When FOX first announced that it picked up new game show The Moment of Truth, I had my doubts about the show. It seemed too intrusive and risky. When reading Kristin's article about her time in one of the show's promo booths, I got confirmation that the show was mostly heading towards sensationalism. Even if I had my doubts about the show, I had to tune in at least once to see how crappy and creepy the show would turn out to be and how low contestants would agree to go in order to win money.
If I understood correctly, the contestants are asked questions before the show and at that time they have all the polygraph gear on them. Once they answered the questions, the show compiles the official answers taking into account the moments when the contestants lied. Then, they go on the show and are asked the 21 questions out of those they were asked and their answers is compared to the polygraph results (for example, if someone said "yes" on the show and on the polygraph test they said "yes" but it was discovered that they were lying, then the official answer is "no" meaning that on the show they have an incorrect answer... follow me?). The more questions they answered truthfully, the more money they can get. But with more money means the possibility of alienating friends and family members because some of the questions are really touchy ("Is there something you have done that could cause [your wife] not to trust you? Do you have a bank account your girlfriend doesn't know about?") and the answer could put the contestant in a rough spot. I guess some contestants will lie both in the test and on the show in the hope that they beat the test and, therefore, can get away with a lie. But unless you are Sydney Bristow, chances are that you won't be able to beat the polygraph!
As all game shows nowadays, there is suspenseful music and a pause before the result is announced. About the latter, I'm glad the wait for the results wasn't too long; that helped give a good pace to the show. Mark L. Walberg did a better hosting job than I expected him to. He interacted with the players, had interesting questions to ask the contestants that were tie ins to the real game questions. He is not the greatest host on TV but he did a fair job.
It was interesting to see the instant reactions from family members and friends. They were always on the edge of their seat and not always happy with the answers, but what were they expecting? The ex-football player's wife kept saying that she "wanted to know" but her facial expressions were not always in agreement. I'm pretty sure it was painful for her but she was supportive of the fact that her husband wanted to continue. If someone decided to go on the show, they agreed to be asked tough questions that could put their relationships and friendships in jeopardy. And if a friend or family member agreed to come to the show to support the contestant, they agreed to hear things they may have wished remained secret. My curiosity would like to know what happened after the show. Did the family members and friends confront the contestant? Were they supportive and agreed to not ask questions because they too have secrets?
Random fact about the show: did you know that The Moment of Truth is being produced in 24 countries? Oh and the show, titled Nothing but the Truth at first, was picked up in August of 2007, meaning that it wasn't part of FOX's plan to cope with the writers' strike. Strike or no strike, the show would have made it on the air.
In all, The Moment of Truth was not as bad as I expected. It is as intrusive and risky as I thought it would be though and me (and others) watching more episodes will have FOX think we want to see more of the show and other shows that are alike. Thing is, I'm not sure we do but what else is on TV? Plus, let's admit it, we love hearing secrets! I don't know yet if I'll tune in next week but if I do, I blame it on the strike and my curiosity!
If you would like to be on the show and have your secrets revealed to million of viewers, check out FOX's Truth casting page.
Is the new TV season totally lame?
The TV characters you can (or can't) trust with your money
Giveaway Monday: That '70s Show The Complete Series Stash box set
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
1-23-2008 @ 11:15PM
Tristan said...
I thought it was quite interesting. There really wasnt anything else on at this time slot and it rolled nicely into the nightly news. It seemed kind of fast paced.
The theme song track seems kind of hot. The camera angles and the lights seemed to add quite a bit of more effect to it. I think it is a nice show for what it is trying to get at. [Wasnt the line at the beginning something like to see if there was at least one honest person in America?]
Regardless, me and a friend pondered over what she might have said to him after he answered the question wrong about touching his female trainees more than was required...
But enough of that, I hope this next guy does well. Im kind of hooked.
Reply
1-23-2008 @ 11:59PM
Keith McDuffee said...
I caught the last half of the show, and I gotta say the time between questions is just SO slooooow. Insultingly slow, even.
The contestants remember what questions they were asked, and then it's also possible they later told their significant others what those questions were and what their answers were to them. If they reached the highest point, that's what, 21 questions? And in the pre-interview, they're asked 50 questions. So they've got a pretty good chance of ANY of those questions they were asked before to be asked on the air.
So all that look of shock and embarrassment from the contestants and friends is just acting.
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 7:50AM
Michael said...
Keith, I completely agree with you here. The premise of the game is interesting as were most of the questions they asked. Unfortunately, the pacing is simply HORRIBLE! My wife and I could barely get through the show last night because it dragged terribly. I realize that they benefit by having it move at a reasonably slow pace production-wise but watching it was akin to watching paint dry.
They really need to cut most of the banter between every single freaking question and definitely speed up the response of the lie detector once the contestant has answered the question. There was no reason for the host to go explain the rules to EACH contestant (that's gonna get old in a hurry!) except to eat up playing time. Also, the host tended to repeat himself about gambling their winnings and losing if they got it wrong blah blah blah... Just play the stupid game and let us all keep track on our own. That's why you have that big shiny pyramid with the lights on it in the background, so we can remember the score!
I think that if they don't tweak this out after episode one, this show isn't going to last very long. The only reason we watched it last night was because there wasn't anything else on but reruns. Next time we're pulling out a DVD if it doesn't improve.
1-24-2008 @ 11:38AM
dt3 said...
i had thought that the behind the scenes polygraph test was 350+ questions
1-24-2008 @ 12:06AM
Doug Nelson said...
These people know 100% of the questions that may be asked, so all the suspense is completely artificial (and dragged out ad absurdum waiting for the "computer" to announce whether they were lying or not).
