Misc. TPIR news & notes

[adamjk]

-Art Sanders was almost hired on the spot. Bob really liked him a lot. Apparently, Bob didn't want to go through an exhausive search. Jim Thorton did better than I thought, but he was almost yanked after 1 day. The agreement was Daniel Rosen was terrible.

Out of curiosity, what was the staff's thoughts on Randy?

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Apr 29 2004, 03:33 PM\']Would that be the 63 chunkys incident mentioned by Johnny O in the "This is your strife" Showcase from 1979?[/quote]
That would probably be it, but this sort of incident, as I stated, happened more than once over the years.

[adamjk]

I know, but I was just wondering about the first time.

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Apr 29 2004, 04:42 PM\'] I know, but I was just wondering about the first time. [/quote]
 Yes, we gathered that much.

[JayC]

[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 08:11 PM\']-Art Sanders was almost hired on the spot. Bob really liked him a lot. Apparently, Bob didn't want to go through an exhausive search. Jim Thorton did better than I thought, but he was almost yanked after 1 day. The agreement was Daniel Rosen was terrible.[/QUOTE]

I really liked Art.  He was the closest to Randy in talent IMO.  

-The TPIR back audience logo that was changed for the Primetime specials (from the 30th season logo to a solid white/grey) is carried over to the daytime show.[/QUOTE]

Darn, I liked that sign...

[drmusic_99]

While I think Rich has the potential to grow into the job, and deserves time to do so, I think side-by-side, I've have chosen Art.

Now, I don't think I'm alone in having thought after using Burton and Randy for so long, it would be one of the two that was chosen. Would it be a fair guess that they had already been ruled out when the next batch of tryouts started?

[Craig Karlberg]

That Art Sanders reason may have been the funniest one I ever heard.  I mean, why would anyone suffer a seizure from all those colors let alone Art?

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Apr 30 2004, 04:59 AM\'] That Art Sanders reason may have been the funniest one I ever heard.  I mean, why would anyone suffer a seizure from all those colors let alone Art? [/quote]
 Read the original post again, and see which pricing game's name cropped up in the section about Art.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' date=\'Apr 30 2004, 03:23 PM\'] [quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Apr 30 2004, 04:59 AM\'] That Art Sanders reason may have been the funniest one I ever heard.  I mean, why would anyone suffer a seizure from all those colors let alone Art? [/quote]
Read the original post again, and see which pricing game's name cropped up in the section about Art. [/quote]
 I'm afraid if he didn't get the joke the first time, a subtle suggestion isn't going to be much help for him either.

[GSWitch]

[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Apr 28 2004, 07:11 PM\'] -The Switcheroo clock was not broken when the 99 year old man played. [/quote]
 Cheers to Fremantle that they let a 99 year old gentleman take his sweet time telling Bob where to insert the cubes.  Too bad he didn't win anything though.

[tvrandywest]

[quote name=\'GSWitch\' date=\'Apr 30 2004, 05:07 PM\'] Cheers to Fremantle that they let a 99 year old gentleman take his sweet time telling Bob where to insert the cubes.  Too bad he didn't win anything though. [/quote]
That was one of the episodes I worked. Bob was brilliant in claiming the clock was "broken", and was incredibly patient allowing the gent to change his mind a whole bunch of times. Everybody was so disappointed he didn't win more. The segment ran about 10 minutes, but "portions of the program not affecting the outcome of the game were edited for broadcast".  ;-)

Randy
tvrandywest.com

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Apr 29 2004, 03:35 PM\']

-Art Sanders was almost hired on the spot. Bob really liked him a lot. Apparently, Bob didn't want to go through an exhausive search. Jim Thorton did better than I thought, but he was almost yanked after 1 day. The agreement was Daniel Rosen was terrible.

Out of curiosity, what was the staff's thoughts on Randy? [/quote]
Is that exactly appropriate to talk about here?  I found it slightly insensitive, but that's just my $.02

[tvrandywest]

[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'May 1 2004, 09:41 AM\'] [quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Apr 29 2004, 03:35 PM\']Out of curiosity, what was the staff's thoughts on Randy? [/quote]
Is that exactly appropriate to talk about here?  I found it slightly insensitive, but that's just my $.02 [/quote]
Hey D., I appreciate your sensitivity and your concern about what discussion is appropriate here. If your hesititation is over concern for my feelings... thanks, but don't worry. Criticism and rejection are a huge part of the entertainment industry; anyone who sticks around has learned to develop a thick skin. "Good" and "bad" are so subjective when dealing with an intangible such as a performer's style, anyway.

I've been a member here from when Chris and Matt were giving their first thoughts to starting the board. I never thought that my work would be part of any of the subjects. I'm here just to participate in the discussion, and don't want to inhibit the free exchange. I purposely did NOT become a member at golden-road.net when I learned that site existed because I knew it could affect the purity of the board's posts. I'd never want to do that. I was here from the beginning, I enjoy the discussion, and I can occasionally answer a question or two, so I'm not about to leave. But I don't want my presence to inhibit anybody from expressing their opinions.

Besides, anyone who is gonna work in public, to the public, has to be ready to hear anything. I am. I've been insulted by better people than you guys anyway!   ;-P

Now let the gossip continue!!


Randy
tvrandywest.com

[chris319]

Criticism and rejection are a huge part of the entertainment industry; anyone who sticks around has learned to develop a thick skin. "Good" and "bad" are so subjective when dealing with an intangible such as a performer's style, anyway.

Not only that, but the entertainment industry does not operate as a pure meritocracy. There are sometimes hidden agendas or ulterior motives for the bigwigs making the decisions they do. We call it "politics". People get hired/cast/chosen because the decision maker or his/her higher-up has a special relationship or affinity with that person or owes someone else a favor. Rejection always hurts but you develop defense mechanisms to get over it quickly.

I'm not saying "politics" played a role in the selection of Rich Fields; I am speaking strictly in the abstract. I'm inclined to think the decision-makers in this case won't be speaking freely about their decision-making process. If I were to ask one of them, I wouldn't ask "Why did you turn down Randy?" but "What is it you liked about Rich Fields?". Not that I'm going to ask, but it's considered protocol in Hollywood.

It has been rumored that female performers improved their chances of obtaining employment with a certain erstwhile game show producer if they, um, "curried favor" with the old geezer. So much for meritocracy.

[Matt Ottinger]

All of Randy's and Chris' comments having been made, the specific answer to the original question is that from everything that I ever heard, the overall staff response to Randy's work was extremely positive.  As I hear tell (and no, not from Randy), the long-time crew members especially were impressed to see someone harken back to the halcyon days of Johnny O.

As Randy explained, "good" and "bad" is all relative, and the reasons one person gets picked over another can be made up of any number of factors.  But the simple answer, as I understand it anyway, was that the staff was very impressed with Randy's work.  

And why wouldn't they be?