JA
Deal or No Deal seems quite fake in general anyway. Much better at the start when all the contestants had to do is open the boxes, now they're full of this cringeworthy "you're an amazing woman" rubbish that makes it sound like they were given a script five minutes ago and didn't have a chance to learn it properly.
ST
In fact my friend hasn't even told me when his game is broadcast, or how much he won for the same reason as it spoils the surprise when watching.
I think it does ruin the experience for viewers when the media (or anyone else) leak details about results in gameshows.
In fact my friend hasn't even told me when his game is broadcast, or how much he won for the same reason as it spoils the surprise when watching.
I think it does ruin the experience for viewers when the media (or anyone else) leak details about results in gameshows.
BR
I wonder if this being kept secret is a sign of a real effort to let it play out on screen, or whether it's just down to interest in the show not being as high as first time around. Can anyone recall what happened with the subsequent winners of Millionaire? I know the first one was heavily leaked, but don't recall such a big deal being made for future winners.
I just wish soaps and drama would adopt the same practice. I don't see the point in watching the soaps when you can read the storylines just in the TV guides beforehand, but when things play out on screen instead you're really rewarded as a viewer.
One of the best pieces of drama ever IMO was when Steve left Shameless, as we had no idea he was leaving until it played out on screen.
I just wish soaps and drama would adopt the same practice. I don't see the point in watching the soaps when you can read the storylines just in the TV guides beforehand, but when things play out on screen instead you're really rewarded as a viewer.
One of the best pieces of drama ever IMO was when Steve left Shameless, as we had no idea he was leaving until it played out on screen.
GS
*whacky idea*
You could always try not reading the storylines in the TV guides beforehand.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Brekkie posted:
I just wish soaps and drama would adopt the same practice. I don't see the point in watching the soaps when you can read the storylines just in the TV guides beforehand, but when things play out on screen instead you're really rewarded as a viewer.
*whacky idea*
You could always try not reading the storylines in the TV guides beforehand.
MB
If anyone did miss this programme then be sure to watch it here:
http://www.channel4.com/video/deal-or-no-deal/catchup.html
availabe for another 30-days!
http://www.channel4.com/video/deal-or-no-deal/catchup.html
availabe for another 30-days!
TR
All five £1 Million winners had the news leaked into the newspapers days and weeks before the broadcast. The fifth winner (Ingram Wilcox) even had a two page interview in the Daily Mirror on the day his win was being shown on the evening,
Brekkie posted:
Can anyone recall what happened with the subsequent winners of Millionaire? I know the first one was heavily leaked, but don't recall such a big deal being made for future winners.
All five £1 Million winners had the news leaked into the newspapers days and weeks before the broadcast. The fifth winner (Ingram Wilcox) even had a two page interview in the Daily Mirror on the day his win was being shown on the evening,
TF
If you know where to look you know to find it on Utube.
Such an amazing moment, the feeling of sheer orgasm is inescapable!
Such an amazing moment, the feeling of sheer orgasm is inescapable!
JR
Not really. It's 2/22, which is 1/11 or just under 10% that the £250,000 will be in the player's box. This is then assuming they go to the end without dealing, and don't swap. The chances aren't that much increased from what they usually are.
IIRC the US version tried something similar to this, called the "Million Dollar Mission", where with each game played, the highest non-million dollar amount on the board would be replaced with another million dollar case. It eventually got to around half the board being full of million dollar cases, and (ironically) still nobody won the million dollars...
Anyway, back to the second £250,000 win... it seems rather odd that the Banker would offer the Banker's Gamble in a situation where there was a 50% chance of the box being £250,000. If the other box was the penny, the chances would be slightly increased, but if I remember rightly, the Banker's Gamble is only offered if the offer that would have been made is the same (or close to) the offer that was dealt at. With 1p and £250,000, £17,000 seems like a very low offer (I say this with my statistician's hat on.)
Maybe the produc–sorry, the Banker, decided that as there had not been a £250,000 win in over two years, it needed a little nudge by opening up opportunities for people to win the top prize. That seemed to be the factor last time (the offer only being £45,000 to push Laura into going on) and it seems to have happened again.
I'm not saying the Banker knows where the money is (the only person who does is the independent adjudicator, and anything else, when dealing with these amounts of money, would be grounds for prosecution for corporate fraud AIUI) but, given that there was a 50/50 chance, and no-one has been in that situation before, I think it's almost certain that there was some 'theatrical' gameplay involved here.
tvmagman posted:
there is a good chance of a jackpot winner this week as the top prize will be in two boxs
Not really. It's 2/22, which is 1/11 or just under 10% that the £250,000 will be in the player's box. This is then assuming they go to the end without dealing, and don't swap. The chances aren't that much increased from what they usually are.
IIRC the US version tried something similar to this, called the "Million Dollar Mission", where with each game played, the highest non-million dollar amount on the board would be replaced with another million dollar case. It eventually got to around half the board being full of million dollar cases, and (ironically) still nobody won the million dollars...
Anyway, back to the second £250,000 win... it seems rather odd that the Banker would offer the Banker's Gamble in a situation where there was a 50% chance of the box being £250,000. If the other box was the penny, the chances would be slightly increased, but if I remember rightly, the Banker's Gamble is only offered if the offer that would have been made is the same (or close to) the offer that was dealt at. With 1p and £250,000, £17,000 seems like a very low offer (I say this with my statistician's hat on.)
Maybe the produc–sorry, the Banker, decided that as there had not been a £250,000 win in over two years, it needed a little nudge by opening up opportunities for people to win the top prize. That seemed to be the factor last time (the offer only being £45,000 to push Laura into going on) and it seems to have happened again.
I'm not saying the Banker knows where the money is (the only person who does is the independent adjudicator, and anything else, when dealing with these amounts of money, would be grounds for prosecution for corporate fraud AIUI) but, given that there was a 50/50 chance, and no-one has been in that situation before, I think it's almost certain that there was some 'theatrical' gameplay involved here.