The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: BrandonFG on February 21, 2024, 07:12:15 PM
-
From the creator of The Floor comes The Quiz with Balls. Per Deadline (https://deadline.com/2024/02/jay-pharoah-host-fox-game-show-the-quiz-with-balls-1235833278/):
The network teases contestants must work together while standing on a high platform over a pool as they face a multiple-choice quiz where each answer is allocated to a spot with a giant ball positioned up behind it. If the correct answer is chosen, the ball rolls down and stops just before colliding with the player. But if the answer is wrong, the ball will rapidly descend and mercilessly whack them into the pool below.
The more players each team loses, the harder the questions get. The longer they last, the more money they bank, until one “dry” family member plays the final round that could lead to the $100k grand prize.
The premiere is set for this summer.
-
Fox AF.
-
Because your game show should be hosted by someone who's only talent is doing impressions.
-
But it was fine when Fred Travalena did it?
-
But it was fine when Fred Travalena did it?
Well, no, not really...
-
Because your game show should be hosted by someone who's only talent is doing impressions.
He's also a comedian and how many comedians hosted game shows?
-
Because your game show should be hosted by someone who's only talent is doing impressions.
He's also a comedian and how many comedians hosted game shows?
And how many of them have been truly good at it? And I don't mean good *for a comedian,* I mean truly, naturally good at the craft. I suggest with a fair amount of confidence you won't get to your other hand.
-
Are most of you literally Todd Newton’s publicists?
I actually worked with Pharoah on a Hulu series and we talked about how much he actually wanted to get a chance to host a game show. Gee—imagine that—desire.
I assume he watched tapes of the foreign version. Imagine that—studying one’s craft like an actor.
He likely auditioned. Probably some of testing too. Fox remains one of the few places that still does that.
And yet—sight unseen—so many immediately reject even the thought of him.
I’m not getting a soapbox specifically for Jay, but I’m so damn sick on old farts who think anyone who didn’t have the background of Bob Barker is unfit to even have a chance to host.
Maybe y’all should actually do an eye test once in a while rather than make snap judgements? Or shall I say for the Uber geeks—password ‘68s??
-
Not a comment on Jay specifically, but I think you have to give the people on this board in particular credit that they're not looking for Pat Finn to be on the set tomorrow. That's a through line more befitting YouTube comments, etc. I think the views we see in this thread start with a skepticism about being able to present a TV show. For instance, I think a lot of the athletes who are now TV analysts could be good picks, because they have experience in the studio, with a teleprompter, etc. I don't think the pushback on any modern host is strictly because they haven't been behind a podium asking questions before.
And skepticism is just that. We're a discussion board, and it's something to discuss. It can be just as foolhardy to suggest every new idea is great because it's new, and every old idea is bad because it's old.
-Jason
-
FWIW, this is actually not Jay Pharoah's first game show hosting job - he hosted the 2020 Nickelodeon kids game show "Unfiltered". I didn't think he was a particularly good host, but that show (which was produced remotely at the height of COVID) was probably unsalvageable anyway.
As for "The Quiz With Balls" in general, I'll repeat what I said in a previous thread about this show a few weeks ago:
I get the feeling I should be happy Fox is doing a new game show that isn't music identification.
Want to place bets as to which country it will be taped in?
-
I admit I’m rooting for Jay because he went to my high school and I graduated with his sister (a super chill woman and talented singer in her own regard), but I get the skepticism. For every Richard Dawson or Howie Mandel, you get a few Louie Andersons: great comics but ill-at-ease behind a podium. That said, I never understood the backlash comedian hosts get, given some of the most legendary emcees were comedians and actors. Imagine if this forum exists in 1982 when we learn Sue Ann Nivens is hosting a game show and would win an Emmy.
And for the reasons Jason mentioned that athletes do well as analysts, I’m surprised more comics actually aren’t better given the level of improv most comedians master.
/Todd Newton does deserve more hosting work
//Modern-day Jim Peck?
