Twenty One photo

[chris319]

Are you sure that’s a story from Brockman, though? He was in charge at ABC during the run of “Joker,” he never had anything to do with that show.

Looking at the list of interviews at the Strong museum, I don't know who else would tell a story like that. Certainly not Edd Kalehoff or Peter Marshall. Maybe Ron Greenberg? I don't feel like searching through all of those long interviews to find out. Either way, the story doesn't hold water. The IATSE stage electricians wouldn't have let Jack Barry climb a ladder to futz with the readouts without making a stink. If you want to rig a game show you collude with the contestants to either find out what they know or flat out give them the answers as Enright used to do.

"Pilots" were shot of P+, Mindreaders and Blockbusters. In those days NBC budgeted for three game-show pilots per quarter. I believe those pilots were shot so they would appear on the books as pilots which never aired. It sounds like a mere formality but pilots were considered R&D and as such, the cost of doing a pilot had tax implications as the costs could be deducted as R&D expenses as any business would do. If they aired those shows they wouldn't count as pilots and hence no tax deduction. Otherwise we would have shot five pilots of P+ to fill out an entire week, which we did not do. Functionally they were like dress rehearsals but accounting-wise they were "pilots".

I saw an interview not long ago with Bill Anderson, and he said that Spellbinders was all but sold to NBC, but technical problems with the computers that ran the board caused it to not enter production. Does that jive with what you remember?

Another reason talent isn't necessarily a reliable source. The Spellbinders pilots were shot before I came to work for G-T, though I did fly to L.A. to interview with Ira Skutch. The Ferranti-Packard displays worked just fine for the pilots. Neither NBC nor G-T would scuttle a project costing six figures and let it go to waste because of a computer problem which was fixable. In 1978 they had experience with Ferranti-Packard displays thanks to FF. In the 1950's there were problems with the American Totalizator readouts which affected TPIR pilot but the show went to series anyway. There were also problems with Bill Cullen's mic cable getting stuck in the turntable.

The odd thing about Spellbinders is that they had a music package composed, arranged, performed and recorded for the pilots which didn't go to air. Goodson didn't even recycle it for Child's Play as he did with other music, so either Goodson or NBC took it up the shorts on music for Spellbinders. Contrary to what a certain Oracle of All Things Game Show says, the Child's Play theme was based on "London Bridge", not "Twinkle Twinkle".

[Dbacksfan12]

Anyway, years ago I remember reading on ATGS that as Jack Barry tried to get back into producing, he came up with a pilot with a “staged” outcome. When pressed about playing it straight he argued it’s a pilot so it shouldn’t matter.

Here’s that story, second paragraph in the “background” section.

[BillCullen1]

his smugness as a host always annoyed me.

I met Jack Barry at NATPE 1976 in San Francisco. I didn't see Enright around but he/they were trying to sell BTB into syndication. I asked him about the format of BTB. He explained that it had nine celebrities "a la Hollywood Squares". He was colder than ice and brusque beyond belief. It gave me the creeps.

In his interview for the Strong Museum, Wink mentions that he was not fond of Jack. During his years at TTD, he mostly talked with Dan Enright.

[BillCullen1]

P+, Mindreaders and Blockbusters were greenlit on the basis of office tun-thrus. Spellbinders and Puzzlers didn't make it past the pilot stage. All-New BTC didn't have a pilot or office run-thru, just an order from CBS.

I saw the pilot for Spellbinders when I was out in L.A. in '78. I'm a pretty good speller, so I liked the game. Bill Anderson did a good job as host. Gene Wood was the announcer and the celebs were CNR and Debralee Scott, though the tickets listed Patty Duke Astin as the female celeb. She cancelled or backed out.

When I heard BTC was coming back in '79, I figured it was for syndication. When I heard it was for CBS, I thought "They actually sold that to a network?" forgetting that it was on CBS all those years ago.

