# Take The Money And Run



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

This is the best new game show I have seen in a long time. Amazing you can break someone in less than 48 hours.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

It's soooooooo staged. It's way too easy to hide money and just lie for 2 days. The goofy brother was a bad actor.

http://blog.jbfilms.com/?p=795

Some rules:

Teams must use the vehicle.
They can park it and walk somewhere.
They can use pay phones.
Detectives get GPS information tracking the vehicle, cell phone records.
The briefcase must be hidden somewhere accessible 24 hours a day.
Anyone the contestants use to hide the money must be accessible by detectives.
All questions must be answered, but both sides are expected to lie and do their best to deceive the other.

We're to believe a person who is under no physical harm can't lie for 48 hrs?


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

This was not what I expected. It was pretty lame, but I'll give it another shot.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Didn't really care for it that much.

Can't believe that brother cracked and just told them where it was.

He couldn't have held out for 12 or so more hours for $100,000???


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> Didn't really care for it that much.
> 
> Can't believe that brother cracked and just told them where it was.
> 
> He couldn't have held out for 12 or so more hours for $100,000???


Was thinking the same thing!

Are the two interrogators part of the Detective team and entitled to an equal share or are they brought in by the producers? If it weren't for those two - the SFPD detectives would still be wandering the city.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mrs HDTVFAN demanded it to be a Series Link - obviously a new fan too.


----------



## BLWedge09 (Jan 6, 2007)

I missed it when it first came on the other night, but just watched it online. I absolutely LOVE the concept, but the execution just seems like it needs a little tweaking. The opening where they get the briefcase was way too cheesy, and if you read the rules online, there's a lot they don't tell you on the show.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

I gave it a "meh".


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

The interrogators are part of the show. The scenes for episode 2 showed them interrogating new "criminals" in a new city (LA I think) and new detectives. I agree the SF detectives would not have found it without the interrogators. I think I could have found it if I had interrogators telling me everything. Maybe the next "criminals" will be better and make for a better episode than those 2 brothers.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

New SL for me.

They definitely didn't explain the rules well on the show (even with the explanation online I still have lots of questions). 

At first I though it would be simple for the "criminals" but an hour really isn't much time at all I'd be willing to bet that being locked up and interrogated for 2 days could be very difficult for someone who has never had a run in with the law.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

pfp said:


> New SL for me.
> 
> They definitely didn't explain the rules well on the show (even with the explanation online I still have lots of questions).
> 
> At first I though it would be simple for the "criminals" but an hour really isn't much time at all I'd be willing to bet that being locked up and interrogated for 2 days could be very difficult for someone who has never had a run in with the law.


That's part of my complaint about this show. The criminals only get 1 hour to hide the case but the detectives get 48 hours plus the assistance of trained interrogators, GPS data, phone records, etc.. Just doesn't seem fair to me.

One change I would not mind seeing is to give the criminals additional time (even as little as 15 minutes) in which GPS data and phone records are not being tracked. It would be great to see if these detectives could find something other than the nearest Krispy Kreme.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

i thought it was Ok I got on Series Link


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

fluffybear said:


> That's part of my complaint about this show. The criminals only get 1 hour to hide the case but the detectives get 48 hours plus the assistance of trained interrogators, GPS data, phone records, etc.. Just doesn't seem fair to me.
> 
> One change I would not mind seeing is to give the criminals additional time (even as little as 15 minutes) in which GPS data and phone records are not being tracked. It would be great to see if these detectives could find something other than the nearest Krispy Kreme.


They have plenty of time.

That money should have never been found. Drive around town for an hour, find one spot during the drive to bury it behind some bushes and then shut up for 2 days.

Simple.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Scott Kocourek said:


> This is the best new game show I have seen in a long time. Amazing you can break someone in less than 48 hours.


It reminded me of a show I saw a few years ago. I think it was on FOX and there was a group of people that were all stuck together underground in a house until they could agree on which 1 person was going to walk away with 1 million dollars. Every second that passed by the money depleted and there was ways that people left the show as well. It was really interesting same as this show. I really liked the first episode of this show.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> It's soooooooo staged. It's way too easy to hide money and just lie for 2 days. The goofy brother was a bad actor.
> 
> http://blog.jbfilms.com/?p=795
> 
> ...


Yeah, I didnt think they would of found the money if he hadnt spilled the beans. I thought the Detectives were way to cocky about it after the fact as well. They did a terrible job. The ones that stayed back and talked to the inmates were the ones that did all the work. The ones in the street made me laugh. They believed each person they talked to. I was like geeze it only takes one of them to lie and they would of been way off on the trail. They were never close until they got the call with where it was presumed to be.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> They have plenty of time.
> 
> That money should have never been found. Drive around town for an hour, find one spot during the drive to bury it behind some bushes and then shut up for 2 days.
> 
> Simple.


According to the rules, you can not just shut up for 2 days. You have to answer all questions. 
Problem here is people are expected to lie and for many it is hard to keep their story straight time after time. I just think giving the criminals a couple of extra minutes (off the radar) would level the playing field.


