The talent of the Talent

[The Pyramids]

Here’s a rundown of some favorite hosts and what I think were there best qualities in no particular order:


Bob Barker, Regis Philbin, Peter Marshall: Ability to get behind the wheel and completely steer a show from start to finish with an urbane style (esp. Peter on the later)

Dick Clark: Ability to create  a causal atmosphere among contestants and guests on what could be a stressful game. Also an ability to give 100% to whatever show he was hosting no matter how late in a taping day it may have been getting.

Bill Cullen, Pat Sajak: Ability to make hosting a show seem completely effortless. Offbeat sense of humor displayed on occasion.

Chuck Woolery: Likable, regular guy personality.

Richard Karn: Likable, regular guy personality.

Tom Bergeron: Likable, funny guy personality.

Richard Dawson: Ability to get behind a wheel and completely steer a show from start to finish. Propensity to be alternately witty, charming or edgy at any moments makes show unpredictable to watch.

Monty Hall: Ability to get behind the wheel and completely steer a show from start to finish

Ray Combs: Ability to give 100% to each show no matter how late in a taping day it may have been getting.

Alex Trebek, Allen Ludden: Serious personalities matches format of their signature shows.

Gene Rayburn: Irreverent personality matches format of his signature show.

[Ian Wallis]

Chuck Woolery: Likable, regular guy personality.

What I liked about Chuck were his reactions.  He'd get a suggestive clue on "Scrabble", or hear about a juicy date on "Love Connection", and he'd usually say what the rest of us were thinking.  I also saw an interview with him one time where he said something like "when I make mistakes, I want them to stay in the tape".  I like that...sometimes it's good to see people in that position screw up once in a while...it makes us all human.

[whewfan]

Bob Eubanks had a similar style of expressing what everyone else might be thinking. Shows like Card Sharks and Newlywed Game allowed him ample time to do that while not interfering with the game. Bob also likes being a bit of an instigator. In an interview, he said that he likes to probe the newlyweds and said he thought it might be funny if either the husband or the wife got so angry at him, they'd leave the show!

Art James would fit in the "serious" personality category. He could carry a game without worrying about being funny or doing something outrageous to keep a game interesting. He would've been a good alternate choice for Jeopardy! (Art himself said he thought he could do J! better than Trebek!)

Chuck Barris would be sort of in the same category with Gene Rayburn, in terms of style. He was irreverent, and would do nearly anything for a laugh, Chuck also pushed the envelope of good taste, even further than Gene ever dared to.

Todd Newton, I think, would fit in the same category as Bill Cullen. Likeable, very fast wit, and yet has complete control of the game. Also, pretty much what you see on TV is what you saw off camera.

[curtking]

I enjoy watching a show where the host seems to be having just as much fun as the contestants.  Many hosts are good at this, but I think Woolery, Cullen, Eubanks and a few others are experts.

This thread seems as good as any to raise this topic: Does Barker seem like he's getting more abrupt with contestants by the day?

Curt

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'whewfan\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 10:11 AM\']Todd Newton, I think, would fit in the same category as Bill Cullen. Likeable, very fast wit, and yet has complete control of the game. Also, pretty much what you see on TV is what you saw off camera.

[snapback]66449[/snapback]

[/quote]
Replace "Likeable", "Fast Wit" and "Control" with "Annoying", "Hyper", and "Cheesy", and you may have something.

[Jimmy Owen]

I think one of the hosts who is quite underrated by game show fans is Garry Moore, maybe because of 20 years of hosting panels.  Always in control yet relaxed, not afraid to keep folks in line but also had time to dress up like Buster Keaton or have Johnny Carson shoot an apple off his head with a bow and arrow.  Spent his entire game show hosting career in panel shows, but he did occassional guest spots on Bill's Pyramid and Marshall HSq.  I think Larry Blyden had a lot of the same qualities; wouldn't it be cool if AMC or somebody could find those "Movie Game" eps.  I'm almost positive Colgate-Palmolive would still have them.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 09:20 AM\']Replace "Likeable", "Fast Wit" and "Control" with "Annoying", "Hyper", and "Cheesy", and you may have something.

[snapback]66453[/snapback]

[/quote]
Your opinion. Newton, like most hosts, is just fine (and in fact pretty good) in the right format. I thought he was just fine on Hollywood Showdown. (Mind, I thought Showdown itself was a pretty weak format, but he was one of the bright spots.)

Would I put him on To Tell The Truth? Gawd, no. But I'm warming to the idea of him as successor to Barker.

The problem with him on Whammy is that the PYL concept has SUCH a cult following, nobody short of Tomarken was really gonna fit the bill there.

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'curtking\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 10:58 AM\']Does Barker seem like he's getting more abrupt with contestants by the day?

