Sorry, the server is being a bit slow today by the looks of things. Normal service will resume soon, hopefully.
Ooh! It’s later and we have NEWS:
- From Twitter: “FYI, 1st episode of Money Drop aired in France today on TF1. US-based, and everything else you’d expect from that. Slow, etc.” – will be interested to see the ratings. Looking forward to seeing Endemol Joe spin them as he is uniquely qualified to do.
- Only Connect begins on August 15th, which we had sort of suspected for a while anyway.
The Marriage Ref has apparently been axed, in a move that is a shock to nobody.
How can this possibly be? It’s just the sort of show Dermot wanted to work on. What ‘X Factor’?
Now then, there’s no need to be sarcastic. It’s just copying the amazing massive success of the US show, which finished bottom of its slot with 0.9/2 on Sunday.
It’s just a bit disappointing that, when a bunch of amateurs like us can see the chances of this working was (on paper) <20%, and yet the higher-ups appear oblivious. What a waste of a good slot (albeit in Summer).
I maintain that it wasn’t completely awful as a show, but I also maintain its time was about twenty years ago, when marriage was a more august institution and comics were funnier.
Hi, here’s the ratings update about French “Money Drop”.
– Le Juste Prix (Our brilliant edition of The Price is Right), for its last episode of the series on Friday, had 4.1m viewers for a 25% share
– Moneu Drop yesterday had….. 3.7m for a 26% share.
So far it’s holting the timeslot audience, and that should make TF1 happy. But for how long?
Interesting, thanks!
How has critical reaction been to it?
If you mean “a proper analysis and opinion coming from a TV specialist, known enthusiast, or anyone whose voice could be heard by producers and therefore have an influence”, then there’s no critical reaction because nobody cares about gameshows in France and that’s a shame. It seems like we’ve only got critics for US sitcoms, some talk shows when they have to talk about them, and to tell people how bad our Big Brother-like shows are.
Anyway, looking on Twitter and in the comments of some TV blogs, here’s what the reaction is looking like.
For the good part (only what people actually noticed) :
– Host Laurence Boccolini, former host of Weakest Link, one of the best fits they could have had, even if some don’t like her because they only knew her “Weakest Link” style.
– The set and lighting
– That’s about it. I’ll just add that it’s holding as a French trending topic on Twitter since last night, and that there is a UK-like play-along game which is good.
The problems :
– The pace, which is sloooooooow as heeeeeeeell (6 questions in a 40-minute show, plus 6 minutes of commercials). Worst was Q6 : from the time they revealed the question, to the time where we had the answer, with the commercials in between, it was a 10 minute wait, nearly 15.
– The contestants : as usual with TF1, not-so-brilliant people, screaming around a lot, over-reacting, etc. Even if it’s far worse in shows like Wheel of Fortune over here, it’s annoying. And apparently it won’t get any better in the series.
– The whole atmosphere : that’s too much, American style. The pace, plus the music which is bad compared to Marc Sylvan’s work for the original soundtrack, plus the contestants…
– I’ll add that there are too muck tweaks from the original game.
> 4 answers for every question except for Q8
> They introduced the 10-seconds lifelines from USA, you’ve got one at the start of the game and another one after Q4
> “All or Nothing” : if you bet all of your money on one answer, and you get it right, you’re skipping the next question as well (if you do that on Q1, then they’re skipping Q2 and going straight to Q3). So you’re only answering Q1, Q3, Q5, Q7 and Q8 for the perfect game (you have to answer Q8 no matter what)
> Top prize is only €250k
That’s it, finally. ;))
About last night’s episode : it peaked at 4.8m towards the end of the show, and the only pair of contestants featured last night won €15k.
Another tweak : the clock is 45 seconds long for Q1-4, 30s for Q5-7, and they’re giving a rather long thinking time before starting the countdown. And no clock for Q8.
Thanks. It sounds like it did some good numbers for the most part, it will be interesting to see if they hold.
Nobody cares about gameshows in France
That’s a pity, because I think they do them well generally.
Indeed. Their afternoon/early evening shows are especially strong, and even old standards like Price is Right have more brains and game elements than the vast majority of international versions.
“even old standards like Price is Right have more brains and game elements than the vast majority of international versions”
It might have been the case, but I’m not so sure it’s still true.
For your Price is Right example, most of the games they made up for our current version are just more complicated to understand than anything, except for one or two of them.
