The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Jeremy Nelson on September 07, 2012, 12:18:44 PM
-
I fianlly got around to watching some eps of Hip Hop Squares, and it seemed like whenever Miss Circle was an incredibly attractive woman, the male stars would often give the right answer followed by some variation of "you gotta trust me". Mr. X didn't always get that same treatment.
So it got me thinking: has anybody watched a celeb based game show and got the feeling that the game felt a little skewed? Standards and Practices can only do so much, but what's to keep Richard Dawson from consistently throwing matches for the male player if the female player is one he wants to ogle at a little longer?
-
and it seemed like whenever Miss Circle was an incredibly attractive woman, the male stars would often give the right answer followed by some variation of "you gotta trust me".
Well, they were looking for a nightclub atmosphere, right?
-
So it got me thinking: has anybody watched a celeb based game show and got the feeling that the game felt a little skewed? Standards and Practices can only do so much, but what's to keep Richard Dawson from consistently throwing matches for the male player if the female player is one he wants to ogle at a little longer?
Peter Marshall, Backstage With the Original Hollywood Square:
[If Paul Lynde] ever took a dislike to a contestant, that guy might as well have gone home. He'd do everything he could to make that person lose. He'd practically come right out and say his answer was correct and force the contestant to agree. Of course, his answer would be wrong. Then, during the commercial, he'd say, "Got you, didn't I?"
So it's not a new phenomenon. Thing is, the game is about what the contestants do, not what the celebrities do, which is why the producers can practically give the questions and answers to the celebrities in advance without incurring the wrath of S&P. It's still up to the contestants to agree or disagree. The producers, however, could choose not to invite back celebs who engage in such shenanigans.
-
Even before Mike weighed in with the quote from Peter Marshall, I was thinking about Paul Lynde. In a related way, actor Robert Fuller was one of the few celebrities who took delight in playing the game as well as you could ask a celebrity to play it, selling his answer with confidence whether he was bluffing or not. It never appeared that he was favoring once contestant over another, he was just having fun.
-
So it's not a new phenomenon. Thing is, the game is about what the contestants do, not what the celebrities do, which is why the producers can practically give the questions and answers to the celebrities in advance without incurring the wrath of S&P. It's still up to the contestants to agree or disagree.
Which is why in the case of Hollywood Squares, where the game still ultimately comes down to the contestant's own range of knowledge, you are right. But a Match Game type situation, where off the wall answers can be explained by not fully understanting the statement or liquid lunch between shows 3 and 4, can be a little more muddy, I'd imagine.
-
Rosie O'Donnell could be an easy pick on HS because if she didn't know the answer, she made it PAINFULLY obvious that you should disagree with her, and that's not really how the game works.
Robert Morse was on MG in the early 70s. One of the questions was about "King Kong going _____". The contestant had a little difficulty deciding an answer and Robert is acting like an ape! Needless to say they brought back the losing contestant, not only because of Robert's dead giveaway, but because the panel alternated between APE and BANANAS, and Ira called it a NO MATCH, even though in that context, they are synonymous.
On Celebrity Hot Potato, Arte Johnson and Jan Murray didn't always play fair. When Arte was playing a question where he knew an answer, he was kinda fun to watch, but give him a question he doesn't know, and he looks frustrated. On the final show, Arte was asked to name a character in the comic strip Dennis the Menace. Instead of passing the Hot Potato and hoping the opponent didn't know,(which could've given the civilian contestant a better chance of winning), he instead gives a nonsensical answer and is out of the round. Jan Murray was equally guilty of doing the same thing. If he didn't know an answer, he'd just blurt out something nonsensical, leaving the civilian player to fend for himself.
-
Needless to say they brought back the losing contestant, not only because of Robert's dead giveaway, but because the panel alternated between APE and BANANAS, and Ira called it a NO MATCH, even though in that context, they are synonymous.
I mean, frequently there were synonyms invloved in the punchline of MG jokes, and the contestant would have to pick one of the obvious ones. Just because they mean the same thing in context doesn't mean they should be counted as identical.
-
Not as in celebrities, but for hosts that could skew the game...
How much leeway did Jim Perry have in dealing with Instant Bargains on "$ale Of The Century"? I know he'd cut prices down (and he always loved a three-way tie) and he'd also throw out some $100 bills to entice the player, but was there a limit on how far he could go to avoid unduly influencing the game?
-
Needless to say they brought back the losing contestant, not only because of Robert's dead giveaway, but because the panel alternated between APE and BANANAS, and Ira called it a NO MATCH, even though in that context, they are synonymous.
