The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: brianhenke on March 03, 2007, 12:14:01 AM
-
The Slate has a review of Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? The writer, Troy Patterson, calls it "humiliating".
http://www.slate.com/id/2160948/ (http://\"http://www.slate.com/id/2160948/\")
Brian
-
Apparently Mr. Patterson wasn't done with the "humiliating" schtick...read a little further down for something concerning another Fox show dropping soon.
(Are you all smarter than the idiots who created these shows? Let's all hope so.)
-
I wonder if the success of this show will spark a sudden influx of game shows featuring "dumb" people, in the same way that WWTBAM sparked the renaissance of the big-money quiz show.
-
[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'147354\' date=\'Mar 3 2007, 02:11 AM\']
I wonder if the success of this show will spark a sudden influx of game shows featuring "dumb" people, in the same way that WWTBAM sparked the renaissance of the big-money quiz show.
[/quote]
Let me pose this question:
If Mark Burnett and company had raised the bar, and called it "Are You Smarter Than A 10th Grader?", or "Are You Smarter Than A High Schooler?" and adjusted the questions likewise, would this game be more likeable to us die-hard game show fans -- especially if they had 'smarter' Jeopardy-caliber contestants, and would there be as much or more success in the ratings?
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'147360\' date=\'Mar 3 2007, 11:01 AM\']
[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'147354\' date=\'Mar 3 2007, 02:11 AM\']
I wonder if the success of this show will spark a sudden influx of game shows featuring "dumb" people, in the same way that WWTBAM sparked the renaissance of the big-money quiz show.
[/quote]
Let me pose this question:
If Mark Burnett and company had raised the bar, and called it "Are You Smarter Than A 10th Grader?", or "Are You Smarter Than A High Schooler?" and adjusted the questions likewise, would this game be more likeable to us die-hard game show fans -- especially if they had 'smarter' Jeopardy-caliber contestants, and would there be as much or more success in the ratings?
[/quote]
I don't speak for everyone, but I would watch it. That's a far more interesting concept than making people look dumber than a 5th-grader.
I don't think it would be as successful in the long run, because IMO, that's not what the majority of the American TV audience (especially FOX viewers) want to see anymore.
Like Bob Barker said a few months back in an interview, we've entered what could be the most disgusting period in television history; a period in which humiliation of the average man/woman equals quality entertainment + ratings.
Sadly, it looks as if there's no room for the intellectual viewers in the current game show genre, at least for now.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'147360\' date=\'Mar 3 2007, 11:01 AM\']If Mark Burnett and company had raised the bar, and called it "Are You Smarter Than A 10th Grader?", or "Are You Smarter Than A High Schooler?" and adjusted the questions likewise, would this game be more likeable to us die-hard game show fans -- especially if they had 'smarter' Jeopardy-caliber contestants, and would there be as much or more success in the ratings?
[/quote]
It still has horrible pacing problems (a problem with many of these copycat shows), and I think we're all smart enough to know that if the material was harder, the show wouldn't be as accessible to the average dim-bulb viewer and the ratings wouldn't be as good. But yes, the show in its current form is an insult to the intelligence of a quiz-show fan. It's Jaywalking for a million dollars, and that's just wrong.
One of the reasons the original Millionaire was a success (and one that doesn't get copied as much) is that there were a series of questions that got progressively harder. (To a degree, Jeopardy works that way too.) The family could watch together because there were questions along the way they could all answer, but the show didn't pander to stupidity.
You can't argue the success of the Foxworthy show, but I don't have to be happy about it.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'147362\' date=\'Mar 3 2007, 11:37 AM\'] [quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'147360\' date=\'Mar 3 2007, 11:01 AM\']If Mark Burnett and company had raised the bar, and called it "Are You Smarter Than A 10th Grader?", or "Are You Smarter Than A High Schooler?" and adjusted the questions likewise, would this game be more likeable to us die-hard game show fans -- especially if they had 'smarter' Jeopardy-caliber contestants, and would there be as much or more success in the ratings?
[/quote]
It still has horrible pacing problems (a problem with many of these copycat shows), and I think we're all smart enough to know that if the material was harder, the show wouldn't be as accessible to the average dim-bulb viewer and the ratings wouldn't be as good. But yes, the show in its current form is an insult to the intelligence of a quiz-show fan. It's Jaywalking for a million dollars, and that's just wrong.
