Jump to content

Take It All


This topic has been archived.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

30 replies to this topic

#1

shopgirl406

shopgirl406

    Video Archivist

Posted Dec 10, 2012 @ 10:34 PM

WOW - That left me so sad, with a terrible taste in my mouth. I like game shows to make me happy for the winners - all around a depressing show......:(

oops - don't know how this happened twice - sorry mods, please merge.

#2

little ann

little ann

    Video Archivist

Posted Dec 10, 2012 @ 10:42 PM

Totally agree. There was no joy in that. First of all it all seemed so random, whether you got a good prize or not, and the last 'face down' was exactly what you said. I think it was the pretend moral superiority "where is your moral compass right now" of the winner that totally bugged me. Yuck. I'll never watch this show again.

#3

VAHokies

VAHokies

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 10, 2012 @ 10:52 PM

Yeah, that was uncomfortable to watch. It made me miss Deal or No Deal. As for the last round... I would never be able to trust someone I met an hour ago to "split" the prize, so I'd probably say take it all, too (as bad as that sounds).

#4

whywatch

whywatch

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 11, 2012 @ 1:24 AM

What a bitch!

#5

marsha

marsha

    Video Archivist

Posted Dec 11, 2012 @ 11:21 AM

That was nasty!

What a horrible way to end the show. I mean, I get that this is the premise and what can happen but it was not at all enjoyable to watch. The woman who won and was all "this means I can buy books for the kids" was full of shit. Bitch, please! This was all about what you could win for you, which is fine. Just be up front about it. Also, it didn't help that they guy she was playing against looked like Santa Claus. I've never felt such and instant feeling of 'I am never watching this show again'. Merry Christmas and F. U. from NBC, I guess.

#6

Haley17

Haley17

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female

Posted Dec 11, 2012 @ 2:11 PM

How is it possible that a game show can be both boring and awful at the same time? And not awful in a good, train wreck way. The first rounds were just plain boring. People pick prizes from a big board. Or maybe try to "steal" them from other players. Yawn. Then at the end of the show the "strategy" supposedly kicks in and the players stare at each other, have awkward dialogue and see who is more gullable. It's like the worst of Survivor compressed into a minute. The fact that I could not stand the winner who blathered on about buying books for her class did not make for a more enjoyable viewing experience.

Complete. Epic. Fail.

Edited by Haley17, Dec 11, 2012 @ 2:13 PM.


#7

KerleyQ

KerleyQ

    Stalker

  • Gender:Female

Posted Dec 11, 2012 @ 2:54 PM

Honestly, I was just surprised that it was Kim who chose "Take it All" and not Santa. I can see why she did it, though. He was so clearly strategizing and playing the game all along. For example, I think it was his intention to force everyone else into using their lock in option. Like with the smart car and snowmobile. I think he knew he wanted the snowmobile, but he knew the other guy was dead set on holding onto the smart car, so he picked that first, forcing him to use his lock in, and then took the snowmobile from Kim, who he'd already gotten to use her lock in the previous round.

So, in her shoes, I'd have been wary of trusting him, too. I can see how, in that situation, the thinking might be "well, if he picked 'take it all,' I get nothing either way." And, honestly, I can see the theory behind pickig it no matter what, but especially if you don't trust the other person. I can see how the thinking would be "well, if they picked to share it, then either option on my end gets me money, but if they chose to take it all, then either option I choose gets me no money, but at least if I pick take it all, they won't get the money either." I'd like to think that I'd choose to share it, in those circumstances, but I can certainly see the mentality that would push you to pick to take it all, when you're dealing with someone you just "met" 40 minutes ago, who you know nothing about and aren't certain you can trust.

#8

unosurvivor

unosurvivor

    Loyal Viewer

  • Gender:Female

Posted Dec 11, 2012 @ 3:39 PM

I was pissed because they showed previews, I believe on Kelly and Michael because Howie was on promoting it and I KNEW by the third round that it would end up being Santa and that bitch. I wish they wouldn't do that because I was hoping all along that that cute layer girl had it in the bag, but NOOOOO! that dramatic bitch crying those fake tears took it all! Very depressing, I will most likely watch tonight since my fave "Sons of Anarchy" is finished for the season. NOTHING IS ON!

