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.
Funny, but Mastermind was a huge hit in the U.K. for years, and the material was dreadfully difficult (but amazing to see). I am still hoping this will be enjoyable. I can’t imagine Pat Kiernan doing a bad job with this. And so long as we “get” Miller’s zingers, that’s all that matters.
I know it’s all the rage to get a “name” to front a game show, but if you have Pat Kiernan as the quizmaster (and Pat rocks the house)…why do we need color commentary from Dennis Miller and Amanda Never-heard-of-her-before? The WSOPC did fine without it. (Though as a human pop culture encyclopedia, Miller would have fit right in.)
The closest I’ve seen Dennis Miller get to a game show is a “$20,000 Pyramid” reference he made in “The Rants.” And Amanda…she’s Irish, so I’ll cut her some slack. As long as she speaks with a rich brogue, I don’t care what she says. I’ll just enjoy hearing her say it!
I don’t mind difficult questions in a show that is supposed to feature the best of the best, and I’ll watch the show regardless just to see if Jennings can get past Rutter…but I’ll root for the Lingo girl as an underdog and see if Miller makes a Leonidas facing Xerxes at Thermopylae reference!
They stuck a Lingo champ in there?!? GSN has some of the weirdest ways of self-promotion I’ve ever seen.
“Grand Slam” is too hard, eh? Confirms my theory. The populace has been conditioned that a tough game show involves knowing the ordinal numbers 1 through 26 inclusive in no particular order … or being smarter than an elementary school student (there’s a vicious joke in there somewhere). I want any version of “Password” to return, but can’t you just see today’s alleged celebrities trying to play. Provided, of course, that you can find two alleged celebrities not inhebriated at a particular time. Why is there no more “Pyramid” of any particular financial denomination? Can’t you just see the judging in New York continue? It got softer and more lenient when it went west. The judging of answers on Tom Kennedy’s “Split Second” would not be put up with today. With a couple of exceptions, today’s hosts must ask if the answer if correct. It hurts this old dinosaur to see what has transpired … but welcome to show biz as we now know it. Yes, I think I’ll lock in on that answer.
I’m of the mindset with this, as well as any other game show, that I will make up my own mind without help from the critics. They’ve been wrong enough in the past.
I just hope Miller does better on this show than he did on “Monday Night Football.”
Too hard. Okay… I forgot that challenging people to earn something is borderline ridiculous in 2007, a time when finding white lights, knowing basic grade school subject material, and picking briefcases while winning hundreds of thousands of dollars is the norm for a TV game show. Maybe the Media Life critic would feel more at home with questions like “What color is an orange?” or “How many fingers am I holding up?”
I applaud GSN for putting a challenging original show on its schedule. I doubt this will lead the way to a US version of Countdown since dems letters and num’ers be too hards for us Amerikeens.
I have to agree with Mike right above me. Even though I’m a huge DoND fan, not all game shows these days have to be based on pure luck. Game shows are more fun to watch when they are challenging, and for GSN to put this kind of quiz show on the air, I have to applaud them. In my opinion, the last decent Q&A show for them was Russian Roulette.
This is a poor review in every sense of the word. Of course the show’s hard, that’s the point. It features game show champions. For the best review I’ve ever read of any game show in the Hollywood Reporter. Check out the following link.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/television/reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=9578
Here’s a short excerpt:
“The real host is actually never seen but is sufficiently impressive nonetheless. He’s a questioner named Pat Kiernan who fairly dazzles with his fast-paced and unflappable style. Therein lies the real strength of the mega-intense “Grand Slam.” Not only does it join the most successful game show players in recent memory, it actually challenges them in a fashion that makes them break a sweat.”
New York Times today not half bad either, mostly obsessed with Dennis Miller but writes that the show is – “as entertaining as it is fast-paced”
Having watched the first two episodes, the questions were on the same level of an upper-level Millionaire or Double Jeopardy! question. I found myself answering a lot of the stuff, so I refuse to believe that it’s too hard for a general audience. Sounds like the author’s just a little bitter.
