Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Double Dare  (Read 4296 times)

Clay Zambo

  • Member
  • Posts: 1725
Double Dare
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2010, 10:10:05 AM »
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'235765\' date=\'Feb 12 2010, 01:23 AM\']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.[/quote]

If there's a stable, I don't see the point of eliminating a failing spoiler.
czambo@mac.com

mmb5

  • Member
  • Posts: 1970
Double Dare
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2010, 10:46:43 AM »
What I appreciated most about Double Dare was the use of the long form pyramidal question.  Very difficult to write, they work very well as a player because there is always the mental tension of "do I know the answer" coupled with "I better answer anyway before my opponent does."  These tend to reward the better player more often than a traditional quiz because they include depth of knowledge of a particular subject as well as basic recall.

However, it is very hard to pull that off in a television setting, because it can be a little too rewarding for the good player or it can be very boring.  Because of this, each game of DD essentially boiled down to three different outcomes:
    [*]Two good, well matched players: Neither player used their dares often enough, game takes too long
    [*]Two poor players: Answers came deeper in the pool (i.e.: 8th clue vs. 4th clue), dares went out of scope, game takes too long
    [*]One good, one poor player: Good player could double dare on almost every turn, game doesn't take long enough
    [/list]And the spoiler round, always, always took too long.  Six clues (two gimmies, two marginal, two no ways) would have been a lot better than the 3-2-3 pattern.  And PhDs are not necessarily pop culture mavens, which the questions began to lean towards as the series progressed.  If this was to come back today I think you would see one PhD, one celebrity and Ken Jennings.

    I would love to find any and all documentation on the development cycle of this pilot.  On one hand, you have Jay Wolpert, for whom any idea is great, the wackier the better.  But your boss is Mark Goodson, who is conservative on what he puts on the air, tests many, many things and eventually steers his shows towards a familiar pattern.  How different was this game in Jay's original concept as opposed to what eventually hit the air?  This is also one of those rare cases where a hard-quizzer came out of the Goodson stable, something he really only did well once (Winner Take All).


    --Mike
    « Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 10:47:26 AM by mmb5 »
    Portions of this post not affecting the outcome have been edited or recreated.

    fishbulb

    • Guest
    Double Dare
    « Reply #17 on: February 12, 2010, 02:47:13 PM »
    [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.

    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.[/quote]

    Those are the same problems I had.  The show felt very cold.
    I was also unimpressed with Trebek up to that point.  You people watching it for the first time today are seeing it through a filter of decades of Trebek's hosting.  At the time, he seemed very stiff to me.   You have to remember that in The Wizard of Odds, he wasn't exactly Monty Hall.

    Don Howard

    • Member
    • Posts: 5735
    • Lurker
    Double Dare
    « Reply #18 on: February 12, 2010, 03:00:54 PM »
    [quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'235765\' date=\'Feb 12 2010, 01:23 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]
    When it was on at 11am, it was on between TPIR and Love Of Life and when moved to 10am, it anchored the line-up and was followed by TPIR.
    In my sixth year in the cornfield.

    J.R.

    • Member
    • Posts: 3900
    Double Dare
    « Reply #19 on: February 12, 2010, 04:36:55 PM »
    [quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'235777\' date=\'Feb 12 2010, 09:46 AM\']This is also one of those rare cases where a hard-quizzer came out of the Goodson stable, something he really only did well once (Winner Take All).[/quote]
    Wouldn't you consider "Blockbusters" as another moderately successful straight-quizzer?
    -Joe Raygor

    mmb5

    • Member
    • Posts: 1970
    Double Dare
    « Reply #20 on: February 12, 2010, 04:38:43 PM »
    [quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'235799\' date=\'Feb 12 2010, 04:36 PM\'][quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'235777\' date=\'Feb 12 2010, 09:46 AM\']This is also one of those rare cases where a hard-quizzer came out of the Goodson stable, something he really only did well once (Winner Take All).[/quote]
    Wouldn't you consider "Blockbusters" as another moderately successful straight-quizzer?
    [/quote]
    I don't think it had quite the difficulty level of Double Dare, but exception noted.
    Portions of this post not affecting the outcome have been edited or recreated.

    Neumms

    • Member
    • Posts: 1939
    Double Dare
    « Reply #21 on: February 13, 2010, 02:04:04 PM »
    [quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'235762\' date=\'Feb 12 2010, 12:50 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.
    [/quote]

    When it worked, that was the case, but I remember as it went on (from the most recent GSN airings, not from being home sick a couple times in the 70s) more than a few boards with 5 easies and 3 toughies. But your memory may well be better than mine. I do love the show, so it's definitely a fixable thing.

    I wonder if you could play Spoilers differently (albeit farther away from the main game) and have a board with 6 or 8 unrelated trivia questions. Same rules apply--pick the hard questions, pass easy ones and if you can stump one Spoiler four times (or three) you win the jackpot.

    Like Mike said, 1 professor, 1 celeb and Ken Jennings would be a fine panel.