One of the reasons the original Millionaire was a success (and one that doesn't get copied as much) is that there were a series of questions that got progressively harder. (To a degree, Jeopardy works that way too.) The family could watch together because there were questions along the way they could all answer, but the show didn't pander to stupidity.
You can't argue the success of the Foxworthy show, but I don't have to be happy about it. [/quote]
I could not agree with a fellow Matt even more. One thing I've gotten to like more about 1 vs. 100 is that they've done creative editing/timing to get more questions in...which seems to be opposite the normal trend. But to have a show that, in a half-hour show, only gets 6 questions in....that's pathetic. A show doesn't need to be lightning fast (Jeopardy), but needs to have a good amount of pacing to it so that a good amount of material can be covered. The neighborhood of 13-17 seems good...I think.
And the point about covering topics from 1st grade all the way through 12th grade-ish....the title "Are You Smarter Than A Public School Graduate" doesn't have the same ring to it. :)
[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'147361\' date=\'Mar 3 2007, 11:19 AM\']
Like Bob Barker said a few months back in an interview, we've entered what could be the most disgusting period in television history; a period in which humiliation of the average man/woman equals quality entertainment + ratings.
[/quote]
Just to throw this off to a slight tangent....I wonder if this will bring down TPiR in the future...or it's "stranglehold" will stay there.
-
People were willing to be humiliated back in the days of "Truth or Consequences" or "Beat the Clock." It's just that now it's for a million dollars rather than a console TV.
-
Like Bob Barker said a few months back in an interview, we've entered what could be the most disgusting period in television history; a period in which humiliation of the average man/woman equals quality entertainment + ratings.
As someone who has humiliated a few contestants in his time, I don't see where Barker gets the idea that missing quiz questions = humiliation, if that's what he meant. If someone asked me to define the Pythagorean Theorem I'd have to look it up, but I'm sure a lot of people in the TV audience would have to look it up as well, so I don't see where the humiliation comes in.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'147372\' date=\'Mar 3 2007, 03:04 PM\']
Like Bob Barker said a few months back in an interview, we've entered what could be the most disgusting period in television history; a period in which humiliation of the average man/woman equals quality entertainment + ratings.
As someone who has humiliated a few contestants in his time, I don't see where Barker gets the idea that missing quiz questions = humiliation, if that's what he meant. If someone asked me to define the Pythagorean Theorem I'd have to look it up, but I'm sure a lot of people in the TV audience would have to look it up as well, so I don't see where the humiliation comes in.
[/quote]
Honestly, the only demeaning thing from the show is that you have to admit to the camera you're supposedly dumber than a 5th grader. It's been 14 years since I've been in 5th grade, and I couldn't prolly be bothered to remember half the stuff I learned back then, other than the basics. Does it make me dumb, not really. The title and premise of the show is misleading, and somewhat subjective.
Honestly, dumb game show contestants are nothing new. As long as there's game shows with trivia, you'll have the ones who miss laughably easy questions. However, to try and revolve a game show around such a concept is just ridiculous. If it had been a competitive setup, say a team of 5th graders against a grown-up, it could have potential. But the fact that FOX is going for the more demeaning route (as only FOX can) is what makes this show so lame IMODO.
And I can't help but feel that it's somewhat condescending, making the 5th graders think they're really smarter than a college graduate, like they're some kind of genius.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'147373\' date=\'Mar 3 2007, 12:30 PM\']
Honestly, the only demeaning thing from the show is that you have to admit to the camera you're supposedly dumber than a 5th grader.
[/quote]
And for $100,000 (or more, but it looks like $100K is pretty much guaranteed unless you're a complete moron, like most of these contestants), I'll look in that camera and admit damned near anything they want. :)
-
The Chicago Sun-Times (http://\"http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/elfman/288061,CST-FTR-elf08.article\") says the show's fifth-graders are child actors.
-
That...is something.
-
Yeah, they're all SAG. However, I don't necessarily think that fact by itself comprises the integrity (HA!) of the game.
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'147666\' date=\'Mar 8 2007, 01:20 PM\']
Yeah, they're all SAG. However, I don't necessarily think that fact by itself comprises the integrity (HA!) of the game.
[/quote]
No, it doesn't, but it sure as hell raises a red flag.
