The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: colonial on March 20, 2024, 12:42:34 PM
-
https://people.com/jeopardy-producer-mike-richards-opens-up-being-fired-after-1-day-exclusive-8611125
Among Richards's claims ...
-- He suggests Alex Trebek would have formally retired from the show following the 2020-21 season given his health.
-- There was talk about bringing in guest hosts if Trebek was too sick to host.
-- There was never a discussion about who would replace Trebek until his passing.
-- Richards said he wanted to see a new host chosen soon after Trebek's passing, but the decision was made to do guest hosts the rest of the season given 'how hard it was on everyone.'
-- "A company that specialized in focus groups" was brought in to help decide the next host.
-- He said "the company" asked him to audition as host and "tested well."
-- He insisted he did not choose himself as the permanent host and had nothing to do with the selection process.
-- Said that "everything written about him" was full of half-truths and out of context.
-- Thinks Ken Jennings is a great host and "always thought he was the guy."
JD
-
I’m just curious as to why this story is dropping nearly three years after everyone has moved on. The show is still standing and people have grown to like Ken. Feels like a puff piece planted by Mike, similar to the articles that dropped claiming the viewers found him so charming and debonair.
A few of Mike’s quotes got a “Sure, Jan” outta me.
/We dodged a bullet by not getting A-A-Ron
-
Because this is a subject that involves a lot of claims by all sides that the general public has no way of confirming, let's be sure we're not compounding the problem by misreporting statements.
-- He suggests Alex Trebek would have formally retired from the show following the 2020-21 season given his health.
I do not see this claim anywhere in the article.
-- He said "the company" asked him to audition as host and "tested well."
The article says "he says he was thrown into the mix of guests hosts." It does not say who threw him there.
-- Said that "everything written about him" was full of half-truths and out of context.
The line from the article (written by the author, not Richards) is "a lot of what was written about him." Let's not respond to a claim of taking things out of context by taking something out of context.
-
Just read the article - it states at one point that Mr. Richards hosted "Million Dollar Pyramid" on GSN.
Uh, no. I think that alone proves this article is not worth our time.
-
I can't speak to the authenticity or the accuracy of the writer, but I will say that Mike's story and my experience of him pretty much match up. Especially the stuff about the testing.
So sorry, folks, he actually IS speaking more truths than you might want to believe.
Not to beat a dead horse, but perhaps he actually wants to get on with his life and doesn't think what he did deserves to have him permanently condemned.
Keep this in mind: Brian Robbins and Dan Schneider were and are friends, and even after this documentary aired Brian is still running what's left oif Paramount.
Maybe Claire McNear should find a more deserving target to dig into?
-
Not to beat a dead horse,
Maybe Claire McNear should find a more deserving target to dig into?
Too late.
-
Not to beat a dead horse, but perhaps he actually wants to get on with his life and doesn't think what he did deserves to have him permanently condemned.
So what's the point of the article? I hardly believe someone at People Magazine said "Hey...remember that guy who hosted the show for like two weeks? Let's see where he is now!"
To reiterate my own point, this is the same man who tried to convince the world that tons of viewers found him so charming and handsome compared to the other dozen or so people who auditioned. The media ran with it because it gets clicks and it's a numbers game. Fine. Whatever. But in addition to all the controversy, he's also got a tendency to create buzz that no one asked for. At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, J! is not the type of show that requires the kind of publicity he brought to the show. It just feels...sleazy? I dunno if that's the right word but it brings down a show known for being intellectual, esp. given the dignified feel Alex brought to the show.
-
So what's the point of the article?
For Mike Richards to let you know he's a good guy, not as bad as they say he is, and that he would really like to produce a game show.
in addition to all the controversy, he's also got a tendency to create buzz that no one asked for. At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, J! is not the type of show that requires the kind of publicity he brought to the show. It just feels...sleazy? I dunno if that's the right word but it brings down a show known for being intellectual, esp. given the dignified feel Alex brought to the show.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with sleazy.
-
I can't speak to the authenticity or the accuracy of the writer, but I will say that Mike's story and my experience of him pretty much match up. Especially the stuff about the testing.
So sorry, folks, he actually IS speaking more truths than you might want to believe.
