What Millionaire perfection looks like (in my opinion)

[panampat]

(Note: This post was written off-the-cuff. Meaning, I wrote it as I made it up. Consequently, it's quite long. Just a warning. Besides that, I hope you enjoy!)

Fourteen years ago today, this episode of Millionaire aired on ITV:


(This is the original broadcast from ITV that aired 14 years ago. I put this one instead of the higher quality reruns from Challenge because this one doesn't have those irritating cuts Challenge makes to their reruns, removing things like the viewer text game and the ending bit before the credits. It represents an original, authentic, and complete picture of this episode, and is perhaps the best way to view it despite lower picture quality. The still pictures on this post, however, will come from the Challenge reruns posted by Ben Crowl because the quality is higher in them than in this video)

It is, in my opinion, the best, most perfect episode of Millionaire from any version anywhere in the world. It is perfect in terms of gameplay mechanics, gameplay itself, contestants, and hosting. I want to take this opportunity to explain why, why it is so perfect and why I think this episode represents the gold standard for what Millionaire should be in any incarnation anywhere.

Now, as you all may know, details matter a lot to me. I will go full pedant for this thread/post, because there are a number of little details in this episode that I think contribute to this episode being, in my opinion, perfect. I also look forward to reading your opinions on why you may agree or disagree with me. It's always a thrill seeing those kinds of comments.

So without further ado, let's get to it.

First, we'll start off with the intro, which is my favorite intro out of any version of Millionaire from anywhere at any time. 



This intro conveys a feeling of... epicness and intrigue in a way that no other intro I've seen does. It kinda feels like you're falling through a wormhole into a trivia nut's paradise, a land of incredible, life changing riches. The remix of the theme matches the graphics perfectly and ups the feeling of epicness and suspense in a way no other mix (whether the one used for the intro immediately before this between 2001-2004 or the basic theme) does. The two deep notes (I don't know how else to describe it) between 0:07 and 0:10 underscores that feeling perfectly. The graphics of the intro itself are great for something made in 2004. It was quite bold of them to do a wholly 3D computerized intro and have the 'camera' fly so close to them (which risks making them look cheap or low-quality), but it actually turned out really well (so long as you don't look too close). I wish someone redid this intro with the computer graphics technology we have now. It would look really good, I reckon. I also wish a version of Millionaire modernized this intro and used it as their opening intro, although methinks that it's probably too long for any version of the show now. The intro itself is about 18 seconds long. For comparison, the Olga van den Brandt intro and the current British intro is about 13 seconds and the current American one is about 6 seconds (this is just the intro sequence). Still, it would be quite unique. All three of those intros (the Olga one, the British one, and the American one) kind of resemble each other mechanically (logo flips, zoom into the 'O'). This one is different, and the difference is, I think refreshing and interesting. 

Moving into the episode itself, we have two contestants today.



This is James Lucy, who has been "a soldier, a technical author, and has run a computer company". He is from the east of Britain and is winning money to renovate the family home for his wife, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Fantastic contestant winning money for a fantastic cause. Always great to see. He aims to win £32,000. He starts off at £8,000, having answered the first 7 questions correctly the previous Saturday (the season premiere). After questions on James Bond actors, stargazy pies, and wedding anniversaries, he makes it to his goal. Sadly, he misses his next question for £64,000, but loses nothing and returns to Suffolk with the £32,000 he set out to win. 

After introducing a new set of contestants and a Fastest Finger First question that has given me some very useful knowledge, we end up with our second contestant. 



This is Ingram Wilcox, "a semi-retired civil servant" who works part-time for the Department of Work and Pensions. He hails from the southwest of Britain and has five adult kids. He's here to win money to pay off their student loans as well as pay for a trip to Japan (despite hating traveling), in addition to "making retirement much more of a full-time occupation". Also, that is his neutral facial expression. His face won't change much throughout the rest of the episode, but believe me, it's a part of his charm.

He is right up there with Donald Fear and David Edwards and Nancy Christy and Jeff Gross and a few others as one of my most favorite contestants of all time. I think he is actually my favorite contestant (I'm not entirely sure). So incredibly soft-spoken and humble and smart yet charming and humorous. He exudes this grandfatherly-like energy and you can't help but smile/stare in awe at him as he goes on (especially in the upper tier) and answers his questions and gets them right. You can't help but really root for this guy. He's great and fun to watch (of course, Chris helps matters along too). 

He starts off and does... decently. He struggles at £1,000, a question about a popular lunchtime talk show. He has an inkling as to what the answer may be, but chooses to use the audience. The audience guides him to the correct answer and he successfully makes it to the first safety net with two lifelines to go. Things go smoothly for him after this. We learn he's written a sci-fi comic that he hasn't finished because he "keeps changing it" and that he learns Japanese in his spare time. At £8,000, he gets stuck again on another pop culture question. He uses his Phone-a-Friend and successfully clears that question too. At £32,000, he successfully deduces the correct answer with the help of the 50:50. Now he is at the second safe level with no lifelines remaining. 

Now, I'm sure some people thought "Well, not too much further. Maybe £64,000, £125,000. I mean, he's all out of lifelines." But really, he's just getting in the zone. This is the start of what I think is the most incredible upper tier run of any Millionaire contestant ever (although I think Donald Fear ties that now). It is this run (and his demeanor and actions through it) that makes Ingram my favorite Millionaire contestant. At £64,000, he is confronted by a question about Thomas Gainsborough's paintings and goes with the answer that sounds familiar to him, because he has nothing to lose. His familiar answer turns out to be the correct answer. He easily figures out the next question too, asking where the majority of French kings were crowned, by stating that it's Reims because "it's famous for it". For his thirteenth question, he gets this (a question that should be familiar to fans from both sides of the Atlantic). 



*TANGENT ALERT. FEEL FREE TO SKIP THIS BY SCROLLING TO THE END OF TANGENT*
Now I would like to get into what I like to call The Essence of Millionaire Question-and-Answer Writing^TM. The essence is this: Millionaire questions and answers, especially those in the upper third, should be 1) concise, 2) refrain from adding unnecessary words or details (especially those that may aid the contestant in giving an answer or affect the question's difficulty), 3) straightforward, 4) of appropriate difficulty for the level (this is subjective), 5) formality in diction and content, and 6) grammatically correct. This question nails it. The next question, for £500,000, is exemplary. Compare this to the way the question and answers are written for the exact same question when it appeared as Rosie O'Donnell's $500,000 question and Andrew Townsley's £500,000 question.


