24 Sep
Posted by Alex Davis as CBS, Opinion, Power of 10, Reader Input
Last night’s exciting (and rather depressing) episode of CBS’s Power of 10 marked the end of its summer series with its return date in the next few months. It’s actually sad to see it go. In a market crowded of shows for the dumb who such as Deal or No Deal, which I’ve just grown completely sick of, Power of 10 was a high sign of relief for me. It’s nice to see that the market isn’t being over saturated with Deal clones.
Sure, Power of 10 is derivative of a few older game shows, but Michael Davies and the rest of Embassy Row took the correct basic ideas and made a show that’s more exciting than anything I’ve seen in a while. The contestant coordinators did a fantastic job of finding contestants that are likable and exciting, but in a good way. You won’t find people begging for ponies or flipping out for guest hosts every five minutes. You’ll find regular, natural people showing their true colors when playing for $10,000,000 which was incredibly refreshing.
When thinking about it, this show is set up a lot like Who Wants to be a Millionaire?, which Davies is the executive producer of. You have the natural contestant who is not over the top but exciting enough to care for. The basic feel of the game play is there too. Davies is a master of taking a small amount of game and making it a big, fun event. I seriously don’t think Scott St. John and his Endemol lackies could have done half the job Embassy Row did. My biggest fear when this show started was that it would be too easy to win. The first episode really started to worry me, as I’m sure it worried production members as well. Luckily we’ve seen it’s a lot harder to win more than $100,000 than it seems.
Power of 10 did a few unique things that no other show has done for me. This show has the biggest play-along factor to come out since Millionaire. A viewer’s game isn’t over when they know the answer. On this show, you never know. You’re always second guessing myself. I don’t think I’ve shouted at the television more in my life than on this. Also, I didn’t actually wish any contestant would lose. On Deal or even 1 VS 100 there were a few contestants who I wished would leave with nothing. I wanted everyone to leave with $10,000,000 on Power of 10.
All of the good does not come out with a few bad points. My first one they corrected quickly. Part way through the season, the audience started helping out in the elimination round which could easily hurt another contestant. Luckily this was fixed a show or two later, so no problem here. My second issue is with Drew’s dialog. Don’t get me wrong, he’s an amazing host and probably the best one since Meredith Vieira. However, if I have to hear him explain the elimination round as “X eliminates Y and Y has to eliminate X”, I’m going to throw a sandal at the TV. Drew’s fantastic at improv. How about either letting him come up with something or switching the lines every now and then. The concept of an elimination round is nothing new and not worthy of that long explanation every single time.
The final complaint deserves a bit more time. The $10,000,000 question rubs me the wrong way a bit. We start out showing the percentage for all the answers, and then all of a sudden we don’t show you if you’re right? Seems a bit of a swerve there out of no where. Surely there has to be some way to do the final question better than “Guess which of the eleven percentages it is and you win.” The rest of the game involves some skill while that last question is essentially pure luck. Maybe just give the contestant one more 5% question. Or at least let the audience vote again for that final question and throw up a bar graph. Few will gamble the million for $10,000,000. Let’s at least give someone a remote virtual shot at it. Maybe give the contestant an extra percentage on the final question for each main game question they answered correctly?
All in all, these few complaints don’t even equal a quarter of the sheer enjoyment that was Power of 10. Embassy Row’s been on a huge roll recently. Pop Culture, Grand Slam, and this have all made me forget about Chain Reaction. Sure, it’s not the smartest show on earth. However, it is quite possibly the most exciting and the easiest to get people talking, which is essential for any show to exist. Power of 10 is definitely a power player for CBS.
Now for you all. What did you think of this series. Also, if you could make a change or two without completely reformatting the game, what would you do?
28 Responses
A.J.
1September 24th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
The soundtrack is definitely one of my favorites for any currently on-air game shows.
I remember the ticking clock type-graphic on the $10 million dollar question Jamie faced on the pilot bothered me initially, but I was begging to see it again near the end of the season.
P.S., Alex, how did you do at Livefire last night?
