Trivia fans have another reason to be happy as ABC’s new quiz show, Duel, kicks off its six episode run all this week at 8PM ET with the finale on Sunday at 8PM ET. Described as trivia with elements of strategy (barely any at all) and poker (none at all), players have to answer trivia questions by placing chips on what they think is the right answer. Chips on wrong answers go into the pot which builds over the course of the tournament and will award someone with over a million dollars by the end. Run out of chips or give one wrong answer and you’re gone.
So far the few reviews of this show (ABC really wouldn’t hand out advanced screener copies of the show unlike Bingo Night or any other show they’ve done which isn’t a good sign ever) have been less than positive, but the thing to remember is that’s a relatively enjoyable little trivia show for big prizes. ABC blew it out of proportion a bit, but it’s still fun. And if you want in on the fun, ABC has something for you.
They’ve launched a new Duel online game where you can play by yourself or “against” someone else. I put quotes around it because all you’re doing is trying to last as many questions as someone else does. I figured it would have been like the show but sadly it’s not. You can really get a feel for how the show plays with it. Be sure to tell us what you think about the show tonight, and we’ll have a bigger response on Thursday…..
Because, you guessed it, I’m off to New York again to keep plugging my show. Things are going well, though. I know I’ve promised you details on how to do this sort of thing, and I’m sorry that I’ve shirked it. I’ve shirked it basically because I’ve been completely shambolic recently and keep pushing it back. However, this time we’re bringing a video camera and I’m hoping to get some video for you of my escapades. We’ll also have a Mark L. Walberg interview this week, so stay tuned.
58 Responses
Chris
1December 17th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
I guess my local ABC affiliate has as much faith in Duel as you do Alex, as they have opted out of airing Duel in the local market. :(
Dan
2December 17th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
These breaks are killing any flow. While I love the game format (tournament format is HORRID!! Winner stays?? awful) But these breaks need to be between questions, not questions to answers.
scott
3December 17th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
this game sucks just like set for life flop flop
Ryan
4December 17th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I haven’t seen the show yet (Live on the West Coast) but I’ve been playing the online game, and I’m curious: Does ANYONE know how to press in this game? I know it can be done, because I’ve been on the wrong side of a press, but I can’t find a button for it or anything.
Neville
5December 17th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Ryan: In the online game, the computer randomly presses you in both solo and multiplayer games. You can’t press.
On the show: Ugh. What we saw tonight should’ve happened in 45 minutes tops. I like the basic game idea, but in my opinon, the tournament structure is extremely flawed. What if you’re the last player? Sorry! You can only play in one game - hope you didn’t want to make the Sunday finals! I do like that winners can leave with something - but I think that a standard 16 person single elimination would have been best. And as far as the host goes, I don’t know whether I don’t like him or I don’t like the production staff, but they need to just move the damn game along.
David
6December 17th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
I liked this show. The gameplay is solid and Greeny does a grear hosting job. They just need to cut back on the commercials.
Chris
7December 18th, 2007 at 12:48 am
anyone know if someone going to list it on Youtube as my local ABC affiliate is refusing to air the show
steve
8December 18th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Oh dear… yet another show falls pray to the curse of “Excellent Gameplay, Terrible Execution” syndrome. I love the game itself. I think it’s a really great blend of strategy and knowledge, and you never know what your opponent knows (Example 1: Peppers).
But where did it all go wrong? Someone screwed up in the process.
1. The host. I felt. That the host. Whatever his name is. Just seemed. To talk. On and on. And in. Phrases that were. Rarely more than. Five words long. It got. Really difficult. To bear with. (Get my point? I found him to be an okay host. He had a great sense of humor, and knew when to use it, but as for his “Speech. Impediment.”, that was just terrible.)
2. The tourney. Does this make sense to anybody here? I’m assuming that the last four people in the “leaders’ chairs,” “top seats,” whatever they called them, will be the only people playing in Sunday’s show. Could someone explain this a bit more for me? The scoreboard idea isn’t bad, but they’ve totally used it incorrectly. Like Neville mentioned above, it really shafts anyone who only gets to play one game before they call time. And does this mean that people who were knocked out in a duel are all of a sudden able to get back in the game again? Terrible! What happened to one-mistake-and-you’re-out?
What would I do differently? Well, *IF* I were to keep in the 4-seat format, I would give any winning contestant the option to play another duel OR take the seat right then and their. Anyone in the top 4 seats would be safe from a duel, unless if they get bumped out by a higher-ranking player, or if there is only one player left not in the four seats. *IF* I could just nix the 4-seat format though, I’d kill it off in a heartbeat. Although I might keep the leaderboard around though, just to show who’s boss.
3. The continuity. Again, Neville summed it up pretty well, this should have been a 45-minute affair. Commercial time nowadays is just getting ridiculous, almost to the point of insulting. (Even moreso for me, since I hate the taste of cola. Please stop shoving nasty cola ads down my throat, I will not buy your product, the ads are just futile.) And the host dragged out the game so much as well (Example 2: “Just get on with it!” “Yeah, really!”), which I’m sure was moreso the fault of the producers, to make it last over six freaking nights. Truth be told, I’ll be out tomorrow night, and working Wednesday through Sunday, so I will feel no guilt over taping this and watching it later, skipping all the rubbish.