Not to beat a dead horse, but perhaps he actually wants to get on with his life and doesn't think what he did deserves to have him permanently condemned.
Keep this in mind: Brian Robbins and Dan Schneider were and are friends, and even after this documentary aired Brian is still running what's left oif Paramount.
Maybe Claire McNear should find a more deserving target to dig into?
K
-
Not to beat a dead horse, but perhaps he actually wants to get on with his life and doesn't think what he did deserves to have him permanently condemned.
Please explain to me what "permanently condemned" means? Because he still received an EP credit on Chain Reaction (which I understand could be in name only), but he continues to pitch formats to this day. So, clearly *someone* is letting this man in the door. Is it EP/host of a beloved game show franchise? No. Is it blacklisted for life in a dark corner? Doesn't look like it to me.
Also, I am sick and tired about hearing about testing. Is it important to use to guide a decision? Absolutely, but there are *so* many things that test positively that are completely the wrong decision. I am so sorry that Sony executives could only see dollar signs and numbers and not see through the trees at the optics of installing Mike Richards as host.
Keep this in mind: Brian Robbins and Dan Schneider were and are friends, and even after this documentary aired Brian is still running what's left oif Paramount.
Maybe Claire McNear should find a more deserving target to dig into?
Keep this in mind: Just because you cover one subject doesn't mean you are obligated to cover every subject. Brian Robbins and Dan Schneider have nothing to do with Jeopardy and there are *plenty* of people covering them. Imagine going to a dentist and telling them "hey, I think my teeth are fine, why don't you focus on my heart?" And just like you want to make false equivalencies about Schneider and how what he did was worse, what Mike did clearly wasn't as bad as that and the precise reason he'll be back in his industry.
A gratuitous piece of work to soften his image and make it easier to get back into some high profile positions. Honestly, I think he's probably in a position where he's got a job or sold a format and this is just to make him palatable to the public at large when news of his next job drops. Which I guarantee the public probably doesn't care about as much as he or is press agent thinks they do.
-
To answer why this is coming out now ... well, he's probably got a publicist that arranged the exclusive because he wants to get back to work.
Fairly or not -- in a town where the answer more often is "not" -- the situation was not survivable to stay on Jeopardy. But there is no reason for this to be a career death penalty. A good softball piece in a genial space is what he needed. Such an opportunity was not going to come while the temperature was as hot as it was, nor was there any way he could have pushed back.
But this is a reset, and I would assume that he has some things in the hopper and ready for a comeback. From a pure outsider perspective, I'm sure that the experience will make him a better producer and a better human being.
Barry and Enright survived despite being pilloried in the public square. I think a redemption is in order.
-
Ohm, at least someone here is logical.
For others—I sure hope you never have to endure the kind of emotional turmoil that an unforgiving public can inflict. Anyone who thinks money and a token title can make up for that has never been through it.
A reset is in order for everyone. I really hope it’s possible for those who continue to believe the man should not work.
-
A reset is in order for everyone. I really hope it’s possible for those who continue to believe the man should not work.
I don't know where you get this idea that so many people think he should not work. I certainly don't. I would have no problem seeing him pertain another job in the industry. I think he has already or will very shortly in the future.
I really don't think the public will be so unforgiving because I just think they don't care anymore. I think he'll be free to work wherever he wants as long as it isn't Jeopardy.
-
Nobody is saying Mike Richards shouldn't be working. Or even working in or hosting game shows. Just that the Jeopardy gig went off the rails and that firing him was probably the right decision. The entertainment industry is fickle. People get hired and fired all the time as I'm sure you're aware. I have no doubt that he will bounce back or has bounced back just fine.
-
J! is doing just fine without him. In the end, what should have happened in the first place became the reality. Ken is host and it's being EPed by someone who is actively interested in growing things with the franchise in ways that seem exciting to me.
-
Nearly three years later thankfully this discourse has matured. It certainly wasn’t that way when all of this went down.
Agenda journalism and rushes to judgement have consequences. That’s perhaps the biggest lesson that can be learned from this.
Now we return to our regularly scheduled programming
-
Agenda journalism and rushes to judgement have consequences. That’s perhaps the biggest lesson that can be learned from this.
