The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: vexer6 on August 01, 2011, 03:19:32 PM
-
So, anyone else heard about this new game show? It premieres tomorrow night on ABC, it sounds pretty decent, might watch it if there's nothing else on. Here's some more info on the show
http://abcmedianet.com/assets/pr%5Chtml/051611_17.html (http://"http://abcmedianet.com/assets/pr%5Chtml/051611_17.html")
-
So, anyone else heard about this new game show?
Yes I have, Geoff.
(Yes, I plan to watch. It may be summer fluff, but it looks like an interesting idea, at least from what the teasers tell us.)
-
Sounds similar to the Russian game show "The Intercept" but with money instead of a stolen car.
-
will take reality television to a whole new level.
This statement could be interpreted more than one way (emphasis added).
-
The show had me hooked. It's fun to play along, at least with the concept of "where would I hide it if I had the opportunity?". I don't think the show has huge long-term potential, but it'll be fun to watch for a few episodes, at least.
If you missed it or didn't know about it, you can watch the first episode online:
abc.go.com/takethemoneyandrun (http://"http://abc.go.com/takethemoneyandrun")
Don't click on the spoiler if you don't want to know the outcome. Also, do NOT read any of the comments on the webpage with the episode player as they also spoil the outcome.
The brother that spilled the beans -- what a maroon! That part frustrated me. I think I could hold it together for 48 hours in solitary.
-
I have to agree with knagl on this. The show has potential, but this episode left me really unsatisfied. I'm not sure whether it was bad editing, bad contestant screening, or a flaw in the game.
For the first 40 minutes or so I kept wondering if they'd pull out some sort of "Prisoner's Dilemma" deal ("Here, we'll give you $25,000 if you tell us where it is.") Of course, that would mean that it would make more sense to make up teams of people who aren't related and could more easily choose to break the team and play for themselves. Perhaps we might see this in a future show?
-
The part of the first episode that rubbed me the wrong way was that it was the interrogators that got the location of the briefcase out of the brother, and the investigators just had to go pick it up. I felt that they didn't do much work to win the prize. I enjoyed the 2nd episode a lot more.
Rich
-
For the first 40 minutes or so I kept wondering if they'd pull out some sort of "Prisoner's Dilemma" deal ("Here, we'll give you $25,000 if you tell us where it is.")
That isn't the prisoner's dilemma, that's a bail out button.
One of the problems I have is that I don't know what rules are in play during the interrogation. Do players have to answer questions, even with just gibberish or an outlandish lie? It looks like they can't deprive the runners from food or sleep, nor have them stay in a stress position either, so like we saw in the second episode all a team has to do is get away sufficiently from their car and the detectives are in a pickle.
The other big problem I had was when the female questioner tried to take away the moral high ground by going on and on about "do your teach your kids that lying is bad?" That really irritated me, since deception is an acceptable part of the game, and the game does not take place within the bounds of normal life.
-
The other big problem I had was when the female questioner tried to take away the moral high ground by going on and on about "do your teach your kids that lying is bad?"
Hey, if the detective wants to waste her time asking utterly irrelevant questions, I see no reason to stop her. 'Cuz if it's me, I look her dead in the eye and say "Absolutely!" with no moral twinges whatsoever for exactly the reason you describe.
I then follow up by inviting her to play some poker, if she has such a hard-on for the truth. :)
-
From the TiVo forums I visit, I got this link that explains some of the rules: http://blog.jbfilms.com/?p=795 The biggest question that seems to surface - is that Yes the contestants need to answer the questions they are asked - they don't have to tell the truth, but they have to give at least a plausible answer.
Rich
-
I got this link that explains some of the rules: http://blog.jbfilms.com/?p=795 The biggest question that seems to surface - is that Yes the contestants need to answer the questions they are asked - they don't have to tell the truth, but they have to give at least a plausible answer.
That was implied by the female detective in the 2nd episode -- she said, "you have to answer" at one point. Thank you for that link -- it tied up a few loose ends in my mind (especially that they have to remain together while hiding the briefcase -- that foiled my plan). At the same time, though, it'd sure be nice if the full rules for the game were made available to the public. This isn't a clear-cut Q & A quiz show -- it's a game where the full rules, whatever they are, aren't clear just by watching an episode, and that's a little bit of an issue.
-
Okay, so I'm watching this for the first time.
I agree that the full ruleset needs to be available someplace, because the strongarm techniques COMPLETELY perplex me otherwise. You get this lady yelling at the contestant about being a smartass and about lying to her, and I'm sitting here thinking "Um, duh, there's no rule that says she has to be PLEASANT while you're making completely toothless threats." And while I understand they are required to answer all questions, if they're permitted to lie, why bother calling them on it? Yes, they're lying, it's legal, and playing Bad Cop might be good TV, but if I'm the contestant I'm going to sneer at you and keep giving you the same plausible lie over and over and over again and you're just wasting your time looking like an asshat.
I dunno. I just don't get it. At all.
-
Imagine getting an hour to hide the case somewhere and then having to endure two days in Val's octagon, because that's what it seems like. The game doesn't take place in a vacuum, these are real people, and two of the games have ended in favor of the detectives because the crooks cracked under the stress of the investigation.
-
Imagine getting an hour to hide the case somewhere and then having to endure two days in Val's octagon, because that's what it seems like.
...except you know Val isn't going to put you through anything worse than a verbal tongue-lashing and you can sleep whenever you're not being questioned or recording confessionals for the show.
The game doesn't take place in a vacuum, these are real people, and two of the games have ended in favor of the detectives because the crooks cracked under the stress of the investigation.
Then that goes back to my issue about not knowing what the rules really are, because in the absence of any other information, it seems absolutely trivial to come up with a theoretically possible lie, stick to it, and laugh at the cops when they use techniques that only really have an effect when the possibility of genuine criminal punishment exists.
