4 ms·

There was a US remake of Taskmaster, which is like 50% a panel show. It was exceedingly terrible despite keeping 1 of the 2 UK hosts, and especially compared to

There was a US remake of Taskmaster, which is like 50% a panel show. It was exceedingly terrible despite keeping 1 of the 2 UK hosts, and especially compared to the excellent New Zealand and Swedish Taskmaster remakes. I agree about access though. I've introduced a bunch of US friends to Taksmaster who devour the seasons available on youtube, but are then out of options to see the rest.

GauntletWizard 4y ago
They have options, now - Taskmaster had its own streaming service, which is a weird flex. I love the show but skipped it because it's not worth $50 for temporary access to, though I'd gladly pay $25 for a "perpetual" license.
KerrAvon 4y ago
It’s ridiculous how much money they are leaving money on the table in the US. Taskmaster (UK) has a huge following among US teenagers, at least in my area.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  The CW tried licensing Taskmaster and it got abysmal ratings. They'd be better if they did same day broadcasts, but any later wouldn't be enough to replace those teenager's current watching methods.
  - jldugger 4y ago
    > The CW tried licensing Taskmaster and it got abysmal ratings While I usually like Reggie Watts' work, his persona on the show was too cerebral. Felt like someone at The CW got afraid of the word 'master' but figured they could balance it out with a nice black guy role playing a psychotherapist for the competitors. Also Lisa Lamponelli was just 100 percent angry the entire season, as if Alex Horne was personally responsible for all childhood leukemia. As a bit gag during an obnoxious task it can work but if thats all you do it fundamentally rejects the premise.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      You're discussing the US version on Comedy Central. A few years ago The CW licensed and aired the British version. It got terrible ratings and was dropped after a single episode.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        I'm not sure airing a single episode is a good measure of interest. Especially if they didn't market it much. What's the point of going through the trouble to secure the rights to air something if you aren't going to give it a fair shot? I really don't get the reasoning behind these kinds of decisions. I've heard amazon cancels shows if they don't perform well enough after their first few weeks on prime. With all the things competing for our attention, they should really give people more time to find things. I understand that they really really want to force people to watch things on their schedule, but those days are over. They've had some success with forcing people to wait week to week for new episodes, but personally I won't start a show like that until I can binge watch it. Equally confusing was netflix canceling originals they'd already invested heavily in before the story had concluded. Shows with fans who were left pissed off. Netflix could have had a quality title in their catalogue for those who like it instead of bait for new generations of pissed off fans.
        lowercased 4y ago
        > I'm not sure airing a single episode is a good measure of interest. It's probably not in most cases. How many decades have we heard of shows that were about to be axed because of poor ratings or apparent disinterest, then... somehow they turned out to be megashows? Even something as simple as changing the day it was aired often could make or break a show. > personally I won't start a show like that until I can binge watch it. Rewatching some older shows (frasier, right now), my wife and I notice some things that... just weren't an issue 30 years ago. "We just saw this story line last week!" Well... no, it was from 2 seasons earlier, which translated to 2 years earlier back in the 90s. But binging things back to back that were produced for annual serialization ... it's not how they were intended to be consumed. Are 'shows' now being produced with the knowledge they'll all be watched within a couple of days, not dramatically played out over weeks/months? Will 'cliffhangers' continue to be a thing to get you to 'tune in next time!'?
- kelnos 4y ago
  Teenagers?! Hell, I'm 41 and I love the UK Taskmaster. It's pretty popular in my late-30s/early-40s American friend group.
ck425 4y ago
I can't find it but Alex Horne did an interview about the US remake and why it didn't work. The main reason in his opinion was that the network insisted on making it 30min (presumably 22min with ads) and that meant they had to cut out a lot of the contestant banter. The tasks themselves are funny but what really adds the humour is the interactions between the contestants, the TaskMaster and his assistant. Maybe that decision was due to the USA's lack of panel shows?
- lupire 4y ago
  USA "unscripted" shows are terrible. The producers think the audience is too dumb to tolerate genuine conversation, and/or they can't find any charismatic people to put on screen. Kitchen Nightmares is the canonical side-by-side example of how the USA style ruins everything.

