-
Meredith Vieira has won the Emmy for Outstanding Game Show Host.
-
I know there's a lot of us out there who like her, but for those who don't....WHY?????????????
-
Hey look, she made history. She's the 2nd woman to ever win in this catergory. I think most of us here know a specific "Golden Girl" that did it first a little over 2 decades ago. And yes I did best most of you trivia buffs to the punch. <sarcasm> I should be so proud. </ sarcasm>
-
But I think the point here is, was she worthy of winning the award? Honestly, I don't know what the academy was thinking... but, alas, we have to abide by their decision whether we object to it or not. (Sigh)
-
[quote name=\'gamed121683\' date=\'May 20 2005, 09:45 PM\']Hey look, she made history. She's the 2nd woman to ever win in this catergory. I think most of us here know a specific "Golden Girl" that did it first a little over 2 decades ago. And yes I did best most of you trivia buffs to the punch. <sarcasm> I should be so proud. </ sarcasm>
[snapback]85959[/snapback]
[/quote]
It certainly was, my pretty!
-
[quote name=\'davemackey\' date=\'May 20 2005, 09:37 PM\']Meredith Vieira has won the Emmy for Outstanding Game Show Host.
[snapback]85957[/snapback]
[/quote]
J! won best game show. Also of note on the broadcast, Merv Griffin's lifetime achievement award montage included clips from WOF, J!, and Click. Merv corrected the spiel in the montage that said J! and WOF debuted in 1984 and 1983, not 1964 and 1975.
-
[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'May 20 2005, 10:49 PM\']But I think the point here is, was she worthy of winning the award? Honestly, I don't know what the academy was thinking... but, alas, we have to abide by their decision whether we object to it or not. (Sigh)
[snapback]85960[/snapback]
[/quote]
Is she worthy? Yes, of course she is. She makes the contestants feel comfortable, and she also brings humility and genuineness as host to the show as well.
Bravo to Meredith Viera. Considering Bob Barker and Alex Trebek are award veterans in this category, I am not too sad.
Tim
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'May 20 2005, 10:03 PM\'] Merv corrected the spiel in the montage that said J! and WOF debuted in 1984 and 1983, not 1964 and 1975.
[snapback]85962[/snapback]
[/quote]
Which seems to jive with SPE's stance on conveniently forgetting anything that happened prior to those years.
-
Meredith Viera rules as host, nuff said. More power to her for winning an Emmy, and more power to her on Millionaire.
-
[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'May 20 2005, 09:49 PM\']But I think the point here is, was she worthy of winning the award? [right
[/quote]
And who, pray tell, was more worthy?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'May 21 2005, 12:24 AM\'][quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'May 20 2005, 09:49 PM\']But I think the point here is, was she worthy of winning the award? [right
[/quote]
And who, pray tell, was more worthy?
[snapback]85967[/snapback]
[/quote]
Anne Robinson? <ducking>
-
[quote name=\'Johnissoevil\' date=\'May 20 2005, 11:51 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'May 21 2005, 12:24 AM\']And who, pray tell, was more worthy [of an Emmy than Meredith]?
[snapback]85967[/snapback]
[/quote]
Anne Robinson? <ducking>[snapback]85973[/snapback]
[/quote]
YouAREtheweakestlink, goodbye.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'May 21 2005, 12:24 AM\']And who, pray tell, was more worthy?
[/quote]
Do I necessarily have to name anyone? I was just supposing...
Ok then, I think Barker can beat her hands down on any day of the year.
-
[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'May 21 2005, 12:42 AM\']Ok then, I think Barker can beat her hands down on any day of the year.
[/quote]
Okay. Now tell us why. 'Cuz I sure as hell don't see it.
Vieira makes the contestants comfortable, is entertaining, and runs the show very efficiently and seems very comfortable doing it considering she is in her second season.
Barker gets into all kinds of highly public crap with his costars, is visibly impatient with his more idiotic contestants (which I can understand, but you DO NOT LET THAT SHOW in the business he's in) and frequently screws up the games, covering up his gaffe by throwing up his hands and yelling "You win the prize! Yaaaaaay!"
And if you don't think the Emmy voters know ALL ABOUT the egotistical behind-the-scenes stuff with Barker, you're not thinking. WE know about it, and aside from a few folks like Randy, we're all merely fans.
I'd go so far to suggest that the only reason Barker was NOMINATED is because he's 417 years old. I'd sure as hell give the Emmy to Trebek before I'd give it to Barker.
