28 August 2000
This
is the latest offering from Celador, the production company who
brought you “Who
Wants To Be A Millionaire” ('WWTBAM').
‘The
People Versus‘ really ought to have been every bit as good a show as
WWTBAM but sadly it falls somewhat short of the mark.
Even with a great name, splendid production values, prime-time
slot, attractive and popular presenter (Kirsty Young), a simple
user-friendly website
offering an inexpensive means of applying to get on, and big, big money
prizes, sadly the show lacks real drama.
A
detailed description of the show (with images) can be found within the
pages of the UK Game Show
Homepage, and so I won’t here rehash all that. However, I am
pompous enough to list here how I think the show might be improved upon.
I will also share some observations
from my own frantic efforts to get on the show!
10
possible ways to inspire the ‘people’ in The People Versus:
- Limit
the number of occasions in a round that a person can ‘take a flip
question’ or buy an answer (i.e. a round being a set of 5 questions
on a particular subject). A
maximum of 1 each per round perhaps?
The real problem with the show is that if someone has set a
really good question the contestant can avoid it.
In rounds 4 & 5 for example – when things ought to be
tough - a person can retain their seat by getting just 3 out of 5
right (i.e. 6 out of 10 if you take the two rounds collectively).
They simply use the £30k they win to buy off the other three
questions they need! This
gets them back to rounds 1 & 2 where they can pick and choose
without too much risk.
- If
you must let people buy the answers to a question, how about giving
some or all of the £10k price to the person who set the question, or
a charity they might be asked to nominate?
- Offer
some token prize or memento to people who get a question used on the
show – a sweatshirt, a pen or something collectable of that ilk.
- Get
some of the people who have asked questions into the Elstree studio,
or perhaps a regional studio nearer their home. Lets see their faces as the contestant gets the answer
right or wrong – a split screen shot of the two would be a good
idea!
- After
a person has answered the minimum number of questions in a round and
said ‘stick’, let them gamble some of their winnings from the
round (but not their seat) on some of the other questions – if they
get a question wrong the money could go either to the show, charity or
question setter.
- Each
show pick a round in which one of the contestants must get 5 out of 5.
That way at least one person is likely to be eliminated each
show, letting someone new on. This
avoids the initial situation we had when the series was into its fifth
show – fully half way through its run – before anyone was
eliminated!
- Add
an element of competition between the three contestants.
If you forced the elimination of whichever contestant won the
least money each show, for example, you would likely force
participants to take a few more risks.
- Allow
contestants to buzz-in on occasion and steal each others’ questions.
Watching the show, even though I have no say over the choice of
subjects, there is usually at least one question in each 5 to which I
know the answer. Quite
frankly, some of the questions rate as reasonably straightforward
general knowledge (e.g. Q: For which film did David Niven win an Academy
Award? Ans: Separate Tables).
Allowing people to 'steal' would raise the tension, if
only because it would reduce the number of questions available from
which the person ‘in play’ had to make up their minimum number of
required answers. Alternatively,
to limit opportunities to ‘steal’ the programme makers
might choose to set harder questions from among those offered to them
by the public.
- Instead
of having an increasing number of answers required as the game
progresses (e.g. one right answer in round 1, two in round 2, and so
on) leave it to the contestants to set the standard.
If someone fancies their first subject and scores well, force
the other contestants to match the pace they have set -
or get eliminated in the process!
(Indeed, for
a moment at any rate, this is what I thought was going to happen when
I watched show #1. The
first chap got 1 of 5 on 'Inventors' and we progressed to a
girl answering on 'The Simpsons'.
She scored 3 from 5. When
we got back to contestant number one, he was asked for 2 of 5 on ‘One
Hit Wonders’. I
thought this was because he had to match the pace set by contestant 2
– i.e. finish with a total of three correct answers under his belt!).
- Offer
a sliding scale of prize money according to how many questions in each
round someone answers – again in the interest of encouraging
contestants to ‘go for it’ and so risk their seat.
It could work along the lines of …
·
£1k for one
correct answer out of 5,
·
£2k per
correct answer for 2 out of 5,
·
£3k per
correct answer for 3 out of 5,
·
£4k per
correct answer for 4 out of 5, &
·
£10k per
correct answer for 5 out of 5.
