“How Much is Enough?” Review

21 Dec

Posted by Alex Davis as GSN, How Much is Enough?, Review

GSN is launching a new original on Tuesday, January 8th, called How Much Is Enough?. The game is honestly excessively simplistic and easy. A clock starts from $0 and goes to a predetermined dollar value or starts at a predetermined dollar value and goes to $0. Just don’t be the greediest person (or the cheapest either on the final $5,000 clock) and you win what’s on it. That’s it. No special bells and whistles. Not a gigantic neon set. Just a simple, nicely budgeted game of strategy and some body language, and that’s just fine. By just understanding that it’s not some spectacle of game play amazement, the show comes off as a fun half hour.

One keeping this show afloat is host Corbin Bernsen. He is absolutely fantastic. If he’s reading a teleprompter I can’t tell, and that’s what comes from a host who has TV experience and knows how to do things. With all due respect to people like Dylan Lane of Chain Reaction, if someone like him hosted the show would be terrible. Corbin keeps the game moving, can slow down the game and talk to the contestants while not making it boring, and creates a nice level of tension. Speaking of tension, watch out for the final clock where you’ll see tens of thousands of dollars available. Beyond Grand Slam, it’s the one of the more suspenseful thing I’ve seen on GSN in quite some time.

Honestly, if GSN tried to play it any more than it is, it would be bad. Admittedly, there is basically no gameplay. You’re just sitting and watching players hit buttons as money increases. However, they do a nice job of attempting a big split screen so you can see some of the body language players do to psych opponents out. Two of my biggest gripes about Duel is that you really can’t see if the contestants are bluffing, and even if they are it doesn’t seem to be doing any good. It’s doing some good here. It’s not over the heads of the contestants.

After the clock has run its course, players on How Much Is Enough? give exact details of why they buzzed in at a time, even down to seeing opponent’s eye twitches. Players jitter and shake and use as much body language as they can to convince their opponents that that they are calm and have buzzed in, making the opponent stay longer and more money available. This also comes from the fact that contestants aren’t brought in from the Endemol farm. They are normal, every day people who don’t scream every two seconds.

This isn’t to say there are issues. I really enjoyed the preview episode. However, this may have potential to get boring after the forty-episode season has run its course. This is not the type of show that’s going to rerun well also. This show is going to heavily rely on the contestants. If they don’t have interesting contestants who will attempt to psych others out, it’s going to get old quickly.

What could be changed? The stage setup is a bit odd. The set looks horrendously small because of this. Some round set would have been better, where all players can see each other at all times. GSN’s tried explaining it, but there are really weird “lighting fixtures” hanging above the audience that look like they came from the 60s and just do not blend in at all. If they serve a purpose on the set then I am missing it completely. Final note on the stage setup: how about instead of buzzers behind the backs we place the buzzers on the podiums with a casing around it and allow players to hit it from there? You can do more arm movement fake-outs like that. Also, I hate to say it, but the music is a bit crummy. They try for something suspenseful and militaristic, but it comes off overly synthesized.

Why am I not suggesting changes to the game play? Quite simply because I am taking it for what it is. If I tried to suggest game play changes, the entire thing would have to be different. They do all they can with the concept. You have to know when to hold it and, like the title says, how much is enough. If you’re expecting some gigantic spectacle of game wizardry from the people at GSN, then don’t bother because you’ll be upset. If you go in like I did knowing what it is and just expect a quick, painless, enjoyable; suspenseful half hour game of nerves of steel and some strategy; you will be happy. It has a better budget than most daily GSN shows since WinTuition, looks nice, and plays nice. Does it completely turn the genre on its head? No. Does it do what it’s supposed to do and entertain? It does so exceptionally. The show is perfectly made for short 40-episode half hour blasts. If they can keep it up and throw in more tweaks as the series goes on with time, then enough is never enough for How Much Is Enough.

How Much Is Enough? debuts on Tuesday, January 8th, at 9:00PM ET. It is not run twice. Another show will be seen at 9:30PM ET. What is it? You’ll find out soon enough…..

If you have questions about the format or anything involving the show, leave a comment and we’ll answer as soon as we can.

