|
|
Post by ladykelsey on May 21, 2015 0:56:25 GMT -5
I saw 500 Questions today and I wasn't that impressed with it and I think ABC could've had a better show for this summer. For one thing it seems that 500 Questions got inspiration for the Battle round of the game from Greed's Terminator round and ABC could've better designed this round for 500 Questions and also I felt that the time limit could've been extended to 60 seconds to give players a longer time to answer and also I think 500 Questions got the category board idea from Jeopardy because when I watched 500 Questions the category board reminded me of Jeopardy and the style of 500 Questions reminded me of Who's Still Standing because of the speed contestants have to answer the questions. Now about the host of 500 Questions I think 500 Questions could have done better with a host like Maury Povich or Mark L Walberg or even Anderson Cooper could have been a better star for 500 Questions than Richard Quest. Now I thought when I saw Richard Quest I couldn't understand why ABC chose him as the star of 500 Questions because I found him very annoying. While this show could be a hit for ABC for the summer 500 Questions is the weakest game show ABC has made in their history and it makes me glad I saw only the first minutes of 500 Questions before watching The Facts Of Life,
Overall Grade: C,
Kelsey
|
|
|
|
Post by gamecrazyh on May 21, 2015 1:30:01 GMT -5
Yep... Something tells me even if Celebrity Family Feud doesn't do well, at least it'll fare better than 500 Questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by addemup on May 21, 2015 8:51:35 GMT -5
I watched last night, and I didn't find this show all that interesting. It was kind of exciting in the beginning, but it got old pretty quickly. And the "3 wrong and you're gone" thing was pretty cool the first 30 times I heard it. The quantity of 500 questions may be a little ambitious. This was advertised as a "rapid-fire" quiz show, but what did they get through, 38 questions in an hour last night? Jeopardy gets through 61 every night in half the time.
All in all I thought it was better than some of the dreck we've seen in recent years such as Take It All and Who's Still Standing, but I have a feeling that after this 7-night event, we won't be seeing this show anymore.
Grade: C
|
|
|
|
Post by ladykelsey on May 22, 2015 0:47:22 GMT -5
Does anyone know why today's episode of 500 Questions was a two-hour episode? Because I saw on my Direct TV programming schedule that it lasted from 8:00 to 10:00 PT and I'm just curious to know what the reason was for the two-hour episode of 500 Questions,
Kelsey
|
|
|
|
Post by phimat37 on May 22, 2015 12:23:13 GMT -5
I saw 500 Questions today and I wasn't that impressed with it and I think ABC could've had a better show for this summer. But I thought it was an "awesome new game show"? I haven't watched yet, but I enjoy Richard Quest. He does have personality, I don't believe he's ever hosted a game show, but he has the personality. I'm familiar with him having watched a lot of CNN in the past. Maury Povich wasn't a game show host either, he did Twenty-One, but I mean he wasn't game show material. He was awful, in my opinion. ABC got who they thought would be a good personality, and besides we may see Anderson Cooper on Jeopardy in the future hosting. Why? Because of his British accent? Well Who Wants to be a Millionaire? sure worked out well for ABC until they aired it 5 nights a week. If anything, Wipeout was pretty bad in my opinion. That show was a hit, but I thought it was bad. Is that a fact though or opinion? Those are some strong words for somebody who thought this show was going to be so awesome. Hey, others may like it. I might like it. We'll see. I still have some episodes recorded. Because ABC wanted to do it that way. I'll call and ask. |
|
|
|
Post by caseyabell on May 22, 2015 16:42:00 GMT -5
Gave the show a favorable review on Game Show Follies, after I forgot to watch the first ep... Pressure quizzer
