The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: TLEberle on December 11, 2003, 01:25:48 AM
-
Looking over that poor contestant who got the big donut playing Plinko, I'm reminded of two times that I rooted against the contestants, both times on TPiR:
Either last month, or close, a woman in Contestant's Row makes an incredibly dumb bid (that narrows down the field how much?), is generally not paying attention to the game, and so forth, but miraculously makes it onstage to play Plinko. ("Damn it all, you stupid woman; why on earth are you onstage?") Imagine my disgust that such a good game is wasted on her. I hope for the worst, and damn near get it: three chips and $600 is all she gets. She's bounced in the Showcase Showdown and all is right with the world.
Last year, more TPiR ineptitude abounds, two college age yokels make it on stage, completely botch their respective games, and luck into the Showcase. I say, "you know, I can't stand either of you. I hope you both go over." Ta-da, double overbid, Bob exits through the audience. And it was an atrocious double-over, at that. Not even close.
I know it's not very nice to hope that contestants lose, but sometimes people on that show really irritate me. Am I the only one that thinks that the viewing audience might enjoy watching people who know what the hell they're doing onstage rather than the Cross-Section of America thing the coordinators are doing now? And I don't mean knowing the secrets of the games like us, I mean not making dumb choices, like underbidding by $1 in Contestant's Row, being able to play the games properly, and making the Showcase a reasonably exciting final act.
Commence to discussion.
Travis
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 01:25 AM\'] Commence to discussion.
[/quote]
Yes, I occasionly root against a contestant.
One that comes to mind is Skyler from the Whammy! premiere
-
Actually, I'm pretty sexist in who I root for. When a man and a woman play against each other, I ALWAYS root for the woman. Don't know why, I just do.
-
This ranks up there with the weirdest things I've said here...:)
I only root against a contestant when they're playing "Cliffhangers" on TPiR....I get some kind of inner joy seeing the mountain climber go over the edge..
-
[quote name=\'PPatters\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 05:57 AM\'] Actually, I'm pretty sexist in who I root for. When a man and a woman play against each other, I ALWAYS root for the woman. Don't know why, I just do. [/quote]
I root for ladies a bit more if its a show on which women win less than half of the time(i.e. J! and WBSM)
-
I root for ladies a bit more if its a show on which women win less than half of the time(i.e. J! and WBSM)
On shows like "Super Password" or "Pyramid", I always rooted for the male contestant, only because it seemed there were so few of them. It seems most of the time those shows (and others) had two women playing against each other (is it because more women were likely watching during the daytime?)
I don't know why shows like "Super Password" didn't use two male celebrities more often, especially if they were going to use mostly female contestants.
-
I find myself rooting against contestants in "The Amazing Race", notably Flo and Zach, with Flo's bleating, "We got beat by retired people!" particularly funny. (Too bad that was a non-elimination leg.) I also really disliked the team that finished second in the most recent Amazing Race.
The then-fat Katie from the second Mole was also irritating and I rooted against her.
-
I root against contestants all the time. My most recent memorable rooting-against was a contestant on WoF who clapped CONSTANTLY. He clapped while he was picking letters, he clapped while his opponents were picking letters, he clapped when he heard the time-is-short signal, he clapped during the speed-up round, and it seemed to pain him to have to stop clapping long enough to spin the wheel.
I believe he won, though. Rrgh.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 10:18 AM\'] I root against contestants all the time. My most recent memorable rooting-against was a contestant on WoF who clapped CONSTANTLY. He clapped while he was picking letters, he clapped while his opponents were picking letters, he clapped when he heard the time-is-short signal, he clapped during the speed-up round, and it seemed to pain him to have to stop clapping long enough to spin the wheel.
I believe he won, though. Rrgh. [/quote]
Two other players to root against are from Name That Tune 1984-85: Les Gould who faced Tammy Warner in the TofC semifinals, and Alfred from one of the aired pilot episodes. Les got overly excited about winning, when in reality there was still less than a second on the clock in the Golden Medley SHowdown round(Lange didn't notice this at first because of how excited Les got), and he was only leading by one tune. Alfred was jerky against his female opponent in Bid-a-Note, saying "I'm so impressed" and other remarks.
