Author Topic: Mystery Guest (Read 4958 times)

The Pyramids · « **on:** September 04, 2005, 07:44:19 PM »

Imagine if there were to be a revival of 'What's My Line.' How many if you would be up in arms if instead of blindfolding the contestants and bringing out the mystery guest, the panel and audience instead saw an offstage silhouette of the guest with his or her voice electronically distorted?

I know I wouldn't like it. Not necessarily because that's not how they did it 50 years ago but more because it would simply deny viewers the chance to see the guest for most of the segment.

clemon79 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 04, 2005, 08:06:34 PM »

[quote name=\'PaulD\' date=\'Sep 4 2005, 04:44 PM\']I know I wouldn't like it. Not necessarily because that's not how they did it 50 years ago but more because it would simply deny viewers the chance to see the guest for most of the segment.
[/quote]
It would also deny viewers one of the fun things about that special feature of What's My Line, which was the Mystery Guest trying to disguise their voice.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #2 on:** September 04, 2005, 08:37:29 PM »

That would be a ripoff of "Front Page Challenge," "Movie Game" and "Sports Challenge." Stick with the tried and true. Besides, isn't it more fun to watch Soupy try to get Morty Gunty than to play-a-long at home?

Argo · « **Reply #3 on:** September 04, 2005, 11:03:45 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 4 2005, 07:06 PM\'][quote name=\'PaulD\' date=\'Sep 4 2005, 04:44 PM\']I know I wouldn't like it. Not necessarily because that's not how they did it 50 years ago but more because it would simply deny viewers the chance to see the guest for most of the segment.
[/quote]
It would also deny viewers one of the fun things about that special feature of What's My Line, which was the Mystery Guest trying to disguise their voice.

[snapback]95809[/snapback]

[/quote]

...or "Bill" Flemming...no relation to Art...

Neumms · « **Reply #4 on:** September 05, 2005, 02:32:29 PM »

A related question: Does anyone know if, back in the beginning, they considered using a partition instead of the blindfolds? It could just be a wall on rollers or a curtain, not a Dating Game motorized model with colorful flowers. It surprises me that the panelists, as sophisticated as they were back in the day, would go for the blindfolds.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 05, 2005, 03:44:18 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Sep 5 2005, 01:32 PM\']It surprises me that the panelists, as sophisticated as they were back in the day, would go for the blindfolds.
[/quote]
They were getting paid to do it, no? If someone offered me $500 (or whatever union scale is these days) to put a blindfold on for 3 minutes, I'd sure as hell do it.

clemon79 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 05, 2005, 03:48:54 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Sep 5 2005, 12:44 PM\']They were getting paid to do it, no? If someone offered me $500 (or whatever union scale is these days) to put a blindfold on for 3 minutes, I'd sure as hell do it.
[/quote]
Oddly enough, I'm sure you could find someone willing to pay you to do that. I assure you you'd require weeks of therapy to get past the events that took place in the next 3 minutes, tho.

chris319 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 05, 2005, 04:37:01 PM »

In his memoir, Gil Fates said a wall was considered but was deemed too cumbersome and expensive (?) to maintain and operate, so blindfolds were adopted. IMO the cost savings of not having a wall did not justify obscuring the facial expressions of the panelists, but they didn't ask me.

TwoInchQuad · « **Reply #8 on:** September 05, 2005, 04:37:11 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Sep 5 2005, 10:32 AM\']A related question: Does anyone know if, back in the beginning, they considered using a partition instead of the blindfolds? It could just be a wall on rollers or a curtain, not a Dating Game motorized model with colorful flowers. It surprises me that the panelists, as sophisticated as they were back in the day, would go for the blindfolds.

[snapback]95845[/snapback]

[/quote]

Yes, according to Gil Fates, they **did** consider that, and spent no small amount of time trying to successfully engineer the idea. Ultimately though, the blindfolds were hit upon as a simpler (and much cheaper) solution.

When TTTT tried their short-lived "celebrity-tries-to-fool-the-panel" spots in the spring of 1967, they used a movable partition, which ultimately served to illustrate how unwieldy that whole idea was.

-Kevin

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #9 on:** September 05, 2005, 04:44:54 PM »

"Relatively Speaking" of the late '80s had a movable partition that would hide the celeb from the panel.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #10 on:** September 05, 2005, 08:35:52 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 5 2005, 02:48 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Sep 5 2005, 12:44 PM\']They were getting paid to do it, no? If someone offered me $500 (or whatever union scale is these days) to put a blindfold on for 3 minutes, I'd sure as hell do it.
[/quote]
Oddly enough, I'm sure you could find someone willing to pay you to do that. I assure you you'd require weeks of therapy to get past the events that took place in the next 3 minutes, tho.

[snapback]95851[/snapback]

[/quote]

It's "Sleeper: The Game Show"!

Neumms · « **Reply #11 on:** September 05, 2005, 10:43:23 PM »

[quote name=\'TwoInchQuad\' date=\'Sep 5 2005, 03:37 PM\']When TTTT tried their short-lived "celebrity-tries-to-fool-the-panel" spots in the spring of 1967, they used a movable partition, which ultimately served to illustrate how unwieldy that whole idea was.

[snapback]95855[/snapback]

[/quote]

Boy, if they went from there to the team-of-challengers-with-bags-over-their-heads route, then it really must have been unwieldy.

Thanks everybody for the answers.