Did anyone else catch the commercials for this little gem while watching the game show network? From the Website:



Looks extremely interesting... as a psychology major I'll definatly be watching this one...

Premieres on Tuesday @ 9PM.

Interesting. Of course being that it's a game show, the entire concept of "deserve" is out the window. Chances are it will be "who has the best sob story without sounding like they're begging."

There's a clip of the first eleven minutes of an episode (I'm guessing the first one?) in the videos section of GSN's website. It appears to be the first round of the game, where the panel eliminates a contestant based on first appearances alone. I find it odd that the show is called "Without Prejudice?" since they're clearly going to have to exhibit prejudice to eliminate a contestant after only seeing a fifteen-second video clip.

Every stinkin' time I go past GSN on my way to a channel I like better, they're pimping this show. If it lives up to even 1/4 of the attention they're giving it, it'll do well. But I'll pass, thanks.

I am watching this now and dude of the islands is real special. Kind of like he was playing up for the cameras.

I liked everyone on the panel except the brunette lady and dude from islands. Brown-haired lady took gun-control issue too personally and you do NOT ask a 74 yr old woman if she is gay! It's too obvious why I didn't like the islands guy. If he and the brunette lady they would make an interesting litter. The only contestant I wasn't feeling was they guy into porn, and I think he was high during the show. All-in-all, I'm glad Micheal got the money to help the kids.

At an hour and a half, this show was too long. I think the panel's back-and-forth about whether they agreed with specific issues took away the focus from the whole concept of the show, which was to judge the contestants for perceived worthiness. When they voted off the skeevy guy in the first round, I held out hope - they were judging based on gut reaction. But as the contestants divulged more about themselves, sometimes going on, and on, and ON the focus seemed to shift to judging based on the panelist's personal hot-button issues.

I'd like to see the panel do more speculating on who the contestants are to give us an idea of their own prejudices. They brought up the gay possibility, which apparently didn't matter to any of them (nor should it), but I got a vibe of skinhead from the ex-marine turned porn star, an illegal immigrant vibe from Marline, and I would have speculated about whether Nancy had some type of old South mindset until I heard more from her. I was glad to see the panelist from the Islands own up to his prejudice against blacks at the beginning, which gave us an opportunity for the other panelists to call him on it. I'm glad he kept an open mind and voted for Michael in the end.

They could have done without the "honesty" portion where a planted staff member was given too much money. Throw that concept out unless you can show us something that truly relates to the contestants' character. Don't waste the time arguing about whether the guy wussed out by calling a friend to talk about it - he was a contestant on a game show, and he wanted advice on whether to badmouth a fellow contestant and how it would make him appear. Were it a more critical situation, such as witnessing someone take money out of someone's purse, it might have mattered. This was just stupid.

Overall, I'm kind of meh about this show. Not too hot about the host, either. I'll give it one more chance, but they'll have to do something more interesting to keep me watching.

Ala men on films......

HATED IT

It was rerun tonight. One thing I wonder...did they not introduce the panel of "judges"? I missed the first minute or so, but it seems highly unlikely they had time to say anything about them, and all we got the rest of the way was their names.

Aaah, that explains it. I Ti-Faux'd it and assumed it was just an hour long show. By the end I was thinking "my GOD this is the longest hour I've ever spent in my life" despite the fact that I was fast-forwarding through commercials.

I'll give it one more chance, though. One thing I thought was interesting was the panel (who I agree we should have been given some background on) itself. For example, the island dude says he's prejudiced against blacks and puts himself out there even though he knows he'll be blasted for it. Of course the black panelist rightfully gets all angry and defensive. But when push came to shove, the black panelist admits he liked Nancy (the older lady who didn't win) better, but was giving the money to Michael anyway. Obviously motivated by race. I guess it's okay to be for someone based on race but not against someone for the same reason. I honestly thought someone on the panel would comment on that, but they didn't.

And the brown-haired woman! Since when does the fact that "me and my husband own several guns" yelled into the face of the blonde woman mean that the blonde woman's opion is thus rendered incorrect. God she was smug.

In the end I thought it was going to come down to the sex of the contestants, actually, until the blonde picked Michael too.

I absolutely love this show. It's based on a British series (I can't remember whether or not it goes by the same name) I used to watch on BBC America, which I also loved.