I mean, frequently there were synonyms invloved in the punchline of MG jokes, and the contestant would have to pick one of the obvious ones. Just because they mean the same thing in context doesn't mean they should be counted as identical.
I think that was the controversy surrounding that question. Going APE and going BANANAS are technically the same. On the other hand, the writers may have only counted on the panel agreeing on APE or BANANAS, not realizing that some said one, and some said the other. Also, as I said, Robert Morse actually ACTED like an ape to give the contestant a rather obvious clue, in which case it was right to bring the losing contestant back.
-
Going APE and going BANANAS are technically the same.
So?
-
Going APE and going BANANAS are technically the same.
So?
What I meant to say was, the writers didn't think the panel would come up with more than one way of saying "going crazy." For example, they probably expected them to say "going bananas" and nothing else. However, when "going APE" came up, there were problems.
-
How much leeway did Jim Perry have in dealing with Instant Bargains on "$ale Of The Century"?..... was there a limit on how far he could go to avoid unduly influencing the game?
Yes. During Alice's championship run, Jim began unzipping his pants and someone offstage (probably some prude censor) told him to stop it.
-
How much leeway did Jim Perry have in dealing with Instant Bargains on "$ale Of The Century"?..... was there a limit on how far he could go to avoid unduly influencing the game?
Yes. During Alice's championship run, Jim began unzipping his pants and someone offstage (probably some prude censor) told him to stop it.
But the OP asked whether the game was skewed.
-
How much leeway did Jim Perry have in dealing with Instant Bargains on "$ale Of The Century"?..... was there a limit on how far he could go to avoid unduly influencing the game?
Yes. During Alice's championship run, Jim began unzipping his pants and someone offstage (probably some prude censor) told him to stop it.
Didn't he mention that to Bob Berkowitz?
-
What I meant to say was, the writers didn't think the panel would come up with more than one way of saying "going crazy." For example, they probably expected them to say "going bananas" and nothing else.
If someone whose entire livelihood revolves around the usage of words fails to recognize that there are many, MANY synonyms for "crazy," they are exceedingly poor at their chosen profession.
-
What I meant to say was, the writers didn't think the panel would come up with more than one way of saying "going crazy." For example, they probably expected them to say "going bananas" and nothing else.
If someone whose entire livelihood revolves around the usage of words fails to recognize that there are many, MANY synonyms for "crazy," they are exceedingly poor at their chosen profession.
Besides, the whole idea of the game is that there needs to be more than one way of answering the question. And no one was going to say "King Kong going....down to the pub to grab a pint." EVERYBODY was going to say some variation of "crazy", there is no other answer. Are you suggesting that EVERY synonym for "crazy" should have been accepted? I would suggest that the question was written specifically to get some responses of "ape" and some responses of "bananas".
-
Not as in celebrities, but for hosts that could skew the game...
How much leeway did Jim Perry have in dealing with Instant Bargains on "$ale Of The Century"? I know he'd cut prices down (and he always loved a three-way tie) and he'd also throw out some $100 bills to entice the player, but was there a limit on how far he could go to avoid unduly influencing the game?
With Jim Perry and Tony Barber, I never saw either lower a bargain price by more than $5 on too many occasions- only when the game was close. I think they had a bit more leeway later in a champion's run if it would make the games more exciting. I remember a few games when the champ was going for the lot where Jim or Tony would offer the contestant a couple thousand dollars- Tony pulled that mnore than Jim did, IIRC. I wouldn't be surprised if there was someone offstage who let Jim get to a certain point, then gave him the sign when he had to close the bargain.
Staying on $ale, and on topic, we normally don't see contestants skew the game, but I remember on Temptation there was some woman who didn't like one of the male contestants. She was pretty far back by Fast Money, and her sworn enemy was down a question or two. She immediately buzzed on every question and screwed him out of the game. She even referenced her dislike in her post game comments. IIRC, he didn't get asked back. Fair or foul?
-
Staying on $ale, and on topic, we normally don't see contestants skew the game, but I remember on Temptation there was some woman who didn't like one of the male contestants. She was pretty far back by Fast Money, and her sworn enemy was down a question or two. She immediately buzzed on every question and screwed him out of the game. She even referenced her dislike in her post game comments. IIRC, he didn't get asked back. Fair or foul?
Well, I guess there's nothing in the rules that prevents it, but it shows how poor a sport she was. If I had seen that I'd have thought "what a bitch..."
Oh well...maybe she wanted to be remembered in her (probably) one shot on national television.