Powered by i.TV
December 19, 2014

Are gameshows lowering the bar on purpose? - VIDEO

by Paul Goebel, posted May 20th 2007 2:01PM

Pat SajakWith the popularity of shows like Deal or No Deal and Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader it has become clear that the days of Ken Jennings are over. It is no longer necessary to be educated to be on a gameshow. All you need is a personality or at least the appearance of one.

Time was, ratings for a gameshow spiked considerably whenever someone got on a winning streak. Now all producers have to do is manufacture a load of tension and viewers become glued to the set, even when the tension stems from whether or not they should open a briefcase.

Now, I am the first to admit that I love seeing idiots blow their big chance on a gameshow. One of the best parts of Beat the Geeks was being able to laugh out loud when a contestant missed an easy question, but some of these contestants are so stupid that I can't see how they even made it on the show in the first place.

I remember once when I was watching Wheel of Fortune, the puzzle (It Takes One To Know One) had been completely solved except for the first letter. The contestant chose to solve it and proudly guessed, "ET takes one to know one." How Pat Sajak kept a straight face is beyond me.

Personally, I think true gameshow fans would rather see smart contestants than dimwits whose greatest talent is overreacting on cue, but maybe that's just me. For a change of pace, here's a clip of someone who deserves the big prize...

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

9 Comments

Filter by:
JagedNS

I won't watch Deal or No Deal. I did in the very beginning just to see what the fuss was about but I agree with an earlier comment...this game takes absolutely no skill....there's no point whatsoever in watching. Watch Jeopardy, or the early Ben Stein's Money for cripes sakes or yes, even Smarter than a 5th or 1 vs 100....at least you have to have some base knowledge to participate.

May 23 2007 at 9:05 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Emily

Wow, you could show a movie on Pat's forehead.

May 21 2007 at 10:09 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Happy Steve

TRAINED monkey?!? Ha! An untrained one could play it.
Just open the cases that had poop flung at it.

May 21 2007 at 10:08 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Charles

1 vs. 100 can actually be really challenging and difficult at times. I mean, you actually have to KNOW stuff to get anywhere on that show, versus Deal or No Deal where, literally, a trained monkey could win the show. All he has to know is how to say numbers. And those contestants are SOOO bloody annoying. My word, they are, as someone said, bizzare chariactures. And these people, over 75% of the time, will balk at a HUGE bank offer, because they think they can do better. And they can't. But they are so (fill-in-your-own-word)-annoying about it in the process.

Some game shows may not be AS smart as decades before, but at least some still require some talent in order to be awarded a money prize!

May 20 2007 at 9:12 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
C C

I'm a fan of "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" because it's a game show that the whole family can watch. It's great for kids to see other kids display their brainpower, and get the impression that it's "cool" to be smart. But it's obvious that the producers are screening potential contestants for personality and charisma along with I.Q. You can't blame them, they're trying to put on a show that will entertain the masses.

May 20 2007 at 5:09 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Zach

I watch Jeopardy whenever I can, so I real trivia shows. I watch 5th Grader not for the questions but for the answers. One cannot underestimate how stupid some contestants are and how strange are the answers they give (like thinking density is mass divided by air?). It can be very amusing. It is disappointing though that the contestants can win large prizes without knowing anything. The very first contestant won $25,000 but only knew the answer to the first question. After that he rode the lifelines to 3 more answers and walked away.
Deal or No Deal is incredibly annoying. The contestants are basically characitures. I imagine the producers tell them before taping "You are the _______ (fill in trait, i.e. NASCAR, tennis player, or cheerleader) contestant. Make sure you remind the audience of that every time you speak." I will sometimes watch just to determine how long it takes to turn on the contestant and hope he or she walks away with one cent.

May 20 2007 at 3:33 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Richard Ott

Well, I have to agree that the odds of winning the highest
money amount on both Wheel Of Fortune & Deal Or No
Deal is often slim to none. Merv Griffin or Pat Sajak has
got to figure this out with Wheel's bonus round sooner
or later, because they just can't give away the big one,
$100,000, except on some of their luckier nights. I think
what they should've done with the bonus round was
add in a Sale Of The Century-esque rule where any
contestant who makes it to the bonus round and solves
the puzzle successfully, wins whatever money amount or
prize they chose. This cycle should continue with each
and every player until one of them picks the $100,000
card. or until that contestant gets his/her final shot at
the big cash prize. If the bonus puzzle can't be solved
when the final card is left standing, or someone picks
that card early on after solving it, all the cards including
the $100,000 can go back on the mini-wheel, and the
cycle begins all over again. Also, they should make the
$10,000 space on the large wheel in the main game, so
that it's a perminant space on the wheel, just like all
the other spaces. This way, a single call of a considant
can give the player as much as $100,000, (depending on
how many of that considant there is) at $10,000 apiece.
Finally, Wheel Of Fortune needs to add a 4'th Toss-Up
puzzle at $5.000 for whoever rings in and solves it.
Forget adding $1,000 on the Final Spin, when the players
can win so much more than what they'll have, anyway, if
the rules weren't as cash-sensative as they are, now.
RICK.

May 20 2007 at 3:23 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Hank Shiffman

Considering the fact that she almost hit the Lose a Turn wedge twice and was up over $6000, she took the low risk/high reward option. Which is exactly what the losers on Deal or No Deal keep refusing to do.

May 20 2007 at 2:21 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Gudlyf

Shouldn't she have kept going on the puzzle a bit more to make more money at guessing letters before solving? Maybe at least for the 'M's?

May 20 2007 at 1:00 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners