When people fail epically...

[supermillionaire]

From people who fail and flunk out prematurely, sentencing them to early and penniless exits (i.e. Robbie Roseman, Chase Sampson, etc.), to people who go so high, only to fall so far back down (i.e. Ken Basin), "epic failures" tend to be very common on the U.S. version of the show. These people go on the show expecting a successful run, only to fail so epically that they end up mocked, ridiculed, insulted, laughed at, and humiliated on YouTube. Why does it happen so often on the U.S. version of the show? On the UK version of the show, failing epically was very rare; fewer than 10 contestants left the show with nothing, and only 2 contestants answered the £500,000 question incorrectly. (Technically, a celebrity duo answered the £1 million question incorrectly, but it was found to be an ambiguous question, so they were invited back to play another £1 million question, and decided not to risk it again, walking away with £500,000.)

On a side note, the internet meme is "epic fail," in which the word "fail" is used as a noun, when it's supposed to be a verb; failure is the noun. And the word "epic" is used if the mistake is particularly bad.

And I think that there are people out there who actually enjoy seeing contestants fail and lose, just so that they can upload these extremely unlucky contestants to YouTube, where they can mock, ridicule, insult, and laugh at these contestants endlessly. I really think that these internet trolls should either get on the show themselves or get some lives. I personally, usually don't think anyone who doesn't know the answer to a particular question is stupid; they just didn't know the answer to that particular question, and as Chris Tarrant always said, the questions are only easy if you know the answers. I'm taking psychology in college, and in social psychology, making negative assumptions about someone else's behavior in a given situation is called the fundamental attribution error, which goes hand-in-hand with actor-observer asymmetry. I think someone should do a social psychology experiment involving people evaluating Millionaire contestants who failed, and see if they commit fundamental attribution error.

[kplewisvox]

One big difference between the US and UK versions is the US version is a daily, 5-shows-a-week run, as opposed to UK Millionaire, which I think was at the most twice a week. Sheer volume of episodes and contestants means that there are going to be more zero winners. If the difficulty between the two shows was proportionate, you'd see a lot more millionaires on our side as well.

As for why zero winners are so popular on YouTube, I imagine schadenfreude is certainly part of it, but that's true on any game show. There are "epic fail" clips from Wheel, Jeopardy, Price is Right, Family Feud, you name it. It goes with the territory when you decide to go on television. Imagine if YouTube or Twitter existed in the 70s when Gong Show was still on.

[supermillionaire]

That's true, but even on the primetime version of Millionaire, there were lots of $0 winners. Of course, YouTube didn't exist at that time, but still. Nowadays, if you fail, you will end up humiliated on YouTube, and failure is very, very common on the U.S. version of the show. And indeed, those internet trolls do practice schadenfreude, which is taking joy in someone else's misfortunes. It's only funny when it happens to someone else, but once it happens to you, then it's not so funny anymore, now, is it?

[Deleted]

I know we're talking about $0 winners and how they have been ridiculed here in this thread but I'd like to point out the fact that there has also been a lot of million dollars winners in the U.S compared to other countries (except for Japan that has a ridiculous amount of top prize winners). I mean, I think there has, at least, been a dozen of people who've won the top prize in the U.S ! Which is enormous compared to France, for example. But I do agree on the fact that there has been a lot of $0 winners in the United States too.

[supermillionaire]

True, but the majority of those million dollar winners came in the primetime era of the show. There have been very few millionaires in the syndicated era (I think only 3), and Ken Basin attempted to become a millionaire, only to fail epically, have his winnings decimated, and end up humiliated on YouTube. And yes, I'm also aware that Japan has a lot of top prize winners. But going back to the $0 winners, the number of them is disproportionate to the UK version.

You know, though, I think there are people out there that purposely enjoy seeing contestants fail, but why? Why do they enjoy seeing contestants fail?

[wolf4537]

I think part of it has to do with the fact that online, people like to stereotype the United States as an overall country. I see comments on these videos saying "Figures, they're from America", which pisses me off cause that's a blatant case of how ignorant some people can be. Sure, The U.S. does have its share of uneducated people, but at the same time, the U.S. also has some of the smartest people in the world living here. At the same time though, with me saying this, it almost feels like more is expected out of these contestants when they are playing the game, maybe because of the same reason.

So in the end, I think that you see more of these video clips from the American show because the online audience probably expects these people to automatically do very well, and seem to get more of a shock value out of watching these contestants fail early. I think they're mainly looking for a reason to point the finger at why they think America can be a dumb country, and unfortunately, Millionaire does just that. BUT, I think the show "Are you Smarter than a 5th grader?" is even worse in terms of the dumb American stereotype.

[supermillionaire]

That's true, because we aren't re-taught those things in middle school, high school, and college, so we have that show to make adults look stupid.

But ever game show is copying the Millionaire rule of "make just one mistake, and you're out of the game, and you lose everything." There's no room for error, and I think there should be at least some room for error. And just because you didn't know the answer to a particular question, no matter what level it is on the money tree, doesn't make you stupid. I don't think anyone who leaves with nothing is stupid; they just didn't know the answers to those particular questions, and as Chris Tarrant would always say, the questions are only easy if you know the answers. However, I think today's syndicated Millionaire questions are significantly harder than those in the past.

And again, like I mentioned in my opening post, I took a class in social psychology, and the concepts of blaming the contestant's personality for their apparent stupidity for not knowing the answer to a particular question is called fundamental attribution error, which goes hand in hand with actor-observer asymmetry. Someone should do a social psychological experiment on this.

[wolf4537]

Nov 10, 2016 9:51:37 GMT -5 supermillionaire said:

That's true, because we aren't re-taught those things in middle school, high school, and college, so we have that show to make adults look stupid.

But ever game show is copying the Millionaire rule of "make just one mistake, and you're out of the game, and you lose everything." There's no room for error, and I think there should be at least some room for error. And just because you didn't know the answer to a particular question, no matter what level it is on the money tree, doesn't make you stupid. I don't think anyone who leaves with nothing is stupid; they just didn't know the answers to those particular questions, and as Chris Tarrant would always say, the questions are only easy if you know the answers. However, I think today's syndicated Millionaire questions are significantly harder than those in the past.

And again, like I mentioned in my opening post, I took a class in social psychology, and the concepts of blaming the contestant's personality for their apparent stupidity for not knowing the answer to a particular question is called fundamental attribution error, which goes hand in hand with actor-observer asymmetry. Someone should do a social psychological experiment on this.

If there's anything positive I have to say about the Shuffle format of Millionaire, is that at LEAST it made it so that it was a lot less likely to be ridiculed if you didn't know the first question, since no one knew how difficult it would be. Granted, it still doesn't make up for the fact that if you are given an easy question and fail, people would still point the finger and it would be all over the internet, but at least Millionaire took away one pain point with that. Now of course, with the original format being put back in place for the most part, that area of ridicule is up for grabs again at any point.  

And one other major factor to me, is being on TV in general. Sure, certain questions might seem easy at home if you know the answer, but when you are in front of the bright lights and everyone is watching you, your mind could easily go in several different directions.

I agree with you for the most part that if you leave with nothing, you're not stupid. All contestants these days have had to go a LONG way to even make it onto the show, which at least proves that they did something right. The ONLY exception for this that I can think of is when Millionaire had that "Walk in and win week" from like 10 or so years ago on the syndicated version, where anyone could be a contestant and didn't have to audition. I think I remember hearing that someone actually walked with $500 at that time, which to me, is unheard of. But I guess that would be the only way to say that your statement is false in regards to if someone could potentially be stupid when it comes to the game if you ask me.