Tic Tac Dough: Unintentionally hilarious

 The Game Show Network continues to churn out original programming and turned to a fondly remembered name in search of a modern game show audience. 

GSN's Tic Tac Dough rolled out in mid-April. I like it. It's not appointment television, it airs 30 minutes before Wheel of Fortune in my market and it's nearly summer in Minnesota, a short window of the year when it is both light outdoors and pleasant in the evening. Sometimes you have to mow the lawn. 

I have sampled TTD several times, and I find it enjoyable. And it is hilarious, albeit not obviously so.

Why I like it: The show differs from what I remember fondly during the Wink Martindale era. But it's not bad. 

Points are earned for correct answers and making a tic-tac-toe, and after two head-to-head rounds each player gets a minute to bank as many points as possible during a solo game known as the "60-second challenge round." 

There are no returning champions, so that necessitates game play moving at a quick pace. There's no time for a drawn out, epic battle between two contestants. If a game ends in a draw, no big deal. No bonus points are awarded to either player. Onto the next round. 

If the contestants are struggling to answer questions correctly and the game has gone on too long, then a time limit kicks in. The contestants get whatever points they have earned to that point and it's onto the next round. No outcome is necessary. 

The board has categories assigned to all but the center square, which is a mystery category and requires two correct answers to earn. Unlike traditional categories such as "maps of states" or "U.S. history," the categories are often less obvious, such as "home sweet home," "all the feels" or "the loan arranger."

The questions in the first two rounds seem to lean heavier toward pop culture, but not entirely. And they have multiple choice answers. In the challenge rounds, questions seem more difficult, leaning less on pop culture, and are not multiple choice. 

The first two games move quickly for a couple of reasons. In this version of TTD, the dragon is hiding behind one of the squares, and picking him equals losing your turn. Given most of the questions in the first two rounds are not difficult, finding the dragon increases the chance you'll lose the game. Likewise, an incorrect answer also makes it far easier for your opponent to win the game. And that's what GSN TTD wants, complete games, not a marathon battle of wits. 

There are special squares that pop up infrequently. If you choose a category that is hiding a special square, you will find that the question has an added element which often allows either player to earn the square. Such questions don't always speed up game play, but they will when contestant X chooses the category for a block, but contestant O ends up earning the square and winning the game. 

It's not the best quiz show, but given GSN doesn't like returning champions on its shows, they can't make the questions too difficult in the opening rounds if they want to play two games before the "challenge round." The challenge round is a trademark of the GSN formula, as it aims to ensure both players have a chance of winning the game at the start of the final round of play. For the challenge round, finding the dragon on the board takes five seconds off your clock.

Take all the points for each player over three rounds and crown your winner! Award them $1,000, regardless of their point total. 

Then there's the rather uninspired bonus round. It's basically the 60-second challenge round. But in this case the dragon is visible and moves around the board with each turn, typically delaying a player's ability to complete a tic-tac-toe. And like the challenge round, an incorrect answer takes a box out of play for the duration of the round. 

But all you have to do is answer three questions correctly in a line, sometimes with a delay in doing so because of the dragon, and you win $10,000. It's edge-of-the-seat television. 

GSN has done a good job of packing a lot into the show, and it's probably what today's short-attention span viewers want in a quiz show. It's not exactly what I'm looking for in a quiz show, but nothing is. 

I don't love the show, but it's not the worst way to pass 30 minutes. They cram a lot of game play into 20 minutes of actual show. It blew me away when I realized that its 30-minute time slot contains 10 minutes of advertising. 

Brooke Burns, who GSN loves, does just fine as host. She's good at the banter with the contestants, which is another one of those things I'm not looking for in a game show, but it's mandatory for today's viewing audiences, evidently. 

Why I don't like it: I don't hate the bonus round, and there's no rule on what a bonus round should or shouldn't consist of, but it seems like GSN bonus games are all continuations of the main game's play. I'm sure there's some GSN original that doesn't follow that format and I just can't think of it. But I'd be happy with watching a TTD bonus game where the winner's fate is determined by luck rather than trivia knowledge, like I remember from the 1980s. 

That's probably my biggest gripe. I don't mind the bonus round quiz, it's just not my preference. 

Why I find the show hilarious: The hilarity comes not from the show, but from the game show snobs who commented about it. 

I saw a couple of Facebook posts about the show when it debuted in April, and of course there were plenty of people who found the show unacceptable for all sorts of silly reasons. Some of the complaints were that the show wasn't exactly the same as the old timers fondly remember.

Hey, I liked Wink's version from the '80s, and I enjoy drawn out showdowns between good contestants, as well as returning champions. But I'm smart enough to know that nearly 40 years after Wink's version of the show went dark, the 2025 version isn't going to play the same. 