#9

hannahjane

hannahjane

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 11, 2012 @ 7:37 PM

I said out loud a few times, "You aren't grabbing me yet, Howie!" He is an excellent host and I miss "Deal or No Deal," but like some of you said, this show didn't make me feel good. Wasn't there already a show on GSN or something where the last round was similar to this? I don't like games I can't play along with in some fashion. And with everything being electronic, I always got the feeling it was rigged somehow. I want to see "Lets Make A Deal" style boxes of things or curtains in front of us indicating that if player 1 wants "the blue one" that it is not already decided by the producers that whatever window player 1 chooses is going to have the smart car in it. The electronic nature leaves so many things fishy to me in a game like this. But also, a great deal of the so-called prizes barely seemed real, much less something someone would have any use for. Most people don't have a need, want or space for arcade games, a car simulator, etc. Howie kept making reference to how winning these rounds and prizes could be life-changing. It implied to me that the prizes were just for show but that they get the cash value -- I don't think that was the case at all. So was this lady, who is a teacher, who seemingly makes very little money, going to win all of these prizes that she had no use for and then cash that she would then have to use to pay taxes on these prizes? And then hope she can sell the prizes? Something like that Rock and Roll Camp is probably not even transferrable. Sorry for venting, but I had hoped for me. Deal or No Deal was truly capable of being life-changing and also didn't have the element that involved a random stranger who could take all of your hard work and strategy and send you home with nothing. I will watch again but I hope this doesn't get past the initial order of six episodes. It makes me feel yucky during the holiday season.

#10

DebbieM

DebbieM

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New York/New Jersey

Posted Dec 11, 2012 @ 8:24 PM

I couldn't get past the first 12 minutes or so. Among other things, the screaming was over-the-top annoying. This show is all kinds of stupid and has every negative game show component without any of the positives. As they say on Shark Tank, "I'm out".

#11

TheTerror

TheTerror

    Channel Surfer

Posted Dec 11, 2012 @ 9:47 PM

This is a really shitty show. The premise sounds good, but the execution just isn't there. Doesn't help that the prizes pretty much suck.

I was convinced that Kim was going to Take it All. Santa was in a tough position. Kim definitely played it well by playing on his emotions. He seemed like a nice guy and a nice guy is always going to share....perfect for a shark and Kim was just that. There is nothing about that woman I would trust....I just got a bad vibe from her immediately.

This show also reminds a bit of Hands on a Hard Body. People have completely unrealistic views as to what these prizes will do for their lives.

For those of you not in the know.....definitely watch Hands on a Hard Body. Completely awesome.

#12

Xenith

Xenith

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 11, 2012 @ 10:16 PM

Wasn't there already a show on GSN or something where the last round was similar to this?

Yup, "Friend or Foe" (2002-2003) with Howie in the role of a less charming Kennedy. Complete and total ripoff of the final round of that show. (Which may or may not have been a ripoff of the British show "Shafted" although that series was canned after only 4 episodes...so did they really intentionally copy?)

I really didn't like Friend or Foe any more than this one, although at least the earlier rounds of that show were far more entertaining question based rounds where the two contestants cooperated to win the money they would share/take in the first place.

FoF at least could potentially establish an minor relationship and responsibility between the two players. TIA however has no such bonding outside of hearing a couple backstories...they are stabbing each other in the back the whole game in what is nothing more than an more expensive game of White Elephant.

Anyone who doesn't vote "Take It All" is a fool and more than likely going to leave with nothing anyways. In fact if the losers of earlier rounds get to keep their prizes I would try to lose on the third round if I could. Meh. Because seriously in about 140 episodes of Friend or Foe, as well as Shafted, and later "Golden Balls" I doubt there were much more than a dozen times where the contestants actually both voted to cordially split the money. Speaking of the British show "Golden Balls" one of the contestants of that show had one of the most brilliantly awesome speeches before the final vote in order to get his partner to vote Split. If I was ever on a show like this this is absolutely the best way to play it to give the best chance of walking away with some money

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=S0qjK3TWZE8

I've always wished that these shows would add a third element, to make it more of a rock paper scissors thing. An defense option that you can choose to play instead if you believe your opponent is going to go "Take it All". If you are right then you would take it all instead, but it they chose to share they would take it all instead. Far more balanced IMHO and quite a bit more strategy involved to make it more entertaining while also potentially rewarding an honest player.

