The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: wdm1219inpenna on May 27, 2012, 11:02:09 PM
-
This evening, as I enjoy the extended weekend due to the observance of Memorial Day tomorrow, I have spent some leisure time watching old game show clips on youtube. One such clip featured a 1980 "Card Sharks" celebrity tournament for charity. This is not to be mistaken for the game show hosts round robin tournament. This clip had Bill Daily changing a Queen to an 8, yet he still won the game. While the desired outcome was realized, the fact that he would have changed a Queen in this game just further cemented in my mind what an idiotic bumbling fool he was. He was always chattering endlessly and annoyingly when he appeared on "Match Game". If ever I have occasion to have GSN on, and I see Bill Daily is on the Match Game panel, I change the channel. As Major Roger Healey on "I Dream of Jeannie", he was hilarious. Having that same kind of "schtick" as himself however was not at all endearing to me.
Another example of a bone-headed celebrity gaffe that I happened to recall, was Little Richard on "Wheel of Fortune". Again, playing for charity if memory serves, he spun $5,000. It was a brand new puzzle, no letters had been uncovered. The letter he selected..... "X". I tried to locate this on youtube, but failed to do so. I am certain it's out there somewhere.
I am curious if other members of the forum have isolated celebrity incidents of utter stupidity and/or idiocy. I would be curious to hear about them.
-
This evening, as I enjoy the extended weekend due to the observance of Memorial Day tomorrow, I have spent some leisure time watching old game show clips on youtube. One such clip featured a 1980 "Card Sharks" celebrity tournament for charity. This is not to be mistaken for the game show hosts round robin tournament. This clip had Bill Daily changing a Queen to an 8, yet he still won the game. While the desired outcome was realized, the fact that he would have changed a Queen in this game just further cemented in my mind what an idiotic bumbling fool he was. He was always chattering endlessly and annoyingly when he appeared on "Match Game". If ever I have occasion to have GSN on, and I see Bill Daily is on the Match Game panel, I change the channel. As Major Roger Healey on "I Dream of Jeannie", he was hilarious. Having that same kind of "schtick" as himself however was not at all endearing to me.
Come on, Bill, that's laying it on a little thick. Especially considering that there might have been other reasons why he would have changed (bad draw in previous cards, burned by queens, caught in the moment, nerves, etc.).
I'd love to see how you would do on a game show.
-
From the Queen, changing will improve or hold odds on 6 ranks, and worsen odds on 7 ranks. It's not too much worse than calling higher on a nine.
-
Another example of a bone-headed celebrity gaffe that I happened to recall, was Little Richard on "Wheel of Fortune". Again, playing for charity if memory serves, he spun $5,000. It was a brand new puzzle, no letters had been uncovered. The letter he selected..... "X". I tried to locate this on youtube, but failed to do so. I am certain it's out there somewhere.
On that week's Friday Finals, Richard was paired up with James Brown for some reason. At seemingly every single turn, one or both of them forgot Wheel of Fortune 101: After you spin, you have to call a letter. Even with the more lax rules of celebrity games, I'm surprised they never got buzzed out.
Another Wheel example: A few years ago on an NBA week that had basketball star/civilian teams, one team has something like _O FOR BRO_E showing in the Bonus Round… and both of them keep guessing "To for" something. On what planet is "to for" proper grammar?
====
One general-purpose one that annoys me is celebrities on J! who ring in and are all "Ooh, I know this! Come on, what is it what is it what is it?!" It's okay if it happens once or twice, but on celeb games, it often comes across as playing dumb and/or happens way too often for my liking. I remember a batch of celeb games about 4 years ago where it seemed to happen on nearly every single clue. (They also had, more than once, a singer come out and do 45 seconds of a song before a Daily Double. What the pluperfect hell was that for? Between that and the looooooooooong interview segments {also a major fault of the most recent celeb games}, it's no wonder they were only playing about half the board.)
-
This evening, as I enjoy the extended weekend due to the observance of Memorial Day tomorrow, I have spent some leisure time watching old game show clips on youtube. One such clip featured a 1980 "Card Sharks" celebrity tournament for charity. This is not to be mistaken for the game show hosts round robin tournament. This clip had Bill Daily changing a Queen to an 8, yet he still won the game. While the desired outcome was realized, the fact that he would have changed a Queen in this game just further cemented in my mind what an idiotic bumbling fool he was. He was always chattering endlessly and annoyingly when he appeared on "Match Game". If ever I have occasion to have GSN on, and I see Bill Daily is on the Match Game panel, I change the channel. As Major Roger Healey on "I Dream of Jeannie", he was hilarious. Having that same kind of "schtick" as himself however was not at all endearing to me.
