U-Turn Ahead: How Would You Fix TAR?

[Fukui San]

Doesn’t have to get convoluted. Just make it a rule. No helping other teams during tasks. That’s it. You already can’t help your teammate during Roadblocks and that’s enforced. Same thing. 

Next, no more UTurns and Yields. They result in suspense free episodes and are only there to get one team mad on camera. This season has been the ultimate example of the unsportingness  inherent in those. Don’t tweak those. Ditch them. They’re dull television.

My suggestion is to bring back the Fast Forward. Having them every leg is expensive. So have them only at three points in the race. The first one three teams can get it. The second only two. The third one only one. No team can use it more than once a race. 

[Giuseppe]

7 hours ago, Fukui San said:

My suggestion is to bring back the Fast Forward. Having them every leg is expensive. So have them only at three points in the race.

I'd like to see the FF back for every leg, or at least a majority of them. Would it be that expensive if it's not a set-up task that teams have to do? I mean, they could just have a FF envelope located somewhere off the path on each leg, and teams would have to solve some sort of navigational clue to find it. In the early seasons, Phil would actually say "there is a Fast Forward hidden on each leg of the race." It could even be hidden at a detour or roadblock location and teams would have to decide whether to go ahead and get busy with the task, or spend time looking for the FF. 

As for alliances, I don't think there's any real way to prevent them. Maybe I'm making things up, but I think one of the reasons it worked so well this season was because of all the spoon-fed travel. There was never any instance of teams having to make their own travel arrangements. Nobody barely missed a flight or a ferry or a train and had to wait for the next one. Nobody was ever looking for an earlier flight that ended up only having room for one team. Flight delays and bus breakdowns didn't factor into letting teams behind catch up. Thus, the mine five hardly ever got REALLY separated enough to make that kind of difference. So, I think part of the problem could be solved by not putting everyone on the same flight at the start of each leg and having more travel options during some legs like past seasons. If real world events have made this unfeasible these days, then maybe we're stuck with it.

[chaifan]

3 hours ago, Giuseppe said:

As for alliances, I don't think there's any real way to prevent them. Maybe I'm making things up, but I think one of the reasons it worked so well this season was because of all the spoon-fed travel. There was never any instance of teams having to make their own travel arrangements. Nobody barely missed a flight or a ferry or a train and had to wait for the next one. Nobody was ever looking for an earlier flight that ended up only having room for one team. Flight delays and bus breakdowns didn't factor into letting teams behind catch up. Thus, the mine five hardly ever got REALLY separated enough to make that kind of difference. So, I think part of the problem could be solved by not putting everyone on the same flight at the start of each leg and having more travel options during some legs like past seasons. If real world events have made this unfeasible these days, then maybe we're stuck with it.

I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head.  If teams had the traditional starts where they were anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours apart the alliance would not have lasted.  But when teams are always bunched and the alliance is almost always at the same place at the same time, then it allowed the alliance to stay together. 

So, TAR, here are my suggestions:

1. If outside issues require spoonfed flights, start the leg once everyone is off the plane at the new destination.  You can start it at the airport, or have everyone meet at a designated starting point, like in Manila.  But make teams sit and wait until it is their turn to go.  If spoonfed flights are there only to eliminate the hassle of a team lagging really far behind, cure that with an HOO every 3rd leg or so.

2.  Limit flights.  Have 2-3 legs in a row in the same country or contiguous countries where over-land border crossing is feasible.  If necessary to pre-book buses or trains, stagger them.

3.  Build in self navigation whenever possible.  Combine with #2, above.  France was a good leg because self navigation played a giant part in it.

4.  Have "no helping other teams" rule on the clues in at least the first 3-4 legs, and interspersed throughout on other legs.  Preventing helping early on will discourage alliances.  Design more tasks where teaming up just isn't possible.

5.  Bring back the 12 hour pitstop (when a leg isn't followed by a spoonfed flight), or explain what you're doing with start times.  This season made no sense. 

I'm available to consult, at a reasonable hourly fee.  Call me, TAR. 

ETA:  If the spoonfed flights really are being pushed because they don't want teams lagging behind, they could sent in internal rules like "no team will start a leg more than 4 hours behind the first place team".  Yes, it would benefit some late stragglers some, but wouldn't penalize the leading teams as much by allowing them to keep most of their lead.

Edited December 10, 2020 by chaifan

[Netfoot]

Given how horrible the Whine Five alliance has made TAR-32 (from a viewer's perspective), I feel certain aspects of TAR should be overhauled to prevent this sort of horrorshow reoccurring, and to generally make the race more interesting.

Alliances must be prevented. One team throwing another an occasional bone is one thing, but long-term strategic alliances belong in Survivor, not TAR. I don't know if it's feasible to ban alliances outright, but if not, perhaps they can tweak the clues and tasks to make alliances impractical. Someone suggested that the last task (music/flags) could have been altered to proffer separate/different flags & music per team. That might have made staging the task much more difficult, but it would have rescued the task and quite possibly the episode.

Another example of altering the task would have been in the rappel in leg six. Switching on different letters for each team would have made it impossible for team after team to simply whisper "sauerkraut" to their alliance partners. I mean, why bother to even do the rappel, if your alliance-mate has already given you the answer?