-
Not a comment on Jay specifically, but I think you have to give the people on this board in particular credit that they're not looking for Pat Finn to be on the set tomorrow. That's a through line more befitting YouTube comments, etc. I think the views we see in this thread start with a skepticism about being able to present a TV show. For instance, I think a lot of the athletes who are now TV analysts could be good picks, because they have experience in the studio, with a teleprompter, etc. I don't think the pushback on any modern host is strictly because they haven't been behind a podium asking questions before.
And skepticism is just that. We're a discussion board, and it's something to discuss. It can be just as foolhardy to suggest every new idea is great because it's new, and every old idea is bad because it's old.
In a setting like this I want the host to be an avatar for me or the other viewers. When I heard that Fear Factor would be hosted by Joe Rogan I was pleased because I was familiar with his work at least from NewsRadio and so that bridged the gap for me more than might with a previous unkonwn.
Going along with Jason's remarks, this isn't a straight quiz show so I don't want a quiz show host. I do want someone who can guide viewers through the format and be additive. I hope Jay works in that role.
-
I’m not getting a soapbox specifically for Jay, but I’m so damn sick on old farts who think anyone who didn’t have the background of Bob Barker is unfit to even have a chance to host.
As Chris mentioned, the track record for comedians being "truly good" game show hosts isn't very good, whereas those who've had a career in broadcasting have proven much better at having the skills that make for a good game show host. There's an art form to being a MC and putting the spotlight on your contestants, which is something most comedians-as-game-show-hosts seem not to get: That it's not about them.
This is the part where I'm interested to see what Seacrest will do with Wheel given his background, if he will employ some of that good old-school rote of bringing out the best in the contestants by listing to and interacting with them, rather than using them as setups for their jokes.
And may I put in a good word here for Mark L. Walberg, the man who really should be hosting The Price Is Right today. I watched about half an episode of Russian Roulette not too long ago. I was struck by how he not only did good interviews with the contestants but also paid attention and remembered what they said to further exemplify their personalities as the game progressed. Sure hope his Price audition tape gets out onto the Internet someday. I'd love to see what could have been.
/At what age does one qualify as "old farts"? Double the eligibility for the Seniors team on Trivia Trap?
-
I would contend old farts is a state of mind, not a specific age. By all statistical accounts, I should be eating dinner at Norm's at 4 pm and spending extra time in the medical supplies department at Rite-Aid. But I digresss...
My observation is not specific to anything other than the absolute obsession so many have to pass any judgement at all sight unseen. I learned that lesson myself from producers who would come in with salespeople to pitch their shows and my bosses would encourage me to use ratings books correlations to poke holes in their pitch--e.g. the last time our client tried a word game head-to-head with WHEEL it was a disaster, so therefore your word game can't be any good. Rightfully, the producer would rear up in anger and ask "Do you even WATCH TV?? You're paid to advise stations what their VIEWERS might want to watch and you're drawing a conclusion before you even see a second of what my staff worked several YEARS to fine-tune, test out among staffers, focus groups and yes, even our friends and families and you're basing that on how a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT program fared among a few hundred diary keepers who didn't think a one dollar bill was enough incentive to be fully accurate??"
If you think that sounds ludicrous, you should have seen the look on the salesperson's face who would now have to deal with bruised egos that would be taken out on them on a unrelated manner.
My point: Until we actually SEE someone do a job, any expectation, good or bad, is indefensible. If Jay sucks, you're right, he'll be in the majority of those that have failed. But at least wait until the show premieres to see if the Batsignal should go out for Pat Finn.
PS: I saw the Mark L. tape. Under the strict rules of the then-outgoing Price regime, he was relatively stiff. Personally, I thought Dave Price was the best of that crop. But since none of us have the surname Moonves, that really doesn't matter, does it?
-
As for "The Quiz With Balls" in general, I'll repeat what I said in a previous thread about this show a few weeks ago:
I get the feeling I should be happy Fox is doing a new game show that isn't music identification.
Want to place bets as to which country it will be taped in?
Knowing Fox, it will be taped in the same country where the Dutch one was taped. It's easier to have one set for all of the versions.
