Recently I found several \"Whew!\" episodes from 1979. I have only had a chance to view 2 episodes so far, but every time, the blocker won the round.
My question is, are there any overall statistics for the 13 months the show was on the air showing what percentage of the rounds were won by the blocker and the charger? I remember when Blockbusters went off in 1982, Bill Cullen mentioned specific percentages of wins by solo players vs. family pairs, and while it wasn\'t a 50/50 split, it was surprisingly pretty even.
Also, I read on wikipedia (which I know shouldn\'t be a \"go to\" source) the reason \"Whew!\" was canceled was because it was up against \"The Hollywood Squares\" on NBC. Squares was canceled June 20, 1980, just 1 month after \"Whew!\" was canceled. Can I assume CBS had no idea that Hollywood Squares would be off in June? I would like to believe if they did know this, they would have petitioned CBS to keep \"Whew!\" on a bit longer.
Thank you,
Bill
When Letterman was proposed, there was some ambiguity on which shows would go off. As it turned out H-Q lost two shows and Bob Stewart one. G-T and Merv kept their shows. The 5-a week prime access version of Hollywood Squares was offered during NATPE 80, so H-Q must have seen the writing on the wall. CBS went back to sitcom programming from 10-11, perhaps to take advantage of the soon-to-come changes on NBC to talk programming.
When Letterman was proposed, there was some ambiguity on which shows would go off. As it turned out H-Q lost two shows and Bob Stewart one. G-T and Merv kept their shows. The 5-a week prime access version of Hollywood Squares was offered during NATPE 80, so H-Q must have seen the writing on the wall. CBS went back to sitcom programming from 10-11, perhaps to take advantage of the soon-to-come changes on NBC to talk programming.
CBS had already made one sitcom move, though, months before - the 10-11 game show hour got cut in half back in February of 1980, when \"The Jeffersons\" replaced :\"Beat the Clock\"...Which IIRC, was getting soundly beaten by \"Card Sharks\" anyway?
My best guess is that CBS probably found it cheaper to run repeats of Alice, since Whew! wasn\'t exactly drawing blockbuster ratings. The incentive for them would be to burn off the five years (at that point) of episodes in daytime before it hit syndication.
Had Whew! been a bigger hit, it likely wouldn\'t have happened.
Another question I thought of when watching the show on youtube...
If a player gets to level six, not using the LongShot, if they miss the 2 bloopers on line 6 and hit the block, and there is still time left on the clock, does the charger win the round? I know if a charger used up all 5 boxes on one row and didn\'t get a blooper right, they automatically advanced to the next level. I wasn\'t sure if there was a similar rule that applied to level 6, and if so, if this ever actually happened.
Thank you again...
Another question I thought of when watching the show on youtube...
If a player gets to level six, not using the LongShot, if they miss the 2 bloopers on line 6 and hit the block, and there is still time left on the clock, does the charger win the round? I know if a charger used up all 5 boxes on one row and didn\'t get a blooper right, they automatically advanced to the next level. I wasn\'t sure if there was a similar rule that applied to level 6, and if so, if this ever actually happened.
Thank you again...
I\'m with Travis. You overthought this way too much.
Three spaces on line two. The last remaining space is the block if you missed the other two. That leaves you zero chance to win the round. What do you think happens then, there\'s a magic seventh level? That Tom Kennedy simply pushes a button like in Hole in One and it appears?
Come on, Bill. Even you have to scratch your head after you read what you wrote.
The previous posts are on point. But from the contestant release:
4. Winning one game is defined as winning two rounds. A round is won as a Charger by getting through the sixth level of the board (answering one blooper correctly on the sixth level) within 60-seconds. A round is won as a Blocker when the Charger fails to do the above.
and
6. When charging, I may not proceed to the next level until I have correctly answered at least one blooper on that level or selected every blooper on that level. The only exception is the sixth level, where a right answer is mandatory in order to win the round.
I know if a charger used up all 5 boxes on one row and didn\'t get a blooper right, they automatically advanced to the next level.
Realistically, can you use all five boxes in one row and not get one right and still have time to longshot?