4. The bank. Lemme ask this… if all 20 chips were removed from a duel (due to both contestants missing a question), shouldn’t that mean that $100k should be added to the pot? No no, instead, we only add in the chips from the showdown… a $65k loss. Uh… check please? All of a sudden, it seems like this “guaranteed million-dollar-plus jackpot” is turning into the “million-dollar-plus, but only if you don’t suck jackpot.” (Granted, they show enough preview clips that we know that it does reach over $1m, but still, it seems like they’re cheaping out here. Ooh, that reminds me…)
5. Preview clips. Who needs the 45 minutes to watch the episode, when you saw the entire tourney in 2.
But you wanna know one definite saving grace of this show? I’ve never really found myself able to feel for the contestants of many shows before, but this show had me really emoting with them. From the anguish of the first contestant (who, I’m sorry, but this must be said, looked and almost acted like an Anne Robinson clone, sans the hair color), to the tearful joy of the student who won her match, I really felt like these were contestants I could pull for. I even found myself strategizing out loud with the attorney as to who to pick next. Also, to contradict something Alex said in another “Duel” posting, I actually rather like the “screen down” thing… Some of the contestants’ reactions to what their opponents chose are pretty funny. (But the “screens up?” That could go.)
My verdict? Good show. I’ll tape it. And watch it later. And skip over. All the commercials. With some tweaking. This could be. A better format. And hopefully. It could be. Picked up regularly. Oh, and a with a different host who knows how to speak in full sentences.
Darren
9December 18th, 2007 at 1:48 am
[Steve:]
—
All of a sudden, it seems like this “guaranteed million-dollar-plus jackpot” is turning into the “million-dollar-plus, but only if you don’t suck jackpot.”
—
I though we were tired of giving a million dollars to people who suck? Or at least who don’t have to do anything.
The questions were good and hard, which is what’s necessary here. Hard enough that you can’t just put one chip out every time. You’re always a little bit unsure, and while you might have always wished you could occasionally pick two answers on Millionaire, if you’re going to make that the peg you hang your show from, you need to adjust the questions accordingly.
Liked the contestants for the most part. I am amused that Marco is the only one who has actually left the show so far. I wonder what they’ll do when three others beat Sue and Denise, who are tied. Will they sit on one chair in the leaderboard gallery? Sudden-death it for the remaining position?
But holy
crap
hurry
up.
When you get to make your game show, Alex, could you remind people that going to commercial to screw with the contestants’ heads is suspenseful only for the first small handful of times you do it? Managing to get through half a question between breaks is a touch much. Thanks.
Ryan
10December 18th, 2007 at 2:47 am
The commercials seem to be the only issue to me. They aren’t THAT bad, IMO, just a bit forced. Greeny’s an excellent host to me. Very Jeevesy, but can make a laugh when he tries. I hope this thing hits some form of syndication after the weeklong affair.
Martin
11December 18th, 2007 at 5:11 am
I am going to do my typical review of new game shows:
1. The Host - He is a so-so host. I mean I can see where he tried to put in some personality, but it really didn’t seem genuine to me. I also was growing every so tired of him drawing out the answers to the point where it is no longer suspenseful it is just annoying. Just a little bit too much dribble for me. I think I am going to give him a chance to the end of the week before I sign him off. Let’s just say I think he is better than Bob Sagat on 1 v 100 even pre-2008 and Drew Carey on the Price is Right.
2. The Format - I think I like the formating of the show. I like the fact the show has questions that are challenging and are not about just randomly picking numbers like so many big money shows have become lately. The only thing I do not like is the tournament format. I think the leaderboard the way it is is kinda ridiculous. If they are going to do that I agree with Steve they should choose to stop and risk their chance in the final championship or continue on. I don’t think that you should be there just because you won the duel. Other than that I kinda like the game format. Also, there were people saying that there is no stragety in this game…but I think there is are different ones you can use. Clearly, the poker aspect they were playing up is not there but who cares? Also I love the ‘Pressed’ part of the show. That makes it even more thrilling.
3. The Set - I like the set. To me it is really Weakest Link meets Millionaire, but I was a huge fan of both of those game shows. I wish the new contestants didn’t have to cross a bridge to get to the set, but other than that good work on the set.
4. The Music - The music is not very suspensful. I think that a small change in the music would add a good level of suspense to the show.
5. Overall View/Rating - If I had to rate the show on a scale of 1 -10 I would give it a 8.5. I think it is a solid format and can only get better. PLEAE stop saying screen up. “Let’s look at the next question.” is just fine. Let’s just hope that ABC doesn’t run another good show (e.g. Millionaire) to the point that it starts to lose viewers like wildflowers. AND NO CELEBRITIES PLEASE!!!!