I'm not positive, but I believe the hour-and-a-half length applies to the premiere only, and that subsequent episodes will run an horu long.

Am I the only one who was waiting for a "gotcha" re: Nancy (the elderly lady)? Everyone kept talking about how sweet she was - I was thinking they were going to reveal that she was a madam or something.

I with you: I was kind of waiting for something way out of left field, too.

I was very pleased with the final two, but glad that the priest wasn't selected, as he would, just as predicted, use the money for his music.

Does anyone remember what the BBC version of this series was called? Did it go by the same title?

Without Prejudice?

Thank you for the link, jonaswan2!

Now tonight's episode was more like it. Lots of fireworks, especially courtesy of that crazy lady at the end of the panel.

It was hilarious when the winner went to hug them all, including Crazy Lady who didn't vote for her and gave her the "Bitch, I will cut you!" look.

I was disappointed with the show. I really expected something different...something better I guess.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, I thought there would be more assumptions made throughout, akin to what happened prior to the first dismissal. Also, while the contestants were diverse, the panel was not.

The crazy, ignorant lady, Raven, was on the first episode of VH1's Rock of Love. Seeing her on TV again so soon made me kind of wary of her. It seemed like she was there to be seen, as she promptly put on a show of her own. I'd really like to believe that she's not that ridiculous in real life, but who knows.

The other two women on the panel were almost non-existent. Usually, I was reminded that they were there when it was time to vote.

So, what is the panel getting out of this? Exposure? Free lunch? Bus pass?

As I'm watching this, yes, Raven is pretty outspoken and she certainly doesn't think before she speaks (I totally got where she's coming from, but she wasn't articulating it well), but the two guys are FAR worse. What does it say about them that they would deny Bob the money JUST because Raven supported him?

This show should be 30 minutes long with 4 contestants. It's just way too long and boring in its current format.

That black chick Raven was a jerk, and this is coming from a black woman and I can be pretty militant when I want to but she was a jackhole.

I think that they couldn't handle her being so abrasive, but the contestants are FOS if they think they picked Heather without prejudice. It was done primarily to spite Raven.

I'm with Raven though in that Heather is eye-roll inducing.

I just saw this show today, and I couldn't believe how boring it was. I also couldn't believe the judges panel: "you're making a snap judgement!" Well, gee, you're supposed to choose who is eliminated first based on some pathetic intro video. How could someone not make a snap judgement?

I think it says a lot more about Raven than it says about them, but either way I think he said that at least half jokingly, if not more. As crazy as Raven was, I think I would have given the money to the guy as well - but they were both decent candidates.

As to the format, if you think the show plods now, just imagine that the premiere episode was 90 minutes to get through 5 contestants! My favorite part is the hidden camera segment, but I hope they mix it up and don't have the little person every week. I liked the "missing money" bit from the first episode better.

I got the impression that the more outspoken guy was trying to convey that he would vote to eliminate Bob to counter Raven's vote to eliminate Heather. But how nasty was that for her to mumble that Heather shouldn't be so melodramatic and then stiffen up when Heather went to give her a hug? I'd have had more respect for Raven if she'd just said "I didn't vote for you, so don't bother thanking me".

I think her body language told Heather that she didn't vote for her, so she shouldn't bother go in for the hug. Heather didn't care and did it anyway.

Oh my God, that chick Raven was such a passive agressive jerk. Where do they even get these panelists? Her bitchiness and missing the point constantly was bad enough, but then her...I don't even know how to describe it...fake mimicry of the other panelists when they tried to get their points across? Something I'd expect from a 12 year old with bad manners. And when Heather asked what she said when she mumbled her crap about Heather's drama or whatever? Way to stick to your guns and make your point by copping out with "nothing" as an answer. Again, the behavior of a 12 year old.

Yep, Raven, you made the show all about you. Which was obviously your intent. If they have panelists like that every week, I'll be too irritated to continue watching.

Bob may be my favorite gameshow contestant ever. I was really rooting for him to get the money. Did Heather ever say what she was going to do with the money, anyway? With all her crying and bouncing around hugging people, I never heard. (Yeah, she seemed like a sweet kid, but I never got any indication that she'd use the 25k very well...for all I know she's going to spend it on her Dreeeeam Wedding.)

