William Keck of TV Guide is reporting that the show plans a week-long tribute to Bob on the occasion of his 90th birthday, including an appearance by The Man Himself on Friday.
William Keck of TV Guide is reporting that the show plans a week-long tribute to Bob on the occasion of his 90th birthday, including an appearance by The Man Himself on Friday.
On one hand he\'s a hypocrite for going back to the show based on comments he\'s made regarding animal related prizes.
On the other hand, they are stroking his ego giving him a week-long tribute.
Go figure
Interesting...they omit the man from their 40th anniversary celebration, but throw him a week-long 90th birthday party. I guess they had to make up for the \"not a snub\" somehow.
And Mike\'s already inviting Bob to make an appearance on his 100th birthday. Could very well happen, the guy is a vegan and always addresses medical issues without wasting time.
/No, I\'m not trying to imply that he\'ll live forever
//But I wouldn\'t wish death on anyone, regardless of whether they have an ego or not
Everybody that read my post on the old forum, knows my feeling on this...
And some who almost certainly did don\'t remember.
Everybody that read my post on the old forum, knows my feeling on this...
Everybody that read my post on the old forum, knows my feeling on this...
Or don\'t. I vote for don\'t.
Generally I don\'t like to tell people not to express themselves; I prefer to needle them after the fact for what they said. In this case I\'m willing to be swayed.Or don\'t. I vote for don\'t.
Interesting...they omit the man from their 40th anniversary celebration, but throw him a week-long 90th birthday party. I guess they had to make up for the \"not a snub\" somehow.
That didn\'t hold water as much as people think the first time. Didn\'t they show classic clips on the anniversary...with Bob in plain sight? It\'s not like they did what he had done to Holly, etc, and blurred him out or anything, or skip his episodes (which would be ridiculous of course, but I\'d be tickled if they had flashbacks with only Dennis, Tom, and Doug).
The \"erasing Bob\" story is way out of proportion. I mean, they mention his name at the beginning of EVERY FRIGGIN\' EPISODE (albeit in reference to the studio) and still use a variant on his catchphrase at the end of the show.
That said, it will be good to see Bob the onstage performer again.
Interesting...they omit the man from their 40th anniversary celebration, but throw him a week-long 90th birthday party. I guess they had to make up for the \"not a snub\" somehow.
That didn\'t hold water as much as people think the first time. Didn\'t they show classic clips on the anniversary...with Bob in plain sight? It\'s not like they did what he had done to Holly, etc, and blurred him out or anything, or skip his episodes (which would be ridiculous of course, but I\'d be tickled if they had flashbacks with only Dennis, Tom, and Doug).
The \"erasing Bob\" story is way out of proportion. I mean, they mention his name at the beginning of EVERY FRIGGIN\' EPISODE (albeit in reference to the studio) and still use a variant on his catchphrase at the end of the show.
That said, it will be good to see Bob the onstage performer again.
Umm...I was being slightly tongue in cheek.
Interesting...they omit the man from their 40th anniversary celebration, but throw him a week-long 90th birthday party. I guess they had to make up for the \"not a snub\" somehow.
That didn\'t hold water as much as people think the first time. Didn\'t they show classic clips on the anniversary...with Bob in plain sight? It\'s not like they did what he had done to Holly, etc, and blurred him out or anything, or skip his episodes (which would be ridiculous of course, but I\'d be tickled if they had flashbacks with only Dennis, Tom, and Doug).
The \"erasing Bob\" story is way out of proportion. I mean, they mention his name at the beginning of EVERY FRIGGIN\' EPISODE (albeit in reference to the studio) and still use a variant on his catchphrase at the end of the show.
That said, it will be good to see Bob the onstage performer again.
Umm...I was being slightly tongue in cheek.
Fair enough...
Hell, you're not even bigger than TPiR, which was GIVEN to you.And you had to be buttered up by CBS head Bud Grant because you didn't even want to do the show in the first place!
I was impressed you were able to comprehend his point; it seemed he was so interested in shoehorning in as many inside baseball references as possible that he forgot to have a point.There\'s a difference between being a hater and being hateful. Just sayin\'.
Should\'ve voted for \"don\'t\".
Ummm....didn\'t the show invite him for this birthday celebration? He looks kinda ungrateful if he says no.
Furthermore, outside of this and Golden Road, I\'m pretty sure the average viewer was never aware (or long forgot) about last year\'s 40th anniversary non-controversy, and aren\'t going to rush to their computers to complain because Bob Frickin Barker popped out of a birthday cake wearing nothing but a sash that says Happy 90th*. I think some of you are reading way too much into this (shocking, I know). You know who you are.
*/You\'re welcome
//I could\'ve gone without knowing his reasoning as well
Bob Frickin Barker popped out of a birthday cake wearing nothing but a sash that says Happy 90th*
Drew was on Craig Ferguson\'s show last night. I don\'t know anyone else in television who seems to enjoy his life any more than that man. They showed a clip from the Halloween show (which I assume aired today) with Geoff Peterson driving a car onto the set for a playing of \"Yucky Seven\" (which frankly isn\'t a bad title for that game anytime). I would imagine a little work went into that. He also mentioned the tribute to Bob.
