In reading old posts, one topic that has come up a lot (and started a few flamewars) is whether or not American Millionaire should offer tax-free prizes like its British counterpart. The prevailing (and obvious) opinion is that this is not feasible, and even if it was, probably wouldn't benefit the show at all.

Thinking about this, however, made me think of another topic, perhaps one worth discussion. In England, the minimum age to apply as a contestant is 16, as opposed to 18. The question I pose is this: Do you think Millionaire in America could benefit from lowering the contestant age to 16?

I submit these arguments in favor:
- People 16 and 17 years old would often fit some of the contestant qualities that Millionaire's current contestant coordinators look for (ie: telegenic and excitable)
- Viewers may be more engaged to see a high school student winning life-changing amounts of money, particularly if they go far into the game. Similarly, a high schooler winning an enormous prize could be promo'd and played up for ratings.
- They could trumpet this as "a new and exciting change to Millionaire".

I also submit this argument against it:
- People 16 and 17 years old might not have the money sense to make wise decisions, especially under the clock.

What say you?

I don't have any particular objection to lowering the minimum age, but at risk of sounding like a crotchety old fart, I wonder how well a high-schooler would do with a general stack of questions. (Then again, I remember an episode of Regis' WWTBaM in which a very young man did extraordinarily well by any standard, and walked off with $250,000 - I remember Regis Philbin looked positively misty-eyed as the kid hugged his parents, who were freed of the burden of paying for his college tuition.)

I don't think it was the opinion that was opposed so strenuously, so much as the manner in which said opinion was presented.

Don't buy it. I refuse to believe such a shortage exists in the contestant pool in its current state. And even if it does I don't believe in encouraging that as a limiting factor in the first place.

This is true.

Enh. They can do that with any change, so I don't think this is a good argument for this PARTICULAR one, either.

As we've seen, that quality isn't restricted to teenagers.

I think there's one basic problem: the kids not legal to make his own decisions, even after his appearance. It would be a legal nightmare. The English are not nearly as anal (or as litigious) as we are when it comes to age limits.

You may be referring to Allen Harris, who was 24 at the time, and the win allowed him to pay off his law school loans and upgrade his parents' 25th anniversary trip. So while he was (comparatively) young, he still had a perspective and maturity that a 16- or 17-year-old wouldn't necessarily have.

I'm not necessarily sure I agree that "viewers may be more engaged to see a high school student winning life changing amounts of money." While I agree with Chris' point about age not being a limiting factor in making bad decisions, I think 16- and 17-year-olds would be more likely to take big risks at higher dollar amounts. (You tend to be a little more risk-averse when you've got a family, your own business, retirement approaching, etc.) While we may find it interesting to watch, it'd be pretty brutal for the general public to see a 16-year-old lose $225K or $475K.

With the gambling element, it's not just a legal mess but kind of unseemly to have pre-adults play. Then again, "The Joker's Wild" had kids weeks that were a riot, and that's a game with a giant slot machine (although there were no risks involved.)

Well, as far as game shows in general, I know the Australian $otC has had a few under 18 players in regular game play.

Maybe a Teen Week would work, but the Millionaire question stack is pretty challenging regardless of age.

They've did Jeopardy "teen" tours for years, just make the material SLIGHTLY easier and it's a go.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that there was a children's episode of Millionaire in Poland - the wiki page seems to "confirm" this - and it was a final question loss. No idea if they were playing on their own or not (as opposed to playing along with an adult).

Speaking of rule changes... does anyone know in particular why some games allow Canucks and others don't? To my knowledge, only Wheel/J!/PIR allow them. I realize it's the show's prerogative, it just seems a bit odd that some allow it and some don't.

Ryan

/who'd really like to try out for Millionaire.

I saw a video of this question. The young boy was playing by himself, and had all of his lifelines at his disposal on the final question, yet he only used the 50:50.

Didn't they already do a tax-free week or two of Millionaire at some point, either in primetime or daytime?


Didn't they already do this? I know they've had college weeks, and I think they've had parent/child weeks, but I could've swore they had a week of highschoolers in there somewhere.

Yep, back in the Regis' days. It was sponsered by H&R Block, and it was concurrent with the progressive jackpot promotion.

As for a Kids' Millionaire, I'd love to see 8 year olds play with easy questions, and drop a 0 off all the prizes. Call it "Kids' Thousandaire Week", and let them have at it.

Eh, no.

If people three, four, and five times that age have trouble...

I gotta know, because I'm honestly not figuring it out: you're not serious, are you?

I saw two different kids' weeks. In one of them, they had a completely different bonus where all you could change was which three prizes you took home. In the other, the kid's parent played Beat the Devil and the kid's role was simply to pull the lever.

Hey, yo, if this idea is goofy, then why did Sony have JEP! and Wheel 2000 as a regular series?

There is precedent - back in the days of "$64,000 question" there was a ripoff version for kids called "10,000 Penny Jackpot" on a local New York station. (For those of you who haven't figured out decimal points yet, that's $100.)

Nope. Totally tongue-in-cheek sarcastic.

I've never understood the appeal of Kids on game shows. Yes, when the format calls for it (like Child's Play), it can work. But I've never really understood the whole "Hey, wouldn't it be great if we take the game, put in kids, and give them an easier game!" It's the same reason I dislike the "Teen Tournament" on Jeopardy!, it just doesn't make compelling television for me - I'd much rather watch a series of Adults play, the game was designed to be played that way.

I don't see how those two shows would be arguments *for* having kids' versions of game shows.

if anything they need to start bringing on some OLDER players. I think some of the most memorable players on any number of different shows have been the older ones (yes, I'm talking senior-citizens advertisers) who are smart but have that surprising personality you don't expect from the "grandma-next-door". If you look at recent episodes of most British shows currently running you will see more post 50's than we have here.

I'm sick of the under 30 (or playing the part) demo that has ruled all the shows for the past decade. How many Grandparents are even on "feud" these days? I think the variety needs to be increased, but in the other direction.

Oh, I absolutely do, especially when I was a kid and couldn't be on a game show myself because I wasn't of age, 'cuz it meant "Hey! Maybe one day *I* can be on this show too!"

Here, my friends, is Exhibit A: Fred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8GL3Jb_5c...feature=related

That would actually be evidence *against* why senior citizens wouldn't exactly make the best contestants on some shows. True, Fred was entertaining, but when it came down to play, he slowed the game down. The host had to read the choices out to him almost every time and even had to walk him center stage so he could see the board a little better. I could see him on a show like "Card Sharks" or "The Price is Right" but nothing fast-paced like that.