This time I remembered to watch 500 Questions. Gotta admit, I'm happy I tuned in. Tonight's ep held my interest through the full two hours. Richard Quest barks out questions at hapless contestants who try to answer, you guessed it, five hundred of the little buggers. No multiple choices, no helps, no lifelines, no friendly Mr. Philbin to guide you up the money tree. Just a host who seems happiest when he's reminding you (loudly) that three wrong answers in a row means you're gone. Plus there's a challenger perched like a vulture, who occasionally gets a chance to assist you to the exit. This format piles on the pressure, which I liked in a sadistic way. Not to mention that the pace is pleasantly brisk, with just a few seconds allowed for each answer. I've seen criticism that there are too many rules and question variations, but after a while I got the hang of the proceedings. And once in a longer while I knew something that the contestants didn't know, like Australia produces a lot of opals. But then I would goof four in a row and get reminded why I'm not cut out for this show. 500 Questions turned in respectable numbers on its first night. 5.1M viewers and a 1.2 18-49 rating. We'll see if the numbers can hold up as well as Richard Quest's voice. UPDATE: The show slipped a bit in its second go-round. 4.6M viewers and a 1.0 18-49 rating. Still pretty decent compared to the (mostly rerun) competition. |
|
|
|
Post by S_SweepFan3 on May 22, 2015 19:47:25 GMT -5
I missed the first episode, but I'm watching the one airing right now. I have to be honest, I don't think I like this game show. I want to like it, but I just can't find it in me to like it. A user on Twitter said it perfectly when talking to Mark Labbett: "Welcome to American prime-time quiz show pacing: a glacier moving through a puddle of molasses." I just don't like the pacing or the contestants. It's a bad combination, similar to what primetime Deal Or No Deal went through near the end of its cycle on NBC. While the concept sounds like a great idea on paper, the execution just isn't up to snuff. It's a shame too because I wanted to get into this show, but I just can't.
Oh well, at least I have the return of Battlebots to look forward to. Hopefully ABC doesn't ruin it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaos on May 25, 2015 14:07:08 GMT -5
I have one word to describe "500 Questions"...
FEH!
|
|
|
|
Post by gamecrazyh on May 26, 2015 1:03:41 GMT -5
looks like Steve Harvey and the 'Bots are gonna do just fine, considering the negative reviews for 500 Questions. Feud can't get any worse (though I don't mind the answers and Steve's expressions).
|
|
|
|
Post by manekineko on May 26, 2015 1:05:45 GMT -5
I think you guys are being too hard on this show, and I'll give you some reasons why.
First of all, some of these ideas would make the show drag on forever. Extending the clock to 60 seconds would almost assure that the person would never reach 500 questions.
Second, the game is a marathon, but so was Millionaire. The pacing is slow but when they fire off a question, that's all there is to it, pressure time. Millionaire came nowhere near close to 38 questions in an hour, in fact near the end it got slow to the point of painfulness. Watching someone scratch his head over 4 possible choices for 8 minutes grates after a while.
Third, I think that Alex is being fucking stupid about the "Who wants to see someone struggle for $3,000"? Cash Cab was a hit for years and that show had people struggling over a few hundred bucks. The Million Second Quiz sucked not just because of the money but also because of the fact that it was poorly hosted. But then again, he was one to tell me how much he thinks male models are great on TPiR so chances are he's not the right audience for this show.
Next, I admit I didn't like Richard Quest at first but he is growing on me. The one thing he needs to do is limit the phrase about "Three wrong in a row and you're gone" to when a contestant has two strikes. It's not necessary otherwise.
Is this the worst show that ABC has put out? Not even close. You're telling me some guy falling into a river after being smacked by a fist that comes out of the wall is quality TV compared to this? Are you seriously trying to tell me 500 Q is worse than "Set For Life" where you sat and watched a guy pull colored lights for an hour? Hell, I think Show Me The Money was worse than this and I liked that show.
I would improve it in the following way:
1. Go over the Top 10 challenge, Triple Threat or Battle rules once per show, and that's it. The contestant is a genius, they know the rules already, don't repeat it when it comes up.
2. The contestant can see the red and white lights, you don't need to repeat the stats. Just let them pick the category.
3. I would add an element of danger. Give them the option to bank at 50 or risk it and double the money they accumulate if they go for 100, triple if they go for 150, etc. up to 10 times for 500 questions. If they bank it, the multiplier goes back to x1 for the next 50 questions.