GauntletWizard 4y ago

They have options, now - Taskmaster had its own streaming service, which is a weird flex. I love the show but skipped it because it's not worth $50 for temporary access to, though I'd gladly pay $25 for a "perpetual" license.

KerrAvon 4y ago

It’s ridiculous how much money they are leaving money on the table in the US. Taskmaster (UK) has a huge following among US teenagers, at least in my area.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
The CW tried licensing Taskmaster and it got abysmal ratings. They'd be better if they did same day broadcasts, but any later wouldn't be enough to replace those teenager's current watching methods.
- jldugger 4y ago
  > The CW tried licensing Taskmaster and it got abysmal ratings While I usually like Reggie Watts' work, his persona on the show was too cerebral. Felt like someone at The CW got afraid of the word 'master' but figured they could balance it out with a nice black guy role playing a psychotherapist for the competitors. Also Lisa Lamponelli was just 100 percent angry the entire season, as if Alex Horne was personally responsible for all childhood leukemia. As a bit gag during an obnoxious task it can work but if thats all you do it fundamentally rejects the premise.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    You're discussing the US version on Comedy Central. A few years ago The CW licensed and aired the British version. It got terrible ratings and was dropped after a single episode.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      I'm not sure airing a single episode is a good measure of interest. Especially if they didn't market it much. What's the point of going through the trouble to secure the rights to air something if you aren't going to give it a fair shot? I really don't get the reasoning behind these kinds of decisions. I've heard amazon cancels shows if they don't perform well enough after their first few weeks on prime. With all the things competing for our attention, they should really give people more time to find things. I understand that they really really want to force people to watch things on their schedule, but those days are over. They've had some success with forcing people to wait week to week for new episodes, but personally I won't start a show like that until I can binge watch it. Equally confusing was netflix canceling originals they'd already invested heavily in before the story had concluded. Shows with fans who were left pissed off. Netflix could have had a quality title in their catalogue for those who like it instead of bait for new generations of pissed off fans.
      - lowercased 4y ago
        > I'm not sure airing a single episode is a good measure of interest. It's probably not in most cases. How many decades have we heard of shows that were about to be axed because of poor ratings or apparent disinterest, then... somehow they turned out to be megashows? Even something as simple as changing the day it was aired often could make or break a show. > personally I won't start a show like that until I can binge watch it. Rewatching some older shows (frasier, right now), my wife and I notice some things that... just weren't an issue 30 years ago. "We just saw this story line last week!" Well... no, it was from 2 seasons earlier, which translated to 2 years earlier back in the 90s. But binging things back to back that were produced for annual serialization ... it's not how they were intended to be consumed. Are 'shows' now being produced with the knowledge they'll all be watched within a couple of days, not dramatically played out over weeks/months? Will 'cliffhangers' continue to be a thing to get you to 'tune in next time!'?
kelnos 4y ago
Teenagers?! Hell, I'm 41 and I love the UK Taskmaster. It's pretty popular in my late-30s/early-40s American friend group.

ck425 4y ago

I can't find it but Alex Horne did an interview about the US remake and why it didn't work. The main reason in his opinion was that the network insisted on making it 30min (presumably 22min with ads) and that meant they had to cut out a lot of the contestant banter. The tasks themselves are funny but what really adds the humour is the interactions between the contestants, the TaskMaster and his assistant. Maybe that decision was due to the USA's lack of panel shows?

lupire 4y ago
USA "unscripted" shows are terrible. The producers think the audience is too dumb to tolerate genuine conversation, and/or they can't find any charismatic people to put on screen. Kitchen Nightmares is the canonical side-by-side example of how the USA style ruins everything.