-
Greetings to all. Brian Sapinski, Sonic Whammy, reporting on behalf of myself, Chuck Donegan and Robert Brown.
Today's pilot performance provided a very interesting show, and it had a lot of the elements that were discussed here before. Now... I don't know exactly how much I can say here, as I do want to follow the rules of the board.
For now, I'll discuss the general layout of things. If I'm allowed to talk about the format, tell me and I'll throw that in later (provided Chuck or someone else doesn't do it themselves).
SETUP:
Ken's desk is center stage, while the 5 players he faces are stage right, and they share a desk which is Match Game 98-esque (3 over 2, names in front, score readouts next to names). Host's podium stage left with the world map/category board. In back of the set behind Ken is a monitor (overhead projector) sporting the show's logo and any visual questions. Overall, the whole thing looks, as Michael Davies called it, like the vision of a drunken college student who is obsessed with international geography and the United Nations. Personally, we all agreed that the set, along with the logo, screamed "Where In The World Is Carmen Sandiego?" to us. Not that we minded.
THE HOST:
Joe Wagner is his name. LA comedian, as has been said. Davies said he chose him for the same reason he chose Jimmy Kimmel 10 years ago for Win Ben Stein's Money: He made Michael laugh 'til his cheeks hurt. And he was very funny. I wonder if perhaps they shouldn't have let him make a joke after every question, but he was still good.
KEN:
Just what you would expect of him. Came out at the beginning in a wacky Japanese getup to welcome us all. He read a set of cue cards in Japanese - and very convincingly accented, too - as a power-suited lady translated what he said periodically. Even during the show, threw a couple of jokes back at Joe which the crowd enjoyed. In short, he hasn't lost a step at all, although I was surprised at a couple of questions he didn't know.
Overall, the whole thing looks very promising. So what do you think so far?
-
[quote name=\'Sonic Whammy\' date=\'Jul 26 2005, 09:09 PM\']Greetings to all. Brian Sapinski, Sonic Whammy, reporting on behalf of myself, Chuck Donegan and Robert Brown.
T Overall, the whole thing looks very promising. So what do you think so far?
[snapback]92358[/snapback]
[/quote]
I am going to watch it.
-
[quote name=\'PaulD\' date=\'Jul 26 2005, 09:30 PM\'][quote name=\'Sonic Whammy\' date=\'Jul 26 2005, 09:09 PM\']Greetings to all. Brian Sapinski, Sonic Whammy, reporting on behalf of myself, Chuck Donegan and Robert Brown.
T Overall, the whole thing looks very promising. So what do you think so far?
[snapback]92358[/snapback]
[/quote]
I am going to watch it.
[snapback]92361[/snapback]
[/quote]
Good to know. Anything else you'd like to add?
-
Any word on auditions or taping schedules?
-
Well, so long as it's safe to talk about the game, I will.
(BTW, no exact word today on taping schedules. IIRC, they said during auditions that they wanted to do something around Sept/Oct, if that's any help.)
FORMAT:
This is, as I said, 5 players representing "the rest of the world" playing against Ken. The group has a common theme to them. Today, obviously, was "game show enthusiasts", but it can be anyone from (as the Playbill said) "Guys named Steve from Brooklyn" to "Ivy League college women in their third semester".
Round 1 starts with 6 categories, one for each of the 6 main continents. Each player in turn chooses one, and 3 1-point questions are played. Anytime a player buzzes in and gets it right, they get a point which is also added to the "World Bank" (more on that later). Ken also plays for points for his own bank. After all 6 categories are played, the two with the lowest scores are eliminated, but the "World Bank" does not decrease with their departure.
Round 2 is the same, expect there are 2 less categories for 2 less players. Questions are now worth 2 points. On the 4th category, Ken sits out, and 5 questions are asked instead of 3. The player with the highest score at the end of this round wins a prize, and earns the right to face Ken.
The final round now involves the "World Bank" and Ken's bank. Each of the banks are multiplied by $100. Ken's bank represents the amount he's playing for for a charity. The "World Bank" equals what the survivor is trying to win for EACH person in "the rest of the world". So if it's 20 points, that's $2000 for me, for you, for the 3rd guy, etc.
