Televisual genius Simon Cowell the COMEBACK KING has DONE IT AGAIN! Red or Black is returning for a second series, but there will be more “skill and judgement” this time round, so that’s alright then. Other changes include a £500,000 rolling jackpot endgame, so look out for more exciting informed tea table and internet chat as to how much the end game may or may not be costing ITV and if they’ll go bankrupt.
Iconic One Theme | Powered by Wordpress
As posted in the other thread, sounds a bit like Schlag den Raab without the the points system.
Wouldn’t it just be better to do it that way?
Having said that why don’t they make Red or Black 2x 2hour long shows in June and December with a jackpot of £2.5million or £5million.
internet chat as to how much the end game may or may not be costing ITV and if they’ll go bankrupt.
Pre-empted! I’ve already done the maths with a spreadsheet showing the cost for all 128 permutations of win/loss. Assuming (and that might not be a safe assumption anymore) it’s a straight coinflip at the end for the money, then:
* On average, ITV will pay out £3,003,906 in the series, equivalent to £429,129 per week. 50% chance of £3.5m, 25% chance of £3m, 25% chance of less than that.
* That’s double the previous per-episode record before last year held by PokerFace by the way.
* Interestingly the chances are better than 50-50 (57.8125% to be exact) that someone wins £1.5m or more and becomes the biggest game show winner in British television history. I largely suspect that’s what Simon Cowell’s aiming at here to be quite honest (and it’s what made me work the maths out).
Oh, how I would laugh if the 1-in-128 shot came up and there were seven losers in a row.
This may be the first time I have actually rooted for all the contestants en masse to lose – but I’m rooting against Cowell and company rather than the contestants here…
Unless I’ve been very stupid in my understanding of this, it will cost ITV the same regardless of the outcome of every episode except the last one? It will still cost ITV £500k per episode unless the last contestant loses and whatever was in the prize pot at the end goes back to ITV? If anything, this new rolling jackpot system differs to the original series in that the chances of ITV winning money back (by a contestant not winning) are much lower, as only the final week will matter for them (assuming they don’t do some kind of viewer competition or similar to win the leftover).
My interpretation matches yours – and, implicitly, if the last episode is a loser then the status of the previous episode will make a difference to the actualised prize budget, and so on and so on backwards until the last winning episode.
Of course, if there is an unwon jackpot at the end of the series then they could just give it away or raffle it off. But as if! (I remember the ire from some parts when the rolling jackpot did not carry over from series to series on The Vault…)
Yup it’s £3.5m for the series, minus (£500k * losing streak at the end of the series).
And now for something completely different…
Greece had a law for much of the twentieth century outlawing the throwing of yoghurt and other such substances by way of political protest.
I wonder if having two politicians up for the Gunge Vote on Noel’s House Party would come under the same category? If so, can we get Little Noely extradited and slammed into Greek jail?
If not, the Uncyclopedia article on Noel Edmonds may be worth a few minutes’ browse of your time, not least for the independent reinvention of Question Muck from Dick and Dom In Da Bungalow.
And that sort of instant information is the reason why the Encyclopedia Britannica is going out of print after 244 years…
My favourite moment in the Uncyclopedia one is Uri Geller got decapitated by an enormous hydraulic spoon.
Two records broken on today’s The Chase I think:
First ever “re-offer”
Lowest ever accepted (and “won”) offer
Also, look closely at the end of Pointless and you’ll see Richard stand up from behind his desk for the first time (?) as a “be on the next series” message is aired over the top, proving how ridiculously tall he is!
6 ft 8. You have to see him in real life.
I was shocked that they actually went for the lowest offer in Chase history, and reinforces why I think they are a very bad idea. I just don’t like it when other members of the team work hard to put money in the pot, then someone KNOWINGLY undoes part of it by taking the minus offer, getting through, then having a share of the spoils should the team win. I thought the point of the game was to put as much money into the team pot as possible.
Rest assured, if I get on the show (which I’m still waiting to hear from), dropping down would NOT be an option.
It also exacerbates an existing flaw in the format, namely that a contestant in the final position has a big advantage going last, especially a weak contestant on a strong team.
Yeah, there ARE definite advantages to being in the last position. You’ve seen 3 Chases, so you know what kind of day the Chaser is having, whether they’re playing solidly, making you less inclined to move up, or they’re doing badly, as was what happened to Shaun yesterday (getting 3 wrong in a row) and making you more inclined to move up. Even when the last player asks the rest of the team what they should do and they make it clear that they shouldn’t move down, more often than not they still go ahead and do it anyway! What makes it worse is that after someone DOES move down and gets home, me and my mum don’t want that team to win then, because of that one bad apple that decided to think only for themself and undo the team’s hard work.
Greed in game shows is ALWAYS going to be a thorn in my side, so that’s what made me hate Divided, Golden Balls, et al and it’s also made me not want to watch any more of The Bank Job because I was so fed up of reading people’s comments on Facebook that were praising Stacey for giving Scott the Trash and taking the whole £100k, all because Scott had already won money in the earlier shows.
I’m one of them most righteous people you could ever hope to meet, I have a STRONG sense of fair play and I would do the utmost if ever I was in a team situation. There is no ‘I’ in team, and I firmly stand by that sentiment.
But there’s an M and an E in team.
Can someone set up Communistgameshows.net? I promise to link to it.
Hasn’t Bob Mills started that already?
I don’t think he would visit it.
Of course, communist gameshows wouldn’t be that interesting because every player would own the same number of points #politicalcomment
Would anyone like to play Soviet Monopoly?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XJseql2u5l0/SK7djjETEOI/AAAAAAAACmg/FRqg_X_AA_Y/s400/monopoly-soviets.jpg
In Soviet Russia, dice roll YOU!
All the faces have a 1 on them.
Whilst honeymooning in Cuba I spent a happy few days growing a beard and attempting to devise a communist game show. Didn’t go anywhere.
Interestingly (or perhaps not), the only game show I could find on Cuban TV was the American Cash Cab, which was on the local (tourist orientated) variant of Discovery four times a day.
The prisoner’s dilemma would be brilliant, because the choices would be “split” or “split”.
Tetris: The Gameshow.
But that exists as Blokken already!
Still waiting for Noel Edmonds’ Boggle Challenge though.
On the contrary, Comrade Peake, every player would be awarded points in relation to their ability, but would use them for the benefit of the group. After they’ve left the game, points become pointless.
The most communist game format would be one where players are given a goal, just enough equipment to reach it, and pool their talents to succeed or fail as a community. Something like or .
And the Trotskyite version of the prisoner’s dilemma: “share” or “be first up against the wall when the revolution comes”.