Author Topic: Favorite version of Hollywood Sqaures (Read 17367 times)

clemon79 · « **Reply #60 on:** July 19, 2009, 05:53:15 AM »

[quote name=\'DJDustman\' post=\'220475\' date=\'Jul 18 2009, 08:55 PM\']Davidson's squares also eliminated that rule.[/quote]
Certainly Davidson seemed to think so, but you are wrong. I know I've told the story before: a colleague at the TV stations I worked at used to be one of the audio guys for Davidson Squares, and he told me that they had to stop Davidson from awarding a default win ALL THE TIME. "Circle gets the <producer squawks in Davidson's IFB>...no, we can't put a circle there; you have to earn that yourself." ALL THE TIME.

(Though I don't think the rule applied to five-square wins, or if it did it was haphazardly applied at best. I think the situation came up at least once where the final square was up for grabs, whoever got it got a five-square win, but since for one of the players it was also a THREE-square win, the rule applied to them and them only.)

That Don Guy · « **Reply #61 on:** July 19, 2009, 12:17:48 PM »

[quote name=\'Gameshowcrackers\' post=\'220330\' date=\'Jul 17 2009, 02:42 AM\']What was your favorite all time version of Hollywood Sqaures?

Was it the original starring genial emcee Peter Marshall and featuring regulars, Charley Weaver, Wally Cox and Paul Lynde in the center square.

Was it the manic incarnation which ran from 1986 to 1989 with the jazzy theme tune hosted by original Hollywood Squares regular, John Davidson and featuring the voice of America's top 40, Shadoe Stevens who was also a regular on the show.

Or perhaps you liked the last version which ran from 1998 to 2004 emceed by Dancing with the Stars host, Tom Bergeron.[/quote]
Besides MG/HS, there's another version you left out: the syndicated daily Marshall version with the $100,000 tournaments (which, IIRC, was based on an NBC $100,000 HS tournament featuring two contestants from its four game shows at the time).

Personally, I put the daytime NBC Marshall episodes at the top, especially near the end of the run when they added the "bonus round" (each celebrity had a prize; the largest was $5000).

-- Don

DJDustman · « **Reply #62 on:** July 19, 2009, 03:40:40 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'220487\' date=\'Jul 19 2009, 05:53 AM\']Certainly Davidson seemed to think so, but you are wrong. I know I've told the story before: a colleague at the TV stations I worked at used to be one of the audio guys for Davidson Squares, and he told me that they had to stop Davidson from awarding a default win ALL THE TIME. "Circle gets the <producer squawks in Davidson's IFB>...no, we can't put a circle there; you have to earn that yourself." ALL THE TIME.

(Though I don't think the rule applied to five-square wins, or if it did it was haphazardly applied at best. I think the situation came up at least once where the final square was up for grabs, whoever got it got a five-square win, but since for one of the players it was also a THREE-square win, the rule applied to them and them only.)[/quote]

My apologies, I don't think I was clear. I meant the 5 square win issue where if the contestant got it wrong, the opponent would get the square and the win. This would eliminate any "You Fool" incidents. I have a plethora of episodes to prove this situation.

clemon79 · « **Reply #63 on:** July 19, 2009, 04:11:22 PM »

[quote name=\'DJDustman\' post=\'220497\' date=\'Jul 19 2009, 12:40 PM\']My apologies, I don't think I was clear. I meant the 5 square win issue where if the contestant got it wrong, the opponent would get the square and the win. This would eliminate any "You Fool" incidents. I have a plethora of episodes to prove this situation.[/quote]
Yes, on this I think we agree. But, like I said, I'm pretty sure there was at least one time where they let the three-square-win rule supercede the five-square one, which just highlights how dippy it is to enforce the rule in one place but not another.

GiraffeBoy · « **Reply #64 on:** July 19, 2009, 04:16:44 PM »

I liked the Marshall (esp with Paul Lynde) and Bergeron versions (the Whoopi era). I fav'd the YouTube clip of the April Fool's day episode from 2003.