You can introduce slight variations in the clue, so that if one team attempts to assist another, they may in fact be hindering them. Perhaps one team can be asked to count the windows on the north side of the building, while the next team can be asked to count the windows on the south side of the building?

We can also do away with the combative elements of the race: Yield and U-Turn. This is a race. In most races, runners are not given an opportunity to trip up other competitors. I believe these elements were introduced to try to engender animosity between teams, and promote that sweet, sweet conflict that they seem to think essential for reality TV success. No. Make it about racing!

If the occasional randomizer is needed to switch up the teams occasionally, there are several non-combative ways this can be introduced. Put a clue in the cluebox that simply reads "You have been Yielded! Wait 20 minutes before drawing another clue and proceeding!" That would shake things up just as well as the current Yield, but without allowing teams to target one another. Since the clues are drawn from the box essentially at random, this would be a fair version of the Yield, too!

Alternatively, you could have a die to roll, or a wheel to spin. One face of the die/segment of the wheel says "U-Turn" while the others say "Pass". You spin/roll, and... possibly U-Turn yourself. (The next team may U-Turn themselves as well, leading to a Double (triple? quadruple?) U-turn.

And finally (although I could probably go on making suggestions) the game needs to reverse it's trend to simplify and dumb-down everything. There was a challenge in (I think) Brazil, where they had to wait for a chief to knock their next clue out of a tree with a blowpipe. WTF didn't the teams have to do that themselves? It would have been far more interesting than them just watching as it was done for them... We need challenges to be challenging again!

Why so many pre-arranged flights and bunching at every airport? Surely once in the race teams could have been left to plan out their own route and select their own flights to the next country/cluebox? Surely some reasonable self-navigation in a decent self-drive car? We've had people self navigate/drive close to 1,000 miles across Africa with nobody being permanently lost or eaten by natives! And by specifying a waypoint mid-route and varying that waypoint between the clues, alliances or plain following could be thwarted. 

I'm sure someone will identify an objection to every suggestion. This one would be too expensive. That one would not be safe! The other one would be unfair to people who can't drive a right-hand-drive, manual-shift car. But something will have to be done, because TAR is flagging badly. If it is to survive setbacks like the eruption of Grímsvötn, and (more recently) CV19 which interrupt running of races, it must at least be enjoyable, exciting and suspenseful to watch when the episodes do finally get filmed and aired.

Having watched every episode of TAR ever aired, I will certainly watch the finale next week, although I'd rather scoop out my eyes with a plastic spork than see either of the remaining three nauseating teams take the win. And I will no doubt watch any subsequent series of TAR that gets made/aired. But I'll probably watch while longing for the good old days. Why can't we have them back again?

 

[illdoc]

One suggestion: rather than banning teams from helping one another ("You cannot help or receive help from another team"), why not make it a time penalty ("Warning: helping another team on this challenge will incur a time penalty")? Granted, teams that are far ahead might decide to work together, thinking that they are far enough ahead to offset the penalty, but it would still be up to the teams to decide whether or not to risk it. The time penalty could increase for each infraction (30 min first leg it's done, 1 hour for next, etc. or 30 min for helping a team and an additional 30 min for helping a second team (such as during this last challenge where two teams were helped by the Beards (I think they were the ones who got the correct order first)). And there could still be legs where help is banned (at the risk of a major (2+ hour) time penalty).    

[SVNBob]

13 hours ago, Netfoot said:

Why so many pre-arranged flights and bunching at every airport?

Three reasons:

1) Cost saving.  It's cheaper to keep all contestants and their crews on the same flights than for them to try to book their own.

2) This avoids those situations where Team A will buy tickets for Team B, even though Teams C and D are before Team B in line at the ticket counter, leading to Team D not able to get on that flight.  That's the bad kind of Airport Drama, because it's really Inter-Team Conflict Drama.

3) Bunching the teams at the start of the legs prevents situations where teams end up eliminated by default because they couldn't get a departing flight at the start of a leg in a reasonable amount of time.  As iconic as Team Guido opening the clue in Alaska saying that the Race was already over, or the Gutsy Grannies being eliminated because of their 4-cornered flight plan and not factoring delays and Customs into it are, those aren't actually "good" for the Race.  Having all teams being part of the competition is. 

[Giuseppe]

6 hours ago, SVNBob said:

1) Cost saving.  It's cheaper to keep all contestants and their crews on the same flights than for them to try to book their own.

They just need to bite the bullet on this, if you ask me. If they're just going to put all the teams on the same flight on every damn leg, it's no longer a race around the world. It's group travel around the world with excursions at each stop, and the last team back to the bus has to go home. Just a slightly different show concept, IMO, and not as fun to watch.

6 hours ago, SVNBob said:

2) This avoids those situations where Team A will buy tickets for Team B, even though Teams C and D are before Team B in line at the ticket counter, leading to Team D not able to get on that flight.

I didn't think they allowed that anymore. And if they did, it's easy enough to change the rules to state you can't buy tix for other teams.