Other than that, this actually can work. It's methodical and the challenge is there. We're so used to the lightning-fast pace of Jeopardy! or the "HOLY FUCK LOOK AT ALL THAT MONEY!" on Millionaire, but people have drug out shit for eternity on game shows, hell, Deal or No Deal drug out opening a case for eternity.
Right now that librarian on the show is doing exceptional and I hope he makes it to 150, but I think with those minor changes, this show could work.
Honestly, I think this show is more than a bit too intelligent for our society right now. That's probably the biggest reason it will fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by addemup on May 27, 2015 12:51:29 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan of 500 Questions, but I'll agree that it's far from the worst game show ABC has aired. Show Me The Money, Set For Life, Downfall, Wipeout, and I Survived a Japanese Game Show were all much, much worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaos on May 27, 2015 18:36:41 GMT -5
Let's not forget Password All-Stars.
On second thought, Let's FORGET Password All-Stars!
|
|
|
|
Post by thekid965 on May 27, 2015 18:55:18 GMT -5
I started out fairly neutral on 500 Questions, but I'll freely admit, it's been growing on me. The biggest problem, as has been noted repeatedly, is the pacing, and it's not even entirely the show's own fault; the commercial requirements of prime time network TV dictate that there will be only about 38-39 minutes of show content for each hourlong episode, with the rest given over to ads.
It's a solid if unspectacular quizzer, and I do like how you can build interest in a single contestant over the course of several episodes... much like a returning champion, dare I say it, from the heyday of the genre? And there's nothing wrong with "solid if unspectacular" either. Not everything has to blow your socks into the nearest wall and redefine the entire genre, the way Millionaire and Deal or No Deal did when they first came along. Many game shows we now consider all-time classics fall into that category.
And let's not lose sight of one very important thing here, friends: 500 Questions is exactly what so many of us old-timers have been clamoring for for over a decade now: A traditional, studio-based game show, airing in prime time on a major broadcast network, to counteract the so-called "reality" craze. And the ratings suggest it's doing well enough for itself (it blew the doors off the return of Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? last night) that ABC is already mulling over a second series.
Is it perfect? Hell no. But it's certainly worth trying to salvage if at all possible... and it probably won't take as much as you think. Trim some of the fat in the running time, maybe streamline the overall format a touch, and watch the spoilers in the promos, and you could really have something special here. It wouldn't require more than tightening a few screws in what is already a rather solid construction. And I'll definitely agree, it's worlds better than something like Million Dollar Money Drop or what Millionaire has evolved into!
|
|
|
|
Post by WarioSajak on May 27, 2015 19:01:00 GMT -5
Let's not forget Password All-Stars. On second thought, Let's FORGET Password All-Stars! There was absolutely nothing wrong with Password All-Stars. The only issue was that they shouldn't have done it on what I'm guessing they intended to be a permanent basis. And let's not lose sight of one very important thing here, friends: 500 Questions is exactly what so many of us old-timers have been clamoring for for over a decade now: A traditional, studio-based game show, airing in prime time on a major broadcast network, to counteract the so-called "reality" craze. Except it still has some of the trappings of the primetime network game shows of the past decade, most notably padding. Richard Quest could also benefit from toning it down. The main thing that bothers me is that these "geniuses" are playing for way, way less money than the players on (for example) Show Me The Money and Set For Life got hand over fist. Further, per this conversation with one of the show's writers, the show has a very small budget and the producers were upset that they were giving away so much because (and here's the kicker) they were expecting a high contestant turnover to keep the winning down. [EDIT 7/8/15: Restored the "kicker" since the tweet appears to have been deleted.] |
|
|
|
Post by Kaos on May 27, 2015 19:22:14 GMT -5
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/pacdude">@pacdude</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkLabbett">@marklabbett</a> They were envisioning many more turnovers of contestants resulting in smaller wins.</p>— Arnie M (@123arnie) <a href="https://twitter.com/123arnie/status/603587697358151680">May 27, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Say WHAT? |
|