Hell, Wink's version (which he left after several years, to be replaced by Jim Caldwell for the final season) wasn't played the same throughout its run. As the years went on, the show added more of those special categories that allowed contestants to win a box when it wasn't their turn. That made it a lot harder for champions to retain their crown, of course, and effectively prohibited champions from running off 43 victories in a row, which Thom McKee did circa 1980. 

So it was OK for the show to evolve during Wink's era, but the show cannot evolve for a GSN run in 2025? 

Sure thing, old man.

Other complaints that made me laugh, in no particular order: 

The dragon factors into the regular game play. That offended somebody. (Under Wink, the dragon was merely the enemy during the bonus game.)

The game awards points rather than cash for each correct answer. No matter how many points you amass during the main game, you win $1,000 for a victory. (Under Wink, correct answers translated into cash, with the winner of the game taking the pot, which could total thousands of dollars after a multi-game showdown.)

The show needs a real set, not a "fake" one. (The game board is a big fancy video screen rather than a 1980s behemoth featuring nine video monitors.)

All of those complaints aren't deal breakers for me, but I sense they are for some longtime fans of the show. 

While not a complaint, I am amused by the lack of basic tic-tac-toe strategy demonstrated by some of the contestants. I've seen more than a few poor choices thus far. This ain't chess, the basic strategy of tic-tac-toe ain't that hard! 

I didn't see many of these, but a few comments topped all others when it came to hilarity. Those were the comments that referenced Wink. They fell into two categories.

There were two or three people who insisted Wink should be hosting the 2025 version of the show.

The guy was 91 years old when the show debuted in April, (and died during the debut week of GSN's show.) Wink seemed rather spry for his age. I don't know if he was as active as he was in radio at the time of his death, but he remained rather active in recent years, and he was one of the old timers that the media could call upon when one of his contemporaries died. 

Wink might have been able to hold his own for 30 minutes. He may have been mentally and physically younger than an average 91-year-old man, but nobody is hiring Wink, or any other 90-year-old broadcaster, to emcee an ongoing game show. That's silly talk. But there are rubes out there who think Wink should have been the host because he once held a similar job 40 years earlier. 

But the most hilarious comment was the suggestion that the first episode of GSN TTD should have had Wink present to anoint Brooke Burns as the host of the show. Yeah, some clown really thought that was necessary. 

There's a weird obsession some folks have when an emcee or host takes over an existing show. They think there has to be some sort of ceremonial passing of the microphone, or something like that. Perhaps that was done somewhere in television history, but it's not really a thing. Bob Barker didn't hand off a microphone to Drew Carey on The Price is Right. 

I think Pat Sajak and Ryan Seacrest appeared on screen together prior to Pat's retirement on Wheel of Fortune, but I doubt that made Seacrest haters suddenly decide Seacrest would be a great host of Wheel. Pat didn't give a blessing to Ryan. The decision was made regardless of what Pat and Ryan did or didn't do on stage at the end of a show. 

Yes, some old man really thought Wink's presence on the set of GSN's Tic Tac Dough was somehow important to the launching of a new show that has the same name as a show he watched in 1981. 

Game show people are weird. But you already knew that. X gets the square. (Yes, I'm mixing my game show lexicons.)

 

A fictional telling of a legendary Press Your Luck story is one big whammy

I wrote a lengthy review of "The Luckiest Man in America" for my Letterboxd account. (A movie review app/website) Here's an even longer version of that.

If you read nothing more of my exhaustive review of a movie about a game show, then let this be the one thing you read: If you are interested in the story of a guy who won $110,000 on Press Your Luck in the 1980s, search YouTube for the Game Show Network's 2003 documentary about it rather than waste 90 minutes on "The Luckiest Man in America."

I was a teen and witness to Mike Larson's 1984 win of more than $100K on Press Your Luck. I have long been enthralled with his story. I did a podcast about him several years ago, sharing the tidbits I learned about his life before and after PYL. (My podcast episode about Larson and PYL) His story is fascinating without Hollywood embellishment. As a lifelong game show fan, I had to see the movie. I can't even give it one star, even if I take off my Rubin Brothers suit and try to judge it as an uninformed viewer. 

I wanted to see this film in the theater. In the fall of 2024. When word circulated that a film about PYL was finally being made, I was eager to see it, primarily because I expected the film to highlight his less discussed life outside of PYL. I learned tidbits about his life, and shared them on this blog several years ago, as well. (My Press Your Luck memories in written form) I had to see the film as soon as I could. 

The film made the film festival circuit during the fall of 2024. Much to my disappointment, it wasn't included in the big Minneapolis film festival held each October. 