Anyways the only thing mildly interesting about the show "Take It All" is the bizarre expensive...prizes giant inflatable indoor/outdoor movie screen? Rock-em-Sock-em Robots attached to forklifts? Hangliders? Wow. Although seriously though unless you already own a dam mansion what are you supposed to do with that kind of stuff except I guess try and sell it, because who has the space to actually store and use that kind of big impractical stuff except the already wealthy? Dumb dumb show...

Edited by Xenith, Dec 11, 2012 @ 10:54 PM.


#13

King Cat Sam

King Cat Sam

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 11, 2012 @ 11:53 PM

Was flipping channels and landed on this new show tonight. When they revealed the BBQ floating water raft, I immediately thought it was a rigged 'zonker' prize as known from the Let's Make A Deal game show. I couldn't believe that thing was worth something like $40,000.

#14

marketdoctor

marketdoctor

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 12, 2012 @ 8:12 AM

I've always wished that these shows would add a third element, to make it more of a rock paper scissors thing. An defense option that you can choose to play instead if you believe your opponent is going to go "Take it All". If you are right then you would take it all instead, but it they chose to share they would take it all instead.


I would watch that show. Like many of you (and 5 million of the people who watched The Voice and then changed the channel on Monday), I'm not watching this. I might make it "I get half", so you get half no matter what, and also include an option of "half goes to charity" (possibly, if both people choose it, the prize is increased, so the charity gets even more, and they each get more than 1/4.) Or they could do a tribute to Sam Kass, and have a "Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock" episode (Google it if you don't know the backstory).

This is what happens when you spend millions on a show concept, but skip the thousands for a focus group (or ignore the results.)

#15

JTMacc99

JTMacc99

    Stalker

  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I like TV.

Posted Dec 12, 2012 @ 4:46 PM

I really didn't hate it at all. I watched both of the first two episodes today (home sick with my also sick son), and while I didn't like the results of the first show, I felt better about the second show. Two dickheads get nothing. Works for me.

I didn't mind the play along factor of the early rounds, as I started to get the hang of it (Cool Mercedes = probably the lowest value) and the early freeze of a prize coming back to bite people later.

What I need is to figure out is if there will eventually be a decent number of people who don't opt for Take it All. It's pretty much a 50/50 bet at the end. There is one way to win and one way to lose. If you wanted to assume that the other person is a 50/50 bet to go either way, the right bet would be to always go for Take it All. You look like an ass on TV every time, but half the time you take home everything, which is way better than taking home half the stuff half the time.

Of course, you only really get one shot ever, so I guess a case can be made that you might as well not look like an ass and hope for the best.

I guess the best way for the final round to take on some sort of interesting dynamic is to regularly have contestants legitimately sell their story at the end instead of just lying to each other.

#16

hannahjane

hannahjane

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 12, 2012 @ 5:25 PM

I reluctantly watched the second episode just to see that one of the contestants is someone that I know. And I learned that the winner of the first episode (Kim) is a teacher at a local high school. Apparently she is a video teacher, so I don't know how many books she really needed to buy for high schoolers. And on FB, one of my friends posted that she didnt make it past the early rounds of the audition process this week. I reiterate that i hope this show is not picked up for more episodes. Show two was even more absurd with the prizes. It is just not enjoyable.

#17

jonaswan2

jonaswan2

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 13, 2012 @ 8:12 AM

Anyone who doesn't vote "Take It All" is a fool and more than likely going to leave with nothing anyways. In fact if the losers of earlier rounds get to keep their prizes I would try to lose on the third round if I could. Meh. Because seriously in about 140 episodes of Friend or Foe, as well as Shafted, and later "Golden Balls" I doubt there were much more than a dozen times where the contestants actually both voted to cordially split the money. Speaking of the British show "Golden Balls" one of the contestants of that show had one of the most brilliantly awesome speeches before the final vote in order to get his partner to vote Split.


