Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuA survey of the nation's intelligence through scientific questions testing brainpower, not school knowledge or memorization. The questions lead to entertaining answers.A survey of the nation's intelligence through scientific questions testing brainpower, not school knowledge or memorization. The questions lead to entertaining answers.A survey of the nation's intelligence through scientific questions testing brainpower, not school knowledge or memorization. The questions lead to entertaining answers.
Folgen durchsuchen
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Lee Mack of UK version is way funnier than Oswald (and still without being mean or snarky like host of Australian version). Questions on UK version are much better. More varied, interesting and fun, and more original ideas. American version questions are overloaded with boring wordplay puzzles. Many of the questions are word puzzle types that will be familiar to many people (and will give those people an advantage). Like a lot of game shows other than Jeopardy, there is a fair amount of filler, such as explanation of how the game works, and music that goes on too long before results are revealed.
I like Patton Oswalt but he can't make a 100 fake smiling laughing people interesting. There is a ridiculous amount of filler asking the contestants "get to know you" questions. They are randos - I don't care to know them. Every question just drags out to the point where I just fast forward in between each question. Patton isn't funny enough to carry this if this is the format they are sticking with.
Password, another recent gameshow in comparison is filled with laughs and good times. This is just people smiling, fake laughs (password too) and bad conversation.
The questions and concept of show seem fine, it's just not entertaining.
Password, another recent gameshow in comparison is filled with laughs and good times. This is just people smiling, fake laughs (password too) and bad conversation.
The questions and concept of show seem fine, it's just not entertaining.
I think the host is funny, the premise is engaging and unique (I believe), and I like how it functions in most ways. But I changed the channel.
The AUDIENCE. It's the audience cues. Every single set up or punchline is met with a chorus of people reacting. Same for every dramatic thing, every relieving thing, any moment creating suspense or any substance is punctuated with inauthentic approval or disapproval. It makes the show look corny, fake, anything but authentic.
There will be jokes that flop, flop dead, without a number of "laugh" "ghasp" "clap" signs. And that will be funny to viewers, it would be real, things in joke writing improve in accordance with Social Hardyhar-wenism.
In conclusion, Host is hosting, contestants are contesting, but the live reactions are in fact never really reacting.
Every show is following this tradition as far as I know so I only mention about this show because this show hooked me, initially.
I recently discovered this show on local TV. And the folks responsible for it's birth deserve recognition.
The AUDIENCE. It's the audience cues. Every single set up or punchline is met with a chorus of people reacting. Same for every dramatic thing, every relieving thing, any moment creating suspense or any substance is punctuated with inauthentic approval or disapproval. It makes the show look corny, fake, anything but authentic.
There will be jokes that flop, flop dead, without a number of "laugh" "ghasp" "clap" signs. And that will be funny to viewers, it would be real, things in joke writing improve in accordance with Social Hardyhar-wenism.
In conclusion, Host is hosting, contestants are contesting, but the live reactions are in fact never really reacting.
Every show is following this tradition as far as I know so I only mention about this show because this show hooked me, initially.
I recently discovered this show on local TV. And the folks responsible for it's birth deserve recognition.
Patton Oswalt hosts this quiz show, which has 100 contestants vying for money.
The questions posed to the contestants get progressively more difficult. Missing a question means elimination, as the pot grows larger. The difficulty of the questions is determined by testing them on groups beforehand. But these are not questions of fact or tests of knowledge; they are designed to test one's abilities of perception and logic.
The major problem is that it is very difficult to design the wording of such questions without any ambiguity. For instance, one question asks the contestants to imagine that some letters are turned 45 degrees, but it does not say on what axis. And it uses the terms "left" and "right", but a clockwise orientation might be more accurate. This might not matter as much if contestants had a minute to consider their answers, but they only get about 25 seconds, which doesn't allow for much trial and error or testing of hypotheses.
The banter with the contestants is hit or miss. Sometimes it is interesting, but mostly it is boring, especially when Oswalt asks a contestant why they missed a question and they are embarrassed, so they give senseless excuses for their answers.
Update 7/16/2024: By episode 7, the banter has improved, with Patton showing his humor. The ambiguity has reduced somewhat. I am bumping my rating up by one.
The questions posed to the contestants get progressively more difficult. Missing a question means elimination, as the pot grows larger. The difficulty of the questions is determined by testing them on groups beforehand. But these are not questions of fact or tests of knowledge; they are designed to test one's abilities of perception and logic.
The major problem is that it is very difficult to design the wording of such questions without any ambiguity. For instance, one question asks the contestants to imagine that some letters are turned 45 degrees, but it does not say on what axis. And it uses the terms "left" and "right", but a clockwise orientation might be more accurate. This might not matter as much if contestants had a minute to consider their answers, but they only get about 25 seconds, which doesn't allow for much trial and error or testing of hypotheses.
The banter with the contestants is hit or miss. Sometimes it is interesting, but mostly it is boring, especially when Oswalt asks a contestant why they missed a question and they are embarrassed, so they give senseless excuses for their answers.
Update 7/16/2024: By episode 7, the banter has improved, with Patton showing his humor. The ambiguity has reduced somewhat. I am bumping my rating up by one.
My husband and I watched it and really enjoyed it. Our college-age son lives with us so the next day we asked him to watch it. THAT was so much more fun. He got every question right and we were so proud. Granted, there were some easy questions that everyone should have gotten right. I thought Patton was a great host. He spent just the right amount of time with the contestants so that you didn't feel isolated from them in that "I don't care who wins." way. I don't understand the reviewer who commented that the host was mean and put people down. I grew up with a narcissist and watched "Match Game" with Alec Baldwin so I know what putting people down sounds like. Patton was funny, friendly, and, yes, joked around but you can tell none of it was mean-spirited. I thought the questions were comparable to Celebrity Week on Jeopardy - where they dumb down the questions a bit, but you can solve them and feel smart. I hope the show makes it. We'd be regular watchers.
Wusstest du schon
- VerbindungenRemake of The 1% Club (2022)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen