The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: colonial on May 09, 2024, 09:37:48 AM
-
https://variety.com/2024/film/global/paul-walter-hauser-press-your-luck-game-show-walton-goggins-johnny-knoxville-1235996972/
The Emmy and Golden Globe-winning actor will play Michael Larson in a big-screen version of his appearance on the 1980s game show.
I recall Bill Murray trying to put together a PYL movie way back when but nothing came of it.
Per the Protagonist Pictures website, the film has been completed and the company is looking to sell it globally. I know very little about this company, but one of its films, "Summer Camp" with Diane Keaton and Kathy Bates, will be released in U.S. theaters in the end of May.
JD
-
So is the punchline that Johnny Knoxville plays the Whammy?
-
I could see Johnny Knoxville as Peter Tomarken, especially if he plays it as the smarmy game show host stereotype.
-
I could see Johnny Knoxville as Peter Tomarken, especially if he plays it as the smarmy game show host stereotype.
Joe's line is funny, but yeah, I bet Knoxville is playing the host.
From what I can tell, this sounds like it might be a slightly askew version of the story. Or maybe even not so slightly. Be prepared.
-
Boy, I'm surprised that it is happening, after a long, long time first being talked about. Some things that might be helpful--A much bigger hit prime-time show on ABC-TV, compared to a not-as-popular daytime hit on CBS-TV now approaching it's fortieth anniversary.
This year marks 30 years since Quiz Show first hit theaters. I hope it won't be "platformed," like QS was--opening in select cities one week, then more the following, and then nationwide!
-
I could see Johnny Knoxville as Peter Tomarken, especially if he plays it as the smarmy game show host stereotype.
Whereas I saw Walton Goggins as Tomarken, but that might also be because he plays a host so well as Uncle Baby Billy.
Knowing what we know about the aftermath, this has the potential to be a story where you initially root for the protagonist, but he or she starts going off the deep end and you wonder what’s going on in their head.
-
I could see Johnny Knoxville as Peter Tomarken, especially if he plays it as the smarmy game show host stereotype.
Whereas I saw Walton Goggins as Tomarken, but that might also be because he plays a host so well as Uncle Baby Billy.
I was thinking Goggins as well and maybe Knoxville as Ed, but based on the Variety article it sounds like the film will have a Bill Carruthers character or similar, so maybe Goggins goes there. Who knows?
-
Virtually the entire cast is comprised of character actors. Like Matt said, and after reading the director's comments about the film, I'm expecting a very serialized take of Larson's story.
-
The makeup department did a wonderful job making Hauser look like Larson.
Can't help but notice the letters on the nametag should be bolder, though.
I bet Knoxville is playing the host.
Seems legit. I'm glad to see they did not choose John Michael Higgins.
From what I can tell, this sounds like it might be a slightly askew version of the story. Or maybe even not so slightly. Be prepared.
Well, that's just it. For its subject matter, the writers behind Quiz Show developed a plot out of more characters and events to fill around 130 minutes. For the Michael Larson story, you have a guy who worked his way onto a game show and caused an hour of pandemonium across two episodes (and just by doing the same thing over and over again, which I'm not sure how you translate that to screen in any fashion aside from just watching a recreation of the game he played; and how do you make that interesting?). He doesn't have a backstory that's in any way fascinating (He was underemployed, and instead of investing his time in more constructive pursuits such as job hunting, he watched too much TV, though I guess he managed to make it pay off for himself). There really aren't other characters in this story (aside, I suppose, from his relatives who could tell you he was a bit of a slippery character, but they weren't involved in the event that made him infamous. OK, maybe his opposing contestants, but they've got no role in this story aside from having sat there to lose to him doing what he did), so it seems like the only way you're going to have a plot for a film is to make up something.
Could work out, I suppose. There are plenty of films "based on a true story", though taking too many liberties with the history and trying to claim historical ties is generally off-putting.
It's like the Perfect Bid thing to me. It's an interesting story, but I don't think you have enough here for a feature-film treatment. Still, I'm a bit interested to see what comes of it.
-
Looking at a random Johnny Knoxville photo, it wouldn't take much for him to assume the Tomarken role:
https://images.app.goo.gl/iHeq9PUr7xJ9oNoA7
-
Can't help but notice the letters on the nametag should be bolder, though.