Alex Davis
2September 24th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Fucking awful is the nicest way to say it. But it was fun.
SeanB
3September 24th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
“However, if I have to hear him explain the elimination round as “X eliminates Y and Y has to eliminate X”, I’m going to throw a sandal at the TV. ”
Wow, such outrage. That’s one step below hissyfit.
Don’t change a damned thing. The show works perfectly as it is now.
Alex Davis
4September 24th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Overdramatic? Fine. Nearly a hissyfit? Not even close.
And it’s not perfect. It’s an extremely fun show and one of the best in a while, but not perfect. There are some issues with the show which hold it back, namely the $10,000,000 question, which could use ironing out. It feels horribly awkward. If they could find some way to fix the final question I’d be tempted to agree.
dropzone5
5September 24th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Power of 10 really couldn’t have been done any better than it is now. Good host, good gameplay (save for the last question)…just wow. It’s a welcome departure from all the shows where virtually no brain at all is needed to win huge sums of money. Here, at least you need to be familiar with certain current events and issues. Sure, there’s the occasional question that just seems purely inane, but you need at least half a brain to answer those.
There’s really only one other thing I’d want to change about the game outside of the final question. The Elimination Round, IMHO, is getting to that point where it’s becoming extraneous. At least give a little money there…say, $100 per question won (that way a losing player could get a little something for their time) which would get bumped up to $1,000 if he/she wins. And perhaps a little bonus for nailing the answer on the nose as well. This way it gives a little incentive to the two players.
s
But, hey, it seems to be working just fine. Season 2 and beyond, here we come.
Drew
6September 24th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Alex, I agree, this was a very entertaing show, a nice change from typical Edenmol junk (Excluding 1Vs. 100), like SfL or DoND. I too would fix the $10 Million question. Contestant gets 5 million for being within 5% of exact answer, but give contestant 10 million for being on the nose. Should the contestant play on and be off by more than 5%, they leave with $500,000. My 10 million format may not be perfect, but at least it will give more contestants more encouragement to go the distance.
Eric
7September 24th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I agree with your comment on the Elimination. However I think eventually that will go away. I think either a 5% question or some sort of partial win system would encourage taking a 900k risk although the one I suggested after the premiere has a possibility of no risk at all.
Other then that I wouldn’t change a thing other then maybe keeping the loser to the elimination round until they get to play for the money or x number of elimination rounds.
David Howell
8September 25th, 2007 at 5:56 am
Possible small way to change the last question: miss by 1% (or possibly 2%?), it’s a push, you keep the million and no more. That increases the expected value of the gamble by about $163,000 for each percentage point (expected value of the gamble now is $1m, and anyone at all familiar with DoND and mathematics should know that rational contestants do not take gambles at the ‘true odds’ like that for these sums of money). Might be enough to push someone on without looking at all desperate.
A $900k loss would be almost as memorable as a $10m win…
Gary
9September 25th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I have to agree with the rule on both the elimination round and the $10M question:
E.R.: Definitely pay off 100 to 250 dollars on each question. Heck you win $1,000 on WoF just for showing up for the broadcast. $500 dollar bonus for an exact prediction.
TMDQ: Either keep the format as it is but apply the Eubanks Card sharks rule. Miss by 1 up or down have a consolation prize of say 500,000 dollars. Get it on the nose you win the 10,000,000. Option 2– use a 3 to 5% range and a new question. We know that the million dollar questions get tough anyway e.g. What percentage of americans feel as if they are living the “american dream”?
I don’t know about you, but I felt that one to be a rather tough question.
davec
10September 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Here is how I would change the $10,000,000 question, so that I think more people would “go for it”. Similar to how other people are saying, but, more wide ranging:
They can leave with the $1,000,0000 intact, or, go for the $10,000,000 by trying to guess the exact percentage.
If they get it right, they get the $10,000,000, like now.
But, for every 1 percentage point they are away from the correct answer, they lose $100,000 of their current $1,000,000 (keeping with the “10s” theme).
