One more time, just to be sure that Hollywood Squares is not good

I watched another hour of 2025 Hollywood Squares a day after the fact. 

No, it wasn't a fever dream, or whatever the kids call it. Nate Burleson is not a good host. He is if you want him to act as the life of your frat party rather than the emcee of a game show. 

Drew Barrymore as the center square plays the role of Drew Barrymore, which doesn't work well in a game show where she's one of nine celebrities on the panel. 

The celebs are trying real hard to be naturally funny, but nothing feels natural about it. Leslie Jones played the part of Leslie Jones quite well. She yells like she's mentally unstable, as if that is funny in and of itself. It never is.

Squares has always been the stomping ground of lower-tier entertainment... older comedians, longtime actors who aren't busy making movies around the world these days and other random public figures with varying degrees of significance. 

From what I can tell, Squares '25 draws a similar caliber of talent, even though this is a once-per-week prime time offering. I shouldn't be surprised. 

The difference is that this show really wants the celebs to banter with each other. Whoever is calling the shots wants the show to be more about the celebs interacting with each other, the host and the contestants than the game. It's a weird choice, but there's an audience for that. People like that they celebs are constantly trying to show how funny or clever they are, according to Twitter. 

It's 2025, we have different ideas of humor than we did in 1975. We can't get enough jokes about anatomy and sex. One of the Sunday night shows had a question for RuPaul about Tom Brady deflating his balls while he was an NFL quarterback. Squares has often targeted its questions for the celebs playing the game. A joke about male anatomy is the perfect question for a sometimes drag queen, enabling him to make a predictable joke about deflating his own balls. 

I don't remember who got a question that had something to do with a place called Dildo Island in Canada. The question wasn't toward gay television personality Carson Kressley, but he made sure to interject with a comment playing off the risqué nature of the question. 

Burleson continued to play the part of the jock at the frat party, showing why he's not really a broadcaster, despite the fact that's how he makes his living. 

And this, collectively is what some people want when they watch a game show.

If that's what people want to watch, then the show must go on, without me. 

I tried. I'm old. It's not for me. 

My previous writing about the show is here and here. 

X gets the square, and that's not a good thing

Given my disappointment with the 2025 version of Hollywood Squares, I looked back at what I wrote last May, when I learned of the forthcoming show. What did I say then, knowing very little about what I'd see, or how disappointed I'd be with the end product? That text appears in black. My 2025 comments, responding to what I wrote seven months ago, appear in red. Additional thoughts appear at the end in purple. 

The best news, perhaps, is that CBS is planning a prime time version of Hollywood Squares next winter. So far we know Drew Barrymore is going to be the center square, and that's about all we know. We don't know who will host or how it will be staged. Forget returning champions, I suspect, but expect bigger money than we've seen in the past, most likely. I was right and wrong. Given CBS is running the show in prime time, presumably once a week, it's not hard to guess that they'd not have returning champions. I didn't expect the show to be Million Dollar Squares, but I thought that the winner of a 30-minute episode would have a chance to walk home with more than $25,000. I would have thought $25K would be a second-tier prize in the bonus game, with a top prize of $50,000, or better. But CBS must have spent too much money to coerce Tyra Banks and Drew Carey to make an appearance.

I should be excited about such a development. A classic quiz show being reincarnated for the third time, or more, depending upon how you count versions such as Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour and Hip Hop Squares. 

I should be excited, but these days I'm expecting to be disappointed. And I was, but this wasn't exactly a bold prediction. Networks don't seem to want game show fans tuning into their game shows unless they're legacy game shows. 

I have said, time and time again, that I miss the days of the basic quiz show served with a slice of luck. Take shows like Hollywood Squares, Tic Tac Dough, Joker's Wild, Sale of the Century and High Rollers. They were all quiz shows in some way. Hollywood Squares was played for laughs far more than Tic Tac Dough. High Rollers and Sale of the Century had plenty of trivia mixed in with general knowledge questions. But the outcome of each game depended, to some extent, on an element of luck.

I enjoy simple shows like that. I like Jeopardy, and there's a degree of luck involved, but less so than the others. And that's the only one out there five days a week, not counting anything GSN is producing, which I don't have access to. 

We have some fun games in syndication at the moment, but nothing that's a classic quiz show, interjecting a tic-tac-toe board or dice into the outcome. I miss those. 

So I should be excited about Hollywood Squares. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised. I hope they pick a good host, one that doesn't irritate me. I'm a broken record at this point. I don't want to watch a long-in-the-tooth comedian pretend to orchestrate a game. I just want a skilled emcee, a broadcaster who isn't trying to play to the crowd every chance s/he gets, or an actor who hasn't had a big hit movie in a while but would like a steady paycheck. So this surprised me. They didn't go with a Steve Harvey or an Elizabeth Banks. They went with a broadcaster, of sorts. CBS chose its knock off of Mike Strahan to host the show. Nate Burleson if a former NFL wide receiver who works as a talking head for CBS's NFL coverage and as a co-host for the CBS morning show. I can't say I see much of his work. I don't watch much NFL studio pre-game programming or weekday morning news programs. He might be really good, but I have no clue. But his career seems to be mimicking Strahan's career, as now Burleson is an emcee, too. But instead of being a traditional emcee, Burleson acts like he's hosting game night at his mansion, where his celebrity friends and his civilian friends all gather together to mix and mingle while Burleson makes small talk with all of them. So I got a broadcaster, but not exactly what I hoped for. Jimmy Fallon hosts the over-the-top Password farce on NBC. Jimmy Kimmel hosts Millionaire for ABC. The tone of Squares is a little too nauseating for my liking, so perhaps Stephen Colbert wouldn't have been the right fit for this show. But I can't imagine staging Squares with Colbert as host would have produced a worse end product. 

