Alex Trebek's Successor

[clemon79]

Here's an idea. How about just cancelling the show when Alex retires? Jeopardy has been his since 1984 and the only sub i can recall ever was Pat Sajak in that April Fool's switch.

That's....certainly an idea, all right.

[Twentington]

Here's an idea. How about just cancelling the show when Alex retires? Jeopardy has been his since 1984 and the only sub i can recall ever was Pat Sajak in that April Fool's switch.

That's....certainly an idea, all right.

But not a good one.

[BrandonFG]

Here's an idea. How about just cancelling the show when Alex retires? Jeopardy has been his since 1984 and the only sub i can recall ever was Pat Sajak in that April Fool's switch.

The show is near the top of the ratings (still #2 last I checked). It would have been like CBS canceling TPiR when Bob left; just because it's an institution and the host became synonymous with the show is not a justifiable reason to the show. Same exact situation.

[PYLdude]

Here's an idea. How about just cancelling the show when Alex retires? Jeopardy has been his since 1984 and the only sub i can recall ever was Pat Sajak in that April Fool's switch.

The show is near the top of the ratings (still #2 last I checked). It would have been like CBS canceling TPiR when Bob left; just because it's an institution and the host became synonymous with the show is not a justifiable reason to the show. Same exact situation.

But using that logic, shouldn't Oprah still be hosting her talk show?

[BrandonFG]

Here's an idea. How about just cancelling the show when Alex retires? Jeopardy has been his since 1984 and the only sub i can recall ever was Pat Sajak in that April Fool's switch.

The show is near the top of the ratings (still #2 last I checked). It would have been like CBS canceling TPiR when Bob left; just because it's an institution and the host became synonymous with the show is not a justifiable reason to the show. Same exact situation.

But using that logic, shouldn't Oprah still be hosting her talk show?

Yes and no. Oprah owned her show, and she decided to cancel. One difference: her show had her name in the title, so had she stepped down, the show would've simply changed titles and continue with a new host(ess) at the helm. And honestly, many markets more or less did that by replacing her show with one hosted by one of her proteges (we here air Dr. Oz, for example).

Jeopardy! is Merv's (now Sony) show and not named after its host. So when Alex wants to step down, it's still Sony's decision on whether to continue, not Alex's. Ditto CBS/Fremantle with Bob's departure. Both companies know their shows could still pull a profit and ratings with a new host. And as much as people still complain about Drew (not here, but in general), it still ranks near the top of the daytime ratings.

[dale_grass]

It would have been like CBS canceling TPiR when Bob left; just because it's an institution and the host became synonymous with the show is not a justifiable reason to the show. Same exact situation.

Oh God, can you imagine somebody of Droo's caliber hosting Jeopardy?  I'd sooner see the show end.

[Jimmy Owen]

Whomever it is, it won't be an unknown.  It might end up like "Family Feud."  Change the host every three years, but the show goes on forever.

[Matt Ottinger]

But using that logic, shouldn't Oprah still be hosting her talk show?

Yes and no. Oprah owned her show, and she decided to cancel. One difference: her show had her name in the title, so had she stepped down, the show would've simply changed titles and continue with a new host(ess) at the helm.

Actually, no and no.  The exceptions and comparisons should be fairly obvious to anybody that watches television.  Certain personality-driven talk shows (essentially all but one* of the syndicated efforts) are host-dependent, and when the host leaves, it's over.  The syndicator might try to keep the same production people in place and try again with somebody new, but they can't convince you that it's the same show.  Game shows are completely different, and just as Price didn't roll over and die when Bob retired, there's no way that Sony will just shrug its corporate shoulders and close up shop if Alex or Pat decide to step down, as long as the shows have a chance to make money.

NBC, bless its little seventh-place heart, will always have The Tonight Show, and they've kept the name Late Night for their 12:30 show through three regimes now.  I'm very interested in what will happen with CBS (and even ABC) when their late night hosts move on, since neither have the legacy of the two NBC series, and both, while still pretty traditional talk shows, were created around their stars.  


[size="1"]*Note that Live with Regis and Kelly is now just Live with Kelly, just as it was simply Live with Regis between the Gifford and Ripa eras.[/size]

[clemon79]

and both, while still pretty traditional talk shows, were created around their stars.  

Well, one of them anyhow. The Late Late Show seems to have maintained its name (and even a pretty radical format change experiment) through three hosts in the same sense that Late Night has, right? And since its name is a riff off of Letterman's show title, I don't think I see that changing, even when Letterman packs it in. CBS has successfully turned Late Show into a brand, I think.

[Matt Ottinger]

and both, while still pretty traditional talk shows, were created around their stars.  

Well, one of them anyhow. The Late Late Show seems to have maintained its name (and even a pretty radical format change experiment) through three hosts in the same sense that Late Night has, right? And since its name is a riff off of Letterman's show title, I don't think I see that changing, even when Letterman packs it in. CBS has successfully turned Late Show into a brand, I think.

Sorry, I twisted a few phrases there and may have led you off track.  I was talking about Letterman and Kimmel, not Letterman and Ferguson.  You're right, Late Late appears to be an established brand now, and I certainly believe the smart money will be on CBS keeping Late Show as well.

[clemon79]

Sorry, I twisted a few phrases there and may have led you off track.  I was talking about Letterman and Kimmel, not Letterman and Ferguson.

Fair enough. You can understand why I might completely forget (even in the face of your statement) that ABC even has a late-night show.

[irwinsjournal.com]

CBS has successfully turned Late Show into a brand, I think.

[off-topic]
And even before it was a talk show, it was the name for their late movie, at least on some of their O&O stations if not the entire network.  So yeah, they pretty much own the title.
[/off-topic]

I thought Jeff Probst did a good job with R&R Jeopardy.  Would he want to give up Survivor if he had to make a choice?

[Kevin Prather]

I thought Jeff Probst did a good job with R&R Jeopardy.  Would he want to give up Survivor if he had to make a choice?

How much does he get paid to do Survivor, and what's his work schedule?

EDIT: According to Celebrity Net Worth, $200k an episode. That would be about $3 million a year, vs. Alex's reported $10 million.

[clemon79]

EDIT: According to Celebrity Net Worth, $200k an episode. That would be about $3 million a year season,

Fixed that for you, of which there are two in a year, which comes out to about six and a half mil per assuming a 16-week season.

[Kevin Prather]

EDIT: According to Celebrity Net Worth, $200k an episode. That would be about $3 million a year season,

Fixed that for you, of which there are two in a year, which comes out to about six and a half mil per assuming a 16-week season.

Mea culpa. Forgot that there are two seasons of Survivor yearly. Still surprising to me that he's making less than Alex.