I am just glad that is is not another number based game.
Does anyone remember that show that Dick Clark hosted during the Millionaire era on CBS where they had to choose the numbers and the answers.If so let me know. P.S. I think they should bring that game back. This would be a better time.
John Moss
12December 18th, 2007 at 5:12 am
Even with all of its faults, this is still ABC’s best gamer since Millionaire. It was nice to see questions that actually required thought. Greeny could’ve done a helluva lot worse (Rossi Morreale, anybody?). If they can just can the excess commercials and liven it up a little, we may have a viable candidate for syndication.
Cosmic Jester
13December 18th, 2007 at 5:23 am
Gotta love the writers’ strike stretching the show so much, eh?
Darren, from the way the leaderboard looks, the first player to sit with X dollars takes the top spot. So the way things stand right now, Denise gets bumped off the leader chairs first, then Sue.
It’s Greeny’s first outing. Remember Drew was quite stilted the first time out on Power of 10, then warmed as he went. I appreciate his dry humor.
There’s one brilliant thing about the tournament setup; the games will get progressively more challenging to win as the tournament goes on. Why? It’s simple… early on, are you *really* going to pick that software engineer? And actually, there is a bit of a bluff element in the game. All you have to do is look completely stumped on something you’re dead sure about, let your opponent hit the Press, then lock in your sure thing. Ta-da! They’ve blown one of their helps and will likely not want to use the other one.
Sam
14December 18th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Martin, the show was called Winning Lines.
Tim
15December 18th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I really liked the show and I’ll second the sentiment about the commercials. They ruined the flow of the game. I know you gotta pay for it somehow, but that seems like it just ruined the flow.
Other than that, I REALLY LIKED THE GAME! No money ladder, woo-hoo! The set was great. I liked Greeney as the host (If he’d stop playing with his pen).
That’s it. No long review.
Score: 8 of 10 (lost 1.8 points because of commercials!)
SEAN
16December 18th, 2007 at 11:07 am
SCREEN UP! What do i think of this show?
A. poor
B. Fair
C. good
D. great i love it
YOU HAVE BEEN PRESSED, YOU HAVE 7 SECONDS MAX!
SCREEN DOWN!
“D”
Just move a little faster, that is the only thing that is an issue.
LONG LIVE GREENY!
Scott
17December 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Finally, a show worthy of ABC (and Greeny is good). If you don’t like the commercial breaks (annoying as they are), buy a TiVo machine and skip through them.
Not sure I get the tournament format yet. I think once the leaders’ chair folks get knocked off, they are gone for good. I like the idea of rewarding quicker and better wins. Lots of strategy there. And contestants have last names at least if they win….and they get money unless it’s a Showdown.
I believe Greeny is playing with his glasses, not a pen, but I could be wrong. He fits easily into the role and understands the game, does a good job of conveying the rules and what’s at stake. And, like all good hosts, he makes the game aboutthe contestants and not himself. He cannot help the commercial breaks.
Don’t judge this on one airing. Great playalong value and good, hard trivia. No silly Millionaire-esque $100 questions here.
Best head-to-head game concept since Twenty-One. Would easily work in syndication for a head to head, returning champ format. Could develop a bonus round with a limited number of chips, time-limited per question.
Lots of potential here.
Ohio Wx Man
18December 18th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Excellent show! Greenberg has always been a huge fan of game shows and this is perfect for him…
It is nice to watch a show I can play along with… As Scott above said, this is by far the best head-to-head game since Twenty-One. ABC has done a great job on bringing this show to us. It will be a wonderful sweeps week show next year.
Ohio Wx Man
19December 18th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
And the software engineer is from right here in Dayton so you know who I am rooting for!
David Howell
20December 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
While I’m from the UK and thus haven’t seen the full thing, this sounds like a neat concept, with the odd flaw in execution, and my hopes are reasonably high for the UK adaptation.
It’s not quite as strategic as it thinks it is, but nor is it lacking in strategy; it’s not as original as it thinks it is, but nor is it utterly derivative; and thanks to the preview clips, we know it’s going to produce the biggest winner of this era of game shows thus far, and on one of the few shows where a huge win is actually earned too.
I predict this to be used as a sweeps tool to fill the 8/7c hour for a week every sweeps period at least until new scripted programming comes on stream.
davec
21December 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
The ratings are in, and Duel was in basically a 3-way tie at 8pm with a 5.0 rating for the first hour. The final half hour wasn’t fully availible. That probably translates to about 6-7 million viwers.
Not horrible, but, definitely not scintillating.
Compared to last year, when Identity averaged around 8-9 million viewers, and two years ago when DOND lit it up with 14 million viewers in its best night, Duel is certainly off to a slow start.
myke25
22December 18th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
1) I thought Greeny did a competent job hosting and should only get better. I think he’d be a good candidate if they ever bring back Pyramid.
2) I kinda like the tournament format…for this week. It’ll be interesting to see what they do if it gets picked up for a full season.
