Tic Tac Dough: Unintentionally hilarious

 The Game Show Network continues to churn out original programming and turned to a fondly remembered name in search of a modern game show audience. 

GSN's Tic Tac Dough rolled out in mid-April. I like it. It's not appointment television, it airs 30 minutes before Wheel of Fortune in my market and it's nearly summer in Minnesota, a short window of the year when it is both light outdoors and pleasant in the evening. Sometimes you have to mow the lawn. 

I have sampled TTD several times, and I find it enjoyable. And it is hilarious, albeit not obviously so.

Why I like it: The show differs from what I remember fondly during the Wink Martindale era. But it's not bad. 

Points are earned for correct answers and making a tic-tac-toe, and after two head-to-head rounds each player gets a minute to bank as many points as possible during a solo game known as the "60-second challenge round." 

There are no returning champions, so that necessitates game play moving at a quick pace. There's no time for a drawn out, epic battle between two contestants. If a game ends in a draw, no big deal. No bonus points are awarded to either player. Onto the next round. 

If the contestants are struggling to answer questions correctly and the game has gone on too long, then a time limit kicks in. The contestants get whatever points they have earned to that point and it's onto the next round. No outcome is necessary. 

The board has categories assigned to all but the center square, which is a mystery category and requires two correct answers to earn. Unlike traditional categories such as "maps of states" or "U.S. history," the categories are often less obvious, such as "home sweet home," "all the feels" or "the loan arranger."

The questions in the first two rounds seem to lean heavier toward pop culture, but not entirely. And they have multiple choice answers. In the challenge rounds, questions seem more difficult, leaning less on pop culture, and are not multiple choice. 

The first two games move quickly for a couple of reasons. In this version of TTD, the dragon is hiding behind one of the squares, and picking him equals losing your turn. Given most of the questions in the first two rounds are not difficult, finding the dragon increases the chance you'll lose the game. Likewise, an incorrect answer also makes it far easier for your opponent to win the game. And that's what GSN TTD wants, complete games, not a marathon battle of wits. 

There are special squares that pop up infrequently. If you choose a category that is hiding a special square, you will find that the question has an added element which often allows either player to earn the square. Such questions don't always speed up game play, but they will when contestant X chooses the category for a block, but contestant O ends up earning the square and winning the game. 

It's not the best quiz show, but given GSN doesn't like returning champions on its shows, they can't make the questions too difficult in the opening rounds if they want to play two games before the "challenge round." The challenge round is a trademark of the GSN formula, as it aims to ensure both players have a chance of winning the game at the start of the final round of play. For the challenge round, finding the dragon on the board takes five seconds off your clock.

Take all the points for each player over three rounds and crown your winner! Award them $1,000, regardless of their point total. 

Then there's the rather uninspired bonus round. It's basically the 60-second challenge round. But in this case the dragon is visible and moves around the board with each turn, typically delaying a player's ability to complete a tic-tac-toe. And like the challenge round, an incorrect answer takes a box out of play for the duration of the round. 

But all you have to do is answer three questions correctly in a line, sometimes with a delay in doing so because of the dragon, and you win $10,000. It's edge-of-the-seat television. 

GSN has done a good job of packing a lot into the show, and it's probably what today's short-attention span viewers want in a quiz show. It's not exactly what I'm looking for in a quiz show, but nothing is. 

I don't love the show, but it's not the worst way to pass 30 minutes. They cram a lot of game play into 20 minutes of actual show. It blew me away when I realized that its 30-minute time slot contains 10 minutes of advertising. 

Brooke Burns, who GSN loves, does just fine as host. She's good at the banter with the contestants, which is another one of those things I'm not looking for in a game show, but it's mandatory for today's viewing audiences, evidently. 

Why I don't like it: I don't hate the bonus round, and there's no rule on what a bonus round should or shouldn't consist of, but it seems like GSN bonus games are all continuations of the main game's play. I'm sure there's some GSN original that doesn't follow that format and I just can't think of it. But I'd be happy with watching a TTD bonus game where the winner's fate is determined by luck rather than trivia knowledge, like I remember from the 1980s. 

That's probably my biggest gripe. I don't mind the bonus round quiz, it's just not my preference. 

Why I find the show hilarious: The hilarity comes not from the show, but from the game show snobs who commented about it. 

I saw a couple of Facebook posts about the show when it debuted in April, and of course there were plenty of people who found the show unacceptable for all sorts of silly reasons. Some of the complaints were that the show wasn't exactly the same as the old timers fondly remember.

Hey, I liked Wink's version from the '80s, and I enjoy drawn out showdowns between good contestants, as well as returning champions. But I'm smart enough to know that nearly 40 years after Wink's version of the show went dark, the 2025 version isn't going to play the same. 

