-
Seeing the "Boomerang" clip of Double Dare '76 on GSMGB, I have a few questions I would like the board to review and respond if needed...or if wants to.
1. What were the flaws of this game, if there were any?
2. How come this show didn't last long? (what in your opinion was/were some of the factors that contributed to the demise of this show)
3. Can someone explain how the Bonus round work? I've heard some rules, but reading this would make me think that this is one of the longest bonus rounds ever, but I could be wrong. It looks that if the Bonus Round was longer than the main front game of the show.
4. Did you like the overall presentation of this show?
5. Could this show work in today's standards and what would you change (if any)?
From seeing this clip on a website a few years back, the one thing that I saw that flawed this show was the fact that they showed the home audience the "category" of what the contestants tried to guess. That took away the game play/shout at the tv factor which is crucial for a great game show.
Comments???
-
1. Flaws were having the game be to $500 when you can score $350 on one topic. Having such a brilliant game being shown at 1:30 in the afternoon, when no one can see it.
2. Because housewives didn't want to watch, I guess? Too smart for it's own good. I bet it would be great on a "Mensa" type network.
3. Champ looks over clues one at a time, decides whether to let the Spoilers hear them or not. If four clues get by any one spoiler, the champ gets $5,000. There are only eight clues, so the champ must be careful in what to hide.
4. Yes. Yes I did.
5. No, see 1 and 2.
Don't look at the TV when the category is shown. Just like Password or YDS. Hardly a flaw.
-
Naturally, you knew I'd chime in on this one.......I mean it's in my sig......
1. I didn't think there was a flaw with it. It was a bit ahead of its' time. It had a better chance in the era of P+.
2. Again, I think it was ahead of its' time. Also, it inherited "Gambit"s time slot just nine months before. And I'm guessing it wasn't improving enough to justify continuing it.
3. Actually, this might be the only flaw. The bonus round had to take several minutes to determine what clues were given, and then actually give the clues. If you gave one of the spoliers four clues, and they missed four times, you won the money.
4. I liked the presentation. It would still be challenging in today's climate.
5. Keep the format, but adjust to self-contained instead of straddling.
-
Cancelled to make way for reruns of Here's Lucy. Bah!
2.) In an interview with David Letterman on his NBC late night show, Alex said he believed it was cancelled because it "was too tough".
4.) Oh, goodness yes. And that theme music-----mercy!
Correction to a posting above: The program may have run in your town at 1:30pm (when did they show As The World Turns?) but the proscribed time was 11am for a few months and then it moved to 10am. All times Eastern.
-
Beats me; I was -3 years old when the show aired; I misremembered reading 1:30. Still, putting a brainburner like that on in the morning...whoof.
-
From what I've gathered so far, it sounds like the level difficulty of questions used on this show was a little tough for the housewives that watched this show.
Was this show on the level of Jeopardy! as far as the clues are concerned?
I was also thinking that if they were to bring back the game, they should eliminate the straddling format and make this show self-contained going by what I heard about the show and how it worked. Also I would adjust the dollar values accordingly to keep up with the time, but that's another ball of wax that definetly doesn't need to get going.
About the music used, we all know that the music was reused on Card Sharks. Did DD and CS use the exact same cues, front game wins, end game wins, contestant plugs, etc?
-
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Jun 23 2005, 10:08 AM\']3. Actually, this might be the only flaw. The bonus round had to take several minutes to determine what clues were given, and then actually give the clues. If you gave one of the spoliers four clues, and they missed four times, you won the money.
[/quote]
This should be elaborated on, because I think the way you and Travis are explaining it is a little misleading. It makes it look a little like you have a say in which Spoiler gets which clues.
The Spoilers were three learned people, I remember them having advanced degrees of some sort. They sat in seperate isolation booths.
You pick a number off of the board, it reveals a clue. You decide whether you are going to give it or pass it, with the caveat that you have to give 4. If you elect to give, they all get to hear it.
