The Game Show Forum > The Big Board

Dog Eat Dog

(1/4) > >>

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:


--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page