Comments on: Moment of Truth

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 29 May 2008 18:21:24 +0000

The $100,000 answers aren’t stirring the pot enough to cause as much devastation as advertised.

I did not watch this season premiere, and will never watch a full episode again because of how horribly they managed the S1 finale, but I did pop in at the end to see that someone quit at $100,000 AGAIN.

Why, why, why?

I think the only two things won on this show are $100,000 and $0.

If you’re going to make a controversial show, at least hold it together by editing it well. If Maury lasted 60 minutes but had only one paternity result, lie detector test, or secret telling, would you watch every day? Maury owns this, and I thought it would have been the other way around.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:46:26 +0000

The reason I won’t watch the show is because I think the set-up is totally bogus. I mean, when you get up to the big money and ask a question like “Have you ever cheated on your wife?” I would assume the answer has to be yes. Otherwise they wouldn’t have put the question up there. Why pose a question for $200,000 or whatever when the answer isn’t going to stir the pot?

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 28 May 2008 20:15:26 +0000

They give away some of the questions in the preview. It makes the whole thing anti-climactic.

Walberg doesn’t deserve this show. This is better fit with Springer or Povich, who deal with sleaze such as this every day. This shouldn’t happen to a respectable host like Walberg.

If he continually stays with the show, he’ll only ruin his career.

By: Carrie

Carrie — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:07:59 +0000

I like the show too Alex, but it’s incredibly frustrating to see the same clips over and over again. My main problem with the format is the repetition and manufactured drama - they don’t need it. A show that fills a time slot of an hour should have more than 25 minutes of actual game play.

That said, I think Walberg is the saving grace of the entire show. He does seem to genuinely cringe when the friends and family end up bearing the brunt of the questions and answers, so at least there’s a human element in every episode.

By: B-W

B-W — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:39:54 +0000

I’ve said this in another thread related to this show, but it bears repeating. My problem with the concept isn’t the “sleaze factor.” I can (and so) simply choose not to watch. My problem is that the arbiter of “truth” on this show is NOT the accumulation of facts and/or knowledge to refute (or support) a claim, but merely a “lie detector test.” Such a faulty determiner of “what is true” should NOT be the standard for giving away prizes, let alone the potential damage that could be made to actual lives!