Come on, Bill, that's laying it on a little thick. Especially considering that there might have been other reasons why he would have changed (bad draw in previous cards, burned by queens, caught in the moment, nerves, etc.).
I'd love to see how you would do on a game show.
So would I! :)
-
From the Queen, changing will improve or hold odds on 6 ranks, and worsen odds on 7 ranks. It's not too much worse than calling higher on a nine.
I comprehend your point, but I disagree on a couple of things. For one, Bill Daily was an idiot. He even admitted as much during this incident by saying "I don't know what I'm doing."
Assuming that it was a brand new deck of cards, and the first card exposed was a queen, by virtue of the fact that 4 ranks would improve the queen, and 2 ranks would keep it the same, that would mean 23 out of 51 remaining card would either improve or keep the "rank" the same. This means 28 cards would make things worse, in other words, less than a 50/50 chance of improving the card rank.
While I understand your point about calling higher on a nine, and proportionately it would work out similarly, this would only hold true if the 9 was the first card from the deck. Otherwise, the odds could be different depending on how many other cards were already played and exposed.
Given the logic of 6 ranks being the same or better and 7 making it worse, would you, as a Card Sharks contestant, change a Queen as your base card?
-
The attraction on celebrity weeks is watching the celebrities, not strategic gameplay. Bill Daily wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been asked.
-
The attraction on celebrity weeks is watching the celebrities, not strategic gameplay. Bill Daily wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been asked.
I understand. I just think that whoever made the decision that Bill Daily would be a good panelist or player on shows like Card Sharks or Match Game showed a grave error in judgment.
-
Right then... Here we go...
[quote name='wdm1219inpenna']
[quote name='parliboy']
From the Queen, changing will improve or hold odds on 6 ranks, and worsen odds on 7 ranks. It's not too much worse than calling higher on a nine.
[/quote]
I comprehend your point, but I disagree on a couple of things. For one, Bill Daily was an idiot. He even admitted as much during this incident by saying "I don't know what I'm doing."[/quote]
The biggest problem I have with many comedic actors is this: they become one-dimensional, and their character becomes their public personalities. That is all Daily is guilty of here -- not knowing when to turn it off. The guy isn't an idiot. He got a lot of work in an era when idiots didn't get that much work. But his public role for so long had been "guy who acts like idiot" that it was easier to keep doing that than to be himself.
Assuming that it was a brand new deck of cards, and the first card exposed was a queen, by virtue of the fact that 4 ranks would improve the queen, and 2 ranks would keep it the same, that would mean 23 out of 51 remaining card would either improve or keep the "rank" the same. This means 28 cards would make things worse, in other words, less than a 50/50 chance of improving the card rank.
While I understand your point about calling higher on a nine, and proportionately it would work out similarly, this would only hold true if the 9 was the first card from the deck. Otherwise, the odds could be different depending on how many other cards were already played and exposed.
So, you just spent two paragraphs explaining that the Queen or the Nine could face better odds or worse odds depending on what cards had already come out, thereby doing nothing to improve or worsen your position in this thread. And you have effectively agreed with me, rendering your response to me moot. To give a shortened retort: "No shit, Sherlock."
Given the logic of 6 ranks being the same or better and 7 making it worse, would you, as a Card Sharks contestant, change a Queen as your base card?
I dunno. I'm not a card counter. I remember enough to track the Aces, the Dragon, and the Phoenix when I'm playing Tichu. But I've never seen you come on here and call someone that called Higher on a Nine an idiot. And nothing you have presented makes this any different. If anything, you've admitted that this is similar situation. As a side thought: consider that NOT changing a Jack or a Five actually runs against the odds, but the majority of contestants keep those cards. Are they idiots too?
Your problem is that you don't like the public personality of an actor. This is fine; we all have people who rub us the wrong way. But then you use silly reasons to explain why you don't like that personality. This is not so fine, and really should be reined in a bit.