Rosie's $500,000 question


Andrew's £500,000 question

Rosie's example is mostly fine. The "in 1803" part is unnecessary because it adds nothing to the question (and at this level, shouldn't the contestant know roughly when the Eroica/3rd Symphony was written anyway?) and the answers lack that formality in diction that Ingram's example has (that is, full proper names). Andrew's example does have that formality in fiction but outperforms Rosie's example in adding unnecessary details ("First performed in 1804", what does that add to the question besides unneeded letters? All of the answers were contemporaries of one another, anyway, so giving a time period in the question means nothing overall). 

The essence seems to be a bit of a lost art. The original ITV version of Millionaire (with Chris) did very good in achieving this essence. The current run with Jeremy does a bit less well. As in the example above, they do have a tendency to add unnecessary tidbits of information (see above) or adjectives. or instance, the next question Andrew Townsley got for a million was, verbatim, "In the history of motor sport, which of these iconic races was held first?" "Iconic" is unnecessary, but at least its only one word. And most other questions hit the nail on the head (Andrew's £250,000 question is an example), so it's fine. 

The original ABC primetime run with Regis lacked a certain formality in question content and grammatical correctness. Two of my biggest pet peeves about question writing from that era are 1) their usage of "What", which is grammatically incorrect when you're choosing from a limited choice of options (when you have a limited choice, you ask "Which?"; when you have unlimited choices, you ask "What?"; maybe this is a cultural thing and difference in American and British English, I don't know, but it just feels grammatically wrong to me) and 2) their usage of pop culture in higher tier questions (see David Duchovny's $500,000 question and Michael Shutterly's million dollar question for examples), albeit this is subjective. I think its inappropriate because I don't consider pop culture to be... a field of knowledge that merits hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars/pounds. I think questions at that level should ask things that are more... intellectual or academic. Of course, this is entirely my own opinion and I'm sure to others, this isn't an issue. 

The syndicated version of Millionaire and the new revival with Jimmy shoot this essence in the face (although in the original format days with Meredith, the question writing was quite good). Questions from this era add unnecessary adjectives/details up the wazoo (in addition to continuing the whole "which/what" tradition). It's almost as if the question writing team were writing clues for Jeopardy! (in terms of writing style and level of detail) instead of Millionaire questions. They love to write wordy (albeit not as bad as Chris Harrison-era questions), adjective filled questions (Lauren Lapkus's $125,000 question, for instance), and roundabout questions (Jane Fonda's $125,000 question, Lauren's $16,000 question). In fact, my pick for "most badly written but accurate (that is, not factually incorrect) question" comes from this era, Lauren Lapkus's $500,000 question. 



What does that first clause ("Six U.S. presidents had what first name...") do? Why is it there? Couldn't this question be written as "Which is the most common U.S. presidential name in history?" Also, by explicitly stating that there are six holders of that name, all Lauren or any contestant would have to do is figure out how many holders there are of each name and as soon as she came across the one with six holders, she can lock in an answer. She can simply concentrate on finding the one with six holders. Without it, she'd be forced to consider that there may be another option that has more (since she has no target number she's looking for) and that would make the question worthy of a half million. I get this is a celebrity edition and the money's for charity, but if this style of writing continued into the civilian edition (whenever that comes), I must say I'd be quite disappointed. 

*END OF TANGENT*

Anyways, back to Ingram. He explains in wonderful detail why he knows that the Eroica symphony was originally dedicated to Napoleon, makes that his final answer, and wins £250,000. Then comes my favorite question of all time...



Look at that writing. So concise and straightforward. Look at the question and answers. So appropriate for £500,000. It's an obscure piece of trivia, but not too obscure. The answers are all very reasonable; none of them can be eliminated off the bat (for an example of the opposite of this, see Jane Fonda's $250,000 question). And the inclusion of the Caspian Sea is a great diversion to create doubt (and potentially mislead). This is one of those "You know it or you don't" type of questions. It is the perfect example a question that perfect demonstrates all the points of The Essence of Millionaire Question-and-Answer Writing^TM. 

Then there's the process of deliberation. I love the way Ingram states he's tempted, eliciting the look of "Oh God" from Chris and his son. I love how Chris asks "What are you thinking?" and then let's Ingram verbally deliberate whilst refraining from talking too much, thus allowing the moment to remain atmospheric with the Strachan soundtrack going on in the background.

After some more time, he seals the deal (refer to 44:15 in the video of his episode linked at the top of this post). I have watched the 30 seconds that follows at least 200 times. It never fails to make me excited and happy. 

Ingram: (nodding) "Yeah, I'm gonna say Lake Baikal."
*Audience groans, cut to shot of his son with a worried expression on his face, cut back to Chris*
Chris: (intensely staring at Ingram through half-lidded eyes, see my profile picture to the left) "Final answer?"
Ingram: (nodding again) "Yes" (Smiles at Chris)
*£500,000 final answer cue, drum roll for 3 seconds, camera cuts back to Chris*
Chris: (pensively glaring at Ingram) "You had two hundred and fifty thousand pounds..."
*three more seconds of drums, camera goes back to Ingram, who is slightly nodding and still smiling, as if to say "Yeah, and I've just won five hundred thousand."*
Chris: (still glaring, then looks down to his screen) "...you just won half a million!"
*back to Ingram, now smiling an even bigger smile. Audience breaks into wild applause and cheering. 'Lake Baikal' flashes green 4 times and the £500,000 win strap comes up. The £500,000 win cue plays. Chris rushes up to Ingram and hugs him*
Chris: (while embracing Ingram) "What a night!" (Looks at Ingram at arm's length) "That's incredible! Five hundred thousand pounds!" *More cheering from the audience*


(Every time I see this, I always think to myself "That's a lot of zeroes. Like, I'm a college student and $/£5,000 seems wild to me. $/£500,000 is just... unimaginable) 

While those 30 seconds (and perhaps that picture above alone) perfectly sum up and demonstrate why I think original ITV Millionaire with Chris will always be the best to me. It nails down the atmosphere. The dramatic pause and interaction between the final answer and the reveal is perfect (it still builds up suspense even though Ingram looks quite confident of his answer, but doesn't drag for too long). It makes you (the viewer) understand the gravity of the situation (he has either just lost a life-changing amount of money or he has just won the right to try for the biggest prize of all, in addition to winning even more life-changing amounts of money). It adds to the excitement.