This is a ridiculous nit to pick. Make sure you research the RBG code on the nametag for us to make sure that's 100% accurate too.
-
The makeup department did a wonderful job making Hauser look like Larson.
Can't help but notice the letters on the nametag should be bolder, though.
It's a movie. The nametag shouldn't even be in your Top 100 things to look out for.
Well, that's just it. For its subject matter, the writers behind Quiz Show developed a plot out of more characters and events to fill around 130 minutes.
Per the IMDb trivia/goofs sections for Quiz Show:
The movie shows Van Doren defeating Stemple [sic] the first time he appeared on 21, but actually they played for several weeks, tying games to build suspense.
Know why their match was only one scene? Because stretching it out would've made it close to three hours and your audience would've been bored.
The film's epilogue says that Charles Van Doren never returned to teaching after the Quiz Show scandal. In fact, he taught for several years until his retirement...
(snip)
Know why he lost his job in the movie? Because it sounds more dramatic that way.
For the Michael Larson story, you have a guy who worked his way onto a game show and caused an hour of pandemonium across two episodes (and just by doing the same thing over and over again, which I'm not sure how you translate that to screen in any fashion aside from just watching a recreation of the game he played; and how do you make that interesting?). He doesn't have a backstory that's in any way fascinating (He was underemployed, and instead of investing his time in more constructive pursuits such as job hunting, he watched too much TV, though I guess he managed to make it pay off for himself).
Vince Papale was a bartender who made his way onto an NFL team. Sounds pretty cut and dry, and yet they made a movie. 90% of the movie Rudy is about Rudy Ruettiger getting to play one down of a Notre Dame game. I'm sure they can find enough to pad this movie, esp. if they have the producers/CBS freaking out and trying to withhold money. Then the aftermath where Michael lets greed go to his head. I imagine the movie will have a darker tone.
This movie is not for the fanboys. Enjoy it for what it is and don't think too hard.
-
Even Game Show Network realized that they couldn't spend all two hours analyzing Larson's time in the studio, and that was a game show documentary on a game show network.
I would expect that the main plot of the movie would be a dramatization of Larson's experiences leading up to his appearance on the show and the aftermath of what happened once he received the money. There's only so much drama you can wring out of executives watching helplessly as a contestant repeatedly lands on money plus a spin.
-
Can't help but notice the letters on the nametag should be bolder, though.
This is a ridiculous nit to pick. Make sure you research the RBG code on the nametag for us to make sure that's 100% accurate too.
He probably hated Slumdog Millionaire because the money tree had the commas in the western format too.
-
It's a movie. The nametag shouldn't even be in your Top 100 things to look out for.
You are correct, but I happened to notice. Just sayin'.
Know why their match was only one scene? Because stretching it out would've made it close to three hours and your audience would've been bored.
Indeed they would have been, and I made the same point when I asked what you do in lieu of recreating the game because it would not make for a good film.
This movie is not for the fanboys. Enjoy it for what it is and don't think too hard.
I know it's not for fanboys, and I never expected it to be. Not sure what the condescending tone is about.
He probably hated Slumdog Millionaire because the money tree had the commas in the western format too.
Still haven't gotten around to watching that one. Maybe someday...
-
I honestly wasn't trying to be condescending, so if that is your interpretation I sincerely apologize. My point is that people try to find things to nitpick instead of just enjoying the movie, and I just don't want us to all go down that rabbit hole.
-
I honestly wasn't trying to be condescending, so if that is your interpretation I sincerely apologize. My point is that people try to find things to nitpick instead of just enjoying the movie, and I just don't want us to all go down that rabbit hole.
Fair enough. Apology accepted, and I agree about avoiding the rabbit hole. Given that a single still is the only visual we have of this so far, I was merely noting a detail I saw.
While I'm not placing my hopes too high for accuracy to the true story, it's intriguing that, after all the years since the idea of this film was floated, it has moved all the way to post-production (as of this writing, anyway). I'm interested in seeing the final product.
-
My whole takeaway here is that this thing got all the way to post-production with nary a peep anywhere about it. That doesn't seem to happen much in this day and age.
-
My whole takeaway here is that this thing got all the way to post-production with nary a peep anywhere about it. That doesn't seem to happen much in this day and age.
Randy West did mention awhile back that the late Byl Carruthers was working with producers on the Larson story, but yeah, pretty surprising that nothing came out until today, especially since it hasn't found an official distributor.
-
Just looked up the original proposed version with Bill Murray. I have no concept of time anymore, but I didn't realize that was almost 24 years ago.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=116245&page=1
-
I’m tickled David Strathairn is in it. So good in Good Night and Good Luck and Eight Men Out. I hoped he’d play Peter, then discovered he’s in his 70s. (Yikes.)
-
As I said on someone's Facebook post, looking at the cast list, the name that jumped out at me as a possible Tomarken was James Wolk (probably most famous as Bob Benson on "Mad Men"). Johnny Knoxville seems more like he would play Michael Larson's (fictional) best friend who helps him figure out the board pattern and is then sitting in the audience during the show -- something like that.
-
This PYL movie has a story here. Considering that this movie will be a drama will be interesting. It has the marks for it. I saw Buzzerblog make a post saying that they don't see how a guy sitting in front of a button getting to $100k isn't interesting. I would love to see how it got there in visualized form. How Larson got real crazy with the idea of going on the show, learning the patterns, how Bobby Edwards didn't trust him, how Bill Caruthers and CBS execs were nervous at how much money he won...plus the idea of him being a "cheater," the stamina that he had during the game when he began to wear down, and the aftermath of how he blew all of his winnings. Crazy as kept, and I'll be crazy here...this could be an Oscar-nominated film.
-
Larson, to me, has always been a character type similar to that of Saul Goodman from Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul--a guy with some redeeming qualities, but who's been taught all the wrong lessons in life and works incredibly hard at all the wrong things. That sort of anti-hero can be compelling in the right storytelling hands, and I'll be interested to see how they pull it off here.
Ed and Jamie, Larson's opponents, are still alive AFAIK; it would be a neat little nod if they gave them non-speaking cameos at some point.
-
As I said on someone's Facebook post, looking at the cast list, the name that jumped out at me as a possible Tomarken was James Wolk (probably most famous as Bob Benson on "Mad Men"). Johnny Knoxville seems more like he would play Michael Larson's (fictional) best friend who helps him figure out the board pattern and is then sitting in the audience during the show -- something like that.
Larson DID have a benefactor who financed him getting out to LA so he could audition and later flew out with him to watch him do his thing. If you rewatch the episodes, you will observe him looking back to his left several times, presumably looking for advice on when to stop. Apparently the cash that was won was split between them for his efforts.
-
Apparently the cash that was won was split between them for his efforts.
So that's interesting; I had read before that the burglary at his house involved $50,000 worth of one-dollar bills. If they split it down the middle, the amount he lost totals basically all of his PYL cash.
-
Ed and Jamie, Larson's opponents, are still alive AFAIK; it would be a neat little nod if they gave them non-speaking cameos at some point.
Why can't they have a line?
Larson DID have a benefactor who financed him getting out to LA so he could audition and later flew out with him to watch him do his thing. If you rewatch the episodes, you will observe him looking back to his left several times, presumably looking for advice on when to stop. Apparently the cash that was won was split between them for his efforts.
This is the story that Randy West tells. My question is what is the source of that information? Because that's a pretty big piece of the story that I don't remember being mentioned in Big Bucks or anywhere else.
-
Ed and Jamie, Larson's opponents, are still alive AFAIK; it would be a neat little nod if they gave them non-speaking cameos at some point.
Why can't they have a line?
Larson DID have a benefactor who financed him getting out to LA so he could audition and later flew out with him to watch him do his thing. If you rewatch the episodes, you will observe him looking back to his left several times, presumably looking for advice on when to stop. Apparently the cash that was won was split between them for his efforts.
This is the story that Randy West tells. My question is what is the source of that information? Because that's a pretty big piece of the story that I don't remember being mentioned in Big Bucks or anywhere else.
That came from Byl Carruthers on one of Randy's old posts.
-
Apparently the cash that was won was split between them for his efforts.
So that's interesting; I had read before that the burglary at his house involved $50,000 worth of one-dollar bills. If they split it down the middle, the amount he lost totals basically all of his PYL cash.
