incorrect clues and won $100,000.

[jjman920]

Shelley Smith gives a factually incorrect clue and wins her partner $100K.

Heck, between "the nine players," "the six players," "Jack's peppers" and "Japanese women," you could argue she gave up to four factually incorrect clues and won $100,000.

Basketball is rather ticky tacky. The box didn't say an NBA game or even a professional basketball game. You could say "the two players" for that and still be correct.

[Kevin Prather]

"Ontario" for "Cities in Canada".

[WilliamPorygon]

"Ontario" for "Cities in Canada".

And "I'm a bird up north" for "What a penguin might say."

[Nick]

So now that season one is done, do we give a wrap-up commentary on how wonderfully produced this was?  Well, never in this day and age did I ever expect to see Pyramid done so well, so major props to all involved, who nodded to the Pyramid traditionalists so many ways through this version.  It truly was a treat.

The quibbles I have with this first run are, really, minor things that could be easily fixed for season two, such as letting the contestants say their last names and let them shine ahead of the celebs a bit more, and having Michael announce what the Mystery 7 commonality was.

They done good, so good that if my schedule permits, I'll trek down to New York to watch a taping of season two.  Alas, I wish they would open contestant eligibility to those of us north of the 49th.

[TLEberle]

I am very tepid on the production side, certainly not "wonderfully." The game element was fine, though they could save back a minute or two for a proper tiebreak by not clowning so much, and doing away with the rules&regs/what would you do with the money/let's dim the lights and get serious every single time. Perhaps Michael could introduce the contestant instead of the celebrity. I also know that they're not doing this just for my consumption, but I turn the volume way down because the main game borders on obnoxiously frenetic.

[Nick]

I am very tepid on the production side, certainly not "wonderfully." The game element was fine, though they could save back a minute or two for a proper tiebreak by not clowning so much, and doing away with the rules&regs/what would you do with the money/let's dim the lights and get serious every single time. Perhaps Michael could introduce the contestant instead of the celebrity. I also know that they're not doing this just for my consumption, but I turn the volume way down because the main game borders on obnoxiously frenetic.

I agree on all those points, and I would have mentioned them save for I was trying to keep to things that realistically might happen.  I would love for them do do away with all those time wasting measures you described.  Is it likely to happen?  Probably not, but it should.