pgdownload Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Any thoughts on the new quiz shows? Would love to know what the 'thinking' was behind how each station decided what time they'd start showing an ep. I can only assume that Eddie felt most people would be looking at the tail end of the Rich List and wanted a 'clean' run into 100 to 1 (That and maximising revenue's as 8:30-8:45 would probably have more viewers waiting for 100 to 1 to start. Would have figured that channel flipping and people settling into other shows might be a risk - If Desperate Houswives had not been scheduled to start at 8:45 I wonder if they would have started so late? As for the shows themselves, I can see why the Rich List was cancelled after one ep in the USA - it just doesn't work (although I thought the compare did a credible job of ad-libing his comments) IMO 100-1 has a lot of legs. Should settle down well although the major change from Millionaire is that you don't get to see the question before deciding to dip out. Can't see many contestants moving much past $100,000 when they risk getting a category that they have no idea about - But as 9 have to give away every games prize money regardless (unlike Millionaire) I suspect this is probably a good thing from their point of view As a side note, The lifelines look way open to manipulation - The one used last night (Ask two of the mob contestants what they picked and how certain they were of the answer they gave). With the mob wanting the contestant to crash and burn I'd be downplaying how certain I was of my answer ("I just guessed") if asked for my rationale Regards Peter Gillespie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvduser Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Just more senseless dribble for the masses . Roll on ABC & SBS who provides excellent movies and thought provoking shows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmy Downawell Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I haven't watched the show yet, but I did read this last week: Problems continued during the inaugural taping on Sunday night, when a contestant used the "ask the mob" option to lock in his answer but one of the mob erred in their response.The question was: what is the unit of time comprising 60 seconds? Producers were alerted to the fact after the contestant had submitted his answer and decided to stop filming and replay the question - but the contestant locked in a different answer. Getting it right the second time, the contestant increased his winnings to $134,500 and then retired - robbing the members of the mob of the chance to win. "I'm just horrified, I thought it was so unfair," the witness said. "I believe the people who tune in are going to watch this whiz-bang new show and say 'wow, isn't that great', but 24 people got shafted." Tony Skinner, executive producer of game shows at Nine, categorically denied the accusations. "There was indeed an error in game play by members of the mob wall that had to be rectified," he said. source: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story...8-10229,00.html Hmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freighttrain Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 The question was: what is the unit of time comprising 60 seconds? im intrigued would that be a minute.. ? does this new quiz show have some really dumb people on it or is this how low aussie quiz shows have got with the mentality of quizmania? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonygib Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Any thoughts on the new quiz shows? Nope, none, other then thinking 'I'm not going to waste my time watching any of that', and I didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmy Downawell Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 im intrigued would that be a minute.. ? does this new quiz show have some really dumb people on it or is this how low aussie quiz shows have got with the mentality of quizmania? I know, that sounds like a $100 question on Millionaire, rather than a $134,000 one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EZYHD Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Just more senseless dribble for the masses . Roll on ABC & SBS who provides excellent movies and thought provoking shows I'm with you dvduser, its absolute rubbish, why would anyone want to watch these stupid shows, yep roll on ABC and SBS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minchjp Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Ratings for 1 vs 100 last night: 1,958,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EZYHD Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Ratings for 1 vs 100 last night: 1,958,000 Give them a month or 2 and see what the ratings are then is my guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighead1503560716 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 1 vs 100 will have 15 episodes in its first season. One can assume ratings will fall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thiskl Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Nope, none, other then thinking 'I'm not going to waste my time watching any of that', and I didn't. My sentiments exactly. Prime time is not the place for quiz shows. Illustrates a complete lack of creativity on the part of the networks. IMHO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Kitten Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I haven't watched the show yet, but I did read this last week:source: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story...8-10229,00.html Hmmmm. That story is almost surely bogus, designed solely to get people watching out of curiosity. The question they quote never happened on the show, but last night's contestant did walk away with exactly that amount of money, meaning that must have been the one they were referring to. I strongly suspect, given all the viral marketing Nine has done on Usenet and other forums, that the above "news story" originated in a Nine-generated press release. Oh, as for the shows? Well, 1v100 was tedious - more Endemol bells and whistles to little end, questions so basic a primary school kid could become a millionaire effortlessly (yet somehow the "mob" got them wrong!) and Eddie Maguire in an even slimier performance than before. The Rich List was better, but not by much. The format is too slow. Honestly, if Seven had just stuck with The Master and let it find an audience, they'd be better off than they are now. But then, guess they're scoring all that cash from Nine's use of their studio, so The Rich List probably amortises out to a zero-cost project :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalj Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I'm with you dvduser, its absolute rubbish, why would anyone want to watch these stupid shows, yep roll on ABC and SBS... Um. Excuse Me. But Game shows are the types of shows I like watching, Like yesterday I watched Deal or No Deal, Temptation, The Rich List and 1 Vs 100, Would've watched Quizmania, but I had to go to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1503559538 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Um. Excuse Me. But Game shows are the types of shows I like watching, Like yesterday I watched Deal or No Deal, Temptation, The Rich List and 1 Vs 100, Would've watched Quizmania, but I had to go to bed. All anonymous message board posters are much smarter than the general public. They would only ever watch documentary television and are all highly educated and analytical. They treat game show watchers as "low life vermon". All 2 million of them....