On Friend or Foe, the contestants chose the cooperative (friend/friend) option near about half the time. The stakes were much lower than on this show, and there was a social element to Friend or Foe, like you said.

I've always wished that these shows would add a third element, to make it more of a rock paper scissors thing. An defense option that you can choose to play instead if you believe your opponent is going to go "Take it All". If you are right then you would take it all instead, but it they chose to share they would take it all instead. Far more balanced IMHO and quite a bit more strategy involved to make it more entertaining while also potentially rewarding an honest player.


That might be a brilliant idea.

Edited by jonaswan2, Dec 13, 2012 @ 8:14 AM.


#18

unosurvivor

unosurvivor

    Loyal Viewer

  • Gender:Female

Posted Dec 13, 2012 @ 11:27 AM

I actually liked how the show ended last night, and even shed a few for the power of humanity. OMG! two nights in a row the Mercedes is the lowest price prize compared to that other ridiculous shit! Who the HELL wants to hang with the Backstreet Boyz! And THAT'S worth one hundred grand! What THE HELL!

#19

Xenith

Xenith

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 13, 2012 @ 12:47 PM

Who the HELL wants to hang with the Backstreet Boyz! And THAT'S worth one hundred grand! What THE HELL!


Seriously...where did that Backstreet Boys value come from? My only guess is that there was a charity auction at sometime (maybe back in the 90s when they were relevant and really popular) and that was what some rich old dude generously donated because his 12 year old granddaughter was a fan?
Either that or the BBs themselves gave the price and really over value their own worth? Because I highly doubt you could sell that prize for anything remotely near that claimed prize value...

On Friend or Foe, the contestants chose the cooperative (friend/friend) option near about half the time. The stakes were much lower than on this show, and there was a social element to Friend or Foe, like you said.

Based on the data of that study only 52 times did both contestants choose to split the money compared to 175 times where either one of them or both of them voted foe. That is more than 3x the amount of times than the money was shared. (72 of those times both people voted foe)

On a related note does anyone remember the Sunday school teacher on FoF? I mean of all the people you would expect to be honest you would think that a religious person whose job it is to teach morality to kids would not lie to another persons face and screw a person over by voting Foe. And you would be wrong. Which is why I will be rooting for the nun shown of the preview for TIA to make the final round. And I will totally be expecting her to go "Take It All" if she does.

Edited by Xenith, Dec 13, 2012 @ 1:00 PM.


#20

sudilly

sudilly

    Channel Surfer

  • Gender:Female

Posted Dec 13, 2012 @ 3:37 PM

$100K for Backstreet Boys! I think I would actually want to lose on this show, because the tax on the BSB would bankrupt me. There's no way that could be sold for even enough to recoup the taxes.

#21

RL1

RL1

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 13, 2012 @ 4:16 PM

Seriously, Backstreet Boys? WTF?!!? That's not even worth the money to do that sort of thing...unless this show is desperate for has-beens or something...Nobody in their right mind would take that $100 grand crap. You might as well won a car or trip besides hanging with the Backstreet Boys.

Edited by RL1, Dec 13, 2012 @ 4:18 PM.


#22

Xenith

Xenith

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 13, 2012 @ 10:02 PM

On the Backstreets Boy website you can apparently buy VIP to one of their concerts which includes

Watch the Backstreet Boys perform 3 or 4 songs (just for the VIP)
Q&A
1 Pre-signed photo
1 Individual photo with the Backstreet Boys
Backstage tour

$520.00
So for 4 people that is $2,080.00

Concert tickets the most expensive front row floor tickets for any of their shows listed are $270.00
So that is another $1,080.00.

Hotels in New York...the absolute most expensive seem to be about $4,000.00 per night, no way is NBC springing for any more than that and given how almost no mention of accommodations was made I doubt it's nearly that upscale.