Drew was on Craig Ferguson\'s show last night. I don\'t know anyone else in television who seems to enjoy his life any more than that man.
Wow, I\'m a little surprised he wasn\'t at the game last night. Hopefully he makes it up here for Saturday against Portland.
Do you (and by extension, Ernest) have a problem with the content, the message or both?Perhaps it was better left unsaid.
There\'s a difference between being a hater and being hateful. Just sayin\'.
Do you (and by extension, Ernest) have a problem with the content, the message or both?
The problem I have is that after being invited to make some damn sense instead of assuming we hang on his every word, he still makes no damn sense. (Which explains why we don\'t hang on his every word.)
And to that end the post disappearededed.
Something something wrestler, something something another wrestler.
Oh, and he mentioned Bill Cullen.
\"LULZ just kidding you guys!!1!\" :D :D :D
Unfortunately I read his \"treatise,\" but I love that your takeaway was \"Bill Cullen.\"Something something wrestler, something something another wrestler.
Oh, and he mentioned Bill Cullen.
Do you (and by extension, Ernest) have a problem with the content, the message or both?
The problem I have is that after being invited to make some damn sense instead of assuming we hang on his every word, he still makes no damn sense. (Which explains why we don\'t hang on his every word.)
Which is exactly why I didn\'t want him to elaborate...if you can call it that...because I knew it was just going to be a random assortment of words with no direction whatsoever.
Guess it doesn\'t matter now since he punked out and deleted his post.
Ernie!! I\'m shocked at you... We\'ve been friends for HOW long? And you treat me like THIS?? Anyway, the point I was TRYING to make was that Bob Barker ON STAGE...no one could touch him, just like my comparison. No one could host like him, and no one could wrestle like HBK either...but their backstage politics? Why invite trouble? You\'ve gotten the tyrant out of your lives, why invite him back in? Sure he\'s 90, but has he reformed or does he wanna take over politically again?
I love that your takeaway was \"Bill Cullen.\"
You must be new here.
I\'m possibly not alone in calling \"boolsh!\" on this particular fragment of sentence, unless you mean to take it literally.No one could host like him,
Ernie!! I\'m shocked at you... We\'ve been friends for HOW long? And you treat me like THIS?? Anyway, the point I was TRYING to make was that Bob Barker ON STAGE...no one could touch him, just like my comparison. No one could host like him, and no one could wrestle like HBK either...but their backstage politics? Why invite trouble? You\'ve gotten the tyrant out of your lives, why invite him back in? Sure he\'s 90, but has he reformed or does he wanna take over politically again?
1. Said \"tyrant\" retired.
2. Didn\'t most of the people that were there at the end of Barker\'s regime leave? At least the higher-ups...
3. You do realize, Barker came back to pimp his book a few years ago, and there were no problems right?
4. What difference does it really make? He\'s coming on the show, and all the ranting in the world isn\'t going to stop this.
Get out more, dude. You\'re reading way too much into it, and coming across as a Chicken Little right now. The average viewer does not hate him 1% as badly as you do...let it go.
Because they\'re celebrating him like he\'s some kind of God! Why stroke his ego? Pimping a book is one thing, but to celebrate his 90th is just giving him an ego stroke he doesn\'t need.
That\'s your opinion. I for one have not seen any references to idolatry.Because they\'re celebrating him like he\'s some kind of God!
(pinches bridge of nose)
I\'m going to break this down to you the best I can....hopefully I don\'t come across as too condescending. If I do, sorrynotsorry.
No...they don\'t have to do it. At all. And life would go on.
The man is turning 90...a milestone age that doesn\'t happen everyday. For a man who spent more than 1/3 of his life hosting this show, it\'s a nice gesture from the show. And after the mini-controversy that brewed from the 40th anniversary shows, perhaps they realize that 1) the potentially negative media spin is something they don\'t want*, and 2) the potentially positive media coverage they could get would be cool, esp. if someone wants to turn it into a \"water under the bridge\" thing stemming from last year. I think that\'s a longshot because no one but the geeks here care. Finally, it\'s one friggin episode...as much as I hate this argument, if it bothers you that much, skip over the episode that day...there\'s literally hundreds of other things you could watch at 11:00 am.
Just out of curiosity, did LMaD do a 90th celebration for Monty? I know he made a cameo appearance recently.
*Any press is good press blah blah blah
Just out of curiosity, did LMaD do a 90th celebration for Monty? I know he made a cameo appearance recently.
Monty and Carol Merrill made an appearance back in March in honor of the show\'s 50th anniversary, and he was already 91 then.
Still, your point is more than valid. Neither show has to do it, but for both shows, it\'s an easy publicity stunt that gains them attention and makes them look like they care about their past, whether they do or not.