Hell, Wink's version (which he left after several years, to be replaced by Jim Caldwell for the final season) wasn't played the same throughout its run. As the years went on, the show added more of those special categories that allowed contestants to win a box when it wasn't their turn. That made it a lot harder for champions to retain their crown, of course, and effectively prohibited champions from running off 43 victories in a row, which Thom McKee did circa 1980. 

So it was OK for the show to evolve during Wink's era, but the show cannot evolve for a GSN run in 2025? 

Sure thing, old man.

Other complaints that made me laugh, in no particular order: 

The dragon factors into the regular game play. That offended somebody. (Under Wink, the dragon was merely the enemy during the bonus game.)

The game awards points rather than cash for each correct answer. No matter how many points you amass during the main game, you win $1,000 for a victory. (Under Wink, correct answers translated into cash, with the winner of the game taking the pot, which could total thousands of dollars after a multi-game showdown.)

The show needs a real set, not a "fake" one. (The game board is a big fancy video screen rather than a 1980s behemoth featuring nine video monitors.)

All of those complaints aren't deal breakers for me, but I sense they are for some longtime fans of the show. 

While not a complaint, I am amused by the lack of basic tic-tac-toe strategy demonstrated by some of the contestants. I've seen more than a few poor choices thus far. This ain't chess, the basic strategy of tic-tac-toe ain't that hard! 

I didn't see many of these, but a few comments topped all others when it came to hilarity. Those were the comments that referenced Wink. They fell into two categories.

There were two or three people who insisted Wink should be hosting the 2025 version of the show.

The guy was 91 years old when the show debuted in April. Wink seemed rather spry for his age. I don't know if he was as active he was in radio at the time of his death, but he remained rather active in recent years, and I think he was one of the old timers that the media could call upon when one of his contemporaries died. 

Wink might have been able to hold his own for 30 minutes. He may have been mentally and physically younger than an average 91-year-old man, but nobody is hiring Wink, or any other 90-year-old broadcaster, to emcee an ongoing game show. That's silly talk. But there are rubes out there who think Wink should have been the host because he once held a similar job 40 years earlier. 

But the most hilarious comment was the suggestion that the first episode of GSN TTD should have had Wink present during the first episode to anoint Brooke Burns as the host of the show. Yeah, some clown really thought that was necessary. 

There's a weird obsession some folks have when an emcee or host takes over an existing show. They think there has to be some sort of ceremonial passing of the microphone, or something like that. Perhaps that was done somewhere in television history, but it's not really a thing. Bob Barker didn't hand off a microphone to Drew Carey on The Price is Right. 

I think Pat Sajak and Ryan Seacrest appeared on screen together prior to Pat's retirement on Wheel of Fortune, but I doubt that made Seacrest haters suddenly decide Seacrest would be a great host of Wheel. Pat didn't give a blessing to Ryan. The decision was made regardless of what Pat and Ryan did or didn't do on stage at the end of a show. 

Yes, some old man really thought Wink's presence on the set of GSN's Tic Tac Dough was somehow important to the launching of a new show that has the same name as a show he watched in 1981. 

Game show people are weird. But you already knew that. X gets the square. (Yes, I'm mixing my game show lexicons.)

 

A fictional telling of a legendary Press Your Luck story is one big whammy

I wrote a lengthy review of "The Luckiest Man in America" for my Letterboxd account. (A movie review app/website) Here's an even longer version of that.

If you read nothing more of my exhaustive review of a movie about a game show, then let this be the one thing you read: If you are interested in the story of a guy who won $110,000 on Press Your Luck in the 1980s, search YouTube for the Game Show Network's 2003 documentary about it rather than waste 90 minutes on this film. 

I was a teen and witness to Mike Larson's 1984 win of more than $100K on Press Your Luck. I have long been enthralled with his story. I did a podcast about him several years ago, sharing the tidbits I learned about his life before and after PYL. (My podcast episode about Larson and PYL) His story is fascinating without Hollywood embellishment. As a lifelong game show fan, I had to see the movie. I can't even give it one star, even if I take off my Rubin Brothers suit and try to judge it as an uninformed viewer. 

I wanted to see this film in the theater. In the fall of 2024. When word circulated that a film about PYL was finally being made, I was eager to see it, primarily because I expected the film to highlight his less discussed life outside of PYL. I learned tidbits about his life, and shared them on this blog several years ago, as well. (My Press Your Luck memories in written form) I had to see the film as soon as I could. 

The film made the film festival circuit during the fall of 2024. Much to my disappointment, it wasn't included in the big Minneapolis film festival held each October. I was disappointed, of course. 

So you'd think that when the film was distributed nationally in April, I'd be there to see it in the theater. I had wanted to, until I saw a Facebook comment from game show announcer and historian Randy West. Randy simply reminded us that the film was based on Larson's story and that it takes liberties with the story. The way he cautioned his followers suggested to me that I was going to be disappointed with what I saw. 

