The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: J.R. on July 08, 2003, 10:04:33 PM
-
How exactly did he reign end ? Did he decided he had enough and dropped out ? Did they rig someone to beat him or was he realisticly beaten ? Or did the scandals break out during his run ?
Thanks !
-Joe R.
-
Charles was defeated... forgive me who it was, but her first name I believe was Vivian. He did manage to take home more than $100,000 in 1956 dollars which is a lot of money back then.
-
Charles Van Doren was beaten after 13 weeks by Vivienne Nearing. Nearing tied Van Doren twice and then Van Doren couldn't name the king of Belgium.
I'm unsure if Nearing was cheating, but I think that since it was so dramatic then it must have been. I doubt anyone but the losers played fair and square...and even then, some of them cheated to lose.
The scandal wouldn't come out until three years later when Dotto was proved to be rigged. Then it hit the fan.
-
Charles Van Doren apparently decided on his own to throw in the towel, according to the movie Quiz Show.
He was supposed to win the match, but he purposely blew a question he was supposed to answer correctly.
-
It's about $820,000 in 2002 dollars.
Source: \"The Inflation Calculator\" @ www.westegg.com
-
[quote name=\'whewfan\' date=\'Jul 9 2003, 02:31 AM\'] Charles Van Doren apparently decided on his own to throw in the towel, according to the movie Quiz Show.
He was supposed to win the match, but he purposely blew a question he was supposed to answer correctly. [/quote]
If you're using Quiz Show as an authoritative source of the details of the Charles Van Doren story, I'm afraid you're going to look rather silly, as Redford took quite a few liberties with the facts in the name of entertainment.
Which is not to say I'm not recommending the film, it's excellent, but it fails pretty fantastically as a historical document.
-
Make sure you get to watch the PBS show \"The American Experience\". They have an entire episode devoted to the quiz show scandals of the Fifties. It's far from comprehensive, but it does give a very good historical overview.
-
I saw a photo in a book that I think was from the match between Nearing and Van Doren that showed a game score of 17 to 10 in favor of Nearing. Assuming this was the final score of that game, then it would have fit Van Doren's money totals before and after that game.
Van Doren had $143,000 in prior winnings (which he could have left the show with) before taking on Nearing. They would have played to three ties (in games worth $500, $1,000, and $1,500 a point, respectively), and then in their fourth game (worth $2,000 a point), if Nearing stopped the game after two question rounds with that 17 to 10 score, she would have won $14,000 (her 7-point margin of victory times $2,000), which would have come from Van Doren's prior winnings, leaving him with a final prize of $129,000 for his reign on Twenty-One -- which, according to what I've read on that show, was what he ended up with.
Michael Brandenburg
(Oh, yes -- add Williams Manufacturing Company's \"21\" pinball machine from 1960 to the list of pinball machines that were better than their TV game-show counterparts! At least this one wouldn't let you cheat without lighting up that \"TILT\" sign on the backglass!)
-
If you're using Quiz Show as an authoritative source of the details of the Charles Van Doren story, I'm afraid you're going to look rather silly, as Redford took quite a few liberties with the facts in the name of entertainment.
Yep...for starters, Van Doren didn't win on the H.W. Halleck question, which was actually one of the first to come up in the actual show. Also, Congressional investigator Richard Goodwin's role as portrayed in QS was greatly exaggerated, since it was NY assistant DA Joe Stone who did most of the work.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")
-
I saw a photo in a book that I think was from the match between Nearing and Van Doren that showed a game score of 17 to 10 in favor of Nearing. Assuming this was the final score of that game, then it would have fit Van Doren's money totals before and after that game.
Prime Time and Misdemeanors confirms that Van Doren lost to Nearing 17-10 in their third match together.
Charles Van Doren apparently decided on his own to throw in the towel, according to the movie Quiz Show. He was supposed to win the match, but he purposely blew a question he was supposed to answer correctly.
Chris already scolded you about using Quiz Show as historical fact, and sure enough, this information is incorrect. Again according to PTaM, Van Doren desperately wanted to be released from the show and Dan Enright orchestrated the dramatic loss to Nearing, the same way he orchestrated nearly every other game. Even in defeat, Van Doren did what was expected of him.
Interesting asterisk: For a very long time, Enright and Freedman held fast to the story that they never helped Nearing in her games. (She lost to the very next contestant, after a few ties.) She was a lawyer, and the producers were trying to protect her from potentially being disbarred over the incident. She ultimately admitted that she had been helped as well.
