Comments on: Post-Season “Power of 10″ Opinions and Suggestions

By: David Howell

David Howell — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:05:51 +0000

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.

By: mrquiz

mrquiz — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:03:52 +0000

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).

By: mrquiz

mrquiz — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:56:37 +0000

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)?

By: davec

davec — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:46:19 +0000

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%)

By: myke25

myke25 — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:26:37 +0000

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.

By: mrquiz

mrquiz — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:24:23 +0000

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…

By: Douglas

Douglas — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:48:55 +0000

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.

By: Intelligentfan777

Intelligentfan777 — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:23:10 +0000

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.

By: The Great Butler

The Great Butler — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:03:28 +0000

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.

By: Alex Davis

Alex Davis — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:34:01 +0000

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.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:02:49 +0000

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.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:56:37 +0000

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!!

By: Karen V.

Karen V. — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:17:50 +0000

That’s “Sneak Peek.”

By: Karen V.

Karen V. — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:16:05 +0000

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.”

By: mrquiz

mrquiz — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:15:56 +0000

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.