Point one: it's been done. Sort of.
Different style, same principle, balance everything on the wobbly prop |
Admittedly the rules are maybe a little complex to start but I found it pretty easy to follow after a watch:
- Draw a random slot to have to pile your next stack on, choose how big a stack you want in that position (basic understanding of physics should tell people to put bigger stacks near the middle where possible but I'll get to those two brothers from last week in a bit).
- Answer a question from a chosen category with as many answers as the stack you've chosen. For example if you were looking to use your 5 stack worth £25000, you'd need to provide 5 answers.
- Stack your stack while providing your answers within 60 seconds.
- Repeat for all 12 stacks of varying sizes, including the 1 and 2 stacks worth £0 but there to help distribute weight around the board.
- Get a question wrong and the stack in play becomes worth nothing but must still be stacked with an added penalty block on top.
- The game ends when all stacks have been stacked on the board (Win), or when one block falls (Lose).
What makes GRBB most watchable to me is the contestants. I'm well versed in contestants that fill me with rage and venom thanks to their uselessness (look at the blog you're on, the show I write most about) and there's been people on GRBB that fit nicely into that bracket.
Bear in mind every stack has to be added to the board at some point to finish the game so last Friday when two lads drew one of the central positions to stack on first I thought they lucked out with an easy start. I thought that surely the best start they could go with is to get their one heaviest, tallest stack done and out the way, as near to the fulcrum as possible. They thought they should just get one of their lightest stacks out the way instead, perhaps saving the heavy ones for the outside edges. See, even just writing about them is getting my hackles up. They went on to be unable to name any Little Mix songs, any Blue Peter pets, or any member of the Rolling Stones. This is why I enjoyed it, that familiar enjoyment of useless contestants ineptitude.
Couldn't name a single Rolling Stone. Not. One. |
Last point: Gordon himself.
In recent years there's plenty of examples of people in various areas of entertainment dipping into game show hosting. Comedian and star of 'Ghostbusters' (2016) Leslie Jones hosts the new US version of 'Supermarket Sweep'. Jane Lynch known for her roles in Glee and The 40 Year Old Virgin is the new host of 'The Weakest Link' in America. Richard Ayoade, who some may have seen in 'The IT Crowd' and 'The Mighty Boosh' or may know him from directing 'Submarine' and 'The Double', or may have read his books... Even he has a game show to his name.
Now Gordon's in the game show game and, while I'm not completely sold on his presenting style, I do enjoy him on this. Whatever he's done on TV he puts 100% effort into it and get's visibly put off when someone he's working with isn't completely engaged with the job at hand. When he's off on a road trip with Gino and Fred, and they want to muck about a bit, he's obviously the straight man in the scene. Years in the kitchen means he doesn't suffer fools gladly and has a very succinct manner to his character, and I'm just not sure it works in this kind of show. I'll need to watch more and maybe his hosting will grow on me. We can't forget that no-nonsense does work on a gameshow, Anne Robinson being the prime example. I'm also guessing Ramsay's decision to do a gameshow could well have been affected by the state of the restaurant business this last year, with him needing to take care of some bank balances of his own.
If you've watched it and not been keen, give it another go. I've enjoyed it so far and can see why it might seem unwatchable at first glance, but when you get into it its quite fun. And I can't see there not being a home version at Christmas.
Gordon Ramsay's Bank Balance is on BBC One: Wednesdays, Thursday and Fridays at 9pm
No comments:
Post a Comment