So you'd think that when the film was distributed nationally in April, I'd be there to see it in the theater. I had wanted to, until I saw a Facebook comment from game show announcer and historian Randy West. Randy simply reminded us that the film was based on Larson's story and that it takes liberties with the story. The way he cautioned his followers suggested to me that I was going to be disappointed with what I saw. 

I was ready to spend $15 to see the film on the big screen. I knew the film wouldn't last long in circulation, as it wasn't showing on many screens across the Minneapolis suburbs when it opened. This was a niche film that didn't have the benefit or bankroll of a major studio production, it wasn't going to dazzle the masses. I opted not to spend a dollar to see a film that was going to disappoint me. 

That turned out to be a wise decision. 

I finally watched the film from the comfort of home, at no cost to me. It wasn't easy to sit through.

My complaints about this film, based upon history as I know it: This film dramatizes the story to make it more appealing to the random viewer. I've already started reading reviews of the film following my viewing of it earlier this evening, and somebody on Reddit suggested that the film should be billed as "inspired" by a true story and leaving the names Larson and Press Your Luck out of it. Why create an alternate reality for Larson and PYL? Why not tell a story about a guy who beats a game show, and make it a fictitious game show with fictional characters rather than a bastardized version of reality? 

The hand wringing and angst regarding Larson's improbable victory, as depicted in the film, was real. But the dramatization of it -- pretending the producers dragged out the taping for a few hours, pretending Larson had a near mental breakdown during the taping of the show, showcasing a roller coaster of emotions behind the scenes all during the taping of the game and suggesting the producers engaged in unethical/illegal activities out of desperation all in the course of a few hours -- was ridiculous. There are stories about what happened behind the scenes as Larson beat the game, and afterward, but none of them are nearly as fantastic as what is portrayed in the film.

The film goes to some trouble to recreate the look of the 1980s Press Your Luck set, and star Paul Walter Hauser does a good job of replicating the look and sound of Larson. But the many deviations from the actual events of 1984 -- from trivial details about the game itself to the portrayal of host Peter Tomarken as some sort of studio patsy who is trying to coerce an outcome, as directed from above -- are awful. Tomarken was a voice of reason as Larson went on his historic run, but I don't recall Tomarken's comments ever wandering into statistical analysis or preaching.

And too many details of the film that are made up for cinematic effect are just stupid. Larson knew he could beat the game when he traveled to Hollywood to be a contestant. Concocting a story about how he tried to impersonate another applicant for the benefit of a contestant interview, and drove an old ice cream truck to be there, don't make the movie more entertaining or compelling. But those fictitious details will convince 20 people they know the story of Larson, when what they saw is mostly fiction. 

There are too many stupid, idiotic twists written into the scrip to list them all here. They're supposed to heighten the drama. Maybe they do if you have no clue who Larson is, but that's unlikely. For the rest of us, the plot twists are beyond preposterous, and don't make the story more fascinating. The worst of it all is the impromptu phone call the show places to Larson's "wife," (who online sources identify as common law,) during the final moment's of the game for an on-camera chat. The dramatic phone call is supposed to remind us Larson is a con man who will say whatever is necessary to gain whatever it is he is trying to gain, I guess. Instead it's just idiotic, and sets up a fantastic, and not accurate, final spin. 

I've read reporting from reputable sources and secondhand anecdotes about the fallout of Larson's improbable win on Press Your Luck. There's a good story there. I've read a few stories, and witnessed that stage play, reviewing Larson's life as a con man and schemer. These are all great elements of the Larson story that need little embellishment. But somehow the producers of this film found only the studio angst of Larson's spectacular win to be worthy of their film... and yet they had to fabricate a ton of it to stretch their film out to nearly 90 minutes. 

Let's pretend I'm not a game show fan or historian: This is a dull film. If I knew nothing about Larson and wound up seeing this film, I'd be intrigued by the story. Even if I had no clue how television works, I'd be disappointed to learn how far this film deviates from reality if I was intrigued enough to do one Google search following my viewing. 

But all the fabricated drama between studio and network execs and the lackeys helping produce the show is not compelling. I struggle to imagine non-game show fans watching this film from the edge of their seats. And I have an active imagination. 

I was going to give this film 1 star because they brought an amazing story to the big screen. But it's so uninspired and skews so far from reality that I had to give it the lowest rating possible. 

This film is based upon events that took place 41 years ago. Folks who were involved in Larson's episode, from his two opponents to some of the production staff, and perhaps even some execs, are still around. Some of them have talked about Larson and the show in the past. I'd love to know what they think of this cinematic work of fiction. 