But I expect the worst. The few comments I've read about the new version of Hollywood Squares didn't exactly lavish praise on its choice of a center square. I don't think anyone considers Drew Barrymore to be quick-witted or naturally funny. She's had roles in comedy films, but she's not exactly telling knock-knock jokes in Vegas during her off weeks from her current talk show. She seems to have time for a second job, and somehow a prime time game show is the best way to showcase her talent. I'm skeptical. She didn't try to take over the show as its center square. She also didn't add the quick wit and sharp humor I hope for from the center square. That's not mandatory, of course, and Drew's performance didn't do much for me, but she wasn't the most painful aspect of the show, by a long shot. 

I hope to be pleasantly surprised, and I'm not rooting against it. I'm just prepared to be disappointed, because I'm a traditionalist who doesn't need gimmicks and over production to enjoy a quiz show where knowledge is king and lady luck is queen. But I get it, I'm in the minority. Wow, I'm brilliant. The show feels overly produced, as if they coached a certain tone out of the host, celebrities and contestants. It doesn't feel organic, and therefore I don't enjoy it. 

As annoyed as I am by the end product, I'm not surprised. And it's not a crime. 

I'm not a game show historian, but I know enough to know that the original Match Game was a rather straight forward game of matching words/phrases during the 1960s. The famous, beloved edition of the show debuted in 1973, and was less about wacky comedy questions and celebrity banter. But it wasn't winning over enough of an audience, and the humorous efforts of the show seemed to be connecting with the audience, so they dropped any pretense of formality in the game play and went wholly for laughs, and the show enjoyed a long run into the early 1980s. 

And lest we forget Family Feud. Richard Dawson interjected his humor as host back in the 1970s as a guy whose background wasn't in traditional radio and television broadcasting. Five decades later the show is a success because of the sexual suggestiveness of some of the questions and the comedy stylings of Steve Harvey. The show doesn't appeal to me, but it's doing just fine without me. 

All of that is to say that as much as I dislike what CBS is selling in 2025, it's not a surprise. There's no reason a new version of a game show shouldn't be tweaked for a different market than past versions of the game. And CBS chose that route. I may have hoped for an end result that was akin to what some of us enjoyed from 1998 to 2004 in syndication, but no such luck. 

This is not your father's Hollywood Squares. Or mine.

Hollywood Squares has me rolling over in my grave

I know the times have changed, and yet I'm still stunned. 

The new Hollywood Squared debuted earlier tonight, and it was more painful than I imagined. 

I could write a novel in making my points, but I'll try to stop just short of that. 

The show dates back to the 1960s, and has been staged in a few different formats. Game show historians can tell you all about each version. For our sake, we'll note that the last staging of the show ended about 20 years ago, aside from a couple of short runs of variants with an emphasis on hip hop or country music, produced for niche cable channels. 

When the average viewer last saw the show in 2004, or more recently on a FAST streaming channel via Pluto TV, it was very much the same as the long running original version that was highly successful from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. 

The 2025 version on CBS doesn't stray from the format, but everything about it in its effort to appeal to today's audience is hard for me to watch. 

I'm not geriatric, I'm not a prude. But I'm part of that tiny niche of game show fans who likes a good game first and foremost. Squares has always relied on humor and celebrity banter to entertain the audience, but I never felt it was the basis of the show. It wasn't Jeopardy, it wasn't an intellectual showdown between two scholars, but it didn't seem to pander to the audience with cheap jokes and prolonged foolishness. 

My gripes, in no particular order:

Host Nate Burleson tries too hard to be the host of a party more than the ringmaster of a game show. CBS loves him. He's a former pro football player who has succeeded as an in-studio voice for CBS coverage of the NFL. CBS deemed him a worthy broadcaster who warranted a seat at the table during weekday mornings as part of the CBS Early Show crew. I don't watch the network morning shows, I haven't watched more than a few minutes of Burleson interview news makers of the day, so I can't speak to why he's great or appeals to people who seek morning news from an old-fashioned network. 

Burleson seems to be the CBS version of Michael Strahan. Strahan went from the NFL to the FOX studios on NFL Sundays and eventually added ABC's Good Morning America and ABC's prime time Pyramid to his resume. Now Burleson has completed the Strahan trifecta with Squares. 