6 hours ago, SVNBob said:

As iconic as Team Guido opening the clue in Alaska saying that the Race was already over, or the Gutsy Grannies being eliminated because of their 4-cornered flight plan and not factoring delays and Customs into it are, those aren't actually "good" for the Race.  Having all teams being part of the competition is. 

Debatable. Especially if the results are what we got this season, lol.

[Fukui San]

8 hours ago, SVNBob said:

Three reasons:

1) Cost saving.  It's cheaper to keep all contestants and their crews on the same flights than for them to try to book their own.

2) This avoids those situations where Team A will buy tickets for Team B, even though Teams C and D are before Team B in line at the ticket counter, leading to Team D not able to get on that flight.  That's the bad kind of Airport Drama, because it's really Inter-Team Conflict Drama.

3) Bunching the teams at the start of the legs prevents situations where teams end up eliminated by default because they couldn't get a departing flight at the start of a leg in a reasonable amount of time.  As iconic as Team Guido opening the clue in Alaska saying that the Race was already over, or the Gutsy Grannies being eliminated because of their 4-cornered flight plan and not factoring delays and Customs into it are, those aren't actually "good" for the Race.  Having all teams being part of the competition is. 

I agree this is why it's happened. I wonder if it'd be cheaper/better logistically to charter two airplanes to take them everywhere rather than fly commercial. There could be a first flight every episode, so the first half of teams to get to the airport who would get on that, and the second flight that arrives a few hours later. They could put one task before getting to the airport to make that competitive. If the show has determined that haranguing airport clerks is no longer part of a TAR team's competency, they could officially cut out travel arrangements like that.

[Netfoot]

2 hours ago, Giuseppe said:

Quote

2) This avoids those situations where Team A will buy tickets for Team B, even though Teams C and D are before Team B in line at the ticket counter, leading to Team D not able to get on that flight.

I didn't think they allowed that anymore. And if they did, it's easy enough to change the rules to state you can't buy tix for other teams.

At one point, teams would buy tickets on every flight and just use the one that was most convenient. TPTB handily put a stop to that, so making rules to specifically ban buying or reserving tickets for other teams shouldn't be an issue.

[Lamb18]

Just to throw my two cents in:

I like the idea of team departures being staggered from the airport or whatever their arrival point is. Being on the same flight will probably stay for cost and safety reasons, so instead of teams leaving for the airport at different times, just have them leave the airport at different times. The taxis, subways, buses, etc., will still be available for teams to travel to the clue box.

Instead of a ban on alliances, have a ban on helping each other. It would have to be very specific to avoid subjective penalties. The rule could state teams cannot help each other on Detours, Roadblocks or any other task. Then give specific examples: Teams cannot tell another team the correct answer, the correct way of doing something, the location of any item needed for completing a task, etc. So once a team has read their clue, there is a ban on helping. That will allow some helping, such as pointing out the cluebox, but prevent it during a task. If there is helping, both the helping team and the helped team receive a time penalty at the mat. If some teams want to risk the time penalty by helping each other, then that's on them.  But then the non-helper/helped teams have a better chance of overcoming an alliance.

[sinycalone]

Another reason for the streamlining of flight arrangements:  Each year during the past decade or so, airlines have been trimming the number of flights substantially.  They wanted as few empty seats as possible.  That means roaming around the airport for better flights is kind of fruitless in many locations.  And could mean (as we've seen) some teams having to wait many hours for alternatives.  

Of course, during the pandemic airlines have implemented COVID-19-related safety measure that have reduced the number of seats even further.

[SG429]

-Race Across the World was incredibly refreshing, esp. compared to our current formulaized AR.

-Airport bunching is incredibly unfair to Team #1, not only erasing their time advantage, but they end up waiting at the airport for hours in the middle of the night while the last team gets there just in time. It may be the same amount of downtime, but Team #1 is well into their waking day by flight time while the last team is fresh from breakfast.

[curbcrusher]

On 12/11/2020 at 9:25 AM, Giuseppe said:

They just need to bite the bullet on this, if you ask me. If they're just going to put all the teams on the same flight on every damn leg, it's no longer a race around the world. It's group travel around the world with excursions at each stop, and the last team back to the bus has to go home. Just a slightly different show concept, IMO, and not as fun to watch.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. If you're racing around the world, part of the skill that you should need to exhibit to win is the ability to manage your travel.  But I understand:  1) the cost of everyone booking last minute flights is a budget buster, and 2) the fact that the airline industry has changed drastically since the show first aired, and via airline consolidation and consolidation via code share agreements and such, there is just not the variety of flights that there used to be.

So if we are going to have the Amazing Shuttle, then there needs to be some changes to how people are tracked, released from airports or other issues so that there is some competitive element other than who can get in line first.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

I miss airport drama. Like when teams would take a gamble on a flight with a connection somewhere over a direct one and get stuck at some random airport. Or when a team would get on standby and be the last people on a flight. I think cost was a big problem, although I thought they partially fixed that by telling teams they could only book one flight (so no standby on the fast flight and a backup ticket on the safe flight). I also think that part of the problem was teams almost getting to the mat before Phil but I don't think it ever happened.