Except it wasn't a rush to jud- you know what? Ultimately, you're too close to the situation to provide an objective take. I think you underestimate just how bad a look those moves were at the time and overestimate what many of us felt should have been Mike's penance.
-
Nobody is saying Mike Richards shouldn't be working. Or even working in or hosting game shows. Just that the Jeopardy gig went off the rails and that firing him was probably the right decision. The entertainment industry is fickle. People get hired and fired all the time as I'm sure you're aware. I have no doubt that he will bounce back or has bounced back just fine.
Nobody is saying he shouldn't be working - but I would hope those in the know, who have followed this story closely, have seen plenty of different versions of what happend....come from one source. Richards.
"Someone called in sick and I, as EP , had to step in. (paraphasing) " Remember that nugget? Sorry, it just doesn't work that way with a multi-million dollar franchise.
"I wasn't accused of sexual harassment on TPIR ". Except , by the staff, who didn't like the temperture of the room you turned it up to.
And that's the problem - there's a whitewashing of facts going on - it happens a lot in the world today. I get that we're talking about a little quiz show, a blip on the radar of world issues, but if you're gonna still talk about to People Magazine...people are still gonna remember what went down, and why you're not hosting any show today.
I wasn't there, but it wasn't hard to figure out. Mike wanted to be a host. He got a few chances. Then he wanted the big shows. He got them to take a chance on him with an audition for Price, but then he prob realized it might be easier to get a foot in the hosting door, by actually being through the door as a producer.
If he had just behaved better........ he would have had better results. He didnt, and now he doesn't.
-
Again. More than one side to every story. And because I did see some of this first hand, not to mention a lot else with many others, I know a lot better than most that’s the case.
Fair point I’m close to the situation. But until you see first hand conversations with women who think you’re enough of a sympathetic and meaningless nerd to discuss in front of you which executives might be most vulnerable to exaggerated accusations in the name of money, you can’t merely take the default view that what they allege is always true.
I’m not saying I know for fact that’s what happened at Fremantle. Perhaps people thought he was a misogynistic asshole. Trust me - he’s not the first, and he’s far from the worst offender. There’s a LONG list of people you’ve never heard of that used incendiary language and would make references that might make outsiders uncomfortable.
Is it “right”? That’s not for me or you to say. But I’d MUCH rather have an executive who knows how to do his job well and competently and keeps people employed than someone who dances on eggshells and doesn’t.
And again- who are any of else to determine what is fair “penance”? Does someone truly deserve a life sentence of castigation and blackballing because of something he or she was ALLEGED of doing?
Look into your own lives and employment situations (I’ll take the high road and assume you all do work somewhere). Way worse had and still does go on. Perhaps your company’s work isnt seen by several million people a night to make it “newsworthy”.
Clearly none of that seems to matter to some of you. I honestly hope none of you ever have to face the kind of accusations and partial truths that many people I know—many way better than Mike—have had to endure. Or see first hand the impact they have on their loved ones. There’s not enough compensation in the world that can make up for that feeling of hopelessness when you are falsely condemned.
And mind you- I’m not alleging Mike per se is a saint without fault. And not everything he touched professionally turned to gold. I worked with him on a pilot for a show called The Noise—a brain fart dreamed up by the same genuises I worked for that he felt he could execute. A years worth of rudderless development later the only noise of consequence we heard were the groans of the assembled audience at run throughs.
I do think this topic has reached its limit of debatability. You do you. Just try and realize we are all imperfect to an extent.
-
In the end, what should have happened in the first place became the reality. Ken is host
I'm not following why so many people think this should have happened. Should not the job of hosting TV's biggest quiz show have gone to someone with some actual broadcasting and game show hosting experience (Much as I think Mark L. Walberg should have gotten a crack at it, Tom Bergeron was the best suggestion I heard; and I think he ought not to have publicly turned down the suggestion that he'd be a good contender)?
Does someone truly deserve a life sentence of castigation and blackballing because of something he or she was ALLEGED of doing?... I honestly hope none of you ever have to face the kind of accusations and partial truths that many people I know—many way better than Mike—have had to endure. Or see first hand the impact they have on their loved ones. There’s not enough compensation in the world that can make up for that feeling of hopelessness when you are falsely condemned.