Something about that math doesn't math, because I thought part of the story was a real estate investment that went bad as well.
-
The parallels with Quiz Show may be the best angle to take. The film was released nearly 36 years after the episodes aired. Redford remembered it well and likely saw the PBS documentary that sparked the idea. I assume folks associated with this film saw the GSN piece at some point.
You do know filmmakers have the right to take creative liberties, right? Especially since the only possible way they can come close to making money is to attract people beyond the readers of this website.
Do remember that every single one of you who offers any complaints or gripes about trivial matters, or even the truth, is yelling at clouds and it’s not like if you even boycotted viewing it anyone would miss you. Indeed, I strongly suspect most of you will still watch one way or the other, whether in a theatre or when it’s sold to a streaming service
Honestly, folks, try to realize that those that actually have made a career in creative pursuits have to reach more than just the Uber core.
-
Honestly, folks, try to realize that those that actually have made a career in creative pursuits have to reach more than just the Uber core.
Did you just talk down to people for lamenting that things aren't like they once were?
-
I don’t talk down. I aspire for folks to be smarter about their fandom. Apologies if some construe it that way
-
This is where I object. Not everyone has the luxury of working in the industry for 40 years so while I strongly disagree with nitpicks over little details, to say someone should be smarter is out of line. That’s the beauty of this forum.
-
I'll refer you to the universal New Yorker cartoon caption. (https://web.archive.org/web/20060203045552/http://modernarthur.com/blog/christwhatanasshole.html)
-
This is where I object. Not everyone has the luxury of working in the industry for 40 years so while I strongly disagree with nitpicks over little details, to say someone should be smarter is out of line. That’s the beauty of this forum.
And sometimes, working in the industry (present company in this thread NOT excepted) doesn’t mean you really know anything about how Hollywood works.
-
I aspire for folks to be smarter about their fandom.
Speaking as someone who's been on both sides of it, I think it's just as smart for people in the industry to remember that the audience doesn't care what the budget restrictions were, what Q score the host had, etc. etc. etc. If the show's good for the viewers across the country (not just the coasts), they watch. If it's not, they tune out.
And if the only thing one takes from the discussions here is the occasional nitpicking, then perhaps you're only looking to call that out. Sometimes the fun, for me at least, is getting into weeds that are frankly impractical. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think a lot of that discussion here is aspirational (i.e. "I wish they would [address this specific thing]..."). If I can't bring up those "what ifs" here, then where can I?
-Jason
-
In fairness, I think there’s a marked difference between “I wish they would refine the Punchboard matrix” versus someone commenting on whether or not a font is 100% accurate in a movie adaptation.
The first invites discussion. The second (rightfully so, IMO) directs invective towards that individual poster.
I also thought Chris L was being sarcastic, but perhaps I misconstrued his post.
-
The way I see it, it's kind of like movies based on books. How many times have you seen a novel based movie that follows the book's plot to the letter? I'm willing to bet it's virtually 0.
-
It might be more fruitful to consider such adaptations as artistic license (difficult as it may be for nonfiction material versus fiction).
-
Sometimes the fun, for me at least, is getting into weeds that are frankly impractical.
And that is, more or less, the approach from which I made my comment about the nametag font. If it I didn't couple it with enough he hes or self-deprecating humour to highlight it was something that I happened to notice and remarked about from a, "Yeah, we would be the kind of people to notice such a detail, wouldn't we?" perspective, then I'll remember that the next time I attempt to make a remark in jest. I think the other comments I have made on the subject at hand in this thread have clearly shown an overall positive attitude towards it and certainly not worthy of the invective I have received.
In fairness, I think there’s a marked difference between “I wish they would refine the Punchboard matrix” versus someone commenting on whether or not a font is 100% accurate in a movie adaptation.
The first invites discussion. The second (rightfully so, IMO) directs invective towards that individual poster.
And IMO, that's where you're wrong.
Disagreement is one thing. Invective is another. The first is a healthy part of discussion. The second is not.
-
And that is, more or less, the approach from which I made my comment about the nametag font. If it I didn't couple it with enough he hes or self-deprecating humour to highlight it was something that I happened to notice and remarked about from a, "Yeah, we would be the kind of people to notice such a detail, wouldn't we?" perspective, then I'll remember that the next time I attempt to make a remark in jest. I think the other comments I have made on the subject at hand in this thread have clearly shown an overall positive attitude towards it and certainly not worthy of the invective I have received.