-
My point: Until we actually SEE someone do a job, any expectation, good or bad, is indefensible. If Jay sucks, you're right, he'll be in the majority of those that have failed. But at least wait until the show premieres to see if the Batsignal should go out for Pat Finn.
You are correct. We cannot pass a complete judgement until we see the work, but it is reasonable to have the opinion that it likely won't be to my interest (and perhaps the interest of many others on this board, but I speak only for myself); therefore, I as a potential viewer am not enticed to tune in knowing that yet another so-called comedian, washed up or not, is tapped to host a game show. I know I am far from the representation of the average viewer, so my opinion carries little weight against those more likely to be targeted by this program (and anywhere the ratings and dollars actually matter). Am I potentially missing out on something good? Perhaps, but if the show becomes all the rage, well, I'm sure there'll be an opportunity to catch up.
PS: I saw the Mark L. tape. Under the strict rules of the then-outgoing Price regime, he was relatively stiff. Personally, I thought Dave Price was the best of that crop. But since none of us have the surname Moonves, that really doesn't matter, does it?
Lucky you for getting to see the tape. I'd be interested to know more on your Dave Price take because, as I recall from the little that was mentioned about it, his performance was horrible and cringeworthy; and it made no sense at all that there was a point where he was a strong contender for the job. Steve Gavazzi would be the one who'd have the better memory about these things (at least as far as what made it into the Golden-Road.net world back in the day), so if he's willing to chime in on the subject...
-
As Chris mentioned, the track record for comedians being "truly good" game show hosts isn't very good, whereas those who've had a career in broadcasting have proven much better at having the skills that make for a good game show host.
And, with this line, there's a major elephant in the room:
Where does one develop the career in broadcasting in the present time to prepare for this job?
A rather high percentage of the first generation of American television game show hosts came from OTR- and that, needless to say, has not been producing hosts for a long while.
A good number of the hosts of the next generation came out of the personality DJing of the 1960s (with quite a few of those working for the same MOR station in Los Angeles- and, interestingly, at one point or another picking up paychecks from the same producer)- but, for a range of reasons (including ones of both an economic and a cultural nature), the radio industry of the last few decades has not exactly been conducive to this sort of talent-production.
Under this circumstance, there's an obvious issue- indeed, actors and comedians have long had a mediocre-at-best track record (and, in both cases, have been demonstrating this since the 1950s), but I'm also not convinced that an approach that just runs out everyone left around who's hosted a game show before is really viable (for reasons that range on a host-by-host level), and a lot of the traditional avenues are gone- one can't use experience as a staff announcer when there's essentially no such thing as a staff announcer anymore.
I admit that this is one of those observations without an obvious solution (there are aspects of contemporary sportscasting that makes me skeptical about that being the answer), but it is something that matters quite a bit when thinking about this on a systemic level.
-
You sound much like every one I’ve heard tell glory stories of the AM rock and roll 50000 watt behemoths of yore. I’m ancient enough where I recall the WMCA Good Guys and am related distantly to KHJ’s Beaver Cleaver. There were a lot of very talented hosts who spun records. A small percentage of them became game show talent, and ultimately they had to win over producers in an audition. Those skills are either innate or honed through life experiences.
Go to any club with a deejay. You’d be shocked at the diversity and breadth of talent. Were I on the look for 2024’s Bob Barker, I’d start there. See how they interact with the crowd. The creativity they use to introduce songs. Yes, their looks too. I’d at least find a decent list of possibilities to put to the test. Kinds like how comedy development finds new cast members—at least until AI gets more capable.
There’s also quite a number of talented voices going podcasts. One could easily identify at least decent announcers from those, not to mention determine who’s a good interviewer.
My point: life goes on and things change. The percentage of people under 50 who regularly listen to terrestrial radio is minimal, just like those who regularly read a physical newspaper.
Adapt or be extinct. Worthy advice I’ve been implored to heed. We all should.
-
I'm totally fine with whoever they tag in to host one of these shows, and credit to Fox for taking chances on these unusual game formats - yes, even We Are Family - because they seem to be the only one willing to do it.
