I'm talking money-wise. I mean, it wasn't like "Who wants to be a Millionare", it they went far enough on that show, they had those safety nets of $32,000, $64,000, over $100,000, and not only that, the show JUST HAD TO consist of like freakin' 5 at a time, rather then "Deal or No Deal". On this new show "Deal or No Deal", it's one contestant at a time, which is how it should be, and after every offer, that contestant just about always at some point in the game if offered enough money to walk away with that could really change their life for a while.
On "Greed", you had 5 people, and only "one" person deciding the fate of them and the others of whether they walk away with big money. And then you had this damn "elimination round" where one person tried to eliminate someone else, which I didn't like.
"Deal or No Deal" is way better in my opinion. I thought "Greed" was a cold, ruthless show and if they were wrong in the trivia question, THEY WENT HOME WITH NOTHING....
2007-03-14 09:30:40 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television
i was about to contradict you until i read the entire post. you are so right. but i believe that is why it was called greed, just to get some fools who absolutely would stop at nothing to get the big prize. the eliminator was a big negative in my book, as it was similar to weakest link in weeding out someone just to get a bigger piece of the pie. problem there was they usually get the smarter ones out. plus the questions they asked were ridiculous. what were the top five kool aid flavors sold from 79-83? which brand of tires are the least likely to bubble up during a nascar race? and which of the 8 out of 10 pizza toppings were ordered the most from california pizza kitchen from the hours of noon to 9:00 pm in the golden nugget casino?
deal or no deal is better to watch, although the same dopey people as i saw some woman walk away with $400 ha ha.
2007-03-14 09:45:43 · answer #1 · answered by gonzo 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The problem that I had with it was that it moved far too slowly. I have the same problem with DEAL OR NO DEAL -- though it isn't quite as bad.
Was it despicable? Yes. The most despicable? No.
Several that are worse include THE GONG SHOW, THE NEWLYWED SHOW, any game that involves dating and -- the worst of all time, QUEEN FOR A DAY. You probably don't remember the last one -- which was on in the 1950s and 1960s. The premise was that three women would tell their sob stories to the audience. The one with the sorriest life would be named Queen for a Day and get some prizes.
2007-03-14 16:36:00 · answer #2 · answered by Ranto 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That's why the show was called GREED!!! The whole premise of the show was that how much the people won was based on how GREEDY the team leader was.
2007-03-14 16:35:38 · answer #3 · answered by santiago29134 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I liked it despite 80 percent of the captains were big idiots i thought
2014-10-02 22:13:16 · answer #4 · answered by frank cannon 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
'The weakest link' was horrible too...remember that awful woman? "you are the weakest link...goodbye!" EWWW! That was a bad show. Another horrid one is that show hosted by Danny Bonaduce. His scratchy voice is sooo grating, and you win like, dinner and a movie, lol...not even worth the time it takes to apply to go on there.
2007-03-14 16:35:20 · answer #5 · answered by JillieBoe 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