If flights are out of the question I like the idea where they use more trains and ferries and something like an overnight train trip is the pitstop.

[Netfoot]

Part of the problem was when teams caught a bum flight and arrived at the pitstop 12 or more hours later than the leading teams. This meant a 12 hour separation at the start of the next leg, with teams departing on the next leg before other teams had even checked in from the leg before. I never understood why they simply didn't put a cap on late arrival. Anybody later than (say) four hours leaves four hours after the race leaders. The cap could even be varied leg to leg to deal with the scheduling of the following day.

As for teams arriving at the mat before Phil, I understand there was an instance where the lead team ended up in a footrace with Phil to see who would reach the mat first. The Amazing Phil won, of course, and the lead team checked in as usual, with a breathless Phil waiting there to receive them...

[curbcrusher]

If the show is going to spoon feed flights, I wonder if the fix is to change so that Pit Stops include travel. For example, currently the sequence is:

1. Leg ends in country A
2. Pit Stop Occurs in Country A
3. Teams released in time order in Country A
4. Teams all go to airport and get on same flight.

That would be replaced with:

1. Leg ends in county A
2. Everyone gets a First Class, lay flat seat trip to Country B
3. Teams clear customs and check into hotel/hostel/campsite.
4. Teams are released in time order in Country B .

For legs that don't involve flights, things could stay the way they are.

To provide equalizers along the way they could still use HOO bunching.

[Giuseppe]

I just can't get behind the idea of starting the teams off at the next destination and staggering their departure times from there. Maybe it would work, but it still wouldn't feel like they're racing between cities/countries. I say if they have to do spoon fed flights, they can still have at least 2-3 flight options available, and the order they arrive at the pitstop determines who gets on which flight. The first two teams on flight A; the next 3 teams on flight B; the remaining teams on flight C (just as an example) with a rule saying no teams are allowed to search for alternate flights, but if later-departing teams are able to secure tickets on the earlier flights, they may do so. That way there's more incentive to just not come in last place, it has the potential to separate any burgeoning super alliances, and it brings back a little more airport drama.

Also, they don't HAVE to start each leg with a flight somewhere. Past seasons used to have some route info or other tasks before being told to go to the next destination. If they bring that back, the flights could still work the same way, just with the clue they get after completing the task/route info would just say 'Head to Wherevertown, France. There are 2 flight options with reserved seats for you. Once you claim your seats, you may not change or book alternate flights.' That's really no different than when they would have to sign up for little charter flights to get somewhere.

But if they're fixated on one flight for all teams each leg, then I'm out of ideas, lol.

[chaifan]

I think it would be great for TAR to design an entire race with no air travel except for 1st and last legs.  They can start in the US, fly to the first destination country and from there use self driving whenever possible, buses, trains and ferries.  Some of these can be overnight options in sleeper cars, or line up a fleet of RV's (with drivers), so they have mobile pit stops and gain some travel distance without losing race time.  They could easily start in Northern Europe (Sweden or Norway) and work their way south crossing into Northern Africa from Spain by ferry.  Then just fly back to the US for the final leg. 

They could even put an eco spin on it, have all travel done in electric or HE vehicles, promote the carbon emissions savings from "traditional" races. 

Yeah, you'd lose a little from not having the real stark differences in cultures, climates, language, etc.  But if done right I doubt viewers would notice or care.

[QuantumMechanic]

Some changes I'd like to see (some have already been mentioned here):

1. A team that gives another team the answer gets eliminated from the race.
2. A team that gives a hint to another team gets a 2hr penalty.
3. A team cannot play a U-Turn until after that team clears the detour (they have gone back to this several seasons ago, so just keep on doing that).
4. Either eliminate Double U-Turns or else have each team that goes through remove their picture from the box.  That way there's no more "burning" the second U-Turn.
5. If they're gonna put everyone on the same plane, stagger releasing teams from the airport once they clear customs.
6. Arrange taxis ahead of time with a cab company, and make sure all the involved cabbies know how to get to the various places.  I am sick and tired of teams being arbitrarily fucked by taxi luck.
7. Make teams drive themselves more.  If it's a location where it's not a good idea for teams to drive themselves, then arrange for there to be drivers.  However, the drivers can only act on instructions from the team on where to drive.  The teams still have to navigate, even though a team member isn't behind the wheel.
8. Add a penalty (15min? 30min? An hour?) for getting help (other than directions) from the locals.  Or maybe only penalize getting local help on tasks where racers are supposed to figure out what the clue means.
9. Have more tasks that can change the ordering of the teams.  There are too many tasks which are "show up and do this totally deterministic thing" and so don't change anything.

[Netfoot]

9 hours ago, QuantumMechanic said:

• A team that gives another team the answer gets eliminated from the race.
• A team that gives a hint to another team gets a 2hr penalty.

Elimination seems a little harsh, but a penalty would certainly be OK with me.

9 hours ago, QuantumMechanic said:

• Either eliminate Double U-Turns or else have each team that goes through remove their picture from the box.  That way there's no more "burning" the second U-Turn.

