Game Show Philosophy: A Series of Collages (3/5)

Greetings:

At last, the conclusion of my explanation of my first collage. I've posted it one more time for you....


3) Consistent: "Power of 10." Contestants who end up playing the main game for $10,000,000 (which no one will ever get unless he/she is incredibly lucky AND courageous) must first survive an "elimination round" by beating an opponent in predicting the results of a poll question...best 3 out of 5. It's a little sad that only 1 out of every 2 contestants who qualify to be on "Power of 10" end up playing for those life-changing sums of money...but if you're going to eliminate contestants from the game, that is certainly the way to do it.

Conflict: "Weakest Link." You can read my full explanation of this in the post "My Philosophy on Game Shows (Part 3/3, Ending)"; but the main reason this game show appears as the "conflict" has to do with the round-by-round voting for the so-called "Weakest Link." While the contestants were supposed to eliminate the weakest players in order to make more money for later rounds...they would almost always eventually start voting off the strongest players in order to eliminate the potential competition in the final round. As a result, they would often end up voting off the "Strongest Link" for a particular round. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of the show when Anne Robinson or George Gray has to tell the strongest player that he/she is the "Weakest Link"? For this reason, decisions about which contestants stay and which ones go should never be left in the hands of the contestants themselves, because this is exactly what tends to happen...but that's just my opinion.

Coming up next, a collage featuring one of my original games: Jackpot Trivia Bowl!