-
I personally think that dumb contestants can be part of the fun of game shows, unless it's a show like Jeopardy! where you're actually supposed to display intelligence. Besides, I think some of these "dumb" contestants might just be having stage fright.
-
It isn't really rooting against, but my wife hates J! celebrities who make safe bets to win, say, $8000 to $7000 when they're all getting $10000 for their charities anyway. Why not go for the bigger bucks and get more for your charity, she argues.
-
A member of J!'s message board has been rooting against a player because he goes all over the board, not even going top to bottom, looking for Daily Doubles.
I remember rooting against at least one player in Celebrity J! because I didn't like the charity he was playing for.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 10:22 AM\'] [quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 10:18 AM\'] I root against contestants all the time. My most recent memorable rooting-against was a contestant on WoF who clapped CONSTANTLY. He clapped while he was picking letters, he clapped while his opponents were picking letters, he clapped when he heard the time-is-short signal, he clapped during the speed-up round, and it seemed to pain him to have to stop clapping long enough to spin the wheel.
I believe he won, though. Rrgh. [/quote]
Two other players to root against are from Name That Tune 1984-85: Les Gould who faced Tammy Warner in the TofC semifinals, and Alfred from one of the aired pilot episodes. Les got overly excited about winning, when in reality there was still less than a second on the clock in the Golden Medley SHowdown round(Lange didn't notice this at first because of how excited Les got), and he was only leading by one tune. Alfred was jerky against his female opponent in Bid-a-Note, saying "I'm so impressed" and other remarks. [/quote]
How do you root against a pilot contestant?
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 11:35 AM\']A member of J!'s message board has been rooting against a player because he goes all over the board, not even going top to bottom, looking for Daily Doubles.[/quote]
In other words, the guy would've hated Chuck Forrest (although I don't believe Forrest was looking for DDs).
That was one of the surprises in the Million Dollar Masters tourney--that Forrest didn't execute his trademark strategy once. Of course, I believe that in his one game he didn't get control of the board too often enough to get to execute his trademark strategy.
-
On the Primetime Millionaire, after watching TWO women leave empty-handed, I rooted against the women, until this version ended in June 2002.
And when that number went up to THREE, I still rooted against the women.
You know why? If women are smart as (or smarter than) the men, they wouldn't leave with a big fat goose egg now, would they?
Only exception was Phyllis Harris, since she did so well on Greed, that'd she do well here, and she did, winning $64,000.
However, when the Daytime Millionaire came up, I wasn't nervous at all. Heck, on one episode of the Twins Week last season, 2 women left with nothing after getting the $1,000 question wrong, even though they conferred. But when I saw that there were 2 in the hot seat, I said, "What the heck, at least they conferred with each other." That's better than totally leaving empty-handed.
-
[quote name=\'PPatters\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 04:57 AM\'] Actually, I'm pretty sexist in who I root for. When a man and a woman play against each other, I ALWAYS root for the woman. Don't know why, I just do. [/quote]
My mascot (the Witch) would certainly love you, my pretty!
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 07:56 AM\'] On shows like "Super Password" or "Pyramid", I always rooted for the male contestant, only because it seemed there were so few of them. It seems most of the time those shows (and others) had two women playing against each other (is it because more women were likely watching during the daytime?)
[/quote]
The male player on both those shows were treated just like the Olympics, once every 4 episodes (same with the CBS Match Game).
No wonder Kerri Ketchum (Patrick Quinn) thought he could get away being on Super Password.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 12:26 PM\'][quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 11:35 AM\']A member of J!'s message board has been rooting against a player because he goes all over the board, not even going top to bottom, looking for Daily Doubles.[/quote]
In other words, the guy would've hated Chuck Forrest (although I don't believe Forrest was looking for DDs).