If you like trivia, you’ll like this show. I just wish Dennis would ease up on the references. It’s almost like he has something to prove so he can fit in with the contestants.
“Too damn hard” my ass. The questions in this game were nothing special… the content is not jarring at all. Actually, it was a lot of fun to watch. And yeah, Miller seems like he’s trying too hard to find witty remarks, but then again, this is nothing new with him. I’ll be watching this event as a whole.
PS: Do any of you think Michelle’s win over Kevin O was an upset?
I’d say so…I don’t remember what their seeds were, but you have a woman who barely cracked six-figures on Weakest Link, which was a rare event to begin with (on both the primetime AND daytime version), facing off against someone who went all the way on Millionaire. And I found Millionaire considerably harder than Link.
I watched it. I thought the questions (except for the number/logic round, since math is my weak area) to be pretty easy. Maybe they will be harder the further along we get in the tourney. I think either Ken Jennings or Brad Rutter will win.
The gameplay was solid, Pat Kiernan was magnificient, and the commentators were terrible. As much as I love and respect Dennis Miller (as a comedian), he simply tries too hard to be funny. Amanda tends to become too repetitive in her comments. For the second half-hour, she probably made the ‘Weakest Link’ reference at least five times.
I actually was rooting for Dr. Olmstead, because he earned his money legitimately, on his own merits. Michelle simply earned her money through deception and voting out smarter contestants. I never liked ‘The Weakest Link’ mainly because backstabbing was rewarded more over intelligence. It was unfortunate that ‘Doc’ lost, but like the NCAA basketball tourney, upsets are bound to happen.
All, in all, Grand Slam was a good show, but not great. YOU GO, KEN!
My sentiments are with others. That guy from Media Life would probably have a problem doing the square root of 100 in his head. People in this country can’t do basic friggin math problems anymore, it’s sad and ridiculous, my bias as a physicist not withholding…
The show was good, the q’s were great, and I was surprised how much I knew. Maybe I could’ve given Ken a run for his money, heh heh *laughs nervously*.
Dennis Miller did fine, some of his jokes did land, while others just kinda hung and made me go WTF. Amanda was by far the weakest, as she seemed to spend most of the hour flying by the seat of her pants on the game’s happenings and Miller’s comments.
I’ll be tuning in for this, it’s good brain exercise, and I’d love to see another possible Brad vs. Ken rematch… :D
I am pretty sure the seeding was #3 Doc vs. #14 Michelle Kitt… (Could be wrong!) Would definitely call that an upset!
In terms of the game, I LOVED IT! It was exciting and I found myself trying to blurt out the answers before the contestants… and did. kinda. sometimes.
Anyway, I’ll be tivo-ing the event and look forward to the entire series.
TT
The ‘Doc’ was the #3 seed, and Michelle, #14. In a sixteen-seeded tournament, the pairings always add up to 17.
Well, this is all obviously JMHO as they say, but, I was really taken by the format of the show, and I honestly think it is one of, if not the, best format I’ve seen for a game show on TV.
As some have said, that one reviewer must have been someone who doesn’t like to be challenged, or watch others be challenged, because I was enthralled by it immediately. The middle two rounds (math and word play rounds) are definately things not seen on almost any US gameshow, and this is probably the closest thing to UK’s “Mastermind” you’ll see on US TV.
Obviously, for anyone posting on this board, almost everyone in this game is “famous”, whereas someone who isn’t really a game show fan (like that reviewer likely) probably knows Jennings and Carpenter, and probably not anyone else. For, for us (game show fanatics), that adds an element as well.
In anycase, the things I like about the game/format:
* I love the “chess clock” type of action, as opposed to the standard “score” based game. It definately adds an element that is not found in most other shows, which is the “time managment” aspect, and knowing when to use the “passes”.
* The close “face to face” aspect adds a “personal” element between the contests that you don’t see on most shows.
* I agree with many of the above, none of the questions were “killers” I think, but, all were at least something you had to think about to pretty challenging, and with the time factor, it makes the questions more “difficult”, if only because you have the clock hanging over your head, as well as the question.