Larson's story should have been a biopic, a review of his life with an emphasis on PYL. A fictional version of his story might be the worst possible outcome. A new documentary about his life and the off-camera angst is needed more than ever, even if GSN did a good job of telling his story more than 20 years ago. 

We had no internet in 1984... not most of us, anyway. And we had no social media access in 1984. It's well known that the show aired Larson's win once and never acknowledged him again. Larson should have been a media sensation following his $110,000 win, but I've seen no indication that ever happened. A story like his would go viral in 2025. 

Larson wasn't a great guy. That has been well documented. But his story, which has bloomed after his death in 1999 thanks to the 2003 GSN documentary and resurrection of his game after nearly two decades, deserves a better, thorough telling sooner rather than later. I hope we don't have to wait another 20 years to right the wrong that is Luckiest Man in America. 

Get ready to match the stars?

It has been a topic of discussion and speculation for a week, evidently, but I'm not in the loop, so it's news to me late tonight. 

I saw a Facebook post about an hour ago, inviting potential contestants to apply online to play Match Game. I didn't pay much attention to the details of the casting call, but it looked rather standard. 

After I did a little Googling I learned that the speculation regarding Match Game's return began about a week ago. At that time it was unclear who the show was for, where it was going be taped and who its host will be. 

I assumed the casting call was for Match Game's return to ABC prime time. The show churned out small batches of episodes for a handful of years with Alec Baldwin as host. It was part of ABC's brief obsession with prime time games, classic or otherwise, during the summer of 2016. Wikipedia tells me that 65 hours of Match Game were churned out from 2016 through 2021. 

ABC isn't overdosing on game shows these days, but solid performers continue to find their way back to the prime time schedule. 

Press Your Luck isn't a network darling, but ABC has been pleased with it and continues to churn out episodes. Celebrity Family Feud seems to be a valued commodity that the network has tried not to dilute by trotting it out 12 months of the year. Celebrity Jeopardy! seems to be a viable prime time format for ABC, as well. And we've still got episodes of Pat Sajak's post-retirement run of Celebrity Wheel of Fortune episodes waiting to drop, as far as I know. And after a bit longer than typical for a hiatus, ABC is favoring its audience with new episodes of Pyramid. 

But nobody expected Match Game to return to ABC, given host Alec Baldwin shot and killed a crew member on the set of a movie in 2021. It was deemed an accidental death, with the liability falling to another crew member who is responsible for the safe handling of firearms used as props in the film. Not everyone thinks Baldwin should have been exonerated, but I didn't follow the case closely and do not have an informed opinion about his liability, or lack thereof. 

It appears that the new episodes of Match Game will be filmed in Montreal, Canada. Does that mean the show is strictly for Canadian television? There has been a Canadian version of the show in the past. But the opinions I stumbled upon think the show is returning to ABC, given that the network's Facebook page for the show, which sat quietly with no recent activity, was spruced up in recent days. The cover photo for the page was updated and lots of old posts and discussion were scrubbed from the page, I read. I can't prove that, but when it is said more than once, I am inclined to believe it. ABC didn't do that randomly, but it doesn't prove the show is returning to the network. 

There's info suggesting that the show's new production is on a tight timeline. The casting call just went out during the past couple of days, and it looks like the show will be recorded in June. A comment suggested we'll see new episodes yet in 2025. 

I'm intrigued. I was lukewarm to the revival after it debuted in 2016. My God, it has been how long already? Time flies, and it goes by faster with each passing year, I swear. I can't believe it has been nearly nine years since the Baldwin version debuted. Wow. 

ABC's prime time version is rather faithful to the 1970s edition, but we all know some of the questions used 50 years ago wouldn't fly today. Questions meant to be silly and funny -- mocking weight, intelligence or ethnicity -- aren't so funny in 2025. The modern incarnation of the show is entertaining, but for whatever reason, it didn't become appointment television for me. 

I don't watch game shows because of who is hosting, but Baldwin didn't make the show more enjoyable for me. In his defense, he wasn't the only reason I lacked enthusiasm for the show. 

I don't expect to love new episodes of the show, but I'm curious to find out who the host will be. Absolutely no one expects Baldwin to return to the Match Game set. 

And I'd as curious to know why the show will be recorded in Canada instead of the United States. The Baldwin episodes were recorded in New York, and there are no shortage of celebs in Hollywood. So why not there? 

I haven't missed the show in its absence from ABC, and I don't expect to love it in 2025, but just as I was curious to see what it looked like in 2016, after decades of dormancy, I'm looking forward to seeing what Match Game looks like in 2025 after Baldwin's incident seemingly brought the show to its early demise, as well. 

UPDATE: TV's Randy West had this to say on Thursday afternoon: 
"The format is too good to not exploit it again... Same game, new host, new crew, and new studios, taping in Canada."