3) I liked the actual game play. Nice mix of knowledge and strategy. Hate the limited use of last names. And the poorly-timed commercial breaks got real old real fast. When you piss players off in the first show, that’s a problem.
4) Contestant selection has this “Running Man” vibe that kinda creeps me out. The guy from Kentucky looks like Lurch.
5) I like the set, but there’s nothing there that really sets it apart from the other big money shows except the bridge…and I hate the bridge.
I’ll give it another try tonight…on TiVo…after I watch this morning’s TPIR. It’s not like there much else on.
DP
23December 18th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Great idea - I love it.
But.
So.
Very.
Very.
Slow.
Speed up - and it’s a great program.
CarShark
24December 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Jeez, Davis. I knew you haven’t liked the show from jump street, but to say that there’s little strategy or poker aspect? Wow. Really makes me wonder whether you actually watched the show.
Scott Meckley
25December 18th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
just in case people are wondering I went to zap2it.com and Duel scored 5.0/8 just thought many of you might want to know in case you are wondering.
Mike Horan
26December 18th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
My only changes would be an all or nothing rule meaning that the winner can bank their money and go to the chairs or risk it all and continue playing. My second change would be a no harm, no foul rule if both contestants get the wrong answer meaning that the game continues instead of a sudden death worth no money. Greenie, in my opinion, is too serious of a host and needs to be a bit more personable. He does not have to crack a joke every two minutes but he should take a page from the book of Dick Clark and be serious but personable at the same time. This game show is not cruel like Weakest Link so he does not have to be serious. This is my first post so I apologize for my stupidity but I just wanted to throw in my opinion.
Chris Parsley
27December 18th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
The ratings are in, and Duel was in basically a 3-way tie at 8pm with a 5.0 rating for the first hour. The final half hour wasn’t fully availible. That probably translates to about 6-7 million viwers.
Not horrible, but, definitely not scintillating.
Compared to last year, when Identity averaged around 8-9 million viewers, and two years ago when DOND lit it up with 14 million viewers in its best night, Duel is certainly off to a slow start.
Yes but DonD or Identity wasn’t up against the challenge of the choirs heavily hyped by NBC either splitting the viewership…
To Mike, the UK version taped of Duel is precisely what you suggest, a run and keep what you got, or keep going. Win 5 duels you win their jackpot, which starts at 100,000quid, or keep what you won and bye-bye.
Scott Meckley
28December 18th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I am watching Duel right now. I think this is a very interesting games not in my top `10 or 20 but it is very entertaining and the pressure button is cool. Greeny I think does a good job on this but he reminds me of the Weakest Link without the mean jokes meaning he is too serious although this is a very tense and exciting game. Maybe he will crack a joke though or two but you have to understand as far as I know this is his first gameshow. i probably wouldn’t be too great on my first gameshow unless it was Card Sharks or Deal. I like the fact that sometimes you don’t know everything about a contestant which is pretty cool. I think that Greeny will get better but i think he is good.
steve
29December 19th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Darren:
I guess I forgot to mention this, but I actually love the difficulty of the questions. There were questions that I knew right from the get-go and they spent all four chips on, there were questions I hadn’t the slightest idea on and a contestant nailed it in one chip. The variety of questions is broad enough that it seriously is true that anyone could win it. It really does depend on the individual player, and what they know or don’t know.
And now that I think of it, one other bonus point that comes from that is that the show is extremely play-along-able. I know that I was definitely thinking through my strategy for each question and deciding which choices I would have put chips on. I think that next time I watch this show, I’ll actually play along on paper to see how I’d fare. (Admittedly, I also would have been knocked out of the competition on the first question of the show, but…)
Chris
30December 19th, 2007 at 1:23 am
I thought the show was quite well done, myself. Sure, it could use fewer of those DOND style cliff-hangers, but other than that I liked it.
I know my opinion my not be as detailed as the rest of yours, but then again, I’m just a common person with an opinion, and better things to do than be snobbish.
And for those of you who complained about not being able to see the episodes, you could just go to abc.com, then click on “full episodes”, and then watch the show right on the net.
Oh, you need broadband, though…
Bryan Hayes
31December 19th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Here’s my take:
Mike Greenberg is a pretty good rookie host; not great IMO but waaaaay much better than (ugh) Mr. Poster-Boy-For-Style-Versus-Substance Rossi Morreale. He has a good broadcast resume under his belt, which gives him good training ground for being a succesful host. Now I know what Wink Martindale was talking about when he endorsed Greeny.
The game itself plays very well; it’s not overly exciting but it is interesting to select more than one possible answer to a question. And it’s about time that there was a tournament-styled game show in prime time.
However, I take issue with the contestant selections; it seems pointless to select your own opponent randomly. Why can’t they just pair up the players based on their personality?
Overall, not great but at least it ain’t Set For Life (or for that matter, National Bingo Night).
