All or Nothing: Difference between revisions

{{trope}}

 

 

Many classic [[Game Show|Game Shows]] offer a [[Consolation Prize]] to the losing contestants. However, a more modern take features an All or Nothing approach; either you win the big prize, or you go home empty-handed.

== [[Live Action TV]] ==

* ''Big Brother Australia'' instituted a 'fines' system, whereby money would be taken from the prize pot for violations of the rules (of which there are many). The host claimed at the launch night that the winner could potentially walk out of the house owing money to Big Brother.

* ''[[The Weakest Link]]''

* ''[[Dog Eat Dog]]''

* ''Celebrity Sweepstakes'' actually called its end game "All or Nothing".

** Actually, this was because those were the two options available to the players - either bet everything you had ("All") or nothing (er, "Nothing"). Also, if you bet everything and lost, you received a consolation prize, which usually was worth more than what you could have won had you bet everything at the maximum odds and won.

** Though, to be fair, the chances of that are astronomically low. The host will even hint at answers from time to time, and the questions are incredibly easy. It still technically fits the trope, but it's next to impossible to achieve. [[Too Dumb to Live|Although it has happened]].

** A contestant picked and participates in the "terminator" round gets $10,000 regardless of if he/she is terminated or if the team loses the game.

* US ''1 vs. 100'' follows this rule with the contestant's inability to walk away once you continue for the next question. At least the remaining mob gets to win the share if a contestant loses. The original format? Doesn't let contestants leave except for right at the end if the mob have been eliminated, but before if the contestant was correct is revealed.

* In the [[Game Show]] ''[[Cash Cab]]'', if they get to their destination without getting three strikes, the winner or winners are given an option, take the money and run, or answer a video question for double what they have. If they lose, they get nothing except the free cab ride.

** Since the cabbie pulls over and kicks the contestants out the second they get the third strike, they may end up getting a free cab ride to ''roughly 20 blocks away from where they wanted to go''. Though it is still an improvement over 40 or so blocks away from their destination.

* British show ''Golden Balls'' is particularly cruel in this regard. After spending half an hour with bluffs and random distribution of money, two contestants are left with the option of stealing or sharing. If they both opt to share, the prize fund is split. If one decides to steal, they get it all. If both of them try to steal, nobody wins anything.

*** That would be because it's basically the Prisonner Dilemma, which is the Game Theory game non-economists know about.

* ''[[Distraction]]'', including possibly the show's ''winner'' if all his or her prizes are destroyed in the final round (which happened at least twice).

* ''Unanimous'', in which nine strangers met in a hermetically sealed bunker, and every week voted to see who would win the grand prize, starting at $1.5 million. The hitch was that the vote had to be unanimous for one person for the prize to be awarded. Oh, and the longer the contest dragged on, the smaller the prize got. And if anyone left the bunker, the money would get cut in half. Uh huh. Of course, the whole question of why anyone should want to give the money to anyone else, thus ending the show (and face time, the real reason a lot of these people go on reality TV to begin with) for NO gain is never addressed, nor how hurting the poor saps still in the game was supposed to be a deterrent to walking away.

* In Britain, ''The Million Pound Drop'' was probably worse than ''Golden Balls'' about this. After taking most of an hour to go through seven questions and plenty of padding, players must face a final multiple-choice question with two choices. If they pick the correct answer, they keep their winnings; if they pick the incorrect one, they leave empty-handed and any success they had on previous questions is rendered moot. This led to one team who lost £525,000 on an [[Unexpectedly Obscure Answer]] which may has well have been a coin flip, since it was on ''nearly-30-year-old celebrity gossip''.

* [[Exaggerated]] in the original British version of ''[[Grand Slam]]''; not only was the only prize on offer the £50k for winning the sixteen-way tournament... But the contestants had to pay a £1k entry fee to get on the show.

* ''[[Trashed]]'' managed to both [[Exaggerated Trope|Exaggerate]] and avert it - Losing teams would have some of their possessions destroyed, ten hours of community service... And get the parting gift of a [[The Simpsons|Simpsons Chess Set]].

 

== [[Live Action TV]] ==

 

== [[Film]] ==

* The end of the film ''[[Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory]]''. Although Charlie has won Wonka's contest by default (since the other children all "dropped out"), Wonka disqualifies him on a technicality, delivering the quote at the top of this page. However, he subverts it a moment later by revealing that it is one last [[Secret Test of Character]], which Charlie passes.

** The other children in this film would be a straight-up example; they leave with nothing other than the [[Amusing Injuries]] they'd brought upon themselves. (This is different than the book. Then again, the book didn't have that contract.)

 

== Literature ==

* The [[Hunger Games]] offers a particularly brutal example- one victor gets fabulous wealth and national fame. Each and every one of the other three contestants dies.

 

== [[Music]] ==

* Also parodied in ''[[Monty Python]] Live at the Hollywood Bowl'': "Well, nobody leaves this show empty-handed... so we're going to cut off his hands."

 

== [[Western Animation]] ==

{{quote| '''Thug''': "She ain't gettin' the [[Home Game|home version]]."}}

* ''[[The Penguins of Madagascar]]'': "When [Skipper] said all or nothing, he really meant all."