Airfare? I think around $2000 would cover flying round trip anywhere in the US to New York via Delta or American or other such line. So add another $8,000 to our tally.

Maybe throw in another couple grand budget for food?

$2,080 (VIP backstage platinum experience)
$1,080 (Concert)
$8,000 (Hotel 2 days/nights)
$8,000 (Travel)
$2,000 (Food)
================
$21,160.00

So... I guess you get to maybe shake their hands and they charge $100k for that...

#23

Skittl1321

Skittl1321

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 14, 2012 @ 9:04 AM

So White Elephant gift exchange mixed with the Prisoner's Dilemma?

This show was so boring. I watched the first one- for the first round, and then came back for the final showdown.

I did a lot of economic studies on prisoner's dilemma in college- you were on a computer in a room of 100 people and the system randomly paired you with a partner, you did like 50 trials. I always did a mix of 'share' and 'take' and walked away with a good amount of money. The stealing wasn't so bad, because it was like $3, and anonymous. I don't know how anyone could feel good about their prize when the only reason they have it is because they royally screwed someone else. I wouldn't be able to enjoy those prizes at all.

It's pretty much a 50/50 bet at the end. There is one way to win and one way to lose.

Not exactly. There are two ways to lose, two ways to win- but one win is better than the other. It's only 50/50 if you consider both wins equal.
Each person can Take It All or Share It.
So if you have
TT - then both go home losers
TS- then the first person wins, the second person loses
ST- then the first person loses, the second person wins
SS- then they split the prizes and both win slightly less.

Edited by Skittl1321, Dec 14, 2012 @ 9:08 AM.


#24

shopgirl406

shopgirl406

    Video Archivist

Posted Dec 14, 2012 @ 10:02 PM

Yuck - I thought I would give it another shot tonight. Another greedy liar. I know it's "just a game", but really. This is a most distasteful look at human nature.

#25

finagler

finagler

    Channel Surfer

Posted Dec 14, 2012 @ 10:15 PM

Caught the last half hour of the one where the girl got the Italy vacation. Thought it was pretty boring until the final round and then found it to be a truly disgusting show. The girl tells the guy, I promise all I want is my trip...really...I thought she was lying...she kept shifting her eyes. And sure enough, she took it all. I felt so bad for the guy. Buh bye show, you don't have to worry about me watching you again. Pathetic.

Edited by finagler, Dec 14, 2012 @ 10:16 PM.


#26

unosurvivor

unosurvivor

    Loyal Viewer

  • Gender:Female

Posted Dec 15, 2012 @ 12:26 PM

I love how she validates her lying ass self by saying "It's just a game" That phrase in every aspect is total BULLSHIT! I see the house guest say it on Big Brother after they lie, connive, steal cheat , etc (everything that's wrong with the world) . I guess it helps them take all this crap and be able to sleep at night. That girl bugged the shit out of me from the beginning, just like the first bitch that' took it all ' all, Kim. Bad show with stupid, stupid prizes and it's a shame cause I like Howie. And BTW, how uncomfortable is it to stand there after you have lied and yes, you did win TONS of money and shit, but MY GOD! How can you stand there and be happy when your looking at the poor sob that you just lied your ass off too? Awkward! Even Howie looks uncomfortable.

#27

gemini70

gemini70

    Channel Surfer

Posted Dec 15, 2012 @ 12:51 PM

This show is THE LOWEST OF LOW!!! Other shows have been based on this premise, and if this show is not almost a complete rip off of the end of 'FRIEND OR FOE' -I do not know what is???

What is completely crappy about this show-the contestants do not get to keep what they 'won' in the previous 'round'(s). I can't get good feelings for these people-they are jumping up and down, excited, etc. BUT, it is NOT THEIRS unless they make it to the final round and make the right choice. (what are the odds for that? 50/50 I guess under normal odds, but it ALL depends on if you are a good liar or if the other person is a better liar). How is NBC, Howie, the producers, etc. going to keep contestants excitement up if they know they are more then likely NOT GOING TO GET THOSE PRIZES???

