Who's the #2?

[DoorNumberFour]

[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'176323\' date=\'Jan 25 2008, 11:26 PM\']
Steve Gavazzi wrote:

and the three intentionally unaired shows

I'm curious about this.  Why were they intentionally unaired?
[/quote]
He's probably talking about the new host auditions.

Mark Steines, George Hamilton, and Todd Newton, IIRC.

[JasonA1]

From the G-R timeline, I would assume he's talking about the "real" third episode that had to be dumped because one contestant was ineligible, a nighttime show that was rendered useless because of a production problem in the showcases, and another show that got its episode number marked with an X because contestant's row got shuffled without anybody noticing.

-Jason

[Steve Gavazzi]

Jason's exactly right.

Incidentally, the nighttime show (which, coincidentally, was that run's original third episode) is what prompted the creation of the double overbid rule.  Prior to that episode, if both contestants overbid, they'd have both of them rebid until at least one of them was under.  This was the first time it occurred on either run, and Roger somehow got the calculators that they used to figure out the differences screwed up so badly that nobody could figure out how to fix them.

[Unrealtor]

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'176358\' date=\'Jan 26 2008, 10:36 AM\']
Jason's exactly right.

Incidentally, the nighttime show (which, coincidentally, was that run's original third episode) is what prompted the creation of the double overbid rule.  Prior to that episode, if both contestants overbid, they'd have both of them rebid until at least one of them was under.  This was the first time it occurred on either run, and Roger somehow got the calculators that they used to figure out the differences screwed up so badly that nobody could figure out how to fix them.
[/quote]

Was there some reason (either technical or S&P) that they couldn't just use a pencil and paper to calculate the differences?

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'176375\' date=\'Jan 26 2008, 03:23 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'176358\' date=\'Jan 26 2008, 10:36 AM\']Jason's exactly right.

Incidentally, the nighttime show (which, coincidentally, was that run's original third episode) is what prompted the creation of the double overbid rule.  Prior to that episode, if both contestants overbid, they'd have both of them rebid until at least one of them was under.  This was the first time it occurred on either run, and Roger somehow got the calculators that they used to figure out the differences screwed up so badly that nobody could figure out how to fix them.
[/quote]
Was there some reason (either technical or S&P) that they couldn't just use a pencil and paper to calculate the differences?
[/quote]
Hell if I know.  I don't completely understand the story, either, but the records I've seen from that era seem to indicate that it, or at least some version of it that makes more sense, is true.

[Jimmy Owen]

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'176392\' date=\'Jan 26 2008, 08:57 PM\']
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'176375\' date=\'Jan 26 2008, 03:23 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'176358\' date=\'Jan 26 2008, 10:36 AM\']Jason's exactly right.

Incidentally, the nighttime show (which, coincidentally, was that run's original third episode) is what prompted the creation of the double overbid rule.  Prior to that episode, if both contestants overbid, they'd have both of them rebid until at least one of them was under.  This was the first time it occurred on either run, and Roger somehow got the calculators that they used to figure out the differences screwed up so badly that nobody could figure out how to fix them.
[/quote]
Was there some reason (either technical or S&P) that they couldn't just use a pencil and paper to calculate the differences?
[/quote]
Hell if I know.  I don't completely understand the story, either, but the records I've seen from that era seem to indicate that it, or at least some version of it that makes more sense, is true.
[/quote]
 
That day will go down in history as the day the Dob was stopped.

[Gus]

If I may jump back a little bit, to the debate about the "season" terminology -- it *used* to be that a season and a production cycle were invariably one in the same, but that just hasn't been the case in the past few years. So why not use something like the British terminology, where that's *never* been the case? There, a production cycle is a series. Survivor is going on its 17th series. Countdown is in its 56th series.

[Jimmy Owen]

[quote name=\'Gus\' post=\'176395\' date=\'Jan 26 2008, 09:58 PM\']
If I may jump back a little bit, to the debate about the "season" terminology -- it *used* to be that a season and a production cycle were invariably one in the same, but that just hasn't been the case in the past few years. So why not use something like the British terminology, where that's *never* been the case? There, a production cycle is a series. Survivor is going on its 17th series. Countdown is in its 56th series.
[/quote]


You could also make the case that each individual "series" is a spin-off of the original "Survivor."  So "Survivor: Marquesas" ran one season, "Survivor: Palau" ran one season, etc.  With the exception of Jeff, the cast changes every "series," so each series ran a total of one season.