Tim
32December 19th, 2007 at 1:44 am
My take on night 2:
The questions seemed to keep coming and it seemed a little quicker-paced (maybe cause I Tivo’d it and didn’t watch it live). I still wish we could just get rid of those DOND cliff-hanger breaks… If I’m watching the show, I’m not going anywhere whether it is to see the next question or to see the answer. I still maintain that it breaks up the show too much.
They need to get the bank situation straightened out… either put the money in and show it everytime players lose chips OR wait until the end of a duel and add it all at once. Personally, I think it should jump after each question when Mike says “and XX,XXX goes into the pot.”
I still like Greeney for the host of this. I know some people have said he’s too serious, but I think I disagree. He’s popping a few jokes here and there. And remember, it’s only his first couple of times hosting the game. Only one way to go… UP!
That’s all. Will watch the rest of the week for sure! (And correct me if I’m wrong, they’re only hour-long the rest of the week, right?)
Ben
33December 19th, 2007 at 3:50 am
I agree with most of the comments. Loved the format, hated the pauses and commercial teases, etc. I like Mike, but I’m still not sure of why he’s holding a pen. Perhaps he got hosting advice from Bob Dole…HA! I didn’t think much of the Pressure button at first, but my opinion on that changed. I liked the money going into the jackpot all at once after the duel, though.
The biggest problem to me so far, is something that was said tonight. Apparently “The Green” said something to the effect that due to the random selection of possible contestants, some of them may not even have the chance to duel. If it was me, and I was there for a long day of taping (or multiple days), and I didn’t get a chance. I’d be ticked off. I hope that this was an erroneous statement and that everybody gets a chance to play. Although, as stated before, I do feel sorry for the last player, as they will have to play extremely aggressive to keep their chips so they have a chance at the leaderboard.
Otherwise, an enjoyable show that I would like to see more of.
Mark
34December 19th, 2007 at 4:03 am
I love this show! Finally, a smart prime time game show, after the rash of idiot games started by DOND. I agree with one of the above comments - this game has definite strategy to it (more than any other prime time game show as of late). This show is so much better than 1 vs 100, which, let’s face it, gets extremely boring after the first five questions or so (who’s going to risk their $200,000 for a shot at maybe knocking out one more player from the mob?). Players are forced to go all the way, which results in every match having an interesting and often unpredictable outcomes. I should also say that it is about time we had a competition game show in prime time! I mean, Millionaire, DOND, Identity, Greed…they were all about one person or one team going for the top prize. I think a battle for the best is infinitely more exciting. THANK YOU ABC! PLEASE PICK THIS SHOW UP FOR A FULL SEASON!
Darren
35December 19th, 2007 at 4:07 am
With a fixed number of players — and I can see this thing having been taped on a single day, though I couldn’t be certain — it does make sense that some people will be left over.
I think the ending will go like this. Let’s say that low person on the leaderboard has three wins to their credit. A contestant wins her first duel late in the proceedings and there are four people left in the gallery. Even to be eligible to unseat LPotLb, she needs three wins (plus at least as much money banked as LPotLb). If she accomplishes that, we stop. No one else can get onto the leaderboard because there aren’t enough opponents left to beat.
Does it suck for the leftovers? Yes. But they also had more opportunities to be picked by the champion than anyone else. We are going to be sick of seeing the same names again and again by the time we get to four left. :)
Would anyone in their right mind pick Software Engineer Guy? Unless they had no choice? Bring me The Taxidermist’s Assistant*!!!
* (who used to be a brain surgeon until he told them to stuff it because he decided he didn’t like hospitals)
Alex Davis
36December 19th, 2007 at 8:50 am
“Jeez, Davis. I knew you haven’t liked the show from jump street, but to say that there’s little strategy or poker aspect?”
You know it’s really not a shock that you had to have some smart comment towards me, but I’m just curious what poker aspect you see. It has chips, whoopie. Lots of things have chips and aren’t like poker. I’ll give you a tiny bit of strategy, whatever. There’s no poker element beyond you place a chip on a table.
And I gave the show a fair shot. However, it’s really boring, I felt Greenberg was horribly underused for the thing, the tournament format is broken, and there’s no element of risk involved beyond placing a chip here or there. I tried, and I just did not like it.
SEAN
37December 19th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Alex, to paraphrase greeny’s book title why are you an idiot. The show is one of the best programs i have seen in years.
LONG LIVE THE GREEN MAN!
Listen to his morning show on ESPN RADIO, i do every day
Alex Davis
38December 19th, 2007 at 11:25 am
How am I an idiot? I didn’t say he was a bad host. He’s given awful awful lines to say and is being severely underused. His talents are not working out because they are not letting him. The issues with the show for me are beyond him. He’s one of the few saving graces. There are bigger issues that hold it from being very nice.
Eric
39December 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
After 2 nights of the tournament
1. Mike Greenberg did as expected, complete with his smart-aleckyness, IMHO.
2. Commercial Breaks could go a bit smoother and less predictable, however I did like when the contestants complained he said “Just for that, We’re going to commercial.”
3. Yes the tournament structure is a little flawed. This could be fixed.
4. I’d like to see how this would be as a regular series. instead of a sunday finals maybe an x#s of duels to win the jackpot.