Howie Mandel goes around talking about how he likes that the money on his previous show (forgot name) helped people who were in need. (though it drove him nuts that some went on when he offered them a great offer. He did not like when they got greedy when they just went on about how -they are going to lose their house, car, need money for education, etc. )Very hypercritical of him to host a show that rewards GREEDY LIARS!!!

I vaguely remember, another show, same premise, where the 'loser' waited for the GREEDY 'winner' in the parking lot. I do not remember the show, do not think or remember if it was 'friend or foe'. But, while earlier shows dealt with prizes in the thousands, tens of thousands, (maybe).. this show is dealing with each final contestant having around 1/4 MILLION EACH!!! I can see someone going nuts, if they were satisfied with their prizes, believed the LIAR and got it taken it away.... Does NBC escort the contestants out?

Also in this day of FB, Twitter, etc. the greedy liar is going to be known to many-congradulated by some, some who want what they got, and others... OTHERS who will be angry, some, unfortunately , extremely angry, over what they did.

This show, though, I doubt will be for long. It is one thing to have a show with people being greedy... another with people being GREEDY and hurting others... That is a big no!

#28

gemini70

gemini70

    Channel Surfer

Posted Dec 15, 2012 @ 12:51 PM

This show is THE LOWEST OF LOW!!! Other shows have been based on this premise, and if this show is not almost a complete rip off of the end of 'FRIEND OR FOE' -I do not know what is???

What is completely crappy about this show-the contestants do not get to keep what they 'won' in the previous 'round'(s). I can't get good feelings for these people-they are jumping up and down, excited, etc. BUT, it is NOT THEIRS unless they make it to the final round and make the right choice. (what are the odds for that? 50/50 I guess under normal odds, but it ALL depends on if you are a good liar or if the other person is a better liar). How is NBC, Howie, the producers, etc. going to keep contestants excitement up if they know they are more then likely NOT GOING TO GET THOSE PRIZES???

Howie Mandel goes around talking about how he likes that the money on his previous show (forgot name) helped people who were in need. (though it drove him nuts that some went on when he offered them a great offer. He did not like when they got greedy when they just went on about how -they are going to lose their house, car, need money for education, etc. )Very hypercritical of him to host a show that rewards GREEDY LIARS!!!

I vaguely remember, another show, same premise, where the 'loser' waited for the GREEDY 'winner' in the parking lot. I do not remember the show, do not think or remember if it was 'friend or foe'. But, while earlier shows dealt with prizes in the thousands, tens of thousands, (maybe).. this show is dealing with each final contestant having around 1/4 MILLION EACH!!! I can see someone going nuts, if they were satisfied with their prizes, believed the LIAR and got it taken it away.... Does NBC escort the contestants out?

Also in this day of FB, Twitter, etc. the greedy liar is going to be known to many-congradulated by some, some who want what they got, and others... OTHERS who will be angry, some, unfortunately , extremely angry, over what they did.

This show, though, I doubt will be for long. It is one thing to have a show with people being greedy... another with people being GREEDY and hurting others... That is a big no!

#29

Super Mateo

Super Mateo

    Loyal Viewer

  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted Dec 16, 2012 @ 11:51 AM

Not exactly. There are two ways to lose, two ways to win- but one win is better than the other. It's only 50/50 if you consider both wins equal.
Each person can Take It All or Share It.
So if you have
TT - then both go home losers
TS- then the first person wins, the second person loses
ST- then the first person loses, the second person wins
SS- then they split the prizes and both win slightly less.


This is exactly the same as "Friend or Foe" and why I refused to watch that show. Players have zero control over their own winnings. If the other player says Take It All, you've just lost, no matter what you say. Worse yet, the show gives players no incentive to share the prize. It's a bad concept, and whether you win or not should never be 100% in someone else's control.

#30

Skittl1321

Skittl1321

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 16, 2012 @ 12:11 PM

This is exactly the same as "Friend or Foe" and why I refused to watch that show.


Yeah, but Friend or Foe was just the Prisoner's Dilemma which is a game theory concept that has been around since the 50s- it isn't like it was a new idea either.