What is too much Jeopardy?

 Jeopardy announced the participants in the upcoming Jeopardy Masters tournament. It's a fun all-star competition, without question. 

And unlike pro sports, some players get better with age. But that doesn't mean a youngster won't come along and hold his or her own against longtime players. 

I'm not watching the daily game as often these days, so I'm not real familiar with the newer names on the 2025 Masters list. And I completely missed the recent Jeopardy Invitational Tournament. The JIT, as they like to call it, is played during Jeopardy's daily syndicated program and is another interesting way to bring back names from the past, as well as serving as a feeder to the Masters tourney. 

In theory I don't like the idea that the heaviest of hitters are invited to the JIT. When you've held your own on Jeopardy Masters, it feels like the JIT should be beneath you. And sure enough, I see Matt Amodio won the 2025 JIT, sending him back to the Masters tournament for the third time in three years. I get that the idea was if you finished in the lower tier of the Masters, you aren't automatically invited back the next year, and Amodio finished in the lower half of the six-player field in 2024, forcing him to earn his way back to the Masters tourney in 2025. 

And while it seems like the best of the best will reach the finals of the JIT, I see that Amy Schneider lost in her first game of the JIT after two years in the Masters tourney and is not coming back for the  Masters tourney in 2025. 

So it's silly of me to expect the best of the best to run the table in the JIT, and this year's tourney proved it. 

I'll watch the Masters tourney, I suspect, because it's a lot of fun to see familiar and outstanding players in a battle royal. And a couple of the first-time participants intrigue me.  

I have limited familiarity with Roger Craig, but I've seen him over the years. He didn't have a long reign as a champion, so that's part of the reason why he doesn't stand out in my Jeopardy memories. Given he has held his own in past tournament play, his punching a ticket to Masters via a runner-up finish in the JIT is deserved, and I look forward to seeing him play for the first time in years, given I missed his recent JIT efforts. 

I have always been dazzled by Brad Rutter, seemingly more so than the media. I used to argue he'd have been Ken Jennings if Rutter hadn't been capped at five victories during his original reign as a Jeopardy champion. Would he have ran off 74 victories? We'll never know, and that's unfortunate. 

I wouldn't have held him in high esteem had he not bested Jennings in Jeopardy's big tournament action on more than one occasion following Jennings' 74-game run . I always enjoyed watching Jennings, so I never rooted against him. And I figured he was invincible when Jeopardy started creating special tournaments to capitalize on his popularity and notoriety. So it was borderline amazing to see the less adored Rutter defeat Jennings.   

And yet Jennings continued to be a media darling, despite being second best, at least until the 2020 Greatest of All Time tourney, created to capitalize on the popularity of 2019 superstar James Holzhauer. Nobody had dazzled the masses like Jennings until Holzhauer came along, and a tournament pitting them against each other was inevitable. How and why it turned into an ABC prime time spectacular, I don't know, but it did quite well, as I recall, and likely inspired ABC's lust for more Jeopardy more often. 

And as we know, Jennings won the GOAT tourney, as it is often known. 

Rutter, who had always bested Jennings, other than when they both lost to a computer, seemed like an afterthought in the GOAT tournament, and for the casual Jeopardy viewer, likely looked out of place. 

I had no idea what to expect with Holzhauer in the mix, but I didn't expect Rutter to finish a distant third in the tourney. For a guy who seemed unbeatable in previous tourney action, it was a disappointing showing. So I'm glad to see him get another chance to compete in this spring's Masters tourney.

But his participation seems to be in place of Holzhauer, who won the first Masters tourney and finished second last year to Victoria Groce. 

Groce is well known in trivia circles, but didn't make a big splash during her brief run on Jeopardy in 2005. Her elevated presence in the world of trivia, outside of Jeopardy, earned her a spot in the 2024 JIT, which she won, and a slot in the Masters tourney, where she bested the field to win it all. As I recall, she won it in rather convincing fashion. As the tournament unspooled, it seemed clear that Groce was destined to win it, which she did.

We typically like rematches when it comes to sports, and I would have enjoyed seeing if Holzhauer could up his game for the 2025 Masters tourney, but it's not to be. And so far there has yet to be an explanation for Holzhauer's absence. 

If there has been an explanation for why the Masters tourney has been expanded to nine players, I have not read it. But with nine players, I have to assume the Masters tourney will run longer than past seasons. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess ABC wants it that way.

In decades past, a Jeopardy tourney in prime time might not have been worth a network's trouble. But in 2025, when network viewership -- prime time and otherwise -- is a a shell of what it once was, a must-see Jeopardy tourney in prime time is likely to bring a large, dedicated Jeopardy following to the network. And more is usually better, in TV and elsewhere. 

