The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: gsnstooge on October 05, 2004, 01:48:57 PM
-
Which hosts do you think are better with cheaper shows than big-money shows?For example in my opinion, Chuck Woolery is more personable with contestants on "Lingo" than he was on "Greed" and it is FUN to with Chuck interview contestants on "Lingo". So I think Chuck Woolery is probably comfortable with cheaper shows.
-
It might depend on the overall mood of the show. In other words, perhaps for the sake of Greed, Woolery may have been instructed to come across as more authoratative, less approachable to go more for drama than personality - the "man in control" with millions at stake. Lingo probably needs some tension lessened on the show to help the contestants think faster and clearly and make things seem "fun" to the home viewer. No matter what the budget, if a producer has a set tone for the overall show in mind, he/she will try to have the talent fit the mood. Personally, I think Mark Walberg is doing a good job of treating a cheap show like one with a better budget. He isn't slacking.
-
So I think Chuck Woolery is probably comfortable with cheaper shows.
For what it's worth, Chuck was quoted as saying that he loved doing "Greed".
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Oct 6 2004, 06:09 AM\']For what it's worth, Chuck was quoted as saying that he loved doing "Greed".
[/quote]
However, what you enjoy, and what you're *good* at...
-
But Regis is a jovial, affable guy and he did a show with tense moments and a million dollars. I think Chuck did a pretty good job with "Greed." It wasn't his best, but the stiltedness would be the director's (or producers') fault.
Good hosts adapt to the game. Watching "The $100,000 Name That Tune," you wouldn't think Tom Kennedy could do a low-budget celebrity game, but that's where he started. On Concentration, Alex Trebek was much different than on "Jeopardy!" but was terrific on both.