|
Post by ladykelsey on Apr 20, 2015 2:14:13 GMT -5
Here you can talk about GSN's funny new game show Lie Detectors, Please feel free to share your wonderful opinion on Lie Detectors, Kelsey
|
|
|
Post by Mandoli on Apr 24, 2015 0:29:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phimat37 on Apr 24, 2015 12:30:18 GMT -5
I had a strange feeling it would bomb. I remember when GSN moved the "love block" around. At a time it was Lingo at 6, Baggage 6:30, The Newlywed Game 7pm, Love Triangle 7:30. It went something like that and it didn't do spectacularly well. Also remember The Pyramid didn't do well at 6pm after a week or two.
So, GSN messed up a good thing they had with Newlywed Game at 6 and Baggage at 6:30 and GSN originals haven't worked in the 6pm hour ever since. GSN has had a good thing going with their weekly originals, however, which is what I always thought they should've done in the first place is have weekly originals.
BuzzerBlog is right about one thing when they say "just let the comedy happen" like GSN does with Idiotest and Family Feud.
|
|
|
Post by jasonlarsen on Apr 24, 2015 12:38:51 GMT -5
The only thing I can say about it is that Rove McManus is driving the show. If he weren't, it would be boring.
By the way Kelsey, please watch what you say about him. He could be married for all we know!
|
|
|
Post by Mandoli on Apr 24, 2015 12:56:18 GMT -5
By the way Kelsey, please watch what you say about him. He could be married for all we know! Whoa... She hasn't even said anything about him, and we're speculating that she will.
|
|
|
Post by tpirrules1972 on Apr 24, 2015 12:59:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jasonlarsen on Apr 24, 2015 13:16:14 GMT -5
By the way Kelsey, please watch what you say about him. He could be married for all we know! Whoa... She hasn't even said anything about him, and we're speculating that she will. Yes. She called him a name she probably shouldn't have called him. I hope she didn't do that because he is Australian! (Note: She had done this in the original thread she had posted about Lie Detectors before it was locked.)
|
|
|
Post by Mandoli on Apr 24, 2015 13:34:21 GMT -5
It's fine. As long as it's not over the top sexualization of someone, I don't see a problem with it. (And who said it was because of his nationality?)
I like accents as well. I would love to state who I lust because of their accents, but it's kind of personal on my end.
|
|
|
Post by jasonlarsen on Apr 24, 2015 13:50:22 GMT -5
It's fine. As long as it's not over the top sexualization of someone, I don't see a problem with it. (And who said it was because of his nationality?) I like accents as well. I would love to state who I lust because of their accents, but it's kind of personal on my end. Australians are just like Americans in terms of personality, but I've been told not to say that to any Aussie personally because they would take offense to it. It's like they were born and raised in LA because they have almost the exact types of personalities as people over there. Southern Californians get just as excited as Australians when Drew Carey's sitcom is brought up because it is popular in both places. If you get a chance, search for Grant Denyer on Family Feud down under. He's a real Australian! I'm just glad there are no Australians here. Plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by phimat37 on Apr 24, 2015 14:54:54 GMT -5
I don't want to get into it here, and I certainly don't want to drive this thread in the total wrong direction, but I think I heard that The Beast married his cousin. I saw a faux tweet quite awhile back on Game Show Follies about it. Hey, as long as you're not blood on blood why should I care.
And I like a girl with an accent, myself, it doesn't matter of course, I have a lust for one or two, but it's inappropriate and personal for me to say. Again, trying not to go TOO off topic.
|
|
|
Post by jasonlarsen on Apr 24, 2015 15:18:49 GMT -5
I've only heard of one game show with no host in game show history.
If Rove McManus was not on Lie Detectors, it would be one of those shows
|
|
|
Post by thekid965 on Apr 25, 2015 9:07:12 GMT -5
I believe the "show without a host" you're thinking of was 100%, a format that had some international success (particularly in the UK) but never caught on here. Instead of a host, an offscreen narrator asked all the questions and did all of the talking throughout the show; the contestants only spoke to introduce themselves in the opening and for the day's winner to answer the pro forma "Will you return tomorrow to defend your championship?" question.