I can’t really think of a game that got “brainier” for its French adaptation, or it was just about little parts (such as the trivia question at the beginning of each “A Prendre ou a Laisser” episode, which was very easy and got removed after 2 series anyway)
, perhaps? Because it was shown across northern and western Europe, had to be written in a subset of English, with very little of the language’s nuance and wordplay, otherwise it would confuse the people for whom English wasn’t their first language. QPuC can assume everyone is a fluent French speaker, and build a little extra nuance into the show.
When I say that, I’m maybe exaggerating a little bit. But still… I’ve never seen an actual Gameshows critic, nor anything like Buzzerblog or Bother’s Bar in France, for example. (maybe I should start the first Gameshows-centered blog in France then.)
I’m not even talking about the way actual journalists paid to talk about TV are doing their articles about gameshows. I’d rate them ranging from “average” (they’re just summing up what the producers told them about the show) to “what are you doing writing for a TV magazine?” (when they’re considering every new thing as american. And yes, this happens quite a lot).
This was referring to the “Nobody cares about gameshows in France” thing.
Any way to edit a comment? (just asking but sounds like the answer is “no”)
Thanks for that, and unfortunately the only person who can edit is me (and yes, you should definitely start a blog! Edit: When I said critical reaction, I also sort of meant what the public were saying about it).
Perhaps it’s a matter of perspective being a foreigner but I’ve always enjoyed French versions of shows – I accept that they’re probably trashy from a French perspective, but to us they seem pacey, stylish and interesting. It also seems like they’re willing to take a chance on ideas moreso than many places.
And obviously you’ve got Jacques Antoine and Vincent LaGaf which is a free pass for most things, from my point of view anyway.
“To us they seem pacey, stylish and interesting.”
That’s what I think of most of UK shows. The grass is always greener on the other side, I guess… 😉
Heh! True enough!
Because it’s been a while since we’ve linked to the theme music…
(*walks away whistling)
A bit of interesting news for you all. I’ve been invited to audition for the new series of The Chase. I’ve to go to Manchester on August 12th.
Good luck!
To see a favorable review of “The Chase”, you might look at theblogisright.blogspot.com.
Thanks, Brig. I’ll do my best to get on the show. If anyone has any tips for game show auditions, then I’m all ears.
in Italy Chain Reaction is also holding on its 25% share, while on Canale5 the reruns of La Stangata had a humble 10%.
Paolo Bonolis returns on September 5th with Avanti Un Altro. When asked about this new show, he only said “it’s funny”
we’ll see -_-
Something interesting cropped up in Tuesday’s Pointless; I’ll be interested to see if they acknowledge it. Spoilers for the first round:
It was the type of question where you’re given seven answers, at least one is wrong, at least one is Pointless. Four teams were left.
On the first pass, Team A got the lowest answer, but everyone else got answers in a similar ballpark; it was a very low-scoring round.
On the second board, there were two incorrect answers, two high-scoring answes, and three low answers. The first three teams picked off all the high answers, meaning that there was absolutely no way the final team – Team A – could get a competitive score. Through no fault of their own, they were eliminated.
I think a fair solution to that would be to allow them to come back without using up their retry, but I wouldn’t be surprised if no-one really acknowledges it.
Whilst I’ve often wondered how much thought goes into the answer selections given and the range of points on offer, I largely suspect this would get shrugged off as luck of the draw, not much different to a team taking the best answer first in the head-to-head.
“The first three teams all picked off the *low* answers”, even.
French Money Drop ratings update, day 2 :…..3.6m – 25% share!
So well, seems like it’s going well. The show was a bit better yesterday, pace was improved even if there’s still work to do.
(and Production gossip about Money Drop : I’ve had the opportunity to talk with the host of the show, Laurence Boccolini, on Twitter during the show yesterday, and I’ve asked her about the pace. She told me there is actually a guideline, set by Endemol UK, as for how long you need to make people wait between the “let’s find out the answer” thing and the actual opening of the drops. So you’ll never see all of that happening in less than 10 seconds apparently.)
Looks like Thumper made a result-affecting mistake during Monday’s UC…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8677788/Flag-error-leaves-Jeremy-Paxman-University-Challenged.html
…Weather or not it was a mistake (…And it does look like one based on the article), it wasn’t Thumper who made it. Any more than the various mistakes in the questions on the Million Pound Drop are Davina McCall’s.
(Heck, it’s also not clear from the article if it actually changed the result [Despite there being five points in it and the question being worth 10 + 3xbonus. Did Balliol or Homerton get the question leading into that set of picture bonuses; and who got the final starter question, which had the mistake not have been made there might not have been enough time for, both could factor in to what the result would have been. ‘Potentially result-affecting’ would be more accurate, based on that article; it’s actually quite difficult to tell, and with a format like UC’s very much not just a case of ‘well, just add the points on to see what would have happened’ [Had the Oxford side been judged to get the starter correct, then it would have been almost certainly result effecting, but from what the article tells us, we can’t actually tell.)