Then there's Chris reaction to Ingram winning the half million. I love how he doesn't hesitate to go in there and congratulate him with a hug. This is something he does regularly. He loves congratulating his contestants in a very visible manner. He does this for a number of his contestants when they win at least six figures (see Jonathan Green, Steve Devlin, Peter Lee, and all the million pound winners), whether it be a handshake or a full-on hug. Sometimes he even does it for folks who've won in the middle tier (after getting through a difficult question). And I think its absolutely wonderful that he does that. All hosts on game shows that award life-changing sums of money should. Maybe it's because (like Chris) I'm also the very huggy, physically-expressive when happy type, but I think this is the gold standard of good hosting when it comes to level of excitement on shows like Millionaire.

I wish American Millionaire could replicate that feel. Meredith came close, in her very own unique way. Those fake-outs were delicious, in my opinion) and there was a lot of excitement (see Nancy Christy's and Jeff Gross's run, for example), despite it being a 30 minute show and having to move things along faster. I hope, once we get civilian contestants back, Jimmy will be able to replicate it (and of course, add his own twist), but we'll see. 

By the way, I would like to say that during this summer break (I'm a uni student), I've watched more episodes of original ABC Millionaire with Regis (especially so after his untimely departure). I went back to read my original controversial opinion post where I stated there were some things about his hosting that I didn't like (specifically where I wrote that I questioned whether he was happy for his contestants) and I would like to say now that I'm sorry I questioned his sincerity to his contestants. He has incredible warmth and makes it obvious that he cares. That being said, he's not as demonstrative as Chris and Meredith are, but he does care, and I'm genuinely sad that I even remotely implied the opposite. I did some more digging into him after his death and I've realized that he really was what you saw on TV, very warm and friendly and funny and a very great man (has a cool old uncle vibe to him). I feel sorry for even having implied otherwise because it was patently untrue. 

I've learned to appreciate him more than I already did at the helm of Millionaire. I've learned to appreciate that run of Millionaire more by realizing that every version of Millionaire is different, and that's what makes this format beautiful and interesting, all the little differences between the different versions and hosts. Essentially, I've learned to enjoy the Regis version of Millionaire on its own merits (as I have with the Australian version with Eddie McGuire and the Japanese adaption Quiz $ Millionaire with Monta Mino) rather than viewing it as a direct translation of the British version in the US and disliking it for the things that are different. That being said, if you ask me which version do I like best, the answer is still the British original for the little details mentioned in this post, and other things like pacing (for instance, the original ABC run loved to do a whole string of questions, go to a commercial break, come back, do some banter and go on another string of questions whereas the original British version spreads the banter out between the questions, which I think feels more natural and allows for the incorporation of that atmospheric music in the background that comes between questions; see below for example). But I've come to appreciate every other version more now, and I think that's something every fan of this format should be able to do. 


(This is what I was talking about with the pacing. You'd never see this with the original ABC Millionaire although I don't recall if the revival does this. Chris banters a bit with Pat and gives a very thorough situational overview as he goes into the million pound question, all while that sustained low hum goes on in the background. I think it does a very good job of underscoring the seriousness of what's about to happen.)

P.S. I love how he looks as happy winning £100 as he is winning £500,000

[Admiral Sven]

(Sorry: meant to respond earlier in the month).

Whew: that's one hell of a post. That's what I like to see on places like this. People having discussions about topics that are relevant and sometimes they can be rather intellectual on the subject. Indeed, my father likes to ridicule me for immediately knowing the value of the question someone's answering if I've missed a huge chunk. That said, though, I can't do it for the 2007 music. But let's get to the point of my reply.

First off, on your introduction. I agree with you on the cut segments adding value to the show. For example, I was watching a Classic Millionaire episode on that new Sony Channel and there was an ad break within 5 minutes of the programme starting, yet in another episode I watched a couple of weeks ago I had to wait about 20 minutes. I wouldn't say I have a favourite episode, yet that one certainly is an example of a good one. And don't you worry about fussing over the minor details, being a very detail-orientated person myself I can tolerate this and admire those like you who put the effort in to write about them.

Okay, let's start for real now. The intro. Ever since we had this discussion a couple of months back I've started to really see how good the 2004 intro is. I completely understand your views on the intro now. I agree on the two extra deeper notes, they do add a bit of a punch to the music.

Also on the subject of the intro, a little detail I spotted: there's an extra flash on the top left light at 0:01 (of this below 16:9 clean version I made the other day). I'm not quite sure if it's a mistake or not, but it adds a little serenity to it.




Right - without further ado - your next point about the contestant. I'll skip past James Lucy as you did, as then there's the other contestant. Probably one of the best I've seen.

It's worth noting that Ingram Wilcox was known as a serial quiz nut even before he went on the show. But then, many have tried and failed (Fifteen-to-One "champion" Trevor Montague the most notable of these). But what makes his run interesting is the fact that he burnt out his lifelines by the time he reached £32,000. That makes his £64,000-£1,000,000 run even more impressive.

Now I may comment on your tangent, if you don't mind, because it throws up some really strong points. The secret to The Essence of Millionaire Question-and-Answer Writing^TM (don't forget the ^TM, no, no, no, don't forget the ^TM) is that questions should be 1/ concise, 2/ clear, 3/grammatically correct (Americans, are you listening?), 4/Not outrageously difficult but most certainly not easy and, 5/ Original and not seen on the show previously. I have always loathed it when Millionaire reuses questions but in a different format. I find this incredibly lazy question-writing.

As for your Rule #2, the golden rule of question writing is add extra detail if the contestant should use it. Many quiz questions are actually a trick to read between the lines and pick up on the details which at first glance may seem unimportant. And that's why I can probably explain why the 1804 thing is useful in this situation.

I'll get this out of the way first: the strategy doesn't work for Rosie's question, but for Andrew Townsley, most people don't know messages of classical music well enough to answer this on a whim, including me. So the strategy here is to pick up on 1804. With a bit of well-known knowledge that Marie Antoinette died in 1793, we can probably eliminate her. Voltaire died in 1778, so, if you know a little about him, you can knock him off as well. Louis XVIII also never acceded to the throne of France until 1814 and wouldn't have been able to enact the things that may have made him able to win over Beethoven. So that would leave Napoleon the right answer, especially as the original title of the Eroica Symphony was in Italian, and he was President of the Italian Republic between 1802 and 1805, and that time period includes both 1803 and 1804. That's the kind of logic the producers want to see, and the logic which wins you £1,000,000.