But AFAIK Monty didn\'t have an ego backstage, did he?
Because they\'re celebrating him like he\'s some kind of God! Why stroke his ego? Pimping a book is one thing, but to celebrate his 90th is just giving him an ego stroke he doesn\'t need.
Of course, of course. They\'re doing way too much by saying \"Hey, thanks for driving the ship for so long.\"
There have been plenty of other people (with far bigger egos) who\'ve received far more recognition than a week long tribute on daytime television.
I\'m glad you\'re well educated on the things Barker has done in the past, but he\'s 90, and that \"stuff\" that\'s got you all riled up is almost 20 years behind us. Leave the past in the past, and let the old man celebrate a milestone. It\'s not like he\'s got a ton of spotlight anymore and it\'s not like he\'s got a ton left.
I can\'t think of any bigger ego than Bob Barker, but go ahead. I\'ll bite.
I can\'t think of any bigger ego than Bob Barker
Then you are monumentally clueless about show business.
I was going to say, just because I don\'t know of one doesn\'t mean there isn\'t one.:)
Do you (and by extension, Ernest) have a problem with the content, the message or both?
Perhaps it was better left unsaid.
There\'s a difference between being a hater and being hateful. Just sayin\'.
I can\'t think of any bigger ego than Bob Barker, but go ahead. I\'ll bite.
Mind you, Matt, I was just referring to GS hosts, not actors in general.
Because they\'re celebrating him like he\'s some kind of God! Why stroke his ego? Pimping a book is one thing, but to celebrate his 90th is just giving him an ego stroke he doesn\'t need.
And you\'re vilifying him like he\'s some sort of Satan. What\'s the difference?
Seriously, the bit about him staging a coup was the biggest load of hossshiat I\'ve read here since I learned about \"the ultimate news source for honest and unbiased information.\"
But AFAIK Monty didn\'t have an ego backstage, did he?
Here\'s a little hint, junior: this is the entertainment industry. Having an ego to some level is a JOB REQUIREMENT.
Ernie!! I\'m shocked at you... We\'ve been friends for HOW long? And you treat me like THIS??
Dude, I\'m not trying to paint you out to be the bad guy or whatever, and I\'m not saying you\'re not entitled to your opinion. Hell, I AGREE with you to an extent as far as Barker\'s backstage antics having a negative effect on the show his last few years. But the fact of the matter is people aren\'t going to remember him for (IMO) dragging the show down for the majority of the 2000\'s due to his countless lawsuits and \"tyrant\"-like behavior backstage. They\'re gonna remember him as the grandfatherly figure that gave away tons of cash and prizes to happy people for 35 years. I know that may not seem right to you but that\'s life, and holding a grudge against the guy doesn\'t affect him or anyone else but yourself. My friendly advice, in the words of the great poet Marshall Mathers...\"let it go, dawg, it\'s over\".
/his new album leaked yesterday, got Shady on the brain...sorry, y\'all
I was going to say, just because I don\'t know of one doesn\'t mean there isn\'t one.:)
Well, except you didn\'t say that.
Mind you, Matt, I was just referring to GS hosts, not actors in general.
Well, except you didn\'t say that either. In any sized font.
I was going to say, just because I don\'t know of one doesn\'t mean there isn\'t one.:)
Well, except you didn\'t say that.
Mind you, Matt, I was just referring to GS hosts, not actors in general.
Well, except you didn\'t say that either. In any sized font.
This *is* a game show forum, is it not?
This *is* a game show forum, is it not?
Yes. That changes nothing Matt said.
Keep digging, junior.
I\'ve never seen somebody melt down so badly because people didn\'t agree with him. Sad really.
I gave up a while ago. He\'s set in his belief that Barker is an egotistical a-hole. And by the many accounts presented over the years, he\'s not necessarily wrong. But his refusal to see the forest for the trees is the bigger problem. And to that I say whatever. There\'s far more things for me to worry about.
There\'s far more things for me to worry about.
Like why the show has celebrated Plinko\'s birthday, is about to celebrate Bob\'s birthday, and has yet to announce its plans to celebrate Janice Pennington\'s 72nd birthday.
That\'s the bigger outrage to me.
Like why the show has celebrated Plinko\'s birthday, is about to celebrate Bob\'s birthday, and has yet to announce its plans to celebrate Janice Pennington\'s 72nd birthday.
That\'s the bigger outrage to me.
You do realize, I fervently hope, that most people don\'t even know Janice *has* a last name.
hossshiat
I like this word. The triple S\'s are so enticing. Can I use it?
Like why the show has celebrated Plinko\'s birthday, is about to celebrate Bob\'s birthday, and has yet to announce its plans to celebrate Janice Pennington\'s 72nd birthday.
That\'s the bigger outrage to me.
You do realize, I fervently hope, that most people don\'t even know Janice *has* a last name.
Steve Beverly does.
You do realize, I fervently hope, that most people don\'t even know Janice *has* a last name.