It's just another example of a television production being extremely disingenuous to their viewers. This is up there with the whole scam on PlayMania where the phone queue is slow to "update" on screen to get more people to call in.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'147665\' date=\'Mar 8 2007, 04:17 PM\']
That...is something.[/quote]
Gets worse. Take a quote from the story:
"A Fox spokesman assures me the five kids aren't getting any help to answer questions before or during episodes."
Well, that's only technically true. According to the disclaimer, the kids are quizzed from "workbooks" before the show, and some of the questions in those workbooks could become actual game material. In other words, the producers can find out what the kids know, and only ask those questions. That is eerily similar to the way some of the rigging of the fifties quizzes was originally done.
Yes, you can make the case that the kids aren't contestants, and why shouldn't they be as helpful as possible to the adults who are? Still, there's an awful lot of manipulation wrapped up in that disclaimer, and pretty much glossed over by the spokesman's quote. The show also doesn't say anything about the kids being actors. For what it's worth, it also appears the kids are wearing earpieces, and more than one person has suggested to me that there could easily be something fishy going on with that.
I'm not remotely saying we're headed in the direction of another scandal. For one thing, today's jaded audience wouldn't really care as much as they did back then. Still, there's a lot of stuff that's obviously going on behind the scenes, so I can't help but wonder how much less-obvious stuff could be happening.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'147668\' date=\'Mar 8 2007, 04:46 PM\']Well, that's only technically true. According to the disclaimer, the kids are quizzed from "workbooks" before the show, and some of the questions in those workbooks could become actual game material. In other words, the producers can find out what the kids know, and only ask those questions. That is eerily similar to the way some of the rigging of the fifties quizzes was originally done.[/quote]
The kids are like lifelines for the adult contestants, right? And the contestants are playing against the house?
In that case, I'd be more worried about the producers' ability (not desire, but ability) to switch to a set of questions that they're more confident the kids don't know, to trip up particular contestants.
-
Perhaps someone (either FOX or the producers) were afraid of the kids freezing up on camera and looking nervous. By getting kids who had experience in front of a TV camera, they don't have to worry about that sort of stage fright.
-
[quote name=\'Allstar87\' post=\'147673\' date=\'Mar 8 2007, 06:22 PM\']
Perhaps someone (either FOX or the producers) were afraid of the kids freezing up on camera and looking nervous. By getting kids who had experience in front of a TV camera, they don't have to worry about that sort of stage fright.
[/quote]
Counter-example: Jeopardy!'s Kids' Week. There are plenty of 10-12 year olds who won't freeze up. All you have to do is look. Fox really doesn't seem to care about that or the actual game poriton of the "game show" as much as they do the show and displaying human stupidity.
-
I'm not saying this as a slap at Brian - as I've seen another use or two of it here - but it is my considered opinion that anyone using the acronym AYSTA5G should be forced to listen to fifth graders until this show goes off the air.
-
I saw the whole "we give the kids the material beforehand" as not too much different than what happened with Hollywood Squares. I don't think they should give the kids harder material, but the same material without the earpieces. I'm sure some of the kids will get tripped up on the current question difficulty.
-
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'147680\' date=\'Mar 8 2007, 08:53 PM\']
I saw the whole "we give the kids the material beforehand" as not too much different than what happened with Hollywood Squares.
[/quote]
Except, and I think I've said this about fourteen times now, that the whole thing with Hollywood Squares was that the briefing of the celebrities did not directly affect the player (unless they did one of those "Trust me, I'm not lying to you, I totally know this" things that happened WAY too often on the Bergeron show), whereas this (and the briefing on Donnymid) ABSOLUTELY affects the player. All the Squares thing is is a different way of presenting a true / false question to the player.
-
</delurk>
Let me go on the record as saying that 5th Grader is an enjoyable comedy show (much more so than any Game Show Like Device (tm) Comedy Central has put out since Win Ben Stein's Money). Is it a great game show? Not in my book, as others have said it needs to go faster (Matt - how many questions a night is QuizBusters up to now? When I played we were doing about ~55-65) and not try and pull stupid tricks (I'm looking at you hold the answer reveal until next week).
But the question this thread has evolved to is does it matter that the kids see some of the material in advance? To me it doesn't. To me it's no different than having phone-a-friends on Millionare who are using Google. As long as each stack contains the same number of questions (at the same difficulty levels) that the kids have been preped for then it doesn't matter to me. As long as it gives an equal playing field to each player does it exactly matter what the field is? One Vs 100 changed its rules on-air without informing the audience of the change. This to me is a much bigger offence.