So the short answer to the original question is that Van Doren decided he'd had enough and the producers arranged for him to lose dramatically to Nearing, with the full knowledge of both contestants. The scandals broke out much later.
-
An interesting story. I'd love to see a more in depth show on the era and the scandals, but I doubt it's something that GSN would want to do because the subject matter is in black and white. I doubt it would appeal to the demos they want to attract.
-
Now, here's a programming idea (and please, no flames about how GSN doesn't have any of this; this is just dreaming)
Promote 21 with a '21' night.
7 pm: An episode of the original 21
7:30: A showing of \"Quiz Show.\"
10:00: Two new 21s
-
It's interesting to note, in these days when the distinction between \"game show\" and \"reality television\" is becoming more and more blurred, the point about the shows being rigged so that they can best succeed as 'entertainment' may soon be a cause of greater scrutiny.
While moments which appear on reality television (the most annoying term since \"infotainment\") did \"really\" happen, they are also \"unreal\" in that: a) the situation was contrived by the producers, and b) they are seen in isolation, without the \"before\" and \"after\" moments that contextualise them.
In a program like Survivor, where contestant eliminations are undertaken before the program is edited, it is less easy to argue that producers determined who would lose (unless you look at elements such as their reasons for choosing which people to place together, or their choice of certain challenges at certain times), but on Big Brother, for example, where a lot of the outcome of the contest depends on how people view the edited material (since viewers are also voters), some could well argue that the game was in fact \"rigged\".
Oh and... ah, cynics may say that the whole purpose of going on a reality show is to give yourself a media career (although I don't see this happening so much now, with reality TV contestants being a dime a dozen). Perhaps ousted contestants could argue that the way that they were depicted on the show stood in the way of their potential for a truly glamorous milking of their fifteen minutes of fame :)
-
[quote name=\'CherryPizza\' date=\'Jul 9 2003, 06:35 PM\'] but on Big Brother, for example, where a lot of the outcome of the contest depends on how people view the edited material (since viewers are also voters), some could well argue that the game was in fact "rigged". [/quote]
Are they still, though? I'm aware this was a big knock on the first series, but I thought the second and third versions knocked people off wholly by the vote of the household. (I could be wrong, I admit I didn't watch all that closely, the lustre wore off when I couldn't watch the Internet feeds without paying for them anymore.)
-
I know that that's the way it works in Aus (keep seeing the ads that say \"phone X to evit Y\"), but I don't watch the show, and am proud to know very little about anything to do with it...
Such a disgrace to the genius of George Orwell
-
Are they still, though? I'm aware this was a big knock on the first series, but I thought the second and third versions knocked people off wholly by the vote of the household. (I could be wrong, I admit I didn't watch all that closely, the lustre wore off when I couldn't watch the Internet feeds without paying for them anymore.)
Yep, you're right, Chris. Starting with the second series, the houseguests compete for a \"Head of Household\" position, who then nominates two people for eviction and then the rest of the house votes to determine who gets kicked out; if there's a tie, then the HOH determines the final vote.
No part of the voting is determined by the general public anymore, so the show is basically \"Indoors Survivor.\"
Hope that helped!
Anthony
-
Chuck Net wrote:
Yep...for starters, Van Doren didn't win on the H.W. Halleck question, which was actually one of the first to come up in the actual show. Also, Congressional investigator Richard Goodwin's role as portrayed in QS was greatly exaggerated, since it was NY assistant DA Joe Stone who did most of the work.
Didn't Goodwin write the book on which the movie was based?
Not only that, but he's Mr. Doris Kearns Goodwin as well. The two probably deserve each other. :-)
-
Didn't Goodwin write the book on which the movie was based?
The movie is officially based on Goodwin's memoirs called \"Remembering America\", but the fact is that the game show scandals only occupy one *chapter* of that book and are really discussed very broadly. Much of the detail that the filmmakers came up with had to come from other sources.
The most detailed book about the scandals is the aforementioned \"Prime Time and Misdemeanors\" by Manhattan District Attorney Joseph Stone. The biggest liberty that the film takes is that it greatly exaggerates Goodwin's role in the actual investigations, at the expense of D.A. Stone.
REALLY good paragraph dissecting the liberties taken in Quiz Show, including Stone's opinion about it all:
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/...s/quizshow.html (http://\"http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/quizshow.html\")
But Richard is married to Doris? I didn't know that!
-
One-time $ale of the Century swinger Matt Ottinger wrote:
But Richard is married to Doris? I didn't know that!