I thought jjman was being a sarcastic there, but that\'s me.
Pretty sure we crossed the Poe\'s Law line around here years ago.
I was indeed being sarcastic. Stop. I probably should\'ve made such intent clear. Stop. I haven\'t really done much in the way of establishing a style in humor. End.
By the way, this Poe fellow should be so luck to have a literary law named after him so soon.
I was indeed being sarcastic. Stop. I probably should\'ve made such intent clear. Stop. I haven\'t really done much in the way of establishing a style in humor. End.
By the way, this Poe fellow should be so luck to have a literary law named after him so soon.
Like why the show has celebrated Plinko\'s birthday, is about to celebrate Bob\'s birthday, and has yet to announce its plans to celebrate Janice Pennington\'s 72nd birthday.
That\'s the bigger outrage to me.
You do realize, I fervently hope, that most people don\'t even know Janice *has* a last name.
I thought Janice *was* her last name, and they had to use first and last names on the air because they all had the first name of Thelovely.
I thought Janice *was* her last name, and they had to use first and last names on the air because they all had the first name of Thelovely.
I lol\'d.
This exactly. Barker just isn\'t that important. Period.
Thank you, Travis. It just sickens me that they want to honor him for being 90. He made the show what it was, no doubt, but offstage he let his fame go to his head. He should just have been humble that the fans loved his hosting style and not brought about all these lawsuits. I guess my point is...you can remember the good, but it\'s hard to forget the bad.
Thank you, Travis. It just sickens me that they want to honor him for being 90. He made the show what it was, no doubt, but offstage he let his fame go to his head. He should just have been humble that the fans loved his hosting style and not brought about all these lawsuits. I guess my point is...you can remember the good, but it\'s hard to forget the bad.
Don\'t thank me. If you\'re using the word \"sicken,\" you missed the whole point of my missive.Thank you, Travis.
It just sickens me that they want to honor him for being 90.
Thank you, Travis. It just sickens me that they want to honor him for being 90. He made the show what it was, no doubt, but offstage he let his fame go to his head. He should just have been humble that the fans loved his hosting style and not brought about all these lawsuits. I guess my point is...you can remember the good, but it\'s hard to forget the bad.
Man alive, did Bob Barker come to your house one day and took a steaming dump on your Wheaties or something?
Consider watching the news or cracking open a history book if you want to see some real \"sickening\" people and actions.
Bob Barker. Serious Business.
Thank you, Travis. It just sickens me that they want to honor him for being 90. He made the show what it was, no doubt, but offstage he let his fame go to his head. He should just have been humble that the fans loved his hosting style and not brought about all these lawsuits. I guess my point is...you can remember the good, but it\'s hard to forget the bad.
Man alive, did Bob Barker come to your house one day and took a steaming dump on your Wheaties or something?
Consider watching the news or cracking open a history book if you want to see some real \"sickening\" people and actions.
Bob Barker. Serious Business.
On one hand you could say that Bob Barker isn\'t that important, on the other hand you could say that he is. The public at large will always remember him as this nice old man who gave away millions of prizes. To get him to come back is a huge rating coup that the current regime will thoroughly enjoy the spoils to.
Instagram and Twitter are abuzz with some great pics from the sickening event. They\'re really nice and Bob looks great for his age.
Travis, all I am doing is stating my opinion on the man. You guys can like or dislike whomever you want. Good day, Sir,
I\'ve cut down communications by about 90% with a long-term friend of mine because he\'s become both insufferable and incoherent in his complaints about everything. He thinks that the world would be a terrific place if we\'d all just give up our sovereignty and do what he wants, even if he doesn\'t quite understand it himself, and can\'t explain why we should give up our cars just so our ancestors a thousand years in the future can have a planet to live on. (when pressed he was unable to expand upon this point.) It got so bad that when discussing Why I\'m A Libertarian, he asked me point blank, what I\'d do if my upstairs neighbors had a wading pool filled with kerosene. (As it happens, my answer involved lots of prayer, but not the backstroke.)On one hand you could say that Bob Barker isn\'t that important, on the other hand you could say that he is. The public at large will always remember him as this nice old man who gave away millions of prizes. To get him to come back is a huge rating coup that the current regime will thoroughly enjoy the spoils to.
Travis, all I am doing is stating my opinion on the man.
I don\'t revere Bob; I don\'t like him as a person. (I also don\'t know him personally.) I don\'t like his backstage actions, and that\'s it. I go about my day. He does not enter my life. People who want to remember him as the host of their favorite game show can do so and I\'m not going to \"ruin\" that for them.
This is the perfect way to sum this whole thing up. If Johnny took that approach, this conversation would flow much smoother. Instead it\'s turning into more of an \"Aw jeez! Not this [stuff] again\" conversation.
Travis, all I am doing is stating my opinion on the man. You guys can like or dislike whomever you want. Good day, Sir,
This has nothing to do with our opinion of Bob and everything to do with our opinion of you. And right now, I like Bob better.