All I ask is that Jay does what seemingly no modern-day host not named Elizabeth Banks is capable of doing: looking their contestants in the eyes and telling them, not the teleprompter, that they've just won a bunch of money. I started noticing it with Alec Baldwin back when Match Game was being rebooted and it seems endemic now. The impersonability of modern hosts is off-putting AF. It's like they can't disguise their apathy for the contestants playing the game.
-
All I ask is that Jay does what seemingly no modern-day host not named Elizabeth Banks is capable of doing: looking their contestants in the eyes and telling them, not the teleprompter, that they've just won a bunch of money. I started noticing it with Alec Baldwin back when Match Game was being rebooted and it seems endemic now. The impersonability of modern hosts is off-putting AF. It's like they can't disguise their apathy for the contestants playing the game.
Well, how many of them would say they really want to be there? Hosting a game show has long been recognized as a gig with good money for the work schedule and great at keeping you remembered in show business, but who has had it on their bucket list?
Now, I suppose Uncle Bill didn't want to be at the helm of some of the doozies he hosted, but he at least hit his contempt for a lousy show most of the time the cameras were rolling.
The problem, as I see it, is the age-old issue of the networks and other powers-that-be casting hosts largely on name recognition, the fallacy that people won't watch someone they don't know. Clearly name recognition is no issue if you have the power over your show of Mike Richards, and if you really want to be the host of the biggest quiz show in syndication, you give yourself the job. That broke all the "rules" that mandated such statements as, "Oh, you could never give Todd Newton The Price Is Right. People don't know who he is." (not that I actually think he should have gotten the job, but he'd be better than Drew Carey in the role).
The skillet gap is huge too, and I agree that podcasters, DJs and others could be the ones with the skillset in this day and age, but now convince a network exec that casting one of these is better than some comedian people may have heard of (I had never heard of Jay Pharaoh until this thread) who is only going to lean on the teleprompter the whole show.
-
Where does one develop the career in broadcasting in the present time to prepare for this job?
[...]
I admit that this is one of those observations without an obvious solution (there are aspects of contemporary sportscasting that makes me skeptical about that being the answer), but it is something that matters quite a bit when thinking about this on a systemic level.
I too was recently thinking about how the best training grounds for game show hosts no longer exist. It occurred to me that recently, the world of daytime talk shows/light news shows has been fertile ground for new game show hosts.
Maybe it's just because all three hosts of Strahan, Sara & Keke got their own game shows and Jerry O'Connell started Pictionary around the same time he became a regular on The Talk. But the ability to talk directly into the camera and then pivot to interview people does overlap with the abilities needed to be a good game show host.
-
Go to any club with a deejay. You’d be shocked at the diversity and breadth of talent. Were I on the look for 2024’s Bob Barker, I’d start there. See how they interact with the crowd. The creativity they use to introduce songs. Yes, their looks too. I’d at least find a decent list of possibilities to put to the test. Kinds like how comedy development finds new cast members—at least until AI gets more capable.
I do bar trivia every once in a while. The last bar I frequented, I became a bit of a regular and managed to build a rapport with the patrons. It’s a fun experience that brings me out of my shell and allows me to think on my feet. As I mentioned earlier, I’m surprised more comics aren’t more polished on these shows given how many of them oftentimes rag on audience members during their shows. I second the idea of getting a podcast host, but I realize the suits want a “name”.
The most recent YBYL reboot annoyed me in that Jay went out of his way to get contestants to say the Secret Word, but he was good at interacting with everyday people thanks to the format being wafer thin. To Tim’s point, other than YBYL the only modern shows that really lets the host (organically) have fun with a bad answer is Feud or People Puzzler. JMH tried on America Says but it always felt like someone fed him a joke to force in after every round. GSN makes great originals but they could really dial back the extensive contestant banter and let the game breathe a little.
-
Strahan is a perfect example of a modern success. Don’t forget the hosting and interviewing he does for FOX football. He has lived in live TV for decades. But—and I say this having been blessed with a few personal conversations with the man—he also WANTED the Pyramid gig and when presented with the opportunity took the time to watch a LOT of the 80s episodes and specifically watch how Dick acted as a traffic cop. My one complaint on Michael is that he rarely veers from the “what will you do with the money” shtick leading up to the end game, but at least he actually cares about the answer—at least the first time. Assuming Jay actually takes the time to study the foreign version and learn the rules and mechanics, he’ll at least have a fighting chance.