Well, if the IMDb is to be believed, he is. I remember seeing Richard Goodwin's name in the opening credits and wondering if he was related to her. Since she worked in the LBJ White House (along with Bill Moyers), and he was a one-time congressional staffer, it doesnn't surprise me.
That, and from what I've heard Doris took some serious liberties in her baseball book. ;-)
-
Now, here's a programming idea (and please, no flames about how GSN doesn't have any of this; this is just dreaming)
Promote 21 with a '21' night.
7 pm: An episode of the original 21
7:30: A showing of \"Quiz Show.\"
10:00: Two new 21s
My own idea for this September 21st: Twenty-one episodes of Twenty-One -- two episodes of the half-hour original and the 19 episodes of the Povitch run.
(I know the kinescope of the Stempel-Van Doren match from 1956 is still in existance, so that would leave only one other half-hour episode to find -- perhaps the video of the Snodgrass-Bloomgarden match from 1958 that ended with Bloomgarden winning a whopping $73,500 after the attempt to rig that game's outcome went awry is also still around.)
Michael Brandenburg
(But then, after all those Povitch episodes air again, I might start looking for that \"21\" pinball machine…)
-
[quote name=\'Michael Brandenburg\' date=\'Jul 10 2003, 08:41 PM\']
(I know the kinescope of the Stempel-Van Doren match from 1956 is still in existance, so that would leave only one other half-hour episode to find *snip*)
[/quote]
Well, a couple of years ago, I found a cheapo tape (the kind you find in supermarkets, at least that's where I found it) with an episode of 21 and one of the 64K Challenge. Don't remember who, offhand, was on the 21 episode.
So there are more out there, I'm sure.
-
Well, a couple of years ago, I found a cheapo tape (the kind you find in supermarkets, at least that's where I found it) with an episode of 21 and one of the 64K Challenge. Don't remember who, offhand, was on the 21 episode. So there are more out there, I'm sure.
My impression is that a lot more of the old prime time game shows survive in b&w kinescopes than any of us may realize. There's certainly evidence to suggest that things like Pantomime Quiz, 21, even obscurities like Bank on the Stars exist in larger numbers than what we traders have. There's just so little commercial benefit to getting them out to the public that in many cases it's not even worth the expense of transferring them to a usable format.
-
Ok, sorry about opening up an old thread (\"old\" in these days of internet technology meaning a week!), but...
I thought about this a couple of days after I read this thread, then was away from the internet for about a week, then it took a couple of days to get around to typing it up.
For some reason that I can't think of, the 1987 book about the US Wheel of Fortune made its way to the bargain bin in an Australian supermarket, and I bought a copy of it about 12 years ago. The first chapter discusses a general history of US game shows, and also has details about the 1950s scandals. It doesn't go into too much detail about the Van Doren affair, but does give a good general description of the scandals as a whole.
For those interested, I've put a couple of passages here (http://\"http://www.geocities.com/televisioncity/studio/3361/ushistory.html\")
-
If you're using Quiz Show as an authoritative source of the details of the Charles Van Doren story, I'm afraid you're going to look rather silly, as Redford took quite a few liberties with the facts in the name of entertainment.
Which is not to say I'm not recommending the film, it's excellent, but it fails pretty fantastically as a historical document.
MAD Magazine's version of the movie ended with a remark about how a movie about a game show that wasn't honest wasn't itself entirely honest. (A couple of other liberties that the movie took: in reality, the \"On the Waterfront\"/\"Marty\" question would have given Stempel 21 and the win, but the miss resulted in a tie (the fourth tie, I think); also, the movie makes it look as if van Doren's appearance at the investigation hearing took place pretty much right after he was on the show, but in reality it was years later.)
One bit of trivia: GSN's one daytime episode of the Cullen TPIR includes a mention by Bill to watch van Doren compete against Nearing on that week's Twenty-One.
-
For 11 points and 21, can you name the person who created the set (set designer) for the original 21, the movie "Quiz show", the pilot from 1980 and the 2000 version.