Maybe if it\'s the first row, but I don\'t remember--do the bloopers go from easier to harder as you go up the board?
Realistically, can you use all five boxes in one row and not get one right and still have time to longshot?
Certainly. Think logically: if you don\'t have time to get five wrong, would you have time to get six right?
You would have time to get five wrong if you don\'t get any others wrong or run into a block along the way. Also depends how much time you take in getting your five wrong.
Your chance to win the round if calling longshot from level 2 would be exactly the same as if calling longshot from level 5.
Point made.
Thank you for the answer parliboy. I could not recall what would happen with level 6.
It saddens me that some replies have to be so terse and downright rude. A little respect goes a long way.
Thank you again, and God bless.
Bill
A little respect goes a long way.
It saddens me that some replies have to be so terse and downright rude.
Bill is exactly right.
Well, wait a second. What exactly did he do to lose respect? While his questions may come across as off-the-wall or maybe even naive, he\'s never been disrespectful in his approach. While some posters get overly defensive or rude with their comebacks, I\'ve never noticed that from him.
Trust me, I\'ve had my words for posters that may be deemed clueless, but I think the knee-jerk reactions happen a bit too often around here sometimes.
Well, wait a second. What exactly did he do to lose respect? While his questions may come across as off-the-wall or maybe even naive, he\'s never been disrespectful in his approach. While some posters get overly defensive or rude with their comebacks, I\'ve never noticed that from him.
Trust me, I\'ve had my words for posters that may be deemed clueless, but I think the knee-jerk reactions happen a bit too often around here sometimes.
There\'s nothing wrong with \"off the wall\" or \"naive\" questions. As my grandfather used to say, it\'s better to ask twice than be wrong once.
As my grandfather used to say, it\'s better to ask twice than be wrong once.
Discounting the fact that the question \"If the charger has blocked himself off on the top row but there\'s still time left, does he win?\" as baffling, and discounting the fact that he previously asked \"If your base card is an ace or two, why does the game require that you call (whatever) because it obviously can\'t be (whatever\')?\" to be so ungratefully rude to the group is uncalled for. I certainly learned my lesson, I won\'t be helping out Bill, and I\'ll discourage other people from doing the same, reminding them of Bill\'s rudeness and ungrateful stance toward everyone who doesn\'t bend over to kiss his ring.Well, wait a second. What exactly did he do to lose respect? While his questions may come across as off-the-wall or maybe even naive, he\'s never been disrespectful in his approach. While some posters get overly defensive or rude with their comebacks, I\'ve never noticed that from him.
Trust me, I\'ve had my words for posters that may be deemed clueless, but I think the knee-jerk reactions happen a bit too often around here sometimes.
It saddens me that some replies have to be so terse and downright rude. A little respect goes a long way.
It saddens ME that people play the martyr card when someone points out they left the obvious answer in their question.
I find this response to be a lot ruder than anything Travis or I said and quite frankly, I\'m pissed off. Because I actually went to the effort of explaining to you why you overthought this. You want respect? Dish it out, and then you\'ll get it.
Maybe the GSN forums are more your speed, if this is going to be your attitude.
As my grandfather used to say, it\'s better to ask twice than be wrong once.
My grandfather used to say, \"The first time, it\'s funny; the second time, it\'s silly; the third time, you get a spanking.\"
Well, of course my grandfather wasn\'t thinking about game shows when he gave me that advice.
My sincere apologies for causing this mess. That was not my intention. Having recently suffered a mild stroke, I sometimes ask or say stupid things.
I appreciate your time and feedback, and God bless.
Not to interrupt the pissing back and forth, but let me bring up this seemingly valid question again. Also, did it seem like the vast majority of chargers who won did it calling \"long shot?\"
My question is, are there any overall statistics for the 13 months the show was on the air showing what percentage of the rounds were won by the blocker and the charger? I remember when Blockbusters went off in 1982, Bill Cullen mentioned specific percentages of wins by solo players vs. family pairs, and while it wasn\'t a 50/50 split, it was surprisingly pretty even.