Travis, all I am doing is stating my opinion on the man. You guys can like or dislike whomever you want. Good day, Sir,
So it\'s okay for you to go on and on about how much you hate the man, but when others defend the act of throwing him a party, you take your ball and go home?
Well then. You really told me, didn\'t You.Good day, Sir,
Good day, Sir,
Well then. You really told me, didn\'t You.
I SAID GOOD DAY!
If he takes his ball and exits through the marked door, that means he won\'t be around anymore.So it\'s okay for you to go on and on about how much you hate the man, but when others defend the act of throwing him a party, you take your ball and go home?
Oh (BLEEP)
Yes, that would also be incorrect, Johnny
(drop zone opens)
drops thru floor.
If they are gonna throw him a (BEEEEEEEEEP) party, thwn they are going to throw him a (BLEEEP) party! There\'s NOTHING you can do, Johnny!! Now shut the (BEEP) up and go away!
I love Barker AS A HOST, guys, don\'t get me wrong. There are two sides to every story and I just don\'t like his political side, and \'m worried that bringing him back might invite more trouble than it\'s worth. Barker is in my mind the second greatest host of all time, behind, ironically, the first TPiR host, Bill Cullen. I\'m just worried about the animosity at Studio 33 given his past.
I love Barker AS A HOST, guys, don\'t get me wrong. There are two sides to every story and I just don\'t like his political side, and \'m worried that bringing him back might invite more trouble than it\'s worth. Barker is in my mind the second greatest host of all time, behind, ironically, the first TPiR host, Bill Cullen. I\'m just worried about the animosity at Studio 33 given his past.
Why was it ironic?ironically
Because both the greatest GS hosts in my mind hosted the same titled show...wonder if Bill taught Bob anything?
I love Barker AS A HOST, guys, don\'t get me wrong. There are two sides to every story and I just don\'t like his political side, and \'m worried that bringing him back might invite more trouble than it\'s worth. Barker is in my mind the second greatest host of all time, behind, ironically, the first TPiR host, Bill Cullen. I\'m just worried about the animosity at Studio 33 given his past.
I have a feeling there won\'t be anything close to that. Know why? Because the last time he appeared on the show (to promote his book), everything went pretty well.
So now you\'re back to liking him as a host?
I\'ve always liked his ON STAGE personality..just not the BTS stuff
I am sure Bob admired Bill Cullen, and I think Bob mentioned him in the Archive interview that\'s someplace on YouTube. Bill also appeared on TPIR, riding the train, and Bob had a discussion with him about Price is Right, and Child\'s Play, which I believe Bill was plugging.
I am sure Bob never NEEDED lessons from Bill, but one thing both had in common was that they NEVER stopped talking and kept the game moving. One thing I miss about Bob hosting TPIR was that when a contestant was coming up on stage, Drew never made any commentary as the contestant was coming to him to play a pricing game. It\'s an old trick in radio broadcasting that you NEVER want \"dead air\" because if you went long enough without saying anything, a listener might think there\'s something wrong with the station and change stations. Bob would typically say something like \"Here comes so and so, coming up here to play a pricing game... and he\'s doing so in a hurry, isn\'t he?\" or some variation.
I love Barker AS A HOST, guys, don\'t get me wrong. There are two sides to every story and I just don\'t like his political side, and \'m worried that bringing him back might invite more trouble than it\'s worth. Barker is in my mind the second greatest host of all time, behind, ironically, the first TPiR host, Bill Cullen. I\'m just worried about the animosity at Studio 33 given his past.
I have a feeling there won\'t be anything close to that. Know why? Because the last time he appeared on the show (to promote his book), everything went pretty well.
I know why there won\'t be any animosity given his past. Who in production is left from Bob\'s era? I can only think of Rachel and Gwen. I don\'t think any of the higher ups are left. They don\'t really care what he did in the past because they weren\'t there.
I am sure Bob never NEEDED lessons from Bill, but one thing both had in common was that they NEVER stopped talking and kept the game moving. One thing I miss about Bob hosting TPIR was that when a contestant was coming up on stage, Drew never made any commentary as the contestant was coming to him to play a pricing game. It\'s an old trick in radio broadcasting that you NEVER want \"dead air\" because if you went long enough without saying anything, a listener might think there\'s something wrong with the station and change stations. Bob would typically say something like \"Here comes so and so, coming up here to play a pricing game... and he\'s doing so in a hurry, isn\'t he?\" or some variation.
Yeah, that definitely took some time getting used to when Drew first took over. It felt kinda awkward having silence between the announcement of the One Bid winner and when they made it on stage next to Drew. Needless to say, I\'m used to it now and it doesn\'t bother me anymore.
/hint, hint...
If they are gonna throw him a (BEEEEEEEEEP) party, thwn they are going to throw him a (BLEEEP) party! There\'s NOTHING you can do, Johnny!! Now shut the (BEEP) up and go away!
Now you\'re getting it.