-
"The biggest problem I have with many comedic actors is this: they become one-dimensional, and their character becomes their public personalities. That is all Daily is guilty of here -- not knowing when to turn it off. The guy isn't an idiot. He got a lot of work in an era when idiots didn't get that much work. But his public role for so long had been "guy who acts like idiot" that it was easier to keep doing that than to be himself."
Thank you for this Parliboy! This is exactly the point I was trying to make, but did so in a much too long and roundabout way! I appreciate the feedback!
And Happy Memorial Day to one and all!
-
Another Wheel example: A few years ago on an NBA week that had basketball star/civilian teams, one team has something like _O FOR BRO_E showing in the Bonus Round… and both of them keep guessing "To for" something. On what planet is "to for" proper grammar?
That's not stupidity. That's thinking out loud. I've done that too and I've never even been on a game show.
-
I think Little Richard calling an "X" on a new WOF puzzle is a more boneheaded move than what Daily did. Daily had a hunch on CS that might be illogical to some, but hey, it worked out for him.
-
Another Wheel example: A few years ago on an NBA week that had basketball star/civilian teams, one team has something like _O FOR BRO_E showing in the Bonus Round… and both of them keep guessing "To for" something. On what planet is "to for" proper grammar?
To For....six, eight, ten, twelve.
Seriously though, I don't see anything wrong with that line of reasoning. It's when you get caught up on it that's the problem.
-
This evening, as I enjoy the extended weekend due to the observance of Memorial Day tomorrow, I have spent some leisure time watching old game show clips on youtube. One such clip featured a 1980 "Card Sharks" celebrity tournament for charity. This is not to be mistaken for the game show hosts round robin tournament. This clip had Bill Daily changing a Queen to an 8, yet he still won the game. While the desired outcome was realized, the fact that he would have changed a Queen in this game just further cemented in my mind what an idiotic bumbling fool he was. He was always chattering endlessly and annoyingly when he appeared on "Match Game". If ever I have occasion to have GSN on, and I see Bill Daily is on the Match Game panel, I change the channel. As Major Roger Healey on "I Dream of Jeannie", he was hilarious. Having that same kind of "schtick" as himself however was not at all endearing to me.
Come on, Bill, that's laying it on a little thick. Especially considering that there might have been other reasons why he would have changed (bad draw in previous cards, burned by queens, caught in the moment, nerves, etc.).
I'd love to see how you would do on a game show.
So would I! :)
Two whooshes in twenty four hours.
-
Two whooshes in twenty four hours.
That must be some kind of record, isn't it, Roger?
-
What the pluperfect hell was that for?
Obviously they knew what would cheese you off and they ran with it.
-
Two whooshes in twenty four hours.
That must be some kind of record, isn't it, Roger?
I'd have gone with "that's the first time that's ever happened in the history of the Game Show Forum," but well played.
They also had, more than once, a singer come out and do 45 seconds of a song before a Daily Double. What the pluperfect hell was that for?
...to have a singer come out and perform before a Daily Double? That's what I'd go with.
(Pluperfect? Where are we, seventh grade English class?)
-
I took a big pluperfect in the bathroom. Does that count?
-
I took a big pluperfect in the bathroom. Does that count?
Funny you should mention it. I've dropped more than one Ten-Pound Hammer in there in my time. If you know what I mean. And I think that you do.
-
Well, anyone want my cookout leftovers? Joe and Chris just ruined my appetite for about the next week or so. ;-)
-
I took a big pluperfect in the bathroom. Does that count?
Funny you should mention it. I've dropped more than one Ten-Pound Hammer in there in my time. If you know what I mean. And I think that you do.
I had thought about including a Ten Pound Hammer joke when I parodied him on the old Jeopardy! board, but I ultimately decided against it. (See, this is the proper use of the pluperfect tense.)
Thus, the Eleven Pound Hammer decided to end his rant because he had to edit Wikipedia articles, as opposed to doing handicraft with his eleven pound hammer.
(I had way too much fun in middle school grammar class.)
-
I took a big pluperfect in the bathroom. Does that count?
Funny you should mention it. I've dropped more than one Ten-Pound Hammer in there in my time. If you know what I mean. And I think that you do.
...that Bono doesn't hold the world record anymore?
