The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: cmjb13 on November 26, 2003, 06:42:35 PM
-
Would I be correct in saying that contestants on pilots do not receive any winnings from playing the game?
-
Yep. I think that they are paid for 1 day, usually $100. However, they are not entitled to their winning, ie a car, prizes, and loads of cash.
Charles
-
How was "Beat the Computer" played on the 21 Pilot?
-
I could be wrong, but the contestants are just paid a flat fee in most cases since they're just acting.
In some pilots where the game may not be scripted, contestants that win get to appear on the show if it becomes a series. (e.g. Scott Wyant on Bullseye)
How was "Beat the Computer" played on the 21 Pilot?
...I'd recommened downloading the pilot and seeing for yourself? (wink, wink :-P)
Seriously though, the contestant tried to accumulate as close to 21 as possible without going over by stopping a board with random spinning numbers ranging from 1-11. Before spinning, the player decides whether he / she takes the forthcoming number or gives the number to the computer. The computer freezes at 17 or higher and if the player's score is higher than the computer or manages to bust the computer by causing it to obtain over 21, he / she wins the bonus game.
Simple enough? :-D
--Jamie
-
I was a pilot contestant on a number of shows in the 80's, and we were always paid a flat fee for our time. As mentioned above, if the show went to air, we were often given the opportunity to appear on the regular show as well.
One thing to note, a pilot is always created to best showcase the play of the game. To that end, the outcome of a pilot is often manipulated--perhaps the contestants are supplied with answers to assure a big win, or in some cases technical problems may force them to shoot and re-shoot portions of the game and they simply may not have written enough material to keep providing fresh game material to the contestants. So the pilot contestants may end up having to act like they've never heard the show material before. There can be quite a bit of acting involved in being a pilot contestant.
So for those practical reasons, they do not award actual prizes to pilot contestants, not to mention that their budgets on a pilot don't have room for such an extravagance. Remember, the whole point of a pilot is simply to give a good demonstration of the show to a roomful of executives, so of course it's not necessary to award prizes to accomplish that.
-
I was a pilot contestant on a number of shows in the 80's, and we were always paid a flat fee for our time
What pilots did you take part in?
--Jamie
-
I did pilots for "Catch Phrase," a Marty Pasetta Production, and for "Lucky Rollers," (which was an attempt to revive "High Rollers" for ABC, with Alex Trebek still hosting), and also did a word game show for Sande Stewart, which the name of the show escapes me. That last show was interesting in that it arrempted to use the game play format from the Winner's Circle of Pyramid, but use it as a front game format, and then they added some kind of bonus round, the format of which I can't remember. I also did a presentation for a show from Dick Clark Productions called "Family Tree" that was very memorable because you had to lie convincingly to a celebrity panel (a la "To Tell The Truth") and I remember there was a lot of pressure not to blow it.
I did a lot of other presentations and run-throughs of various shows, because once you got on the lists of a few contestant coordinators, you would get called a lot if you were available and willing.
How I got on those lists was by appearing on regular shows as a contestant. I was on:
Whew! in 1979 ( at the tender age of 19)
Wheel of Fortune in 1982
Go! in 1983
Million Dollar Chance of a Lifetime in 1986
and Jackpot in 1989
Game shows were a fun hobby for me all through my 20's.
-
Lucky Rollers
Wow, those pilots are on the trading circuit. Some of us probably have your pilot for that...
Go! in 1983
You remember the date or the celebs? I'm sure I have your Go appearance too.
-_^
--Jamie
-
That's cool! I've never seen the Lucky Rollers tape, although I do have tape of my "Go!" appearances.
The thing I remember about doing "Lucky Rollers" was the incredible energy on the set. They basically wanted contestants who could scream and yell and act excited for long periods at a time. I mean the only other skill was throwing a pair of dice. I always thought it was funny that Alex Trebek was associated with two shows that were so far apart in style. You have "Jeopardy," which is so cerebral, and he acts like a college professor, and then there was "High Rollers" where he was like a tuxedo-ed croupier. But it was very fun to do that pilot. The audiences that attended the taping got into it just as much as if we were playing for real money; I think most of them thought we were. Nowadays they usually have to get paid extras to sit in the audience for tapings, so the live energy is not as intense.