5. This is definately the best British import since Millionaire.
Chris
40December 19th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Alex there is a poker element to this which isnt the chips… You can bluff your opponent to using more chips and/or wasting a press on you (granted the idiots we had so far haven’t done that) but for example look like u dont have a clue, get your opponent to notice and press you, and then lock in the one answer that is correct (of course do when u know it yourself!)
davec
41December 19th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Tuesday nights ratings are in: ABC’s “Duel,” 4.6/8, came in third in time slot.
At this rate, most of our comments might be moot, since I don’t know that ABC will bring it back, barring really needing shows if the writers strike goes into the summer. Duel could be a good syndie strip though I’d think. I’d get rid of the “tournament” aspect though, and just have it be that the winner gets to keep Dueling as long as they can win. I would suspect though that a syndie version would be $1000 per chip value that they have in hand at the time of a win though, although if someone was able to be on the show for a long time, they’d rack up a lot after awhile (probably $5-10,000 per win), somewhat smaller average $$ per win than Jeopardy, but, still pretty good.
As for the poker comments, I have to agree with Alex, the poker aspect is a bit weak, considering how the rules are. Bluffing and chips by themselves isn’t “poker”.
It would have been much more like poker if instead of the current rules, that instead the game is a set number of questions (lets say 5). On each turn, you play as many of your chips on any of the answers as you wanted (so, you could play 3 chips on B, and 2 chips on C, etc), and you lose the chips on wrong answers, and you win what you put on right answers (so, if you put 5 chips on answer B, and its right, you’d get your 5 chips back, plus 5 more chips). You’d play all 5 questions and the person ahead after 5 questions wins, or if someone loses all their chips before then, the game is over. If after 5 questions it is tied, you keep playing until someone is ahead after the question. The game could otherwise be the same (lock in button, “press” button, which would be like calling time in poker), but, you’d actually have a “betting” aspect, especially when you get down to the 4th & 5th questions, which would make it much more like poker.
shelly
42December 19th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
As for the poker comments, I have to agree with Alex, the poker aspect is a bit weak, considering how the rules are. Bluffing and chips by themselves isn’t “poker”. (davec)
What about the ability to “read” a player? That’s a crucial element of poker — if not THE most crucial one. That’s the poker element the game is using (not so much the chips or bluffing).
Anyway. Personally, I like this show. Just tweak the cliffhangers a bit (my only qualm about it now).
Intelligentfan777
43December 20th, 2007 at 12:42 am
I realize the reviews are mixed so far, but for the most part it seems like it’s a very good show. Yes, execution could be a little better, but it’s still one of the better games we’ve seen recently!
Ed Toutant
44December 20th, 2007 at 1:04 am
For those who expressed concern that the last winner on Friday might not have enough wins to qualify for Sunday’s final, reliable sources tell me that there is a procedure in place that gives that person a chance to become one of the final four. I don’t know exactly how it works, but at least the producers have addressed this possibility.
It would be nice if the viewers knew all the rules in advance, so it doesn’t look as if they are making them up as they go along. As far as I know, we were never told that a player must quit after four wins and that anyone with four wins is automatically guaranteed to be in the final — until Greenberg mentioned that little rule at the start of the car dealer’s fourth game. I wonder if that was known to the contestants in advance. And I wonder what would happen if five people all finished with four wins.
John S.
45December 20th, 2007 at 1:56 am
I only catch a bit of the show, and I sort of liked it, but I just don’t like the same ol’ “going to commercial” tease since “Deal or No Deal” already killed the joke. Just a little trivia, was Jim Perry from “Card Sharks” was the first to use that kind of joke?
Darren
46December 20th, 2007 at 4:53 am
[Ed Toutant:]
As far as I know, we were never told that a player must quit after four wins and that anyone with four wins is automatically guaranteed to be in the final — until Greenberg mentioned that little rule at the start of the car dealer’s fourth game.
—
I don’t think that’s a rule; I think that’s math.
Robert’s third duel was the ninth game. When he won it, he had three wins and 14 players left in the gallery. That’s enough people for four winners to come in and possibly beat his finish with three wins each and more money.
If he had won the fourth duel, there would be 13 left, and that’s not enough to produce four better scores to push him out. With a fourth win, the tournament would end before he could be unseated.
Marc
47December 20th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
I think “Duel” should be EITHER a winner-stays-on game OR a tournament, not both. In the winner-stays-on format, any duelist who wins five duels claims the jackpot (just like the forthcoming British version).
As for a tournament format, I posted this idea at abc.com:
I’m imagining a 64-player tourney played over 4 weeks and 20 episodes. Each week consists of four heats and a Friday final. Each episode features 3 duels. Two duelists (randomly selected from the gallery) will play the first duel, and two different duelists will play the second. The winners of those two duels will face off in the third duel, and the winner of that duel will take a seat in the winners’ box and come back on Friday.
