Thanks to an anonymous tip-off:
I did a run-through for Push the Button last year which involved being locked in a coffin and pretending to be a soap character who had died a tragic death in their soap. Hope this game is kept for one of the shows this series – expect us stand-ins to be replaced by the real soap actors, and the contestants to have to learn a list of around 100 soap characters so as to be able to identify the name and cause of death of any given 5 of these who appear from their coffins on that particular show. Which actors will appear? My bet: Dirty Den is a dead-cert(forgive the pun)…
Incidentally, I’ve looked into the It’ll All End In Tiers edit from this week’s show, in actual fact at no point do the clocks behind the families differ by several thousand to what’s shown on screen as claimed (although if you were really looking, sometimes it doesn’t match up by a couple of hundred). Once one team push the button, the money drops at about £150 – £170 a second (it’s actually quite difficult to tell unless you’re doing frame by frame analysis, which I can’t be bothered to do, although my rudimentry timing makes it £1k in 6.25 seconds, or £160 a second which is nice and “round”), whereas the rate of change early on is about £1k in 4.5 seconds. I would be very surprised if the actual rate was not consistant across the entire game – indeed, I wonder if contestants are furnished with the details beforehand?. But yes, an edited show is edited (certainly not the first time an edit has fit the result), but certainly no genuine evidence of impropriety.
However the unbroadcast lifeline element is still baffling.
Don’t worry Solitary is awesome this week. I don’t think i have laughed so hard at a US reality show before, as when one of the players made a plee for part of the reward.
Nice to see one of the challenges from The Mole get an outing, have to say though after this weeks show, its sure a 2 horse race between 2 players now.
Yes, just watched it, much MUCH better more entertaining than last week’s, with hilarious communication joke to boot.
Surprisingly, that exchange left me a little underwhelmed. The first half of the joke was funny, and I wish they had cut it off th– oh. Er, I wish they had ended it right there. After that, you could see where the next obvious joke was, and the fact that they went for it made it not nearly as funny as the original instance. I guess what separates this dirty joke from the “This sucks Vag” event was that that completely surprised me, no way I would have even imagined that coming. I hate predictable jokes. ]
Unrelatedly:
“expect us stand-ins to be replaced by the real soap actors”
It was not until this line that I realized we were not discussing detergent. Up until that point, I pictured the Scrub’n Bubbles sitting motionlessly in the bathroom sink.
Regarding the endgame lifeline: Might that not simply be the case that, while it’s a good rule for the game in general, it doesn’ t make particularly good television and it can be eliminated completely without harming the game at all?
If it was recorded in the week of transmission, that suggests that the games will be entirely unique each week, to prevent people having advance knowledge of what they’re dealing with. While this seems reasonable for the general games, it felt a lot like they were talking about the endgame being *the* endgame, the same throughout the series. If that’s the case, then I’m not sure it’s a good idea since for one thing it allows later families to form better strategies, and for another… I’m not sure I can take televised Simon *every* week.
Yes, there is meant to be a large catalogue of games to choose from for the main show. I hope they don’t have Simon every week either, but unfortunately I think it is.
Maybe five straight 50k+ wins might change that? 😉
Or possibly the whole point is they want a Happy End each week in true Generation Game style.
I think the life line and allowance for a mistake means that they’re expecting ~£50k to be won each week, but failing that ~£5k will be given as a consolation prize.
(And, seriously, Give each team 500 seconds, and have the end game timed for a holiday (And £1 per second left entering the final game, either working as spending money or a consolation prize depending on the result) without however much time the winning team has left, and you’ve got a gameshow straight out of the 80s going on here. This is not a bad thing, it’s just a thing.)
Right, to let you all know where i am, i havent seen push the button yet as i was out, so i havent been reading the comments, hence, apologies if this has been already spotted, but… this article http://tv.uk.msn.com/photos/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=152321478&page=10 seems to suggest that Eurovision: You’re Country Needs You, feat. Pete Waterman for one night only (to give it its full and proper title) will be going out on a FRIDAY night. Which is very odd… It also says it’ll start at 830. Anyone else feel like the BBC dont care very much this year?
Weeeell, Song for Europe used to go out on Friday night as well, and that’s quite a bit better than the Sunday afternoon phase they went through for a while. And I’m quite excited about the prospect of a Pete Waterman entry, I only hope that all the contestants being lined up for it are old Hit Factory stars like What’s Sonia Scoreboard and The Reynolds Girls.
