The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Neumms on November 11, 2019, 03:56:14 PM
-
This from Mark Evanier, who's always great. So which celebrity is Bowzer referring to?
https://www.newsfromme.com/2019/11/02/twice-two-4/
-
It couldn't have been Bowzer himself, could it? I haven't seen enough episodes to know if he would throw questions.
-
Why would Jon out himself?
-
It couldn't have been Bowzer himself, could it? I haven't seen enough episodes to know if he would throw questions.
Given that he got enough screen time, you know, hosting half the show, I'm pretty sure it wasn't him...
-
Assuming Bauman's story is true (not saying he's lying, but he is going on 35-year-old memories), it would have to have been someone on the bottom row, right? I don't see how he could be aware of what's going on above him...
-
This was discussed briefly in another thread a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.gameshowforum.org/index.php/topic,31342.195.html
Given another week or so to consider this, I wonder if Jon might have been exaggerating this - it may have happened, but not regularly. I'd think that if Gene had seen someone writing two answers (and he would have the better opportunity to see it happen), he'd call it out to the producers.
Also, MGP was pretty protective of the contestants, and this clearly would have been affecting the outcome of the game (what if the contestant loses by one match?). Richard Dawson was quoted in Maxine Fabe's book about the 1970s show thusly: "Some of the worst celebrities on game shows are the stand-up comics. They're getting big laughs with an ad lib, and the contestant's ten thousand bucks [are] going down the the drain. All someone has to do on Match Game is to try that one and they're never invited back. There's just too much at stake for our contestants for one wise guy to blow it all on a joke."
-
They're getting big laughs with an ad lib, and the contestant's ten thousand bucks [are] going down the the drain. All someone has to do on Match Game is to try that one and they're never invited back. There's just too much at stake for our contestants for one wise guy to blow it all on a joke."
And yet Patti Deutsch was invited back again and again.
-
The story, and I’m sorry to miss the earlier link, is seeming dodgier. Bad for contestants but not rule-violating would be to simply write way-out-there answers in round 1. The game is made for that.
If Bowzer saw it himself during the MG/HS run in which he’s seriously vested, one would think he’d tell the producers immediately. Possibly he did, the star stopped doing it, and Bowzer is inflating the story.
I accuse Fred Travelena. He was a screen hog, and Evanier would know him by reputation.
-
And yet Patti Deutsch was invited back again and again.
Yes. She matched no less often than Joyce Bullifant, but her answers were clever and funny. Same for Marcia Wallace.
-
And yet Patti Deutsch was invited back again and again.
Yes. She matched no less often than Joyce Bullifant, but her answers were clever and funny. Same for Marcia Wallace.
I believe Patti gave the wacky answers in round 1 only and did it for both contestants. In round 2, she played it straight. The women in the 6th seat knew when to play for laughs and when to try to match the contestants. This is why they were invited back for MANY years.
-
Their patience ran out on Deutsch in 79. She never was on the syndie MG even while she was still getting booked on "Beat The Clock."
Being invited back frequently doesn't always mean it was a wise decision as the multiple times of Jonathan Winters wasting time on HSQ demonstrated.
-
There were problems with Della Reese on MG, predating MGHS hour. Ultimately they stopped booking her.
Bauman implies that HS was played dishonestly at one time. Giving the panelists answers but not the civilian players is allowed and is perfectly acceptable.
-
I accuse Fred Travelena. He was a screen hog, and Evanier would know him by reputation.
Apologies for bumping a sightly old thread, but after watching MG/HS this past weekend, I came to the same conclusion.
Jon Bauman sits in seat four, Fred Travalena was in seat five (was he typically seated there?). Bauman would have had an excellent vantage point to see what was allegedly going on, and plenty of opportunity for Travalena to do a quick swap of the cards (or perhaps he had two cards inserted in the slot and knew which one he wanted to grab?) without being seen on camera while Uncle Gene is getting the responses from the top row of the panel.
As Neumms said above, Fred Travalena certainly liked the spotlight on the show, and I could see him taking steps to ensure that he'd get maximum screen time.
-
Bauman would have had an excellent vantage point to see what was allegedly going on, and plenty of opportunity for Travalena to do a quick swap of the cards (or perhaps he had two cards inserted in the slot and knew which one he wanted to grab?) without being seen on camera while Uncle Gene is getting the responses from the top row of the panel.