When I was on Go! the celebrties were Audrey Landers and Jay___?, the ventriloquist who appeared on "Soap." Our team was partnered with Audrey on the first show, and we won and got to play the bonus round twice and didn't win either of them. (That bonus round was hard to win!) Then we came back and played with Jay and got beat on our second day. I remember we won $2100, and my share was $525, which I used to buy my first VCR!
-
The thing I remember about doing "Lucky Rollers" was the incredible energy on the set
This just slipped right by me the first time, but the title was Lucky Numbers....unless this is a totally different pilot altogether. :-D
I kinda doubt it's a different one because Lucky Numbers was shot for ABC and was a High Rollers clone attempt...
When I was on Go! the celebrties were Audrey Landers and Jay___?,
Ah. Jay Johnson.
--Jamie
-
Sounds like that must have been the same pilot. At the time we taped it, it was definitely called "Lucky Rollers," but they must have changed the name subsequently. Probably they decided the first name was just too similar.
-
[quote name=\'scully24\' date=\'Nov 28 2003, 01:39 AM\'] That last show was interesting in that it arrempted to use the game play format from the Winner's Circle of Pyramid, but use it as a front game format, and then they added some kind of bonus round, the format of which I can't remember. [/quote]
Would this be Cash on the Line?
-
[quote name=\'scully24\' date=\'Nov 27 2003, 11:44 PM\'] I was a pilot contestant on a number of shows in the 80's, and we were always paid a flat fee for our time. As mentioned above, if the show went to air, we were often given the opportunity to appear on the regular show as well.
One thing to note, a pilot is always created to best showcase the play of the game. To that end, the outcome of a pilot is often manipulated--perhaps the contestants are supplied with answers to assure a big win, or in some cases technical problems may force them to shoot and re-shoot portions of the game and they simply may not have written enough material to keep providing fresh game material to the contestants. So the pilot contestants may end up having to act like they've never heard the show material before. There can be quite a bit of acting involved in being a pilot contestant.
So for those practical reasons, they do not award actual prizes to pilot contestants, not to mention that their budgets on a pilot don't have room for such an extravagance. Remember, the whole point of a pilot is simply to give a good demonstration of the show to a roomful of executives, so of course it's not necessary to award prizes to accomplish that. [/quote]
Thank you scully24 for sharing your information with us. It is interesting learning about people who have actually taped pilots and been on some game shows. I know that I would have loved to have been in your shows back in those days. Unfortunately today there aren't as many great shows as there was back in the 80's.
-
Would this be Cash on the Line?
To be honest, I'm not sure why my memory of that show is so vague. I think I came down and was a back-up contestant on that pilot. I remember being on the set, but not playing the game.
By the way, one last favorite memory...On WOF, I was the winning contestant on Susan Stafford's final show. They did a big send-off for her during the last few minutes, cutting the game play a little short that day. And so then I was the returning winner when they tried out her first replacement, who was Summer Bartholomew! Summer did a week's worth of shows, and I think they tried a few other women before they settled on Vanna White.
-
Say, how sober was Alex when you attended the "Lucky Numbers/Rollers" Pilot ?
-Joe R.
-
Alex was very professional. Of course by then, hosting the "Lucky Rollers" pilot was a no-brainer for him. But I remember being the "big winner" on the pilot, and his role as the host was just to ride herd on all that energy. I mean as contestants we were giving out mega-watts of energy, and the whole audience fed off that so that the studio felt like you were at the super bowl. It was really a lot of fun.
I remember playing in an earlier run-through with Alex back at the office when they were still prepping the pilot, and he just glided in and did it with little apparent preparation. He was a lot more loose and smart-mouthed at the office. He entertained himself and others there by saying things in the rehearsal that he couldn't get away with on the air. Like when a contestant chose to stretch her luck by trying one more roll after she'd already won a lot, he replied straight-faced: "Karen, you selfish b****," just to get a laugh...
-
One thing to note, a pilot is always created to best showcase the play of the game. To that end, the outcome of a pilot is often manipulated--perhaps the contestants are supplied with answers to assure a big win
Do you mean to tell me that the pilot to 21 was rigged? Was that game ever played honestly?