ETA, Raven was a truly obnoxious panelist, but I was also really put off by whatever the guy's name was at the opposite end of the table (bald guy with creepy facial hair) but grudgingly had to admit that he seemed to be making some attempt to keep an open mind.)

I won't be watching this again. This show is designed to make people argue and snipe with each other. Not a pleasant watching experience.

If I was on the panel, I would have voted for Bob in the end. He seemed like a good guy. I found Raven to be extremely obnoxious, though. It seemed like she made up her mind about who she was going to pick right from the contestants' introductions and openly mocked anyone who questioned or challenged what she had to say.

Who's to say that the other panelists didn't and tried to make a show of "how tough it is to choose" to spite Raven?

...

I haven't been able to catch the re-run of the show yet but I just found this thread and haven't seen it mentioned:

Did you guys relaize that Bob is no other than President Beefcake (™ Miss Alli) from Survivor a few seasons ago? He was one of my favorite contestants then so I squealed when I saw his face on the promos for Without Prejudice. AND he's a TWOPer. He was posting in the Survivor thread. He's MrBobDawgsta and last I checked, he was accepting marriage proposals...

She was really on Rock of Love? And why did I not recognize President Beefcake?

Wow, I did not realize this show was using recycled reality show contestants. Another reason not to watch. People still scrounging for their 15 minutes.

I know! When I saw Bob and heard that Raven was on ROL, it made me question whether the whole show is scripted. I still want to check it out though. (Hey, I'm easily amused.)

I had seen ads for this show but I didn’t really plan on seeking it out. However, I stumbled across it and found myself watching. I thought that it was interesting to hear people say what they really think about others based on just a few snippets of information. Despite many of the “prejudices” it was a gay man and a thrice married woman under thirty who made the final two. Granted it was probably because the panel wanted to grill them but that’s alright.

Even after reading here that they have some reality show whores on, I still won’t hate on the show. Scripted or not this is summer and I have to kill some time before “Damages” comes on.

Oh, and I would never vote to give a monetary reward to someone who makes $100,000 a year. So (if that part was true) I'm glad that Nya won even though Jim seemed like a really great person.

Could be, just because the "redemption" arc just seems to happen a little too easily...one or two of the panelists display ridiculous amounts of prejudice at the beginning, only to miraculously overcome it by the end.

Of course, with comments like "gay people become that way because they're raped", it's hard to say what's worse...if that were scripted, or if it weren't.

I just watched this show for the first time and what a horrendous piece of crap. If the panel is representative of the human race, I may have make an appointment with my doctor for species reassignment surgery.

This was the episode in which the panel gave the money to 25-year-old Jamie, a surfer dude from southern California, presumably because a) he was good looking and b) he was so young he hadn't done much with his life yet that they could find fault with.

Great.

Maybe not all of it, if any, is scripted because he is exactly the type that gets ahead in life. I loved the looks on the panel’s faces when he said that he was going to buy a car with his winnings. Heh, suck it ass clowns. I can’t tell whether I like this show for the snark factor or if it’s just the Pinot talking. Oh well, I can enjoy crap if I don’t take it seriously [see Dirt].

I find it much more amusing to snark on the panelists. Imagine how small they must have felt after voting off the first guy (the "old man" at 54), only to learn that he was a pastor, and that he'd have used the money to do something special for his wife, who had made a lifetime of financial sacrifices so he could follow his calling.

And the male panelist with the mohawk and the collagen-enhanced glossed lips? He was the true fame whore - scripted little snarky comments and all.

The gay panelist was Matthew Fashion. I vividly remember seeing him on an episode of MTV's "Next" (and yes, I'm embarrassed to admit that I sometimes watch that show).

This is going to be a VERY unpopular opinion, but I dislike "Without Prejudice" for its redemptive arc and its santimonious undertones-- as if its underhanded mission is to teach all conservatives or right-wingers the "right" (i.e., left) way to think. Last night's episode didn't highlight this so much, but the previous episode (with that religious panelist, Bob) really did.

Nobody likes to hear this, but guess what? If people want to think that homsexuals are sinners, or women who get multiple divorces are going to hell, or what-have-you, then they are entitled to hold on to those beliefs, no matter how un-PC these may seem in today's permissive TV climate.