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> They have plenty of time.
> 
> That money should have never been found. Drive around town for an hour, find one spot during the drive to bury it behind some bushes and then shut up for 2 days.
> 
> Simple.


Exactly, that brother cracking in the first show was so fake. I have no desire to watch it again. I guess it is all staged. Just like almost every other "reality" show today.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

fluffybear said:


> According to the rules, you can not just shut up for 2 days. You have to answer all questions.
> Problem here is people are expected to lie and for many it is hard to keep their story straight time after time. I just think giving the criminals a couple of extra minutes (off the radar) would level the playing field.


You don't need to keep the story straight; you could answer no to every question.

With $100,000 on the line, I don't buy it that a person cracks to interrogation & 48 hours confinement knowing full well they can't physically harm you.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

fluffybear said:


> According to the rules, you can not just shut up for 2 days. You have to answer all questions.
> Problem here is people are expected to lie and for many it is hard to keep their story straight time after time. I just think giving the criminals a couple of extra minutes (off the radar) would level the playing field.


I understand answering the questions but who cares if you say something different each time to the same question. I had a big issue with the smarter brother telling them that they had not ditched the briefcase before they had to turn around in their route. That was the truth and cut the amount of space the detectives had to cover in half. I thought that was a major mistake.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> You don't need to keep the story straight; you could answer no to every question.
> 
> With $100,000 on the line, I don't buy it that a person cracks to interrogation & 48 hours confinement knowing full well they can't physically harm you.


My interpretation of the rules is that you have to actually answer the questions and not just use single syllable words for the 48 hours. 

I don't believe either that the person cracked so easily knowing full well that this whole things was a just a game show. However, I will also add that he came across has not being the sharpest tack in the box.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

joshjr said:


> I understand answering the questions but who cares if you say something different each time to the same question. I had a big issue with the smarter brother telling them that they had not ditched the briefcase before they had to turn around in their route. That was the truth and cut the amount of space the detectives had to cover in half. I thought that was a major mistake.


there is nothing wrong with telling a different lie provided you don't reveal something important during one of your variations. Humans though tend to over-think at times and trip themselves up trying to avoid those little give-aways.

I agree with you that the smarter brother did make a big mistake in telling the officers they had the case after the U-turn.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

joshjr said:


> Yeah, I didnt think they would of found the money if he hadnt spilled the beans. I thought the Detectives were way to cocky about it after the fact as well. They did a terrible job. The ones that stayed back and talked to the inmates were the ones that did all the work. The ones in the street made me laugh. * They believed each person they talked to. I was like geeze it only takes one of them to lie and they would of been way off on the trail. *They were never close until they got the call with where it was presumed to be.


I thought this too while watching the show. But looking at the rules posted online It made a bit more sense. The people they spoke to did not allow them to come in their homes and search which means the case could not have been there.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

fluffybear said:


> According to the rules, you can not just shut up for 2 days. You have to answer all questions.
> Problem here is people are expected to lie and for many it is hard to keep their story straight time after time. I just think giving the criminals a couple of extra minutes (off the radar) would level the playing field.


Probably easier to just lie about everything, even the small inconsequential stuff.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

fluffybear said:


> My interpretation of the rules is that you have to actually answer the questions and not just use single syllable words for the 48 hours.


The answers just need to be plausible.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Give me 15 minutes to hide it and they can have a week to find it (and they could waterboard me if they desired).

I'd still win the money.


In fact, those two interrogators would be begging me.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> Give me 15 minutes to hide it and they can have a week to find it (and they could waterboard me if they desired).
> 
> I'd still win the money.
> 
> In fact, those two interrogators would be begging me.


Wish I had a spare $100,000 laying around :lol:


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

pfp said:


> The answers just need to be plausible.


exactly! If you were asked a question such as Where in the Park were you going - you would need to answer it with something better then just 'No'.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

Last nights episode

Are you kidding me, what weak play :nono::nono:


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Exteremely weak. I'm starting to think if I ever need to get a straight answer from my kids (when they get older) is put them in their room with a big ol bowl of beans and in less than 48 hours they'll just come and tell me.

These people ask like they are guilty of something.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

Scott Kocourek said:


> Exteremely weak. I'm starting to think if I ever need to get a straight answer from my kids (when they get older) is put them in their room with a big ol bowl of beans and in less than 48 hours they'll just come and tell me.
> 
> These people ask like they are guilty of something.


If he didn't break down and ball like a baby, they would have most likely won. :nono:


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

oldschoolecw said:


> If he didn't break down and ball like a baby, they would have most likely won. :nono:


Yes that was really pathetic. I have a really hard time believing that I couldn't sleep and daydream 48 hours away even if I was locked in a small room with nothing to do. Especially if I knew that no matter what I would spend no more than 48 hours in that room and could come out $100,000 richer.


----------



## eyalas (Aug 11, 2007)

> I have a really hard time believing that I couldn't sleep and daydream 48 hours away even if I was locked in a small room with nothing to do.