A better show would be to have them hooked up to the lie detector on air, and they have no idea what questions would be asked.
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 12:42AM
Vito said...
That would be a good show. Make it as exploitative as you can. Get Maury Povich involved. OOH! Or Nancy Grace. She'd get the dirt.
1-24-2008 @ 12:21AM
Diego M said...
lame, they take too long to get the answers going.
and they know the questions, do they know the results of the test or not? cuz this "suspense" aint' that real
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 12:45AM
lucyfan62 said...
I hate the pause between the answer the contestant gives and the reveal. Sometimes it's reasonable but when they drag it out for more drama it's just stupid. I did think the original concept was that they would be hooked up on stage and would be answering questions live, so the feigned suspense is a bit much. Granted, they know the questions and the answers they gave, but they don't know what the actual lie detector result was before going on stage but it still came off as too staged. And what was with the dead squirrel on the second guy's head?! A blind person would have known he was wearing a really bad rug. Geez, it was shiny like the finest polyester! I hope he wins so he can get a more realistic weave.
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 12:54AM
khamel said...
like everyone else here i wish they were hooked to a lie detector on stage (and assumed that was the case before watching) so i was a little disappointed. But really, just tell the truth and buy back peoples love and or respect. as long as the questions dont start involving criminal behavior (did you kill a man in reno just to watch him die - uh .... yes?) who cares. maybe this is why im not married ...
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 12:59AM
cate said...
to be fair, when lie detector tests are done in any situation, a person is told the questions before hand and then strapped to the lie detector test and the person administering the test asks the questions again. that's how a lie dector works - it measures your heart rate, which speeds up when you lie. Your heart rate speeds up because, since you know the question already, you know you are about to lie. Got it?
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 1:12AM
Miranda said...
I expected the show to be sleazy, but I didn't expect it to be so boring. The lag between "That answer is" and "true" or "false" seemed very long. Snooze. I won't bother with this one again.
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 1:39AM
Julie said...
http://digg.com/television/Fox_s_Lie_Detector_Show_The_Moment_of_Truth_FAKE
The show is fake! George is an actor and I used to watch his shows when I was a kid
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 4:29AM
superrrguy said...
Much worse than I expected. I actually put this on my calendar. I wan't to check it out.
Besides the contestant knowing the questions, the banter was just boring.
The question was something like
"have you ever suspected one of your friends hitting on your wife" to which the contestant replied "yes" and was truthful to which the follow up banter was "so what do you like to do for fun."
Also, when someone admits to something embarrassing chances are they are telling the truth and we don't need to wait to hear if it's truthful with all the pauses.
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 6:05AM
Hank said...
Howard Stern has done this bit on his radio show for years. But it's interesting and funny on his show. The Moment of Truth was a boring waste of time. I was determined to watch it for the duration - which seemed like hours. With the length of time wasted waiting for the "true or false" comment they could have done 3 contestants rather than one and a half. Nice try but no cigar!
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 8:04AM
Isabelle Carreau said...
As I've said in my review, I thought the pacing was good. But that is compared to the other shows that use the "pause" before results device. At times, I was getting tired of waiting but still, the pace for me was not that bad.
After a good night's sleep, and time to ponder on the show some more, I decide not to watch again. In retrospect, the contestants knowing the questions does hurt the show as it looks like they are trying to remember their question, etc. I would have prefered seeing them with the polygraph gear on them and answer questions for the first time.
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 9:24AM
Beth said...
My husband and I wanted to see what it was like also but won't be watching again. Too slow and drawn out.
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 11:01AM
Anthony said...
erm, I think Mark had pointed out that the contestants were free to change their answers, and as long as their final answer was truthful, it was considered to be correct. They wouldn't be afforded that option had they not been hooked up to some kind of monitor, although I didn't see any connected wires so I'm stumped in that regard
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 11:37AM
Keith McDuffee said...
Anthony -- They can change their answer without a machine hooked up because they don't need one. When they were asked the question the first time (off-camera) and said "yes" but the machine said they lied, on the air they could say "no" and that would be truthful.
1-24-2008 @ 11:40AM
ORKMommy said...
My first impression after watching it was that they use whatever will cause the contestant the most embarrassment or misery. You could tell from looking that the first guy's wife probably has low self esteem and doesn't trust her husband to begin with, so they went with those questions. The second guy's big secret is the gambling, which is why his questions were geared towards money. In the preview for next week, they have his son come out and ask about gambling his kids college funds away.
If someone agrees to be on this show, they agree to have their dirty laundry exposed in front of their friends/loved ones...they deserve what happens!
I'm ashamed to admit though, I will be watching again. For the same reason I slow down to see a car accident. I'm not perfect, but I am what I am! :-)
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 12:33PM
Mark said...
I agree with others that 1. it would be more fun if they were hooked to the polygraph on stage and 2. the waiting, both for the contestant to give their answer and for the true/false determination, is a waste of time.
Having only seen one contestant finish, it may be too early to tell, but here is my biggest issue with the "game".
I had the impression that the personal trainer truly believed his "no" answer (have you touched women clients more than necessary) that got him kicked off the show, "FALSE". He had already admitted to some worse stuff and the question was very weakly worded, I'm sure he would've been willing to admit to it in order to stay on the show.
Presumably, the producers can get a pretty good idea which questions fall into this category - i.e. that the contestant will give a "false" answer on the air. All they have to do is inject one of these questions when they're tired of the contestant (or afraid for their money) and move on.
As my son pointed out to me, the contestant really has no reason to lie - once the question is asked, the truth will come out anyway - so why would the contestant knowingly contradict the polygraph?
The contestant knows all the questions, but only the producers know all the "right" answers!
Reply