I love Barker AS A HOST, guys, don\'t get me wrong. There are two sides to every story and I just don\'t like his political side, and \'m worried that bringing him back might invite more trouble than it\'s worth. Barker is in my mind the second greatest host of all time, behind, ironically, the first TPiR host, Bill Cullen. I\'m just worried about the animosity at Studio 33 given his past.
You sound...concerned.
I am sure Bob never NEEDED lessons from Bill,
In his mind, anyhow.
I\'m a fan of Bob\'s work on TPIR and TorC. I didn\'t agree with him vetoing Dennis James\' work on the nigttime version from airing on GSN (I am too young to remember that version from before Barker took over, and was very curious about that run), but it is what it is, I didn\'t lose any sleep over it. What counts is people love him, and he came across as wanting the contestants to win. So the honor is well deserved.
I\'m a fan of Bob\'s work on TPIR and TorC. I didn\'t agree with him vetoing Dennis James\' work on the nigttime version from airing on GSN (I am too young to remember that version from before Barker took over, and was very curious about that run), but it is what it is, I didn\'t lose any sleep over it. What counts is people love him, and he came across as wanting the contestants to win. So the honor is well deserved.
I\'d heard that the reason Barker objected to the Dennis James hosted episodes from airing on GSN, was mainly because virtually all (if not 100%) of those episode featured a fur coat as a prize.
The only episode GSN aired featuring Dennis James had him \"pinch-hitting,\" for Barker on CBS Daytime, and had no fur coat as a prize.
I\'d heard that the reason Barker objected to the Dennis James hosted episodes from airing on GSN, was mainly because virtually all (if not 100%) of those episode featured a fur coat as a prize.
That would be correct. That\'s also the reason the daytime premiere from 9/4/72 never aired on GSN. Dennis did pretty good on Price, IMO.
The only episode GSN aired featuring Dennis James had him \"pinch-hitting,\" for Barker on CBS Daytime, and had no fur coat as a prize.
Correct again. GSN did that as a tribute to Dennis after he had passed away.
I\'m a fan of Bob\'s work on TPIR and TorC. I didn\'t agree with him vetoing Dennis James\' work on the nigttime version from airing on GSN (I am too young to remember that version from before Barker took over, and was very curious about that run), but it is what it is, I didn\'t lose any sleep over it. What counts is people love him, and he came across as wanting the contestants to win. So the honor is well deserved.
I\'d heard that the reason Barker objected to the Dennis James hosted episodes from airing on GSN, was mainly because virtually all (if not 100%) of those episode featured a fur coat as a prize.
The only episode GSN aired featuring Dennis James had him \"pinch-hitting,\" for Barker on CBS Daytime, and had no fur coat as a prize.
I can tell you that it\'s not 100%. I know for a fact that show #006N (VTR 09-04-1972) didn\'t have a fur in it. Sure, that\'s 1 out of 195, but still...
And be that as it may, I\'m surprised that Barker had the authority to block Dennis\' shows from airing. I could see him vetoing his own shows, but not the work of another emcee...
And be that as it may, I\'m surprised that Barker had the authority to block Dennis\' shows from airing. I could see him vetoing his own shows, but not the work of another emcee...
We\'ve talked about this. A lot. The conventional wisdom was that there was an effort to keep Barker happy. One line of thought was that if Barker wasn\'t happy, he wouldn\'t allow for ANY of his own shows to be seen. A Price package that included plenty of Cullen, James and Kennedy, but no Barker, might be really, really cool for seven or eight of us, but would look ridiculous to the general public.
There was also some consideration to the idea that it wasn\'t worth GSN\'s efforts to transfer (and/or air) the fairly limited number of fur-free James episodes.
There was also some consideration to the idea that it wasn\'t worth GSN\'s efforts to transfer (and/or air) the fairly limited number of fur-free James episodes.
I\'ll take this over the BS speculation that was on Wikipedia a few years back that GSN probably didn\'t air the remaining James episodes because \"Bob may have hated Dennis.\" I removed that from the article, only for some hack to put it back in, saying something like \"Us not knowing the reason is pure speculation,\" then also saying \"Bob may have allowed Dennis\' daytime episode to air on the day of his death out of pure sympathy, and nothing more.\" Someone else has since removed it again, and it hasn\'t been placed back in the article since then.
The incident which told it all to me was the episode that featured the 1st edition of the encyclopedia with the cover pic of Cullen TPIR, which Bob, on camera, ripped off the display and tossed the to the floor. That didn\'t sit well we me.
Didn\'t a couple of James episodes with furs slip through the cracks and air on GSN?
Those were actually Barker episodes.
And it was only one.Those were actually Barker episodes.Didn\'t a couple of James episodes with furs slip through the cracks and air on GSN?
The incident which told it all to me was the episode that featured the 1st edition of the encyclopedia with the cover pic of Cullen TPIR, which Bob, on camera, ripped off the display and tossed the to the floor.From what I've read over the years, it wasn't so much "Cullen was on the cover" (as you seem to be suggesting, and I apologize in advance if I'm wrong on that) as it was "Barker wasn't on the cover".