-Joe Kavanagh
<back to lurking now>
-
[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'147687\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 12:11 AM\']
But the question this thread has evolved to is does it matter that the kids see some of the material in advance? To me it doesn't. To me it's no different than having phone-a-friends on Millionare who are using Google.
[/quote]
Except...who you have on a PAF list and how well they are prepared is at least somewhat under your control, and not touched by the people controlling the money. Whereas it's entirely possible (and in fact very easy) for the producers to back off on "preparing" the kids actors (and let's say that again: ACTORS. These are people hired and paid by the production. If you don't think it's going to cross a kid's mind at least once that they'd better dodge a $500K question because it might affect their re-hire potential, you're just plain not thinking.) if they decide they need to close the pursestrings a little.
As long as it gives an equal playing field to each player does it exactly matter what the field is?
Again, in terms of actual game legality? No. But nobody has made that claim. The fact is that they are doing this, and then representing to the audience, the people who they are counting on to watch this show, that they are doing something ELSE. That's the problem here. Nobody is accusing them of rigging. We're just suggesting that the potential for such is much MUCH MUCH higher the way they are doing it, and that they're not open about it with the viewer at home raises a huge red flag.
One Vs 100 changed its rules on-air without informing the audience of the change. This to me is a much bigger offence.
This flabbergasts me. The difference is that at least IvC is playing a game straight, and all they did was neglect to tell people with no financial interest that they changed things....but still, they're playing the game straight. I don't see how you can EVEN think to compare the two.
-
I think last night's show pretty much sealed my vote that this show isn't being played straight. Spoilage is required, so I'm linking to another thread (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12505\").
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'147694\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 11:25 AM\']
If you don't think it's going to cross a kid's mind at least once that they'd better dodge a $500K question because it might affect their re-hire potential, you're just plain not thinking.[/quote]
This is the one part of your analysis I'm not sure I agree with. I just don't think a ten-year-old, even a precocious one with a SAG card, is going to make that leap of logic on his own. I'm more willing to believe that the producers can just ask questions that the kid missed on his "workbook".
On the other hand, there is no financial incentive for the kid to help the player, so if the kid wants to screw up on purpose, there's nothing stopping him. I didn't see the Thursday show, but if what parliboy says is true, then it's curious at the very least, and seven kinds of suspicious at worst.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'147701\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 09:42 AM\']
This is the one part of your analysis I'm not sure I agree with. I just don't think a ten-year-old, even a precocious one with a SAG card, is going to make that leap of logic on his own.
[/quote]
Fair enough. But how about a stage mom making that leap for them?
Yeah, I realize we're treading deep into tinfoil-hat territory here, but the sad fact is: Fox has a rep for this, and while back in the day there was S&P to reassure us that something like this could Never Ever Happen, that trust is pretty much shot now.
-
Mark Burnett wasn't even born when "Dotto" was pulled.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'147694\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 12:25 PM\']
[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'147687\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 12:11 AM\']
As long as it gives an equal playing field to each player does it exactly matter what the field is?
[/quote]
Again, in terms of actual game legality? No. But nobody has made that claim. The fact is that they are doing this, and then representing to the audience, the people who they are counting on to watch this show, that they are doing something ELSE. That's the problem here. Nobody is accusing them of rigging. We're just suggesting that the potential for such is much MUCH MUCH higher the way they are doing it, and that they're not open about it with the viewer at home raises a huge red flag.
One Vs 100 changed its rules on-air without informing the audience of the change. This to me is a much bigger offence.
This flabbergasts me. The difference is that at least IvC is playing a game straight, and all they did was neglect to tell people with no financial interest that they changed things....but still, they're playing the game straight. I don't see how you can EVEN think to compare the two.
[/quote]
These two quotes are the ones that interest me. You profess to have a problem with 5th Grader keeping rules from the viewer (and, I'll give FOX / Burnett the benefit of the doubt, telling the player about them) and you don't have a problem with 1vs100 doing the same. It doesn't matter if the game is being played for comedy or for serious quiz value I think that as long as the playing field is fair between contestants who play the game and each players is given an equal shot at the grand prize. Until someone can show that 5th Grader has been rigged (or even point to a particular moment as say it was most likely rigged) I'm going to give the show the benefit of the doubt. Any of these shows could be easily rigged if that's what the producers wanted yet, as far as is known, none of them have been.