Well, here’s what David Clark has to say about it:
http://lifeaftermastermind.blogspot.com/2011/08/uc-flag-controversy.html
(goes back and checks the tape)
Right, it’s the first visual round starter, just over 8 minutes into the show. Thumper asked, “which organisation this flag represented?” Grinyer of Homerton buzzed and offered “the thirteen colonies”, adjudged incorrect. Balliol offered “Canada”, clearly wrong. Balliol were correct in the next starter, and scored 5 points.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica Online (article:
United States of America, flag of the) states that the “Grand Union Flag” was an unofficial banner, and the first official flag of the breakaway forces was the stars and stripes, with 13 of each.
The unofficial nature of the flag appears to be contradicted by the popular stories told in those parts of the world – see, for instance, this link and that one, which has a reasonable suggestion that the Grand Union Flag has been retrospectively standardised into red-and-white stripes. In a brief search, I’ve not found evidence that the colonials deliberately copied the East India Company, nor that they even knew of the EIC’s standard.
The question asked for an organisation, and “the 13 colonies” was not an organisation. “The Continental Congress” or “Forces loyal to George Washington” would have been. That’s enough for me to suggest that the question shouldn’t have been asked.
The match’s final starter went to Homerton, and one correct bonus would have allowed them to draw level; the gong went just before that question was asked.
If one accepts that “the thirteen colonies” was a correct answer, just not the one the setters expected, then Homerton can justifiably claim they were disadvantaged. I think this is a much closer call than the linked article implies.
Whichever way you cut it, it was a bit disappointing that someone, somewhere didn’t think it worth a Google while they were recording the rest of the show. Also I find it a bit disingenuous of them to try to wriggle out of it with weasel words when there clearly was a case to answer.
Interesting thing coming up in the UK…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2011/aug/03/bullseye-gameshow-live-comeback
Ooh, talking of theatre shows of live game shows, that reminds me. Months and months ago, I took a copy of the autobiography of Leslie Crowther and his wife Jean out at my wife’s library. (Large print edition, ISBN 0-7505-0932-5.) It has a few fleeting memories of late-’50s / early-’60s Crackerjack, and more about his time hosting The Price Is Right.
Some highlights:
1) There were 25 different pricing games used in the UK.
2) The audience composed nine coachloads from all around the country. (Nine coachloads, nine down on Contestant’s Row at various points. Hmm…)
3) Bill… er, William G. Stewart was a Butlin’s Redcoat in his youth and picked the contestants himself: four men, five women.
4) I reckon this is fair use, and a response to David’s comment:
“Then, as so often in showbusiness, a black cloud appeared on the horizon – this time it came from Blackpool. Billy Marsh and I had arranged to put on a stage version of The Price Is Right at the Opera House in the summer of 1985, and I was to received what seemed to be a generous percentage of the takings once the overheads had been covered. I felt certain I was on to a good thing, but when the time arrived for the first payment I encountered Billy with head in hands – never a good sign. He explained that the prizes – which were quite valuable – were always being won, something that we hadn’t accounted for.
I reacted with incredulity. ‘What? Do you mean that I’m going to be working for nothing all season?’ Ruefully, he confirmed that such was the probability. There was no consolation in the knowledge that Bill himself would be losing a packet on the deal, because he’s the sort who keeps his word and pays out if he’s promised to do so.
We were sadly let down by Blackpool. Innocently, we had devised three variations of the show with three sets of prizes and three different levels of prices, but the show-going citizens had worked out that it was possible, by handing three sets of cribs to those attending a particular show, to ensure dead cert winners. And so it went. No matter how much I tried to giggle deceptively, the audience regularly deprived me of my salary by coming up every time with the right answer.”
This is a brilliant story, thanks.
I wonder what happened to the Millionaire live tour?
I am not necessarily sure that just because it has been in an autobiography then it has to be true – and, if it is true, it raises the question of why they just didn’t have more than three sets of prizes and prices. (If you’re going to have more than one, why stop at three, if it’s the only way to cover costs?)
Nevertheless, I hope it was true; I would like it to have been used as evidence of poor practice when designing the TPiR Live show played at US casinos from time to time.
For some supporting evidence, see pages 34-5 of volume 100 of the Cyril Critchlow collection of Blackpool memorabilia at Blackpool Central Library, apparently. It suggests that Gordon Scott and Gary Wilmot – Gary Wilmot! – were also involved, perhaps as support acts.