Right, I’ve shifted machines now so I’ve got a working shift key. Anyway, LIVE FROM WESTFIELDS, here is some stuff on Control.
- Audience sit left and right of main set, main set consists of door (down one end) with large screen above, first level stage, a walkway with a moving table thing and second level where Control sits in a Bond villain style chair, backlit so no-one can see him very well (I will come to this in a minute). Above Control is a electronic marquee.
- Don’t know who the warm-up was but he was nice enough. Should have ironed his shirt though.
- Theme tune is basically what you’d expect if you crossed the theme from The Million Pound Drop with Clubbed to Death.
- Christine Bleakley is really lovely as it turns out, but it is doubtful she carries enough presence for a show like this.
- The game: a team of four friends attempt to amass as much cash as possible whilst a man called Control tries to stop them. On the face of it it is basically The Chase, and a more pedestrian version at that. BUT HOLD.
- But who is Control? Right, he’s being billed as this hugely mysterious man who we’ll only really see backlit so as to give little away. Because I’m nice I will play along with this, but let there be no doubt if he’s not been given a voice dub he won’t stay mysterious for very long.
- The game: The team face six questions. Neither the team nor Control know which category is going to come up each time, but Control will get to see the question. Each time he gets to set a special condition for the question and also the amount of cash up for grabs – potentially there’s £250k total up for grabs, although only presumably if he’s encouraged to offer it. Whatsmore the contestants can choose to play or pass the question which sets up quite an interesting dynamic, because if the team go for it and get it wrong then at least one of them will be sent packing – and it’s usually the person of Control’s choice. If they run out of players then Control wins – at least one person must make it to the end to do the Final Face-off. So enough money must be offered to tempt but he wants to make it as hard as possible. The team are spotted £10k to begin.
- And how does he make it hard? He has a lot of tools at his disposal – the standard question is four way multiple choice, but he might make it not multiple choice. He might only give half the question (and obviously you have to infer the rest of the question given the options given). He might make the team answer individually, sending anyone who gets it wrong packing. He probably has a lot more tools up his sleeve.
- The questions are by and large well written and on occasion quite difficult. A question came up asking which of the four choices was the only one to have had a number one as a solo, duo, trio, quartet and quintet which I really liked. (Aside: that might be a bit of a standard, but the answer’s Paul McCartney.)
- Because it’s naturally in Control’s best interests to get the team all out, the longer the game goes on the more will rest on each question.
- A lot of the fun here is in Control’s talking to the team – every inch the villain. At one point I smirked at a joke about redundancy when obviously I should have booed, which in retrospect is awful of me. I think it might be more fun if the contestants and even the host backchatted a bit more – this is where the lovely Christine falls down a bit I think.
- If anyone makes it to the end they get to do the Final Face-off. The team hide the money in one of (amount of team members left +1) cases. They are taken into a secure room to do this, and you get to see the independent adjudicator.
- Money hidden, the entire team are reunited, and one of the people who hid the money must face a 30 second interrogation by Control as to the whereabouts of the money. They don’t have to answer truthfully, but they must answer each question or risk disqualification.
- Time over, the contestant opens the case with the money in. Control then reveals on his card which case he thought the money was in. If he’s right – go home empty handed. If wrong – big winners. Good stuff.
- The show took about three hours to film. It passed the seat test, which is always a good sign, although it probably didn’t warrant three hours really. I quite enjoyed it, the bloke next to me seemed to quite enjoy it, old people in the crowd I was listening to less so.
- Just a couple of things: the individual answering the questions bit felt really clunky – one person answers on a keypad whilst the other one steps back and looks at the screen, then they swap places. This a) looks ridiculous and b) invites a lot of dead air.
- Secondly: I want to know if the suitcases without the cash in is weighted. I ask because Control scrutinizes their every move. I can accept this if it was one go and done, but if they have to reshoot the walking up to the table bit I can’t help but feel that gives Control an advantage he is not warranted.
- Two endings were filmed, one saying it’s the end of the show, one leading to a break. The show filmed had two breaks in it, so make of that what you will.
I might think of some more stuff on the train. Anyway, second pilot filming about now, so if you were at one or the other tell me what you think.
Edit: Something I considered on the way home, something didn’t feel quite right and I think I know what it is. I can describe because it isn’t going out I think, but basically the team ballsed up the first four questions with only one right answer, meaning one person had to choose to face the last two on her own. For this, she was offered massive amounts of money – £40k and £65k to play in an attempt to knock her out and get the job done. They were good offers in so much as she chose to play but got them both right – total pot, £130k. The offers throguhout the game were something like £10k, £12k, £15k, £30k, £40k, £65k.
However, if the team does well, what incentives are there for Control to offer lots of money? They’re going to get to the end anyway, albeit possibly than fewer than five cases. Either they get lots of individual questions (everyone answers, all wrong answerers are eliminated, everyone must be right to win cash) or they don’t get offered much. Basically, I suspect poor play will get rewarded (to make it more exciting) whilst solid play hits you in the pocket.