-
I would never say that Jo Anne Worley was annoying*, but I saw something this morning on $25KP that made me think of this thread. In the Winner's Circle, the category was THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE 70'S. She said, "John Lennon was, uh, ..." I think at that point she realized that he was assassinated in 1980. Then she said, "Johnson was President." No, that was 1964-69. Amazingly, the contestant got it. (She said, "nineteen seventy-one," or some other year from that decade, and they accepted it.)
*The sound crew on various shows might feel differently.
-
I would never say that Jo Anne Worley was annoying*, but I saw something this morning on $25KP that made me think of this thread. In the Winner's Circle, the category was THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE 70'S. She said, "John Lennon was, uh, ..." I think at that point she realized that he was assassinated in 1980. Then she said, "Johnson was President." No, that was 1964-69. Amazingly, the contestant got it. (She said, "nineteen seventy-one," or some other year from that decade, and they accepted it.)
Foot-binding was a Chinese custom, yet everyone seems to think that was the bestest clue EVAR.
If it worked, it's a good clue.
-
I would never say that Jo Anne Worley was annoying*, but I saw something this morning on $25KP that made me think of this thread. In the Winner's Circle, the category was THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE 70'S. She said, "John Lennon was, uh, ..." I think at that point she realized that he was assassinated in 1980. Then she said, "Johnson was President." No, that was 1964-69. Amazingly, the contestant got it. (She said, "nineteen seventy-one," or some other year from that decade, and they accepted it.)
Shouldn't either of those have been buzzed, since they didn't fit the category?
-
Shouldn't either of those have been buzzed, since they didn't fit the category?
No. There's a difference between "making an honest mistake" and "trying to circumvent or obviously failing to read the category."
-
Shouldn't either of those have been buzzed, since they didn't fit the category?
No. There's a difference between "making an honest mistake" and "trying to circumvent or obviously failing to read the category."
Someone made a good comparison in a thread a while back. If the category is "Things that are creamy", "water", while a crappy clue, would not get buzzed simply for being inaccurate, but "ice" probably would get buzzed, since it alludes to "cream".
-
Someone made a good comparison in a thread a while back. If the category is "Things that are creamy", "water", while a crappy clue, would not get buzzed simply for being inaccurate, but "ice" probably would get buzzed, since it alludes to "cream".
Um, who said this?
-
Someone made a good comparison in a thread a while back. If the category is "Things that are creamy", "water", while a crappy clue, would not get buzzed simply for being inaccurate, but "ice" probably would get buzzed, since it alludes to "cream".
Um, who said this?
Robert Hutchinson. (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2251&view=findpost&p=19198") Disagree?
-
Robert Hutchinson. (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2251&view=findpost&p=19198") Disagree?
Fervently.
-
Robert Hutchinson. (http://"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2251&view=findpost&p=19198") Disagree?
Fervently.
Do tell.
-
I'd love to see how you would do on a game show.
I'd love to see how you would do on Torquemada's Rack.
-
Conversely, I thought I've read about situations similar to Jo Anne's, where a clue didn't literally fit the category was still allowed due to the essence of the answer being conveyed. In other words, it didn't happen in the 70s, but they were events close enough to 1970 (LBJ's presidency) and 1979 (Lennon's murder), to where buzzing would've been nitpicky given it's a word game, not Jeopardy!.
-
We've covered this before, and I think perhaps some people take Dick's wording of the rules a bit too literally. "You must only give a list of things that fit the subject" is more about "only a list" than it is "fit the subject."
While I could see buzzing something like Robert's example, the example itself was far from a good one to prove the point.
-Jason
-
While I could see buzzing something like Robert's example, the example itself was far from a good one to prove the point.
Yes, this precisely.
-
Here's a better example of a factually incorrect clue being disallowed.
Category: SHORT PEOPLE
Clue 1: Wilt Chamberlain
Clue 2: Randy Newman
Both are factually incorrect. (Randy Newman is six feet tall.) Clue 1, hypothetically, wouldn't get buzzed even though it's factually incorrect. I'm 90% certain that Clue 2 was actually given on the 20K, and it was buzzed. It wasn't just factually incorrect; it was also a description, of sorts, of the category. Had this celeb said, "Randy Newman's enemies," it might have been permitted.
-
Here's a better example of a factually incorrect clue being disallowed.