The player answers 13 questions (very odd #, I would've knocked that down one) in 60 seconds. Answers are displayed on the monitor, but not evaulated yet. After the minute, the other 4 contestants who were knocked out before get to confer and change one answer of the player's. (This makes sense since this person is playing for them, too.) Afterwards, those answers are covered as Ken comes back on stage and answers the same questions.
After Ken goes, answers are compared and scored simultaneously. High score wins the money in their bank. Interestingly enough, in case of a tie, EVERYONE wins!
Well, that's everything I have here. Feel free to comment more. I'll share as much as you want that I can remember.
-
I see a glaring flaw in this concept. Let's see if y'all can think of what that flaw might be.
-
Um...why is the "winner" playing for him and the four losers in the bonus, perhaps? All he gets above those he defeated is a (likely cheap) prize.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'Sonic Whammy\' date=\'Jul 26 2005, 10:20 PM\']High score wins the money in their bank. Interestingly enough, in case of a tie, EVERYONE wins!
[/quote]
Oh boy! Just like in Mrs. Smith's 3rd grade classroom playing Hangman!
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 01:03 AM\']I see a glaring flaw in this concept. Let's see if y'all can think of what that flaw might be.
[snapback]92399[/snapback]
[/quote]
I have two ideas:
-It seems possible that Ken could very well clean out every single question, and thus, the team is left to play for nothing. I'm sure it would be rare, but it's a thought. Although, I wonder if they'd do a house minimum like Wheel and J! do.
-What if, in round 1, only one or two contestants get on the board? What about the other 3? Will there be a tie-breaker to get someone on the board?
Other than that, there's 7 continents in the world, yet only 6 are represented on the show? Not that it makes too much difference, but I still find it interesting.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 04:31 AM\'][quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 01:03 AM\']I see a glaring flaw in this concept. Let's see if y'all can think of what that flaw might be.
[snapback]92399[/snapback]
[/quote]
I have two ideas:
-It seems possible that Ken could very well clean out every single question, and thus, the team is left to play for nothing. I'm sure it would be rare, but it's a thought. Although, I wonder if they'd do a house minimum like Wheel and J! do.
-What if, in round 1, only one or two contestants get on the board? What about the other 3? Will there be a tie-breaker to get someone on the board?
Other than that, there's 7 continents in the world, yet only 6 are represented on the show? Not that it makes too much difference, but I still find it interesting.
[snapback]92404[/snapback]
[/quote]
There used to be a slaughter rule to address your first concern, but they got rid of it. I don't know what the rule entailed though. I had the same concern as you, but he has to beat in five other players the first round, and during my mock game we beat him in enough.
There were tiebreakers at the end of each round of the runthrough I particpated in.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 02:31 AM\']Other than that, there's 7 continents in the world, yet only 6 are represented on the show? Not that it makes too much difference, but I still find it interesting.
[snapback]92404[/snapback]
[/quote]
I don't think the residents of Antarctica will be too offended.
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 11:19 AM\']I don't think the residents of Antarctica will be too offended.
[/quote]
"That...is totally condescencing."
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 03:09 PM\'][quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 11:19 AM\']I don't think the residents of Antarctica will be too offended.
[/quote]
"That...is totally condescencing."
[snapback]92435[/snapback]
[/quote]
To make things worse, I've learned there will be no questions about cavemen or their history. But I did get some good news today about my car insurance.
-
I had the same concern as you, but he has to beat in five other players the first round, and during my mock game we beat him in enough.
How difficult was the material in your run-thru?
If the material is too difficult, you're going to have a hard time finding contestants who can stand up to Ken (and who haven't already been on Jeopardy!). If the material is not difficult enough, you might as well be playing The Joker's Wild.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 01:03 AM\']I see a glaring flaw in this concept. Let's see if y'all can think of what that flaw might be.
[snapback]92399[/snapback]
[/quote]
Or is the glaring flaw that the game play sounds ridiculously boring? (Unless it plays better than it reads, or the host and Ken really are as funny as Ben and Jimmy.)