And wow..after the mediocrity of Richards in a format he claimed to want to emcee as a kid, it was wonderful to actually see a Michael with talent eclipse his success
-
Strahan is a perfect example of a modern success. Don’t forget the hosting and interviewing he does for FOX football.
(snip)
My one complaint on Michael is that he rarely veers from the “what will you do with the money” shtick leading up to the end game, but at least he actually cares about the answer—at least the first time.
This is a crutch a lotta modern shows - especially GSN - lean on way too much and it starts feeling cliche after a while. How many times do people need to hear that someone is gonna take a trip or buy a car with the money, and it’s the drawn out conversation I referred to that could go towards more gameplay.
In the case of GSN, taking :20 from that question or getting rid of it altogether could go towards letting the contestant soak in the big win instead of saying “$10,000! That’sourshowseeyounexttimebobwehadababyit’saboy!” Somewhere in the last 15 years the contestants have become an afterthought.
-
You have to be a comic or a comic actor to get a game show now.
-
My point: Until we actually SEE someone do a job, any expectation, good or bad, is indefensible. If Jay sucks, you're right, he'll be in the majority of those that have failed. But at least wait until the show premieres to see if the Batsignal should go out for Pat Finn.
So, I should wait until I'm soaking wet to grab a raincoat?
I certainly think many in the game show community, from here to YouTube, can be too dismissive based on nothing but an announcement, but it seems weird to tell people "you're not allowed to have an opinion without seeing something" because it's something we do as humans all the time. In entertainment, just as we have people here not confident in Jay's hosting ability, you'll equally have people planning to watch the show sight unseen just because they like Jay. Will this or that star be good playing this or that real life person in a biopic? Will this cover of a song sound as good as previous covers of a song (not just the original)? You're invited to an event by someone that doesn't have a good reputation for hosting great parties. Do you go to it hoping that it will be good or do you skip it assuming it will be more of the same? Because there are people who do both.
We should be allowed to base our opinions on the things we've seen previously. Perhaps some should inject more hope that it will prove us wrong, but FOX and Jay aren't really owed that either. They're the ones trying to sell us on watching it, not the other way around. While the judgements shouldn't be so concrete, I think indefensible is a little harsh. Why is this somehow different from making predictions about anything?
-
“$10,000! That’sourshowseeyounexttimebobwehadababyit’saboy!” Somewhere in the last 15 years the contestants have become an afterthought.
First, just to say, I got that reference. (I used it just two days ago in a conversation and it fell flat.)
The preface to this is, every host has their style and shouldn't carbon copy the hosts of the golden era. But there is one example that I think encapsulates the point of contestants being the afterthought. Drew will announce "Double Showcase Winner! Double Showcase Winner!" and of course he's happy for the contestant. Bob, on the other hand, would say "YOU win BOTH showcases!" It's subtle, but to me it says everything.
-
I agree that the lack of training ground for new hosts is a concern. Sure the radio days are over, but the reason I think Barker was so successful on Price was that he spent 20 years doing Truth or Consequences beforehand. Where are you supposed to strengthen audience participation chops before landing a big show? Using DJs is an interesting idea I had not thought about before.
How many times do people need to hear that someone is gonna take a trip or buy a car with the money, and it’s the drawn out conversation I referred to that could go towards more gameplay.
Especially when the actual answer to this question (whether it be pay off bills, put it into savings, or invest it) is told to contestants to be unacceptable because it's not exciting enough. They are asked to come up with a lie to support consumerism and there's only so many fake things to buy.
-
Just once, I'd like to see a contestant respond "Hookers and blow".
-
every host has their style and shouldn't carbon copy the hosts of the golden era.
Why not? OK, being a "carbon copy" would be a bit much, but outside of our group, who would actually know if some host did a straight-up imitation of Uncle Bill's style? Nobody is ever going to host a game show better than he did, and nobody is going to host a show better than the hosts of the "golden era". Follow the masters, says I.