Finally, for that reward/risk, there is no “safety net”. Since the $1,000,000’s range was 10% (i.e., from 46% to 56%), by taking the $10,000,000 guess, they could be off by 10 or 11 points, which means they leave with nothing. Of course, that means that if you go for it, you should hope that the actual answer is somewhere in the middle, and guess there, so you can’t be more than 6-7 off the mark. But, will some people not think that clinically?
I think giving that option though will get more people to go for the $10,000,000 question.
Of course, past the first player, nobody has gotten even the million right. I think his was a big fluke, and we might not even see the $1,000,000 question gotten right for a while.
Honestly, if I got on POT, I’d seriously consider it a “win” to get to $100,000, and I cannot think of a case where I’d really risk $90,000 on a narrow 10% window.
Laurie
11September 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I think there a couple of game shows that still do the explain the rules thing way too long after the audience should get it.
But really, that’s a minor complaint. I really liked this show. I first kinda thought the pacing was too drawn out, but I believe they really fixed that as the show went along.
I can’t wait to see it back. If nothing bombs out, at least once Kid Nation is done its game (or Survivor) Power of 10 could return in either of those slots.
Steve
12September 25th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I’d also like to not hear Drew keep telling us he’s rich. That’s a bit pompous for me.
As far as making the shot at 10 mil more tempting, when the contestant sets his/her range for each question have them also give an exact number. If that number is within a certain range of the answer (a sliding scale … 4% on either side on the $1K question, then 3, 2, and 1 for the $1M question), they get an extra percent in the range for $10 mil.
But it served its purpose on two fronts — gave us a quality program for the summer and calmed the doubts that Drew wasn’t the right choice for Price.
Intelligentfan777
13September 26th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Power of 10 rocks! But I also would like to see a change for the $10,000,000 question.
Idea #1- Just ask one final question for $10m, make the range 5%. Also, make the question something really debatable, like this one……..”What percentage of Americans feel that Internet game show bloggers are too reactionary, overreact, and are nitpicky about every little friggin’ thing?”
Lord knows, I would think so. xD
Idea #2- During the elimination round, each question you win is worth a chance at the exact percentage for $10m. If you get a question on the nose, you win a bonus chance. So, if a contestant gets to the last question, they theoretically could get 6 chances (better than 50%) at the $10m!
Also Alex, to be honest with you, I think the game show market is starting to turn for the better now. You comment about the DoND clones is very accurate but….well, that was last season. It looks like, hopefully, we won’t see any of them again, (except for NBN maybe) for now. By mentioning WSoPC, GS, Po10, etc. (and don’t forget ABC’s Duel), producers, I hope, have realized that cloning Deal just won’t work anymore. I say let Deal be, and keep on churning out smarter shows. Again, at least I hope that’s what’s happening. The market, overall, still has more smart shows than dumb ones.
Hey, it’s a fresh new season, put the past behind.
mrquiz
14September 26th, 2007 at 8:15 am
OK, my “old skool” mentality is about to rear its ugly li’l head…again. BUt, as always, with good intentions. For one thing, I’d like to see the show use an announcer, to open the show, and help establish a tone (hypothetical announcer: HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW WHAT AMERICA THINKS? PLAY ALONG, AS TONIGHT’S CONTESTANTS COMPETE FOR CHANCE TO WIN AN UNPRECEDENTED 10…MILLION DOLLARS…ON AMERICA’S GAME…[THE] POWER OF 10! …WITH YOUR HOST…DREW CAREY!!!!)
The announcer would also introduce the contestants.
And while some of you have noted getting rubbed by Drew Carey mentioning he’s rich, what rubs me is “Welcome back to ‘Power Of 10′…I’m your host, Drew Carey…” He doesn’t need to say that after coming back from EVERY friggin’ break.
I’d also like to see the return of the “champion” contestant. In the event that player fails to win at least $100,000…then he/she gets to stay on and play against a new contestant, with a five-game limit. If they DO win $100,000 or accumulate $200,00 or more, then they’re given the chance to leave the show with their winnings, or risk losing all but $1,000 if they fail to defend their title. If they win the million, then whether or not they try for the 10 mil, they leave the show.