If a Spoiler guesses the answer, they win $100 and are done. When all three Spoilers guess it, the game is over. Every time you give a clue and you're still playing afterward, you win $100. If you've given the fourth clue and there's still a Spoiler who hasn't guessed it, you win the $5,000.
-
I thought they got $100 each time a clue got by a single Spoiler, so you could stand to win $900...but that's a small nitpick. Chris described the solo game perfectly.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jun 23 2005, 11:28 AM\']I thought they got $100 each time a clue got by a single Spoiler, so you could stand to win $900...but that's a small nitpick. Chris described the solo game perfectly.
[snapback]89835[/snapback]
[/quote]
That could totally be. The site I used to confirm my recollections was vague about that. It would make more sense anyhow. A potential $100-$300 would be kinda a crappy payoff.
Was there a bigger payoff to the Spoilers if they won the round outright, or did they have to be content dividing $300?
-
Nope, it was $100 to Dr. What's-his-name, or nothing. No bonus for a first-clue win, or for having all of them get it right. In '77, that could have been good money, but I doubt it.
-
Well, since Dr. Doty was a virtual regular and he seldom missed, he probably pocketed a good sum over the course of the show.
-
Cancelled to make way for reruns of Here's Lucy. Bah!
Yeah, that was surprising. "Here's Lucy" hadn't been seen since being cancelled in prime time in Sept 1974, and I'm pretty sure they didn't even run through the whole series in daytime before it was axed to make room for "Guiding Light's" expansion to an hour in Nov 1977.
A similar situation occurred in 1985, when repeats of the 5-year-old short-lived sitcom "Angie" replaced "Family Feud" on ABC daytime. (I don't think "Angie" has ever been seen since :)
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Jun 23 2005, 04:07 PM\']A similar situation occurred in 1985, when repeats of the 5-year-old short-lived sitcom "Angie" replaced "Family Feud" on ABC daytime. (I don't think "Angie" has ever been seen since :)
[snapback]89871[/snapback]
[/quote]
I previously bandied around the curse of Chuck Woolery, but is there a curse of Richard Dawson? OTOH, after Airplane! became a hit, maybe Robert Hayes's residuals became prohibitive. Darned if I know.
TOSS-UP! Which sitcom will get to DVD first: Angie or Joanie Loves Chachi?
-
..I don't know if it was that hard a game - it was just slow and clunky. The contestant isolation booths really creeped me out, for some reason. I do think the game is good - try it again with less clutter and a bit more speed.
-
I thought what was particularly masterful was the isolation bit; you didn't know how your opponent would react to each clue.
Take that away, and you have what amounts to a series of Quiz Bowl/NAQT-style toss-ups. Which is fine with me, but I'm not exactly the core demo, either.
-
I probably should have made my comment clearer (it's been a long day, the brain cells are fried)...yes, the isolation booth idea stays. The design of them seemed excessive back in the day - overdone. The camera shutter-type booth window mechanics didn't grab me, either. But like everything else, can't have everything looking like the same ol', same ol'..so I'll give them points for trying. Maybe a more side-by-side booth set for tighter shots with a good barrier between them, and when one rings in to answer - the other booth goes dark, and if the player is right, they can see the next clues for the dares on a personal monitor in their booth? It'll take just a second to open the sound and flip on the light in a dared contestant's booth instead of a longer wait for the mechanical window cover to open. Just thoughts for what they're worth...
-
Better yet, something I saw on "Hometime" or one of those home improvement shows a few years ago. They've got windows with embedded LCD's in them--when the LCD's are charged in one way, the crystals line up and become essentially invisible, making the window clear. When a switch is thrown, the polarity of the crystals changes, and the window takes on a frosted look. On "Hometime" they used it for a bathroom window in place of hanging curtains, but it would probably work pretty well as the windows on an isolation booth.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jun 23 2005, 01:35 PM\']Nope, it was $100 to Dr. What's-his-name, or nothing. No bonus for a first-clue win, or for having all of them get it right. In '77, that could have been good money, but I doubt it.
