Media Life Reviews “Grand Slam”: “Infuriating and embarrassing hour”
We spotted the first review of GSN’s new game show Grand Slam, and it’s not too glowing. It seems like Grand Slam would have been a no-brainer just to see the best contestants compete against each other. If they are the best of the best, the material has to be difficult. This is where the problem starts, according to Media Life. “For the average “Jeopardy” fan it’s likely to be more of an exercise in frustration. “Slam” is just too damn hard to be much fun. The too-tough questions and the stultifying repartee between Miller and co-host Amanda Byram (“The Swan”) make for an alternately infuriating and embarrassing hour.” More problems arise with the hosting. According to Media Life, host Dennis Miller is clearly uncomfortable and it gets even worse when “when Miller gets in the occasional zinger, the joke floats around in a comedy vacuum.”
This was my major fear with the show. There are subtle differences between hard shows. One very valid point brought up was the fact that shows like Millionaire, Jeopardy!, and 1 VS 100 all start out with some easier material to get the audience involved. After time, it gets difficult and makes you work at it. With Grand Slam, you’re in scary territory from the start basically. Put that together with the timed format and it’s incredibly hard to play along. This is really why I feel World Series of Pop Culture is the best tournament-style game show I’ve ever seen. It gets the progressive difficulty correct, it paces itself well, and it allows for a nice play-along factor. I really fear that people will be turned off quickly because they can’t find the square root of 184 in 3-5 seconds mentally. Of course if you’re a very smart person this won’t be an issue. And if you’re a hardcore game show fan you’ll enjoy it very much. However, let’s factor in that GSN’s median age is hovering around 60 and that GSN is obviously trying to reach a broader audience with the tournament style game.
Are people really going to be engaged by a couple one minute speed rounds of very tough material? Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy the show from what I’ve seen on YouTube, but it will be very interesting to see if I or others can stand a full hour of it without being bored to tears. Also something to note is that this format does not allow come from behind victories, or very rarely do. If you think a Lingo champ who lucked out and drew the magic ball for the Super Lingo jackpot will defeat anyone, you’re dead wrong. The games with people closely seeded will obviously be entertaining, but one person has a really good round and creams his or her opponent, it’s basically game over. I really like the idea of this in theory and I’m happy to see it finally come, but I just don’t think it’s going to connect with people. I would love for the show to succeed but there needs to be an excitement level which this show doesn’t give. Beyond game show fans, do you see anyone who can’t play along with this show quickly enough sitting around and enjoying it? I sadly can’t.
Running the clock down for a wrong answer is not a good idea. The fact that they have to sit through the reading of another question should be penalty enough. You’ll also notice that if a player interrupts Pat with a right answer, he stops reading and deems the player correct; if a player interrupts Pat with a wrong answer/pass/switch, they have to wait for the full question to be read before their response is accepted.
Hey, I actually enjoyed this show along with everything else. I know I suck at math so I tried to answer some of the questions they had in that part. Otherwise, It’s nice to see a show that’s not dumbed down.
Since I regularly post reviews in my Facebook group entitled “Game Show Fanatics” (under the UC Davis network), I thought I would start copying/pasting them here, since you can’t link to them.
For the record, my reviews consist of 40% gameplay, 40% hosts, and 20% prizes.
Here is my review for GSN’s newest show entitled “Grand Slam”:
Gameplay: [B+] (The show is interesting when closely numbered seeds face each other. However, whose idea was it to have Brad Rutter face a contestant from “Lingo”? It is nice however that GSN was able to get famed contestants like Rutter, Ken Jennings, and Thom McKee of “Tic Tac Dough” to do this show. I really like the style of questioning and the format of the rounds as well.)
Host: [F] (In true Dennis Miller style, I have a rant for you: Miller and Amanda Bynum hosting is like watching Al Gore speak about the effect of global warming when you go to the bathroom. If you are confused about what I just said, then good, cause it shows why Miller gets an “F” for hosting this show; Bynum only probably deserves a “D” for hosting. Lastly on the hosting issue, why did you need Pat Kiernan to only ask questions when two other hosts were there? Personally, I feel that Kiernan should have been the host instead of Miller and Bynum)
Prizes: [B+] (For GSN, a top prize of $100,000 is the most that has been offered since “Russian Roulette”; but I mark the rating down here since only 1 person will receive any money.)
Overall Rating: [C] (Personally, the overall rating doesn’t really reflect the greatness of this show. If it wasn’t for Miller and Bynum, the show would receive a much higher rating from me. Here’s what I suggest for those of you who haven’t yet watched this show: record the show and fast-forward through all of Miller and Bynum’s unneeded commentary.)
If there is one thing that I really like about Grand Slam, it’s the challenge that I have at home trying to answer the questions along with the contestants. When I get one wrong, I usually end up kicking myself, but then I think “Okay, okay, ask another, ask another!!” That’s what I enjoy about Grand Slam.
Incorrect answers do suck up a lot of time, especially the incorrect spelling ones. As for Miller, I just really try to tune him out. All I want is the game, and that’s what I get out of it.
Kudos to GSN for putting this on and phooey to all the Media Lifes of the world.