-
And all Mr. Trebek was doing was reading the questions and saying words to the effect of "Gee whiz! Ken won again!" Ken's streak meant that there were very few chances to ratchet up the drama levels an the suspense on the show.
The only reason "Jeopardy!" won the show Emmy was because Jennings jacked up the ratings. When you get the ratings, you win.
Vieira is nothing but a breath of fresh air on "Millionaire". She knows how to work the show, brings suspense when it's needed, is extremely good handling contestants, and has an incredibly turned out sense of humor. The old cliche about game show hosts smiling all the time? Meredith could smile all the time and I would never tire of it.
I really felt that this year it was her Emmy to lose. She was clearly the best out there.
-
Add two thoughts about Viera:
1. She came in not only as a game show rookie but in the same role as Regis Philbin who became even more of a national figure with his work on the network version of the show. Despite that, she has made her version of the show her own, kept the basic style and added some nice touches.
2. You'll note that Millionaire did not win as best game show. So if she did that good a job on a show that wasn't the best one out there, shouldn't she get recognition?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 21 2005, 04:10 AM\'][quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'May 21 2005, 12:42 AM\']Ok then, I think Barker can beat her hands down on any day of the year.
[/quote]
Okay. Now tell us why. 'Cuz I sure as hell don't see it.
Vieira makes the contestants comfortable, is entertaining, and runs the show very efficiently and seems very comfortable doing it considering she is in her second season.
Barker gets into all kinds of highly public crap with his costars, is visibly impatient with his more idiotic contestants (which I can understand, but you DO NOT LET THAT SHOW in the business he's in) and frequently screws up the games, covering up his gaffe by throwing up his hands and yelling "You win the prize! Yaaaaaay!"
And if you don't think the Emmy voters know ALL ABOUT the egotistical behind-the-scenes stuff with Barker, you're not thinking. WE know about it, and aside from a few folks like Randy, we're all merely fans.
I'd go so far to suggest that the only reason Barker was NOMINATED is because he's 417 years old. I'd sure as hell give the Emmy to Trebek before I'd give it to Barker.
[snapback]85988[/snapback]
[/quote]
Well, consider this then... we're judging the on-air performance, right? I do think he's better sometimes simply because he dosen't stick to the traditional format every time. When Murphy's Law comes to slap him in the face, which due to his age happens more often than not these days, he still finds a way to handle it good. He dosen't just say "You win the prize! Yaaaay!".
I just say this, am I just entitled to have my opinion? I know you're entitled to have your opinion. I will concde this however, I merely forgot about Trebek, he should have gotten it first before Barker.
-
The only reason "Jeopardy!" won the show Emmy was because Jennings jacked up the ratings.
If you've never worked on a game show you can't appreciate what it takes to keep a show like Jeopardy! going. 61 questions per day times five shows per week times what, 39 weeks? That's almost 12,000 questions per season which have to be written, researched and Chyroned, all the while keeping up the quality of the material. When was the last time you heard someone complain that the quality of Jeopardy! material was slipping? For those reasons alone they deserve recognition.
-
[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'May 21 2005, 06:27 AM\']Well, consider this then... we're judging the on-air performance, right? I do think he's better sometimes simply because he dosen't stick to the traditional format every time. When Murphy's Law comes to slap him in the face, which due to his age happens more often than not these days, he still finds a way to handle it good. He dosen't just say "You win the prize! Yaaaay!".
[/quote]
So we're supposed to reward a man who handles incompetence with aplomb? Yeah. Okay. I prefer to reward people who aren't incompetent to start with.
I just say this, am I just entitled to have my opinion?
Of course you are. I never said you weren't. I simply asked you to provide a reason for it, since I disagreed with it.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 21 2005, 11:13 AM\']If you've never worked on a game show you can't appreciate what it takes to keep a show like Jeopardy! going. 61 questions per day times five shows per week times what, 39 weeks? That's almost 12,000 questions per season which have to be written, researched and Chyroned, all the while keeping up the quality of the material. When was the last time you heard someone complain that the quality of Jeopardy! material was slipping? For those reasons alone they deserve recognition.
[snapback]86010[/snapback]
[/quote]
12,000 answers.
Anyhow, when they have to resort to gimmicks, "clue crews" and various levels of low-lying pop culture, I'm not that impressed by the "research".
