Jump to content

Suggestions and changes for future TARs


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

313 replies to this topic

#1

soymilk

soymilk

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 14, 2004 @ 12:37 PM

Two episodes in and no suggestions? For future TARs, I would like see:
  • A financial bonus for finishing a detour or roadblock quickly/very well. For instance, in last night's episode, if a team got a red hanky from a cow in say, less than 30 seconds, then they would receive $50 extra at the start of the next leg. I'm not into screwing teams (e.g., the yield, whatever it is that happens this season in the non-elim legs), because with the lack of regular sleep and food, they're already pretty screwed.
  • Getting rid of the Yield. Its premise only encourages inter-team conflict, of which I find there is already plenty.


#2

Lia915

Lia915

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jul 14, 2004 @ 8:32 PM

yay to getting rid of the yield!!!!!!!

I also think they should continue to have teams that are different from the previous seasons...as in season 4 had more all male teams, while 5 has only one. And get rid of some of the many "dating" couples...they only seem to confuse me.

#3

mel42024

mel42024

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 14, 2004 @ 9:56 PM

I would like to see the money that is handed out scaled back, which seems to have happened so far this season. I was reading some of Miss Alli's old recaps, and I believe that the total money given for the first two legs in TAR 3 was almost $800.

Edited by mel42024, Jul 15, 2004 @ 10:10 PM.


#4

Frenchteacher

Frenchteacher

    Fanatic

  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:Amazing Race, Survivor, Jeopardy, country music & dancing, CMT, GAC, travel, languages

Posted Jul 15, 2004 @ 10:05 AM

I like the bonus money for certain tasks idea. It's like a Survivor Reward Challenge or something.

#5

cutecouple

cutecouple

    Stalker

Posted Jul 15, 2004 @ 2:29 PM

Maybe the Yield should cost travel money.

#6

Neen

Neen

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jul 15, 2004 @ 9:21 PM

That's an interesting suggestion, cutecouple. It would make using the Yield a much more strategic decision, particularly if a team were to have to decide whether it's more advantageous to Yield another team or spend the extra money on a taxi rather than bus tickets. Adding more strategy to the decision whether to Yield or not would definitely make it more palatable as a Race element.

#7

Puck

Puck

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jul 20, 2004 @ 8:05 AM

I would suggest a change to the non-elim rounds, since it seems unfair that some teams who suck for one leg get a pass and others suffer the consequences. However, it sounded like (in the introduction by Phil) that there will be dire consequences for coming last, even in the non-elmin rounds, so I'm happy!

The only other thing I would like would be a "blooper reel" episode as the last episode - after the finale of the race. Come on, who wouldn't want to see that? :-)

Also, I have to agree that the yield sounds yucky compared to the Fast Forward, but I don't want to suggest changing it until we see it in action a couple of times.

#8

StevenEastoria

StevenEastoria

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jul 23, 2004 @ 6:41 PM

I think i'm coat-tailing some posters above but how about this: Give the racers less money each leg, but add an optional mini-challenge for money on 3 or 4 of the legs? Make the task like one of the good fastfowards i.e. the Momily/Guido coin challenge, or that Waltz/Champagne Steve/Josh one, where they have to complete something a little frustrating and time-consuming, but give them a good amount of money (i don't know how much good would be, but I think even $100 would be worth it) Granted, it would be able to cause bunching (insert Cab-back/Bus-front theory here), by letting the teams in back opt not to get the money. But teams that get the money may Cab their way ahead of the poor teams later on.

I totally agree on the posters that mentioned an "Ultimate" 4/5 day leg instead of a actual non-elimination point. Have 2 detours, 3 roadblocks, and two yield points (one at a detour, one at a roadblock). Probably insert one of the uber-long rides at this point, so that we don't kill any of the racers. Let's see if any of the teams actually stop and rest.