I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that Mike has been painted far worse than he actually was for any misdemeanours (and I use that term broadly) of which he has been alleged to have done. I also think everyone here agrees that had he not done the things he did do (whatever they were but things a reasonable person should have recognized that, innocuous as it may have seemed to himself, could be the kinds of things that could get blown out of proportion if the wrong person found out), he would have saved himself a lot of trouble. I think all of this is also a real testament to the huge problem in society today that any man who is alleged to have done anything deemed "inappropriate" that has sexual attached to it is immediately presumed guilty of said allegations with no opportunity to properly defend himself and very likely to see his personal character ruined. That's definitely not a good thing.
But in the end, it seems the opinion here is that nobody really cares about Mike Richards and his "professional" work. The public didn't know him when he became host of Jeopardy!, and the public doesn't know him any better now. The fact that he feels the need to hire a publicist to get his name out there to "clear" it, if you will, is a bit ridiculous as if he thinks he so famous (or infamous) that such a piece is going to help smooth things over for his career.
The mess of allegations aside, if he's good at what he does (and I personally do not think that he is, but my opinion matters not the least bit in the eyes of those who could hire and fire him), then someone will hire him and he may eventually experience a Jack Barry-esque career comeback someday. Certainly more high-profile people in showbusiness have been alleged of, accused of or admitted to worse and were hired again in the same industry after a very public exit; but as for this puff piece in People, personally, it just makes me say, "Stop thinking you are so good for the world of television game shows that somebody ought to hire you".
-
Does someone truly deserve a life sentence of castigation and blackballing because of something he or she was ALLEGED of doing?
What alleged? He's got multiple podcasts of him sounding like exactly the person who I wouldn't trust with the keys to a 60 year old television institution. (Or the Presidency, but that's just me doing me.)
You're conflating alleged behavior on one set, in which he was able to keep his nose clean, with another event that, when it was discovered on a podcast that he wasn't the spotless everyday-Joe-aw-shucks-i'm-surprised-that-I-focus-grouped-really-really-well. And THAT'S the person Sony didn't want.
And for the record, If multiple salacious comments like Mikes came out of Ken Jennings mouth, we'd be saying the same thing. And if multiple salacious comments like Mikes came out of Aaron Rodgers' mouth, we'd be sa- you know what that's not a good example :) .
-
I'm not following why so many people think this should have happened. Should not the job of hosting TV's biggest quiz show have gone to someone with some actual broadcasting and game show hosting experience (Much as I think Mark L. Walberg should have gotten a crack at it, Tom Bergeron was the best suggestion I heard; and I think he ought not to have publicly turned down the suggestion that he'd be a good contender)?
I won't lie and say that I thought Ken was the best host right out of the gate. He was shaky at first and part of that has to be that he knew what the stakes were and he knew he had big shoes to fill. But I think of all the possible choices, he was the one Jeopardy! fans would have had the most grace for in learning on the job. I also think that hosting Jeopardy! is not the same as hosting any other quiz show. I completely understand why Bergeron would have not even wanted to entertain taking over. I don't think Mark L Walberg was anywhere near the right person for the role. He's a decent presenter and host, but what he does lack, I feel, is gravitas. That's why a lot of the folks who did guest host J! were news people and not other game show hosts. You can teach folks to host a game show, even J!. But you can't teach gravitas, presence which is what makes someone better suited to the role than someone else.
But what I mean when I say what happened is ultimately should have happened is that Ken was the one person who was most adaptable to the task at hand. He knew quizzing, he knew being a contestant, he knew and loved Jeopardy!. That ended up being the perfect combination for the host.
-
(Much as I think Mark L. Walberg should have gotten a crack at it, Tom Bergeron was the best suggestion I heard; and I think he ought not to have publicly turned down the suggestion that he'd be a good contender)?
I'm a fan of Tom Bergeron, but I agree with him that he wouldn't have been a good fit for the Jeopardy! hosting role. He's at his best when he's given the space to digress and ad-lib, and there's little room for game-stopping levity on Jeopardy! (Ken is developing a good feel for when a humorous aside can be quickly offered).