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Nov 30 2003, 10:59 PM\']
One thing to note, a pilot is always created to best showcase the play of the game. To that end, the outcome of a pilot is often manipulated--perhaps the contestants are supplied with answers to assure a big win
Do you mean to tell me that the pilot to 21 was rigged? Was that game ever played honestly? [/quote]
Yeah, the 2000 version was played honestly. The 1982 21 pilot was no more rigged than your average game show pilot, rigged in some spots in order to show all elements of the game, a bonus win, etc.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Nov 30 2003, 11:05 PM\'] [quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Nov 30 2003, 10:59 PM\']
One thing to note, a pilot is always created to best showcase the play of the game. To that end, the outcome of a pilot is often manipulated--perhaps the contestants are supplied with answers to assure a big win
Do you mean to tell me that the pilot to 21 was rigged? Was that game ever played honestly? [/quote]
Yeah, the 2000 version was played honestly. The 1982 21 pilot was no more rigged than your average game show pilot, rigged in some spots in order to show all elements of the game, a bonus win, etc. [/quote]
(Card Sharks 2001 "WHOOOOSH!")
You hear that? That's the sound of a joke going over your head.
-
Yeah, the 2000 version was played honestly.
That's why it came and went so quickly.
-
Here's how Lucky Numbers was played. (Tell me if Lucky Rollers was played in the same manner) It was basically a variation of High Rollers. On the opposite side of the stage from the players were numbers 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10. If a player rolled any of those numbers, they won a prize that went with that number. If 2,3,11,or 12 were rolled, then the player won money. The ONLY bad roll was a 7. If a seven was rolled, then the players were in the "danger zone" and if either player rolled a 7 again, the player lost the round. One of the 6 numbers on the stage was "wild" and automatically won that player the round.
The bonus round was pretty much like the original High Rollers. There was a wild number assigned there too, but rolling it meant they could eliminate any unlit number, but they couldn't remove the last number from a "wild" roll.
The game had potential, but the Vegas atmosphere didn't help, and hostess/former Miss America Debbie Maffett was no Ruta Lee. The camera kept cutting to her rooting on players and SHOUTING ADVICE, worse, these shots seem to be put in post production.
-
That game description sounds pretty similar to the "Lucky Rollers" pilot I remember shooting. One thing I should mention is that there was no manipulation of the outcome that I was aware of on this pilot. They didn't "load the dice" or cut in predetermined rolls. They just went with the honest rolls of the dice. I think in that case they just shot multiple shows with the intention of using the best show as the primary pilot.
-
[quote name=\'scully24\' date=\'Nov 28 2003, 01:39 AM\']I also did a presentation for a show from Dick Clark Productions called "Family Tree" that was very memorable because you had to lie convincingly to a celebrity panel (a la "To Tell The Truth") and I remember there was a lot of pressure not to blow it.[/quote]
Dick finally got to produce that show as a series in 1995 for fX, under the title "No Relation."
-
[quote name=\'scully24\' date=\'Nov 28 2003, 02:14 AM\'] That's cool! I've never seen the Lucky Rollers tape, although I do have tape of my "Go!" appearances.
The thing I remember about doing "Lucky Rollers" was the incredible energy on the set. They basically wanted contestants who could scream and yell and act excited for long periods at a time. I mean the only other skill was throwing a pair of dice. I always thought it was funny that Alex Trebek was associated with two shows that were so far apart in style. You have "Jeopardy," which is so cerebral, and he acts like a college professor, and then there was "High Rollers" where he was like a tuxedo-ed croupier. But it was very fun to do that pilot. The audiences that attended the taping got into it just as much as if we were playing for real money; I think most of them thought we were. Nowadays they usually have to get paid extras to sit in the audience for tapings, so the live energy is not as intense.
When I was on Go! the celebrties were Audrey Landers and Jay___?, the ventriloquist who appeared on "Soap." Our team was partnered with Audrey on the first show, and we won and got to play the bonus round twice and didn't win either of them. (That bonus round was hard to win!) Then we came back and played with Jay and got beat on our second day. I remember we won $2100, and my share was $525, which I used to buy my first VCR! [/quote]
On "Go!" what did you think of host Kevin O'Connell?
-
The 1982 21 pilot was no more rigged than your average game show pilot, rigged in some spots in order to show all elements of the game, a bonus win, etc.
Indeed...let's not forget the disclaimer GSN used to run whenever they showed a pilot:
"The following game was taped as a 'pilot', or demonstration show. Real prizes may not have been awarded, and contestants may have been paid actors and supplied answers in advance."