The contestant tried bargaining at one point – offering to take a lower amount if Control would reconsider and offer her options. Control pointed out that it was a nice try but he wasn’t for budging, but I thought it was quite an nice thing to try.
Also, will it still be a good show if everyone just passes every question and plays for £10k at the end?
Edit edit: Also you have to “lock in” whether you’re passing or playing, because now we’re bloody America.
This a lot like the direction I was trying to get the French to go down when I was consulting on Hold On To Your Seat, with the champion having advantages and using then proactively through the show. What they ended up with was a bit passive, IMHO.
So it’s basically..
a) Endemols version of ‘The Chase’
b) which features DOND’s Bankers slightly more talkative cousin.
I was right to fear Bleakers hosting. Brig, if someone with more ad-lib skills, say, Brian Conley was to host – would it make it better?
I would suggest “probably”, although I’m one of the apparent minority who likes Brina Conley, so.
Can you give any sort of description of the dialogue in the face-off? Was it more Control trying to rapidly trip the contestant up and catch them telling the truth and reacting (a la the Yes/No Quiz of Take Your Pick) or was it more just following the theoretical lies and making the deductions from that (contestant says it was in 1, later says it was 3, so it’s likely in 2)? I can’t help but feel unless there’s some standard for questioning, any smarty-pants contestant can just answer everything absolutely ambiguously (“Why, it’s in the case on the table” and “Maybe” to every question) and the endgame is just reduced to pick-a-box-and-pray.
Well in this instance she was asked to point to the case with the money in, built up with a reference to something that happened early in the game, and then there was a follow-up question which I forget. Control did a lot of grandstanding here really.
If it’s played at a reasonable pace, it sounds reasonably diverting. I don’t get any sense of whether the show is going to drag or not on-screen from this report, though I don’t suppose you can ever really tell how a finished show is going to be in that regard from a pilot. (Still prefer my idea, though; make the show deliberately blatantly unfair to the point where it’s played for comedy, play it for laughs ‘cos nobody’s ever going to win in practice then rattle through the contestants so you can get to see more fun ways for the show to cheat.)
I’m hoping that Control is Glen Hugill – any work for Glen Hugill is good news in my book, really – but would settle for Richard Osman.
The team ddi win, I should point out, although how much was played for real or how much was put on for pilot purposes I can never work out. Most actors in pilots not played for real have been very convincing, to my eyes.
For once, I properly like the sound of this, it’s got a lot going for it. But Christine Bleakly as host will surely kill it. Come to think of it, anyone from breakfast telly is a bad idea.
Speaking of pilots, has anyone heard of a pilot called High Stakes being shot in Manchester?
Wouldn’t be able to go, but if you do and are, please let us know what it’s like.
Edit: http://www.applausestore.com/applausestore-book-show.php?id=555&bid=1 Jeremy Kyle’s hosting, it’s a co-production with NBC. Films March 9th.
Bit strange, that…as Applause Store have now removed any mention of Jeremy Kyle, and the show’s gained a new logo, even though the old one looked fairly official and not mocked up:
http://www.applausestore.com/applausestore-book-show.php?id=575&bid=1
Very interesting indeed, good spot Tom.
I never really *hate* any constestant on anything, ever… but I hate Fiona on Masterchef Australia UK. Oh how I hate Fiona.
Quite apart from the format changes, the show has destroyed its credibility anyway with that stupid “knives sticking in chopping boards” thing. You do not treat knives like that. You do not treat chopping boards like that. That’s the kind of shameful display you might see in a restaurant rated 2/5 for hygiene by health inspectors and anyone who stands for it has no business being in a cookery competition.
Well I know this is going to be a big hit show just like Million Pound Drop. Brig, did they say if the pilot you watched (or the afternoon one) will be shown on TV or was it simply a non-TX pilot?
Sounds like an excellent show and continues the very high standards of Endemol.
I get the feeling it was Non TX, otherwise I wouldn’t have given specifics.
‘A big hit show show just like Million Pound Drop’
Is that the show thats lucky to scrape past 2m on Channel 4 and is used by Fox in America as cheap filler in the off peak season?
Control sounds interesting in theory, but the fact that a team can pass each question for a 80% shot at 10K doesn’t feel right (maybe put something in that forces a team to play a question or two- like if Control “plays it straight” with a fully known 4-option question where only one person has to answer, they can’t pass, they must play it..)
That’s the thing that gets me about this as well – being able to pass or play all the questions takes some of the air out of the suspense. Perhaps if Control had, say, three standard rounds that were must-plays that he could distribute through the game, that would help. As it is, I’m feeling that there could be a lot of anticlimactic mid-games in this format.
I suspect the easiest way to get round this is… not spot them £10k to start with. Easy.
Is it better than ITV’s recent game show efforts of: Colour of Money, Divided, The Fuse, The Chase, Duel, Pokerface, Odd One In?