I'm guessing there are really 6 typecasts in the show: Models, Old Couple, Exes, Relatives (Mother, brother, cousin), "Young/Basic" Couple, the something-involving-"gay" team, and the "best friends" team (ie. friends/co-workers/frat brothers/mothers-with-a-relationship-that-is-not-sexual). What are other typecasts that can make the show?

Now the sterotypical "black team" can land in any of those typecasts. I'd ask where are the Asians? (Kathy (of Michael/Kathy was the only one I could think of). I could totally picture my 40-something Filipino parents racing. My mom would bitch at my dad's driving, my dad would bitch at my mom's direction skills. They would speak SpanTaglish. And I don't think that Asians have advantages in India/Vietnam/Korea. Unless you get the sterotypical Korean team, you know the one with the thin girl with the fat head? But I digress.

#9

Hairymango

Hairymango

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 25, 2004 @ 5:11 PM

I'm so against money deprivation. I'm not interested in seeing the Amazing Beg. I also dislike the yield. I think teams should win or lose on their merits, their resourcefulness and luck, not because of some game sanctioned inequality.

#10

It Does Not Follow

It Does Not Follow

Posted Jul 25, 2004 @ 7:32 PM

Especially if the Yield lasts only a few minutes. If you halt a team based on emotion instead of logic, you're asking for trouble.

Adding a few Survivor twists to the game might also work. For instance, instead of a trip of some kind, try an even bigger and more important reward for the first-place team, applicable to every single leg (where one pair would always be gone): the right to decide which of the remaining teams to eliminate. This would add another angle to the race: a power battle. Best part: no non-elimination points, so everyone else would always be at risk.

#11

Rabrab

Rabrab

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 25, 2004 @ 7:42 PM

No, please. No elimination by choice of the other players. Please. Then you get alliances and backstabbery and it turns into Big Brother on the Road and is just as tacky and nasty as every other reality show out there. Racers will be eliminated for being good, or for not kissing ass. The strongest Racers will go, as soon as they don't come in first. Please, no. This is skill, and ability, not manipulation and pettiness. The Yield is bad enough.

#12

pinkgodzilla

pinkgodzilla

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 25, 2004 @ 8:09 PM

Gotta go with Rabrab. One of the reasons I watch this show is because it is merit based. NOT a fucking popularity contest. If it turns into a poplularity contest I will stop watching. I don't watch Survivor or Big Brother for that main reason. (Well, that and the fact they have crap people who have zero functionality, zero personality and no intelligence. I do try to watch the first episode of Survivor, but as soon as the editing and drama go to the back-stabbing crappola fest I stop watching. I don't even waste time on BB anymore, there will never be an interesting person on that show again.)

#13

Mama Tiger

Mama Tiger

    Stalker

Posted Jul 25, 2004 @ 9:08 PM

I totally agree with Rabrab, too. The only other reality shows I've enjoyed have been the Apprentice (based on merit -- granted, from The Donald's viewpoint alone, but backstabbing did zero good in the long run) and last season's King of the Jungle on Animal Planet, again based on merit and demonstrated abilities. I enjoy watching people on Survivor suffer, but the game itself is just pathetic compared to TAR and I don't watch it for the game as much as the misery of the idiots willing to starve for 40 days for peanuts.

Even the Yield is going too far for me. Let teams succeed or fail on their own merit.

What I'd like to see is more of what we've seen so far this year: Tasks that don't have opening hours, so when teams leave the pit stop in the middle of the night, they have to go straight into racing. It just causes killer fatigue to set in that much faster, and makes smart racing all the more critical.

And bring back more Fast Forwards!!!

#14

y3

y3

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jul 25, 2004 @ 9:24 PM

I was rewatching some old TARs (specifically TAR1.1) and one thing in that episode had was teams trying to find their way around a non-Tourist attraction type area (Songwe Village). I'd like to have more of those kinds of tasks that go off the beaten track a bit. Sometimes I think the more they put the tasks around well-trafficked areas, the more there's a likelihood of teams being able to get assistance from other people. It's not that I'm against getting locals' assistance, or getting cab drivers or 'civilians' to lead you to a certain place (I think that's clever racing), yet I still like the idea of teams having to solve their own problems. (If I could be Whimsical, I'd suggest a "Miming Only" rule with the locals!)