[BrandonFG]

In his interview for the Strong Museum, Wink mentions that he was not fond of Jack. During his years at TTD, he mostly talked with Dan Enright.

Geoff Edwards has some stories too from Hollywood's Talking. I guess they patched things up by the time Play the Percentages started...either that or he interacted more with Dan. I think HT was solely a Jack Barry Production.

EDIT: Thanks, Mark. I thought it was Curt's site but couldn't remember.

[Neumms]

Anyway, years ago I remember reading on ATGS that as Jack Barry tried to get back into producing, he came up with a pilot with a “staged” outcome. When pressed about playing it straight he argued it’s a pilot so it shouldn’t matter.

Here’s that story, second paragraph in the “background” section.

Thanks for the link. I remember reading that on Curt's great site, but only now thought of this. In that game, telling interviewees what to say would have no bearing on the competition, since the contestants hear the same clues and still have to guess the topic. As with Hollywood Squares, it was still too dishonest for Goodson.

[Neumms]

Another reason talent isn't necessarily a reliable source. The Spellbinders pilots were shot before I came to work for G-T, though I did fly to L.A. to interview with Ira Skutch before they were shot. The Ferranti-Packard displays worked just fine for the pilots.

Chris, any idea of why NBC would pass? They certainly aired crummier games than Spellbinders with far lower production values. If the current management of GSN had been around, they'd have bought it.

[carlisle96]

his smugness as a host always annoyed me.

I have to call into question Brockman's story about catching Jack on a ladder backstage at TJW, trying to rig the show by fussing with the scoreboard. First, that's not how you rig a game show, and it would have resulted in a grievance from IATSE.

Are you sure that’s a story from Brockman, though? He was in charge at ABC during the run of “Joker,” he never had anything to do with that show.

That story is from Fred Silverman in an interview with the Television Academy

[chris319]

Chris, any idea of why NBC would pass?

Who knows?

I watched pilot #2 yesterday. It was a bit slow-paced and I don't think CNR was the best choice as a celebrity player. Bill Anderson did a great job.

I don't know what other pilots may have been in competition with it at the time.

[chris319]

That story is from Fred Silverman in an interview with the Television Academy

Oh, OK. Thanks for setting the record straight. So I've been rewatching the Brockman interview for nothing — haha! Brockman screws up his answer to a question about the genesis of P+.

[carlisle96]

glad to pitch in

[mmb5]

For the life of me I can't remember the name (plus I'm eating dinner right now so I'm not in the mood for tearing through notes), but the G-T/Barry rigged game was from 1969.  It was one of those "we got filmed answers from kids, so you'll answer these questions based on that".  The host was Gene Rayburn and featured what would eventually be The Better Sex end game, with just 13 people rather than 30.

[Chief-O]

Geoff Edwards has some stories too from Hollywood's Talking.
[snippy snip]
I think HT was solely a Jack Barry Production.

I do believe you're right (1973; so I believe it predates Barry's reunion with Enright).

either that or he interacted more with Dan

I believe that was the case; I know I've seen a clip from PTP with Dan actually appearing on camera.

[thomas_meighan]

That quote from Ira Skutch about rigging pilots has sometimes made me wonder about pilot #2 for “Card Sharks” (which Skutch, admittedly, wasn’t involved in AFAIK):

Johnny “wins” $28,800 in the Money Cards. Since that total happened only once during the actual run of 864 shows, it’s statistically improbable, and brings to mind the possibility of the pilot outcome being manipulated in some way. OTOH, given that there were no real winnings on the line, the contestant may have been more willing to make all-or-nothing bets on the potentially iffy 5 and 10.

[JasonA1]

OTOH, given that there were no real winnings on the line, the contestant may have been more willing to make all-or-nothing bets on the potentially iffy 5 and 10.

I think this is the more pertinent part. Generally speaking, we have more data on the side of Goodson not rigging pilots. While it may have happened here and there, my gut tells me no.

-Jason