-Joe Kavanagh
-
[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'147708\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 01:09 PM\']
These two quotes are the ones that interest me. You profess to have a problem with 5th Grader keeping rules from the viewer (and, I'll give FOX / Burnett the benefit of the doubt, telling the player about them) and you
don't have a problem with 1vs100 doing the same.
[/quote]
Yes. Because, unless I'm missing something REALLY major (I admit I don't watch IVC, so maybe I am), the difference is that IVC isn't trying to represent themselves as anything other than what they are, whereas 5th Grader clearly is. If anything, IVC is guilty of omission, whereas 5th Grader is guilty of flat-out deception. You DO see the difference, right?
I think that as long as the playing field is fair between contestants who play the game and each players is given an equal shot at the grand prize.
Again, never once have I suggested that 5th Grader is running a rigged game. I've made the "as long as the rules are the same for everyone, it's fair" argument myself, so I don't dispute that in the least. I'm just saying the potential for tampering is there, and that it's reprehensible from a respect-your-audience standpoint that they feel the need to hide (or at least, not be the least bit forthcoming about) this dirty little secret.
Until someone can show that 5th Grader has been rigged (or even point to a particular moment as say it was most likely rigged) I'm going to give the show the benefit of the doubt.
Good, you do that. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has done that yet. We're just bothered that the production is being somewhat underhanded about what they are presenting, and that leads us to wonder if we have cause to distrust other facets of the production as well. Hey, more Kool-Aid for you, right?
-
And maybe I'M missing something. I don't understand how one can compare unannounced rule changes to what "Are You Smarter..." is doing.
Although the unannounced changes might cause a bit of confusion to the casual viewer, it's not straddling any S&P violations that I know of. I don't think the show is obligated to tell every single change they're making.
As for "Smarter", it's not necessarily a violation either, in the same sense that Pyramid wasn't. However, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth that the 5th graders don't know as much as we're being led to believe. I'm still curious how CBS plans to handle their special.
Better yet, why not go for the same caliber of kids that 1 vs. 100, or better yet, that child genius game show Dick Clark did a couple of years ago. I mean, your show's premise is to prove that the kids are smarter, why not actually go all out. Using "professional 5th graders" just kills a lot of authenticity for me.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'147704\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 02:14 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'147701\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 09:42 AM\']
This is the one part of your analysis I'm not sure I agree with. I just don't think a ten-year-old, even a precocious one with a SAG card, is going to make that leap of logic on his own. [/quote]
Fair enough. But how about a stage mom making that leap for them?[/quote]
Heck, I'm not completely ruling out the possibility of producers telling them which questions to miss, I just don't think they're making those decisions on their own.
In fact, the scenario I can't get out of my mind (admitting I have absolutely no proof) is that the producers told Alana to miss that math question, and in her nine-year-old naivete, she thought that missing it by one was the best way to make it look like she almost got the right answer.
More food for thought: On the FOX website, Alana's bio says that "math is her favorite subject." A fifth-grader who knows anything about math doesn't come up with an odd number on that question.
BTW, why is there a picture of Foxworthy's lookalike stand-in (http://\"http://www.fox.com/areyousmarter/\") on the website?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'147709\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 05:26 PM\']
Yes. Because, unless I'm missing something REALLY major (I admit I don't watch IVC, so maybe I am), the difference is that IVC isn't trying to represent themselves as anything other than what they are, whereas 5th Grader clearly is. If anything, IVC is guilty of omission, whereas 5th Grader is guilty of flat-out deception. You DO see the difference, right?[/quote]
They both omitted information about the helps provided. They didn't accuratly indicate the level of help provided in either case. There is a difference but I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on how far apart that difference is.
Good, you do that. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has done that yet. We're just bothered that the production is being somewhat underhanded about what they are presenting, and that leads us to wonder if we have cause to distrust other facets of the production as well. Hey, more Kool-Aid for you, right?