You can eliminate U-Turns entirely, if you ask me. But if you are going to have U-Turns you can't remove the pictures of teams that have gone ahead. If you do so, you will tell racers who is behind them, and eliminate the case where they guess wrong and unwittingly U-Turn someone who has already passed. It does eliminate the deliberate "burning" of U-Turns, but U-Turns are inherently antagonistic / aggressive / spiteful, so I'd just eliminate them entirely.

Or make them random, or self-inflicted. Roll a dice and if you roll a six, you just U-Turned yourself. Nobody can target you with the U-Turn, and you can't blame anyone else, because you did it to yourself.

9 hours ago, QuantumMechanic said:

• Add a penalty (15min? 30min? An hour?) for getting help (other than directions) from the locals.  Or maybe only penalize getting local help on tasks where racers are supposed to figure out what the clue means.

Difficult. If a crowd gathers and some random stranger in the crows decides to be "helpful", it's hard to penalize the team they helped. I see where you're trying to get to, but this needs some thought.

9 hours ago, QuantumMechanic said:

• Have more tasks that can change the ordering of the teams.  There are too many tasks which are "show up and do this totally deterministic thing" and so don't change anything.

The linear tasks are definitely a problem. Especially ones where you have to go down a water slide and the team ahead of you is chucking a wobbler and holding you back. Tasks are best where people come in, get started, discover they have a knack for it, and finish before teams that have been there for a while and are still struggling.

Worse, tasks where the racers have to stand and watch someone do something tricky, before they get their next clue. Example I've repeatedly pointed out from S32: "Watch some guy knock a clue out of a tree with a blowpipe." Why not: "Observe how it's done, then do it yourself!" That might have shaken up the running order quite a bit, and it isn't a task your alliance-mates can give you the answer to! More of these little challenges should make alliances less useful, and be more interesting for the viewer! I know there is a formula: Plane ride; 1 Roadblock; 1 Detour; Pitstop.  Would it really hurt to add a few extra mini-challenges along the way?

[Browncoat]

1 hour ago, Netfoot said:

chucking a wobbler

I love this phrase.

1 hour ago, Netfoot said:

: "Watch some guy knock a clue out of a tree with a blowpipe." Why not: "Observe how it's done, then do it yourself!"

Didn't they have to go up the tree and get their own nut bunches in Season 4?  I do remember that there was self-navigating with a provided vehicle and driver to the nut bunch place -- that was when Millie and Chuck fell behind.

[SG429]

23 hours ago, Netfoot said:

Worse, tasks where the racers have to stand and watch someone do something tricky, before they get their next clue. Example I've repeatedly pointed out from S32: "Watch some guy knock a clue out of a tree with a blowpipe." Why not: "Observe how it's done, then do it yourself!"

 

21 hours ago, Browncoat said:

Didn't they have to go up the tree and get their own nut bunches in Season 4?

I think that season even featured a challenge that involved using a blowpipe to hit a target.

[SVNBob]

Saw this idea for a one-off "fix" on Reddit, then expanded on it myself.  Thought I'd share it here and get some more opinions.

The original idea was for any two of the various international versions of TAR to do a crossover of sorts, by having legs in the same location at the same time.  A hypothetical example: TARCanada does a leg in Turkey at the same time as TARAustralia.  I took this concept to what I thought was the grandest logical conclusion. 

Not only are the two shows in the same place at the same time, they're at the same point in their respective Races, meaning the same number of teams.  (For example, F5, as suggested by someone going off my idea, with their reasoning below).

The teams from each cast fly into the destination city and are directed to a large public place, like a park, but different entrances.  At each entrance is a number-drawing station.  Once all teams have arrived and drawn numbers, they are released to the center of the park.  Where both hosts are waiting.  The two hosts announce that the all the Racers are at an Intersection.  The teams from both casts that drew the same numbers are unified.  The leg then proceeds as a City Sprint, and the two casts are unified until hitting the Mat.

This would be a NEL for both casts, as it would be unfair for a team to be eliminated from one Race because of a poor showing from a team from another Race.

The other poster suggested having a leg like this near the F5 in both Races to allow there to be enough time to introduce the "new teams" and their dynamics; both for each individual team, and their other Race as a whole.  Which does make a lot of sense.

[Netfoot]

6 hours ago, SVNBob said:

Saw this idea for a one-off "fix" on Reddit, then expanded on it myself.  Thought I'd share it here and get some more opinions.

It's an interesting idea. I'd be pleased to watch this or any close variation. But I don't see how this is a 'fix' for TAR. I'd call it a 'gimmick', maybe. Interesting for sure, but no solution for TAR's core issues.

A variation: You say the leg must be a NEL for both casts. But instead, I say they 'eliminate' both intersected teams that arrive at the mat last. So, there is an elimination from both the USA and CAN races. However, the 'eliminated' teams get 'adopted' by the other race. So the eliminated USA team bids Phil adieu, goes with Jon to the Canadian Pitstop and continues the TAR Canada race. Meanwhile the eliminated CAN team says farewell to Jon, goes with Phil to the USA pitstop and continues the TAR USA race.

The net effect would be as a NEL in that both races end the leg with the same number of teams as it started. But the introduction of a new team we know nothing about, who might be devils or angels, who we now have to get to know... 