100% was just about the dullest game show you could imagine. It was literally just watching three people key in answers to multiple-choice questions for a half-hour, one hundred of them in rapid succession, with the host/announcer endlessly droning the questions one after the other. Even Wink Martindale's quartet of "interactive" games from the mid-'90s (Trivial Pursuit: The Interactive Game, Boggle, Shuffle, and Jumble) were more compelling than this. The day's winner, whoever got the highest percentage of correct answers by the end of the show, received a token amount of money and the right to come back next time; the main gimmick was that if a player ever got 100% of their answers right, they won a super prize. (On the extremely short-lived and limited-release American 100%, it was $100,000. It was never claimed. And as a trivia note, the American version was "hosted," as it were, by Casey Kasem.)
The early GSN original Inquizition was very similar to 100% in style and execution, only with the host, the Inquizitor, actually shown on camera (albeit in such a way that we never saw his face).
|
|
|
Post by jasonlarsen on Apr 25, 2015 10:17:17 GMT -5
I believe the "show without a host" you're thinking of was 100%, a format that had some international success (particularly in the UK) but never caught on here. Instead of a host, an offscreen narrator asked all the questions and did all of the talking throughout the show; the contestants only spoke to introduce themselves in the opening and for the day's winner to answer the pro forma "Will you return tomorrow to defend your championship?" question. 100% was just about the dullest game show you could imagine. It was literally just watching three people key in answers to multiple-choice questions for a half-hour, one hundred of them in rapid succession, with the host/announcer endlessly droning the questions one after the other. Even Wink Martindale's quartet of "interactive" games from the mid-'90s ( Trivial Pursuit: The Interactive Game, Boggle, Shuffle, and Jumble) were more compelling than this. The day's winner, whoever got the highest percentage of correct answers by the end of the show, received a token amount of money and the right to come back next time; the main gimmick was that if a player ever got 100% of their answers right, they won a super prize. (On the extremely short-lived and limited-release American 100%, it was $100,000. It was never claimed. And as a trivia note, the American version was "hosted," as it were, by Casey Kasem.) The early GSN original Inquizition was very similar to 100% in style and execution, only with the host, the Inquizitor, actually shown on camera (albeit in such a way that we never saw his face). No. That show was a reality show, and its name escapes me right now. 100% did have a host. It was Casey Kasem. In any event, the comedians themselves cannot drive Lie Detectors. That's why they've got Rove McManus. By the way, his personality has grown on me. He's got "charm."
|
|
|
Post by WarioSajak on Apr 25, 2015 14:57:35 GMT -5
the main gimmick was that if a player ever got 100% of their answers right, they won a super prize. (On the extremely short-lived and limited-release American 100%, it was $100,000. It was never claimed. I don't think the British version actually had a "super prize" for 100%, and even then the closest anybody got was a 94. As for the American version, the prize for 100% wasn't exactly $100,000 but rather a $99,000 bonus, since each question was worth $10. The early GSN original Inquizition was very similar to 100% in style and execution, only with the host, the Inquizitor, actually shown on camera (albeit in such a way that we never saw his face). I think Steve Beverly said on an episode of Stu's Show that the Inquizitor was just some local radio host, and the whole "never reveal his name" thing was just to drum up publicity.
|
|
|
Post by jasonlarsen on Apr 26, 2015 12:26:36 GMT -5
the main gimmick was that if a player ever got 100% of their answers right, they won a super prize. (On the extremely short-lived and limited-release American 100%, it was $100,000. It was never claimed. I don't think the British version actually had a "super prize" for 100%, and even then the closest anybody got was a 94. As for the American version, the prize for 100% wasn't exactly $100,000 but rather a $99,000 bonus, since each question was worth $10. The early GSN original Inquizition was very similar to 100% in style and execution, only with the host, the Inquizitor, actually shown on camera (albeit in such a way that we never saw his face). I think Steve Beverly said on an episode of Stu's Show that the Inquizitor was just some local radio host, and the whole "never reveal his name" thing was just to drum up publicity. What did I tell you? It's not 100%!
|
|