Dog Eat Dog

[clemon79]

I Tivo'd Dog Eat Dog last night. I hadn't watched it since about the third episode...the idiot contestants, combined with Brooke Burns being so wooden she should have received a plaque from the National Furniture Institute chased me away pretty quick.

I was shocked. I enjoyed it, start to finish.

No, the contestants weren't much better, but at least we didn't have a Widow or a Skyler on the panel. (I still have nightmares about that freak running on that treadmill.) And the stunts seemed to be getting away from trivia and staying more towards physical skills (although one involved picking out the actual female in a row of plus-size transvestites).

The highlight, however, was Burns. Apparently those first few episodes were just beginner's jitters, because she has turned into quite a competent host. No Dick Clark by any stretch of the imagination, but she was at least ten times more comfortable and familiar with the proceedings than she was when I was watching initially. (And that black minidress didn't hurt, either. Mmph. She seemed very much at ease, and she was enjoying herself, and was enjoying the game, instead of just standing there like a bedpost.

So I welcome comments from anyone else who tuned in last night...am I just seeing this through fresh eyes, or has it genuinely improved?

[ssjason]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 26 2003, 02:07 AM\'] So I welcome comments from anyone else who tuned in last night...am I just seeing this through fresh eyes, or has it genuinely improved? [/quote]
 I'm with you...it *has* improved, I think.  Brooke Burns has definitely turned into a competent host who is more than just a looker (though that clearly doesn't hurt either, since that's part of the reason I've been watching all along...).

The only issue that bothers me somewhat is the frequency with which they are repeating the stunts.  Almost all the stunts on Tuesday's show had been seen previously, and most done once already this season.

Oh, and by the way, be glad you didn't TiVo *last week's* episode...one of the contestants was quite Widow-esque.

Jason E.

-------
Jason Elliott
http://www.stormseeker.com
GSNN - http://www.stormseeker.com/games/

[cmjb13]

Claudia Jordan will be appearing as a contestant on July 8.

[Matt Ottinger]

My review of it hasn't changed from day one.  Love the first 50 minutes, the elaborate stunts and matching games.  Don't even mind seeing them repeated.  But I HATE the final round.  Hate it hate it hate it.  HATE it.

Even if the muscleheads could handle the preposterously easy trivia questions, it's a horrible design for a quiz, much less the all-important Grand Finale.  The survivor of the competition, who by rights should have a certain amount of control over the outcome, can only sit back and hope that the other players miss.  That's passive TV on an otherwise active show.  Also, of course, the big money is won when a player is WRONG.

I'd like to see some final stunt for the same stakes where the champ has to accomplish some task while being thwarted by the other five.  That would seem to be keeping with the spirit of the rest of the game.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jun 26 2003, 08:11 AM\'] But I HATE the final round.  Hate it hate it hate it.  HATE it.
 [/quote]
 I agree...to a point. Certainly I agree it's not all that strong of a round. BUT:

The survivor of the competition, who by rights should have a certain amount of control over the outcome, can only sit back and hope that the other players miss.  That's passive TV on an otherwise active show.  Also, of course, the big money is won when a player is WRONG.

And here's that point: this isn't all THAT horribly out of line with the overall stated theme of the show. The concept is exploiting the weaknesses of the other players, right? \"It's time to choose the loser\" and all that? Really, for the whole hour, these people are betting on each other to fail. Same thing in the final round. Supposively, these people spent the last day together, and an observant player should have picked up over the course of that day what subject matter a certain opponent might be stronger in. Mental weaknesses to be exploited when deciding who gets what question, just as physical weaknesses are observed and exploited when voting in the front game.

Are there holes? Gawd, yes. A player can be ejected from the game without having the opportunity to perform a single stunt, and then might not even get PICKED in the final round, all because they voted someone into a stunt they ended up completing. That's certainly a crock. But I still maintain the presentation of the show has improved dramatically.

[Brig Bother]

Mmm, the old final round thing. This was the bone of contention in the Brit show too. Me? I didn't mind it, as Chris has said, it is in keeping with the show (and let's not forget also that the Brit show had a far more cerebral feel to it, only one of the elimination challenges would be purely physical, the others testing mathematical ability, language skills, logic and so on) but I think it could have been made more interesting if the Top Dog got to see and/or choose the categories in advance to give them more of an advantage rather than having to play off the top of thier heads (I assume you have a similar system? Category comes up and the Top Dog has to choose who is going to answer a question on it but without knowing what else is coming up?)

[beatlefreak84]

I agree; I think it's gotten a whole lot better as well.  I remember watching it last summer (there really wasn't anything else on, so I watched all the eps.) and then comparing it to now, and the show has definitely gotten a lot better in its execution.

However, there are still some things that have to be improved.  For example, how many 20-somethings are there?  If game shows are supposed to represent the population, why not get a 30-something or even a 40-something?  Also, can't they get one guy who doesn't look like he's on steroids or one girl who can't be the next Christie Brinkley?

Brooke's hosting is definitely improved over last year (she actually is getting off the cue cards a little bit), and I love the fact that she actually has tried some of the stunts at the top of the show.  One thing I keep wondering:  do they tell the contestants that they can't push or take her into the water upon celebration of a win?  I was thinking along the lines of what they used to do on Double Dare with Marc; kids/families, especially later on, used to take him and dunk him in slime, water, etc.  IMO, her outfits are skimpy enough, so I don't think they'd reveal anymore than is already showing when she's dry!  