-
[quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 08:38 PM\'] For 11 points and 21, can you name the person who created the set (set designer) for the original 21, the movie "Quiz show", the pilot from 1980 and the 2000 version. [/quote]
Original: Jack Landau
1982: I'd guess John C. Mula
Movie: Don't know
2000: Joe Stewart and John Shaffner
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 07:48 PM\'][quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 08:38 PM\'] For 11 points and 21, can you name the person who created the set (set designer) for the original 21, the movie "Quiz show", the pilot from 1980 and the 2000 version. [/quote]
Movie: Don't know
[/quote]
(whispering---yes I know it's rude, shut up) Tim Galvin
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 07:48 PM\'][quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 08:38 PM\'] For 11 points and 21, can you name the person who created the set (set designer) for the original 21, the movie "Quiz show", the pilot from 1980 and the 2000 version. [/quote]
Original: Jack Landau
1982: I'd guess John C. Mula
Movie: Don't know
2000: Joe Stewart and John Shaffner[/quote]
Wow, how did you know that, I thought that know one would know the answer. You didn't even ask to take the third part last :)
-
[quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 09:01 PM\'] [quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 07:48 PM\'][quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 08:38 PM\'] For 11 points and 21, can you name the person who created the set (set designer) for the original 21, the movie "Quiz show", the pilot from 1980 and the 2000 version. [/quote]
Original: Jack Landau
1982: I'd guess John C. Mula
Movie: Don't know
2000: Joe Stewart and John Shaffner[/quote]
Wow, how did you know that, I thought that know one would know the answer. You didn't even ask to take the third part last :) [/quote]
It was easy....the original I knew because I recently saw THE 21 episode from 1956, B-E always used John C. Mula for their sets in the mid-late 70s and all of the 80s, and I was a fan of the 2000 version.
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 08:04 PM\'] [quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 09:01 PM\'] [quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 07:48 PM\'][quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 08:38 PM\'] For 11 points and 21, can you name the person who created the set (set designer) for the original 21, the movie "Quiz show", the pilot from 1980 and the 2000 version. [/quote]
Original: Jack Landau
1982: I'd guess John C. Mula
Movie: Don't know
2000: Joe Stewart and John Shaffner[/quote]
Wow, how did you know that, I thought that know one would know the answer. You didn't even ask to take the third part last :) [/quote]
It was easy....the original I knew because I recently saw THE 21 episode from 1956, B-E always used John C. Mula for their sets in the mid-late 70s and all of the 80s, and I was a fan of the 2000 version. [/quote]
Is Jack Landau still alive?
-
[quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 09:09 PM\'] Is Jack Landau still alive? [/quote]
That I don't know.
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 08:04 PM\']
It was easy....the original I knew because I recently saw THE 21 episode from 1956, B-E always used John C. Mula for their sets in the mid-late 70s and all of the 80s, and I was a fan of the 2000 version. [/quote]
John C. Mula didn't design Caldwell's TTD set, that was Dennis Roof.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 09:31 PM\'] [quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 08:04 PM\']
It was easy....the original I knew because I recently saw THE 21 episode from 1956, B-E always used John C. Mula for their sets in the mid-late 70s and all of the 80s, and I was a fan of the 2000 version. [/quote]
John C. Mula didn't design Caldwell's TTD set, that was Dennis Roof. [/quote]
If you want to nitpick, I can nitpick right back...
By that time, Barry had passed away. So it technically wasn't Barry-Enright, it was just *Enright.*
Told you I could nitpick. :-P
-
History question: I know Barry/Enright (or just Enright) did the Jim Lange "21" pilot, but didn't NBC own the show? For that matter, didn't NBC own "Tic Tac Dough," having bought rights to all the shows (including, more notably, "Concentration")?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they did have to work things out license-wise with NBC. I don't think they necessarily had an automatic "in". as once Dan mentioned his frustration over losing a bid to regain the rights to produce Concentration again. G-T got the nod. Now did NBC give Jim Victory a share of the Concentration rights, or just a cut of merchandise money, or what, since the Endless home version lists NBC as the owner of the format, the game issued under license from Victory Television. NBC Enterprises International still lists TTD, Dough Re Mi, Concentration and Twenty-One as NBC-owned properties - the Concentration entry does not list any co-owner of the format rights.
And incidentally - did anyone else find it interesting that in the Povich Twenty-One, the credits listed Bob Noah as the original creator of the format? I know he worked there then, but was Bob the total creator of the original format, or did NBC just wish to avoid any association of the show with Jack or Dan?
-
[quote name=\'The Ol' Guy\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 10:21 PM\'] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they did have to work things out license-wise with NBC. I don't think they necessarily had an automatic "in". as once Dan mentioned his frustration over losing a bid to regain the rights to produce Concentration again. G-T got the nod. Now did NBC give Jim Victory a share of the Concentration rights, or just a cut of merchandise money, or what, since the Endless home version lists NBC as the owner of the format, the game issued under license from Victory Television. NBC Enterprises International still lists TTD, Dough Re Mi, Concentration and Twenty-One as NBC-owned properties - the Concentration entry does not list any co-owner of the format rights.