As for your views on Andrew's £1,000,000 question, yes, absolutely. Maybe simply "Which of these motorsport races was held first?" should be suffice. And yes, that's why I struggle transcribing the American version onto the Millionaire wiki - it's too grammatically incorrect. I just can't write it, especially with the Harrison-era questions. And the most poorly-worded must be the question you've noticed. Surely you didn't need to have the "six had it" part? So, you might want to say, "What is the most common name among the U.S. Presidents?"

And, yes, I shan't deliberate on that part about Ingram winning £500,000. You've described it perfectly.

Ah, but about Chris' reaction. See, when I watch his reactions, to me, they don't feel right. Yes, he goes in and genuinely hugs them to the point of death, but also, when I think he does it for people who've fared not quite so well, it often makes me feel as if he's only doing it for the cameras. It also makes the game slow and not as fast-paced as Clarkson, who just rattles through the questions and congratulates them, certainly, but not for as long and not as significantly as Chris did. Your views on the American version also have a fair bit of substance behind them. I never liked Meredith's hosting because she genuinely rooted for the contestants. I think that hosts should congratulate them, but not dwell on it.

I made the same mistakes as you believe you did with watching Regis. That's why I never warmed to him until I actually stopped seeing it as a direct take on the British version. I too have now learnt to view each version of the show as a different programme. For example, I have always liked Eddie McGuire on Aussie Millionaire - he kept games moving but still engaged with the contestant and had the odd spot of contestant-host banter. Now, I like him even more.

But, let's say, Haluatko miljonääriksi, for example, fails at the tension. Lasse Lehtinen talks whilst the win cue is still playing, and not when the lights are down. That drives me mad. It removes the whole aspect of the host adding to what he's saying.

And, yes, that final collage was entertaining. He doesn't change his expression at all! But what is interesting to look at is the audience member directly behind him, sat to his left. At £1,000 she's as if "Okay, this is what happens all the time." As we go further up the money tree, her facial expressions become more and more prevalent before she's cheering him loudly at £500,000. That's the tension the show brings. It affects absolutely everyone, not just the person it's intended to affect.

[panampat]

In reply to Admiral Sven , firstly, thank you for your wonderful response. It's always lovely whenever someone participates in the discussion and shares their own opinion (for or against). I originally typed this in the hope that there'd be some lengthy sharing of opinions between multiple users, but I think the length of my first post scared a number of folks away. I'm happy it didn't scare you away. I'm also quite happy that there's someone else on this forum who is as detail-oriented as I. 

Okay, let's start for real now. The intro. Ever since we had this discussion a couple of months back I've started to really see how good the 2004 intro is. I completely understand your views on the intro now. I agree on the two extra deeper notes, they do add a bit of a punch to the music.

Yeah, I remember that chat (if that's the proper term) we had about the intros in the other thread. I originally wanted to post that bit in that thread, but was afraid it would've been irrelevant since the thread was about the music and not about intros. While we're on the topic, I'd just like to add a bit more (things that I wanted to say over there, but didn't out of fear of not being on topic). Maybe it's because I'm biased, but I thought all the original US intros (from the primetime ABC run) were inferior to the original British ones, both in terms of music and graphics. I didn't like that remix of the theme they did for the intro (before the 'Last Time' bit; see 5:30 in the vid below) and I thought the graphics (specifically the 3D logo) as... less well done than that from the British 'UFO' intro (made in the same time period, although I deeply dislike those sound effects they added into that intro). They seem less smooth and... crisp? It's hard to describe. Although I must say, I do like the US intro they used for a few weeks in 2000 (see 4:31). It starts off atmospheric, but you can tell it's building up to something epic. The graphics are the same (that is, less polished looking), but at least the music was better. 


(A compilation of US intros)

(The British UFO intro; God, I hate that radio tuning-like sound)


Thought I'd throw this extra one in here from Quiz $ Millionaire. Leave it to the Japanese to seriously up the epic factor on the intro. Such a unique take on the 'people staring at something magical' concept, and the graphics are actually really well done, especially those rotations with the synchronous locking sounds. Shame they only used it for the initial run of episodes (the later episodes didn't have a proper intro).

Also on the subject of the intro, a little detail I spotted: there's an extra flash on the top left light at 0:01 (of this below 16:9 clean version I made the other day). I'm not quite sure if it's a mistake or not, but it adds a little serenity to it.

I actually didn't really notice the flash, but nonetheless, such a perfect intro (the 2004-2007 one)

I'll get this out of the way first: the strategy doesn't work for Rosie's question, but for Andrew Townsley, most people don't know messages of classical music well enough to answer this on a whim, including me. So the strategy here is to pick up on 1804. With a bit of well-known knowledge that Marie Antoinette died in 1793, we can probably eliminate her. Voltaire died in 1778, so, if you know a little about him, you can knock him off as well. Louis XVIII also never acceded to the throne of France until 1814 and wouldn't have been able to enact the things that may have made him able to win over Beethoven. So that would leave Napoleon the right answer, especially as the original title of the Eroica Symphony was in Italian, and he was President of the Italian Republic between 1802 and 1805, and that time period includes both 1803 and 1804. That's the kind of logic the producers want to see, and the logic which wins you £1,000,000.

I see what you mean. It's just (and this is entirely subjective), I think for a half million pounds/dollars, a contestant ought to know when Beethoven produced his works, where the Eroica Symphony falls in the chronology of his works, and in what time frame the other folks (from both Ingram's question and Andrew's question) were relevant, then deduce from there. However, I can see why some people would say that that's too much for one person to know/to have to deduce. Adding '1804' negates the need for the contestant to know where Eroica falls in the chronology and the time frame in which Beethoven produced his works. Therefore, what was needed in Andrew's question, what the question writers were trying to test his knowledge on, was when Louis XVIII, Marie Antoinette, Voltaire, and Napoleon were at peak relevance. What was needed in Ingram's case was all three of those elements I mentioned previously. Actually, now that I elaborated on that, I think based on the way it was written and the answer choices (bear in mind that Napoleon, Lord Nelson, and Lord Byron all peaked in prominence at around the same time, plus or minus 10-15 years), Ingram's would've made a more appropriate £500,000 than Andrew's. 

