Author Topic: The Challengers (Read 20864 times)

Don Howard · « **on:** September 03, 2007, 01:57:18 PM »

How time flies. 17 years ago today, Don Morrow told us that it was Monday September 3rd 1990
and that Doak Fairey was on his way to an Ultimate Challenge worth $55000.
Man, that is a show that I miss.

DoorNumberFour · « **Reply #1 on:** September 03, 2007, 02:02:30 PM »

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'162600\' date=\'Sep 3 2007, 12:57 PM\']
How time flies. 17 years ago today, Don Morrow told us that it was Monday September 3rd 1990
and that Doak Fairey was on his way to an Ultimate Challenge worth $55000.
Man, that is a show that I miss.
[/quote]

I agree.

Gotta love Dick Clark, too.

Ron Greenberg sure knows how to improve on an already seemingly-perfect game.

MikeK · « **Reply #2 on:** September 03, 2007, 02:05:41 PM »

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'162600\' date=\'Sep 3 2007, 01:57 PM\']
How time flies. 17 years ago today, Don Morrow told us that it was Monday September 3rd 1990
and that Doak Fairey was on his way to an Ultimate Challenge worth $55000.
Man, that is a show that I miss.
[/quote]
Most underrated show ever? That show deserved to last a lot longer than one season, and I told Ronnie Greenberg as much at Con 4 in '05. My VCR got a workout catching The Challengers during my junior year in high school.

Steve McClellan · « **Reply #3 on:** September 03, 2007, 02:43:56 PM »

[quote name=\'MikeK\' date=\'Sep 3 2007, 11:05 AM\']
Most underrated show ever?.[/quote]
There, fixed that for you.

Quote

That show deserved to last a lot longer than one season

QFFT.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #4 on:** September 03, 2007, 03:14:17 PM »

[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' post=\'162603\' date=\'Sep 3 2007, 02:43 PM\']

Quote

That show deserved to last a lot longer than one season

QFFT.
[/quote]
I wonder how the show would've fared either five years earlier or ten years later. In both eras, game shows were popular, esp. trivia-based games. I think "Challengers's " problem was it premiered when talk shows began their run throughout the 90s.

And now, with the genre popular again, and people more obsessed with news and current events, I think the show could do quite well today.

tvrandywest · « **Reply #5 on:** September 03, 2007, 03:52:17 PM »

Love to see this thread. The show's format made for exciting game play, and the writing on The Challengers was great. It really was a well constructed and produced show. I know I've commented on my doing warm-up on this show before, but it was a very meaningful gig for me - a good career step at a time when I was was working to gain experience, build relationships and assemble credits.

Ronnie was a PRINCE in my every dealing with him, from my hiring through every tape day that I worked. It was the start of a great relationship with Don Morrow, a really sweet and generous guy. And it was my first experience working with Dick Clark.

Later in the run Dick wanted to bring in a young assistant at his office who showed promise as a performer to gain warm-up experience. Only years later working with Mark Walburg did I learn that he was my replacement. Cool stuff.

Randy
tvrandywest.com

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #6 on:** September 03, 2007, 05:00:24 PM »

Quote

I wonder how the show would've fared either five years earlier or ten years later. In both eras, game shows were popular, esp. trivia-based games. I think "Challengers's " problem was it premiered when talk shows began their run throughout the 90s.

I wonder if part of the problem is that in many cities (according to old TVGuides I have) this show was up against either Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy. Maybe if it wasn't scheduled directly opposite those powerhouses it might have had a better chance.

Also, I wonder if Dick had been able to host the revival of $100,000 Pyramid later that season instead of John Davidson, do you think that would have lasted longer?

PYLdude · « **Reply #7 on:** September 03, 2007, 06:20:21 PM »

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'162618\' date=\'Sep 3 2007, 05:00 PM\']
I wonder if part of the problem is that in many cities (according to old TVGuides I have) this show was up against either Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy. Maybe if it wasn't scheduled directly opposite those powerhouses it might have had a better chance.
[/quote]

And as someone who lived in one of those markets, I can say that it might have had a little to do with it...The Challengers aired on WNBC at 7:30 opposite Wheel during its run (replacing, I believe, the syndie Combs Feud in the slot which I remember airing on Channel 4 when it first started).