Hollywood Squares was a good show for Tom, but he was at his absolute best with Breakfast Time. It's a shame that there isn't space on the television dial for a show like that, because while I want to see him continue to work, a pilot of Tic Tac Dough wasn't the ideal use of his talents.
-
Mike would have been off the air by now because of blandness.
-
I don't think Mark L Walberg was anywhere near the right person for the role. He's a decent presenter and host, but what he does lack, I feel, is gravitas. That's why a lot of the folks who did guest host J! were news people and not other game show hosts. You can teach folks to host a game show, even J!. But you can't teach gravitas, presence which is what makes someone better suited to the role than someone else.
I think going for news people was steering the wrong direction (not that there were a lot of people with game show hosting experience who weren't washed-up comedians from which to consider). To me, it likens the job of Jeopardy! host to reading a lot of cue cards very quickly. Sure, it involves reading a lot of copy, but there's that "traffic cop" element of game show hosting of keeping the proceedings moving, knowing how to bring out the best in the contestants in the process, which is not something I see a lot of news people doing.
I'm a fan of Tom Bergeron, but I agree with him that he wouldn't have been a good fit for the Jeopardy! hosting role. He's at his best when he's given the space to digress and ad-lib, and there's little room for game-stopping levity on Jeopardy!
I can agree that it definitely wouldn't have been his strongest fit for a show. Just of the names bandied about his seemed to be the best that I heard since, again, he knows how to host game shows and hasn't been terrible at doing so.
Mike would have been off the air by now because of blandness.
I think this is the main point that's not being discussed when it comes to Mike hosting anything. I've never understood the praise he's received for his work on The Pyramid or anything else. He's not the least bit interesting or engaging. He can read a teleprompter without a flub. He can follow the game show host formula of knowing the right things to say to move the proceedings, do a contestant interview, build off something a contestant says to get a laugh and go on; but he has no charisma.
-
In the end, what should have happened in the first place became the reality. Ken is host
I'm not following why so many people think this should have happened. Should not the job of hosting TV's biggest quiz show have gone to someone with some actual broadcasting and game show hosting experience (Much as I think Mark L. Walberg should have gotten a crack at it, Tom Bergeron was the best suggestion I heard; and I think he ought not to have publicly turned down the suggestion that he'd be a good contender)?
Because Ken is a familiar face, which I'm sure they weighted heavily. I think, arguably, Ken is the most famous Jeopardy contestant of all-time in the show's 50 year history. It was clear from the moment they hired Ken to read an entire category of clues on air that he was the show's choice to step in for Alex at a moment's notice and, as revealed last year, he was planned to take over for Alex *before* Alex's death.
Ken wasn't as polished as a Walberg or Bergeron, but in terms of someone being familiar to audience and a comforting presence to the contestants onstage, it's Ken. That's been the biggest advantage for him when compared to the other guest hosts and Mayim. He really offers up a genuine connection to the contestants because he knows more than anyone what they're going through, and you can see it as he talks to them.
-
I am of the mind that if Mike Richards had simply bided his time as EP and not hastily made his own coronation out of thin air, he could be less than six months away from making $10 million a year for the rest of his life hosting Wheel. But obviously, as his actions and machinations now and then show, he is not wired to wait.
-
I’m just curious as to why this story is dropping nearly three years after everyone has moved on.
I hardly believe someone at People Magazine said "Hey...remember that guy who hosted the show for like two weeks? Let's see where he is now!"
To answer why this is coming out now ... well, he's probably got a publicist that arranged the exclusive because he wants to get back to work.
I agree with Brandon and I think Otm is on to something here. Another "news" article from People dated March 23rd just appeared in my Google feed, and it's full of quotes from some guy named Mike Richards:
Former Price is Right Producer Reveals Protocol for When Excited Contestants Accidentally 'Pee Their Pants' (https://people.com/former-price-is-right-producer-reveals-protocol-for-when-excited-contestants-pee-their-pants-exclusive-8612278)
-
I think going for news people was steering the wrong direction (not that there were a lot of people with game show hosting experience who weren't washed-up comedians from which to consider). To me, it likens the job of Jeopardy! host to reading a lot of cue cards very quickly.