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'May 21 2005, 11:37 AM\']Anyhow, when they have to resort to gimmicks, "clue crews" and various levels of low-lying pop culture, I'm not that impressed by the "research".
[/quote]
Until you've done it, I'm pretty sure the Emmy voters could give two tin ones whether or not you're impressed.
-
After seeing both shows tape, I think Millionaire has an advantage where having shows end on time are less critical than Price.
Millionaire, with either tape-stop downs or re-edits, can take longer than 30 minutes to shoot a single episode.
Where as Price, they try to get the show done as quick as possible, often doing retakes during the breaks, if time allows. And for the past year or so, they have often been starting taping early so they can go home early.
What I'm not sure of is if ending a tape day early saves any money.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 21 2005, 01:41 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'May 21 2005, 11:37 AM\']Anyhow, when they have to resort to gimmicks, "clue crews" and various levels of low-lying pop culture, I'm not that impressed by the "research".
[/quote]
Until you've done it, I'm pretty sure the Emmy voters could give two tin ones whether or not you're impressed.
[snapback]86025[/snapback]
[/quote]
Oh come on. Quotable movies 2004? 2005's Rock 'N Roll hall of famers? I'm sure a lot of thought went into those questions.
Personally, I don't think any show deserved "outstanding game show" recognition this year. Perhaps America's Funniest Home Videos. :P
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'May 21 2005, 02:52 PM\']Personally, I don't think any show deserved "outstanding game show" recognition this year.
[snapback]86027[/snapback]
[/quote]
Family Feud?
-
61 questions per day times five shows per week times what, 39 weeks? That's almost 12,000 questions per season which have to be written, researched and Chyroned, all the while keeping up the quality of the material. When was the last time you heard someone complain that the quality of Jeopardy! material was slipping? For those reasons alone they deserve recognition.
For Special Class Writing, which they seem to win every year, anyways.
In my eyes, the material has gotten easier since Gary Johnson took over as head writer. Credit Where It's Due: The material has gotten harder and harder in the UToC since about halfway through the quarterfinals. The semifinals have left me slack-jawwed.
'B
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'May 21 2005, 11:37 AM\']12,000 answers.
Anyhow, when they have to resort to gimmicks, "clue crews" and various levels of low-lying pop culture, I'm not that impressed by the "research".
[snapback]86024[/snapback]
[/quote]
That's not fair one bit. While they have the clue crew, and an overabundance of 'shot on location' clues, there is still a very small group of people who have to double-fact check EVERY SINGLE one of those clues. Then proofreading, typesetting, and all of that.
Now, what exactly do you call low-lying pop culture? I don't like it either, but just about everything is fair game on Jeopardy! The people know that going in, too. There's more to popular culture than auto-racing and country music.
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'May 21 2005, 11:52 AM\']Oh come on. Quotable movies 2004? 2005's Rock 'N Roll hall of famers? I'm sure a lot of thought went into those questions.
[snapback]86027[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think it did, because they went ahead and did a whole category about famous musicians. Just because it's outside your frame of reference doesn't make it invalid. I recall you've written a couple full games of Jeopardy for chat use, and had two players finish in the red. The researchers do that for 230 games a year, in a very short span of time. Bravo to all of them; it's a tough thing to do without going totally insane.
Congratulations, Meredith. Well done.
-
I may be way too biased sitting across from her last year, but I can't think of a better person to win.
Congrats, Meredith!
-
Of course Meredith deserves it. With all due respect to the Reegster, she and "WWTBAM" are a virtually perfect match. Congratulations to her.
And whether or not the material has been "dumbed down," for 21 years the "J!" material has simply been the best-written game show material around. Writing a "J!" clue is almost like writing haiku, and the people who do it have the knack and have proven it consistently. And Steve Dorfman deserved one final honor--outisde of Trebek, no one else's contributions have shaped the show over the years more than his.
-
Oh come on. Quotable movies 2004? 2005's Rock 'N Roll hall of famers? I'm sure a lot of thought went into those questions.
Once you've asked every conceivable question in the Encyclopedia Britannica you have to come up with something new. After two decades there are only so many ways you can ask "Who killed Abe Lincoln?". In order to keep the material fresh and variegated they have to broaden the scope of the material with categories about current films and rock 'n' roll. Anyone who has spent 13 weeks employed as a game show writer eventually comes to realize that; as a naive outsider you probably wouldn't.