--Charlie

calliaume · « **Reply #65 on:** July 20, 2009, 02:29:45 PM »

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'220428\' date=\'Jul 18 2009, 09:42 AM\']Loved Martin Mull on Fernwood/America 2 Night.
A lovely funny man and gentleman.[/quote]
And if you can find them, his 1970s albums are quite good. I have the last three he did -- I'm Everyone I've Ever Loved and Sex & Violins for ABC Records (which then collapsed and was sold to MCA) and Near Perfect/Perfect for Elektra -- all of which have great moments. And the chorus for his song "Men" has been stolen (likely without compensation) by loads of songwriters.

On topic: Bergeron, Marshall, Bauman, Davidson. Discuss.

irwinsjournal.com · « **Reply #66 on:** July 20, 2009, 07:25:34 PM »

It would be hard for me to not favor the Marshall version, which I'm old enough to remember, although the Bergeron version had its moments.

Storybook Squares was cool too.

alfonzos · « **Reply #67 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:17:08 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'220400\' date=\'Jul 17 2009, 08:19 PM\'][quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'220398\' date=\'Jul 17 2009, 08:10 PM\']The players would often make bad plays just to keep the game going.[/quote]You can't be serious.
[/quote]As a heart attack! There wasn't much money on the line ($200) even by 1972 standards. I've seen episodes where Marshall had to admonish players twice or thrice during a game, "You're not watching the board!"

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #68 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:10:55 PM »

[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'220617\' date=\'Jul 20 2009, 08:17 PM\']As a heart attack! There wasn't much money on the line ($200) even by 1972 standards. I've seen episodes where Marshall had to admonish players twice or thrice during a game, "You're not watching the board!"[/quote]
There is an enormous difference between not watching the board (which, yes, occurred with some regularity) and deliberately picking a bad square just to prolong the game. There was often value in fishing for a Secret Square even if you had a chance to win, but otherwise there was absolutely no reason for a player to deliberately make a bad play. After all, if a player wins, then he gets to keep playing. That prolongs his visit, lets him pick his favorite stars again AND puts money in his pocket. To suggest that contestants ever screwed up on purpose (much less "often") is just nonsense.

Don Howard · « **Reply #69 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:34:09 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'220632\' date=\'Jul 20 2009, 09:10 PM\']There is an enormous difference between not watching the board (which, yes, occurred with some regularity) and deliberately picking a bad square just to prolong the game. There was often value in fishing for a Secret Square even if you had a chance to win, but otherwise there was absolutely no reason for a player to deliberately make a bad play. After all, if a player wins, then he gets to keep playing. That prolongs his visit, lets him pick his favorite stars again AND puts money in his pocket. To suggest that contestants ever screwed up on purpose (much less "often") is just nonsense.[/quote]
Indeed. And if the Secret Square package is so darned appealing, that's okay. All those prizes plus some others would be available for the winning on the next show (on the daytime version). One of my dumb move "faves" is when there were two open cubicles on the board during a Secret Square game. One would've given the selector three in a row with a correct agree or disagree while the other would not. The dimwit selected the player that didn't offer a tic-tac-toe connection because, in the player's words, "I'm going to try for the Secret Square instead". This move backfired as the SS opportunity is where the TTT opportunity was. So the person's opponent ended up with both a 5-square win and the Secret Square prizes. The word "dumbass" escaped from my lips.

CarShark · « **Reply #70 on:** July 20, 2009, 10:55:02 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'220632\' date=\'Jul 20 2009, 09:10 PM\']There was often value in fishing for a Secret Square even if you had a chance to win, but otherwise there was absolutely no reason for a player to deliberately make a bad play. After all, if a player wins, then he gets to keep playing. That prolongs his visit, lets him pick his favorite stars again AND puts money in his pocket. To suggest that contestants ever screwed up on purpose (much less "often") is just nonsense.[/quote]I concur with the SS fishing idea. GSN reran the nighttime episodes, where the contestant only got one shot. They made up for it, though, by taking out the good china...and furs...and around the world trips...and I think the first one they showed had a woman winning a car in one game, as opposed to ten for the daytime show. No wonder people went hunting.

calliaume · « **Reply #71 on:** July 21, 2009, 11:49:48 AM »