Ah, but about Chris' reaction. See, when I watch his reactions, to me, they don't feel right. Yes, he goes in and genuinely hugs them to the point of death, but also, when I think he does it for people who've fared not quite so well, it often makes me feel as if he's only doing it for the cameras.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. I mean, I hope I didn't make it sound like he did it to everyone all the time. It happened regularly, but it didn't happen all the time. He didn't do it after every question answered correctly (although you can always tell by his facial expressions that he was genuinely happy). However, it did happen with regularity (usually, if you got past £125,000 or successfully answered a question you had a really difficult time on, you were bound to get at least one). For instance, he went to hug Pat Gibson only once, after he won the million (which is appropriate). I don't know how to describe what makes him do it more or less to someone. I suppose it's how friendly/inviting someone looks. I mean, look at Ingram. He exudes this warm, grandfatherly energy from him. So cool, so friendly, so humble. If I was Chris, I think I would've hugged the pulp out of him when he won the million. 



Look at how he rockets out of his seat. Chris hugs every million pound winner. But he never did it this fast or with this much excitement. He literally went from sitting down in that chair to this...



... in about 3 and a half seconds (he beats the confetti pouring down from the ceiling). So to me, his excitement in this case (and in every other case I've seen thus far) seems very real and very authentic. As a side note, I love that picture. I love how it's hard to tell who's more happy about 'Ingram Wilcox, Millionaire'. I love Chris's excitement and glee ("I love you!"). Every time I see this, I can't help but smile. 

It also makes the game slow and not as fast-paced as Clarkson, who just rattles through the questions and congratulates them, certainly, but not for as long and not as significantly as Chris did. Your views on the American version also have a fair bit of substance behind them.

I don't think his congratulating contestants slows down the game. I think he actually takes about as much time as Jeremy, except the time Chris spends hugging contestants/shaking their hands/whatnot is replaced with banter. I haven't done an analysis of pace (that is, how many middle and upper tier questions they get through in an episode; the Regis version averages about 18 and the Chris version averages about 11 or 12, IIRC), but I reckon the UK revival is on par with the UK original. In fact, I think this is about the speed Millionaire should be played at. Fast but not too fast, slow but not too slow (I'm sorry if that makes no sense whatsoever, I don't know how else to describe it).

I never liked Meredith's hosting because she genuinely rooted for the contestants. I think that hosts should congratulate them, but not dwell on it.

That's why she's my favorite American host. She seemed to care a lot about all her contestants and really wanted to see them climb that tree. I think every host of every game show (with a few exceptions, like The Weakest Link) should be that way. I don't think any host should dwell too long on their contestant's successes or failures, but I do think when it merits it (like when you win life-changing money), they should be outwardly, openly, and uninhibitedly excited (like Chris and Meredith). That kind of incredible happiness I think really makes a moment like this special.

That was the biggest gripe I had with Regis's run on the American version. He wasn't that outwardly excited (in comparison to those two) and that made me think that he wasn't particularly happy about his contestants winning big. Matters weren't helped with how quickly contestants were shuffled out of the studio after they've completed their run (it gave the feeling of too little focus on the contestants and too much on the game), irrespective of how far they went (or even if they win the million). Of course, that wasn't the case (and I'm still really sorry that I even made that assumption in the first place in light of so much evidence to the contrary). He just isn't as outwardly excited in the same way Chris and Meredith were. I've come to really appreciate Regis again and what he brought to the show, his unique brand of excitability and banter and warmth. But in the outward near-uncontainable excitement department, Meredith and Chris have him beat by a fair bit. That's why Regis is a solid third in my ranking of favorite hosts from all versions of all time. Of course, all of this is subjective and varies from person to person. I quite like it when hosts are really excited and into it. Others lesser so, and that's fine and understandable.

If I may add, at least in the case of Chris, he can and sometimes does overdo the excitement. For instance, the behind the scenes documentary ABC produced back in 2000 had Regis evaluate the work of his international counterparts and the clip they chose of Chris (if I remember correctly) was from when Fiona Wheeler (from series 2 in 1998) got her £2,000 question correct (after using 2 of her 3 lifelines) and he rushed up to kiss her (it would seem). When he saw it, Regis asked, "Did he just kiss her?" I think that moment perfectly demonstrates Chris getting a bit too excited. I mean, maybe it's a cultural difference (I'm a Californian/American), but to me, running up to kiss a contestant like that was a bit... overkill and odd (again, cultural difference). The vid below shows that moment.



While we're quickly bringing up elements of Chris's hosting style, I would like to bring up one more clip, from Chris's appearance on Live with Regis and Kathie Lee (or in the case of that day, Regis and Joy). They were discussing how Chris would delay a couple of seconds before revealing an answer, just to keep a contestant in suspense. Regis says he doesn't do it because he doesn't want to add to the contestant's anxiety more than the game already does ("...I saw you [Chris] put them through the wringer and I said, "I don't know if I can do that.""), to which Chris responds "You're kinder than me." I agree with his evaluation. Regis really is more kind/merciful. Chris is more fun (in that playful teasing sort of way). Of course this is entirely subjective. I know people (Britons and Americans and other viewers alike) who find Chris's delays irritating. I find them fun, I enjoy being teased at the answer. I used to wish Regis was more like Chris in those dramatic pauses before revealing an answer, but after watching a number of episodes with him from the original run, I've come to the conclusion that I'm kind of happy Regis does Regis and doesn't do those pauses (he did them a number of times early in the run in August and November 1999 and it always felt/looked odd to me). 


(This is the part of the interview I'm referencing. The whole interview is incredible. It's so great seeing legends collide. All we're missing is Eddie and Meredith.)

I made the same mistakes as you believe you did with watching Regis. That's why I never warmed to him until I actually stopped seeing it as a direct take on the British version. I too have now learnt to view each version of the show as a different programme. For example, I have always liked Eddie McGuire on Aussie Millionaire - he kept games moving but still engaged with the contestant and had the odd spot of contestant-host banter. Now, I like him even more.

Beautiful summarization. I think I made the Australian version out to be different (and thus didn't compare it to the British original) because it's presentation is fairly different. I mean, the first episode of Australian WWTBAM? I ever watched was Brett Macdonald's run. (Quick side note, I feel genuinely quite sorry for him. He won $250,000, went out and got that new car he wanted, and proceeded to crash it 5 months after appearing on the show, a crash that killed him. He is right up there with 'Grand Slam' lady and 'Surge Protector' guy as one of the contestants I feel most sorry for)



Everything about the presentation was so odd. First, there's that intro (it's another unique take on the 'people staring at something incredible in the sky' theme, although not as unique as the Japanese). Then there's that theme (that remix heavy on the electric guitar). Then there's that very unique logo (which I reckon got the thumbs down from Celador because it was too different from the mainstream identity they created a la Milionerzy's original logo). Then there's that tiny downscaled set. Then there's the other smaller things. The pacing (the amount of chat; for the most outstanding example, see the first 10 minutes of Martin Flood's second day where the two talk about his $125,000 question and other things). The fact that the questions wouldn't show on our screens until a second after we see the lozenges (which I thought was funny and unique, although I liked the way the US/UK versions did it by making it synchronous; it gave the computer a kind of... malevolent sentience and it gave the overall show a much slicker feel). Anyway, the Australian version felt so different that I immediately decided I couldn't reasonably compare it to the British original and immediately just enjoyed it on its own merits. 