The stakes will start out relatively small, but will get much higher as the tournament goes on:
Round of 64: $1,000 per chip in the first two duels, $2,000 in the daily final
Sweet 16: $5,000 a chip in the first two duels, $10,000 in the weekly final
Final Four: $25,000 a chip in the first two duels, $50,000 in the championship
What do you think?
davec
48December 21st, 2007 at 4:29 pm
If they made it a syndie strip, it should just be like a “traditional” game show (ie Jeopardy), in that the winning Dueler keeps returning to play until they lose. If they wanted to keep the lost chips go into a “pot” aspect, they could have the lost chips (probably on a daily strip only $500 or $1000 each) go into the “Tournament of Champions” pot, and the Top 16 winners from the season lets say, play in a season ending tournament to win that jackpot accumulated over the season.
Again though, at least for it’s ABC prospects, it doesn’t look good. Thursday’s ratings:
A “CSI” rerun, 5.9/10, put CBS on top at 8 p.m. NBC finished second with “Clash of the Choirs,” 5.2/9. “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?,” 4.7/8, was third for FOX, beating the 4.2/7 ABC got from “Duel.”
Beaten by 5th Grader, and again beaten by the American Idol for Choirs.
CarShark
49December 21st, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Davis, I think that Shelly ever-so-astutely mentioned the psychological aspect of the game, the bluffing and reading. There’s also the issue of chip control. People are starting to learn that you just can’t throw chips out there every time you don’t know it. So no Millionaire-middle-level-esque “I’m not 100000% sure, so I’m going to waste my chips” attitude. Players are required to use them smartly. Heck, even eliminating just one answer means you lose one fewer chip. The person that find themselves short-stacked on this show will have to make increasingly more desperate plays. Getting your opponent into a position where they have three or fewer chips and can’t give all four answers should be a contestant’s secondary goal, after getting the question right themselves.
As for strategy, I’m making this declaration: Whoever uses the Pressure Button most effectively (highest chips/button presses) will win Duel. Not just A duel, the whole enchilada. It’s SO critical to use that correctly. All Duel math questions should be Pressured, because you can force a mistake that way. And one mistake is all you need to win.
But you couldn’t be bothered to think about any of this, and yet you want to be part of a game show production? Hmm. I’m not so sure. You went into this thinking “Millionaire clone”, so that’s all you got out of it. And that’s a shame.
Alex Davis
50December 21st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I won’t even dignify that last sentence with a response. I’ll just say that only a moron wouldn’t think of that. And yes, my opinions of the show have slightly changed as the series has gone on. There are still issues that I see like the tournament structure, some annoying contestants, and not letting the host be himself. I’ll admit there’s some strategy. I just don’t see a lot of poker, if any at all. I haven’t posted my final opinions because as I get ready to the show speeds up and gets a bit better each game. But you couldn’t be bothered to think about that?
The Panic Button button effectiveness doesn’t mean you win as you bluntly say. It’s whoever can answer questions quickly and correctly. That’s the only way you win. Speed and accuracy. The Panic Button helps, but it doesn’t mean you win.
I’d appreciate if we could leave the cheap shots at me off, or just email them to me. This is not place, and that was excessively low of you to do. How my disagreeing with your opinions and not outright stating exact reasons match up to my ability as a game show producer is the most insane thing I’ve heard in a while.
glenn
51December 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I liked it but it wasnt without flaws here are the 5 things id change
1. I agree this would work better as a daytime winner stays on format with the jackpot being for winning 5 duels and the randomizer using the entire audience.
2. Mike Greenberg is naferious for trying to be someone else. On mike and mike he tries too hard to be Chris Russo, on football telecasts he tries too hard to be Howard Cosell and on duel he is just pretending to be Howie Mandel and it drags the show down. Also he uses his radio sign off on TV (”This is Duel on ABC”) this isnt syndie radio, no need for that! Too bad the perfect choice for this show from the ABC family quit 3 months ago (Dan Patrick) However I woulda tapped Kenny Mayne…Mike Greenberg isnt bad but he is very annoying.
3. I still say the screen dynamic doesnt use the strategy element of not knowing how your opponent is doing that well…for one it doesnt cover enough of the platform, I saw at least ONE most likely 3 players use this to their advantage by reading arm movements. I would use twin isolation booths a la 21 OR a rotating platform to better seperate the podiums. Back to back may work well too.
4. The esclating pot gimmick lost its charm after the 3rd day because of the fact that it almost encourages players to play closer to the vest (and raise the pot while staying safe) than to risk it on questions they cleary know. For a pure tourney format a set Mil in prize money is ok with the players banking all remaining chips per win to make a very respectable 10-45k booby prize. In an In it to win it format perhaps some sort of ride or die format with the player’s prize money a la Sale of the Century or 21.
5. The unit of measure for the Leader Box needs to be Money, not duels. You telling me someone who smoked the competition with one chip is less worthy than someone who sweated it out twice to the bones or a shootout?