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 01:03 AM\']I see a glaring flaw in this concept. Let's see if y'all can think of what that flaw might be.
[snapback]92399[/snapback]
[/quote]
It seems like the final category is a little too heavily weighted points-wise. (18 possible in the 1st round w/ 6 players (5+Ken), 18 in the first part of the 2nd round w/ 4 players (3+Ken), 15 in the final category alone w/ 3 players).
And what kind of questions could you do other than $oTC-type ones so you can get 13 out in 60 seconds for the final round?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 06:21 PM\']
I had the same concern as you, but he has to beat in five other players the first round, and during my mock game we beat him in enough.
How difficult was the material in your run-thru?
If the material is too difficult, you're going to have a hard time finding contestants who can stand up to Ken (and who haven't already been on Jeopardy!). If the material is not difficult enough, you might as well be playing The Joker's Wild.
[snapback]92448[/snapback]
[/quote]
I would say the material was difficult. The tryout test I took was difficult and was surprised I passed it. They will have to pick intelligent people for this show.
The categories are all over the map (pardon the pun), such as the human body, hip-hop music, sports, movie quotations rewritten (had to supply the quotation and the movie), Caribbean islands (IIRC), game shows, literature, and politicians. So even if Ken is strong in traditional categories, there will be some non-traditional categories that he will not do well in probably.
The bonus round questions were of the form, Churtle from Dr. Suess is what type of animal, or what spice is also the capital of French Guyana. I didn't make it through all of them in 60 seconds, but Ken, used to the format, did. The original format supposedly only had nine questions in the final round, but probably Ken went through them too quickly.
The day of my run-thru I did not find the host nor Ken to be particularly funny, although I was very nervous and focused on the task at hand. I don't think the format allows Ken to show his personality much, but perhaps he was having an off day. I did not think the format was anything special, and it felt like a ripoff of Win Ben Stein's Money.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 05:21 PM\']
I had the same concern as you, but he has to beat in five other players the first round, and during my mock game we beat him in enough.
How difficult was the material in your run-thru?
If the material is too difficult, you're going to have a hard time finding contestants who can stand up to Ken (and who haven't already been on Jeopardy!). If the material is not difficult enough, you might as well be playing The Joker's Wild.
[snapback]92448[/snapback]
[/quote]
As the guy who was on stage for the run-thru, I can say the question level was similar to WBSM...same kitschy categories requiring a knowledge of all things smart and all things smartass.
The game itself isn't bad. Yes, it's close to WBSM, but it isn't. The concept is interesting : Ken has proven he can outlast contestants one on one, but can he outlast them five on one?
And, having played with the host in his first runthrough, and on stage, I can say he's coming along. They're trying to play up a comic host who idolizes Ken, and who isn't rooting for the contestants. I know traditionalists will have a problem with this on paper, but know that he's not mean-spirited against the contesti. And, as he warms up, he is improving as a host.
-
the question level was similar to WBSM...same kitschy categories requiring a knowledge of all things smart and all things smartass.
So what do you need Ken for? If the material isn't all that challenging, it makes Ken's participation superfluous.
he is improving as a host
Dick Martin was a fine emcee until he stepped in front of the camera.
-
[quote name=\'Sonic Whammy\' date=\'Jul 26 2005, 10:20 PM\']The final round now involves the "World Bank" and Ken's bank. Each of the banks are multiplied by $100.
[snapback]92366[/snapback]
[/quote]
Aside from not having to purchase and maintain 12 extra digits on the set (assuming the scores are not displayed on monitors), what is the point of waiting to multiply things at the end? Why not just make the questions worth 100 points and 200 points? Better yet, why not just make the questions worth $100 and $200? It sounds bigger.
--
Scott Robinson
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 04:33 PM\']So what do you need Ken for? If the material isn't all that challenging, it makes Ken's participation superfluous.
[/quote]
Three words, one repeated: Dance. Monkey. Dance.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 06:33 PM\']
the question level was similar to WBSM...same kitschy categories requiring a knowledge of all things smart and all things smartass.
So what do you need Ken for? If the material isn't all that challenging, it makes Ken's participation superfluous.
