I was thinking of Geordie and Janelle, but yes, you can add Kelly as well.

I know other contestants have said uncomplementary things about all three now come to think of it.

Surely you are not suggesting that a player's fellow contestants are more important to them than their family?!


You've answered your own question. It's because the producers are trying to keep the show fresh and interesting by doing different things. Whilst there may be a small core of people like you (and, to a degree, myself!) who don't want things to change, I'd imagine that the vast majority of the viewing public would get bored and switch off if the show didn't evolve in some way.


Yes, it was a little unfair to Richard. But Deal or No Deal is an unfair game! And it really doesn't deserve the levels of outrage that people are expressing here, in my opinion.

Andrew, you truly are one of life's great people. What a wonderful attitude to have, and I wish you all the veyr best for the future.

No - the point I am making is that if the banker tries to play mind games with the player by mentioning their family, it is really a banker vs. contestant psychological battle. As many players say, their family will still love them whatever their decision. However, when the banker brings other contestants into the equation like he did yesterday, it becomes a banker vs. the contestant vs. the other contestants situation in a way.

If the player makes the wrong decision, the contestants are much more likely to judge them based on that wrong decision than their own families are. Therefore, I think when the banker makes comments about a player's family, the player can shrug them off if they so wish, whereas once other contestants are brought into it, it is more difficult to ignore, as there is the possibility 22 (assuming ex-contestants are brought into it as well) or more other people will unfairly judge you.

It also has to be noted that the banker normally only says things like "You'll need the money for your family", whereas yesterday, he was actually offering money to an ex-contestant via the current contestant - so it's different anyway.



Yes, but why did the banker choose to do it after Andrew's game, when there have been plenty of other low winners in the past few months...?



I think the main point is that what happened yesterday has clearly unnecessarily caused some uncomfortable feelings between Richard, Andrew and the other contestants.

I think with those programmes, though, the conflict between players is a necessary part of the game; nobody could audition for either of them and complain when they were told they had to vote someone off. In DOND, while all the players are there for so many shows, they in theory have very little to do with any games other than their own. I doubt Richard had any idea that that would happen when he applied for the show, and I certainly wouldn't be happy in his position.



That's true, but I tend to think that the player's family is their responsibility; any money they win will presumably be used by/for their family as well, so it's not unreasonable to remind them of that and expect it to affect their decision. Richard and Andrew, however, presumably had nothing to do with each other before they appeared on the show...however much they may have got on, Andrew's welfare isn't Richard's responsibility.



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there, as only the Banker (or whoever came up with the idea for yesterday's show) will know his true motivation!



I think my main problem, as I said earlier, is that Richard would have had no possible way of expecting this to happen. He'd presumably seen that 200+ shows had aired before he applied, giving people the chance to win life-changing money without having to face the dilemma that he did, and would have had no reason to expect that his game would be any different. It would be naive to think you could get through a job, or any important aspect of life, without ever suffering any strains or pressures in relationships, but it's not necessarily what you'd expect from appearing on a TV gameshow.

Presumably the ghost of Laura's £250K game is still affecting the producers in some way and they are worried that now the big prize has been won, audiences will somehow now start drifting away. It has been seen to some extent in "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", so obviously Endemol are trying to tweak the format a bit and come up some new gimmicks. Some of them work better than others. I think it really started at the beginning of series three with Elizabeth & Mandy's dual game. The number of 'swap' offers has also been rising - culminating in Craig's three swap offers in a row recently. Not all of these additions have been a good thing. We could probably do with a Deal or No Deal poll - "When did DonD 'Jump the Shark'?" - we might get some interesting answers!!

I wouldn't have liked to have been put in Richard's position at all. Granted, it makes for good TV and gives added drama and creates conflict, posing several moral dilemmas and a "What would you do?" discussion at home, but its just not something I feel comfortable with seeing on Deal or No Deal.

Whether it will be good or bad for viewing figures remains to be seen. I've been losing interest in DonD now for quite some time truth be told, and am beginning to think that maybe yes, the format maybe only does have a certain shelf-life before becoming stale. You can't blame C4 or Endemol for trying to milk their golden cow dry before audiences dry away completely - it probably does need some new ideas to keep people interested. It pains me to say this, but I really can't see DonD going the distance like "Countdown". And I don't even like "Countdown"!

On the contrary, I think that anybody who'd seen The Banker's offers to Garvan, to Geordie, to Vanessa, to Simone, etc. etc. is perfectly aware that The Banker can be cruel. And whilst I accept that Richard wouldn't have seen the games of Ned, the Christmas games, or Craig's recent game, it's probably reasonable to assume that he was at least aware that more unusual things were starting to happen with the game. Certainly the players are aware that anything they say or do may be used against them -- as reported in The Guardian's October article. I'd say that any player nowadays who expects an easy ride is the one being naive.

Welldone Richard!

Why, what did they say?

About Geordie, I think there was opposition from other contestants about him being on Screw The Banker or so I heard (and in a thread that asked "Whose games would you like to see again, Geordie listed everyone from when he was there, saying they were all top people, but there were 6 or 7 noticable gaps)....

Pennie made her feelings known about Janelle in not so many words, and Spiky Sandra was basically very disapproving of Kelly selling her story.

In all honesty, contestants must on average meet 40-odd others during their stay, I'm amazed there hasn't been more friction - it's hard to get on with EVERYOBDY....

didnt enjoy this show, banker/endemoles actions were just urgh.