8 Responses

Matt
1
December 21st, 2007 at 10:36 am

is your new show going to be on at 930????
Alex Davis
2
December 21st, 2007 at 10:52 am

No, another show which will be stated soon is going at 9:30PM ET.
Martin
3
December 21st, 2007 at 12:04 pm

I am excited that the show is good half-hour. And I cannot say how much it makes me happy the host is not horrifying.

I am so happy that someone finally called out the fact that Dylan Lane is a terrible host! He has no personality and clearly reads of the teleprompter. The times that he is engaging the contestants it is just a boring sorta awkward conversation!

Thank you GSN for finally waking up! P.S. Does anyone remember when Bob Goen was the host of Wheel of Fortune? I watch an episode online yesterday…and seriously he was a really good WOF host although the $50 space on the wheel is really ridiculous.
Mark
4
December 21st, 2007 at 3:23 pm

So basically, if the producers send you an advance copy of a new show you will love it regardless, but if there’s a great show that the network doesn’t allow you to see in advance (see: Duel), you’ll hate it.
Marc Power
5
December 21st, 2007 at 6:10 pm

why the Dyaln Lane bashing? I think he’s okay, he’s no Bill Cullen for sure but thank god he’s also no patrick Wayne. in time, he’ll get better. I still say the format sounds too simplistic but I’ll wait until I see it before I lock in with an opinion.
Alex Davis
6
December 21st, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Not at all, Mark, and that’s a really horrible assumption to make. I say I like a show if I like it and don’t if I don’t. I’ve given more negative marks to shows I’ve been sent than positive. Chain Reaction, the first few episodes of 1 VS 100, Bingo Night, Show Me the Money, and many others are on the list of negatives. It just happens that I like it. I can count how many shows I’ve liked recently on my right hand out of the bunch.

A screener copy wouldn’t stop the issues I see with Duel. I honestly don’t see why I’ve been getting so much hostility for not liking Duel. I just have many issues, like Greenberg being underused, a poor tournament format, relatively boring gameplay, and relatively annoying contestants; all in my opinion. I’ve given these points repeatedly. And yet I didn’t like it because I didn’t get a copy in advance? You read right through me.
Haterade
7
December 21st, 2007 at 7:20 pm

Well I for one DID see an advanced copy before it (Duel) went out to the public. This is just not a likable game. Sorry. Too many flaws, too slow pacing, too many rules that do not make sense, too much unfair play that stilts the game towards people and against others, etc. The advantage that Alex gets is that he spent less time in the bathroom than I did, when my stomach turned over. Or perhaps it was the stomach flu here in the NYC area. Either way, France owes us an apology (then again, we did ship over to them National Bingo Night, so maybe we’re even).

BTW, I also saw How Much Is Enough. I don’t nearly like it as much as Alex does. There are many flaws in that show as well, and although it is a change of pace from quizzers and word games, I don’t know how much legs the idea has.

G.
Neville
8
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 am

Marc Power, I agree with you on both points - Lane and ‘Enough?’ I just think that ‘Enough?’ will be: A. an exercise in game theory and B. biased towards contestants who don’t ‘need’ the money, as they’ll just ring in early to be the winner as opposed to playing for a large amount (say, to get out of debt or pay for an upcoming wedding) If there’s multi-round action, tehn it might work for me. One of my biggest gripes with ‘Friend or Foe’ was this same problem - your partner picks foe = you get nothing. Even though a lot of money may be able to be won (according to Alex’s number crunching,) it may just turn out that its low amounts that are won.

A random - but related! - thought: I’d like to see more games with ‘Wheel’s and ‘Feud’s notion of giving EARNED prizes to losing contestants. Yes, ‘Jeopardy!’ makes sense, and they do the $2,000 and $1,000 business, but it seems like other shows could benefit from this. I’m thinking primarily of shows like ‘Lingo,’ ‘That’s the Question,’ and now ‘How Much is Enough?’ It just seems to me that on Lingo that the points in the main game could be dollars! Why not? On ‘Question,’ give away ten dollars a point! I’d like to think that a good good contestant should get at least some reward for playing well even though he got put up against a monster. Perhaps there will be some element of all of the four players ‘earning their keep’ on ‘Enough?’ That’s just a trend I’d like to see - let losers earn their parting gifts, either based on points or place.