That was one of the surprises in the Million Dollar Masters tourney--that Forrest didn't execute his trademark strategy once. Of course, I believe that in his one game he didn't get control of the board too often enough to get to execute his trademark strategy.[/quote]
This may be going off on a tangent, so I apologize, as I do if this topic has been frequently discussed in the past.
I've seen more than once that Alex suggest starting at the top of the board and working your way down. Given that the only advantage of selecting is if you find a Daily Double, and given that those are seldom high on the board, wouldn't it make sense to start halfway down each category? Especially now, as opposed to early in the run, that they get to all the questions on the board?
-
I always laugh when people are wrong or go bankrupt on wheel
-
From Name That Tune 1984-85: Alfred, who was on one of the five aired pilot episodes was jerky against his female opponent in Bid-a-Note, saying "I'm so impressed" and other remarks. [/QUOTE]
How do you root against a pilot contestant? [/QUOTE]
The five pilot episodes for NTT84 actually aired near the end of the season(and one of the players in the pilot actually won the Golden Medley and ended up in the Tournament of Champions). I didn't know the shows were actually pilots until coming to Usenet. The last time NTT84 was in reruns was before most of us were on Usenet
-
I've seen more than once that Alex suggest starting at the top of the board and working your way down. Given that the only advantage of selecting is if you find a Daily Double, and given that those are seldom high on the board, wouldn't it make sense to start halfway down each category? Especially now, as opposed to early in the run, that they get to all the questions on the board?
I saw Alex do this during the early years a few times, but has he said that a lot lately? I was under the impression he didn't really care anymore where players started.
What I can't understand is, when time's running out and a player is far behind, why they don't go to the higher-value questions more often. Quite frequently Alex will say "less than a minute left", a contestant will be thousands behind, and still they'll start with the top and work down, quite often not making it all the way down before time runs out. That's annoying - if it was me, I'd start at the bottom on the last category to make sure I had a decent shot of catching up.
-
When the wife and I watch PYL or Whammy, we wait for a contestant to say "just one more time, Peter/Todd" and are a bit disappointed if they don't hit a whammy.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 05:05 PM\']I've seen more than once that Alex suggest starting at the top of the board and working your way down. Given that the only advantage of selecting is if you find a Daily Double, and given that those are seldom high on the board, wouldn't it make sense to start halfway down each category? Especially now, as opposed to early in the run, that they get to all the questions on the board?[/quote]
The main advantage of starting at the top and going to the bottom is this: The writers sometimes (but definitely not always) will write the category so that the other clues relate in one way or the other to the top clue--and you may not understand the other clues having not seen the top one.
Otherwise, the only reason for doing it is the irrational "because it's always been done that way." People almost always went from top to bottom back in the Art Fleming days and they pretty much do the same thing today.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 11:26 AM\'] [quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Dec 11 2003, 11:35 AM\']A member of J!'s message board has been rooting against a player because he goes all over the board, not even going top to bottom, looking for Daily Doubles.[/quote]
In other words, the guy would've hated Chuck Forrest (although I don't believe Forrest was looking for DDs).
That was one of the surprises in the Million Dollar Masters tourney--that Forrest didn't execute his trademark strategy once. Of course, I believe that in his one game he didn't get control of the board too often enough to get to execute his trademark strategy. [/quote]
She didn't see Chuck's original appearances, but she thinks she's been told that he would jump around from one category to the next, still going from top to bottom. (I think she's right about that.) She was rooting against the recent contestant because he didn't even do that.
-
If you wish to extend the definition of "game show" to Survivor -- I think that's something Burnett openly rigs in that series.
Which see Jon, who better have some extra security detail placed on him this Sunday after all the **** he's pulled in this series.
-
[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 06:57 PM\'] If you wish to extend the definition of "game show" to Survivor -- I think that's something Burnett openly rigs in that series.
[/quote]
I don't quite understand your sentence. What is it that you claim Burnett "openly rigs"? Because all he's ever admitted to is reshooting certain things for the sake of getting the right look. Every game show does that to one degree or another. He has vehemently denied manipulating the competition to favor certain contestants over others, the standard by which we usually define "rigging".