The one thing I couldn’t stand about “MILLIONAIRE,” was that the contestant could stop AFTER they heard the next question. At least “1 vs. 100″ didn’t do that. On “POWER,” the contestant should’t be allowed to stop after they opt to hear the question. That’s what the concept of “risk” is all about, resulting in more of a challenge for the player, and ideally, more compelling for the audience and home viewer.
Karen V.
15September 26th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Though funny, Mr. Carey mumbles and the set/lighing people need to fix the awful glare of his specks.
Sorry, 1vs100 DOES let the contestant opt out. It’s called “Sneak Peak.”
Karen V.
16September 26th, 2007 at 9:17 am
That’s “Sneak Peek.”
Bob
17September 26th, 2007 at 9:56 am
The show is fine the way it is. The action needed to win the $10,000,000 prize is fine. The one thing I would change about that is the “loss factor” when predicting an exact guess on the $1,000,000 question. Losing $900,000 will be SO devastating, people won’t got for it. Going back to the Eubanks era, off by one could reward you with $500,000, and that’s it. Game shows must have that “Make it or Break it” factor, and the $10,000,000 end game is a perfect example.
But we’ve seen several people make an exact guess in the preliminaries! Somebody managed to do it TWICE! They had a range of 100, so certainly somebody can do it with a range of 11!
It will happen! It’s just a matter of when. And when it does, oh will we be happy!!
Andrew
18September 26th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
i really think it’s a good idea to have a push if you’re within 2% and drop $100,000 for each percentage point further than that.
Alex Davis
19September 26th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
This is mainly directed at intelligentfan
1- “”What percentage of Americans feel that Internet game show bloggers are too reactionary, overreact, and are nitpicky about every little friggin’ thing?”
Lord knows, I would think so. xD”
It’s called opening up discussion and being critical. I’m sure you’ve had people being critical of stuff you’ve done. It’s not being reactionary, overreacting, or nitpicky. It’s giving people something to discuss and saying what I feel. I’m not reaching; this is stuff I can plainly see. This comment, to me, was overreacting about something that was never there.
2- “Also Alex, to be honest with you, I think the game show market is starting to turn for the better now. You comment about the DoND clones is very accurate but….well, that was last season.”
I don’t think I said anything about that anywhere. My comment was ” It’s nice to see that the market isn’t being over saturated with Deal clones.” My biggest fear when DoND started is that we’d only have DoND clones on the air. And I’m happy we aren’t being over saturated with that. The comment to put the past behind was humorous in a really bad way. The only part of the past I cling on to is Millionaire, and I’m doing that for parody of myself.
The Great Butler
20September 26th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Giving a 5% out of 100 range for the $10 million would be a horrible mistake. It would turn a one-in-ten chance into a one-in-TWENTY chance and therefore, further discourage anyone from going for it.
I’d say Eubanks CS-style is probably the way to go on it.
Also, Alex… thought I should tip you off to some new information. I attended some Millionaire tapings last week for airing in June. Billy Bush was sitting in as host (Tip 1; he did a good job too) and he was nice enough to chat with me for a bit outside the studio. He made a comment about Michael Davies having “several new shows” in development.
Intelligentfan777
21September 26th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Fair enough, Alex. Hey, I love Millionaire, we all do! Anyway, I was kind of kidding about the nitpicking anyway.
Trust me, I’m with you on most levels.
Douglas
22September 26th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
No one else has mentioned this, so I will. The thing that really bothers me about Power of 10 is the editorializing by Drew after almost every question. It really does look like he is trying to encourage/discourage certain answers. Can you imagine similar comments on TPIR “wow, you know I have seen Bob do this game dozens of times and you almost never see a number repeat in Lucky Seven.” I am all for engaging the contestants but Drew is so chatty during this game, I am sure Standards and Practices at CBS is sweating out the potential of a lawsuit from a defeated contestant who took Drew’s comments too literally.
mrquiz
23September 27th, 2007 at 7:24 am
While there may be some disagreement here, I can’t help but think it’s just possible that the producers wamy WANT Drew to “editorialize.” Still, it does tend to be annoying when done all the time…
myke25
24September 27th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Mr Quiz,
I’m old school, too. But not every show needs an announcer. Power of 10 offers no merchandise to describe and has no celebrities to introduce…just Drew. So, I’m cool with no announcer for this show. What bugs me is the use of announcers on the Endemol shows and 5th Grader…they’re used to spoil the outcome of the games. Power of 10 is a class act by comparison.