Reading a lot of copy effectively isn't easy. As seen by Brooke Burns, Sara Haines, and even Ken and Alex, you can definitely get really good at it, but it takes reps and a want to get better.
Sure, it involves reading a lot of copy, but there's that "traffic cop" element of game show hosting of keeping the proceedings moving, knowing how to bring out the best in the contestants in the process, which is not something I see a lot of news people doing.
News people are in constant movement during a broadcast, and those who attend their production meetings are well aware that fitting in as much content as they do requires keeping things moving and realizing what's most important- They're some of the best traffic cops in that regard. In addition, good newspeople are great interviewers and can do just that- bring the best out of people.
I think some us unfairly made the assumption that a newsperson could be dropped into a job like this for a seamless transition, but getting them up to speed and comfortable wouldn't be as hard as you're making it out to be.
-
I am of the mind that if Mike Richards had simply bided his time as EP and not hastily made his own coronation out of thin air, he could be less than six months away from making $10 million a year for the rest of his life hosting Wheel. But obviously, as his actions and machinations now and then show, he is not wired to wait.
I am of the mind that if Trebek hadn't died when he did, Sajak wouldn't've renewed his last contract and Mike Richards would already be the host of Wheel for the past few years. Remember, Sajak renewed his contract one week after Mikey's departure. Probably because Sony didn't want both of their shows going through major transitions around the same time and backed up the money truck for him.
-
I am of the mind that if Mike Richards had simply bided his time as EP and not hastily made his own coronation out of thin air, he could be less than six months away from making $10 million a year for the rest of his life hosting Wheel. But obviously, as his actions and machinations now and then show, he is not wired to wait.
As much as Wheel is a show that really doesn't need a host to keep it moving or make things exciting, would audiences really have taken to Mike? Is it a minority opinion that he is just bland and disinteresting and not really any better than the game show host stereotype?
I think some us unfairly made the assumption that a newsperson could be dropped into a job like this for a seamless transition, but getting them up to speed and comfortable wouldn't be as hard as you're making it out to be.
I'm not understanding why people made that assumption in the first place. To me, it's like thinking (washed up) comedians make for good game shows hosts because they're "funny". They may keep getting hired, but with rare exception, they're terrible hosts. I've seen and met precious few newscasters who I would say really did have the chops to transition their skills (particularly interview ones) into being a good game show host. Not saying it couldn't be done, but thinking they were the first place to look for Trebek's successor is not where I would have looked.
-
I'm not understanding why people made that assumption in the first place. To me, it's like thinking (washed up) comedians make for good game shows hosts because they're "funny". They may keep getting hired, but with rare exception, they're terrible hosts. I've seen and met precious few newscasters who I would say really did have the chops to transition their skills (particularly interview ones) into being a good game show host. Not saying it couldn't be done, but thinking they were the first place to look for Trebek's successor is not where I would have looked.
In all fairness J! is known for being a scholarly show, so one might think a news reporter or anchor adds a little credibility. Both Fleming and Trebek had a background in news reporting, so it wouldn't have been farfetched at all for the next host to have the same. Unfortunately, Katie Couric and Bill Whitaker went into storytelling mode and were not a good fit for the show.
Comedians work as hosts, mainly because of their ability to think on their toes, interact with contestants, and keep people laughing. And I would say more comics have done well as hosts than not: Groucho Marx, Richard Dawson, Howie Mandel, Jeff Foxxworthy, Drew Carey, and several others come to mind. This idea that performers aspire to only be game show hosts is a huge misconception. I don't think any of them expected that to be their career path, but it paid well for the number of days you work. The most iconic names in the industry come from an acting or comedy background.
-
I'm not understanding why people made that assumption in the first place. To me, it's like thinking (washed up) comedians make for good game shows hosts because they're "funny". They may keep getting hired, but with rare exception, they're terrible hosts. I've seen and met precious few newscasters who I would say really did have the chops to transition their skills (particularly interview ones) into being a good game show host. Not saying it couldn't be done, but thinking they were the first place to look for Trebek's successor is not where I would have looked.
Your statement reads "I don't understand why people in need of suits would consider starting at Men's Wearhouse."
