One thing which might be different if it launched today would be having a guaranteed winner every day. Always felt the penalty shoot out style finale was a bit of a lazy final and not in keeping with the show - having to answer an unbroken chain to win the jackpot would be more in keeping with the show, but they'd need a mechanism to get from 2 to 1.
One thing which might be different if it launched today would be having a guaranteed winner every day. Always felt the penalty shoot out style finale was a bit of a lazy final and not in keeping with the show - having to answer an unbroken chain to win the jackpot would be more in keeping with the show, but they'd need a mechanism to get from 2 to 1.
Maybe I've misunderstood your post but Weakest Link always had a guaranteed winner, since that was the whole point of everybody else being knocked out?
Most shows probably had a guaranteed winner then, but the trend now tends to be here at least for game shows in daytime especially to offer bigger jackpots by having a format which means the jackpot isn't won every day.
It's a bit different in the US - strangely considering you'd generally think of their TV landscape as being somewhat more ruthless audiences don't take to well over there to shows where the winner (and even runners-up) can go home empty handed.
It's a bit different in the US - strangely considering you'd generally think of their TV landscape as being somewhat more ruthless audiences don't take to well over there to shows where the winner (and even runners-up) can go home empty handed.
That's just part of the culture though, you go onto a gameshow over there and everything is built around winning a shedload of cash because it looks good if you jump around screaming the place down, whereas over here we're happy to go through 12 episodes worth of Countdown and "all" you get for it for winning is some kudos, your name on the Richard Whiteley Memorial Trophy, a teapot and a set of dictionaries.
Going back to my final round idea I guess the fairest way to do that would be to keep it with two finalists and as currently the strongest link decides whether to go first or second, and the challenge is basically to be the first to form a complete chain of say 10 answers (or possibly fewer, depending on how winnable you want it to be) within a given time frame. A wrong answer passes it to your opponent to start their chain. If you want a guaranteed winner you just say the person with the longest chain wins, but keep the banking element rather than having a target (though perhaps 10 in a row would guarantee victory and perhaps a bonus prize as well as an incentive).
That keeps the final round on theme, and also keeps up the pace of the show.
I thought he'd have been quite good on Millionaire. Not sure I see him on The Weakest Link though.
I'd actually like to see someone with a completely different approach to Anne have a go - someone being patronisingly nice could end up working just as well if they get the irony right.
I'd actually like to see someone with a completely different approach to Anne have a go - someone being patronisingly nice could end up working just as well if they get the irony right.
I'd actually like to see someone with a completely different approach to Anne have a go - someone being patronisingly nice could end up working just as well if they get the irony right.
She (and the voiceover funnily enough) was like that for an April Fools episode...
A bit weird that the money chain graphics don’t remain on the screen. But I would hope that’s just because it’s an early edit. Otherwise it’s not as easy to follow the game.