But are they judging these people "without prejudice"? It's OK not to have those feelings too, right?

Of course. I think the point of the show is that we all have prejudices, or at least preconceived notions about people, no matter how well-educated or enlightened or diversified we might think we are.

I think the problem, and the fascination, with the show is that the prejudices aren't challenged. And the "PC" card is a often a way of avoiding that challenge. What I mean is, we have to accept that attitudes exist but by the same knife people who hold those attitudes have to accept that fairness means they come in for the same scrutiny, or even derision. It seems to me that the panel members are actually the contestants. What if there were some mechanism for the winner to have to split the prize, after viewing the tapes, to determine which of them is worthy.

Bungalow Joy, you just put your finger on it. The people competing for the money are just props, and the panelists are truly the ones to be scrutanized. I've been more polarized by the panelists on many episodes than by the actual contestants.

I HATE this fucking piece of crap show! I hate it more than all of the programming on MTV, BET, and FOX combined! The panelists are so vile and hateful. That "psychologist" is such an instigating bitch, too. I wonder who thought this show was a good idea. I'm sure on paper it had its merits, but in theory I just find it vile and sad.

I'm into the show for now, after all...it's just one hour of my life a week.

I have no doubt I'd get tired of it if it came on more often that that though. What I like about it, is that it doesn't try to convert anyone, and in my experience, NOT trying to convert someone to your way of thinking, is the best way to actually get them to convert, because you're giving them a choice.
So, it's nice to see that none of the panelist are saying " you HAVE to think like me." Although some of them look at the others like they are idiots. I do agree the panelists, not the contestants, are the show. The "is this scripted?" angle never occured to me in that way, but I did wonder if some of the people might be actors, and now I know that some have at least been on TV. Some of them do come off as polished and rehearsed, and I think the panel is picked as diversely as possible.

The person who seems to be having the most fun is the host/doctor, who sometimes looks at the panel like they are all lab rats, and this is one giant psychological experiment...and really, I think that's exactly what it is.
I like that the debates never overshadow the show, but we hear just enough to know about each panelist's own prejudices to keep us guessing how they will vote. I think it's impossible to make a decision like they have to, without any prejudice. After all, they have such a short time to hear a person talk about their lives and answer questions. They are making their decisions with prejudice based on the information, and the fact that they are indeed doing it with some prejudice is part of the hook to the show I guess.

I like it, don't love it. It's the kind of show best watched in a group, where you can discuss it. I do think the hidden camera technique will get old quick.
Won't people who have been watching the show, know by now when they are being set up? I've seen the cab/cell phone trick twice, and the hidden camera in the lobby/waiting room at least twice. They'll have to come up with some new inventive ways to trip up people.

What interested me most tonight was the revelation that this show is either sponsored by, in affiliation with, or somehow connected with the NAACP. I heard mention of it at least twice, but I didn't get the full wording. I've heard some of the panelists make decisions based on race or sexual preference several times, either wanting to eliminate or reward a contestant based primarily on those criteria, so I wonder if this "experiment" was developed to highlight those prejudices.

I've been Ti-fauxing it the last couple of weeks, and each time it was sponsored by some type of 'inclusion' group. The first week was some muslim group, the second week was the YWCA, and this time the NAACP. I FFwed through the Julianne Moore commercial each time, so not sure what she was saying!

I don't know why but I really enjoy this show. I love how the 'contestants' backgrounds get revealed. The panel is usually filled with buffoons, but I guess that's the point. I would love to be a 'contestant' to see what the panel would say about me.

I guess I'd never make it as a panelist on this show because my response to the first round would be, "We really don't know much about these people and it's a stab in the dark, but I'd vote for X because we have to pick someone and I just think it's slightly less likely that he's got worthy intentions for the money. And if I'm proven wrong after the reveal, I'll man up to it."

They'd prefer something like "That dude with the funny name? He's gotta be a terrorist."

Or, even better, "I think all of y'all are prejudiced. Oh, by the way, that dude with the funny name? He's gotta be a terrorist. That's not prejudice, that's my life experience."

I love this show. I was skeptical at first but I have now completed a couple episodes and I really like the format. It's pretty crazy how people judge and it's really interesting to see how different peoples opinions differ. I hope there will be a second season.