Author Topic: Rich Fields (Read 24418 times)

gsnman · « **Reply #75 on:** October 02, 2005, 07:35:13 PM »

When I went to my first PRice is Right taping on my 23rd birthday a year ago, I had the pleasure of meeting Rich Fields on stage to do a mock COME ON DOWN that the audience loved. It was cool interacting with him for a while, and I had to have his autograph a couple of weeks later.

I went to a second taping last Spring Break, and thanks to my crazy friend Wesley, Bob and Rich called me Mr. Price is Right because of my love for the show. Thanks to my friend, he also made a fool out of me, that put Bob and Rich in stitches. It was all good, because I got to hear Rich Fields laughing.

I wish I could go to a third taping this or next year. That would be tight!

clemon79 · « **Reply #76 on:** October 02, 2005, 07:41:34 PM »

[quote name=\'CarShark\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 04:16 PM\']I don't think so at all. He's just acknowledging that Rich is a different person from Johnny or Rod. I don't think that Rich subpar at all. I think Roddy was a lot closer to being south of par than anyone.

[snapback]98364[/snapback]

[/quote]
Roddy being a poorer announcer is really irrelevant, though. The issue most people have is that it was pretty clear to most of us that Fields was not the best qualified candidate for the job, (You seem to disagree with this, and that's your opinion. Wrong, but your opinion.

And TonicBH's argument is "Well, he's a step up from Roddy," which is great, but that doesn't make Fields not "subpar", especially when it's widely agreed that better candidates existed.

FOXSportsFan · « **Reply #77 on:** October 02, 2005, 07:46:37 PM »

Hey, bottom line...as others have said. We could have done a lot worse. And, to the Rich haters, look at it from this way. When Bob goes, Rich may go too (unless he gets whisked into hosting which actually may be a possibility...not one I wanna see, but still).

FeudDude · « **Reply #78 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:05:48 PM »

[quote name=\'FOXSportsFan\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 07:46 PM\']Hey, bottom line...as others have said. We could have done a lot worse. And, to the Rich haters, look at it from this way. When Bob goes, Rich may go too (unless he gets whisked into hosting which actually may be a possibility...not one I wanna see, but still).

[snapback]98370[/snapback]

[/quote]

I actually think it's possible that Rich would be better as a host than he is as an announcer. I mean, he seems to have the warmth, friendliness, and enthusiasm for it, and unlike with his current job, having a good voice isn't all that important.

clemon79 · « **Reply #79 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:24:26 PM »

[quote name=\'FOXSportsFan\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 04:46 PM\']Hey, bottom line...as others have said. We could have done a lot worse.
[/quote]
The complaint is not that we could have done worse, that was evident (see Rosen, Daniel). The complaint is that we did not get the BEST, and there was no reason not to give it to us.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #80 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:26:31 PM »

[quote name=\'FeudDude\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 07:05 PM\']I mean, he seems to have the warmth, friendliness, and enthusiasm for it, and unlike with his current job, having a good voice isn't all that important.
[/quote]
It's not? Name one emcee, who didn't have a good voice.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #81 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:32:41 PM »

My thought is that they are grooming Mr. Fields for future on-camera work for Fremantle and that is why he got the nod.

I don't think it matters anymore whether one can speak clearly to get a high-profile announcing job. Just ask the current "Tonight Show" announcer.

clemon79 · « **Reply #82 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:35:59 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 05:26 PM\']It's not? Name one emcee, who didn't have a good voice.
[/quote]
Louie Anderson. Chuck Barris. Plus a metric ton of people who, while they were photogenic and good hosts, would have been perfectly awful off-camera announcers.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #83 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:41:05 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 05:26 PM\']It's not? Name one emcee, who didn't have a good voice.
Louie Anderson.
[/quote]
Fair enough. How soon I forget. Perhaps I should have added the prerequisite of being a "good" emcee.

clemon79 · « **Reply #84 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:42:01 PM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 05:32 PM\']I don't think it matters anymore whether one can speak clearly to get a high-profile announcing job. Just ask the current "Tonight Show" announcer.

[snapback]98378[/snapback]

[/quote]
Who went through, I'm told, a LOT of voice training and work on his stuttering to get/keep that job. And you know, whenever I watch Leno (which is often these days - I'm surprised to find that Letterman tires me these days), I listen to him do the top of the show, and I say to myself "Good for him. He shut up a lot of naysayers."

TPIRFan · « **Reply #85 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:51:18 PM »

[quote name=\'FOXSportsFan\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 06:46 PM\']And, to the Rich haters, look at it from this way. When Bob goes, Rich may go too.

[snapback]98370[/snapback]

[/quote]

And WHY would we want to see Bob go? We don't like Rich because he is a horrible announcer and was not the best pick for the job. Bob has nothing to do with it.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #86 on:** October 02, 2005, 08:53:36 PM »

The point is that "Stuttering John" made his name as someone who had difficulty speaking. How much money on intensive training would be spent for someone who could speak properly? It's like hiring somebody to host a game show but before hitting the air, thousands of $ in plastic surgery would have to be performed. Why not hire someone who didn't need the surgery?

clemon79 · « **Reply #87 on:** October 02, 2005, 10:14:03 PM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 05:53 PM\']The point is that "Stuttering John" made his name as someone who had difficulty speaking.
[/quote]

And it's still irrelevant. Has he ever stuttered on the show? Have they ever MENTIONED that he stuttered on the show? No. (At least, not that I know of. Maybe I'm wrong there.) He's done the job just fine ever since he's had it, and I never noticed them make a publicity stunt out of it.

Casey · « **Reply #88 on:** October 02, 2005, 10:31:22 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 07:24 PM\']The complaint is not that we could have done worse, that was evident (see Rosen, Daniel). The complaint is that we did not get the BEST, and there was no reason not to give it to us.

[snapback]98376[/snapback]

[/quote]
Do we know all of the details behind the decision to hire Rich over any of the other folks who auditioned? Was someone else in line ahead of Rich and couldn't for some reason? ($$?)

It still seems like an awful lot of folks bitching about something they had and have no influence over anyway.....

clemon79 · « **Reply #89 on:** October 02, 2005, 10:38:31 PM »

[quote name=\'isucgv\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 07:31 PM\']Do we know all of the details behind the decision to hire Rich over any of the other folks who auditioned? Was someone else in line ahead of Rich and couldn't for some reason? ($$?)
[/quote]
Well, we know one person who most definitely DID want the job, was most definitely more qualified in the opinion of many people, and yet did not get the job. Do you need more?

Quote

It still seems like an awful lot of folks bitching about something they had and have no influence over anyway.....

Ah, but allegedly we DID, CBS made it very clear that they wanted input from viewers during that period where they had Randy and etc. filling in between Rod leaving (and subsequently passing away) and Fields' hiring. I think that's what cheeses a lot of people: the faux-interest on the part of CBS followed immediately by a hiring decision very few people seem to agree with.

Author Topic: Rich Fields (Read 24418 times)

gsnman

TPIRFan