“Russian Roulette” Shows How a Drop-Based Show Should be Done
We’re in our third straight year of game shows that involve dropping people for losing. We had Downfall, and then 101 Ways to Leave a Game Show, and now Who’s Still Standing?. However, these shows, especially the recent NBC one mentioned last, makes us remember just how incredibly good Russian Roulette was and how far ahead GSN/Game Show Network was of anyone else. It also does show us that GSN can create a show that rivals anything else out there if they put out effort. We’ve posted some of the show on Facebook, and we wanted to go into it more here.
For those that don’t remember the show, Russian Roulette was extremely simple. Host (criminally underused) Mark Walberg asked a question. The first question has one drop zone and it goes up each new question to a maximum of five out of six drop zones activated. Four players stand on six of the zones individually. The person in control challenges someone to answer. If you get it right you get money, but if you get it wrong you have to pull the handle, the lights spin, and you hope your zone is not red. If it is…
The winner plays one of the best end games ever made: the Killer Questions. The winner has to answer a series of questions (five brain teasers in season one; ten tricky multiple choice questions in season two) in sixty seconds. Every ten seconds a new zone opens and activates. Give a wrong answer or run out of time and you drop. If you get them all you get $10,000 and a chance to gamble that for $100,000 by playing one final game of Russian Roulette with the number of activated drop zones. Take a look at what is easily the most memorable Killer Questions and flat out one of the best game show moments of the Millionaire era.
This is exactly how this type of show should be done. The drop can’t be the reason for the show to exist. Russian Roulette could survive without the drop and be a fun, solid game. Stuff like Who’s Still Standing have the drop tacked on as the sole gimmick to watch. Take it away and you have something we’ve seen over and over. Russian Roulette is a text book example of how to make a game show people will remember. You need a great host, a great format, a nice gimmick which doesn’t overpower the show, and a unique twist. It doesn’t hurt to have one of the most tense and exciting end games on television, either.
It’s also what GSN should strive to do. Russian Roulette rivals current game shows in terms of style, excitement, and game play. They have the power to do shows like this again and they have a crew there which can do it. GSN can afford to take risks. Some work big (Baggage) and some don’t (Late Night Liars). That’s how TV works. I’d love to see them take a risk and there are affordable daily or even weekly shows like Take It or Leave It, Whammy, or The Cube which are available, doable, and somewhat different. They can easily put together a show that blows Who’s Still Standing and You Deserve It out of the water. They just need to look to the past and what made them ahead of the game ten years ago.
I always thought that Russian Roulette might have done will with 6 contestants, an hour long format, and $500K ($50K for first round) top prize in primetime. The format is one of my favorites, with the challenging opponents and of course the random chance of survival. Would returning champions possibly work for this show? It needs to be brought back to air. That’s something we can all agree on.
I started watching WSS tonight and was extremely let down. I wanted to give it a chance but because of all of the reasons that were given in the previous posts. But, no. I wasted an hour of my life.
I am actually okay with the show. Sure, I wasn’t cool with the mid-battle commercials, but overall I wasn’t let down too much. Maybe I’ve just been SO disappointed with prime time game shows that one that provided trivia questions made me happy. The show was easy to play along with and I was actually okay with the music. It was just a fun game.
I know others think it was terrible, but I’m okay with it. Is it better than Russian Roulette? Absolutely not. Is it a quiz show in prime time that doesn’t rely on a money ladder? Yes. For that, we should be somewhat grateful.
Plus 1 from me. Couldn’t have said it better myself
I agree as well. Yes I can watch on TiVo in 20 minutes, but that’s par for the course of today’s shows–the content is nice to see, but there is just way too much filler. I’d rather see more difficult questions, but with the low-intelligence wannabe actors used as contestants these days, tougher questions would mean a quick exit for all.
The speed round should be faster as well, and it reminds me of some other country’s version of Russian Roulette (I forget which country) and I think whoever is left standing at the end should get to be in the middle the next show.
WSS also needs to know it’s OK to have more than one game played per show and a show can actually carry over into another day.
Overall, I like the game, but there is definitely room for improvement.
I am not as much “down” on WSS as some of the other blogsters here. There are things that I’d have done differently, including not doing middle-of-question commercial breaks. (There are too many of those to begin with. Given NBC’s ratings, it’s a wonder that any advertiser would want to hawk his wares on the Peacock web anymore!
Ben Bailey appears to me to be just a tad TOO mellow for this show. But, at least he’snot Guy Fieri.
If this show were done with the taste of one of the better UK quizzers–”The Chase” or “Pointless”,or such late and lamented shows as “Fifteen-to-One” or “Grand Slam”–then it might amount to something. As it is, it does not deserve all the knocks it’s getting–nor does it deserve unstinting praise either.