-
You have a gub?
-
Then that goes back to my issue about not knowing what the rules really are, because in the absence of any other information, it seems absolutely trivial to come up with a theoretically possible lie, stick to it, and laugh at the cops when they use techniques that only really have an effect when the possibility of genuine criminal punishment exists.
Which is perfectly legal:
Why do the contestants answer questions during interrogation? Why don't they just remain silent for 48 hours?
A: Rules state that the contestant must answer the questions they are asked and may not use an answer that is gibberish or impossible (i.e. "The case is on the Moon"). In exchange for having to do that, they may lie and be as creative as they like about it, as long as it is plausible. How well can you deceive the experts? Will they catch you spinning a web of lies? Will they find your achilles heel?
-
Imagine getting an hour to hide the case somewhere and then having to endure two days in Val's octagon, because that's what it seems like. The game doesn't take place in a vacuum, these are real people, and two of the games have ended in favor of the detectives because the crooks cracked under the stress of the investigation.
I haven't seen the show so it's probably not fair for me to comment, but in general, I tend to agree with Chris. Because they're not crooks and detectives, they're "crooks" and "detectives". If I'm a "crook", and I want to say that the money is stored in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnalls' porch, what's going to make me change my story? Some other game show contestant yelling at me? Please.
All I can figure is that the producers have found "crooks" who lack the ability to separate between what's real and what's reality television. Which, honestly, probably wasn't that hard for them to do.
-
All I can figure is that the producers have found "crooks" who lack the ability to separate between what's real and what's reality television. Which, honestly, probably wasn't that hard for them to do.
This is one of the best lines I've ever read about reality tv contestants. Spot on.
-
If I'm a "crook", and I want to say that the money is stored in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnalls' porch, what's going to make me change my story?
"The GPS coordinates from your getaway car that we received at the beginning of your incarceration show that you were nowhere near Funk & Wagnalls. But this parking stub from the garage on Frenulator Avenue shows you parked for twelve minutes. What did you do there?"
-
If I'm a "crook", and I want to say that the money is stored in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnalls' porch, what's going to make me change my story?
"The GPS coordinates from your getaway car that we received at the beginning of your incarceration show that you were nowhere near Funk & Wagnalls. But this parking stub from the garage on Frenulator Avenue shows you parked for twelve minutes. What did you do there?"
I played Angry Birds. What's it to you?
My point is, this guy is just another contestant, and I know that. He's my opponent, and I'm not going to help him.
Now, if he's able to deduce my comings and goings through dogged detective work, then good for him. But if this game comes down to an "interrogation" (and again, that's in quotes for a reason), then I win.
-
I played Angry Birds. What's it to you?
I prefer Crush the Castle myself, but that's neither here nor there.
Now, if he's able to deduce my comings and goings through dogged detective work, then good for him. But if this game comes down to an "interrogation" (and again, that's in quotes for a reason), then I win.
And detective work is a huge part of the game. The detectives are given the entire GPS path of the getaway hour (which means they know when and where someone stops); they have all text messages sent and received, they have the phone numbers called incoming and outgoing, they know that the team had a hundred dollars, so they also see how much was spent and the team has to turn over any receipts for stuff or services during the hour. The detectives also do things like look at the soles of shoes to see if there's grains of sand or grass there and if that might lead to a particular kind of location. They match the driving to the phone calls to see if there are particular time periods that are more likely to be when the case was stashed, and when the team was driving and couldn't have done a drop. The interrogation makes for more arresting television, but there's also a whole bunch of boots on the ground detective work happening in those two days--knocking on doors, interviewing shopkeepers and that sort of deal. If the pair of detectives find the money, they divide it; the interrogators are there pro bono for each police pair.
If you would enjoy watching a game show/police procedural, you'd enjoy it. If you wouldn't, you wouldn't.
-
And detective work is a huge part of the game.
I am immediately more interested. Our conversation had centered around the interrogation and the fact that at least two pairs of numbskulls fell victim to it. This sounds like much more fun. If Survivor is the reality version of Lost, then it sounds like this is the reality version of Law & Order?
-
then it sounds like this is the reality version of Law & Order?
You are about nine-tenths there, yes.
-
"The GPS coordinates from your getaway car that we received at the beginning of your incarceration show that you were nowhere near Funk & Wagnalls. But this parking stub from the garage on Frenulator Avenue shows you parked for twelve minutes. What did you do there?"
Again, hence, plausible.
They were in Chicago last night. After hiding the briefcase, drive within a few blocks of Ditka's Bar & Grill, stop for a couple of rounds of Angry Birds, and tell them you put the case under a table where four guys with the same bushy moustache and sunglasses were sitting. No, you didn't talk to them, because you didn't want to be subject to the rule where accomplices have to be available for questioning.
Do not deviate from that story. Ever.
"You're lying! Our people went there and found nothing!"
"Not my problem. Tell Craft Services to bring me a sammich on the way out."
For every other stop they ask you about, you tell them you stopped the car and played Angry Birds. Man, that game is addictive!
I agree with the points about the rest of the evidence being potentially useful, but I see not one reason a plausible alibi can't be drummed up based solely on location, and no reason AT ALL to cooperate with an interrogator who is threatening you, because that approach is utterly pointless when it's Just A Game. If they can find it using the rest of the evidence, fantastic, they would have had that anyhow, but it's trivial not to help them through the questioning, and for the sake of drama, the program they present places a LARGE emphasis on the interrogation angle.
I agree with Matt, they simply found morons for contestants where anyone with a modicum of sense should win the game handily. And that to me isn't interesting television. The part they emphasize, for my money, is absolutely the weakest part of the show.