And there may be opportunities to show a little footage from the other race. Phil: "Your former race-mates Billy-Jo and Jilly-Bo reached the mat in Istanbul, to place 2nd in the 8th leg of their race!" accompanied by a few seconds of suitable footage from the other race.

You could even arrange a joint finale, with racers from both teams running up to side-by-side platforms, or a common, shared platform. Possibly after performing the same challenge. And there is nothing to prevent them from having multiple 'adoption' episodes in one race. How many NEL legs is normal, anyway? Three?

There is plenty of room for weird and wonderful 'gimmicks' in your basic idea. I still wouldn't call it a 'fix', but I do think it might be very interesting.

Possible issues: 

• A TAR CAN team eliminated from the chance at a $¼M CAD will probably be glad to find themselves now racing for $1M USD prize on TAR USA. But vice versa? Dunno.
• I don't know how far afield TAR CAN racers go. I know they do leave Canada, but how often and for how long? TAR USA teams would only be in a position to visit Canada right after the start, or just before the finale. Neither of which would be ideal for this type of intersection/adoption, because there would be too many or too few teams left at those times.

[Giuseppe]

Sounds way too convoluted, and I personally would not like this. First of all, I don't like the intersection, and I for sure wouldn't like it if a bunch of racers I've never seen before showed up and intermingled with the teams I'd been watching for weeks. This seems like it would just be a ploy to get viewers from one show to start watching the other. And I agree this would not be a "fix" for the show, just another gimmick. YMMV, of course. 

[chaifan]

The crossover suggested above, gave me an idea.  It's not really a "fix" for TAR, but instead a fix of a different sort for the viewers.  I have no idea how this would work with network ownership and whatever, but while TAR fans all around the world are stuck waiting easily 12-18 months for a new season, how about airing a past season or two of TAR Canada in the US, and vice versa?  That would give us our fix of TAR, keep people interested while waiting for new seasons to come back, and maybe even pick up a few new fans along the way. 

Yeah, I know, we could easily find out the winners, but for me it would still be a "new" TAR.

 

 

 

 

[SVNBob]

16 hours ago, Netfoot said:

But I don't see how this is a 'fix' for TAR. I'd call it a 'gimmick', maybe. Interesting for sure, but no solution for TAR's core issues.

I know it's not really a "fix".  But this seemed like the best thread to talk about this idea in, since it was a hypothetical about the mechanics of TAR. 

I suppose I could have put it in the International version thread, but that's more for actual international TARs, and not this hypothetical crossover between versions.

[Netfoot]

5 hours ago, SVNBob said:

this seemed like the best thread to talk about this idea in, since it was a hypothetical about the mechanics of TAR. 

I wasn't complaining about your choice of forum; this was the best place for your post, I think. Just opining that while it might be an interesting idea, I doubt it would be the solution to all TAR's problems.

[curbcrusher]

On 12/28/2020 at 12:54 AM, QuantumMechanic said:

Some changes I'd like to see (some have already been mentioned here):

1. A team that gives another team the answer gets eliminated from the race.
2. A team that gives a hint to another team gets a 2hr penalty.
3. ..................

I won't quote the whole thing, but I think there are too many rules.

I think an approach to "fix" TAR requires creating a race that is as simple as possible, but discourages all of the things that viewers dislike (helping each other, alliances, etc).

First, my ideal would be a straight forward race. Phil sends everyone off in LA, and they head east (or west) following clues like a scavanger hunt, and the first team back to LA with all the pieces wins. Each team gets a a budget and a clue. They would do things in each country that are historically or culturally relevant, and have to stay within budget for airfare, hotels, attraction tickets, etc. So for example a clue might while in the Pacific rim might say "Go attend a concert at the venue that looks like it just sailed into this beautiful natural harbor" and they'd have to figure out they need a ticket to Sydney, and then once there go see something at The Opera House.

That's unlikely, so we have a show that needs to move people around the world, doing mundane task like shaking your booty in a shipping container in Berlin, or rappelling down a wall while looking for letters. How do you fix that?

I think you have to change the race to a stage race, like the Tour de France (of which Phil is a big fan). Everyone starts as the same time each day, and your "place" is determined by when you finish, and "score" is kept by how far behind you are in minutes.

1)  This would probably help production with budget, since they could bulk buy tickets move people between countries. In addition, it might help with setting up tasks, since the groups would be more closely bunched when they arrived to perform.

2) I think a team would be much less likely to share when they know that the even though they are at this task together, they are x minutes behind the other team and likely to fall further behind if they share the answer.

3) Since teams would all start at the same time for each leg, it might get u-turns more evenly distributed. Although I like the idea that some have suggested of rolling dice or spinning  roulette wheel with pictures on it to determine who gets u-turned.