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 12:11 PM\']The main advantage of starting at the top and going to the bottom is this: The writers sometimes (but definitely not always) will write the category so that the other clues relate in one way or the other to the top clue--and you may not understand the other clues having not seen the top one.
Otherwise, the only reason for doing it is the irrational "because it's always been done that way." People almost always went from top to bottom back in the Art Fleming days and they pretty much do the same thing today.[/quote]
I can think of a third reason, and it would be the main reason I wouldn't skip around: to build familiarity and a comfort level with the category.
I seem to recall hearing a few years back that, when they have a category that pretty much requires being selected in top-to-bottom order to make any sense at all, they require the contestants to start at the top and work down (although it doesn't get mentioned on air). Am I misremembering?
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Dec 14 2003, 10:21 AM\']I seem to recall hearing a few years back that, when they have a category that pretty much requires being selected in top-to-bottom order to make any sense at all, they require the contestants to start at the top and work down (although it doesn't get mentioned on air). Am I misremembering?[/quote]
Just this past week on a first-run episode, Alex did inform the players that they were required to work a particular first-round category in order, since each "answer" contained the keyword to the previous correct response.
Example (just off the top of my head*, not the actual game material):
$200: Variations of this sport include duckpins and candlepins
(What is bowling?)
$400: Bowling Green University and the U.S. Air Force Academy both use this nickname for their sports teams
(What is "Falcons"?)
$600: Falcons, Fairlanes, and Fairmonts were manufactured by this automobile company
(What is Ford?)
$800: In the song from "The Sound of Music," it's what you must do before you "Ford ev'ry stream"
(What is "Climb Ev'ry Mountain"?)
$1000: If you plan to climb ev'ry mountain in the Himalayas, you'd be well advised to be accompanied by one of the Nepalese guides
(What are Sherpas?)
Esoteric Eric, who really appreciates the occasional mention of candlepin bowling on game shows (at least once each on J! and WWTBAM, and perhaps others); EE's hoping to win Mega Millions one of these days, and introduce the New England / Maritime Canada-based game to the Puget Sound area
*As one can tell by the emoticon I occasionally use, there's not much keeping things ON the top of my head... ((8=D))
-
[quote name=\'Esoteric Eric\' date=\'Dec 14 2003, 03:05 PM\']Just this past week on a first-run episode, Alex did inform the players that they were required to work a particular first-round category in order, since each "answer" contained the keyword to the previous correct response.[/quote]
Well, crap. I miss one J! episode in three months, and it's that one.
-
Well, actually, I HAVEN'T missed any episodes in the last few weeks, and I sure don't remember anything remotely resembling what Eric's talking about. I'm going to bring this up in the Jeopardy board. If it happened, especially if it happened recently, somebody there is going to know about it.
-
He has vehemently denied manipulating the competition to favor certain contestants over others, the standard by which we usually define "rigging".
Did anything ever come of first-season Stacey's claims that Burnett persuaded two contestants to change their vote from Rudy to her?
If there's any truth to that, that has me a bit suspicious.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Dec 15 2003, 10:22 AM\'] Did anything ever come of first-season Stacey's claims that Burnett persuaded two contestants to change their vote from Rudy to her? [/quote]
Nope. Whether it's true or not (and certainly WE won't ever know for sure) it's been made to look like sour grapes from a losing contestant.