And, yes, that final collage was entertaining. He doesn't change his expression at all! But what is interesting to look at is the audience member directly behind him, sat to his left. At £1,000 she's as if "Okay, this is what happens all the time." As we go further up the money tree, her facial expressions become more and more prevalent before she's cheering him loudly at £500,000. That's the tension the show brings. It affects absolutely everyone, not just the person it's intended to affect.

That collage really perfectly captures that woman's facial expressions as Ingram climbs the tree, and that woman I think perfectly represented the excitement I'm sure everyone in the audience felt. Darn shame they didn't get to see Ingram's million win, because I think they would've exploded had that happened that day. The room would've exploded with energy and liveliness and it would've been incredible (even more so than when it actually did on his second day).

[RegisFan]

I’ve never seen that Quiz $ Millionaire intro before! That’s pretty epic!

[Arynnia]

The Quiz $ Millionaire intro has always been one of the better (and one of the creepier) versions of the Millionaire intro, but in either case, I do agree with much of the post which started all this off.

The one thing I have to disagree with, and this is in my opinion, is the intro. The 2004 UK intro has always been one of my less-liked intros, just seeming like it's a bit too much. I don't care for the primetime or first syndicated US intros for the same reason. I like the new Dutch intro and the classic UK intros (though that radio tuning noise is weird) in style more than the 2004 one.

Other than that, the gameplay, the interaction, the audience's energy, all seem perfect for a game of Millionaire.

[Admiral Sven]

Thank you for the response, and sorry I didn't get back to you more promptly. I agree, it is nice to share opinions, whatever the length, and I think, ultimately, that's what this forum is for. And these sorts of posts most certainly don't scare me away.

I'd just like to add a bit more (things that I wanted to say over there, but didn't out of fear of not being on topic). Maybe it's because I'm biased, but I thought all the original US intros (from the primetime ABC run) were inferior to the original British ones, both in terms of music and graphics. I didn't like that remix of the theme they did for the intro (before the 'Last Time' bit; see 5:30 in the vid below) and I thought the graphics (specifically the 3D logo) as... less well done than that from the British 'UFO' intro (made in the same time period, although I deeply dislike those sound effects they added into that intro). They seem less smooth and... crisp? It's hard to describe. Although I must say, I do like the US intro they used for a few weeks in 2000 (see 4:31). It starts off atmospheric, but you can tell it's building up to something epic. The graphics are the same (that is, less polished looking), but at least the music was better.

I absolutely agree with you on this. I think that US intro was quite poor; the graphics don't seem polished. I never particularly liked the 2001-2004 UK intro, either: I think the point of it was for it to be a fresh version of the original for Millionaire's move to widescreen, and one that could also work for 4:3 TV sets and then ITV decided to add needless sound effects to it. I've never seen that US 2000 intro before but I like it - the music at the start actually works, surprisingly.

Of course the Japanese can pull it off well. This is probably one of my favourite international WWTBAM intros, and it's easy to see why.

I see what you mean. It's just (and this is entirely subjective), I think for a half million pounds/dollars, a contestant ought to know when Beethoven produced his works, where the Eroica Symphony falls in the chronology of his works, and in what time frame the other folks (from both Ingram's question and Andrew's question) were relevant, then deduce from there. However, I can see why some people would say that that's too much for one person to know/to have to deduce. Adding '1804' negates the need for the contestant to know where Eroica falls in the chronology and the time frame in which Beethoven produced his works. Therefore, what was needed in Andrew's question, what the question writers were trying to test his knowledge on, was when Louis XVIII, Marie Antoinette, Voltaire, and Napoleon were at peak relevance. What was needed in Ingram's case was all three of those elements I mentioned previously. Actually, now that I elaborated on that, I think based on the way it was written and the answer choices (bear in mind that Napoleon, Lord Nelson, and Lord Byron all peaked in prominence at around the same time, plus or minus 10-15 years), Ingram's would've made a more appropriate £500,000 than Andrew's.

I completely understand your argument here. The only problem is that the vast majority of people, even $500,000/£500,000 winners,  don't have a clue about the life and career of Beethoven. It's not something one naturally goes to read up on. I do agree that Ingram's question made a more appropriate £500,000 question than Andrew's, though. As I explained in the first question, when answering a quiz, if you're given seemingly useless information, it's your job to use it wisely. And that was what was needed in Rosie's and Andrew's cases.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. I mean, I hope I didn't make it sound like he did it to everyone all the time. It happened regularly, but it didn't happen all the time. He didn't do it after every question answered correctly (although you can always tell by his facial expressions that he was genuinely happy). However, it did happen with regularity (usually, if you got past £125,000 or successfully answered a question you had a really difficult time on, you were bound to get at least one). For instance, he went to hug Pat Gibson only once, after he won the million (which is appropriate). I don't know how to describe what makes him do it more or less to someone. I suppose it's how friendly/inviting someone looks. I mean, look at Ingram. He exudes this warm, grandfatherly energy from him. So cool, so friendly, so humble. If I was Chris, I think I would've hugged the pulp out of him when he won the million.

I completely understand that. See, I'm not the world's most 'huggy' person and that was what annoyed me with Tarrant: he would do that, and it felt the game went slower because of it. I think if you got past £250,000 at least, you got a hug. If you got past a question Chris thought was pretty difficult, you knew what was coming. But then, even I would probably hug someone in glee if they won £1,000,000 on my show. I just don't like the capital 'M' in his 'Ingram Wilcox - Millionaire" graphic. It's just unnecessary. And of course "I love you!" will live long in my memory.

That's why she's my favourite American host. She seemed to care a lot about all her contestants and really wanted to see them climb that tree. I think every host of every game show (with a few exceptions, like The Weakest Link) should be that way. I don't think any host should dwell too long on their contestant's successes or failures, but I do think when it merits it (like when you win life-changing money), they should be outwardly, openly, and uninhibitedly excited (like Chris and Meredith). That kind of incredible happiness I think really makes a moment like this special.