Final grade B-
Good show, alot more interesting and alot less of a millionaire clone. I think scaling back and going with more of a daytime budget would help, not hurt. How about $1000 per chip going into a base pot of $25,000 to be awarded on winning 5 duels and some staging and getting a better host.
It should come back…It was a fun show and excepting 1 vs 100 It was the best show to come out in a long time.
Jackson
52December 24th, 2007 at 12:25 am
glenn,
I have a problem with point number 5. I think I can counter that with one contestant: The Belly Dancer. Do you really think she was smarter than the alligator wrestler who earned less money than she did but won more games? I think those battles to the very end showed that they can answer more questions, and thus earned their seats.
Grant P.
53December 24th, 2007 at 1:35 am
How about:
-5 Duels for a Jackpot win (retires after fifth)
-still $5,000 per chip
-Jackpot starts at $250,000
-After a duel win, you either come back or take the $ won already.
-Lose a duel, leave with 10% of winnings. (Won $55,000 over 2 duels, lose 3rd and leave with $5,500.)
-Lose the randomizer, just bring in set contestants.
Put it on Friday nights before 20/20.
Game Show Diva N LA
54December 24th, 2007 at 1:54 am
I like “Duel” alot. I saw all shows including the finale today and I was hooked. The final winner — a female RN, won the final jackpot of nearly $1.7 mill. I hope they decide to bring the show back!!
Tim Connolly
55December 24th, 2007 at 7:38 am
I found the show to be decent - not quite as good as I had hoped, but still good enough to get me to watch the whole thing. There were a few things that just didn’t sit well with me, though:
- The fact that four player didn’t even make it onto the stage was very unsettling. I’ve heard reports that the taping took upwards of 17 hours to finish. If I was in that gallery, forced to sit there for that length of time, and then not get to play even one game, I would’ve been furious. It’s one thing to go up there and bomb out - it’s another matter entirely to not even get the chance.
- Early on in the week (as a matter of fact, after the second Duel), the top two leaderboard spots were occupied by two players who had won the same number of Duels and the same amount of money. Yet, the two women had just played against each other, and the player who lost was ranked ahead of the player who won. Shouldn’t a tie come down to who beat whom head-to-head?
- Mike Greenberg said the exact same thing, the exact same way, when a player was pressed. “Ken, you have been Pressed. You have seven… seconds… max.” Couldn’t he switch it up a bit.
- Referring everyone by their job and not their last name. Especially weird since their last names were in plain view on the leaderboard.
- Nothing they could’ve done about this one, but that last Duel was totally anti-climactic. As soon as Robert left A exposed and locked it in, I knew it was over. I even went so far as to check the progress bar on the Tivo and sure enough, there was less than five minutes left in the show. (For the record, I knew water was the heaviest - that’s why oil tanker spills are so damaging to wildlife. If the oil was heavier, it would just sink to the ocean floor.)
- And of course, the abuse of cliffhangers. When they ended an entire episode after the two players locked in, the practice just went from pointless to purely ludicrous.
Darren
56December 24th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Glenn:
—
5. The unit of measure for the Leader Box needs to be Money, not duels. You telling me someone who smoked the competition with one chip is less worthy than someone who sweated it out twice to the bones or a shootout?
—
Yes, absolutely. Everybody and their grandmother won a single duel and then got knocked out next time. The only way anyone won a duel and pulled down a lot of money was by having their opponent goof up an early question. That’s less about how well you did and more about how unlucky/foolish your opponent was. (q.v. the final duel. That? Had to suck.)
By that metric, someone who won twice demonstrates skill at playing. Out of 19 or 20 duels, how many people won two?
Tim Connolly:
—
Mike Greenberg said the exact same thing, the exact same way, when a player was pressed. “Ken, you have been Pressed. You have seven… seconds… max.” Couldn’t he switch it up a bit.
—
Oh, they probably wanted to, but notice that he still went through with saying it even after the pressee locked in. Including before he even *started* the sentence. Their big sponsor was Diet… Pepsi… Max. Coincidence? I think not.
glenn
57December 24th, 2007 at 8:47 am
I like Grant P’s suggestions. The tourney format was a good idea that just failed and made things anticlimatic.
Greenie has to go…he tries too hard to be howie mandel with the commercial break and straddling abuses and he just dragged the show down with his repetive nature. I repeat my nomination of Kenny Mayne.
some small production things…they were very inconsistent with their graphics, sometimes showing greenberg’s name on the screen sometimes letting greenie introduce himself, same with showing the leaderboard and the randomizer.
I think with the strike duel will get a 2nd chance. It could work as a weekly but it needs some improvement.
Ryan
58January 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I’ve checked ABC’s website, and they are auditioning for a second Duel, presumably in the same format as the previous one.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
GSN Schedules
8/4/2008 to 8/10/2008 8/11/2008 to 8/17/2008 8/18/2008 to 8/24/2008 8/25/2008 to 8/31/2008 9/1/2008 to 9/7/2008 9/8/2008 to 9/14/2008MiniBuzz
Buzz In
Biggest Buzz
Categories
Pages
Archives