* I at least think the math and word rounds are a refreshing change of pace from a straight up “trivia” game show.
A few criticisms:
* I agree with some, that the banter between the hosts is sometimes a bit much. Miller is trying too hard, forcing his riffs into the conversation, much like he did on Monday Night Football. Also, I think they miss some things that could be pointed out, like that Lee had really only proved himself in a pop culture based show, so, his knowledge outside that realm was a mystery. Although, the call that Michelle might have an advantage because WL was a time based show was a good call (although personally I don’t think it really helps a lot, but, it certainly didn’t hurt).
* The ONLY change I’d make to the format is I felt that one “unfair” part of the game is the clock running during the asking of the questions, which of course are not all the same length. It was unclear on if the contestants got to see what we saw on the screen on a monitor, if so, then that evens it up a bit (since they can answer before the questioner is done), although the “How many letters are in..” or “Whats the middle letter of..” questions still can’t be answered until the questioner is done. My suggestion on this would be not running the clock while the questioner is asking the question, and (to make it so people don’t just pass, pass, pass, pass) make it a minimum of 5 second deduction on the clock if someone passes a question (if soomeone takes longer than 5 seconds and decides to pass, then, they’ve wasted at least 5 seconds already).
In the end, I think this could be the next great syndicated game format. Each game fits well into a half hour format, the rounds last 2 minutes but feel longer, and if you let people win as many games as they can in a row, you’ll get some great “Ken Jennings” (well, maybe not that long, but, 10+ games at least) type of runs I think, which will make it exciting (can this person keep their streak alive).
Alex, aren’t you the same guy who thinks “Without Prejudice” is the greatest original since Russian Roulette? This show is finally a show that requires you to have a brain. If you get bored after watching GS and not after watching WP, then Wow.
I think this show is great. It requires a brain to play the game. It is about time we have another show like this on TV.
After watching the first episode of Grand Slam tonight, I politely recommend that Media Life take their criticisms of this show and stuff them.
In the well-known words of a sports-commentator, LOVE THIS GAME !!! You had to know that Michael davies would do this right. The chess-clock aspect and saved time (the first three rounds are really the setup for the last round where one wins or loses) is technologically dazzling and amazing. The commentary was not perfect but the idea of having Dennis Miller (who is Millionaire-smart as comics go) as a commentator was actually engaging. The stats and analysis were interesting, too.
The only thing I didn’t like was in the Olmstead game where the switches were all used up on a single question. That’s a flaw. Only one switch should be allowed per question. Then the stumped contestant can pass and they are stuck with the next question. But overall, thrilling to watch. And I found myself guessing at the questions out loud (sometimes quicker than the contestants, sometimes wrong).
This could be the next GSN Original with a long run if they wanted to.
I just got done watching Grand Slam and I enjoyed it quite a bit. Pat Kiernan did an excellent job but I was not connecting to Miller and that other gal. I just fast fwd thru them. I love the gameplay and will be DVRing the rest of this tournament. Great concept GSN.
I would like it to be known that I do enjoy this show, but I don’t think it’s going to be a hit with people other than game show fans or get big ratings. That being said, what I saw from the DVR was enjoyable. My viewing experience came from the UK edition, and obviously the US material makes it easier. Miller and Amanda weren’t that good, but Pat was as good as usual. I can stand this for a 4-8 week tournament a year. I couldn’t take it as a full time show.
“Alex, aren’t you the same guy who thinks “Without Prejudice” is the greatest original since Russian Roulette? This show is finally a show that requires you to have a brain. If you get bored after watching GS and not after watching WP, then Wow.”
And don’t make assumptions, it just makes you look like a fool. I didn’t say I didn’t get bored after watching WP, because I don’t think I could take another 90 minute episode. I just don’t think I can take a whole lot of this type of show without being incredibly bored. And I don’t think WP is the greatest show since Russian Roulette. I easily place BallBreakers and I’ve Got A Secret ahead of Without Prejudice, but WP is placed about Grand Slam for me.