Category: SHORT PEOPLE
Clue 1: Wilt Chamberlain
Clue 2: Randy Newman
Both are factually incorrect. (Randy Newman is six feet tall.) Clue 1, hypothetically, wouldn't get buzzed even though it's factually incorrect. I'm 90% certain that Clue 2 was actually given on the 20K, and it was buzzed. It wasn't just factually incorrect; it was also a description, of sorts, of the category. Had this celeb said, "Randy Newman's enemies," it might have been permitted.
Willie Shoemaker or Billy Barty would have been better clues.
-
Willie Shoemaker or Billy Barty would have been better clues.
3/10. You're slipping.
-
Willie Shoemaker or Billy Barty would have been better clues.
3/10. You're slipping.
Oh, when I saw it I was thinking 8/10 myself. False obliviousness is more subtle than most of his work.
-
Willie Shoemaker or Billy Barty would have been better clues.
3/10. You're slipping.
Oh, when I saw it I was thinking 8/10 myself. False obliviousness is more subtle than most of his work.
It's a tough game though, isn't it? I was more on Kevin's side for that one.
-
It's a tough game though, isn't it? I was more on Kevin's side for that one.
It's an interesting dichotomy, really. It's good if he gets bites. But if he gets called on it early, he's much less likely to get bites, which doesn't make it nearly as good.
-
Category: SHORT PEOPLE
out of nerdish curiousity. would 'midgets' get BZzZZZZZED
-
would 'midgets' get BZzZZZZZED
Main Entry: midget
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: short, small
Yes.
-
would 'midgets' get BZzZZZZZED
Main Entry: midget
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: short, small
Yes.
Munchkin would fly though, as far as I can see checking three different online dictionary sources.
-
Not every dictionary uses short in the definition for midget, so it might come down to the authority. Regardless, let's just go with your Munchkins and add some Lilliputians.
-
Not every dictionary uses short in the definition for midget, so it might come down to the authority. Regardless, let's just go with your Munchkins and add some Lilliputians.
If it were up to me, I'd buzz "midget" for "short" because it's way too similar (IMO) to be allowable. Munchkin and Lilliputian would work, but considering how little people seem to read these days? I don't know if that would lead you to "short people".
-
but considering how little people seem to read these days?
How do little people read these days?
-
but considering how little people seem to read these days?
How do little people read these days?
This is why I like you, Travis. Well played.
(I'll leave it to someone else to come up with the punchline- I got nothing.)
-
They have little books with very fine print.
-
I had "on tippy toe."
-
If we were doing Tom Swifties (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Swifty"), the answer would be 'shortly'.
-
I'll add another example provided by Dave about 6 years ago (http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11075&view=findpost&p=125206):
Anyway, Alan Sues was on the original "Cross-Wits" with Jack Clark, and Sues was anxious to play the end game but was never picked. Finally, he is selected by a contestant to play the bonus round! And Alan stands there for sixty seconds AND SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Offers no help whatsoever.
-
Robert just wants to add, very belatedly, that he agrees that the "water"/"ice" example is crappy in terms of not thinking of something better. I just wanted something concrete to illustrate the distinction between a WTF clue and a "trying to pull a fast one" clue.
(Robert is just flattered that someone was thinking about him, to be honest.)
-
would 'midgets' get BZzZZZZZED
Main Entry: midget
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: short, small
Yes.
From my erratic memory: I remember McLean Stevenson being in the "Pyramid" winner's circle with the contestant, who chose to give the clues. Up came "People Who Are Short." The contestant said, "Midgets... " and Stevenson said "Short People," and they took it.
A later show had the subject, "Names of Short People."
It brings to mind that "Final Jeopardy!" in which a contestant wrote, "Who is the Queen of the Netherlands?" and they had to accept it, because they hadn't specified names. Now they do.
-
but considering how little people seem to read these days?
How do little people read these days?
I dunno...ask Tom Cruise. (:))
--Charlie
-
I'll add another example provided by Dave about 6 years ago (http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11075&view=findpost&p=125206):
Anyway, Alan Sues was on the original "Cross-Wits" with Jack Clark, and Sues was anxious to play the end game but was never picked. Finally, he is selected by a contestant to play the bonus round! And Alan stands there for sixty seconds AND SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Offers no help whatsoever.
Saved me from having to do it. Thanks!
And for the record John Lennon was killed in 1980, not 1979.