Double Dare Two Thousand
MSTieScott
now...
> The set: A great updating of the original set. Looks great. The only hitches
> are that the scoreboards sometimes are a bit tricky to read in anything other
> than the sstraight-on contestant shot.
After they changed the blue team's numbers from such a dark blue to a
lighter, easier to read blue, it looked much better.
> The host: His name has already escaped my mind. Nothing special. He hosts,
> that's about it. Definitely no Marc Summers.
He gets repetitive, too. You don't need to announce what a team's score
will be if they're right before each question!
> The 'Slopstacle' Course: Not bad. Very much like the old course. I can't see
> Gum Drop as obstacle #2. I mean, there is no flag exchange.
Here's one suggestion I have, though. To replace the boring old Monkey
Bars, they created Double Helix, a set of monkey bars that twist at the
apex. My feeling is that they should drop Double Helix and instead
change Gak Factory so that it has the same concept of moving past gak
squirters, but instead of having the contestant hang there, replace the
conveyor with a set of monkey bars.
> Triple Dare Challenge: A great idea, but it wastes too much game time. I saw
> one eat up almost all of the second round. Also, some of the challenges use
> props that are way too elaborate, and slow down the game, and sometimes, the
> host wastes too much time.
I don't mind that they're making some very nice props for physical
challenges (I appreciate that they seem to have put a lot of thought
into these). I do mind that it takes so friggin' long to set up the
contestants and/or explain the challenge.
The biggest complaint that I have about DD2000 (and it is a very big
complaint) is that they waste too much time. Let's be honest. The main
draw of Double Dare has always been watching people perform silly stunts
and get slop all over them. If Double Dare were all Q&A, it never would
have lasted as long as it did and it certainly wouldn't be revived
today. The fun parts of Double Dare to watch are the physical challenges
and the obstacle course.
The current obstacle course is fine. I have no complains about that
(except the one mentioned above). For example, I like that they're now
using The Tank for something other than non-messy balloons or colored
balls (I think pouring something on the contestant, or more accurately,
having the contestant fly face-first into falling mess, is a great
addition). My biggest gripe is with the physical challenges. In the Marc
Summers days of Family Double Dare, you were almost guaranteed that you
would see two physical challenges per round. It always worked out that
way, unless some particularly bright families were on the show. In this
version, you're incredibly lucky to see two physical challenges in round
one, and you'll NEVER see two physical challenges in round two. The
reason? They waste too much time. The current host is not very good at
moving things along. Let's look at a recreation of something you're
likely to hear on the show.
Youngest member of the family assigned to blurt out answers: We'll take
the physical challenge.
Host: They're going... to take... the physical... challenge! The correct
answer was "Cheese." Come on down here for the physical challenge. All
four of you, come down here. Come on down here. Come on.
And so on. Here is the correct way to handle this situation, as
perfected by Marc.
Youngest family member: We're going to take the physical challenge.
Host: "Cheese" was the answer. All four of you, come down here for your
physical challenge. Come on down here. Come on...
The music bed will take care of letting us know that they are indeed
taking a physical challenge. This reminds me, someone needs to tell the
host that he doesn't need to read the entire question again EVERY TIME a
team dares! What happens is the team has decided what their response
will be, but they have to wait for the host to finish the other half of
the question. And if they try to interrupt him to keep the game moving,
he'll waste time by commenting on how they're wasting no time.
Like I mentioned above, they're taking way too much time to prepare us
for the physical challenges. Part of it might be setting up the
contestants in their costumes and positions (though that seems unlikely,
there are three or four stagehands doing the work of two from the
previous DD). But time just goes on and on while we hear the explanation
of the challenge in every possible detail. Like I said before, I'm glad
that they put a lot of thought (and budget) into creative physical
challenges. But when it takes a full 90 seconds to explain a 30-second
challenge, it's not worth it.
Which leads me to the Triple Dare Challenge. Great idea on paper. But
it's not being carried out very well at all. I've timed these, and on
average, it takes about *three minutes* for the challenge to be carried
out from beginning to end. That's because you've got time spent placing
contestants in their positions, lots of time spent by the host
blabbering endlessly about a pizza assembly line or the like, time spent
watching a stagehand wheel out a box, time spent listening to a prize
description, time spent listening to the host explain in excruciating
detail what the benefits and consequences are of accepting the Triple
Dare Challenge, time spent looking at the family deciding whether or not
they want to take the challenge, and then either (a) time spent
listening to the host explain that they are allowed to ignore the Triple
Dare Challenge and time spent watch the box get wheeled away, or (b)
time spent watching superfluous graphics and confetti appear and time
spent watching the host carry on about the handicap being placed on the
team because they accepted the Triple Dare Challenge. Oh yeah, and then
the thirty (or fewer!) seconds that you actually wanted to see, where
the family tries to accomplish the challenge.
Until they figure out how to shave valuable minutes off of their
explanations, DD2000 is going to be a painfully boring show. If they fix
the lag problem, then hey, we could have a great success on our hands.
--
Scott Robinson
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/9859/
P.S. I absolutely love the first round toss-up involving the toilet
racers. Cracks me up every time I see it.
Stephan Mynarkiewicz
"Jason Compton" <jcom...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote in message
news:8amus6$n5d$1...@flood.xnet.com...
