The Floor

I absolutely love the concept. Yes, Rob Lowe may be phoning it in, but he's still better than most modern hosts (except Higgins). People complain about the pace, but I think it's perfect. Great balance of down time to game time. I hate too much interview time for contestants, but this show doesn't do that.

I agree about the "Randomizer" not being as random as they try to portray, but that's what you should expect. All entertainment has a goal to entertain. Not mad about that.

When it comes to game shows, I care about a fun watch that I can engage in. That's this show. Can't wait for the next episode.

Over the years, we have seen the sets for TV game shows become more automated. The availability of smart walls, and now floors, has changed the genre. This game show uses a 9X9 grid to create 81 spaces on the floor, each occupied by a contestant. Players randomly selected, get to challenge adjoining players. The concept of 81 players battling for a grand prize of $250,000 is appealing. Each player has a category of expertise, and when you challenge someone, you must play in their category.

A challenge consists of a head-to-head matchup, but players play against the clock. Each gets 45 seconds of time, and they take turns trying to identify items that flash on a screen. If your clock runs down first, you lose and the conqueror gets your space on the floor.

Besides the big prize going to the person who wins the 80th match, $20,000 is awarded to the player who occupies the most space on the floor at the end of each episode.

There are various strategies at play. Do you challenge someone in their category of expertise or wait for someone to challenge you? If you challenge someone and win, you assume their category. Do you like that category? If you challenge someone, your clock begins counting down first. Do you want to lay low and use the time between episodes to bone up on your new category?

In the first two episodes, they played 7 or 8 matches and the choices became more complex as the game went on. As for the matchups, they are entertaining.

One can do worse than look at Rob Lowe for a half hour.

He is the host of this game show which normally has 81 players, each with their own piece of floor, and each with trivia expertise in a particular field. Players compete one on one.

I won't go into the all the rules, but the person who out trivias the most opponents and wins the most floor wins $250,000. The person with the most floor at the end of an evening wins $20,000. One gentleman took home $100,000.

The opponents get 45 seconds, and it's interesting to watch how nerves and brain freezes can defeat a player. Also interesting is what they don't know - nobody could identify Farrah Fawcett's famous '70s hairdo. As Rob Lowe pointed out, even he had it.

Entertaining.

I agree that the game is flawed in that an unknown who hasn't played yet (players are chosen by a randomizer) can come in and win all the money. They do need to possibly protect the major floor owners and have them compete at the end.

This season it's 100 players, two from each state.

As in every trivia game, it is always fun to test your own skills and knowledge at home with your family against the contestants.

The premise is interesting in an overall outlook. But when you actually see the show, you find that it is less about skill and more about luck, random chance, and uneven rules.

I summarize and suggest some changes which could really add to the show's potential:

1) Contestants who excel and win several games in a row should be «saved» for the final round. In this way, you make sure the final will be exciting and batlled among the very two, three or four best. To watch a poor contestant who is called for duty just in the last round and wins it all is very disappointing and anti-climactic.

2) A failed answer by a contestant should be transfered to the opponent, that is, a pass or fail would be 'inherited' by the other, just as you inherit categories. This makes chances more even every time a difficult item is shown in the screen.

3) The required level of specification is uneven and unfair across categories. In some matches, just the last name is enough, but in others, a detailed and full compound answer is needed for the answer to be validated. Arbitrary criteria should be rectified to make matches fairer.

4) Also the level of difficulty across categories is uneven. Some involve the easiest images of everyday items (a spoon, a notebook, traffic lights), and other categories have a different kind of prompt which makes them quite more difficult, such as showing Shakespeare's quotes to guess the name of the work. This might be interesting but it is not fair and suggests suspicion of rigged hands.

5) Finally, all the «scripted» short remarks by the contestants, shown between matches as fillers, sound fake, and they put viewers off instead of creating expectation or interest. Less is more, in this case.

Rob Lowe is okay. Not smashingly good or epoch-making, but fulfills the role well enough.

In short, the show is promising and basically good, but I expect more changes and adjustments in next seasons.

I love this show so much but I can't stand that they brought in a multiple time Jeopardy champion "David" (who's already won over $700K on Jeopardy) to compete against all the other normal folks in season 3! It's just not even enjoyable to me, if I wanted to watch a Jeopardy champ, I'd watch "Jeopardy" lol. Please "The Floor" producers, don't do that again lol. "David" at the start of the show was almost a millionaire from Jeopardy but now he wants another $250K (plus other bragging rights I'm sure) when to the other regular people competing that money could be truly life changing. Otherwise this show is very good, esp if you love trivia like I do! It's very unique and I highly recommend watching!