That was the biggest gripe I had with Regis's run on the American version. He wasn't that outwardly excited (in comparison to those two) and that made me think that he wasn't particularly happy about his contestants winning big. Matters weren't helped with how quickly contestants were shuffled out of the studio after they've completed their run (it gave the feeling of too little focus on the contestants and too much on the game), irrespective of how far they went (or even if they win the million). Of course, that wasn't the case (and I'm still really sorry that I even made that assumption in the first place in light of so much evidence to the contrary). He just isn't as outwardly excited in the same way Chris and Meredith were. I've come to really appreciate Regis again and what he brought to the show, his unique brand of excitability and banter and warmth. But in the outward near-uncontainable excitement department, Meredith and Chris have him beat by a fair bit. That's why Regis is a solid third in my ranking of favorite hosts from all versions of all time. Of course, all of this is subjective and varies from person to person. I quite like it when hosts are really excited and into it. Others lesser so, and that's fine and understandable.

I understand you here. I just don't think the format of WWTBAM really calls for an outwardly caring and happy host, mainly because the programme never wants you to feel at ease. I completely agree with your saying about contestants being shuffled out of the studio too quickly; for example, even when the $2.18 million winner (I can't remember his name right now) won the biggest amount ever awarded on US television at the time, Regis went back to start Fastest Finger First pretty quickly, and the new millionaire had to go very quickly too. Regis didn't even have time to say "congrats".

I have also learnt to appreciate Regis: he's got warmth, banter and a little wit too. That's what I like about Clarkson: he brings a personality that the format calls for, and he also rattles through the questions and doesn't dwell on it, let alone repeat them like Chris used to sometimes.

If I may add, at least in the case of Chris, he can and sometimes does overdo the excitement. For instance, the behind the scenes documentary ABC produced back in 2000 had Regis evaluate the work of his international counterparts and the clip they chose of Chris (if I remember correctly) was from when Fiona Wheeler (from series 2 in 1998) got her £2,000 question correct (after using 2 of her 3 lifelines) and he rushed up to kiss her (it would seem). When he saw it, Regis asked, "Did he just kiss her?" I think that moment perfectly demonstrates Chris getting a bit too excited. I mean, maybe it's a cultural difference (I'm a Californian/American), but to me, running up to kiss a contestant like that was a bit... overkill and odd (again, cultural difference). The vid below shows that moment.

Yes. Chris did get over-excitable at times. But, I think we can forgive him, mainly because who doesn't want to celebrate being a millionaire by bathing in melted chocolate!

While we're quickly bringing up elements of Chris's hosting style, I would like to bring up one more clip, from Chris's appearance on Live with Regis and Kathie Lee (or in the case of that day, Regis and Joy). They were discussing how Chris would delay a couple of seconds before revealing an answer, just to keep a contestant in suspense. Regis says he doesn't do it because he doesn't want to add to the contestant's anxiety more than the game already does ("...I saw you [Chris] put them through the wringer and I said, "I don't know if I can do that.""), to which Chris responds "You're kinder than me." I agree with his evaluation. Regis really is more kind/merciful. Chris is more fun (in that playful teasing sort of way). Of course this is entirely subjective. I know people (Britons and Americans and other viewers alike) who find Chris's delays irritating. I find them fun, I enjoy being teased at the answer. I used to wish Regis was more like Chris in those dramatic pauses before revealing an answer, but after watching a number of episodes with him from the original run, I've come to the conclusion that I'm kind of happy Regis does Regis and doesn't do those pauses (he did them a number of times early in the run in August and November 1999 and it always felt/looked odd to me).

I see where you're getting at here. I watched this clip and it is very good. Chris plays it cool but is also chatty and likeable. I find Chris' delays to be fairly annoying, especially when you know the answer to the question, but I also like to get teased at the answer. Yes, Regis does his own style, and I think that's what really worked.

Everything about the presentation was so odd. First, there's that intro (it's another unique take on the 'people staring at something incredible in the sky' theme, although not as unique as the Japanese). Then there's that theme (that remix heavy on the electric guitar). Then there's that very unique logo (which I reckon got the thumbs down from Celador because it was too different from the mainstream identity they created a la Milionerzy's original logo). Then there's that tiny downscaled set. Then there's the other smaller things. The pacing (the amount of chat; for the most outstanding example, see the first 10 minutes of Martin Flood's second day where the two talk about his $125,000 question and other things). The fact that the questions wouldn't show on our screens until a second after we see the lozenges (which I thought was funny and unique, although I liked the way the US/UK versions did it by making it synchronous; it gave the computer a kind of... malevolent sentience and it gave the overall show a much slicker feel). Anyway, the Australian version felt so different that I immediately decided I couldn't reasonably compare it to the British original and immediately just enjoyed it on its own merits. 

Yes, certainly. Not quite sure what they were thinking with the logo - I don't see how it survived for five series. I can tolerate the theme and the intro just about. I have seen that Australia's TV archive website described it almost "religious", as if something truly remarkable was unfolding right before their eyes. The font for "Total Prize Money: $xx,000" wasn't the best idea either. The red background on the FFF seats isn't a great idea but makes for some wonderful lighting during Eddie McGuire's entrance.

[panampat]

Oct 16, 2020 13:25:45 GMT -5 Admiral Sven said:

Thank you for the response, and sorry I didn't get back to you more promptly. I agree, it is nice to share opinions, whatever the length, and I think, ultimately, that's what this forum is for. And these sorts of posts most certainly don't scare me away.

I'd just like to add a bit more (things that I wanted to say over there, but didn't out of fear of not being on topic). Maybe it's because I'm biased, but I thought all the original US intros (from the primetime ABC run) were inferior to the original British ones, both in terms of music and graphics. I didn't like that remix of the theme they did for the intro (before the 'Last Time' bit; see 5:30 in the vid below) and I thought the graphics (specifically the 3D logo) as... less well done than that from the British 'UFO' intro (made in the same time period, although I deeply dislike those sound effects they added into that intro). They seem less smooth and... crisp? It's hard to describe. Although I must say, I do like the US intro they used for a few weeks in 2000 (see 4:31). It starts off atmospheric, but you can tell it's building up to something epic. The graphics are the same (that is, less polished looking), but at least the music was better.