Buying
an answer or taking a flip would freeze the rate of prize money, e.g. if
you flipped or bought answer 5 you’d just get £16k for the first four
correct answers. Note: I
have suggested £10k per question for five out of five for the simple
reason it would otherwise be difficult for the show to advertise the
fact it was offering less prize money!
Also, in theory the lesser money handed out in the early stages
would finance any £50k per round payouts.
Observations
from my efforts to get on the show:
Firstly
I was surprised & gratified to find there was no prejudice against
questions logged via the Internet – i.e. as opposed to those offered
over the phone. Presumably
the show receives no financial benefit from questions placed on the web
site whereas, as with WWTBAM, it may just get some revenue from
phone calls (even though the maximum cost for phoning The People Versus
is 35p rather than the £1 for phoning WWTBAM).
Setting
questions using the website
is best. The beauty of it is
that you can go offline and type dozens of questions before cutting and
pasting text into the web page. Moreover,
if you are prepared to accept a cookie on your machine, you’ll
find you only need to quote your personal details and choice of five
subjects once (you’ll soon discover how tedious the last mentioned
process can be if you telephone the show instead!).
If
you are going to have a go at setting a question, you might like to have
regard to the following points …
·
Try and keep your
question as short as possible.
·
Try & avoid
ambiguity – see the “Joad
Question”.
·
The shows
researches may alter the wording of your question.
This may be done for clarity but might also make the question a
little easier also!
·
The show reserves
the right to use your question in merchandising.
·
You should not be
involved with or related to either employees of Celador or the
show’s current contestants. So
if your relative does get on the show, don’t be tempted to set them a
question in case it causes them to loose all their winnings!
·
The show’s researchers will not select a question unless they can
verify the answer from four separate sources.
So, and while you yourself don’t need to quote your source, if a
question is too obscure it will hardly be an easy matter for them to
verify it!
·
Contestants are likely to steer well clear of obscure
questions.
·
Ideally the show is looking for interesting & novel
questions the public can be engaged with.
·
Avoid “trick” questions but do by all means set a “tricky”
one. Go for one which looks
easy but is not!
·
When citing personal details, give as many contact numbers
as may come in handy, espcially one you can be contacted on between the
hours of 9am and 2pm.
Once
one of your questions has been selected - i.e. short-listed for possible
use on the show - you will get a call the day before transmission.
You should be aware the show is recorded during the evening of the
day before broadcast.
Hopefully
you will be available from 7pm onwards to listen in via phone to the show
being recorded – and fingers crossed your question is picked and the
wrong answer supplied! My
brother had the misfortune to set a suitable question but was not then
able to listen in at the allotted time due to being away abroad on
holiday. Nor did Celador
let him assign the question to me (all though the show’s
rules do, in extreme cases, allow for people to be contacted and asked
if they wish to ‘adopt’ questions written by their researchers!).
To
date I have had four separate questions selected.
·
#1 became
irrelevant when one of the initial contestants was eliminated before she
got to answer questions on Freddie Mercury a second time.
·
#2 was chosen as a
backup question but did not come up because the contestant did not ask for
a flip on that subject (as at 28.8 its still waiting to be used).
·
#3 – was
broadcast on 27 August & answered correctly (i.e. “What were
David Niven’s three Christian names”).
That made £10k in first round winnings for a chap from Glasgow,
who proceeded to get his next question wrong and he had to
relinquish his seat (this was a second round question on the novels of
Wilbur Smith). Why couldn't it have been mine!!!!!
·
#4 has been lined
up as another possible. I’ll
say no more on that one! However,
in case it gets me on the show my five specialist subjects will be …
1.
The History of Everton Football Club.
2.
The Songs of Leonard Cohen
3.
European
Military History, 1600 - 2000
4.
Academy Award
winning films
5.
Napoleon’s
campaigns, 1805 –1815
To
round matters off, here’s a small selection from the many questions I
have submitted to the programme so far. For various reasons these
ones are now unlikely to feature, enabling me to share them with you …
|