It may not have been where YOU looked, but to most Americans, if you're in need of a host with great pronunciation, a dash of character and a gravitas with the home audience, the news seems like a logical first stop.
Shortly after Alex passed away, I ran an open survey asking people to rank their top choices for host- with the exception of Ken and Brad, every person on this list is either a newscaster, a former host, and/or a comedian.
https://shinyblackfloor.wordpress.com/2020/11/24/path-to-the-podium-a-jeopardy-succession-survey/
To me, it's like thinking (washed up) comedians make for good game shows hosts because they're "funny".
You do realize that most game show hosts who started as comedians didn't quit comedy because they couldn't hack it, right? Most of them did stand up, then parlayed that into more lucrative gigs that gave them a wider audience- Steve Harvey, Drew Carey, Louie Anderson, Jane Lynch, Craig Ferguson...the list goes on.
Comedy is subjective, yes, but you calling them washed up is about as far from the truth as possible.
-
Let's get one thing straight: the era of Game Show Hosts Hosting Game Shows is dead. Finito. Kaput. Stop trying to make Todd Newton happen. It's never going to happen.
That doesn't mean that there won't occasionally be a personality who gets dropped into the role of emcee who takes to it well enough that they're well-regarded for their talent and perhaps considered for another game show when the one they're doing peters out, but the notion that there's a stable of Bill Cullens, Tom Kennedys, Peter Tomarkens, and even Tom Bergerons that networks will regularly draw from is plain fanciful at this point. The reason you have people like Elizabeth Banks, Leslie Jones, Joel McHale, and Rob Lowe hosting game shows today (or very recently) is because they need to work every possible angle to draw viewership to their shows, and the host is one of those angles. Some of these names, like Jay Pharoah or Damon Wayans Jr., might seem like they don't have much name recognition, but Pharaoh is an SNL alum and the Wayans name has 30 years worth of pedigree, and that means something when the time comes to choosing who represents the show and what they put in promos. The only exception I can find to this rule in prime-time or major syndication is Sara Haines hosting The Chase, but that show gives the Chasers top billing anyways.
As it pertains to the Jeopardy! gig, I don't know how Richards would have done had he been given the podium long enough to hit his stride. Considering how to-the-bone television shows get edited nowadays, I'm not sure it matters if he would have been the life of the party or blander than a bowl of oatmeal; anything that's not pure gameplay gets left on the cutting room floor.
-
Let's get one thing straight: the era of Game Show Hosts Hosting Game Shows is dead. Finito. Kaput. Stop trying to make Todd Newton happen. It's never going to happen.
Even Todd Newton has seemingly made peace with the fact that Todd Newton is never going to happen.
Seriously though, as much as I would love to see good hosts get consistent work in the genre, that mindset also edged out other people who also would have done well with those gigs. We now have more women and people of color hosting game shows than ever before, and that doesn't happen if we keep giving right of first refusal to the same six or seven people.
-
Walter Cronkite, Mike Wallace, Meredith Viera and John Daly were newsmen and game show hosts (uh, or panel moderators). They’re good broadcasters, just as Uncle Bill was, and show a sense of humor.
Now, Bill Whittaker is a great reporter but not known for wit, however Katie Couric was a very reasonable candidate. I hoped for Brian Williams—good delivery, good presence and very wry. Paul Magers was an anchor in Minneapolis and on KCBS in LA. Smooth as heck and funny, too, just not a national name. Morning anchors in particular do so much chatting they fit the hosting gig.
My problems with Mike Richards are that he’s not interesting or engaging (as noted), and was so brazen about hiring himself. Granted, Jack Barry and Monty did, but at least they created the shows.
-
That doesn't mean that there won't occasionally be a personality who gets dropped into the role of emcee who takes to it well enough that they're well-regarded for their talent and perhaps considered for another game show when the one they're doing peters out, but the notion that there's a stable of Bill Cullens, Tom Kennedys, Peter Tomarkens, and even Tom Bergerons that networks will regularly draw from is plain fanciful at this point. The reason you have people like Elizabeth Banks, Leslie Jones, Joel McHale, and Rob Lowe hosting game shows today (or very recently) is because they need to work every possible angle to draw viewership to their shows, and the host is one of those angles. Some of these names, like Jay Pharoah or Damon Wayans Jr., might seem like they don't have much name recognition, but Pharaoh is an SNL alum and the Wayans name has 30 years worth of pedigree, and that means something when the time comes to choosing who represents the show and what they put in promos. The only exception I can find to this rule in prime-time or major syndication is Sara Haines hosting The Chase, but that show gives the Chasers top billing anyways.
