Play the game of Double Dare

[14gameshows]

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???

[TLEberle]

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.

[sshuffield70]

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.

[Don Howard]

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.

[TLEberle]

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.

[14gameshows]

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?

[clemon79]

[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.

[TLEberle]

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.

[clemon79]

[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?

[TLEberle]

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.

[Jimmy Owen]

Well, since Dr. Doty was a virtual regular and he seldom missed, he probably pocketed a good sum over the course of the show.

[Ian Wallis]

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

[GS Warehouse]

[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?

[The Ol' Guy]

..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.

[TLEberle]

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.