[/quote]
Wait a sec, I didn't say it wasn't challenging....We challenged Ken on a lot of questions, and a few categories, he mopped the floor with us.
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 06:33 PM\']Dick Martin was a fine emcee until he stepped in front of the camera.
[snapback]92462[/snapback]
[/quote]
Well, you've got me there. My response : Davies wanted an unknown. He got one. Kimmel was an unknown years ago, and I thought he was perfect for WBSM. A least better than Pimental and his cousin. I'da sent my tape to him if I thought he was looking for a weatherman wannabe game show host. But, he wasn't.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 06:38 PM\'][quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 04:33 PM\']So what do you need Ken for? If the material isn't all that challenging, it makes Ken's participation superfluous.
[/quote]
Three words, one repeated: Dance. Monkey. Dance.
[snapback]92464[/snapback]
[/quote]
Well...two words, one repeated, actually....
But I think you've made a good point here. Whatever research was done, Q score, Nielsen, whatever, on KenJen, it found that he was likeable enough to potentially carry a show. Is he necessary? Sure. Can a hardcore trivia show exist without him? Yep.
Listen, I know I'm defending the show a lot. Personally, I think there are a few flaws in the format. But i'll root for any new game show that doesn't involve eating live animals, shooting live animals, or sctupping live animals for money. For game show purists out there, it's a new show that has a shot at a prime time slot on a major cable network.
And I think that most of us agree that Michael Davies is one of the best game show guys to come down the pike in a LONG time. So I'm rooting for his success, on this one, "My Kind Of Town", and any other show that he's working on.... he told me about a few he has in the hopper. I was impressed.
-
So Chris C., in your opinion, what's the glaring flaw? Finding questions challenging enough for Ken, but not baffling enough for contestants, or the fact that Ken is, in a way, not really needed? Or something one of us already guessed?
-
Question for those in the audience : Was there some sort of 'playbill' given out? What was in it? And, most importantly, does anyone have an extra copy? The few of us on stage didn't get one.
Thanks in advance.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 06:33 PM\']Dick Martin was a fine emcee until he stepped in front of the camera.
[snapback]92462[/snapback]
[/quote]
(sniff!) You didn't like The Cheap Show ?!?!?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jul 27 2005, 05:29 PM\']So Chris C., in your opinion, what's the glaring flaw? Finding questions challenging enough for Ken, but not baffling enough for contestants, or the fact that Ken is, in a way, not really needed? Or something one of us already guessed?
[snapback]92471[/snapback]
[/quote]
The paradox is this: If the material is challenging enough to test Ken, you're not going to find contestants who are able to compete with him. He will cream all of his opponents, just like the 147 opponents he creamed on Jeopardy! Every match will be lopsided in Ken's favor and the outcome predictable, just like it was on Jeopardy!
If you dumb down the material for the other contestants to the level of "Who killed Abe Lincoln?", what do you need Ken for? It might as well be The Joker's Wild.
a few categories, he mopped the floor with us.
Need I say more?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 11:21 AM\'][The paradox is this: If the material is challenging enough to test Ken, you're not going to find contestants who are able to compete with him. He will cream all of his opponents, just like the 147 opponents he creamed on Jeopardy! Every match will be lopsided in Ken's favor and the outcome predictable, just like it was on Jeopardy!
If you dumb down the material for the other contestants to the level of "Who killed Abe Lincoln?", what do you need Ken for? It might as well be The Joker's Wild.
a few categories, he mopped the floor with us.
Need I say more?
[snapback]92870[/snapback]
[/quote]
Chris' opinion is mostly correct. However, the questions in general are not to the level of who killed Abe Lincoln. He is going against five people, so chances are that one out of five people should know the answer to a question (if they cast people who are good at trivia which I imagine they would), so Ken isn't necessarily going to cream everyone on every question.
One problem with the format is that players get eliminated each round, eliminating the VS. the World or team concept and allowing Ken to be able to dominate more. Another problem I have is the first two rounds have no significance to the third round other than determining the amount of money to be played. If the team element was held throughout the game, it obviously would be harder for Ken to dominate. I wish the head to head matchup involved more of the team participating in it. But perhaps the point of the show is they want Ken to be beaten only rarely. If he was shown to be beaten often, then he is worthy of the job in the first place.