Edited by y3, Jul 25, 2004 @ 9:25 PM.


#15

Pointe3579

Pointe3579

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 26, 2004 @ 8:41 AM

The Songwe villiage and Songwe museum thing to open the second leg was also brilliant on the part of the race planners. Remember how many team went straight for a car, although they just had to walk. Also like tasks like find the smoke that thunders or find the westernmost point in contential Europe. Things that made the team think made the race better I thought.

#16

y3

y3

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jul 27, 2004 @ 5:38 PM

Another suggestion: Introduce a (TAR3) Flo-inspired "Candyman" clause: If you say you're going to quit more than 3 times, the producers grant your wish and you're escorted off the show. Goodbye.

#17

Puck

Puck

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jul 28, 2004 @ 1:53 PM

NO BUYING TICKETS FOR OTHER TEAMS!

I suppose they can't stop them from buying bus, train or ferry tickets, but they really shouldn't allow purchasing another teams plane tickets. Love to see new rule for next TAR!

#18

SeaBreeze341

SeaBreeze341

    Stalker

Posted Jul 28, 2004 @ 5:03 PM

No, please. No elimination by choice of the other players. Please. Then you get alliances and backstabbery and it turns into Big Brother on the Road and is just as tacky and nasty as every other reality show out there.


ITA (with everyone else as well). It's bad enough that American Idol's elimination process is mainly due to people that make themselves look like they don't have a clue, and to add to that, it wouldn't seem like a Philimination if someone else made that decision.

ETA: I like the Mole idea thing mentioned last year. It would be great to see the good old green thumbprint/red thumbprint used here. Rather, a stoplight would be more appropriate IMO for TAR. Speaking of the Mole, I would totally love an exemption scenario used on the show in the future.

Edited by SeaBreeze341, Jul 28, 2004 @ 5:15 PM.


#19

Dekar

Dekar

    Couch Potato

Posted Jul 29, 2004 @ 12:54 PM

Idea: On a couple early legs, have an optional task that takes a long time (about an hour or more). Each leg only has one, and only one team can complete it per leg. The reward for the task is a 'get out of elimination free' pass that they can use on any elimination leg where they come in last -- EXCEPT for the one that they earned the pass on.
Also, scrap the yield and put back the fast forward on all legs without the above tasks (too many optional tasks could get confusing quickly).
Finally, have the following system: in the event that there is a mandatory task that violates someone's religion/beliefs ("Go to the market and purchase and eat the following items: milk, beef..." which would violate kosher), have a team be able to skip the task BUT get a penalty applied to them, the penalty being the time of the slowest team to do the task plus a half hour. The team would also have to cite what law they were following to show that they weren't just trying to weasel out of the task, which could lead to longer delays ("What do you mean you lost the scriptures? I don't remember which exact verse it is!") It might be interesting to see which 'religious' teams would do this and which would say, 'okay, let's ignore religion for this moment...'

#20

wanderlust

wanderlust

    Channel Surfer

Posted Aug 6, 2004 @ 8:38 AM

After watching this new "twist' for a non-elim leg, I still feel that non-elims are the weakest element in TAR. Granted, there is now a consequence to finishing last, I still feel that the whole episode was for naught. Can you imagine in The Apprentice if the Donald said, "you're fired but this is a pre-determined non-elimination board room episode, so you're still in." Similarly, imagine if Peachy says to the castaway, "the tribe has spoken, but this is a pre-determined non-elimination tribal council, so you're still on the island." Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? It's just as ridiculous for Phil to say the same to TAR teams.

If Survivor and The Apprentice can start with 16 contestants, TAR can also start with 16 teams. Every episode will be an elimination leg. IMO, this singular change would vastly improve the show.