I absolutely agree with you on this. I think that US intro was quite poor; the graphics don't seem polished. I never particularly liked the 2001-2004 UK intro, either: I think the point of it was for it to be a fresh version of the original for Millionaire's move to widescreen, and one that could also work for 4:3 TV sets and then ITV decided to add needless sound effects to it. I've never seen that US 2000 intro before but I like it - the music at the start actually works, surprisingly.

Of course the Japanese can pull it off well. This is probably one of my favourite international WWTBAM intros, and it's easy to see why.

Agreed and agreed! I mean, to the folks at Celador and ITV, it probably seemed like a good idea at the time. And while the original intro (from 1998) was perfectly satisfactory, it wasn't particularly graphics intensive. You've got to admit, in terms of graphics for the UFO intro, it was very daring. It utilized a lot of animation at very close range, and it all turned out very crisp and smooth and beautiful. Graphically, I have no problems whatsoever with that intro. It's just those blasted sounds that ruin it for me.

I completely understand your argument here. The only problem is that the vast majority of people, even $500,000/£500,000 winners, don't have a clue about the life and career of Beethoven. It's not something one naturally goes to read up on. I do agree that Ingram's question made a more appropriate £500,000 question than Andrew's, though. As I explained in the first question, when answering a quiz, if you're given seemingly useless information, it's your job to use it wisely. And that was what was needed in Rosie's and Andrew's cases.

I see. I mean, what it comes down to here is what the writers believe a contestant ought to know to merit them winning $/£500,000. I believe that at that level, you needn't know about specific details about Beethoven's life (or any other historical figure, really), but you should know the rough ballpark details about when he flourished (to use a historian's term) and when he produced his works. In the event that not giving more detail makes the question too hard, then the answers ought to be rewritten to make the question as a whole easier. Andrew's answers are written perfectly, so much so that the 'First performed in 1803' part is rendered absolutely unnecessary. Of course this is my own opinion, because I think for £500,000, you ought to know when each of those people became historically relevant in addition to Beethoven. What kind of knowledge merits half a million varies from person to person, and obviously, mine if much more in line with the writers of 2006 than the writers of 2019.  

However, I think we can both agree that writing questions like this is... awful:


Why not "Who sang the song "Watermelon Sugar"?" (you don't even need to specify a year unless another one of them wrote a song of the same name in a different year, in which case, you probably shouldn't even ask it) and "E.B. White wrote which book?" Do the writers get paid by the letter? Do they think this is cute/fun? Do they think they're writing for Jeopardy!? Like, I really want to know, because I don't think anything about the American revival irritates me more than the way questions are written. (These two are from TONIGHT'S program, by the way, I'm watching it as I'm typing this for inspiration) Like, every time I watch an episode of the revival, seeing the way their questions are expanded for no real informational value at all (how does E.B. White crying help us in any way determine which book he wrote? What does Harry Styles dedicating his music video for "Watermelon Sugar" do for me as a contestant trying to figure out he wrote/performed it?) I find myself having to go back to look at this...

...to remind myself what good, proper, sensical question writing looks like. So short. So proper. So concise. Just 8 words (less than a third of the amount in the E.B. White question), 32 characters (100 LESS than the "Watermelon Sugar" question), 1 line. I love it SO MUCH. I get, like, head and spine ASMR shivers every time I see it and read out, it's so good. I love it. If I was the person in charge of question writing anywhere, on any version, I'd make it a rule for every question to be written like this. This question gets the gold medal for exemplary writing. 

I just don't like the capital 'M' in his 'Ingram Wilcox - Millionaire" graphic. It's just unnecessary.

Curse you. I can't not notice it now whenever I watch that! If the 'E' was also made as big as the 'M', I wouldn't mind, because then there'd be symmetry. But there isn't! And that annoys me, man!

I understand you here. I just don't think the format of WWTBAM really calls for an outwardly caring and happy host, mainly because the programme never wants you to feel at ease.

I think that's my biggest gripe with Jimmy Kimmel right now. He's too... chill, too conversational, too relaxed. He makes the show kind of like floating down a lazy river and it kind of damages the suspense factor. He makes the experience not dramatic enough. And I agree, the format doesn't necessarily need to be outwardly caring and happy, but it certainly benefits from it. 

Quick aside, I recently came across this bit of Chris summoning a bit of Meredith's fake out energy and doing one of his own. It was fun, although I'm happy he stuck to his style of dramatic pauses. 

In fact, I think I've finally come to appreciate all of their different styles. Chris's dramatic pauses, Eddie's REALLY long and somewhat undramatic pauses, Meredith's fake outs, and Regis's quick and merciful reveals. Jimmy's sort of laid-back sort of dramatic reveals, I've still got to learn to love.

I completely agree with your saying about contestants being shuffled out of the studio too quickly; for example, even when the $2.18 million winner (I can't remember his name right now) won the biggest amount ever awarded on US television at the time, Regis went back to start Fastest Finger First pretty quickly, and the new millionaire had to go very quickly too. Regis didn't even have time to say "congrats".

That's my biggest gripe with the original ABC run. The pacing. It's ridiculously fast. It was like, their only goal is to produce winners. As many big winners as fast as possible. And it kind of robbed the show of a dramatic element (slightly, there's way less of it with Kimmel now) and a human element. With Meredith's two big winners, both winners got to sit down and have a 2-3 minute chat. That was nice and surprising, considering this is a daily syndicated half-hour program. I'm not saying that ought to be brought back. Maybe just a minute or so of standing in front of the monitors a la Chris, asking them how they feel, what they plan to do with the money, and presenting them the check.

Yes, certainly. Not quite sure what they were thinking with the logo - I don't see how it survived for five series. I can tolerate the theme and the intro just about. I have seen that Australia's TV archive website described it almost "religious", as if something truly remarkable was unfolding right before their eyes. The font for "Total Prize Money: $xx,000" wasn't the best idea either. The red background on the FFF seats isn't a great idea but makes for some wonderful lighting during Eddie McGuire's entrance.

They were also the pioneers of the 'express path to a million' (as Chris called the 12 question format). They had an 11 question format - answer the first question right, get a guaranteed $1,000. The rest of the tree remained the same. I don't know how I feel about that. The first third of the tree is a great way to instill calm and thoroughness in approaching the question from contestants. And apparently, Celador felt the same, considering that the 11 question format went away almost immediately (like, within season 1... or is it series 1; I don't know what the Aussies use).

[FrankT]

Sept 30, 2020 1:39:48 GMT -5 panampat said:

Oh man, I was going to post that interview before I found out Regis died.