Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Double Dare  (Read 4295 times)

14gameshows

  • Member
  • Posts: 131
Double Dare
« on: February 11, 2010, 05:54:21 PM »
If you had a choice to bring this show back on the air, would you green light it?

Would you change any of the rules, payout structures, etc.?

With such a solid show, does anyone know the reason why the ratings weren't there to keep this show going?

I'm surprised that this show didn't last as long as other gameshows during that time.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2010, 05:56:54 PM by 14gameshows »

chad1m

  • Member
  • Posts: 2781
Double Dare
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2010, 06:01:39 PM »
[quote name=\'14gameshows\' post=\'235714\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 05:54 PM\']With such a solid show, does anyone know the reason why the ratings weren't there to keep this show going?[/quote]It was on in the mornings, and I don't believe housewives (the primary daytime audience in the 1970s) were looking for a decently-difficult quiz game in the mornings. Just something fun to keep in the background while going about their daily duties. It also didn't help that is was up against, in one time slot or another, Wheel of Fortune and repeats of Sanford & Son, a top ten show from 75-76.
Check out the variety of game show books under ten dollars I've written on my Amazon.com page!

DoorNumberFour

  • Member
  • Posts: 1811
Double Dare
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2010, 06:03:10 PM »
I think with some major aesthetic changes and properly-adjusted money, this would be an interesting program nowadays.

The main problem I had with the show (and I think other people had this problem too) is that the show just looked so cold and impersonal. Very empty set, isolation booths...and on top of that, I think Alex Trebek's hosting was a bit dry here. His personality didn't really shine the way it did on, say, High Rollers.

So yeah, brighten the show up a bit, and it'd get a green light from me.
christian@buzzerblog.com

BrandonFG

  • Member
  • Posts: 15626
Double Dare
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2010, 06:04:37 PM »
This subject was brought up a couple of years ago. I think the changing climate of game shows were one factor; at the time, there were no tough trivia shows on the air; Jeopardy!, Split Second, and Joker's Wild were all canceled the year before. At that point, the most popular games were MG, HSq, and Pyramid, and Feud was about to hit it big. Shows that make you think, but are a much lighter cerebral game compared to DD. And when you think about it, when TJW and TTD came back in the late-70s, the difficulty was severely watered down.

Come to think of it, other than Jeopardy! and Millionaire, there haven't been too many difficult quiz shows out there...

Would love to see it revived though...too tired to map out how I'd change it, if at all...
"I'll say anything you want, because my baby's applying to.....Tic Tac Dough! What the f**k is this?
Now celebrating his 17th season on GSF!

Jimmy Owen

  • Member
  • Posts: 7072
Double Dare
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2010, 06:26:10 PM »
I thought the show was okay, not great.  The mechanics of the show made it slow-going.  The subject could drag on long after the correct answer had been given and you were just watching to see how long the opponents/spoilers couldn't get the answer.  I would have given Alex some sort of podium to stand behind.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2010, 06:27:22 PM by Jimmy Owen »
Let's Make a Deal was the first show to air on Buzzr. 6/1/15 8PM.

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 26799
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
Double Dare
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2010, 06:31:53 PM »
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'235720\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 03:26 PM\']I would have given Alex some sort of podium to stand behind.[/quote]
How does this improve the pacing of the show?
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype, YIM, AIM: FredSmythe

Jimmy Owen

  • Member
  • Posts: 7072
Double Dare
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2010, 06:51:29 PM »
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'235722\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 06:31 PM\'][quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'235720\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 03:26 PM\']I would have given Alex some sort of podium to stand behind.[/quote]
How does this improve the pacing of the show?
[/quote]
It wouldn't have improved it.  I just thought the set looked a little bare.
Let's Make a Deal was the first show to air on Buzzr. 6/1/15 8PM.

dale_grass

  • Member
  • Posts: 1373
Double Dare
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2010, 07:11:04 PM »
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'235722\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 06:31 PM\'][quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'235720\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 03:26 PM\']I would have given Alex some sort of podium to stand behind.[/quote]
How does this improve the pacing of the show?
[/quote]
He won't have to keep running off the stage to get his next card.

Jeremy Nelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 2231
Double Dare
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2010, 07:43:55 PM »
Here's how you improve a game like Double Dare 76: replace the one on one with teams of two, brighten the set, add physical challenges, and make it really messy.

Seriously, though, Cash Cab has pretty tough questions, and it's still a fairly popular show. With all of the shows on TV that make learning more audience friendly, I don't see why this couldn't work. Set difficulty level to something between Jeopardy! College Championship and regular Jeopardy!, and I think you have a challenging, yet intriguing game where people may actually learn something.