I think we went into the show with two different sets of expectations. You went in expecting a bad quiz show. I went in expecting a Mark Burnett take on a quiz show for Jeopardy Rejects. Did that give it a lower bar to hurdle over? You better believe it. Am I suprised that the kids are actors? To be honest, no. Mark Burnett shows contain all kinds of manipulative elements outside of basic gameplay and yet they never seem to tamper with the basic gameplay on any of the shows. Perhaps I'm just drinking the Kool-Aid but there have been about 300 contestants on Mark Burnett shows over the last 7 years and people have said that Burnett manipulated the playing environment but not a one has ever accused him of tampering with basic gameplay (to the best of my knowledge, if I'm wrong point me in the direction of it and I'll happily admit I'm wrong). I haven't seen this week's episode so I can't comment on the math question. I'll admit that I can still be swayed that this is a major problem and I'll hold any further comments until after I watch the problem that seems to be the focus of the discussion now.
-Joe Kavanagh
-
[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'147713\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 04:20 PM\']
There is a difference but I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on how far apart that difference is.
[/quote]
Well, sell me. Explain to me what the gross injustice was that IVC foisted onto the world. As I said, I haven't seen the show since that first batch of episodes...maybe it's more egregious than I'm thinking.
I think we went into the show with two different sets of expectations. You went in expecting a bad quiz show. I went in expecting a Mark Burnett take on a quiz show for Jeopardy Rejects.
I was expecting a game show, because that is what was being advertised to me. I was willing to hold off judgment as to whether it was bad until I saw it. But I was expecting a GAME SHOW. Not Mark Burnett's Vision Of What A Game Show Should Look Like. So, yeah, maybe I expected too much.
people have said that Burnett manipulated the playing environment but not a one has ever accused him of tampering with basic gameplay
I could be wrong, but wasn't there an accusation that Burnett's production crew was giving food to the players on Survivor? That absolutely would be tampering with basic gameplay, to me.
(Again, though, this is my fuzzy memory talking; it could easily be incorrect.)
-
I don't think anyone has asked this question yet:
If the adult contestant answers a question wrong, and their Cheat/Copy/Save option also trips up a wrong answer, does said contestant still have to look into the camera and say "I am NOT smarter than a 5th grader!"?
Of course, if this was an EnDammitol show, they'd probably stop tape for 4 hours and then decide to just throw out the question and ask a new one! :-P
-
[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'147713\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 06:20 PM\'] Perhaps I'm just drinking the Kool-Aid but there have been about 300 contestants on Mark Burnett shows over the last 7 years and people have said that Burnett manipulated the playing environment but not a one has ever accused him of tampering with basic gameplay (to the best of my knowledge, if I'm wrong point me in the direction of it and I'll happily admit I'm wrong).[/quote]
You mean like this? (http://\"http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/stillman1.html\")
-
As I said earlier,
I'm more than willing to admit I was wrong on my remembering Burnett's spotless history.
I'm also going to go back on the position I had earlier about this not affecting gameplay much.
This week's episode shot that credibility out of the water (I won't say more than that, it's for show summeries).
After the question in question all I'll say is, can we get some true, smart 5th graders on this show ASAP? In that position I might have gotten the question wrong but I'd love to know how the kid got there in her head.
-Joe Kavanagh
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'147724\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 08:13 PM\']
If the adult contestant answers a question wrong, and their Cheat/Copy/Save option also trips up a wrong answer, does said contestant still have to look into the camera and say "I am NOT smarter than a 5th grader!"?
[/quote]
God, I hope not. I don't think I could bear the humiliation.
/look into my eye
-
[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'147725\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 11:49 PM\']
[quote name=\'cyberjoek\' post=\'147713\' date=\'Mar 9 2007, 06:20 PM\'] Perhaps I'm just drinking the Kool-Aid but there have been about 300 contestants on Mark Burnett shows over the last 7 years and people have said that Burnett manipulated the playing environment but not a one has ever accused him of tampering with basic gameplay (to the best of my knowledge, if I'm wrong point me in the direction of it and I'll happily admit I'm wrong).[/quote]
You mean like this? (http://\"http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/stillman1.html\")
[/quote]
While you guys poke at each other over semantics, I think it's important to note the distinction between Burnett tampering with gameplay and Burnett being accused of tampering with game play. None of the serious accusations of tampering have even been proven, and most sound like sour grapes. Burnett has admitted to restaging events for the camera, but not to doing anything that would manipulate the results.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'147743\' date=\'Mar 10 2007, 08:52 AM\']While you guys poke at each other over semantics, I think it's important to note the distinction between Burnett tampering with gameplay and Burnett being accused of tampering with game play. None of the serious accusations of tampering have even been proven, and most sound like sour grapes. Burnett has admitted to restaging events for the camera, but not to doing anything that would manipulate the results.