To be a bit provocative, one could argue that, with game shows in prime time, it was always thus.
Let us look at the Goodson-Todman programs of the 1950s and 1960:
-What's My Line?, often seen as the classiest of the programs, had a host in John Charles Daly whose career had been in journalism- and, for the first decade or so of the run, was hosting ABC's nightly news program simultaneously.
-I've Got A Secret may have been the most popular of these series- its first host, Garry Moore, had been involved in game shows since Beat The Band in the early 1940s, but had also been of prominence as a radio comedian turned television variety show host, and in certain regards was the sort of light entertainment personality who bounces between the genres that is seen overseas but hasn't been that common in the United States.
-Bud Collyer, who seems to have been among Goodson-Todman's first choices for new programs during this time, had been highly active as a radio actor/announcer before turning to game shows in the late 1940s- and didn't give up work in the former immediately after starting with the latter.
-Two For The Money is a case in point in two regards- it was originally meant for Fred Allen (whose reputation had been as hostile to the genre), and, when his health made him unable to host, it went to Herb Shriner, at a point where he was seen through his radio, television, and stage work as a rising comedian.
-Even The Name's The Same, an ABC program when they were very much the third network, demonstrates this point- there was a massive continued push during the late 1940s and 1950s to establish Robert Q. Lewis as the next great variety star on both radio and television, though it never quite took.
Moreover, an examination of other prominent primetime game shows by other producers suggests that this isn't just a Goodson-Todman thing:
-The $64,000 Question's host, Hal March, had been an actor/comedian before turning to that series- and, when the scandals hit, largely spent the rest of his career as a comedian.
-Jack Barry had turned to producing and hosting game shows after first obtaining a reputation as a producer/moderator of panel programs (Juvenile Jury, Life Begins at 80 and then as a broader television personality (Winky-Dink and You).
-Even something as second-tier as Masquerade Party demonstrates this- among its string of hosts were the host of CBS's nightly news program, one of Fred Allen's associates, and a movie star of the previous decade.
I make no claim that my list is exhaustive, and I am aware of counter-examples (The Price Is Right being a key one with Goodson-Todman)- but I believe this point demonstrates that there was no real history during the era when game shows were commonly in prime time of basing who was hired to host on prior experience in and chief association with the field, and that, if anything, the sort of approach with game show hosts of hiring the field veterans is some something that develops when it becomes more chiefly something programed in the daytime (though, even there, we can all point to various times when producers or network executives have decided on other approaches).
-
Not to go to far afield from this, but the last couple lines of RMF’s post brought something to mind: Was there some kind of push from the networks in the late 80s-early 90s to bring in sports personalities as hosts? You had Lynn Swann, Jimmy Cefalo, and of course, Rolf. I think I’m forgetting a couple too.
I feel like you’re seeing it again here recently; Peyton and Kelce come to mind immediately.
-
I don't see how it's revelatory to note that many of the original hosts weren't game show hosts from the beginning. For one thing, it was the beginning of the medium, much less the genre.
Practically any of the "classic" game show hosts you want to name did not grow up wanting to be game show hosts, and many of the successful ones still saw themselves as something else first.
-
Bert Parks was the archetype
-
Was there some kind of push from the networks in the late 80s-early 90s to bring in sports personalities as hosts? You had Lynn Swann, Jimmy Cefalo, and of course, Rolf. I think I’m forgetting a couple too.
Rolf was highly regarded among the public, which is why Merv hired him. Considering a weatherman got hired after Sajak and everyone had a word puzzle game to sell after Wheel took off, this seems like another instance of people trying to figure out Wheel's secret sauce.
-
and many of the successful ones still saw themselves as something else first.
It's good to be reminded of this now and then. Wink Martindale is on record saying that he would have pursued sportscasting instead of game show hosting had he known how big a field it was to become.