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalj Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 All anonymous message board posters are much smarter than the general public. They would only ever watch documentary television and are all highly educated and analytical.They treat game show watchers as "low life vermon". All 2 million of them....... You do realise that I've successfully completed a maths course that you wouldn't have even thought of attempting, like I've done 3 Unit Maths and 4 Unit Maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1503559538 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 What is Maths ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milorad Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 You do realise that I've successfully completed a maths course that you wouldn't have even thought of attempting, like I've done 3 Unit Maths and 4 Unit Maths. Oooh big maths man... I'm quaking in my pocket-protector. Dude, no matter how smart you are (or think you are) there's always someone smarter, so you might wanna reel in that crap a notch or 12. You really don't want other people ****-slapping you with their resume, so don't start swinging yours around, you dig? .... Edit: It just dawned on me that you could be joking... if so, I apologise - but you do a damned good impression of a forum wanker, so excuse me for mistaking you for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinkingbraindog Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Prime time is not the place for quiz shows. Illustrates a complete lack of creativity on the part of the networks.A couple of things keep cropping up in advertising studies and viewer surveys : Audiences show a preference for drama and slightly intelligent game shows. Advertisers prefer dumb game shows, comedy, and 'reality' shows. Why? Audiences like to be engaged by a story, or challenged a bit by a whodunnit puzzle or tricky question (but not too much, in case they feel dumb). Advertisers prefer shows which elicit emotional responses - the "I'm smarter than them!", "that's funny!", or "OMG!" factor - because the viewer is more open to suggestion when emotional. Networks like game shows because they're cheap, simple to make, easy to tweak / recycle the format, satisfy both groups, and can be used for self promotion (e.g. Eddie Everywhere, Robot Sandra, etc). Next time you pick up a TV guide, look at prime-time and compare the amount of drama to the amount of game / comedy / 'reality' shows on commercial channels... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmy Downawell Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 That story is almost surely bogus, designed solely to get people watching out of curiosity. The question they quote never happened on the show, but last night's contestant did walk away with exactly that amount of money, meaning that must have been the one they were referring to.I strongly suspect, given all the viral marketing Nine has done on Usenet and other forums, that the above "news story" originated in a Nine-generated press release. Oh, as for the shows? Well, 1v100 was tedious - more Endemol bells and whistles to little end, questions so basic a primary school kid could become a millionaire effortlessly (yet somehow the "mob" got them wrong!) and Eddie Maguire in an even slimier performance than before. The Rich List was better, but not by much. The format is too slow. OK, having watched the show, perhaps that story was a plant by Nine, as you say that question was never asked. I agree that The Rich List was the better of the two shows, but both got very tiresome after an hour. And Eddie himself is reason enough to want to switch off, so I won't watch 1 v 100 again. And I'll give Rich List another chance but it'll probably be the last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonygib Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Next time you pick up a TV guide, look at prime-time and compare the amount of drama to the amount of game / comedy / 'reality' shows on commercial channels... Any time I pick up a TV guide, my usual response is, seen it, seen it, seen it.... don't care, don't care, wouldn't watch that rubbish. Only very rarely do I hit, hmmm, must check that out, usually limited to soemthing like The Cutting Edge (once in a while) or something like Spitfire Ace or Speed Machines on the ABC. So I wonder if thats the type of emotional responses that advertisers are looking for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinkingbraindog Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 So I wonder if thats the type of emotional responses that advertisers are looking for No, but you and I are what are known in statistics as "outliers".As opposed to advertisers, who are known by everyone else as "out-and-out-liars" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thiskl Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 A couple of things keep cropping up in advertising studies and viewer surveys : Audiences show a preference for drama and slightly intelligent game shows. Advertisers prefer dumb game shows, comedy, and 'reality' shows. Why? Audiences like to be engaged by a story, or challenged a bit by a whodunnit puzzle or tricky question (but not too much, in case they feel dumb). Advertisers prefer shows which elicit emotional responses - the "I'm smarter than them!", "that's funny!", or "OMG!" factor - because the viewer is more open to suggestion when emotional. Networks like game shows because they're cheap, simple to make, easy to tweak / recycle the format, satisfy both groups, and can be used for self promotion (e.g. Eddie Everywhere, Robot Sandra, etc). I guess I'm simply not part of the target demographic of the either the networks or advertisers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmy Downawell Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Just watching last night's Rich List, I thought it was pretty unfair to ask for the "top 50 boys' names, according to the NSW Bureau of Statistics" without specifying from what year. At face value the question implied "...of all time", but as could be spotted by the resulting list it was from babies born in 2005 or 2006. John would certainly have been on the list "of all time", unlike Jack, Laughlan, Zachary, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Kitten Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 As I mentioned in another thread, their Beatles #1 singles list was stacked with completely false answers. And the final win-the-big-dollars list was a joke - the works of Bryce Courtenay? Nobody would have a snowflake's chance in hell of naming 15 of them. Though the couple that had a chance to really blew it on a completely obvious one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts