Author Topic: Free 4 All (Read 4932 times)

GrandMasterGalvatron · « **on:** January 18, 2008, 10:46:37 PM »

Yes..I'm gonna bring that up. I guess you could consider me a n00b trying to learn the game or whatever. I remember watching this show when I was a kid. I've been searching for info on it for a long time now, and I see that it is all but universally hated. Just figured I'd ask why this seems to be the case.

I know I certainly didn't mind it back in the day...loved the theme song. Though I was what...ten? I probably wasn't interested into any deeper things than if I could answer the questions right and all.

So yes, all. Enlighten me.

bwood · « **Reply #1 on:** January 18, 2008, 10:57:36 PM »

I know for a fact a few days ago I watched something that had Free 4 All clips on YouTube, now I can't find it. I think I came upon it by accident, as it was possibly titled like "My appearance on game shows" or something to that nature. I know it was a bunch of clips of a guys appearances on game shows, and one of them was Free 4 All and it showed a few minutes of footage.

Just thought maybe if I found it you could see why it was so bad (though I have seen worse).

GrandMasterGalvatron · « **Reply #2 on:** January 18, 2008, 11:03:02 PM »

I am aware of the clip you're speaking of (Just found it about ten minutes ago)...and well...that's just the thing.

I didn't see anything particularly "offensive" if you will. Though the impression I've been gathering it that it doesn't meet the standards of most games. I suppose an explanation of why wouldn't hurt.

Feel free to consider me completely clueless as to the way game shows should work. XD

BrandonFG · « **Reply #3 on:** January 18, 2008, 11:05:03 PM »

I remember the show as an 11- or 12-year-old, and remember hating it because everything about the show was so bare-bones basic that I couldn't believe it made it on air.

All I can remember was that it was two teams of three answering random trivia questions. Lather, rinse, repeat. No strategy, no variety whatsoever. And IIRC, there was the typical Stone-Stanley :90 speed round, and the even more simplistic nine or ten in a minute.

Pass.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #4 on:** January 18, 2008, 11:06:53 PM »

The show was called Free4All.

There were three on a team.

All I need.

TLEberle · « **Reply #5 on:** January 18, 2008, 11:36:14 PM »

I will admit that for some reason, I thought that the title being Free-4-All would have meant that there would be lots more "4s" in the show. Team size, points, whatever.

I wouldn't categorize the show as universally hated, but golly, I've had tuna fish sandwiches that weren't as dry as the format. Brandon hit it. There wasn't anything to do other than hammering the button and answering the questions. And for that matter, the questions weren't all that interesting. I suppose something more than $1,000 and three different "Crossword Getaway" level trips would have made for more excitement.

I don't know what kind of "explanation" the OP is looking for. I'd be more than happy to answer questions, but I can't say why a large group of people would dislike a particular show, other than vague guesses.

Allstar87 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 19, 2008, 02:23:19 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'175500\' date=\'Jan 18 2008, 11:36 PM\']
I thought that the title being Free-4-All would have meant that there would be lots more "4s" in the show.
[/quote]

At least it's better than their old title: Family Trivia Challenge!

Titles don't come more generic and boring than that!

(Actually, the same could be said about the show...)

BrandonFG · « **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2008, 03:29:24 AM »

Looking over that Google post, I noticed a couple of double runs. Were Free-4-All (and sister show Quicksilver) stopgaps for other shows USA had in mind? They both seemed like ideas that a USA exec rushed to air at the last minute, because one or two of their show ideas fell through.

Thinking back, I have a hard time believing they really intended to put either show on air with the execution used...and that includes both shows' sets looking like a bunch of backstage props thrown up as a "backdrop". Then again, Chuck Donegan's page says Quicksilver was a good 20 years in the making. 'Magine that...

clemon79 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 19, 2008, 07:29:01 AM »

I didn't *hate* it. To hate it would require a far greater investment of emotion than a format that basic and uninspired was worth.

I simply didn't care about it. It bored me to tears, so I found something else to watch.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #9 on:** January 19, 2008, 02:51:17 PM »

I would consistently skip watching Free 4 All, but the gimmicks of its companion show Quicksilver (pick answers to misleading questions off a board, and sometimes the right answer isn't there) were juuuust interesting enough to keep me watching that one.

bwood · « **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2008, 05:17:02 PM »

Here is that clip in case anyone wanted to watch it (and there are some very good shows within the clip too):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZEgRBhXji4

It's just a very unexciting, drab, low budget game with pretty low production values.

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2008, 08:42:53 PM »

You know, this would explain why I remember more about Quicksilver than about Free4All -- there wasn't anything to remember about Free4All.

GrandMasterGalvatron · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2008, 05:15:36 PM »

Well...I think I get the point now. Not suprised at all that the lack of needed strategy went over my head back then. Though I have to say I kinda liked the bonus round format.

Is that the only available clip at the moment?

ChrisLambert! · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2008, 07:41:51 PM »

if you would have told me during the days of "Free 4 All" that there'd be a time when I'd hope a new game show would go to Mark L. Walberg, I'd've said you were nuts.

Seriously, he has got to set some sort of record for "Most Improved Host."

TLEberle · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2008, 07:45:14 PM »

[quote name=\'ChrisLambert!\' post=\'175649\' date=\'Jan 20 2008, 04:41 PM\']if you would have told me during the days of "Free 4 All" that there'd be a time when I'd hope a ne wgame show would go to Mark L. Walberg, I'd've said you were nuts.

Seriously, he has got to set some sort of record for "Most Improved Host."[/quote]I wonder if he's truly "most improved," or if he looks bad because of the absolute crap formats he's had to deal with. I thought he was great on Russian Roulette and On the Cover, about as far apart on the spectrum as you can get. But when all you can do is say, "Way to get that 50 point bonus question!", you're kinda stuck in a corner.