NBC's new quiz show, "Weakest Link," has been called a cross between ABC's "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" and CBS's "Survivor," but this summary does injustice to an innovative show that has enough going for it on its own.
The most visible and unique asset of "Weakest Link" is British redhead Anne Robinson, the hostess who dispenses verbal lashings to the contestants at the end of every round. Robinson's caustic wit is entertaining, but I'm hesitant at the idea of bad manners becoming a trend in game shows.
Unmannerly conduct can be unsavory, as in a recent row between Robinson and New York Post TV critic Adam Buckman. The fiery Brit went on the offensive after Buckman gave her show a bad review, and he responded in kind on the newspaper page.
The bout culminated in an interview between the two in which Buckman declared, "I don't like the way you come in here and besmirch the reputations of our great television shows and our wonderful game-show traditions that we have here in broadcasting in America."
I'll take this opportunity to remind our readers that Buckman writes for the New York Post, a piece of yellow-journalism trash so putrid that if you hold a copy in the right light, you can actually see the stink lines emanating from it. The Post "besmirches" the reputations of our newspapers on a daily basis.
And Anne Robinson doesn't need to damage the "wonderful game-show traditions" of America (the country that invented quiz-show "rigging") -- we've done enough damage on our own.
The United States did have a fine selection of game shows for about three decades -- the '60s through the '80s. Countless classics emerged from that era, as inventive new formats were tried out each season.
In the '90s, though, arrived a game-show drought. Producers and network executives increasingly relied on copying each others' successes in the face of competition from cable.
Game shows don't fare well in such an environment, for they are arguably the most difficult genre to develop. Consider devising a television format so elegant that it will sustain its entertainment value when you cast a new group of untrained amateurs (i.e. contestants) as the stars in each episode.
It's an extremely daunting task -- to design a game that is inherently exciting to watch other people play. The format of a successful game show must be airtight, for it is thoroughly tested in each episode.
When producers ride the coattails of another hit, they obviously aren't crafting their show so carefully. They steal the successful format, change a few details, and hope for the best.
When you change a few details of a game show, however, the structure of gameplay collapses, and the drama is lost. So lazy producers make sitcoms or daytime talk shows instead.
Decent American game-show creators remain a dying breed in 2001, but we have solved the problem somewhat by stealing the smart producers from other countries -- giving us "Millionaire," "Survivor," and what some would deem the offspring of the two, "Weakest Link."
Of course,"Weakest Link" wouldn't survive if it weren't independently creative. I've mentioned Robinson's rapier wit, a critical element of the show, for there is an undeniable pleasure in seeing Robinson tell off the player who thought that acorns come from an elm tree. Her exchanges alone would make "Weakest Link" a decent show.
But "Weakest Link" is an excellent show, and this is because of its gameplay. The players work as a team to form a "chain" of correct answers as Robinson queries each one in turn. As the chain gets longer, it is worth exponentially more money, up to $125,000. There are seven rounds, and the winnings in the final round are doubled, so it is possible (but extremely difficult) to win $1,000,000.
If a contestant answers a question incorrectly, the chain resets to zero, but if he says "bank" before his question is asked, the money in the chain is safe, and the team starts a new chain from scratch.
All this takes place within a time limit of about two minutes, so viewers accustomed to "Millionaire's" more pensive pace will be surprised by the rapid give-and-take of "Weakest Link."
The chain metaphor is executed well, resulting in some surprisingly involved strategy. Contestants who get few questions correct are clearly a hindrance, but taking a long time to answer and banking too soon can also make a player a weak link.
At the end of each round, the "Survivor" touch manifests itself as the teammates vote to banish who they think is the weakest link.
When only two players remain, they face off to determine who gets the jackpot accumulated by the team in the previous rounds.
"Weakest Link" is a suitable complement to "Millionaire." The latter is a great game because of its extreme simplicity, the former for its complexity. "Millionaire" creates suspense by isolating contestants from their peers; "Weakest Link" creates suspense by placing contestants at the mercy of their peers.
They're both wholesome fun, and as long as NBC continues to play nice with time slots, we can enjoy both.
On a side note, I hope readers appreciate that I made it through this entire review without repeating Anne Robinson's now-pervasive catchphrase. Goodbye!
"Weakest Link" airs on NBC every Monday at 8:00 p.m.