That's exactly why you wouldn't be picked for the show. I am sure that they do some pretty extensive screening to pick weak-minded individuals.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

tsmacro said:


> Yes that was really pathetic. I have a really hard time believing that I couldn't sleep and daydream 48 hours away even if I was locked in a small room with nothing to do. Especially if I knew that no matter what I would spend no more than 48 hours in that room and could come out $100,000 richer.


I found myself looking away from the TV because it was if I was embarrassed to be watching the train wreck even though I was the only one in the room:lol:


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

This week has got to be a record! I wonder how long the daughter will be mad at dad.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

Last night was a good episode, it went right down to the wire with the way they edited it


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

My wife and I got the feeling that last nights episode was intended to be the first. They seemed to explain what the "rules" were for the show in much more detail. Good episode, I thought for sure the case would be found. 

Funny how the roommate jsut assumed the text message was to bring a case of beer to the bar. Had to laugh that he just did it without any questions. (That we know of.)


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

Scott Kocourek said:


> My wife and I got the feeling that last nights episode was intended to be the first. They seemed to explain what the "rules" were for the show in much more detail. Good episode, I thought for sure the case would be found.
> 
> Funny how the roommate jsut assumed the text message was to bring a case of beer to the bar. Had to laugh that he just did it without any questions. (That we know of.)


You are not the only ones who thought that. And I was thinking, were the detectives pissed off or something because they weren't there at the get together at the end of the episode like all the other teams have done to congratulate the winners.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Interesting, I didn't even notice that they didn't show up at the end. I drive through Chicago once in a while so I'll be nice.  One thing I will say is the two officers did not seem to put the same amout of effort as some of the others that got right in and dug.


----------



## eyalas (Aug 11, 2007)

My thought is that this must have been a pilot episode. The interogator gal's hair style was different than usual, not as well made up.

Also, I got the impression that the detectives were not going to collect the cash if they found the case. It almost looked like their purpose was to aid the interogators, rather than be participants in the game.

Lastly, there was a whole lot of introduction of the characters and their experience.

One more thing, the couple chosen for the game were too competent. They were not head cases like other participants, leading me to believe that the show producers realized that they needed to help future detectives by picking some easier pray for the show.


----------



## russ9 (Jan 28, 2004)

Yeah, I thought it was the pilot as well. The whole production was different - the briefcase man, the music... Actually was a good episode. Loved the beer.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

Interesting... Most people think it was the pilot. I thought they made some tweaks based on experiences from previous episodes.


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

Hasn't this show been cancelled yet? 

Watched an episode and a part of another one and was amazed at how hokey and staged the show was. The "interrogators" are the worst things I have seen on TV in years. It does have one saving grace, its the best sitcom that has had on since "Modern Family" (aka "The Reverse Al Bundy Show.")

Last time I saw the ratings for this show, it lost to FOX, NBC (the network with the motto "We used to be one of the Big 3, but now we at least beat some cable channel somewhere, didn't we?" network) , et. al. Is ABC now THAT hard up that they couldn't toss in yet another rerun of Wipeout in that time-slot, after all, they are only filling about 4 hours a week of that now.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

MIKE0616 said:


> Hasn't this show been cancelled yet?
> 
> Watched an episode and a part of another one and was amazed at how hokey and staged the show was. The "interrogators" are the worst things I have seen on TV in years. It does have one saving grace, its the best sitcom that has had on since "Modern Family" (aka "The Reverse Al Bundy Show.")
> 
> Last time I saw the ratings for this show, it lost to FOX, NBC (the network with the motto "We used to be one of the Big 3, but now we at least beat some cable channel somewhere, didn't we?" network) , et. al. Is ABC now THAT hard up that they couldn't toss in yet another rerun of Wipeout in that time-slot, after all, they are only filling about 4 hours a week of that now.


It will be back next Summer


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

MIKE0616 said:


> Hasn't this show been cancelled yet?
> 
> Watched an episode and a part of another one and was amazed at how hokey and staged the show was. The "interrogators" are the worst things I have seen on TV in years. It does have one saving grace, its the best sitcom that has had on since "Modern Family" (aka "The Reverse Al Bundy Show.")
> 
> Last time I saw the ratings for this show, it lost to FOX, NBC (the network with the motto "We used to be one of the Big 3, but now we at least beat some cable channel somewhere, didn't we?" network) , et. al. Is ABC now THAT hard up that they couldn't toss in yet another rerun of Wipeout in that time-slot, after all, they are only filling about 4 hours a week of that now.


Are you saying you might watch if there is another season?  :lol:

I liked it, I could watch it with my kids and it was fun to watch regular people crack under the slightest pressure.


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

Scott Kocourek said:


> Are you saying you might watch if there is another season?  :lol:


Short answer: No.
Long Answer: Hell NO!  hehehe



> I liked it, I could watch it with my kids and it was fun to watch regular people crack under the slightest pressure.


Regular people?  Really? I thought the producers sought out the ones who would crack on their own, with no help from the "interrogators" and as far as the "police" doing hunting for the money, they are hardly doing that, either. I guess if kids think that "Harry Potter" is real, they will accept this show is real as well.


----------