The incident which told it all to me was the episode that featured the 1st edition of the encyclopedia with the cover pic of Cullen TPIR, which Bob, on camera, ripped off the display and tossed the to the floor.
From what I\'ve read over the years, it wasn\'t so much \"Cullen was on the cover\" (as you seem to be suggesting, and I apologize in advance if I\'m wrong on that) as it was \"Barker wasn\'t on the cover\".
Having seen the episode in question, that was precisely it... and according to Steve Ryan, Bob tossing the book got it a ton of publicity that it otherwise wouldn\'t have
The incident which told it all to me was the episode that featured the 1st edition of the encyclopedia with the cover pic of Cullen TPIR, which Bob, on camera, ripped off the display and tossed the to the floor.
From what I\'ve read over the years, it wasn\'t so much \"Cullen was on the cover\" (as you seem to be suggesting, and I apologize in advance if I\'m wrong on that) as it was \"Barker wasn\'t on the cover\".
Having seen the episode in question, that was precisely it... and according to Steve Ryan, Bob tossing the book got it a ton of publicity that it otherwise wouldn\'t have
I mentioned Cullen because his TPIR was on the cover rather than Mr. Barker\'s. IIRC, Bob asked if TPIR was on the cover and Janice nodded yes and pointed to the pic of the old PIR. It would have been more gracious for Bob to move on at that point, but if Steve Ryan is okay with it, all is good. I wonder if TorC were featured, would Bob have done the same if the cover had a photo of Ralph Edwards?
The incident which told it all to me was the episode that featured the 1st edition of the encyclopedia with the cover pic of Cullen TPIR, which Bob, on camera, ripped off the display and tossed the to the floor.
From what I\'ve read over the years, it wasn\'t so much \"Cullen was on the cover\" (as you seem to be suggesting, and I apologize in advance if I\'m wrong on that) as it was \"Barker wasn\'t on the cover\".
Having seen the episode in question, that was precisely it... and according to Steve Ryan, Bob tossing the book got it a ton of publicity that it otherwise wouldn\'t have
Plus, no matter how big your ego is, you don\'t do something like that when the cameras are rolling unless you\'re doing it as a joke because you\'ll know you\'ll get a laugh. Honestly, do you people really think that moment revealed some aspect of his personality he was trying to hide?
The incident which told it all to me was the episode that featured the 1st edition of the encyclopedia with the cover pic of Cullen TPIR, which Bob, on camera, ripped off the display and tossed the to the floor.
From what I\'ve read over the years, it wasn\'t so much \"Cullen was on the cover\" (as you seem to be suggesting, and I apologize in advance if I\'m wrong on that) as it was \"Barker wasn\'t on the cover\".
Having seen the episode in question, that was precisely it... and according to Steve Ryan, Bob tossing the book got it a ton of publicity that it otherwise wouldn\'t have
Plus, no matter how big your ego is, you don\'t do something like that when the cameras are rolling unless you\'re doing it as a joke because you\'ll know you\'ll get a laugh. Honestly, do you people really think that moment revealed some aspect of his personality he was trying to hide?
It did for me. I didn\'t find it funny. It didn\'t look like a joke.
It did for me. I didn\'t find it funny. It didn\'t look like a joke.
9/10. One point off for beating a dead horse.
One point off for beating a dead horse.
I skimmed this and had to reread it. Shame on me.
Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse...
The incident which told it all to me was the episode that featured the 1st edition of the encyclopedia with the cover pic of Cullen TPIR, which Bob, on camera, ripped off the display and tossed the to the floor.
From what I\'ve read over the years, it wasn\'t so much \"Cullen was on the cover\" (as you seem to be suggesting, and I apologize in advance if I\'m wrong on that) as it was \"Barker wasn\'t on the cover\".Having seen the episode in question, that was precisely it... and according to Steve Ryan, Bob tossing the book got it a ton of publicity that it otherwise wouldn\'t have
And here\'s Ryan\'s story to confirm...pretty interesting knowing the background of it all.
As it turned out, Come On Down was never a competition because it was quickly yanked from the market because of misinformation contained in the book and concern regarding potential lawsuits.
For those of you not familiar, Come On Down was, despite the title, a book about game shows in general, not Price in particular. The author was Jefferson Graham, a long-time USA TODAY tech writer. I\'d never heard that there was a significant problem with the book that required it to be pulled from the market. Does anybody know any more about this?
Does your copy have the insert about Twenty One in it? There\'s a little slip in mine with the header \"erratum\" explaining how one of the people said to have been charged in the scandals was actually acquitted. Or words to that effect. I can check my copy when I get home.
-Jason
Does your copy have the insert about Twenty One in it? There\'s a little slip in mine with the header \"erratum\" explaining how one of the people said to have been charged in the scandals was actually acquitted. Or words to that effect. I can check my copy when I get home.