As far as Drew’s commentary and declarations of wealth…Part of Drew’s charm is that he’s an average guy who’s made it big. He’s the guy who you’d want to have a beer with after the show…at his favorite strip club. I don’t think he overplays the “I’m rich” card…yet. Besides, everyone else in the studio is voicing an opinion…why not Drew?
The only change I’d make to this game is to send elimination round losers back to a contestant pool after one loss. Two losses would kill you. There are some contestants that I wanted to see more of, then they get killed after 3 questions. I’d give them another shot.
I’m no good at math, but isn’t a one-in-eleven shot roughly the same odds as ten-out-of-100? I don’t think that the $10M try is necessarily harder than the $1M, but it leads to much more second-guessing of one’s self. $900,000 is a lot to risk. Someone will do it someday, if the show lasts long enough.
I say, leave the show alone. It’s fine the way it is.
davec
25September 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
I’d disagree that any of the previous rounds are truely “X/100″. While its hard to determine the exact percentage, you should be able to come up with a “rough guess”, i.e., if you had a “50%” window, you’d definitely get it (i.e., average it low around 25%, the middle at 50% or high at 75%). So, even on the million dollar question, your true “odds” shouldn’t be any worse than 10/50, or about 20%, unless you were just totally wrong on your “rough” estimate.
The “exact” percentage guess though seems truly a guess, and its 1/11 (roughly 9%)
mrquiz
26September 27th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Hi, Myke25!
Question 4U: what does having no merchandise to give away have to do with no need for an announcer? Like I said, his job would be to open the show, establish a tone, introduce Carey and the contestants, and use HIM, instead of a canned voiceover, to get the home viewer in the $10K phone-in game. In other words, a little touch of tradition, here! I mean, if you’re old skool, as you say you are, isn’t it bad enough that flat-panel video screens have supplanted the so-called “egg-crate readout” scoreboards on nearly all of the shows that use on-stage scoring devices (LOL)?
mrquiz
27September 27th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
To Karen V:
I stand corrected on the “Sneak Peek.” I also stand on my opinion of any game show that “hedges” by letting contestants walk AFTER they’ve heard the question. At the very least, this only dilutes anything (otherwise) compelling about that show; at worst, it’s just another example of “dumbing down.” (and I apologize to all on my typo’s).
David Howell
28September 28th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Very good point on Drew’s ‘intervention’. That makes me nervous for TPIR. Very very nervous indeed.
Heck, to me it looked like his (supposedly unrehearsed) speech on the $10m question was bullying Jamie into going on. That gave me horrible, horrible memories of the worst of our DoND, and major props to Jamie for not being swayed.
A proper announcer would certainly be a traditional touch and quite possibly worthwhile. Sad to say, I wonder how many would really notice.
Regarding the Sneak Peek, it only gets used once (I believe), and then only at 1 vs 10. And I believe that the Millionaire-era ’see the question first’ works well in encouraging risk. I wouldn’t dream of risking, say, $225,000 (at Q14 on syndie Millionaire) without seeing the question - but if I see it, I might well know it and get it. And the questions are hard enough (on the syndie version anyway - they certainly weren’t on ABC) to make this ‘easier’ route to big bucks far more justifiable.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
GSN Schedules
7/21/2008 to 7/27/2008 7/28/2008 to 8/3/2008 8/4/2008 to 8/10/2008 8/11/2008 to 8/17/2008MiniBuzz
Buzz In
Biggest Buzz
Categories
Pages
Archives