Personally, I don't think any show deserved "outstanding game show" recognition this year.
The buzz in Hollywood is that there is a game show in development which is so good, it will meet even your standards. It is anticipated that all four networks will enter into an aggressive bidding war for this show, and that Fox is even considering replacing American Idol with it.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 21 2005, 12:10 AM\']I'd go so far to suggest that the only reason Barker was NOMINATED is because he's 417 years old.[/quote]
Um, more like 81 years old.
Anyway, Vieira is the second female honored with a Game Show Host Emmy; Betty White got hers in 1983 for the short-lived "Just Men"...which of course, premiered on the same day TPIR debuted Plinko!!
BTW, today on "The View" the other ladies will no doubt gloat over Meredith's win. Remember the "Bob won an Emmy! Bob won an Emmy!" chants on TPIR one time after Barker got his award years ago?
Jonathan Allen
-
[quote name=\'johnnya2k3\' date=\'May 23 2005, 04:00 AM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 21 2005, 12:10 AM\']I'd go so far to suggest that the only reason Barker was NOMINATED is because he's 417 years old.[/quote]
Um, more like 81 years old.
[/quote]
Um, Chris was joking.
In order to keep the material fresh and variegated they have to broaden the scope of the material with categories about current films and rock 'n' roll.
That's wonderful.
Too bad a show doesn't exist nationally that stresses acadamia more than the movies.
-
Too bad a show doesn't exist nationally that stresses acadamia more than the movies.
Spelling would be a good category.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'May 23 2005, 02:18 AM\']Too bad a show doesn't exist nationally that stresses acadamia more than the movies.
[snapback]86203[/snapback]
[/quote]
College Bowl did. Gone now.
Wintuition did. Gone now.
Studio Seven did, sorta. Gone now.
The TV guys figured out that lots of people don't want to watch game shows with hard material anymore- the play along value is gone. Sure, it was nice to knock down that $2,000 clue about the schematic diagram last week, but if things get way too hard, the viewers will watch other shows.
I don't know where you come up with Jeopardy stressing movies more than academia. A good Jeopardy player must be able to deal with categories that span the whole of human knowledge. News flash, they had movies, TV and music on the old Jeopardy too; it's not just these days. Watch Jeopardy for an entire month. Catalog the number of categories that are academic in nature, and those that fit your view of 'non academia'. If you're honest, I bet it's at least three to one, and moreson in the second round. Don't take backhanded shots like that when you can't back it up.
If you don't like it, don't watch. I can't stand Celebrity Scoop week of Millionaire, so I turn to something else. Come Monday, it's back on. I don't like the turn that Wheel of Fortune took with their categories inaccurately describing what the (excessively long) puzzles are, so I watch something else. For the most part, I enjoy Jeopardy, so I watch. I've been doing it for 21 years now, I doubt something as minor as a category about NASCAR or the history of cosmetics will get me to change. I just might learn something if I stick to it.
-
There is no truth to the speculation that the working title for "Alumni Fun" was "Academia Nuts."
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'May 21 2005, 02:52 PM\']Oh come on. Quotable movies 2004? 2005's Rock 'N Roll hall of famers? I'm sure a lot of thought went into those questions.[/quote]
You'd be absolutely right. As much thought and effort went into those questions as go into any category the writers and researchers come up with.
Oh, I'm sorry, that was supposed to be sarcasm, wasn't it?
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'May 23 2005, 07:08 AM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'May 23 2005, 02:18 AM\']Too bad a show doesn't exist nationally that stresses acadamia more than the movies.
[snapback]86203[/snapback]
[/quote]
College Bowl did. Gone now.
Wintuition did. Gone now.
Studio Seven did, sorta. Gone now.
The TV guys figured out that lots of people don't want to watch game shows with hard material anymore- the play along value is gone. Sure, it was nice to knock down that $2,000 clue about the schematic diagram last week, but if things get way too hard, the viewers will watch other shows.
I don't know where you come up with Jeopardy stressing movies more than academia. A good Jeopardy player must be able to deal with categories that span the whole of human knowledge. News flash, they had movies, TV and music on the old Jeopardy too; it's not just these days. Watch Jeopardy for an entire month. Catalog the number of categories that are academic in nature, and those that fit your view of 'non academia'. If you're honest, I bet it's at least three to one, and moreson in the second round. Don't take backhanded shots like that when you can't back it up.