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Nov 30 2003, 11:05 PM\'] [quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Nov 30 2003, 10:59 PM\']
One thing to note, a pilot is always created to best showcase the play of the game. To that end, the outcome of a pilot is often manipulated--perhaps the contestants are supplied with answers to assure a big win
Do you mean to tell me that the pilot to 21 was rigged? Was that game ever played honestly? [/quote]
Yeah, the 2000 version was played honestly. The 1982 21 pilot was no more rigged than your average game show pilot, rigged in some spots in order to show all elements of the game, a bonus win, etc. [/quote]
Is their a clip of this version on the Net?
-
You don't get to keep any of your winnings from game show pilots? That's bizarre.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Feb 8 2004, 11:36 PM\'] You don't get to keep any of your winnings from game show pilots? That's bizarre. [/quote]
It's not a real game show. It's not bizarre at all.
Brandon Brooks
-
On "Go!" what did you think of host Kevin O'Connell?
(Sorry for the slow reply; I checked out for few days...)
KO was very friendly--pretty much the same off camera as on. Kind of a cheerleader personality with no edge whatsoever. I think he was excited about the opportunity to host a network game show. There was a period in the early 80's when anybody who was an LA weatherman (particularly for channel 4) was considered the next network game show host to be discovered. Pat Sajak had gradualted from weatherman to WOF two years before, and so all these weathermen were getting hosting opportunities. This was how Kevin got his chance.
My impression is people liked him, but didn't respect him that much. Of the many different sign-offs that he tried, the one that made us snicker was: "This is K-O for G-O, bye-bye" (complete with Dick Clark-style salute and walk-off).
-
[quote name=\'scully24\' date=\'Feb 9 2004, 10:18 AM\'] "This is K-O for G-O, bye-bye" (complete with Dick Clark-style salute and walk-off). [/quote]
That's a shame, because that for my money is one of THE great outcues in the business.
I don't remember him walking off after it, though. Maybe you folks who've seen Go more recently than I (which would mean anytime on GSN...last time I saw it was when it was on what is now ABC Family) can refresh me...did he always do a walkoff? I thought the shows ended with both teams doing a millaround, and KO was out there for it.
(GOD I loved Go. One of THE quinticential 80's game shows, for my money.)
-
Re: the walk-off, I just meant that after the salute, he turned around kind of smartly and made his way for the contestants, but it conjured up impressions of a Dick Clark-style exit.
Go was a really fun show, I agree. The rap on the show by staff members I talked to after it was cancelled was that it was more fun to play than it was to watch. It was a blast to come up with those questions, but they felt that viewers at home couldn't easily play along mentally, and so for the home audience the show was perhaps more spectacle than game. On most of the really great game shows that have survived, you find yourself trying to solve the material along with the contestants. On Go, you can't really play along--you can only watch.
-
[quote name=\'scully24\' date=\'Feb 9 2004, 10:43 AM\'] On Go, you can't really play along--you can only watch. [/quote]
Same rap on the front game of Pyramid, really, and look what a classic that's become.
(Of course, the die-hards can cover up the bottom of the screen, like on Pyramid, if you want to play along.)
The play-along factor doesn't HAVE to be there to make for a classic game show. It helps, but it doesn't HAVE to be there. Watching a team bust off 5 answers in thirty-and-change seconds, and then watching the other team come down and BEAT that, is as good a moment as you'll see on any game show.
-
The play-along factor doesn't HAVE to be there to make for a classic game show.
I agree, and I thought of Pyramid when I wrote the comments about Go. But anyhow, that was the conventional wisdom everybody was giving at the time for why Go was canceled.
I think Go had other problems, worse than the play-at-home factor. I think the round-value structure was flawed, the bomus round too hard to win, the four-person team with a celebrity hard to relate to, the money too small to split four ways and get excited about, and I think the host was not memorable enough. There was also a huge gray area on judging the show in which contestants were supposed to form grammatically correct questions and sometimes got buzzed for not doing this and other times didn't get buzzed.
Even with all those issues though, I still think game was pretty fun. But those are some of the reasons that I think it didn't survive.
-
I think that the reason the Pyramid front game is more engaging to watch than Go is that, while the play-along factor on both shows is not strong, the "Monday morning quarterback" factor on Pyramid is far stronger.