-
I hate to toot my own horn and so on, but I made a post earlier in the thread that I believe showed one of the most glaring flaws in the show's basic format - maybe I read it wrong, but what kind of a show rewards the four losers on a mostly even plain with the "winner?"
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 12:53 PM\']I hate to toot my own horn and so on, but I made a post earlier in the thread that I believe showed one of the most glaring flaws in the show's basic format - maybe I read it wrong, but what kind of a show rewards the four losers on a mostly even plain with the "winner?"
-Jason
[snapback]92880[/snapback]
[/quote]
The way a producer explained it to me, since the team is able to replace an incorrect answer with a correct answer, they are participating in the final. But I agree with you. Either let them play in the finale fully, or send them packing.
-
[quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 11:28 AM\']I wish the head to head matchup involved more of the team participating in it. But perhaps the point of the show is they want Ken to be beaten only rarely. If he was shown to be beaten often, then he is worthy of the job in the first place.
[snapback]92875[/snapback]
[/quote]
I agree--it doesn't appear that the five really get to play as a team very much. If most of the show is spent building the pot that they're not likely to win, it's sort of a waste of time. Also, while the conceit of the game seems to be the five against one thing, finding five capable players for every show won't be easy. Jeopardy couldn't usually find two.
If Ken is to be beaten only rarely, I wonder how rarely. If he loses one out of three or four, it's still interesting. If he only gets beaten a couple of times a season, less so.
-
He is going against five people, so chances are that one out of five people should know the answer to a question (if they cast people who are good at trivia which I imagine they would), so Ken isn't necessarily going to cream everyone on every question.
Again, he's Ken Jennings. He defeated 147 opponents on Jeopardy! I don't think team size will be a mitigating factor.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 03:17 PM\']Again, he's Ken Jennings. He defeated 147 opponents on Jeopardy! I don't think team size will be a mitigating factor.[/quote]
What if there were 148 people per team? Sure, the stage would be quite crowded, but now the common man would have the advantage versus Kenny.
This post was sprinkled with a pinch of sarcasm for taste.
-
If Ken is to be beaten only rarely, I wonder how rarely. If he loses one out of three or four, it's still interesting. If he only gets beaten a couple of times a season, less so.
You make a good point. A lesson learned on the '50s version of Twenty One is that as engaging a contestant as Charles Van Doren was, viewers eventually got tired of seeing him win week after week, at which point the ratings would "plateau" and he would be defeated.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 12:28 PM\']
If Ken is to be beaten only rarely, I wonder how rarely. If he loses one out of three or four, it's still interesting. If he only gets beaten a couple of times a season, less so.
You make a good point. A lesson learned on the '50s version of Twenty One is that as engaging a contestant as Charles Van Doren was, viewers eventually got tired of seeing him win week after week, at which point the ratings would "plateau" and he would be defeated.
[snapback]92892[/snapback]
[/quote]
But how often did Ben Stein lose? One game in ten maybe?
-
A writer for WB$M once told me that they routinely wrote questions that would take advantage of Ben Stein's weak spots. Not to say that's the plan here, and it's also likely that Ken has a lot fewer weak spots than the mighty Mr. Stein, but there are ways to subtly tilt the playing field if they need to.
The wild card here is the humor element. If the show is entertaining regardless of the competiton, then they can more easily get away with flaws in the game. If Ken isn't beaten with at least as much regularity as Ben was, then Chris is right, the game will get old fast.
The only reason Ken lost on Jeopardy is that he finally fell victim to the fluky luck that Daily Doubles and Final Jeopardy clues add to the game. As far as I can tell, there's no similar structure here. In a game of straight-up all-subject trivia, I don't think there are a hundred people in the country who could match up to Ken.
-
The wild card here is the humor element. If the show is entertaining regardless of the competiton, then they can more easily get away with flaws in the game.
Where does humor enter the picture? From every description I've seen it's being played as a straight quiz. Name a show which has successfully combined comedy and straight quiz besides You Bet Your Life, which turned off the comedy when the questions came out.