For the record, Burnett wants to have it both ways. He says he's never rigged the outcome, but he's also suggested that his show is different from traditional game shows and shouldn't be held to the same rules. He says he wouldn't ever do it because the public backlash wouldn't be worth it, but he doesn't feel as though he's bound by the same rules Jeopardy is.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Dec 15 2003, 12:08 AM\'] Well, actually, I HAVEN'T missed any episodes in the last few weeks, and I sure don't remember anything remotely resembling what Eric's talking about. I'm going to bring this up in the Jeopardy board. If it happened, especially if it happened recently, somebody there is going to know about it. [/quote]
The Jeopardy board has spoken, and the consensus seems to be that Jeopardy did have a category like what Eric describes, called "Take In Order", but the most recent time anybody remembers it happening is 1997, certainly not within the last week or so.
http://boards.sonypictures.com/boards/show...&threadid=81419 (http://\"http://boards.sonypictures.com/boards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81419\")
-
I have read, in "Jeopardy!" contestants' accounts of their appearances, that they were told before a round started to take a certain category in order, but Alex didn't mention it on air...usually that happened when it was all video clues or something like that.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Dec 15 2003, 10:52 AM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Dec 15 2003, 12:08 AM\'] Well, actually, I HAVEN'T missed any episodes in the last few weeks, and I sure don't remember anything remotely resembling what Eric's talking about. I'm going to bring this up in the Jeopardy board. If it happened, especially if it happened recently, somebody there is going to know about it. [/quote]
The Jeopardy board has spoken, and the consensus seems to be that Jeopardy did have a category like what Eric describes, called "Take In Order", but the most recent time anybody remembers it happening is 1997, certainly not within the last week or so.
http://boards.sonypictures.com/boards/show...&threadid=81419 (http://\"http://boards.sonypictures.com/boards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81419\") [/quote]
THe episode in question may be the Halloween 1997 episode, with the category "Universal Monsters", which required the players to take the clues in order. I know this because today's(12/18) GSN J! rerun is said episode.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Dec 15 2003, 10:47 AM\'] For the record, Burnett wants to have it both ways. He says he's never rigged the outcome, but he's also suggested that his show is different from traditional game shows and shouldn't be held to the same rules. He says he wouldn't ever do it because the public backlash wouldn't be worth it, but he doesn't feel as though he's bound by the same rules Jeopardy is. [/quote]
So then Burnett would be perfectly willing to rigg the outcome if he knew that there wouldn't be a media backlash? That's....interesting. Although something tells me that CBS isn't gonna send S&P to ruin one of their flagship shows.
Does he still do the "retaping challenges so it looks cooler" bit?
-
THe episode in question may be the Halloween 1997 episode, with the category "Universal Monsters", which required the players to take the clues in order. I know this because today's(12/18) GSN J! rerun is said episode.
My bad, people... I saw (at least, I BELIEVE I saw ((8=D)) ) the same episode on GSN Sunday morning (12/14, 9:30 AM PST; the first episode with Bob Harris, just before they broke for the (Teen? College?) Tournament w/ the semis and finals in Washington D.C. and D.C. Power Players Week... Right?) However...
While I remember the "Universal Monsters" category was played, it wasn't the category that had to be selected in order. The "Take In Order" category that the J! board and Matt mentioned was played in the same round. (Now to figure out why GSN aired it again today...)
Esoteric Eric, who once wondered why a St. Louis TV station was running an ad for Your New England Pontiac Dealers for many minutes before realizing he was watching a videotape he recorded in Boston, forgetting to FF through the ads...
-
During the final season of Tic Tac Dough, there was an annoying contestant named Von. He proclaimed himself a "wit" when Jim Caldwell was talking to him before his first game. Among Von's annoyances, when asked a question in which "etchings" was the answer, Von The Wit replied, "Would you like to come up and see my etchings?". Was Von giving us an example of his wit or was he hitting on Jim? The world may never know. At the end of another show while Jim was chatting with The Witster, Von said he was having trouble sleeping. Jim asked why this was. Von The Mon then said he was anguishing over whether he'd rather win a million dollars or have dinner with Joan Collins (a reference to the Canada Dry promotion that was running at the time). Oh, Von. You funny fellow.
-
Why wouldn't he deny it?
I mean, what he's doing (IMODO) is a violation of American federal law.
He'd be criminally and civilly liable for damages and arrest if he were caught.
And anyone who questions what worth rigging the games would be does not only forget game show history, but also professional wrestling...