But there is one example that I think encapsulates the point of contestants being the afterthought. Drew will announce "Double Showcase Winner! Double Showcase Winner!" and of course he's happy for the contestant. Bob, on the other hand, would say "YOU win BOTH showcases!" It's subtle, but to me it says everything.
Agreed, but I would go further to say that Barker understood the contestants are the true stars. Drew and other comedians use them as vehicles to carry themselves, but it's actually his role to carry the show and let the contestants do most of the work but keep the proceedings in check (which means your show does not rely on a bunch of post-production editing because the MC didn't hurry them along, etc.).
How many times do people need to hear that someone is gonna take a trip or buy a car with the money, and it’s the drawn out conversation I referred to that could go towards more gameplay.
Especially when the actual answer to this question (whether it be pay off bills, put it into savings, or invest it) is told to contestants to be unacceptable because it's not exciting enough. They are asked to come up with a lie to support consumerism and there's only so many fake things to buy.
And that's the other major problem in game shows today: Directing the contestants on how to behave and react to non-gameplay elements. Honesty is the best policy, right? So why would save the money be a bad answer (Actually, when you see the old shows where contestants who win a bundle of money say they're going to use it to buy a house, the answer today I would give is, "I'm going to invest the money at 5% for 20 years so I can scrape together the money to make a down payment on a house someday". Too bad winning forty grand is nothing for getting you a house now.)? I can't stand the fake and coached answers and reactions. At a Price taping I attended years ago, they did a pickup of a contestant's reaction to a home gym revealed in the Showcase because, as she was told, "You gave me a ten (in terms of excitement). I need a six". If Drew Carey ever told me to "go see your car" that I just won, I'd say to him, "I can see it from here!".
And another thing: Outside of Price, Wheel, J! and Feud, what is with the aversion to revealing contestants' last names these days? It's an important part of one's identity. There's just this feeling of authenticity when you let contestants be more than just a first name. Is it supposed to be some kind of security thing against identity theft or what? Because showing yourself on broadcast television is not doing much to hide your identity in the first place.
-
This is a crutch a lotta modern shows - especially GSN - lean on way too much and it starts feeling cliche after a while. How many times do people need to hear that someone is gonna take a trip or buy a car with the money, and it’s the drawn out conversation I referred to that could go towards more gameplay.
There's a significantly larger than zero chance that even if they didn't ask before, they'd ask after.
-
And another thing: Outside of Price, Wheel, J! and Feud, what is with the aversion to revealing contestants' last names these days? It's an important part of one's identity. There's just this feeling of authenticity when you let contestants be more than just a first name. Is it supposed to be some kind of security thing against identity theft or what? Because showing yourself on broadcast television is not doing much to hide your identity in the first place.
I’m sure it’s that and the fact that people are weirdos on the internet. Why give an extra layer to their identities?
-
A friend of mine's mother was on $25000 Pyramid. When it reaired on GSN she had all kinds of weird interactions.
Thankfully it was only a couple of weeks in duration.
-
Social media has made it so much easier to not just track people down, but seriously interfere with their lives, simply by knowing their first and last names. Of course, there are a lot of female contestants out there who appreciate the anonymity of not having their full names out there, but I can also think of a recent Jeopardy! champion who got raked over the coals simply because of his facial hair.
Reality shows like Survivor and Big Brother are running into this issue as well - Jeff Probst recently mentioned that they don't cast "villains" anymore because viewers with nothing better to do will take things too seriously and abuse someone for things that were said and done while playing a game.
-
This is a crutch a lotta modern shows - especially GSN - lean on way too much and it starts feeling cliche after a while. How many times do people need to hear that someone is gonna take a trip or buy a car with the money, and it’s the drawn out conversation I referred to that could go towards more gameplay.
There's a significantly larger than zero chance that even if they didn't ask before, they'd ask after.
At least it wouldn't be every single episode, given how seldom GSN shows seem to give away the top prize. I know shows aren't spontaneous like they were 40 years ago, but it's almost like GSN is afraid to deviate from the template even once.