4) An adjustment, or issue that will need to be dealt with is who gets eliminated. If we say the team with the slowest overall time to a pit stop is eliminated, then it's possible that the team that wins the leg is also the team that is eliminated.  I've thought about this and don't think I have a problem with it, because the leg winners are the winners of the "stage" of the race. There could even be some drama added to the show/race by having additional task that they could execute to catch up. For example Phil could say "Hey blondes, you arrived first and if you choose to check in now you win this Stage of the race and the prize. But, you are four hours behind the leading team, if you choose not to check in now, there is a "very special task" that you can go do and if you complete it and get back before the last team checks in you will gain two hours on the lead team. " If they do the task and complete it, they get the time benefit, if they don't choose the task, then Phil ask them to wait until all teams have checked in to see if they are the eliminated team.

5) Another issue with this is that the last leg , the final 3 could just be a coronation of the winner, much like the last stage of the real Tour. To prevent that everyone knows up front that the first 8/9 stages are to determine the final 3, and the last leg all three teams are running head to head after starting at the same time.

Just some thoughts.

 

[whiporee]

I think the easiest thing to do with the challenges is keep them separated. Put up a screen between contestants and stop having the watchers watch together. Stop penalizing teams that get to a place first by having them demonstrate to the teams behind them how things are done. Let every team have their own learning curve for every challenge. 

I think there needs to be a FF available to every team on every leg, but they need to be HARD enough that people try them and fail, and that failure could spell doom. That way, even if you're in last place you can take the longshot to try to stay in the race. 

I'd like to see them get rid of all the U-Turns and Yields and anything that allows a team to penalize another. You're not allowed to trip your opponent on a marathon.

And the biggest change is I'd let them have phones. Too much of the race has turned into lucking into the right cab driver or meeting the right guy on the street. I'd prefer the racers to be able do research on the plane. 

This sounds insane, but I'd see about getting a partnership with NetJets or something like it, and give each team its own jet. That way you[ve got no bunching. It sounds prohibative, but honestly they are paying commercial to fly all of them, each of their crews and producers from leg to leg. it would cost more, but it might be worth having the conversation with one of the charter jet companies. 

[Netfoot]

12 hours ago, whiporee said:

And the biggest change is I'd let them have phones. Too much of the race has turned into lucking into the right cab driver or meeting the right guy on the street. I'd prefer the racers to be able do research on the plane. 

Having phones might make the race a little too easy. It would be difficult to set up an interesting challenge that could not be immediately solved with a phone. Also, navigation would cease to be a thing. Your phone will tell you exactly where some place is, and the fastest way to get there by car, foot, bus or train.

Maybe instead of giving them each a phone, they should ban the use of phones, including borrowed phones? 

[NJRadioGuy]

On 1/16/2021 at 7:46 AM, Netfoot said:

Having phones might make the race a little too easy. It would be difficult to set up an interesting challenge that could not be immediately solved with a phone. Also, navigation would cease to be a thing. Your phone will tell you exactly where some place is, and the fastest way to get there by car, foot, bus or train.

Maybe instead of giving them each a phone, they should ban the use of phones, including borrowed phones? 

I don't want to see them with phones, but giving them each a handheld GPS device would be huge. I have always hated to see teams eliminated because of a lousy cabby who didn't know where the destination was. This would give them no excuse other than their unfamiliarity with how to use the software or poor battery management.

The bunching of flights is definitely a cost issue. Pandemic aside, flights now run at close to 100% capacity as much as possible, and often the only seats left are up front. It's certainly much harder to get 4 tickets in Y these days, and they can't travel in J/F so yeah. Bunching. Plus the fact the show draws typically a 0.6 or 0.7 rating, meaning advertising isn't supporting it nearly as much as it did in earlier years. Anything under 1.0 would have been a sure cancellation just 5 years ago; now that threshold is 0.5 to 0.6 (and falling every year). TAR is the most expensive reality show ever made so yeah, there have to be cost constraints when advertising dollars vanish. Or else seasons would have to be cut in half and only 5 or 6 teams competing instead of 11.

I strongly agree with a major penalty for helping another team on certain specified tasks.

Keep the rules simple and unconvoluted but bring back real competition and tasks that are safe, challenging, and completable by people of average strength and intelligence.

U-turns suck, but I don't mind them.

I love the idea of one clue in a clue box reading "You've been Yielded" or "You've been U-turned." THAT is brilliant.

Edited January 21, 2021 by NJRadioGuy

[Netfoot]

11 minutes ago, NJRadioGuy said:

I have always hated to see teams eliminated because of a lousy cabby who didn't know where the destination was.

You know, between the Big Bang and 1998, people have been navigating just fine without Google for many years, using a technology called "maps". If it is important for you to find your destination without being led astray by an ignorant taxi driver, then you should determine where you are going yourself, and then instruct the taxi driver where you want to go. The idea of handing them a GPS unit seems to be similar to handing them the clue with the answer inscribed on the back! If you want to make navigation easier, give them all a map!

16 minutes ago, NJRadioGuy said:

Keep the rules simple and unconvoluted but bring back real competition and tasks that are safe, challenging, and completable by people of average strength and intelligence.

I'm with you there. Challenges should be challenging but not impossible. Safe? Is it possible to produce a challenge that is 100% safe? Ask Claire 'Watermelon' Champlin how safe a simple challenge can be. (Kudos, Claire. You sucked it up, finished the challenge, and raced on!)

19 minutes ago, NJRadioGuy said:

U-turns suck, but I don't mind them.