The producers face two challenges right off the bat: 1) they'll have to come up with five worthy opponents for Ken for each show where Jeopardy! only had to come up with two, and 2) making Ken a likeable figure by losing some of the smugness that came across when he was on Jeopardy! (sorry Ken if you're reading this).
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 04:24 PM\']Where does humor enter the picture? From every description I've seen it's being played as a straight quiz. Name a show which has successfully combined comedy and straight quiz besides You Bet Your Life, which turned off the comedy when the questions came out.[/quote]
Well, the obvious answer would be Win Ben Stein's Money, which this thing is going to be compared to whether Davies likes it or not. It's got a comedian host whom Davies compares to Kimmel, though some would say that's not necessarily high praise. And it is being pitched to Comedy Central, so there better be some humor in it somewhere.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 02:14 PM\']If most of the show is spent building the pot that they're not likely to win, it's sort of a waste of time.
[snapback]92888[/snapback]
[/quote]
*cough*Weakest Link*cough*
-
*cough*Weakest Link*cough*
Yeah, that pot's a guaranteed win, but...
"Scrabble" '93 perhaps? ;)
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 02:17 PM\']Again, he's Ken Jennings. He defeated 147 opponents on Jeopardy!
[snapback]92889[/snapback]
[/quote]
And now, The Don Howard Horanism Of The Day for August 1st 2005: Ken defeated 149 opponents in regular play.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 04:17 PM\']It's got a comedian host whom Davies compares to Kimmel
[snapback]92902[/snapback]
[/quote]
Rule #1 if one wants to make a good impression in The House Of Howard: Don't compare someone's style to another performer's. Let him do his own thing without placing those expectations in someone's mind.
-
Ben Stein is a witty guy and Ken Jennings ... ???
Where I see humor entering the picture is that Ken sweeps match after match and the show eventually becomes a mockery of itself:
"And now let's meet today's contestants. They don't have a snowball's chance against Ken, but they thought they'd give our show a try after being rejected by Jeopardy!".
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 02:36 PM\']Ben Stein is a witty guy and Ken Jennings ... ???
[/quote]
...is reasonably witty as well, at least in my opinion.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 03:50 PM\']The only reason Ken lost on Jeopardy is that he finally fell victim to the fluky luck that Daily Doubles and Final Jeopardy clues add to the game. As far as I can tell, there's no similar structure here. In a game of straight-up all-subject trivia, I don't think there are a hundred people in the country who could match up to Ken.
[snapback]92897[/snapback]
[/quote]
The show will be taped in NYC. With the lack of a high payout, they aren't going to get many people flying in from around the country to challenge Ken, so the challenge will be even greater for them.
The show has some humor in it (the beginning segment for instance), but what I found at my run through was the lack of humor (the pilot as suggested in the first post was funny) and the lack of showing Ken's personality (I thought the producers would direct him to act smugly and like a know-it-all, but he didn't.
I found the banter between Stein and Kimmell to be very funny. I don't think this show will have that.
-
Three words: Doctor Ralph Doty.
Failing that, if Ken is gonna get all the questions right, how about an "equalizer" for the world in the form of a skill contest, i.e., dart-throwing or hoop-shooting, in which the team could catch up without any book lernin'.
-
The show will be taped in NYC. With the lack of a high payout, they aren't going to get many people flying in from around the country to challenge Ken, so the challenge will be even greater for them.
This is a certainly understandable position, but I don't necessarily agree with that. WBSM certainly had a lot of formidable foes willing to try against Ben even with a low payout. I think the show needs to catch on a little bit first like WBSM did. Eventually, people will want to try out for the show not so much for the money (which will probably do nothing more than pay travel expenses) but to be able to say that they took on Ken Jennings and won. I knew a lot of people in high school when the show was popular who just wanted to play WBSM just to beat Ben; if KJ's show catches on, many others may be thinking the same thing.
And another thing: I noticed a lot of comments about the format of the show being flawed and how Ken is essentially going to wipe the floor with everyone. Two comments here:
1. What was reported for the pilot may not necessarily be the final format of the show. It may be tweaked. Plus, what looks horrible on paper may actually be a well-presented, well-executed game (ex. "Match Game '7x!"). I, for one, will not pass judgment until I actually see it on air.