[/quote]
At risk of engaging circuitous logic, he wouldn't admit to such a thing, given that it's, well, illegal. That he hasn't admitted to it doesn't make me any more satisfied than Dan Enright saying, "What answers?"
I will concede, however, that this allows for a third possibility: that Alana's original answer was far away from the right answer, but at least internally logical, and that production inserted its own incorrect answer after the fact.
Still stinks to high heaven if it's true, and gives the (unfair) impression of the girl being not so bright.
-
[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'147747\' date=\'Mar 10 2007, 11:32 AM\']
At risk of engaging circuitous logic, he wouldn't admit to such a thing, given that it's, well, illegal. That he hasn't admitted to it doesn't make me any more satisfied than Dan Enright saying, "What answers?"[/quote]
Pat Sajak hasn't admitted giving the contestants answers on Wheel of Fortune either. You seem to be saying that since Burnett has been accused, he therefore must be under suspicion until his innocence is proven. I'm saying that all the Survivor accusations I've heard just sound like sour grapes from losing contestants, except for a few cosmetic things that didn't affect the game.
In general, I'm predisposed to believing that the rules are being followed behind the scenes. That's why I'm as surprised as anybody to find myself wildly suspicious of Fifth Grader.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'147751\' date=\'Mar 10 2007, 11:41 AM\'] [quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'147747\' date=\'Mar 10 2007, 11:32 AM\']
At risk of engaging circuitous logic, he wouldn't admit to such a thing, given that it's, well, illegal. That he hasn't admitted to it doesn't make me any more satisfied than Dan Enright saying, "What answers?"[/quote]
Pat Sajak hasn't admitted giving the contestants answers on Wheel of Fortune either. You seem to be saying that since Burnett has been accused, he therefore must be under suspicion until his innocence is proven. I'm saying that all the Survivor accusations I've heard just sound like sour grapes from losing contestants, except for a few cosmetic things that didn't affect the game.
In general, I'm predisposed to believing that the rules are being followed behind the scenes. That's why I'm as surprised as anybody to find myself wildly suspicious of Fifth Grader.
[/quote]
Pat Sajak has never been accused or suspected of shinanigans before this. Mark Burnett has. While legally there's no difference, in practicality there is, and we both know it. And while Wheel of Fortune is edited, what gets edited is generally dead air.
The big reason you've never paid attention to this sort of thing from him before is because he's applying his brand of producing to a game show instead of a reality show. It's much easier to give the benefit of the doubt to something that is "scripted" from the footage that they shoot to generate tension and a plot that might not otherwise exist. Every producer of reality TV does it, but not all of them cross the line into influencing results. Here, it seems like he is, and in a genre of programming that we both enjoy. So it's kind of hard to ignore things like this.
-
Just a couple weeks ago a teen lost the Jeopardy teen tournment becuase he couldn't multiply by 2 under pressure.
Why is is so hard to beleive a 5th grade couldn't divide by 2 under pressure.
I know i missed more than one college math test question becuase under pressure I thought something like 16/2 = 9.
-
[quote name=\'Chuck Sutton\' post=\'147758\' date=\'Mar 10 2007, 12:09 PM\']
Just a couple weeks ago a teen lost the Jeopardy teen tournment becuase he couldn't multiply by 2 under pressure.
Why is is so hard to beleive a 5th grade couldn't divide by 2 under pressure.
[/quote]
Because, given paper, I still don't believe that a teen would blow multiplying by 2.
-
[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'147752\' date=\'Mar 10 2007, 01:44 PM\'] While legally there's no difference, in practicality there is, and we both know it. [/quote]
Well...no. I understand the "where there's smoke there's fire" logic, but that doesn't make it true. And despite what you said above, I have been paying close attention to the Survivor stories. That's why I feel confident in saying that no one's ever been able to come close to making a convincing case that Burnett ever manipulated the outcomes.
On the other hand, with Fifth Grader, we know several things to be facts:
1) The kids are actors, without being identified as such.
2) The kids are wearing earpieces.
3) A disclaimer that appears on the screen in tiny print for only a second or two says that the kids have been quizzed in advance, and that some of the questions they were asked may turn up on the show.
We can talk about degrees, but given the contestants' reliance on the kids' answers, that third one clearly affects the outcome of the game. The others just raise suspicions.
-
Fair enough. This is a disagreement we have had before, and one we will probably have again.