The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: 14gameshows 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.
-
[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.
-
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.
-
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 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 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 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.
-
[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.
-
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?
-
[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.
-
[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.)
-
[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
-
[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.
-
[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 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.
-
[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.
-
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
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
-
[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.
-
[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.
-
[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 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.
-
[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.