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'220648\' date=\'Jul 20 2009, 09:55 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'220632\' date=\'Jul 20 2009, 09:10 PM\']There was often value in fishing for a Secret Square even if you had a chance to win, but otherwise there was absolutely no reason for a player to deliberately make a bad play. After all, if a player wins, then he gets to keep playing. That prolongs his visit, lets him pick his favorite stars again AND puts money in his pocket. To suggest that contestants ever screwed up on purpose (much less "often") is just nonsense.[/quote]I concur with the SS fishing idea. GSN reran the nighttime episodes, where the contestant only got one shot. They made up for it, though, by taking out the good china...and furs...and around the world trips...and I think the first one they showed had a woman winning a car in one game, as opposed to ten for the daytime show. No wonder people went hunting.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Daytime shows had just one Secret Square game, and the prize packages were cumulative -- if you didn't win it today, they'd throw in some more prizes tomorrow. So, let's say about $1,500 in prizes was added per day, and started at $3,000 -- if you had a new Secret Square prize package one Monday and nobody won it during the week, by the following Monday it's up to $9,000. That would be worth about 50K today. Five-figure Secret Square wins were not uncommon, because they'd go unpicked (especially if the third game of a match was being played). If you're on the nighttime version and won the first two games, why not go fishing in the third?

Most undefeated champions (five-match winners, which meant they'd played between ten and fifteen games) usually won one or two Secret Squares during their run, to get their total winnings between $15,000 and $25,000 (before 1976 and the "pick a star, win a prize" bonus game). If the undefeated champion didn't win a Secret Square at all, they'd likely have about $5,000 in winnings ($2,000 in cash, plus the car awarded as a bonus).

Another note: the regulars seemed to be Secret Squares less often than the irregulars -- especially since games usually started with the lower left corner (Charley Weaver or George Gobel) or center square (Paul Lynde). I don't have any evidence of this; it was just my observation when watching the show.

Does anyone know if the producers told celebrities to drop the schtick/jokes if they were a Secret Square, and not try to bluff (of course, all Secret Square questions were multiple choice anyway)? This would seem to be the H/Q equivalent of the MG's Super Match.

Neumms · « **Reply #72 on:** July 21, 2009, 04:34:01 PM »

[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'220720\' date=\'Jul 21 2009, 10:49 AM\']If you're on the nighttime version and won the first two games, why not go fishing in the third?

Does anyone know if the producers told celebrities to drop the schtick/jokes if they were a Secret Square, and not try to bluff (of course, all Secret Square questions were multiple choice anyway)? This would seem to be the H/Q equivalent of the MG's Super Match.[/quote]

Peter actually brought up the idea of fishing to contestants when they had the option of going for the win after a failed block or picking a different star.

And Peter himself told the stars to get serious when a Secret Square was on the line--"because this could mean a lot of money."

And in his book, Peter said that the Secret Square was originally conceived as their version of a bonus round, since they didn't have one.

TimK2003 · « **Reply #73 on:** July 21, 2009, 07:34:11 PM »

[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'220720\' date=\'Jul 21 2009, 11:49 AM\']Does anyone know if the producers told celebrities to drop the schtick/jokes if they were a Secret Square, and not try to bluff (of course, all Secret Square questions were multiple choice anyway)? This would seem to be the H/Q equivalent of the MG's Super Match.[/quote]

I would assume that there was mention of it, and they probably avoided making the SS a celebrity who wouldn't agree to that request.

Then again, the SS question was always a straightforward serious trivia question (not an "According to Ann Landers...."). And during celebrity briefings, when funny lines were fed to celebrities for questions they may get, I would bet that there was never any mention as to what the SS question(s) would be, so if the celebs were trying to make a funny out of an important question, they were doing it on their own "without a net" and probably risking a return visit or being a Secret Square in the process.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #74 on:** July 21, 2009, 08:03:24 PM »

Weren't SS questions generally multiple-choice? That alone should've eliminated the possibility of joking around with so much on the line. Also would've narrowed the range of answers for a celebrity to choose from; if they wanted to still bluff, they only had 3 choices instead of a broad range.