I thought it was a one-off too. But look at this on the WIT report;
BBC One
Friday, March 12 from 20.30 to 22.00, BBC One will launch a second season of the talent show Eurovision – Your Country Needs You. Famous composer and producer Pete Waterman embarks on a nationwide mission to find the act to perform his UK entry for the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. The jury will decide on a shortlist of six finalists, who will go through to the weekly live shows. 6 weekly episodes. Prod: BBC.
Well I am quite surprised, SRO were suggesting it was a one-off (although I note their description now seems to have changed) – maybe it’s changed at the last minute?
Two things though: 1) 90 minutes is quite lengthy for an elimination competition with six singers in it, isn’t it? and 2) It wouldn’t finish until April 23rd, which is a bit late isn’t it?
Yes, and everything else I’ve read has pointed to it being a one-off. The cut-off date is mid-March, isn’t it? So there’s no way it’d be six shows. As for it being on a Friday, as Brig says it always used to be on a Friday so it’ll be nice to see it back there – and the audience won’t be appreciably worse than on a Saturday, I know the first half hour is opposite Corrie but QI gets about five million there, and the rest is up against Michael Winner’s awful flop programme.
I think I have it worked out.
It’s one show ‘proper’, but with a lead up of six-segments in the Friday night edition of The One Show (ie. audition footage)
I’m a bit late with the Push The Button stuff because I only watched it last night, but can somebody tell me what the team captain actually does? They don’t appear to have any role other than being the first person Ant and Dec meet, so why bother announcing one?
I didn’t much care for this, I’m afraid, the contestants were unbelievably irritating (the captain of the Greenwoods was awful), and the audience on Ant and Dec shows are always ridiculously hyper, but here we even got screams of excitement when they announced the Fosters were going first based on alphabetical order. And the audience went “awww” when they asked the other team to go backstage to avoid seeing the game. I mean, get the audience involved, yes, but calm down, for heaven’s sake.
They don’t appear to have any role other than being the first person Ant and Dec meet, so why bother announcing one?
You could say the same thing for the Head of the Family on Family Fortunes, it’s all rather nominal.
Edit: Actually that’s not quite true.
Yeah, but at least the captain on Family Fortunes has to make decisions on what answer to accept, and even just introducing their team. Here they just announced them as the captains and that was it. You’d have thought they’d have been responsible for choosing who does what game?
Yes I realised that, hence my edit.
I still can’t say it bothered me overly.
Well, I’m not spitting feathers or anything, but it seemed a rather pointless thing to do. And it just led to more airtime for the Greenwood’s awful captain, who really got on my wick – especially in the yodelling when she was frugging relentlessly so she’d get in shot more, and not even looking at her mum doing it!
Might this also be the place to espose my theory about how teams on game shows should be four people or fewer? Some of the team members we barely got to see.
But imagine what The Crystal Maze would have been like with only four people!
Although what they’ve done with All Star Family Fortunes with the fifth player never even getting to do a face off is a bit rubbish.
…That’s some teams completely locked in, then.
In this case there isn’t much gained from 5 rather than 4, but not much lost imo either. (Though I guess having a two player game might enable them to up game variety)
Antan Dec seemed taken aback by the audience’s reaction to asking one of the teams to wait backstage while the other team plays the game, to me. Hence the hasty, and surprised sounding “We’ll see them later!”
I’ll have to check the video tonight- maybe we could extrapolate the amounts based on the time taken for the games- but didn’t an anonymous commenter say it was £100 a second?
For the final game with the cakes, it was about a £4,000 difference or so between the lead team and the trailing team IIRC- That would be a 40 second buffer for the lead team, which for that last game sounds about right based on the difficulty.
Well I checked this – when the game starts, the clocks count down at £2000 per 9 seconds.
The winning team lose £28,256 and they do it in about 2:11 screen time.
The other team (who begin the round £4,065 up) are eliminated about 25 seconds of screen time later. I don’t think there would be any need to edit this part down and indeed I can’t see many joins.
The clocks behind the families certainly look like they’re going a bit faster then £100 a second, you’re welcome to see if this is the case. I suspect the anonymous commenter is a fed-up industry bloke rather than a PtB staffer, although I’d be happy to be wrong.