And incidentally - did anyone else find it interesting that in the Povich Twenty-One, the credits listed Bob Noah as the original creator of the format? I know he worked there then, but was Bob the total creator of the original format, or did NBC just wish to avoid any association of the show with Jack or Dan? [/quote]
I wonder why the piolet version of 21 didn't make it to air ion 1980?
-
[quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 19 2004, 09:49 AM\'] [quote name=\'The Ol' Guy\' date=\'Feb 17 2004, 10:21 PM\'] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they did have to work things out license-wise with NBC. I don't think they necessarily had an automatic "in". as once Dan mentioned his frustration over losing a bid to regain the rights to produce Concentration again. G-T got the nod. Now did NBC give Jim Victory a share of the Concentration rights, or just a cut of merchandise money, or what, since the Endless home version lists NBC as the owner of the format, the game issued under license from Victory Television. NBC Enterprises International still lists TTD, Dough Re Mi, Concentration and Twenty-One as NBC-owned properties - the Concentration entry does not list any co-owner of the format rights.
And incidentally - did anyone else find it interesting that in the Povich Twenty-One, the credits listed Bob Noah as the original creator of the format? I know he worked there then, but was Bob the total creator of the original format, or did NBC just wish to avoid any association of the show with Jack or Dan? [/quote]
I wonder why the piolet version of 21 didn't make it to air ion 1980? [/quote]
Spelling corection:
I wonder why the piolet version of 21 didn't make it to air in 1980?
-
[quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 19 2004, 09:50 AM\']
I wonder why the piolet version of 21 didn't make it to air in 1980? [/quote]
The pilot was from 1982, and game shows were kind of in decline that year, NBC cancelled several shows in late 1981 and early 1982, SYndie Match Game got cancelled, and the new shows premiering in the early 80s in syndication crashed and burned. Some stations in contention to buy the show at NATPE that year probably knew of the tarnished image associated with the game, and though this show would be an unrigged version(complete with a luck based bonus game Barry and Enright were notorious for), decided not to go with it.
-
[quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 19 2004, 10:50 AM\'] [quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 19 2004, 09:49 AM\']
I wonder why the piolet version of 21 didn't make it to air ion 1980? [/quote]
Spelling corection:
I wonder why the piolet version of 21 didn't make it to air in 1980? [/quote]
Want to try a third time?
-
[quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 19 2004, 09:50 AM\'] I wonder why the piolet version of 21 didn't make it to air in 1980? [/quote]
Well, there was a shortage of contestants....They axed, but no one came....
-
[quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 19 2004, 09:50 AM\'] I wonder why the pilot version of 21 didn't make it to air in 1980? [/quote]
Because it wasn't filmed until 1982.
-
You guys are too much. :-) But seriously, the game's biggest flaw was that unless it was rigged, it was really pretty dull...just lacked the drama and suspense of the original 50s version. And who else thought Jim Lange looked kinda creepy w/out his TM glasses?
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Feb 19 2004, 07:09 PM\'] You guys are too much. :-) But seriously, the game's biggest flaw was that unless it was rigged, it was really pretty dull...just lacked the drama and suspense of the original 50s version. And who else thought Jim Lange looked kinda creepy w/out his TM glasses?
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby") [/quote]
The only real problem I had with it was that the booths looked awfully empty...something seemed to be missing without the little desks in front of the contestants.
You want something REALLY creepy? This is just for you, Chuck:
http://pictureposter.allbrand.nu/pictures/...rkrichards2.JPG (http://\"http://pictureposter.allbrand.nu/pictures/squaresfan/markrichards2.JPG\")
How I love MS Paint's "Invert Colors" option. :-)
-
I have that show buried somewhere around here..wasn't that the one where the highest question value was 9? What was with that? Maybe I'm missing something, but it sure seemed dumb. What would the difference be between an 18-17 win and a 21-20 win after two questions? Still one point, right? It's gotta be forcing extra rounds means the game is played longer, eating up more air time, therefore making the show more economical as a 5-a-week strip. That wouldn't matter if one player decided to quit after the second question. You know, the more I mull this over, the lousier the concept gets.....
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Feb 19 2004, 10:12 AM\'] [quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 19 2004, 10:50 AM\'] [quote name=\'familyfeudfan\' date=\'Feb 19 2004, 09:49 AM\']
I wonder why the piolet version of 21 didn't make it to air ion 1980? [/quote]
Spelling corection:
I wonder why the piolet version of 21 didn't make it to air in 1980? [/quote]
Want to try a third time? [/quote]
I knew that was comming :)