The 1% Club

As someone who is so used to the UK version, I have to say, this version just feels like a bootleg. Like, a lot of the questions on this version aren't anywhere near as interesting. Yes, just like the UK version, this one does have filler too, with conversations with the contestants in between the questions and what not, but at least there was entertaining banter in the UK version, something this version is lacking. The contestants here just feels like NPCs by comparison, if you ask me! Also, admittedly I've never heard of Patton Oswalt before, but he's just not a good host for a show like this, just... no. Surely they could have found someone better?

If this whole show, so far, is anything to go by, I don't expect it to be anywhere near as successful.

I would have rated this a 9, but was so upset that the final question was terribly phrased. The question referred to a "password" made up of 6 letters, from 4 letters shown on a keyboard. Obviously, some of the letters were repeated.

An actual password can be made of many different characters, but in this case only letters were used. Actual passwords are better if they don't use an actual "word", rather use random letters.

The answer was based on an actual "word", but the instructions didn't mention anything about the password having to be a "word". The instructions only asked for a certain arrangement of those letters - in which case, there could have been many correct answers.

Hard to believe this question was allowed to be used the way it was worded. Someone should have caught the error. I guess the staff that works on the show are far from being 1% themselves!

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 the concept of this game but was bored with the filler moments. Apparently the producers wanted a show to cover an hour time slot when commercials are added. But 42-45 minutes is too much. If the filler time were reduce this could be 30 minutes per episode. It starts with the chatty talk with contestants. Plus they go back to the same people too much. They have 100 people sitting there and they concentrated on just a few too often. It got old before the end of the first episode. The rolling total for the jackpot is slow, just show the number. Also, the delays to try and add suspense get old too. For later episodes, I just press the 10 second advance to bypass the useless nonsense and stop when I get to the next question. Patton is fine as a game show host but it does seem too scripted. Rating: 10 stars for the game itself, 0 stars for the fillers...so make it 5 stars.

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.