But is everyone excited about even more Jeopardy in prime time? I'm skeptical. 

For ABC it seems more is better. They have the celebrity tournaments that now run in prime time and are more elaborate than the past tourneys that were part of the daily games. With each tournament there are fewer celebs I know much about, and several I have no clue about. Watching celebs play can be fun. But when the caliber of celebrity dips below a certain level, my interest evaporates. And these prime time offerings have never fascinated me. If I've watched more than two hours of ABC's celebrity games, I'd be surprised. I've sampled it once or twice at best, and by accident when I did. 

Beyond the celebs and the masters, ABC aired a special college tourney a few years ago, as well. I didn't watch that, either, and it hasn't been repeated. 

Maybe ABC realized that there is such a thing as too much prime time Jeopardy. 

I'm not compelled to watch any of it, of course. If I'm not interested, I don't watch and life goes on. In theory, more is better, and I'm always happy to see game shows -- real game shows (according to my definition) -- anywhere they can find time on a broadcast schedule. 

Sony seems to be more than happy to sell new product to ABC on top of its syndicated package that includes the JIT and annual tournament of champions. (Is that second-chance tourney now a regular thing?) And I haven't even mentioned Pop Culture Jeopardy, which Sony has sold to Amazon.

But there's a point where you reach viewer fatigue. Not all of us are going to watch every program produced. And I'm quite happy to watch the Masters and ignore the daily games. I can't be the only one. 

At some point, you over saturate the market and cannibalize your viewership with too much product. Sony must not think it has reached that point, and likely it hasn't, but I'd be interested to know how all the secondary product on ABC and Amazon, on top of more tournaments and stunts on the daily show, are impacting the daily ratings versus five years ago. Maybe prime time stunts draw new viewers and grow the daily game's audience. 

I'm skeptical, but I don't know.

But I do know that, at least for me, there's more product than I care to watch, and having a Masters tourney is no longer an addition to my Jeopardy diet, it's a substitute for my daily intake that was more common in recent years. 

Lucky for who?

I never watched one second of Lucky 13, an ABC game show that came and went last summer. 

It was a twist on the big money prime time quiz format... dangle a $1 million prize, make it tough to achieve and hope it fascinated the masses. 

An article I just read suggests it dazzled a few people by summer 2024 TV standards, yet the program fell woefully short in the very important revenue demographic.... it failed to generate enough. I'm not clear on all the ways it was supposed to generate cash for UK producer Studio 1, but its share of ABC's ad revenue wasn't enough to pay the bills. 

I don't work in television, I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of game show production. What little I do know is that game shows are cheap to produce in comparison to scripted dramas. Prize money and host salaries make game shows an appealing alternative for filling hours of prime time television these days, or so I've been told, many times. 

Why has Let's Make a Deal filled an hour of CBS's daytime programming for more than 15 years in a slot that was once, at least here in Minnesota, reserved for a network soap opera? It's cheaper! 

The same story has been sold many times. Game shows, tired reality competition formats like Big Brother, news chat.... they're often touted as cheaper to produce than crime dramas and soap operas. 

In a world where 2.7 million viewers of a network's summertime, prime time programming is respectable, somehow game shows are supposed to be financially viable. 

And it appears to have worked for game shows that attract and maintain an audience. ABC has tried a variety of game shows in prime time during the past several years. Celebrity Family Feud, Pyramid and Press Your Luck aren't being churned out by the dozens each year, but they have survived for several seasons and irregular scheduling. And ABC is eager to churn out any variant of Jeopardy it can get its hands on, with or without celebrities. 

And let's not forget that The Bachelor, which is far from unscripted yet still considered a reality show by some, draws far fewer viewers than it did as a hot new dating show two decades ago. But ABC has a rotation of Bacheloresque shows plugging its prime time schedule through the year. 

All of this begs the question, if game shows are cheaper to produce than scripted dramas, if Lucky 13 is as valuable and proven as the CEO of Studio 1 claimed in the linked article, how the hell were both the contestants and the hired hands producing the weekly episodes left waiting to be paid? 

I can't know all the nuances of television production or how much Lucky 13 hosts Shaquille O’Neal and Gina Rodriguez were supposed to be paid. I didn't see the show, but having seen Shaq on TV plenty in my life, I'm going to guess he was overpaid for his presence, whatever his salary was supposed to be. 

My initial response to the Lucky 13 story left me wondering if game shows aren't the cheap network fix for prime time programming in 2025. But I'm more inclined to believe that the folks running Studio 1, which I knew absolutely nothing about before today, simply aren't as brilliant when it comes to producing game shows as they think they are. 