[snapback]89837[/snapback]
[/quote]
Anybody know if the spoilers got additional compensation for appearing on the shows beyond the money won in the Spoilers Round? Since they're better associated as regular or semi-regular 'celeb' than a civilian, I would think they got paid some sort of minimum scale wage, no?
-
Back then, Maxene Fabe wrote that these were the perceived problems with the first "Double Dare":
1. Having those players in the isolation booth most of the time (you only got out if you won). I would've had Alex do the interviews with everyone standing out front and then have them enter the booths (with models to open the doors, which I'm sure Alex would've liked).
2. Too many contestants who looked like the host, complete with moustache. Not a problem for "J!", but a problem in 1976 daytime when all of the other shows were predominately female in contestant profiles.
3. The host. He was more Stiff Alex than he was on "Classic CONE-centration."
The solution that they came up with was have Johnny O cue the audience to react more. Guess they thought that to have the audience screaming "DARE! DARE!" when going for a Dare or "awwwing" on wrong answers would make the male contestants in the isolation booths act "TPIR" crazy. Not to mention yelling "PLAY!" or "PASS!" on every end game clue reveal. Didn't work. They did have a guy who twiched and screamed a lot become a champion, so CBS featured him in promos. Still had a moustache, though.
I loved the format of the show--I just thought that they hoked up things more than they needed to. And I still think the show could work, if it was done right (and yes, I know they'd have to change the title--my choice would be "High Risk"). It still may've been a game show version of too hip for the room--a common criticism of so many of Jay Wolpert's concepts.
-
What the hell is wrong with calling it "Double Dare" just because another network slimed up the title? I guess no one here remembers "Lost"?
-
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Jun 27 2005, 06:26 PM\']What the hell is wrong with calling it "Double Dare" just because another network slimed up the title? I guess no one here remembers "Lost"?
[snapback]90253[/snapback]
[/quote]
MTV Networks has trademarked "Double Dare." I would assume that "television program" is one of the categories that they've trademarked it in--and "DD 2000" has still only five years old.
Also, if a title is used for two different genres (see early 80s cop show "Double Dare"), that would get by more than being used for two separate formats in the same genre over a close period of time. That and the fact that the producers of that reality show "Lost" may not've trademarked the title is why the current drama series can use that title.
If someone has a better explanation on title registration, it would be appreciated, especially on my end.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Jun 27 2005, 07:06 PM\']Back then, Maxene Fabe wrote that these were the perceived problems with the first "Double Dare":
3. The host. He was more Stiff Alex than he was on "Classic CONE-centration."[/quote]
I'm confused. Maxine Fabe wouldn't have said that Alex was stiffer than he was on CC, since CC was a decade or so from debuting when her book came out.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Jun 27 2005, 07:07 PM\']If someone has a better explanation on title registration, it would be appreciated, especially on my end.
[snapback]90257[/snapback]
[/quote]
All right. Who wants to volunteer to write an explanation of title registration on Mark's end?
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jun 28 2005, 12:03 PM\'][quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Jun 27 2005, 07:06 PM\']Back then, Maxene Fabe wrote that these were the perceived problems with the first "Double Dare":
3. The host. He was more Stiff Alex than he was on "Classic CONE-centration."[/quote]
I'm confused. Maxine Fabe wouldn't have said that Alex was stiffer than he was on CC, since CC was a decade or so from debuting when her book came out.
[snapback]90274[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think Fabe said Alex wasn't right for the show, maybe even that he was too stiff. The bit about CC was editorial comment from Mark.
-
All right. Who wants to volunteer to write an explanation of title registration on Mark's end?
Are you going to be here all week? :)
I think Fabe said Alex wasn't right for the show, maybe even that he was too stiff. The bit about CC was editorial comment from Mark.
Correctamundo. Perhaps "HR" would've been a more proper comparison (and Fabe had the revised version on her "Only 40 Shows That Really, Really Worked" list, along with "Pro-Fan"--wha?), but I didn't want to bring into play that whole Alex-tippling-on-the-last-show old wives' tale. [Joe Pyne] And will you old wives just shut up? [JP]