I wouldn’t like to judge until I’ve seen how it plays out on telly. It is certainly better tha Colour of Money, Divided, The Fuse and Odd One In.
I should add that ad with a lot of things, whether people will take to the execution of the concept is key.
It all depends on whether people buy into Control as a character I think, if he doesn’t have enough presence it’ll make Bleakley’s shortcomings as a presenter even more glaring.
As a side note, why does everything need a mystery character right now? Wasn’t the whole ‘Who is The Stig’ thing a few years ago? Do people really care about who The Body is?
Yes, I was using those exact words – will people buy into Control as a character – in my head. He is very definitely a presence.
The Body was a person called Charlotte.
Also, this would be amazingly easy to have a cash-in board game rushed out for if it’s sucessful.
It’s been a while since anyone won the jackpot on Pasapalabra:
I feel like I need to call you out, Brig, solely because you put it on the table. When you complain about “locking in” answers, what specific grievances do you have against them? In this context, it seems like a completely natural verification process, considering when a group is discussing answers, and more than one idea might be presented at the table. It’s obviously not something that would apply to a deliberately fast game like Weakest Link, but in some contexts it’s more understandable than others.
And also, I’m not offended by the “bloody America” comment, but I can’t help but think that the trend of “locking [things] in” really started by making things “final answer[s].” That’s not to say we haven’t abused the crap out of it since then, and perhaps a part of that might be a S&P thing more than anything else (heck, I remember one year in the Super Bowl when there was a mild controversy about the opening coin toss when whoever was calling said “heads”, but later insisted they actually said “tails”… people do pull this sort of crap). Still, it’s not a wholly fair statement, joking as it may have been.
Otherwise, I love you and I hope you’re having a pleasant evening. Is that a new haircut?
I have no problem with locking in answers per se, but the rot started with Deal or No Deal in America with the stupid button pushing thing that no-one else was doing. It changes the situation from grown-up people coming to an agreement and becomes much more gimmicky. Yes I don’t doubt Standards and Practices are behind this to an extent but I dislike the idea that “America is doing it so we’ll do it” (especially as as I’ve pointed out in the past, US versions of formats done internationally don’t tend to do very well) as an automatic way of thinking when everybody was doing perfectly well before.
Meh, it’s not as if US formats are selling.
For what it’s worth the story I heard is that someone during either a pilot or an incredibly early taped episode of Deal or No Deal said the wrong word (Deal when they meant ND, ND when they meant Deal; can’t remember) and rose a royal fuss. The audience started to get very vocal and angry at that point also. They added the button as a safety precaution.
Not trying to justify it because I think the word should be the finalizer and if the button gives you the cash they should have made a much larger deal about the button than they did and made it a major focal point, but just passing along what I heard.
Yeah, but what’s the big deal? Until they start the proveout they can go “Oh, you meant to No Deal, ok, we’ll it pick up from there.”
US producers need to grow a pair and lawyers be damned. If they say the wrong thing and don’t bother to correct themselves, that’s hilarious. Dig out the tape and show them the proof.
Some thoughts on Brig’s report and everyone’s comments.
Given a relatively anodyne presenter, “Control” is going to have to do a lot of work to make the show a success. The Chase has shown that a rotating cast of baddies can make it work; would there be so much fun if there were only one chaser?
In the absence of hard evidence, I’m going to cast Him from The Powerpuff Girls as “Control”.
I would hope (and throw this in as a potential rule for transmission) that “Control” is obliged to offer at least a certain amount (say, £125,000 as half the prize fund) and that offers must increase for each question. So if he’s offered £20,000 on question three, he’s got to offer more every time thereafter.
If the contestants were being more argumentative, I’d put this down as the new The Weakest Link. Right down to the step-up-to-the-podium individual round. It was wrong in 2000, fercryinoutloud, it’s still wrong now.
The prizes are at least ten times too high for daily shows. This setup sounds like it should be fairly lighthearted and rumbustuous stuff, and given Adrian’s prime-time exposure, Christine might be due something similar. Saturday evenings in the slot vacated by The Whole 14.478 Metres (+VAT)?
From Brig’s description, and everything everyone’s said, I have a nasty feeling that this could be the new Panic Attack. Looks good on paper, makes decent entertainment, but the format’s shot through with holes and will sink sooner or later.
Hmm, although as I think I said, the players all know each other and play as a team, and the money is split as a team at the end, the show’s not really about inter-team arguing (although doubtless there will be a few should we/shouldn’t we decisions in play near the end).
The show is being primed for Saturday night primetime.
Is the money split between the team regardless of how many of them get to the end? Or is it only split between the people who make it to the final?
I would expect that’s for the team to discuss privately, although I’d be surprised if they didn’t take an equal split – as I say, these aren’t four people randomly thrown together, they’re people with a pre-existing relationship, and everyone comes back on stage for the finale.