I don’t think that I’ve ever watched a quiz show on Netflix before. I don’t know if Netflix have made a quiz show before. Earlier today I watched an edition of “Cheat”, their new quiz presented by Danny Dyer and Ellie Taylor. I think it’s important to make the point that it is a Netflix show, because that brings certain expectations with it. Let’s be honest, it would be unfair to expect that they are going to make a highbrow, serious quiz show. No, this is entertainment, and it's a game. So I’ll try to judge it as such.
The show works like this. We start with four contestants.
They are asked questions in turn, to which they have to give a correct answer.
If they don’t know the answer they can push the red button in front of them,
cunningly concealed so that the other contestants can’t see them do it. This
reveals the correct answer to them. Correct answers add money to the prize
fund. However the other contestants can each call out the others for cheating. Got
that? Okay. After each has been asked four questions, money is removed for each
time a contestant cheated. The complicating factor is that whichever of the
four contestants has the best accuracy rate for calling out others automatically
goes through to the next round. They can also eliminate another player. If the
player cheated, let’s say, three times, then money for each of those three
cheats is returned to the prize fund.
The game continues with three players. The second round is
much like the first. Four more questions face each contestant. However this time,
after the other contestants have either buzzed in to accuse, or not, then it is instantly
revealed whether the contestant cheated or not. At the end of the round, then,
the viewer has a pretty good idea about who will have been the most accurate cheat
spotter. And as before, the most accurate goes through to the next round, the
final, and can eliminate either of the other two contestants. Essentially this
boils down to a choice between eliminating the biggest cheat and bumping up the
prize fund, or eliminating the stronger player and not putting so much back
into the prize pot.
For the final then, the gameplay is essentially sudden
death. The contestants face questions in turn. If they get the answer wrong,
they are out. If they cheat and are challenged correctly, they are out. If they
don’t cheat, and are incorrectly challenged, they win. So, basically, it pays
to observe the opposition closely so that you have a good idea what your
opponent is likely to know. That’s the game, and being on Netflix if you want
to watch the next edition straight afterwards, you go for it.
You know, there’s quiz shows I’d like to play in, and there’s
quiz shows I like to watch. There’s a lot of shows which are both, but there
are also a few that I’d watch, but I wouldn’t want to play in. This isn’t one
of those. I wouldn’t like to play in it, and I don’t see myself wanting to
watch it again. In any quiz show it is not guaranteed that the person with the
best general knowledge will win. That’s fair enough, but in “Cheat” it seems
that your level of general knowledge is somewhat incidental. It’s all about how
well you can spot other people cheating. And I don’t kid myself that my ability
to judge people is anything out of the ordinary. It’s a valid game but it’s not
a game that I really want to play.
There’s something I’m not clear about either, and that’s
the whole concept of the most accurate cheat spotter. It isn’t explained just
what measure they use to determine this. I know that it isn’t just about the number
of correct buzzes – in the second round Danny Dyer gleefully tells contestants
who’ve made an incorrect accusation ‘you’ve ‘armed yer accuracy rate there,
mate’ or words to that effect. But is it
simply a case of using the percentage of accusations that you make that are
correct? But if it is, then the thing would be that if your first buzz in round
two is correct, then just stick. Don’t buzz again and you’ve got a 100 percent
accuracy rate. It would just be interesting to know exactly how they work it
out, bearing in mind that accuracy in accusations is such a crucial part of the
game mechanics.
There’s another thing I find a bit strange about this show.
Make no mistake, this is Danny Dyer’s show. I’m not going to say anything
critical about Danny Dyer – he is what he is, he knows his own brand and he
knows his own appeal. If he’s not your cup of tea then don’t watch the show
because you won’t like it. But . . . why have Ellie Taylor on the show as well
if all you’re going to ask her to do is read out the questions? She’s a fine
presenter in her own right and I’m sorry, but her talents seem almost totally
wasted in this. It’s not as if she gets any meaningful opportunity to indulge
in any useful presenter & sidekick banter of the kind we’ve seen in a
number of shows across the years. I don’t get it.
To use a familiar refrain, I do think that “Cheat” does
what it does pretty well. There’s a decent amount of cash to be won, the
presentation is fairly slick, and it doesn’t drag. But at the end of the day, I
don’t like what it does that much. The questions are too simple to interest me
much, and the cheat/no cheat aspect doesn’t interest me. You may feel differently.
3 comments:
You managed to watch more of it than me! I couldn't sit through more than ten minutes of it.
One thing I would say though is that I would reverse the names 'Danny Dyer' and 'Ellie Taylor' in your assessment. To me, it's clearly Ellie Taylor's show, and I don't understand why Danny Dyer is there. Ellie reads the questions, explains the rules AND chats to the contestants. All I see Danny doing is shouting occasionally. To be fair I only saw ten minutes so maybe Danny does something more interesting later, but from what I saw, Ellie was the only one who was remotely host-like.
Hi George,I think that we've both noticed that this double headed presentation tea, doesn't work. I'm not saying that I like what Danny Dyer does. I do really think Ellie Tayblor was dreadfully underused, though, and its a waste of her talents.
What do you think Ellie Taylor should have done, in addition to what she does?
I felt that Ellie did all the things a host is meant to do - ask the questions, explain the rules and get to know the contestants. With her doing all of that, it was Danny who made me question why they bothered getting him there in the first place.
Post a Comment