However, unlike lots of people, I don't have that much of a problem with the final round.  I really don't care who wins; I mainly watch it to see which contestant(s) get to be jackass(es) of the week, and it's ESPECIALLY funny when they act like they know what they're doing and then say something so ridiculously wrong that you wonder how they ever got through high school?

But, yeah, that's my opinion on \"Dog Eat Dog.\"  The ratings, BTW, are a little down from last year and still losing to that crap kid spinoff of \"Idol,\" but don't be surprised if we see it again next summer.

Anthony

[uncamark]

Mmm, the old final round thing. This was the bone of contention in the Brit show too. Me? I didn't mind it, as Chris has said, it is in keeping with the show (and let's not forget also that the Brit show had a far more cerebral feel to it, only one of the elimination challenges would be purely physical, the others testing mathematical ability, language skills, logic and so on) but I think it could have been made more interesting if the Top Dog got to see and/or choose the categories in advance to give them more of an advantage rather than having to play off the top of thier heads (I assume you have a similar system? Category comes up and the Top Dog has to choose who is going to answer a question on it but without knowing what else is coming up?)

Exactly the same on the U.S. version--the only difference being that on your version, the category appeared on a plain old monitor.  On our version, it's the Circuit City giant screen.  (For our UK friends, Circuit City is a chain of appliance and electronics stores.)  We also have the NetZero ISP clock timing the rounds.  Ain't product placement wonderful?

[Michael Brandenburg]

For example, how many 20-somethings are there? If game shows are supposed to represent the population, why not get a 30-something or even a 40-something?

   Well, I don't know about the male contestants, but I have a pretty good idea why they would want only 20-something female contestants:

   How many women over 30 these days are still really willing to wear a skimpy bikini while attempting one of the show's \"pool\" challenges??


   Michael Brandenburg
   (And would they be willing to take them off if they were called upon to play \"Strip Golf\" or \"Strip Football,\" two of the challenges that were on the show in the past?)

[Brig Bother]

Fair enough.

I've yet to see the US show, although I've read quite a bit about it. I thought the UK show was incredibly underrated - not without its flaws certainly, mainly the fact that many of the challenges were too easy - but I thought it was fun and entertaining and the mental nature of most of the games meant the show had a natural play along at home factor.

I bet David Bodycombe will come here now and disagree. He'll be wrong though.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Jun 26 2003, 03:22 PM\'] We also have the NetZero ISP clock timing the rounds.  Ain't product placement wonderful? [/quote]
 Maybe we can arrange a deal with Fear Factor: would you rather see Comcast Cable or AT&T buy the naming rights to the infamous 'Chuck Bucket?

[Matt Ottinger]

the mental nature of most of the games meant the show had a natural play along at home factor.

That seems to be the biggest difference between the UK show and the US one, and it's major.  Most of the games in the US version are elaborately staged physical challenges.  Maybe once a show there's an observational matching game of some sort (match the eightysomething woman with her 1940s pin-up photo was a personal favorite), and even rarer, there's occasionally a Q&A associated with one of the challenges.  The only regular Q&A is the final round, which plays exactly like yours.  Problem is, the questions are usually pretty easy but the contestants, chosen for their looks and physical ability, can't handle them.

In other words, the vast majority of the play along at home factor has been sucked right out of the US version.  It's still fun to watch, but that important element is definitely missing.

[tommycharles]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jun 26 2003, 08:29 PM\'] That seems to be the biggest difference between the UK show and the US one, and it's major.  Most of the games in the US version are elaborately staged physical challenges.  Maybe once a show there's an observational matching game of some sort (match the eightysomething woman with her 1940s pin-up photo was a personal favorite), and even rarer, there's occasionally a Q&A associated with one of the challenges.  The only regular Q&A is the final round, which plays exactly like yours.  Problem is, the questions are usually pretty easy but the contestants, chosen for their looks and physical ability, can't handle them.

In other words, the vast majority of the play along at home factor has been sucked right out of the US version.  It's still fun to watch, but that important element is definitely missing. [/quote]
 ...and the US version seems to be the only version of the show to do that. I saw a page with pictures of the Aussie version not too long ago (don't ask me to recall it), and they followed the UK version exactly, with similar challenges, and the set and logo were the same.

[MCArroyo1]

Brooke's hosting is definitely improved over last year (she actually is getting off the cue cards a little bit)

Yes, she has.  From PARADE magazine, Brooke Burns describes the tapings for this summer's shows:

Dog Eat Dog is a one-hour, prime-time studio game show whose audience, Brooke said, is \"mostly teen.\" Six contestants compete for a $25,000 prize as they take on a battery of brains-and-brawn tests involving a 30-foot tower and a 300,000-gallon swim tank. Each episode takes a full day to shoot. \"It's a lot of fun,\" Brooke said. \"Our set is huge. And I have a room where I can go to relax between takes and go over my notes to make sure I get the contestants' names right.\"

But what has Brooke really excited about this summer is: no cue cards or scripts. \"We got rid of the TelePrompTer,\" she said. \"I just ad-lib.\"

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'MCArroyo1\' date=\'Jul 14 2003, 07:22 PM\'] "We got rid of the TelePrompTer," she said. "I just ad-lib." [/quote]
 Well NO WONDER.

Best favor they could have done the kid. It's nice to see someone given credit for having an ounce of talent WHILE AT THE SAME TIME looking damned hot in a black minidress.