Please don’t even mention Guy Fieri anymore. That guy should stick to the Food Network.
while we’re at it can somebody can Retchel Ray?
I really think a network oughta bring it back with the Russian style and format. The episodes I’ve seen, despite being in a different language, are unbelievably tense, thanks to the incredible music and fantastic set and lighting.
I only saw a few minutes of this. Good news: Ben Bailey IS a good emcee, and hopefully, another game show as good as “CASH CAB:” will come his way, sooner than later. Bad news: “WSS” is yet another lame game show, that likely as not, needs its own “:drop zone.”
I REALLY wish I were a big boss in TV. There are SO many examples of exactly what Alex said: game shows where there’s one focus, leading the rest of the game to just fall flat. The two examples examples I think of historically are “The Magnificent Marble Machine” & “Pitfall.” Both had bonus rounds which were either physically amazing or something people were looking forward to. They both relied on the bonus round to carry them through and, literally, pasted together a main game after the fact. That, plus other issues, led to both not working and early cancellation.
Obviously, the drop zones aren’t a “bonus round”, but it’s the same thing. It’s a gimmick that should have a strong actual game, too. Historic mistake…
I think Pitfall had OTHER issues leading to its demise.
Here are my recommendations for “Who’s Still Standing?”
First: Dump Ben Bailey. He is too low-key, too mellow for a show of this nature. He really belongs on an American version of “Countdown”. I would have chosen Chris Jericho for this one, despite the threat of him being typecast into shows where contestants are threatened with taking a plunge!
Second: see about he show’s music. As it stands now,it’sall over the map. First it’s trying to sound like indecipherable rap. Then, it wants to be contrived party-style rock. Then, it wants to be “Mission Impossible”. Then it’s bringing in a suspense theme that I’d swear was used on “Minute To Win It” last year. A little consistency would be nice here!
Thirdly: streamline the commercial breaks. There are too many of them to begin with, and they should never–NEVER–come in the middle of a question. I don’t know if the network, or the sponsors, or the producers, have control over this matter–but something shy of Federal regulation should be done about this!
Fourthly: Keep the Lightning Round. If, on the other hand, if the L.R. is done away with, then the unused Strangers should be held over for the next Hero. This move will make it a little easier on the Producers, as they will not have to go through so many Strangers so quickly!
Fifthly: Have the amount that a Stranger is “worth” increase with the amount of time/number of questions that it takes a Hero to polish a Stranger off. It should be worth more to beat a Stranger who has fought well and valiantly than to finish off a dum-dum. (IT is possible that this is already being done, but the Viewer has no way of knowing if this is so.)
Make less use of the Announcer. The Host can let the Viewer know that Elsie Krock has knocked off “x” number of Strangers, and has “y” amount of money in the Bank. We don’t need Basil Exposition to keep telling us that, nor do we need the repetitive and annoying animation that goes along with it.
Finally: if we must have unemployed actors appearing, either as a Hero or as a Stranger, be up-front about it. Hollywood is lousy with unemployed actors. And most actors are unemployed most of the time. There is no dishonor in being an unemployed actor–althogh one must admit that being an employed actor is better yet!
There is a good game show embedded in “Who’s Still Standing?”:. If all the folderol could be cleared away, you’d have a very watchable general knowledge/pub-quiz program. Instead, it’s still entertaining, but it’s not all that it can be.
Tonight’s 3rd episode of Who’s Still Standing? axed the Speed Round. There goes your 4th point about keeping it James.
The unaired Speed Round from the 12/21 episode can be seen at the NBC website:
http://www.nbc.com/whos-still-standing/video/speed-round-radha-kulkarmi/1375180
Wow. Forcing me to use a U.S. Proxy service to access the NBC website just to see the Speed Round… shame NBC… shame…
Time to activate the proxy then…
I watched a little bit of WSS last night. I thought it was okay, but not great. IMO, Russian Roulette was, and still is, leagues ahead of it.
I saw about half of tonight’s episode and all of yesterday’s episode. It’s not a bad show, but it just doesn’t live up to Russian Roulette. The questions for this one are fine. The editing is nutty. And my biggest issue with it? It definitely does not have set mood. Russian Roulette had a clear somewhat dangerous vibe to it. The set was dark, the music sounded at home for a spy drama. And of course, the host played up the atmosphere with the snide remarks and the gleeful smirks. (Definitely Mark’s best hosting job of his career.)
As for Ben? I have no real complaints. He’s likable. But I almost feel he doesn’t have much to work with. And that’s a shame since he is great on Cash Cab.
So all in all…to me this show feels like a wanna be version of Russian Roulette that doesn’t do enough of it’s own thing to make it stand out. It’s the type of show that is fine when nothing else is on, but nothing about it makes it appointment television.
Hello!
Do anybody knows the title of the Turkish version of “Who’s Still Standing”?