#21

free vagabond

free vagabond

Posted Aug 6, 2004 @ 4:11 PM

TAR can also start with 16 teams.

I sure hope they never do. I'm glad they went back to 11 teams.

I think non elims are great episodes where you see the difference between the other reality shows and TAR. In TAR you are on a journey within yourself and a journey to the wonders of the world as well as a race for a million dollars. Non elm legs bring that out for me.

I loved the TAR2 Thailand non elim one where the Racers put aside differences to shop in town while they waited for their train. People bonding through a marvelous experience. And then I loved that I'd see all the teams agan next week without losing any. No, not even Gary at that point cause Dave was cool. I hate losing teams along the way for the most part. More non elims and less with winning the million bucks is my plea.

Also kill the Yield and bring back the real Fast Forward.

#22

wanderlust

wanderlust

    Channel Surfer

Posted Aug 6, 2004 @ 6:43 PM

I loved the TAR2 Thailand non elim one where the Racers put aside differences to shop in town while they waited for their train...I hate losing teams along the way for the most part. More non elims and less with winning the million bucks is my plea.


But IMO, this would not be a RACE. We might as well watch just a travel show. Lonely Planet/Pilot Guide/Globetrekker is a wonderful TV program that shows this.

What TAR is for me, it's a competition with travelling as a fantastical backdrop. I for one would love to compete on the show even if the grand prize is a blue ribbon. But I still want to see that every leg of the race has true consequence for finishing last. I also feel that the drama of TAR comes from the racers competing to be not eliminated. In the TAR2 Thailand non-elim episode, Chris & Alex didn't even bother to step on the mat before Tara & Wil because they knew it was non-elim. Same for Jon & Kelly on the Malaysian beach. Neither of those teams were worried because they knew they would still be in the Race. This makes for boring TAR. IMHO, eliminating non-elims is the way to go.

#23

sardonic

sardonic

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 6, 2004 @ 8:01 PM

I do agree that something needed to be done about non-elimination legs. I didn't like the legs where a team just meanders in like the Thailand one in TAR2. It would've been much better television seeing the two teams fighting to get to the mat first to avoid losing money. I do, personally, believe that non-elims are needed, simply because we'd either end up with a race with 15 teams (which would be a bit unwieldy, both in terms of keeping track of everyone and in terms of getting flights for the first half dozen legs or so--if Bob and Joyce had trouble getting across the Atlantic to St. Petersburg as the eighth team, imagine how anticlimactic it would be to have an extra three teams that would potentially fall a day behind) or a race that was only 9 or 10 legs long, which I don't like the idea of at all. I need to see the "no money" thing in action before I can decide if I like that. An interesting twist they could use on a future season would be a choice between giving up all your money, or giving up half your money but taking an additional two hour time penalty. Another option would be that these teams must complete or have the option to complete an additional detour-like task before advancing in the race in order to get money--say something like the fish-carrying Roadblock last season, or the snail-selling in Morocco.

The other thing is that the position of the non-elims is a bit too predictable-- maybe they could position them a bit more randomly, or start them early in the game. Instead of having them in legs 6, 8, 10, and 12 like they did in 1 and 2, they could have them in, say, 3, 7, 8, and 11. I wonder if they may be doing that this season.

Edited by sardonic, Aug 6, 2004 @ 8:03 PM.


#24

The One

The One

    Channel Surfer

Posted Aug 7, 2004 @ 8:09 AM

It should be more random. But now that they have added the twist that the last team of each non-elimination legs will lose all money. No teams will want to finish last in NEL anymore. Which means no more strolling into the pit-stop when you know it's a NEL. And notice that every clue to the pit-stop says: The last team to check in MAY be eliminated. The teams will then rush their way to the pit stop since they don't know whether it's a non-elimination leg or not.

Suggestions: Put more Fast Forwards and take away the Yield. Oh ya, and have 12 teams for the race instead of 11 to have less non-elimination legs. That will be good.