-
The reason game shows did away with the use of last names was the advent of the internet which allowed people to geolocate people ‘s addresses. In some early cases fans (stalkers?) actually showed up at million dollar winners’ homes. No sad incident occurred, but that was also before our world got nuttier. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a jealous or angry fan to know where I live. Especially if that person champions the second amendment.
And in response to those who want to blindly defend your g-d-given right to pass judgement sight unseen, you of course have the right to do that. The more educated and ultimately informed way is to actually use the eye test, or do research. Forgive me, I made a living from research and determining how other people besides myself feel. From my experience, such an approach makes you smarter and ultimately allows you to make a more informed decision. But y’all can continue to prejudge all you want….
-
The reason game shows did away with the use of last names was the advent of the internet which allowed people to geolocate people ‘s addresses. In some early cases fans (stalkers?) actually showed up at million dollar winners’ homes. No sad incident occurred, but that was also before our world got nuttier. I sure as hell wouldn’t want a jealous or angry fan to know where I live. Especially if that person champions the second amendment.
not sure what 2a has to do with anything, Steve. Trespass and stalking are already illegal.
My understanding is that Ed Toutant came home one day after his resurrection game/coup and found an envelope from Federal Express wedged into his door, and in that envelope was his net proceeds of about $1.4 million. Lucky that he got home when he did.
And to go back to Nick, that says nothing of a particularly skeezy member of our circle who would seek out distaff winners on Jeopardy and congratulate them.
-
And to go back to Nick, that says nothing of a particularly skeezy member of our circle who would seek out distaff winners on Jeopardy and congratulate them.
Or, as I remember, someone who tracked down a contestant from an infamous game show episode that had aired 30 years prior and gave her an unsolicited invitation to a convention where my friends and I were hosting an event.
-
I’m sure it’s that and the fact that people are weirdos on the internet. Why give an extra layer to their identities?
Humanizing. Too many game shows produced today come across as too generic too deliberately, especially in the case of GSN originals. A last name does a lot to make a person human. True as that reasoning behind a first-name-only basis may be, my point still remains that other shows have been doing it, and while I suppose there have been some incidents initiated by crazy people, it's all outside the show's control and something I am sure you could never sue the producers or the network for anyway as you probably waived that right somewhere in the contestant release. If it was really that bad, the others would have stopped it too. Either way, my point also stands that you waive a certain amount of personal privacy when you go on television. It's like winning the lottery. The prizes, unfortunately, can't buy you privacy.
I sure as hell wouldn’t want a jealous or angry fan to know where I live.
I don't think you have either of those about which to worry. Ten villains however...
Or, as I remember, someone who tracked down a contestant from an infamous game show episode that had aired 30 years prior and gave her an unsolicited invitation to a convention where my friends and I were hosting an event.
I've no idea who said contestant was, who extended said invitation or what said event was. I could see there potentially being such a scenario where such an invitation would be warmly received, but I gather that was not the case in this instance, and that perhaps should have been obvious, but I don't know the context.
-
Humanizing. Too many game shows produced today come across as too generic too deliberately, especially in the case of GSN originals. A last name does a lot to make a person human. True as that reasoning behind a first-name-only basis may be, my point still remains that other shows have been doing it, and while I suppose there have been some incidents initiated by crazy people, it's all outside the show's control and something I am sure you could never sue the producers or the network for anyway as you probably waived that right somewhere in the contestant release. If it was really that bad, the others would have stopped it too.
Did you read any of what anyone said, specifically the part about people being harassed? It's not 1975 anymore; the ways to track someone down are much more advanced if not more dangerous. Just because you feel it's your God-given right to know a contestant's full government name doesn't mean it should happen. People are crazy. It's one thing to look up a contestant to maybe alert them to their appearance. It's another thing to pester them.
Either way, my point also stands that you waive a certain amount of personal privacy when you go on television. It's like winning the lottery. The prizes, unfortunately, can't buy you privacy.