[snapback]66452[/snapback]

[/quote]
Part of the reason, I believe, for that is he doesn't have nearly the interaction time he had with the players back in the day. With all the commercial clutter, we're nearing the point where "getting to know ya" will be trimmed to the bone to get all six games in.

[DrBear]

Just to throw in another tendency...

The ability to "play along" with the game and not just run it. Allen Ludden on Password, Clark on Pyramid (esp. the winner's circle), even John Charles Daly (trying to mislead the panel) Peter Marshall (I don't know, I would have gone to Charley Weaver, but this might work out). It makes the host seem less of a "host" and more of a participant.

[cmjb13]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 12:10 PM\']The problem with him on Whammy is that the PYL concept has SUCH a cult following, nobody short of Tomarken was really gonna fit the bill there.

[snapback]66461[/snapback]

[/quote]
And I don't think even he could have saved it.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 01:43 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 12:10 PM\']The problem with him on Whammy is that the PYL concept has SUCH a cult following, nobody short of Tomarken was really gonna fit the bill there.

[snapback]66461[/snapback]

[/quote]
And I don't think even he could have saved it.

[snapback]66492[/snapback]

[/quote]



One essential skill an emcee must have is making a formulaic half-hour or hour not seem so formulaic. Getting life out of the contestants is one way to do it. While Newton was pretty good at that on "Hollywood Whatever," and Tomarken was good on the original PYL, on "Whammy!" Todd was holding on for dear life. His tone and the contestants' never changed from loud and artificially enthusiastic.

I think Mark Wahlberg was underrated on Russian Roulette. His give-and-take with the contestants--and as a result, theirs with each other--was what made the show watchable.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 02:03 PM\']I think Mark Wahlberg was underrated on Russian Roulette. His give-and-take with the contestants--and as a result, theirs with each other--was what made the show watchable.

[snapback]66512[/snapback]

[/quote]
I'll buy that. This is what made Pat Kiernan genius on "Studio 7", as well - he was excellent at snapping out of his role as Generic Quizmaster long enough to make a comment that reminded the viewers and players that, yes, he had a very good idea exactly how the game was playing out - and then getting right back to work.

[wheelloon]

I don't think it was as much Todd Newton's fault that Whammy bombed out as were other factors, though I do think there would be better hosts for the job (yes, Peter included, of course!).

I think because of the fact that the values for the big board were almost exactly the same as they were in the 80's, the show didn't offer enough money and prizes to have real drama and tension going on that would want make people want more.  Plus, with OMG ridiculously simple questions, and the altered first round, I think it was bound to get kicked off soon after it got started. Plus, NO RETURNING CHAMPIONS!!!

If you want PYL to succeed today, you gotta get a respectable host, have returning champions, and more money being offered.  For example, 10000+spin, 9000+spin, 8000+spin, for big bucks in round two... Don't you think that would be exciting to see someone land on "$10,000 AND A SPIN?!!!!!!" People could win like $40000 in one day on the show if they get even a short run on the high dollar squares! Don't forget add a one and double your money either, which Whammy didn't have too! Plus, have a decent car, not just a Suzuki!!!!!....

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'wheelloon\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 09:35 PM\']I don't think it was as much Todd Newton's fault that Whammy bombed out as were other factors, though I do think there would be better hosts for the job (yes, Peter included, of course!).

I think because of the fact that the values for the big board were almost exactly the same as they were in the 80's, the show didn't offer enough money and prizes to have real drama and tension going on that would want make people want more. 

[snapback]66541[/snapback]

[/quote]

Whammy! was a cable game show, hence the cash and prizes being no higher than they were in 1984 on CBS. Cable game shows don't have the budgets network or syndicated shows usually had/have. The less-than-stellar prize budget meant there were 11 or 12 whammies on the board rather than nine in the 80s PYL, and more merchandise prize squares on the board and fewer cash squares.

[tvwxman]

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 09:44 PM\']
Whammy! was a cable game show, hence the cash and prizes being no higher than they were in 1984 on CBS. Cable game shows don't have the budgets network or syndicated shows usually had/have. The less-than-stellar prize budget meant there were 11 or 12 whammies on the board rather than nine in the 80s PYL, and more merchandise prize squares on the board and fewer cash squares.

[snapback]66543[/snapback]

[/quote]

I love calling bullcrap on Zach.

Zach, the fact that Whammy was on cable didn't have a damn thing to do with why the values were no higher than the 80s version. There are PLENTY of cable shows that have cash budgets that were higher than network or syndie offerings...

(and no, i'm not asking you for a list either.)

Yes, there were more prizes...I'M GUESSING that was because of Fremantles desire to keep costs down by having free or lowcost products aired, in exchange for plugs/placement...

In their quest to do so , however, they lost the essence of the game...which was , TO ME, the added spins that allowed a game to go back and forth between 2 players constantly.

Lets get Mandel in this conversation. Until then, quit acting like the gawddamn know-it-all that ONLY you think you are.