#25

free vagabond

free vagabond

Posted Aug 7, 2004 @ 12:02 PM

But IMO, this would not be a RACE. We might as well watch just a travel show.

To each their own. To me it is The AMAZING Race and not just not a mere race. I want to see the teams amazed, be amazed myself and I could care a fig who wins. There is enough "winning" saturation in this culture to make me ill. I've always seen this show as a quest more than anything else. That's the beauty of this show. It means different things to different people.

Edited by free vagabond, Aug 7, 2004 @ 12:05 PM.


#26

Bobbo

Bobbo

    Just Tuned In

Posted Aug 7, 2004 @ 1:58 PM

I personally like the word "Yield", but they should change it drastically to include it in the Amazing Race. Make it an extra task and give them an unknown prize that only involves them. You could have different classes of yields...each class is harder, but gives more of an reward, and you get to choose.

(A task might be something like "There are five chocolates with white centers in this pile. For each one you find, your prize improves.") The first level could be like $25 or an item that is used in an collect the items task. The next one might be $50 or a map with the future places in the leg marked on it. The next level could be $100 or the ability to switch a roadblock when the person who's doing it is frightened or something. The fourth level could be $200 or so and a language book for the country that they're going to next, and the final level could be $500 or a fast forward (not counting on the one you could use) or a car or bike to use for the remainder of the leg. Teams wouldn't know the prizes they had until they declared they stopped.

It'd be offered on every leg, and each team would be limited on how many they could use (3 or 4), and on each leg one team could capture each prize level. It might be hard setting up these tasks, but they don't have to be much different than a roadblock...(Eat 1/5 of a kg of caviar to advance each level.)

#27

swimmerboy

swimmerboy

    Couch Potato

Posted Aug 7, 2004 @ 3:02 PM

I don't really like the idea of "side tracks" or any kind of extra efforts just to win a special prize or prizes. The goal of each leg is to not be last at the pitstop. I know if I were racing, I wouldn't give a flying fig about going out of my way to get a trip or extra money when I know there's a million dollars waiting at the finish line. And if I were yielded and had to perform a 5-level task like Bobbo just described, I'd be more inclined to get the first level completed and get the hell on my way to the pitstop. I can't see teams wanting to waste time like that.

I personally don't have a problem with non-elemination legs. To me they've just always been a part of the game. I do like the fact that now all the clues say "may be eliminated" so the teams don't know ahead of time. Still, there are times when a team is more or less expecting a non-elim leg (I think Tian and Jaree were truly surprised when they were eliminated), so I'm not too opposed to the money stripping idea if it gives everyone an incentive to hustle their asses to the mat.

#28

wanderlust

wanderlust

    Channel Surfer

Posted Aug 7, 2004 @ 4:59 PM

That's the beauty of this show. It means different things to different people.


Word, free vagabond.

#29

Pointe3579

Pointe3579

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 7, 2004 @ 6:28 PM

Count in as one who would like to see less non-elimination legs. Although I was screaming for joy last week when the moms were saved. There should be some way of making the race longer (more legs) and have a double elimination race. That way teams that just had bad luck (something not their fault) could have a second chance. We would get to know more about the teams too and how they would handle the pressures of the race. I for one would ahve liked to see teams like Amanda and Chris or Dennis and Andrew around longer. Also I am in total agreement with those who state get rid of the yield and return the FF. And get rid of the penalty for finishing last in non-elimination legs. Not the right way for the race to go, I think.

#30

Sue Denim

Sue Denim

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 8, 2004 @ 1:50 AM

I would like to see more from the Amazing Editors...

1) Add more time stamps on individual teams for the amount of time it takes each one to do a task.

2) Add a lie-o-meter that tallys the fibs each team gives.

3) Translate foreign language whenever possible with captioning so I understand what the locals are saying even if the team doesn't.

Some of this could be made part of the web-site, but it would be nice to know as I watch how well or terrible a team is doing.