The ironic twist to all of this: I had zero interest in watching Shaq host a game show of any kind last summer. I'm still not interested in watching Shaq do anything. But given the disaster this show turned out to be, I'm going to check out an episode on Hulu in the near future. 

Lucky 13 for the win! 

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 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 cultural 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 playing a game of tic tac toe. It's a weird choice, but there's an audience for that. People like that the 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. 

Hilarious.

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 asked of gay television personality Carson Kressley, but he made sure to interject with a comment playing off the risqué nature of the question. 

Hilarious.

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 like Wheel of Fortune and The Price is Right. 

I have said, time and time again, that I miss the days of the basic quiz show served with a dash of lady 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, shockingly, 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, as best I know. (I know him pretty much as a game show panelist and actor on Hogan's Heroes.) 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 I expectged a few stars from  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 are 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. 

Buzzr's strategies, or lack thereof, baffle me

There are all sorts of reasons why things happen, and sometimes they make sense. 

Then I watch Buzzr and scratch my head. 

Buzzr has some sort of data that guides its decisions after nearly a decade, but I'm left scratching my head periodically. 

Here are a few of the decisions, past and present, that leave me baffled. I'm sure there are many decisions that confused other Buzzr viewers. And there may be reasons, known reasons, for some of those decisions. In the world of game show fandom, plenty of people will claim they know, and state their opinion as fact. Much like the rest of the world, I suppose. 

Let's start with a big one: Buzzr is now broadcasting The Price is Right for two hours every afternoon. 

Yes, this puzzles me. I'm not puzzled by its inclusion on Buzzr. I'm not puzzled by the time slot. What confuses me is why it took so long. 

 

When I first gained access to Buzzr, I was tickled. It had its many flaws and drawbacks, but it was geat news for me. But I was puzzled. Why wasn't TPIR included in its schedule, given the streaming service is owned by the same company that owns and produces TPIR?

I had theories as to why it wasn't part of the equation. Given the show was still in production, perhaps the agreement with CBS to broadcast new episodes year after year included a provision that no other outlet could stream old episodes, from any decade. That seemed far fetched, but I couldn't think of a better reason for Buzzr to resist broadcasting the most powerful game show in its catalog on its lackluster, fledgling game show outpost. (The Game Show Network licensed TPIR during a brief period early in its history, of course, although that doesn't mean anything 15+ years later.)

I figured there had to be a way to bring TPIR in some form to Buzzr. Wouldn't it be advantageous to have reruns of past Drew Carey seasons on Buzzr in prime time? You'd draw hardcore game show fans and TPIR fans to Buzzr in a way no rerun of Match Game or Card Sharks could. Sure, you might draw 10 viewers away from the latest season of Survivor on CBS, but I refuse to believe there was a serious downside to showing Carey reruns in prime time.

And if anyone thought that Carey reruns would somehow hurt CBS, then run old Barker episodes on Buzzr. 

I just couldn't understand why TPIR had no place in the Buzzr schedule. Then, much to the surprise of many, I believe, Pluto TV lands a 24-hour TPIR channel featuring Bob Barker's early '80s episodes. 

And yet, no TPIR on Buzzr. So weird. 

We all know how this ends. Pluto eventually adds a separate TPIR channel for Carey, which only seems to air Carey's first season episodes. I rarely watch, but I have yet to see an episode with George Gray as the announcer. 

And Barker episodes not only continue non-stop to this day on Pluto, just about every quirky Pluto clone seems to carry Barker's episodes. And they're not all carrying the same episodes simultaneously. Roku's version of a free ad-supported streaming television (FAST) service, as they are known, so says Wikipedia, has the best Barker channel, as it skips some of the commercial breaks, while other FAST services seem to drop ads at every break in the show. 

And finally, after all that, Buzzr decides the time has come to add two hours of Barker TPIR to its schedule every afternoon. (Yes, there have been moments when Buzzr would show a black-and-white episode of the game from the 1950s...which bears little resemblance to the show America has known for the past 50 years.)

There are business reasons behind why Buzzr didn't drop episodes from its Barker/Carey catalog immediately, I suspect, but the fact it took about eight years and thousands of hours of non-stop streaming of TPIR on Pluto and other FAST services before Buzzr finally deemed it worthy of inclusion on its own network, I don't know. But I'd love to hear the answer. 

There are other odd Buzzr decisions that leave me puzzled, and I won't go in depth on any of those, but I'll list a handful of them in a future post. 

So much for that all-important Wheel of Fortune "continuity"

So it has been more than a week since people stopped watching Wheel of Fortune because they'll never watch it again so long as Ryan Seacrest is the host. 

Sure, Jan. 