What I mean by that is that when someone fails to come up with a good clue on Pyramid, you're sitting there screaming your "perfect" clue at the TV (in the front game, and even moreso in the Winner's Circle). In contrast, failing at the game on Go means getting off-track with the question forming, and it's not as satisfying for you as a home viewer to just come up with the fully-formed question on your own.
Although you can't truly "play along" with Pyramid, you can at least role play as the giver and be smarter than the giver on the screen because you're not bound by their time constraints and the pressures of real money and the national audience. On Go, you're just a passive viewer.
-
I agree with the above; I think that's right on the mark.
-
Interesting thoughts on play-along value. I agree it's not the be-all-and-end-all, but it's pretty important...at least to moi. Just for the sheer joy of it, I got to thinking about the play-along value of each show I voted for in GSN's Feast of Favorites. We'll go from most to least...
Lingo. I can't help it. I doubt that I've sat through an episode without yelling at the screen more often than I care to admit.
Jeopardy. Sometimes I'm a little weak on form-of-a-question, but again I can't keep my mouth shut.
Millionaire. Everything in the show is designed for play-along: the actual answers, use of the lifelines, decisions on the next level.
Greed. Pretty much ditto Millionaire, which isn't too surprising for this obvious but entertaining knock-off. The Terminator adds speed to the play-along, which is of course missing from the knocked-off.
WoF. Wish I could solve the puzzles faster. Would give me an ego boost. But I still gotta try.
Russian Roulette: Again, the answers and the challenges are naturals for play-along.
Feud. Might surprise some folks, but I think play-along is essential here. I can't help guessing what the survey said.
Pyramid. This is where play-along starts to diminish a little. But I'm still often thinking about possible clues, especially for the Winner's Circle.
Match Game. Getting further and further away from play-along towards just entertainment. But the blank still invites a guess.
Cram. Without the big dumb book to study, play-along is minimal. Oh, once in a while I'll mutter an answer to one of the questions. But I watch mostly for the stunts and slapstick.
Newlywed Game. Pretty much rock-bottom on play-along, because this is a relationship show thinly disguised as a game show.
I've Got a Secret. Shares rock-bottom space, because this is a variety show even more thinly disguised as a game show.
So the more "game-showy" a show gets, the more play-along value increases. Maybe this is a distinguishing characteristic of the genre. (How's that for pseudo-profound jargon?) The more a show goes away from the gameplay for entertainment value, the less I feel like playing along. Which isn't too surprising.
-
Watching a team bust off 5 answers in thirty-and-change seconds, and then watching the other team come down and BEAT that, is as good a moment as you'll see on any game show.
By the way, Chris's comment above brings to mind a topc that I've often thought about but never articulated. I'm curious what others think of this:
On shows like "Go" and "Pyramid"--shows that have timed rounds--flubs will often happen in the middle of taping that will stop gameplay in the middle of a round. The way I've seen that handled on numerous occasions is that they'll pick up the round in the middle at the precise second where the mistake occurred, giving credit to the contestant for however many answers were gotten right up to the moment of the problem.
Now this is not an unusual occurrance, it happens on almost every taping of a show of this kiind.
What I've observed though, is that this often gives an unfair advantage to the contestant who was interrrupted, because they get to anticipate that upon resuming, they need one more answer in, say 4 seconds, or 3 answers in 10 seconds. I've seen many occasions where a contestant, knowing this information, picked up their energy appreciably, really focused, and got the needed answers in the remaining time.
My team was a victim of this on Go, where the opposing team needed to beat our time of 45 seconds, looked like it was floundering, got interrupted with a technical miscue, and then had a chance to re-group and was told they needed one more answer in five seconds when taping resumes. The pieces of the round are edited together, but you can see between the edits that the team's energy picks up to a huge degree and they speed through the last quetion to get it in under five seconds.
As a recent contestant on Pyramid, I've seen similar things happen when front game rounds get stopped and resumed for technical difficulties. This almost always works to the advantage of the player who is interrupted, and I've always wondered if any contestants ever complain to Standards and Practices about this phenomenon?
I, for one, never complained, because I wanted to stay on the good side of the coordinators so I could get on future shows. But I'm curious if that strikes anyone else as unfair. I've often thought that they should re-examine this method of resuming taping, even though to fix the practice would invovle throwing out entire played rounds and take more time and cause more material to have to be written.