2. Even if Ken wipes the floor with everyone, it's not that big a deal. I love "Stump the Schwab," for example, but only 4 out of 26 contestants who played the bonus round (not counting tournament games where no one beat him) actually did beat the Schwab this past season, and those who didn't got NOTHING for their efforts! Yet I love the show. Same goes with WBSM; I knew many people who watched it in its original run (including myself) and no one seemed to mind that Ben would win all but a handful of games each year. If the game and the show are entertaining enough, this potential "disaster" will be overshadowed, IMO.
I, for one, am looking very forward to seeing this show when it finally hits the air. I think it will be very enjoyable, but, then again, I'll hold my breath until I actually see it...:)
Thanks for reading! :)
Anthony
-
Reasonable minds can differ on what is or isn't "fatally flawed" in terms of game show formats, but I think the prizing setup here is actually pretty sensible. As currently planned, the show's big prize is the gift basket that one player receives just for making it to the endgame. This isn't just Rice-a-Roni and 1,000 Flushes Blue. This is going to be good stuff, with a four-figure total market value. The shared "pot" that all the contestants get to share in is, in reality, much less valuable, since we forecast that winning the endgame won't be an everyday thing (not to compare, but if you insist: a la WBSM).
-
Whoa, hello! Welcome back, Ken!
-
The payout is lower than on WBSM, although I don't know how much the prize basket will be worth. Also, it depends on how your team members do if you do not make it to the finals. With not a lot of questions asked and having to beat in a lot of people, one may have to get lucky in order to reach the final round (I got lucky and reached the final round in my run through, but I don't think I was the best player on my team).
-
[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 06:54 PM\']2. Even if Ken wipes the floor with everyone, it's not that big a deal. I love "Stump the Schwab[/quote]
Ugh. I still can't understand how anyone likes this show. You're entitled to your opinion--albeit a bad one...but I don't understand how the Schwab is likeable at all--he has the personality of a scouring pad.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Aug 2 2005, 06:26 AM\']You're entitled to your opinion--albeit a bad one...but I don't understand how the Schwab is likeable at all--he has the personality of a scouring pad.
[/quote]
Oh, c'mon, now. He appeals to every sports wonk (and I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion) who knows exactly what Don Mattingly hit in 1983 and can rattle off every member school in the Big East, ordered by the year in which they entered the conference. And there are a fair amount of people like that out there.
He's like Zach, except without the Cliff Clavin-esque tendency to interject with inane crap just so he can feel like he's part of the group.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Aug 2 2005, 06:26 AM\']Ugh. I still can't understand how anyone likes this show. [/quote]Chris gave you lots of examples. I'll add some: it was an interesting format, lots of different games, the whole 'sports statistics' thing, and the nifty end game. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't dump on those who do.
You're entitled to your opinion--albeit a bad one...
Gee, when we agree with you, it's OK, but when we don't, it's a 'bad opinion'. I'll take "Double Standards" for $30, Art.
but I don't understand how the Schwab is likeable at all--he has the personality of a scouring pad.
[snapback]92997[/snapback]
He doesn't have to be likeable. For the contestants, he is the enemy: the person those people are there to beat. If he's all smiles and rainbows, then no one will want him to lose. They got it just right.
-
[quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Aug 1 2005, 11:05 PM\']The payout is lower than on WBSM, although I don't know how much the prize basket will be worth. [/quote]
If the game ends up having any of the appeal of WB$M, there will be a decent number of trivia-heads who will want to do it just for the challenge. A great number of successful Jeopardy players challenged themselves against Stein. He was quoted somewhere saying that he didn't understand why people wanted to do it for a relatively small payout, but the truth is that many of your best Jeopardy players will say that the money was secondary to the experience even on that program.
-
Matt is probably right. In another board I read, I often read about potential contestants not wanting to lose their one year game show eligibility (e.g., waiting for Super Millionaire to come back) to win a small amount, but it is not representative of the general population.