-Jason
Please do. Even more intrigued because no, my copy didn\'t have that and I never heard about this before.
The incident which told it all to me was the episode that featured the 1st edition of the encyclopedia with the cover pic of Cullen TPIR, which Bob, on camera, ripped off the display and tossed the to the floor.
From what I\'ve read over the years, it wasn\'t so much \"Cullen was on the cover\" (as you seem to be suggesting, and I apologize in advance if I\'m wrong on that) as it was \"Barker wasn\'t on the cover\".
Ah, shades of Richard Dawson and the TV Guide cover issue.
Yeah, I remember reading that TV Guide article, and they commented about Richard\'s ego. They had some mention of him going off over burnt out lightbulbs on the set.
Richard actually commented briefly about the TV Guide article on Family Feud, and while he didn\'t exactly say WHY he declined to be interviewed, he said he felt the attack of him in the article was a result of him refusing to be part of the article. It was obvious his rant was edited, as he said more than what made it on the air.
One more thing, it\'s interesting that inaccuracies were discovered in Come On Down!... from what I remember reading it, I was more astonished by the great photos than anything else. If you want TRUE inaccuracies, look no further than The Game Show Almanac...
Come on Down definitely had its share of inaccuracies, mainly dates of shows airing, and consistently calling Chuck Woolery \"Chuck Wollery\". There was some other stuff, but those definitely stood out.
From what I remember, my impression at the time was that The Game Show Almanac appeared to borrow quite heavily from Come on Down. It\'s been close to 20 years since I\'ve read either one, but I def. recall reading the former and remembering a lot of stuff that was in COD.
The card reads:
\"ERRATUM
Information that appears on page 32 is incorrect.
Although \"Twenty-One\" producer Albert Freed-
man was charged with two counts of perjury, the
charges were dropped, and he never served any
time in jail.\"
-Jason
Come on Down definitely had its share of inaccuracies [...] consistently calling Chuck Woolery "Chuck Wollery".To be fair to Jefferson Graham, he only spread the misspelling -- from what I can tell, the whole "Wollery" thing began around August 1976 (http://www.varietyultimate.com/search/?search=Chuck+Wollery&startYear=1975&endYear=1977).
Come on Down definitely had its share of inaccuracies [...] consistently calling Chuck Woolery \"Chuck Wollery\".
To be fair to Jefferson Graham, he only spread the misspelling -- from what I can tell, the whole \"Wollery\" thing began around August 1976.
I don\'t think it\'s really a \"thing\" though....More like a common misspelling.
To be fair to Jefferson Graham, he only spread the misspelling -- from what I can tell, the whole \"Wollery\" thing began around August 1976.
To be fair to, well, every other writer of non-fiction, be they reporters, biographers, bloggers, general authors, whatever: you check your farking facts. All of them. Every time.
If you want TRUE inaccuracies, look no further than The Game Show Almanac...
I think I had that one at one point...IIRC, it had two different debut years for Where In The World Is Carmen Sandiego...both of them wrong...and it called Bruce Forsyth\'s Hot Streak \"a Family Feud clone hosted by an Australian game show host.\"
Come on Down definitely had its share of inaccuracies [...] consistently calling Chuck Woolery \"Chuck Wollery\".
To be fair to Jefferson Graham, he only spread the misspelling -- from what I can tell, the whole \"Wollery\" thing began around August 1976.
Sure, that\'s \"fair\" (I suppose). It still went to print with a typo. Doesn\'t matter where it supposedly began (and I seriously doubt it was from an obscure Variety article from a decade prior), his name has two Os, one L. Hell, his name was displayed in the Scrabble credits on a daily basis. Maybe Mr. Graham did have it stuck in his head that it was Wollery...doesn\'t change the fact that someone in the editor\'s office should\'ve caught that, regardless of where he got the idea.
So this happened yesterday, and even though Bob didn\'t get a whole lot of screen time it went pretty well. He still sounded pretty sharp overall, but was moving noticeably slower.
It was a nice touch to play the old version of the theme for his entrance.
I was disappointed that he didn\'t actually get to host any part of the show. They missed a golden opportunity to have him do the 37 hours joke in Range Game one last time. (Yes, I know the joke was way beyond stale by the time he left, but it still would have been a nice tribute.) As mentioned above though, perhaps his mobility (or lack thereof) was an issue.
I was disappointed that he didn\'t actually get to host any part of the show.
Man, I wasn\'t. Really, really wasn\'t.
They missed a golden opportunity to have him do the 37 hours joke in Range Game one last time.
\"Golden\" is not really the word I would use to describe that opportunity.
If you want TRUE inaccuracies, look no further than The Game Show Almanac...
I think I had that one at one point...IIRC, it had two different debut years for Where In The World Is Carmen Sandiego...both of them wrong...and it called Bruce Forsyth\'s Hot Streak \"a Family Feud clone hosted by an Australian game show host.\"
Yes. And the book claimed that Spin-Off and Give-n-Take had the same rules. Waste of money.