[snapback]86207[/snapback]
[/quote]
The 80s/90s versions of "College Bowl" (Art Fleming on CBS Radio, Dick Cavett on Disney, "Honda All-Star Challenge" on BET) had more pop culture content than the Ludden/Earle days, as does the current live equivalents. Not overwhelming, but still present (as does "University Challenge" in the UK).
"Studio 7" wasn't really that intellectual a show. Even if most questions were pegged to news events, it was still pretty pop culture-oriented.
The only difference is that in the 80s you didn't see a lot of "pop culture" categories in DJ!, unless it was foreign films, classical music (or maybe jazz), public television, etc. (It's been too long since the Fleming days to recall board makeups back then.) That is changed, but it's not anything I'd get excited about--to me, it's a balance. Just like the kids can answer the first tier questions on "WWTBAM," the teen family member can knock off Lindsay Lohan (the category, that is, you dirty minds) while Dad or the smart Mormon nerd can knock off Presidential Trivia and everyone gets their chance to prove their superiority.
And don't forget: In that photo from the early days of Fleming "J!" in the EOTGS, the FJ! clue in Vaudeville is something like "A NAME FOR AN EIGHT-GIRL CHORUS LINE." That's not exactly ultrahighbrow, then or now--and since vaudeville has completely dropped off the pop culture map of most Americans, a clue they can't use today. You always have to adopt to the times.
-
I am not downing Meredith, but I (and many others in the game show fan world) like Regis a helluva better on Millionaire than her. She is decent, she has improved since 2002, but I don't think it was quite her turn for the Emmy. If anybody(as far as a underdog winning does) deserved one this year, it was Richard Karn. Richard has done a helluva good job with the Feud(such as it is being different from other versions), and brought the ratings up on the show. Hell he has actually saved Feud from the dumper. Louie was about to put the show into the cancelled bin, and even said that it wouldn't last 6 months with Karn taking over. Well, RK has proved all that $hit wrong fro sure.
-
[quote name=\'passwordplus\' date=\'May 23 2005, 02:36 PM\']I am not downing Meredith, but I (and many others in the game show fan world) like Regis a helluva better on Millionaire than her. She is decent, she has improved since 2002, but I don't think it was quite her turn for the Emmy. If anybody(as far as a underdog winning does) deserved one this year, it was Richard Karn. Richard has done a helluva good job with the Feud(such as it is being different from other versions), and brought the ratings up on the show. Hell he has actually saved Feud from the dumper. Louie was about to put the show into the cancelled bin, and even said that it wouldn't last 6 months with Karn taking over. Well, RK has proved all that $hit wrong fro sure.
[snapback]86233[/snapback]
[/quote]
As much as I don't like Meredith, I don't think that Karn was deserving of an Emmy nomination, much less an award.
I don't think Karn has done anything special for Feud. I also don't think that the show should still be on the air. While Louie may have been wrong with his prediction (and it was a year, not six months), for all intents and purposes Karn should either have been replaced or the show should have been sent off to the scrap heap after the first two years with Richard at the helm. To me, Feud is now unwatchable. I can't understand why it keeps getting renewed (maybe Fremantle and Tribune don't have anything else to trot out?). The show has outlived its place on TV, and I think it's time for something new on those TV stations that carry Feud.
Maybe you're seeing something there that I'm not, but what I see, I don't like.
-
Even if anyone thought that Anderson or Karn is worthy, Fremantle seems to have chosen not to submit this version of "Feud" for any Emmy recognition, so it's all a moot point.
And they keep doing "Feud" because it does well enough in its daytime and fringe time slots on the stations that carry it that the stations will still renew it and Fremantle and Tribune still make money off of it--more than they could from a less proven or untested format. Whether or not you like what they're doing and whether or not the format's played out (and I could agree with you on that), that's the bottom line.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'May 23 2005, 02:04 PM\']And they keep doing "Feud" because it does well enough in its daytime and fringe time slots on the stations that carry it that the stations will still renew it and Fremantle and Tribune still make money off of it--more than they could from a less proven or untested format. Whether or not you like what they're doing and whether or not the format's played out (and I could agree with you on that), that's the bottom line.
[snapback]86237[/snapback]
[/quote]
But oh how I wish Fremantle would once again use Feud to launch other shows as companions, and sell them as an hour, as opposed to just double running Feud. A little foresight could make em even more money, if they just invested in the genre.....For a while there (TTTT2000, CS01) it looked like that's what they were doing...