You're trolling right? No? Fine. Amy Schneider got robbed at gunpoint not long after her J! appearance. By your logic, she must've had it coming. Maybe I need sleep but your comment comes across as saying contestants deserve what potential fate may come their way. A game show contestant still deserves some level of privacy just like any movie or TV star.
And I don't know how they do in Canada, but many states grant you anonymity when you hit the lottery, at least after you win a certain amount. Mainly because, well y'know...people are crazy.
-
A lot of "back in my day rhetoric".
Nick, a lot of the opinions you offer seem to go a long way to say "Why don't they produce game shows exactly the way they did them in the 70's and 80's?" While I'm a product of that era too, I also understand that times have changed and the people who watch games today did not grow up in that era. The one aspect you keep harping on is last names... who the heck really cares? A personality is not defined by one either way, and if they're memorable enough, they often get noticed by the media (local or national) anyway.
-
A lot of "back in my day rhetoric".
The one aspect you keep harping on is last names.
The irony(?) is that his user name is “Nick” and not Nick <last name>.
So with that, I propose that all users on this board be forced to share their last names, starting with Nick.
-
Amy Schneider got robbed at gunpoint not long after her J! appearance. By your logic, she must've had it coming. Maybe I need sleep but your comment comes across as saying contestants deserve what potential fate may come their way. A game show contestant still deserves some level of privacy just like any movie or TV star.
I admit I was unaware of that incident, but allow me to be clear that is not what I was saying. Yes, personal privacy is not waived by a television appearance. I would say anonymity is, to a certain degree. If the concern is people are crazy (and indeed they are), perhaps we should be looking at why that is so much more in society now. Perhaps publishing all of your life for the world to see on social media is not such a good thing after all.
And I don't know how they do in Canada, but many states grant you anonymity when you hit the lottery, at least after you win a certain amount. Mainly because, well y'know...people are crazy.
They do not do that in Canada, though it would certainly have merit.
The one aspect you keep harping on is last names... who the heck really cares?
I do, but that's an opinion I am allowed to have, and I wouldn't say I've been harping on it when I've only ever discussed it in this thread.
I propose that all users on this board be forced to share their last names, starting with Nick.
I like how it's a testament to the age of this board that usernames are used here, as there was a time and place where it was understood that publishing your personal information, such as your full name, for all to see on the Web was unadvisable. I wonder why people gave up on that one...
-
Perhaps publishing all of your life for the world to see on social media is not such a good thing after all.
Jesus Christ, more victim blaming.
-
Nick, let’s say you’re on a game show. They identify you as Nick Johnson from Toronto. Your question is “Who is the villain in ‘Moby Dick’?” and instead of Captain Ahab you say Cap’n Crunch. And now you - as well as other guys named Nick Johnson - start getting messages from random people calling you a dumbass. That would be pretty annoying, right? It’s not just something you brought on yourself. It’s legit obnoxious.
Now put yourself in the shoes of anyone who just wanted to win a little money to buy a car or pay off their student loans or finance their wedding. Never mind the attractive women getting unsolicited DMs from creepy neckbeards.
-
I remember back in 2013, not too long after I was on Millionaire, someone from my home town went on Wheel and did particularly well. She won the game and about $16,000 IIRC.
I tend to mark out when I see people from my hometown do things on television, even if I don’t know them personally, and when I read about it in the local news a few days after the fact I left a comment saying how proud everybody should be of her.
Immediately after this I had this one guy start giving me shit about how I was jealous of her, how I was just trying to get with her, and just picking and picking and picking at it. He kept it going for months on end, bringing her name up at random points well after the fact, until finally I just said to him “do you live in a bush in her front yard or something? She’s moved on with her life, move on with yours.” Didn’t hear another peep from him after that.
-
Some of you know I purchased Kevin Olmstead's house when he won on Millionaire. In the fifteen years I lived there, I only had one encounter with a fan. It was a marriage proposal from a Florida prison.
-
Or, as I remember, someone who tracked down a contestant from an infamous game show episode that had aired 30 years prior and gave her an unsolicited invitation to a convention where my friends and I were hosting an event.
I've no idea who said contestant was, who extended said invitation or what said event was.
And that is 100% intentional, because you don't need to know the names of either party.