Then again, WNBC moved The Challengers to a morning slot about halfway through its run...

Nonetheless, it was a great show despite its short run. Always something I made sure I watched when I had the chance.

TheInquisitiveOne · « **Reply #8 on:** September 03, 2007, 06:52:23 PM »

Ah, The Challengers.

A vastly underrated game show that I rushed home from elementary school to watch on my TV. Everything about the game worked, and I wished it lasted longer. I do have an episode thanks to my recent run of tape trading.

As for that show competeing against Wheel and/or Jeopardy, in the Chicagoland area, The Challengers actually complemented Jeopardy...that is, it served as the 3:00 PM lead-in to Jeopardy, so you had two quizzers back to back.

I also agree with Foster that the show came in on a not-so-good time; game shows as a whole were running flat and the demand just wasn't there. Now, with proper backing, it could work.

The Inquisitive One (Look, I finally reached 300!)

The Pyramids · « **Reply #9 on:** September 03, 2007, 07:51:36 PM »

Was it a close remake of 'The Who, What or Where Game'? I saw the 'Challangers' but not the other.

alfonzos · « **Reply #10 on:** September 03, 2007, 09:39:13 PM »

I remember when this show was promoted as a current events quiz. The pilot, which was shot at the ABC-TV studios on Prospect Avenue in Hollywood, had questions based on events of the previous week. I watched them taped the pilot but I wasn't thrilled with the game. When it went to series, I was never a fan. I thought The Who, What or Where Game was better although I admired The Challengers because the betting phase was simpler than the older game.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #11 on:** September 03, 2007, 09:44:19 PM »

[quote name=\'PaulD\' post=\'162630\' date=\'Sep 3 2007, 07:51 PM\']
Was it a close remake of 'The Who, What or Where Game'? I saw the 'Challengers' but not the other.
[/quote]
Reasonably close. If you'd seen them both, you'd have no problem recognizing that the later one was based on the earlier one.

/Because the other way around would just be silly.

TLEberle · « **Reply #12 on:** September 03, 2007, 09:53:57 PM »

[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'162633\' date=\'Sep 3 2007, 06:39 PM\']I remember when this show was promoted as a current events quiz. The pilot, which was shot at the ABC-TV studios on Prospect Avenue in Hollywood, had questions based on events of the previous week. I watched them taped the pilot but I wasn't thrilled with the game. When it went to series, I was never a fan. [/quote]What about it? I admit that I'm a fan of both Dick Clark and simultaneous secret-selection games, so I'm about 99/100ths of the way home, but what was so bad? Or even mediocre? They managed to put in both a Speed Round and a Wager of Death in the game. What other show has done that, and pulled it off as seamlessly?

Quote

I thought The Who, What or Where Game was better although I admired The Challengers because the betting phase was simpler than the older game.

I think there's differences enough between the two that you can consider them separately, but again, what made 3 W's better? I thought each had its own strengths.

Steve McClellan · « **Reply #13 on:** September 03, 2007, 10:00:39 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Sep 3 2007, 06:53 PM\']but what was so bad? Or even mediocre?[/quote]
They cut the dollar values in the middle of the run! They had Teh Cheap!

/got nothin'

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #14 on:** September 03, 2007, 10:23:00 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'162636\' date=\'Sep 3 2007, 09:53 PM\']I think there's differences enough between the two that you can consider them separately, but again, what made 3 W's better? I thought each had its own strengths.[/quote]
One of the things I always liked about The 3 W's is such a little thing in the grand scheme. The way the show was structured, no one ever had to buzz in to answer a question. It's not that I mind buzzers -- Jeopardy and SOTC are still two faves. It's just that the game was designed so cleverly that even though it looked like all the other three-contestant quizzers, it had an originality all its own. To me, a small part of that was lost when they went to the buzz-ins on Challengers when two people picked the same category.

When we voted on our Top 50 a while back, I remember we had a pretty serious debate about whether the two shows should count together or as two distinct programs. In the end, I put them together. It wasn't an effort to slight either one. On the contrary, by putting them together, it raised the profile of both. Still, even combined, it only reached 37th on our list. It/they deserve better, but at least we remember them.

As many of you know, Ronnie Greenberg is a member here and reads the forum from time to time. Ronnie, if you're seeing this, thanks for both wonderful shows!