I love the idea of one clue in a clue box reading "You've been Yielded" or "You've been U-turned." THAT is brilliant.

U-Turns & Yields are not my favourite either, but I'm OK with them when they aren't used in attack mode by an alliance! I am in favour with the spin-a-wheel / roll-a-dice / clue-in-the-cluebox type of mechanism, because the U-Turn/Yield remains as a joker or wildcard to shake up the order a bit, but it can't be utilized as a weapon.

[NJRadioGuy]

1 hour ago, Netfoot said:

You know, between the Big Bang and 1998, people have been navigating just fine without Google for many years, using a technology called "maps". If it is important for you to find your destination without being led astray by an ignorant taxi driver, then you should determine where you are going yourself, and then instruct the taxi driver where you want to go. The idea of handing them a GPS unit seems to be similar to handing them the clue with the answer inscribed on the back! If you want to make navigation easier, give them all a map!

I'm with you there. Challenges should be challenging but not impossible. Safe? Is it possible to produce a challenge that is 100% safe? Ask Claire 'Watermelon' Champlin how safe a simple challenge can be. (Kudos, Claire. You sucked it up, finished the challenge, and raced on!)

U-Turns & Yields are not my favourite either, but I'm OK with them when they aren't used in attack mode by an alliance! I am in favour with the spin-a-wheel / roll-a-dice / clue-in-the-cluebox type of mechanism, because the U-Turn/Yield remains as a joker or wildcard to shake up the order a bit, but it can't be utilized as a weapon.

I'd be fine with printed maps, too, provided there is sufficient information on the map for the contestant to find the place they're going to. But a GPS might be better for TV, especially since modern/younger viewers have probably never needed to read a paper map. And since the 18-49 demo is the group who pays the ad bills....

By safe I mean "you will not die or sustain life-threatening injury," which is pretty much already the case. Which is why I cringe when contestants scream like they're in mortal peril when doing something daring, but in reality they they're firmly affixed with professional rigging that will, at worst, bruise their egos if they fail at the task. What were the odds of that happening with the watermelon challenge?

I'd maybe even go beyond the "you've been U-turned/yielded" clue. Have a random clue in each clue box. A yield, a U-turn, a bonus task, an extra privilege, a "you're safe from elimination" pass, a fast forward, a bonus prize (instead of at the mat, and more random), and at least once in a season, "Sorry, but you've been eliminated."

[Netfoot]

26 minutes ago, NJRadioGuy said:

I'd maybe even go beyond the "you've been U-turned/yielded" clue. Have a random clue in each clue box. A yield, a U-turn, a bonus task, an extra privilege, a "you're safe from elimination" pass, a fast forward, a bonus prize (instead of at the mat, and more random), and at least once in a season, "Sorry, but you've been eliminated."

I like your extension to the "U-turned/yielded" clue plan. Not sure about all of your suggestions, but it's a good idea to introduce variations to the system to make it such that the extra clue isn't always a negative.

I do think that "Sorry, but you've been eliminated" is harsh. I've always greatly disliked the mid-leg elimination of Bilal & Sa'eed in the middle of S10E01, and the starting-line elimination of Eric & Lisa in S15E01. I thought both of those eliminations were exceedingly cruel, denying those racers the right to complete even a single leg of the race. Not to mention denying us the ability to come to know them even a little bit, before their departure.

But the "Choose Your Own Fate" clue idea has plenty of potential. Were it introduced, I'm sure fans would come up with a huge list of suggested "fates", good and bad.

[NJRadioGuy]

If you have a nice random mix of positives and negatives you could even put them in specially-marked envelopes and essentially dare the contestants to see if they feel lucky. Or not. The random elimination would suck bigly, but I really don't hate it, and I wouldn't put it in the first 4 or 5 legs either.

Although generally I believe a team's lack of skill or ability should be the sole cause of their elimination, the fact is in a race, bad things can happen. Even traveling on your own you can lose a passport, miss a flight, get robbed, get sick, have a lost hotel reservation, etc. So if you have to bunch everybody up for cost-cutting reasons, that eliminates a bad flight connection, which has resulted in more than one elimination. So putting this variable in to shake up the race would be fair. The big question for me is since everybody is always on the same flight now, does production now hold onto their passports and other critical documents? 

[Netfoot]

1 hour ago, Netfoot said:

I'm sure fans would come up with a huge list of suggested "fates", good and bad.

(Quoting myself...)

Fans would not only come up with a huge list, but they would argue hugely about it! What fun!

42 minutes ago, NJRadioGuy said:

...you could even put them in specially-marked envelopes and essentially dare the contestants to see if they feel lucky. Or not.

True. But it would open the door to teams simply leaving the specially marked clue untouched, and therefore unused.

[NJRadioGuy]

1 hour ago, Netfoot said:

True. But it would open the door to teams simply leaving the specially marked clue untouched, and therefore unused.

This is true, but then you get the reveal at the end of what was in the envelope at the mat, and watch as teams react when they find out they missed a fast forward or $10,000 in cash each. Or else you make it so one of the teams has to select the special envelope (maybe once in a while).