That's the general thing with message boards. It's easy to forget it's just words on a screen with no facial expressions, vocal intonations or inflections, or hand gestures. You have to do other things to make sure the meaning of what you say comes across. (Hmm, could there be a game in that?)
-
I just found out, in People magazine, that Hauser is also cast to play Chris Farley in a movie about the late SNL regular. If that was mentioned before, sorry to repeat.
-
Sorry for the bump, but we now have an official title for this movie. It is now called "The Luckiest Man In America" (yuck) and is slated to premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 5th. Walton Goggins is playing Peter Tomarken and David Strathairn is Bill Carruthers. Here is the source. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Luckiest_Man_in_America?fbclid=IwY2xjawE2tqtleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHSfml3CrdpONfe1q3tfCmgzxghenIlEMJD0iibaQMNIxnPOz9IUovpZ5EQ_aem_e7yGcpPzVdxu_i4UPTsnPg)
-
One thing I can tell you with certainty with 40 years in the industry is Walt Goggins is the consummate method actor and also a damn nice person in a world devoid of it. I’ve had the pleasure of working with him on THE SHIELD and briefly on JUSTIFIED and let me assure you he is as decent and respectful in real life as his characters are vicious and uncaring. I’m very optimistic about how he will do as Tomarken, who as most of us who actually knew him can attest was an extremely talented but very complicated man. And if this is the level of casting present in this film, who knows if another Quiz Show might be out there waiting.
-
I'm sure that Goggins' performance will be excellent...but I highly doubt the film will delve into much, if any, of Tomarken's back-story or personal demons.
-
I'm sure that Goggins' performance will be excellent...but I highly doubt the film will delve into much, if any, of Tomarken's back-story or personal demons.
Did anybody think it was going to?
-
I'm sure that Goggins' performance will be excellent...but I highly doubt the film will delve into much, if any, of Tomarken's back-story or personal demons.
I doubt that as well, but I wouldn't be surprised if, for the sake of the film's narrative, Tomarken's portrayed as hostile behind the scenes and the one who aggressively tries to block Larson's payment.
-
I doubt that as well, but I wouldn't be surprised if, for the sake of the film's narrative, Tomarken's portrayed as hostile behind the scenes and the one who aggressively tries to block Larson's payment.
Why? He was host. Did he have a producer credit at that point?
I get that Quiz Show isn't a historical documentary but there's no reason to gild the lilly with this.
-
I'm sure that Goggins' performance will be excellent...but I highly doubt the film will delve into much, if any, of Tomarken's back-story or personal demons.
Did anybody think it was going to?
I was responding to Steve's post above me, sorry if it wasn't clear.
-
I could see Johnny Knoxville as Peter Tomarken, especially if he plays it as the smarmy game show host stereotype.
Whereas I saw Walton Goggins as Tomarken, but that might also be because he plays a host so well as Uncle Baby Billy.
I was thinking Goggins as well and maybe Knoxville as Ed, but based on the Variety article it sounds like the film will have a Bill Carruthers character or similar, so maybe Goggins goes there. Who knows?
Now that we know Goggins plays Peter Tomarken, I think Joe may be right that Knoxville will play Ed (the reigning champion).
This wider pic of Hauser shows some signage from what appears to be the audience, anyone able to read what those signs say?
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56cdc4478259b5c112bb2285/94adb6e8-ca9a-4ef6-9ed2-92b5b5592782/the-luckiest-man-in-america_01.jpg?format=2500w
Any word on a nationwide theater premiere date?
-
This wider pic of Hauser shows some signage from what appears to be the audience, anyone able to read what those signs say?
Laugh, Applause and (assumedly) Boo.
-Jason
-
This wider pic of Hauser shows some signage from what appears to be the audience, anyone able to read what those signs say?
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56cdc4478259b5c112bb2285/94adb6e8-ca9a-4ef6-9ed2-92b5b5592782/the-luckiest-man-in-america_01.jpg?format=2500w
Left says "laugh", middle "applause", I assume the right says "boo".