I am weird. I like my emcees to host the show, not lead a party amongst celebrities on a game show. This isn't game night at the Burleson home. But CBS thinks it should be. And they must really want Burleson to banter with everyone, as if we're all hanging out at his crib. His banter with both the celebs and the contestants doesn't have to be all business, but clearly they want him to carry on with everyone on stage. 

And his delayed response to a contestant, deeming the contestant's answer correct or incorrect, isn't great drama. It's just annoying. And if that's not enough, he seems to want to celebrate at points during show as if he's on the sidelines with his NFL teammates. I guess that's what people want in an emcee. I am not people. 

As for the celebs, they seem to have free reign to yuck it up, as well. They banter with each other while answering questions. I was a little surprised two or three of them weren't talking over each other consistently, trying to get their quips in during a question and answer. The celebs in past versions of the show often gave "zingers" as their initial response... a gag/joke response to the question. That has been a staple of Squares, and it hasn't changed in 2025, except now it feels like two or three celebs have to be part of every question-and-answer exchange.

The celebs are about what I expect. The show had a few not-so-young celebs among the 16 that appeared with center square Drew Barrymore, the only fixture among the celebs, during the two shows that were broadcast this evening. But it didn't feel like a geriatric collection. There weren't young celebs, most were in their 40s or 50s, I think.

Game shows have often been the stomping ground of faded stars, and this group didn't feel like CBS had dusted off a lot of forgotten celebs, but most of them felt like B list celebs, at best. And not to my surprise, it wasn't loaded with the stars of CBS dramas, sitcoms and soap operas. It leaned heavily on comedic talent that isn't busy helming a popular sitcom. 

And of course there were two or three celebs that I knew nothing about during each show, but that's not a shock. My days of having my finger on the pulse of pop culture is long gone.

The celebs carry on a bit too much, and sometimes had weird interactions with the contestants. The contestants, conversely, acted like it was game night at the Burleson household, and the celebs were their peers. It's a weird dynamic, and one the show obviously pushes. It's not organic, and that didn't make it more enjoyable for me. 

Barrymore, as the center square and the focus of the celebrity ensemble, didn't do horribly, and wasn't the most obnoxious celeb on the show, but she didn't feel like the right fit for the show.

As for those contestants, they baffled me. They were clearly told to rationalize why they agreed or disagreed with a celeb's answer, which I don't need to know. More than that, it doesn't make the game more interesting. 

And you assume they audition potential contestants for the show. Yet at least two of the four contestants appeared to not understand basic tic tac toe strategy, or didn't care enough to pay attention to how the game was unfolding. It was bizarre. 

The game play is painful. It's too slow because of all the clowning. The questions related to sex more than a couple of times, and the very first question had something to do with marijuana. (I didn't take notes as I watched.) There were questions about pop culture, but the show seemed to lean toward the cheap, tawdry topics. I'm not a prude, but I'm old enough not to find such topics to be hilarious. 

The first game awards the winner $1,000. On one show, that's all they could play within 30 minutes and still have time for a bonus round, giving the winner a chance at $25,000. On the second show they played a second game, which they did not finish. The winner of game 2 gets $2,500. So, if you get beat quickly in game 1, you can win game 2 and basically ensure you're the champion because of the ridiculous scoring system and the slow pace of the game. 

And not to my surprise, there's no returning champion on this show. 

Weird moment to note before I conclude. The show briefly acknowledged the recently deceased Peter Marshall, the host of the original Squares run from 1966-81, in the opening minutes of the first episode. Nice gesture, I suppose. I had to wonder what percent of the 2025 viewing audience had any idea who Peter Marshall was, given he hasn't been featured prominently on TV in the past 40 years.

CBS thinks there's an audience for the show, and it may be right. I'm not that audience, but a few Twitter comments I read during the evening suggested there are people who think it's great entertainment. 

I've said it before. I don't watch a game show to see the emcee do his comedy act. I watch it for the game. CBS isn't interested in attracting me, they want an audience who enjoys game night at a Hollywood mansion, minus the cocaine in the bathroom. 

So CBS takes a show that, minus the hip hop and country music versions that reached a niche audience in the past decade, hasn't been seen by broadcast TV viewers for two decades, takes a variety of mostly B list celebs, none of whom are today's fastest rising stars, and places them in a game show format that is going to be familiar primarily to people over 40. Is this what the 40- to 60-year-olds of today look for in TV entertainment? 

The show does not need 20 million viewers to be deemed a success, not in 2025. And networks don't skew young these days. I'm not convinced that those who enjoyed the traditional presentation of Squares in the past are going to enjoy this version. So who is this show supposed to appeal to, and are there enough of those people to sustain this show?

Game shows have become an appealing format to fill prime time hours on the networks in recent years. They're supposed to be cheaper to produce, and people don't flock to the networks like they did when J.R. was shot on Dallas in the '80s. So perhaps a more annoying, plodding version of the game will draw enough of an audience. I'm skeptical, but the bar is so low any more that this show might stick around. 

As I said, the show follows the classic format, yet it amps up all the secondary elements at the expense of what made the show appealing to game show traditionalists like me. If you don't really like game shows, then perhaps the latest Hollywood Squares is the show for you.

I have to think Peter Marshall was rolling over in his grave tonight.