BTW, did Goodson-Todman ever challenge Nick/MTV/Viacom over the game's format?
I complain about some stuff, I praise other stuff, and I say "meh" to the rest...see it all at notableneurons.com

BrandonFG

  • Member
  • Posts: 15626
Double Dare
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2010, 08:06:49 PM »
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'235728\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 07:43 PM\']BTW, did Goodson-Todman ever challenge Nick/MTV/Viacom over the game's format?[/quote]
I doubt they would've gained anything from it, being that a) the original was completely obscure by 1986 esp. with no GSN, b) the two shows were completely different, c) you couldn't copyright that title, and d) there have been like 17 versions of a show called "Break the Bank", none of which had anything to do with one another.
"I'll say anything you want, because my baby's applying to.....Tic Tac Dough! What the f**k is this?
Now celebrating his 17th season on GSF!

Neumms

  • Member
  • Posts: 1939
Double Dare
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2010, 11:05:22 PM »
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'235720\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 06:26 PM\']I thought the show was okay, not great.  The mechanics of the show made it slow-going.  The subject could drag on long after the correct answer had been given and you were just watching to see how long the opponents/spoilers couldn't get the answer.  I would have given Alex some sort of podium to stand behind.[/quote]

It picked up speed as the run went on, though. The topics weren't that scholastic, and obviously the clues get easier as they go on.

The Spoilers segment didn't seem like it worked just because it seemed to have more to do with who wrote the clues that day than any choices the player could make. It might also be more fun if they played up the villian part, with more booing or a wider variety of Spoilers (maybe only one is a nerdy professor, another is Rosie O'Donnell.)

mmb5

  • Member
  • Posts: 1970
Double Dare
« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2010, 11:05:49 PM »
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'235728\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 07:43 PM\']Seriously, though, Cash Cab has pretty tough questions, and it's still a fairly popular show.[/quote]
FTFY.  Cash Cab questions are lower tier Jeopardy or at best 5-8 slot Millionaire questions.  A reasonable Jeopardy player would clean up.


--Mike
Portions of this post not affecting the outcome have been edited or recreated.

TLEberle

  • Member
  • Posts: 14429
  • Game Maven
Double Dare
« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2010, 11:10:27 PM »
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'235720\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 03:26 PM\']I thought the show was okay, not great.  The mechanics of the show made it slow-going.  The subject could drag on long after the correct answer had been given and you were just watching to see how long the opponents/spoilers couldn't get the answer.  I would have given Alex some sort of podium to stand behind.[/quote]Wrong, wrong and are you part of a carpentry guild or union of some sort? No matter how awesome a show is, you always chime in with "They should have a podium."

I have news for you: the set would still be Mother Hubbard's cupboard bare even if you give Alex a place to put his cards.
Travis L. Eberle
Director of Ludic underlings.

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 26799
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
Double Dare
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2010, 12:50:42 AM »
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'235744\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 08:05 PM\']The Spoilers segment didn't seem like it worked just because it seemed to have more to do with who wrote the clues that day than any choices the player could make.[/quote]
Not so. The Spoilers board usually had three tough clues, three idiotically easy ones, and two marginal ones. The key to the game for the player was in figuring out if they had one of the marginal clues, and if they did, if that was the one they wanted to give or if they wanted to fish for the other one.
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype, YIM, AIM: FredSmythe

TLEberle

  • Member
  • Posts: 14429
  • Game Maven
Double Dare
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2010, 01:23:43 AM »
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'235715\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 03:01 PM\']It was on in the mornings, and I don't believe housewives (the primary daytime audience in the 1970s) were looking for a decently-difficult quiz game in the mornings.[/quote]Wasn't it sandwiched by TPIR and Match Game?


[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'235716\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 03:03 PM\']I think with some major aesthetic changes and properly-adjusted money, this would be an interesting program nowadays.[/quote]The set is usually the last thing that I notice/complain about, and I thought that the set was plenty serviceable.


[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'235717\' date=\'Feb 11 2010, 03:04 PM\']Would love to see it revived though...too tired to map out how I'd change it, if at all...[/quote]You rang? I live to serve.

If I had to make any change beyond COLA, I think it would be this: you score ten grams of gold per clue remaining at that point, plus ten for solving. That amount is at stake for the Dare/Double Dare, so up to 400g is on offer with every puzzle. First to a kilo wins and plays against the Spoilers. And actually, the Spoilers is where I'd make the biggest change. (so I guess I lied there, earlier) Spoilers get $n per solve, but after, say, three times that the Spoiler fails to solve the puzzle when he's in play, he's off the show. Maybe have a stable of five or so that get shuffled in and out.

(What I would NOT NOT NOT do, under any circumstances is what was done in a special Powerpoint Double Dare: the jackpot decreases with each Spoiler solve. "Sorry, that picture of my high school English teacher solved the puzzle, so you can no longer win the $25,000, but there's still $10,000 in it for you if you can slide two more clues by photos of my camp counselor and pastor.")

I went with grams of gold earlier because I really don't care if the game is played for cash, a nominal prize, points, inches an avatar moves on the game board...I want the game to stay fundamentally the same.
Travis L. Eberle
Director of Ludic underlings.