I was ready to spend $15 to see the film on the big screen. I knew the film wouldn't last long in circulation, and it wasn't showing on many screens across the Minneapolis suburbs when it opened. This was a niche film that didn't have the benefit or bankroll of a major studio production, it wasn't going to dazzle the masses. I opted not to spend a dollar to see a film that was going to disappoint me. 

That turned out to be a wise decision. 

I finally watched the film from the comfort of home, at no cost to me. It wasn't easy to sit through.

My complaints about this film, based upon history as I know it: This film dramatizes the story to make it more appealing to the random viewer. I've already started reading reviews of the film following my viewing of it earlier this evening, and somebody on Reddit suggested that the film should be "inspired" by a true story, and fictionalize every other aspect of the film. Why make it a story about Larson and Press Your Luck if the script is going to be mostly fiction? Why not make a story about a guy who beats a game show, and make it a fictitious game show and fictional characters rather than a bastardized version of reality? 

The hand wringing and angst regarding Larson's improbable victory, as depicted in the film, was real. But the dramatization of it -- pretending the producers dragged out the taping for a few hours, pretending Larson had a near mental breakdown during the taping of the show, showcasing a roller coaster of emotions behind the scenes all during the taping of the game and suggesting the producers engaged in unethical/illegal activities out of desperation all in the course of a few hours -- was ridiculous. There are stories about what happened behind the scenes as Larson beat the game, and afterward, but none of them are nearly as fantastic as what is portrayed in the film.

The film goes to some trouble to recreate the look of the 1980s Press Your Luck set, and star Paul Walter Hauser does a good job of replicating the look and sound of Larson. But the many deviations from the actual events of 1984 -- from trivial details about the game itself to the portrayal of host Peter Tomarken as some sort of studio patsy who is trying to coerce an outcome, as directed from above -- are awful. Tomarken was a voice of reason as Larson went on his historic run, but I don't recall Tomarken's comments ever wandering into statistical analysis or preaching.

And too many details of the film that are made up for cinematic effect are just stupid. Larson knew he could beat the game when he traveled to Hollywood to be a contestant. Concocting a story about how he tried to impersonate another applicant for the benefit of a contestant interview, and drove an old ice cream truck to be there, don't make the movie more entertaining or compelling. But those fictitious details will convince 20 people they know the story of Larson, when what they saw is mostly fiction. 

There are too many stupid, idiotic twists written into the scrip to list them all here. They're supposed to heighten the drama. Maybe they do if you have no clue who Larson is, but that's unlikely. For the rest of us, the plot twists are beyond preposterous, and don't make the story more fascinating. The worst of it all is the impromptu phone call the show places to Larson's "wife," (who online sources identify as common law,) during the final moment's of the game for an on-camera chat. The dramatic phone call is supposed to remind us Larson is a con man who will say whatever is necessary to gain whatever it is he is trying to gain, I guess. Instead it's just idiotic, and sets up a fantastic, and not accurate, final spin. 

I've read reporting from reputable sources and secondhand anecdotes about the fallout of Larson's improbable win on Press Your Luck. There's a good story there. I've read a few stories, and witnessed that stage play, reviewing Larson's life as a con man and schemer. These are all great elements of the Larson story that need little embellishment. But somehow the producers of this film found only the studio angst of Larson's spectacular win to be worthy of their film... and yet they had to fabricate a ton of it to stretch their film out to nearly 90 minutes. 

Let's pretend I'm not a game show fan or historian: This is a dull film. If I knew nothing about Larson and wound up seeing this film, I'd be intrigued by the story. Even if I had no clue how television works, I'd be disappointed to learn how far this film deviates from reality if I was intrigued enough to do one Google search following my viewing. 

But all the fabricated drama between studio and network execs and the lackeys helping produce the show is not compelling. I struggle to imagine non-game show fans watching this film from the edge of their seats. And I have an active imagination. 

I was going to give this film 1 star because they brought an amazing story to the big screen. But it's so uninspired and skews so far from reality that I had to give it the lowest rating possible. 

This film is based upon events that took place 41 years ago. Folks who were involved in Larson's episode, from his two opponents to some of the production staff, and perhaps even some execs, are still around. Some of them have talked about Larson and the show in the past. I'd love to know what they think of this cinematic work of fiction. 

Larson's story should have been a biopic, a review of his life with an emphasis on PYL. A fictional version of his story might be the worst possible outcome. A new documentary about his life and the off-camera angst is needed more than ever, even if GSN did a good job of telling his story more than 20 years ago. 

We had no internet in 1984... not most of us, anyway. And we had no social media access in 1984. It's well known that the show aired Larson's win once and never acknowledged him again. Larson should have been a media sensation following his $110,000 win, but I've seen no indication that ever happened. A story like his would go viral in 2025. 

Larson wasn't a great guy. That has been well documented. But his story, which has bloomed after death in 1999 thanks to the 2003 GSN documentary and resurrection of his game after nearly two decades, deserves a better, thorough telling sooner rather than later. I hope we don't have to wait another 20 years to right the wrong that is Luckiest Man in America.