-
Although you can't truly "play along" with Pyramid, you can at least role play as the giver and be smarter than the giver on the screen
Well, then you ARE playing along, but not in the role of clue-receiver. What do you think accounts for the success of Password (aside from the fact that Fremantle has yet to get their hands on it)?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Feb 9 2004, 01:33 PM\'] (GOD I loved Go. One of THE quinticential 80's game shows, for my money.) [/quote]
As I've mentioned before (though no one would have reason to remember it), we use the theme music to Go as the theme to our morning newscast at the high school where I teach video production. At some point in the year, I show the students an episode of the game and the reaction every year is exactly the same: First, they laugh at seeing "their" news theme on one of Mr. Ottinger's old game show tapes. Second, they immediately become engaged by the game. Literally within seconds they're just absolutely fascinated. And these are easily jaded teenagers we're talking about.
It's a shame GSN is getting away from studio-bound shows for many reasons, but I would love to have seen a remake of Go partnered with their successful Lingo remake. Forget celebs and tweak the structure (maybe teams of three for example). There's a really good game in there that deserves to be rediscovered.
-
There's a really good game in there that deserves to be rediscovered.
Improv classes routinely use this type of play as an exercise. Not necessarily forming questions, but having two people speak as one by alternating words. It forces you to listen, react and adapt quickly to what your partner is doing.
-
On the play-along factors of Pyramid vs. Go, I'll connect the last two dots: Go's suffers because it's usually easy to come up with a good question, if not a short one, but you can't predict what your partner will say.
I also agree that the money wasn't much split four ways, but I thought that having the two teams on for an entire week made up for it.
-
I also agree that the money wasn't much split four ways, but I thought that having the two teams on for an entire week made up for it.
When I was a contestant in the fall of 1983, we didn't get to play for a week. You only got to return if you were the champions from the previous show.
We won our front game, earning $1500, then didn't win the bonus, earning an extra $600 in the bonus rounds. Then we returned the next day and lost, leaving a two-day effort with a total of $2100, split four ways, for $525 each.
-
[quote name=\'scully24\' date=\'Feb 10 2004, 01:03 AM\']
When I was a contestant in the fall of 1983, we didn't get to play for a week. You only got to return if you were the champions from the previous show.
We won our front game, earning $1500, then didn't win the bonus, earning an extra $600 in the bonus rounds. Then we returned the next day and lost, leaving a two-day effort with a total of $2100, split four ways, for $525 each. [/quote]
A few weeks into the run, they changed it to have the two teams play the entire week. They had one five-time undefeated championship team before the rule change IIRC.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Feb 9 2004, 01:30 PM\'] I've Got a Secret. Shares rock-bottom space, because this is a variety show even more thinly disguised as a game show.
So the more "game-showy" a show gets, the more play-along value increases. Maybe this is a distinguishing characteristic of the genre. (How's that for pseudo-profound jargon?) [/quote]
Throw an "essentially" in there and you're close...
It's interesting to compare G-T's three classic panel games. Both WML and IGAS gave the audience the answer, and there wasn't any play-along; the fun in it was watching the panelists fumfer toward an answer. TTTT, by contrast, is one of the great play-along games ever. (A few times in the 60s, they'd start a show by telling you to look away if you didn't want to know who the real person was, and then show them; to me it spoiled the show).
By contrast, getting away from panel shows, Password gave you the answer and was first-rate for play-along value.
So there are genre-busting exceptions abounding, essentially.
-
I don't remember him walking off after it, though. Maybe you folks who've seen Go more recently than I (which would mean anytime on GSN...last time I saw it was when it was on what is now ABC Family) can refresh me...did he always do a walkoff? I thought the shows ended with both teams doing a millaround, and KO was out there for it.
I don't recall it, either...on all my eps of Go, he stayed put after the sign-off, while the two teams gathered around him at upstage center to chat. And I def agree that his "K-O for G-O" sign-off was one of the best. :-)
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Feb 18 2004, 03:02 AM\'] [quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Feb 9 2004, 03:01 PM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Feb 9 2004, 01:33 PM\'] (GOD I loved Go. One of THE quinticential 80's game shows, for my money.) [/quote]
There's a really good game in there that deserves to be rediscovered. [/quote]
And people ask us why we voted for this show in the Feast of Favorites--because it's a game with strong gameplay; unlike Bullseye. [/quote]
Don, please don't start this again. It's been almost three months; let it go.