I'm a little surprised there wasn't an NBC C&P guy standing off-camera, with a line of sight on the desks, specifically to catch this sort of sleight-of-hand in the act, on the off-chance anybody got any funny ideas.
-
on the off-chance anybody got any funny ideas.
And on this show, that was definitely an off-chance.
-
I'm a little surprised there wasn't an NBC C&P guy standing off-camera, with a line of sight on the desks, specifically to catch this sort of sleight-of-hand in the act, on the off-chance anybody got any funny ideas.
You wouldn't need a cut and paste guy in LOS, Mark Goodson Productions had a sterling reputation at that point where they could run their own ship and you'd go to the lawyer were there an issue.
It does go to how the format of "match and you're done" that someone might figure out that if they don't match they will get more time in the spotlight, but celebrity panelist is a symbiotic job--the host talks to the stars and builds them up and allows plugs, and the star players make the show look good. If Fred is getting a thousand dollars twice a week to show up, play the game and be a good soldier why but shoes in the gears? Frankly he comedians are there to be funny and Fred was a bright spot in an unfun atmosphere.
Imagine how discreet that someone would have to be to get away with that over and over again. Write two answers, grab the "proper" answer for the situation, lose the unused card and do that four times throughout the opening half. It would be better to write tangential answers that are unlikely to score than to just write "Flugelhorn" over and over.
-
Jon Bauman sits in seat four, Fred Travalena was in seat five (was he typically seated there?). Bauman would have had an excellent vantage point to see what was allegedly going on, and plenty of opportunity for Travalena to do a quick swap of the cards (or perhaps he had two cards inserted in the slot and knew which one he wanted to grab?) without being seen on camera while Uncle Gene is getting the responses from the top row of the panel.
Travelena recurred as an MG '90 panelist, so I doubt that would have happened if there had been a problem here. From everything I've seen Goodson was a stickler for honesty.
(Of course, MG '90 avoided the issue by using an entirely different scoring system that let everyone play both rounds.)
-
I accuse Fred Travelena. He was a screen hog, and Evanier would know him by reputation.
Apologies for bumping a sightly old thread, but after watching MG/HS this past weekend, I came to the same conclusion.
Jon Bauman sits in seat four, Fred Travalena was in seat five (was he typically seated there?).
Unless there was a good reason otherwise (such as putting a key star like Jerry Mathers in the center square for the entire Leave it to Beaver week, or Bill Cullen staying at the bottom), non-host panelists did not stay in the same seat from show to show.
-
I dare say, JM J. Bullock's the cheater. Frickin' attention hog if I ever saw one. Or just on some stuff. Or both?
-
I dare say, JM J. Bullock's the cheater. Frickin' attention hog if I ever saw one. Or just on some stuff. Or both?
Bullock was booked by MGP a few times after that (Body Language, MG '90), so I would guess not.
I went back to Mark Evanier's post, which reads "Jon said he wouldn't tell me who the star was but I guessed and he said I was right. He would not like it if I told you." I'm not sure whether "he" means the star in question wouldn't like it, or Bauman wouldn't like it (probably the latter). But it occurs to me that whoever it was may still be alive, because why would Bauman feel the need to protect the identity of a now-deceased star?
(Man, given Evanier figured it out right away, you'd think we'd be able to get this.)
-
There's also little-to-no indication from Mark's post that Bauman blew the whistle in the '80s and/or this person was caught in the act. So it's entirely possible they were booked on future Goodson shows despite this. (for instance, Mark says this dishonesty snuck in "a few times", but now we're parsing way too close without knowing who the proverbial speaker is)
I won't besmirch anyone's character with a guess, but my first suspect was also back for a future Match Game, if indeed that's a pre-requisite for not being the guest in question.
-Jason
-
AH! Great point Curt on JM being rebooked. It just occurred to me that, if I'm not mistaken, someone else from the last night's airing that had been there a few times and I don't recall him on any other GT shows. Ah. A.H.
OK I'm done speculating. ???
-
on the off-chance anybody got any funny ideas.
And on this show, that was definitely an off-chance.
Points.
The risks for an up and comer seem way too high. If you get caught, you definitely lose that TV time you crave, and you possibly lose your whole career with it. Besides, even if he’d never seen an episode of the show before joining the panel, it doesn’t take long to catch on that Round 1 questions are designed to have six or seven plausible answers.