My thoughts:
Amanda was right when she mentioned that we’re not used to seeing numbers and logic in US game shows and its refreshing to see it. I for one loved that round as well as the words and letters (it helps being a fan of Countdown and its french equivalent chiffres et lettres. Just imagine if they had countdown ocotochamps on this show the viewer’s heads would be spinning.). I agree the questions for the most part weren’t terribly hard if you can hold your own on jeopardy you can do well here.
Dennis’ jokes for me about 30% landed the rest missed and came across as forced and I for one can appreciate “smart jokes”.
The only major problem I have with Pat Kiernan’s question reading was for the spelling questions he reads the answers (upon an incorrect answer) too slowly eating up a lot of the contestant’s time.
I would also make the change you can only use 1 switch per question that would have avoided the the ping pong on that question in the final round between the doc and Michelle
As far as I’m concerned Ken defeating Victor Lee was no surprise although Victor did much better than I thought he would. Michelle Kitt over Kevin Olmstead was a huge upset. I find that Weakest Link tends to ask more pop culture questions than anything else whereas Millionaire asks tougher questions, although then again there is the time factor.
1 nitpick. They’re a little off in the winnings totals. I know Ken won another $700 and change on 1 vs. 100 and I think Brad won some money on 1 vs. 100 as well.
Predictions for the rest of the matches:
Rahim Oberholtzer over Phyllis Harris by 15 seconds, Just becuase for the most part Phyllis’ shows weren’t really much about knowledge (Greed and Trivia Trap being the exceptions)
Thom Mckee over John Carpenter by 8 seconds. (Evenly matched but I think John’s going to have trouble with the time.)
Frank Spangenberg over David Legler by 18 seconds (The majority of David’s questions on 21 were pop culture. Frank has more all-around knowledge)
Leszek Pawlowicz vs. Ed Toutant tossup. (This is gonna be close maybe a 5 second margin or less)
Nancy Christy over Ogi Ogas by 18 seconds. (A little bias here becuase I didn’t see Ogi’s game but Nancy actually won the million Ogi didn’t.
Brad Rutter over Amy Kelly by (at least) 25 seconds (Brad is gonna mop the floor with Amy. Amy might how ever have a slight edge in the words and letters round.)
I’m really interested in Nancy Christy VS Ogi Ogas. Yes, Nancy did win a Million, but that’s when the show was a lot easier than it is currently. I’d love to see her try the tough material as it is today.
And again, so people can stop emailing me calling me a moron, I do enjoy the show, all I was saying is that I don’t think it’s going to connect with a general audience beyond game show fans. And I do agree that the initial review wasn’t too nice. I wish we had more difficult game shows on TV. I’m sick of luck based shows.
Well, I can try to catch this show in a couple of hours since I missed it last night. I’ve seen some of the UK version of the show on youtube, and let’s face it, I’d take this over DOND, or other luck based shows.
Some of the questions were displayed on screens for the contestants, but only in the math and words section, and only where it was really necessary to see the information to answer the question. For most of the questions, you had to answer based on the question as read.
Thanks Leszek for filling us in on that.
What is your opinion on my thoughts then, that they should have not run the clock during the reading of the question, and instead (to not make the rounds 5 minutes instead of the current close to 2 minutes) deduct a minimum of 5 seconds for a wrong answer/skip.
I’m thinking about analyzing how much time was spent on reading the question, and if anyone was kind of “cheated” by that.
(FYI, I do realize that was one missing piece of my idea, you’d also need to deduct 5 seconds for a wrong answer, since you could just answer anything wrong instead of passing).
Loved the show, loved the contestants, liked the questioner, thought Amanda was OK, thought Miller was annoying.
The “problem” with the questions is that the trivia is pretty easy (and quick to get) (for anybody with J!/Millionaire credentials), but the math, especially, is very time-consuming to solve. Anybody who thinks the questions are too hard understand neither the concept of trivia nor the strength of the field.
Game shows have been dumb down to the point that when a show like this comes along it is a shock to the system. You have to have real knowledge. AH! refreshing!
But dennis & amanda just don’t float my boat.
Stop with the stupid jokes & references, not nessessary.