> On a whim, I watched the show, just to see what had become of it...
>
> MSTieScott <mstie...@hotmailremovethis.com> wrote:
>
> : Which leads me to the Triple Dare Challenge. Great idea on paper. But
>
> ...
>
> : blabbering endlessly about a pizza assembly line or the like, time spent
> : watching a stagehand wheel out a box, time spent listening to a prize
> : description, time spent listening to the host explain in excruciating
> : detail what the benefits and consequences are of accepting the Triple
> : Dare Challenge, time spent looking at the family deciding whether or not
>
> me wrong, if you need a new VCR it would be nice to win, but let's face
> it...
The same can be said for a lot of shows (remember the grand prize on "Family
Challenge"?--likely nothing better than a bedroom set or a 27" TV).
Future Host of TPiR
first time over the weekend (well, Monday). Here's my thoughts:
The set: A great updating of the original set. Looks great. The only hitches
are that the scoreboards sometimes are a bit tricky to read in anything other
than the sstraight-on contestant shot.
The music: An interesting take on the old theme, but the sund engineer needs to
crank it up Often all I can hear is the bass.
The host: His name has already escaped my mind. Nothing special. He hosts,
that's about it. Definitely no Marc Summers.
The 'Slopstacle' Course: Not bad. Very much like the old course. I can't see
Gum Drop as obstacle #2. I mean, there is no flag exchange.
Triple Dare Challenge: A great idea, but it wastes too much game time. I saw
one eat up almost all of the second round. Also, some of the challenges use
props that are way too elaborate, and slow down the game, and sometimes, the
host wastes too much time.
More things: It has a sort of cheesy feel that some of the Nick games of late
have had. Like they are trying not to be a game show or something. Not as
severe as some others (Temple, FIO, for instance). Not a bad update on the
original, but not a great one, either.
--Josh Roehrig
COMING SOON: 'Net Super Scrabble where someone could win over $1,000,000!
Jason Compton
MSTieScott <mstie...@hotmailremovethis.com> wrote:
: Which leads me to the Triple Dare Challenge. Great idea on paper. But
...
: blabbering endlessly about a pizza assembly line or the like, time spent
: watching a stagehand wheel out a box, time spent listening to a prize
: description, time spent listening to the host explain in excruciating
: detail what the benefits and consequences are of accepting the Triple
: Dare Challenge, time spent looking at the family deciding whether or not
And all for...a VCR that would be like $120 at Best Buy? Now, don't get
me wrong, if you need a new VCR it would be nice to win, but let's face
it...
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
Jason Compton
: "Jason Compton" <jcom...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote in message
:>
:> And all for...a VCR that would be like $120 at Best Buy? Now, don't get
:> me wrong, if you need a new VCR it would be nice to win, but let's face
:> it...
: The same can be said for a lot of shows (remember the grand prize on "Family
: Challenge"?--likely nothing better than a bedroom set or a 27" TV).
I know, and it makes all of them look pretty ridiculous. The cheapie
prizes on all-kid Double Dare weren't quite so bad (because hey, if you're
on the show you're like 12 and you're not working, so it's not a bad way
to pick up a bike and a Sega Genesis), but...
Only Inquizition really manages to pull off being cheap without seeming
insulting, and that's because it's very consciously an anti-game show.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
Dell Temple
Stephan Mynarkiewicz wrote:
> "Jason Compton" <jcom...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote in message
> news:8amus6$n5d$1...@flood.xnet.com...
> > On a whim, I watched the show, just to see what had become of it...
> >
> > MSTieScott <mstie...@hotmailremovethis.com> wrote:
> >
> > : Which leads me to the Triple Dare Challenge. Great idea on paper. But
> >
> > ...
> >
> > : blabbering endlessly about a pizza assembly line or the like, time spent
> > : watching a stagehand wheel out a box, time spent listening to a prize
> > : description, time spent listening to the host explain in excruciating
> > : detail what the benefits and consequences are of accepting the Triple
> > : Dare Challenge, time spent looking at the family deciding whether or not
> >
> > And all for...a VCR that would be like $120 at Best Buy? Now, don't get
> > me wrong, if you need a new VCR it would be nice to win, but let's face
> > it...
>
> The same can be said for a lot of shows (remember the grand prize on "Family
> Challenge"?--likely nothing better than a bedroom set or a 27" TV).
Yeah, the "only" reason I ever watched/recorded "Family Challenge" was because
of Ray Combs. The prizes were cheap and many of the stunts were stupid, but Ray
made the hour memorable and worthwhile. Compared to his very popular six years
on "Family Feud", "Family Challenge" was very crappy to say the least, but it
was nice to see Ray again, (sadly, for the last time), hosting "something."
Scott Alan Temple
Richard Hudson
>Yeah, the "only" reason I ever watched/recorded "Family Challenge" was
>because
>of Ray Combs. The prizes were cheap and many of the stunts were stupid, but
>Ray
>made the hour memorable and worthwhile. Compared to his very popular six
>years
>on "Family Feud", "Family Challenge" was very crappy to say the least, but it
>was nice to see Ray again, (sadly, for the last time), hosting "something."
>
>Scott Alan Temple
>
Beat the Clock on Saturdays.
Richard Hudson