People are weird. We all know that. Some claimed they'd stop watching, and maybe they will. I doubt that the show is going to lose many viewers because of a host change, and I suppose a few people are going to tune in for the first time in a long time because the host is new. 

A lot of us simply like the game, and like playing along. Only a bad host and a dramatic change in the overall production will drive us away. 

So I watched a handful of episodes thus far, and I have mixed feelings about it all. 

Foremost, Seacrest is just fine. Is he perfect? No. He knows how to host. He knows how to broadcast. Wheel isn't in his DNA, but emceeing is. He's not flawless in his delivery and witty banter. But he'll get there.

I read an article pointing out that during the speed-up portion of the final round, Seacrest didn't remind a contestant to call a letter before solving the puzzle when she asked if she could solve it. Pat Sajak usually would note to the contestant that s/he could pick a letter first and bank more money. So the woman lost out on extra cash as a result. Oh well. Seacrest will get better at that sort of thing as he faces it on a recurring basis. 

The hardest thing for me is just simple stuff. I'm not Sajak's biggest fan, but his style, cadence, etc. were familiar. Seacrest does everything just a tiny bit different, and it feels a bit odd. It's not painful, but I didn't expect it, either. I'll adjust, and after a while I won't even remember how Sajak did it. 

What bothers me is that they've really messed with the continuity of the show. I just can't sleep at night. 

I read the suggestion, more than once, that it was really important to bring Vanna White back to the show after Sajak's faux retirement, because it was important for Abraham and Agnes to see her familiar face. Without her, they'd be so confused and disoriented they'd turn the channel to a rerun of Card Sharks on Buzzr. 

People really think Vanna is that vital. You can't make it up. 

And yet, as critical as it is to maintain some sort of continuity for the poor, simple-minded viewers, they changed the set to some weird, freakish chamber of odd wheel shapes. The puzzle board has this odd array of wheels spanning behind it, and the elements are incongruous. Not significantly, but they're a bit uneven. I'm not sure what that accomplishes, but it's an odd look, if you notice that sort of thing. I didn't, but another viewer did. And now I can't unsee it.

Likewise, they have those same odd wheel shapes, in varying sizes, behind the contestants. I'm not losing sleep over it, but why change all that to coincide with Seacrest's first season if continuity is so critical?

They changed the video editing of the show, as well. Now we see isolated screen shots of each contestant's giant head under the puzzle board during toss-up rounds. No big deal, but damn, you've upset my precious continuity. 

Somehow they don't seem as interested in highlighting Jim Thornton, the announcer. They had made his face a part of every show at one point. Now I don't see him as often. That's awkward, and ruining the continuity of the show I use to love. 

I haven't been able to sit through 30 minutes of every new episode thus far, but I'm seeing less of Thornton, and the one time I recall seeing him, they did an awkward bit between him and Seacrest, promoting a show sponsor. This isn't uncommon, in-show sponsorships of game shows dates back decades. But this seemed new and awkward for a show that needs continuity to keep me from running away. 

I didn't care for the gimmicky bonus round promotion during the opening week of the season, either. The gimmick was that LG, the home appliance and electronics company, sponsored the bonus round, and was adding $10K to the bonus round prize. And in doing so, players got an extra letter, the G, as in LG, as part of the opening package of letters for the bonus round puzzle. No harm in that, it doesn't do much for me, other than disrupt the show's continuity.

And where are the cars? I haven't seen a car on the set. Did they get rid of prizes on the bonus wheel. Is it all cash prizes on the wheel now. If they said so, I missed it. I'm fine with that, but doing so in the fall of 2024 really hurts the show's continuity. 

Without continuity, the show is going to fail. Sorry Seacrest, you're a one-and-done guy. Not even Vanna will save you now! 

The good, Hollywood Squares, and the bad, Lucky 13

This week had good and not so good news in the world of game shows. 

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 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

The not-so-good news is that we're also getting a brand new prime time game show this summer from ABC. This show, called Lucky 13, is a quiz show, the kind of show I should be welcoming, even if it doesn't feature a giant slot machine at center stage. It has a twist on the traditional question-and-answer quiz format, of course, and offers $1 million as its top prize. That sounds like a recipe for prime time success. 

So why am I disappointed by the news of a new summer quiz show? It will have co-hosts, Shaquille O’Neal and Gina Rodriguez. O'Neal is well known by anyone who has watched TV to some degree during the past 30 years. He strikes me as personable and entertaining, and he has done his share of NBA commentating in recent years. Given he's a multi-time NBA champion, he should know a thing or two about the NBA. 

But his broadcasting skills, or lack thereof, doesn't seem like a good fit for a big money quiz show. I doubt he's going to be smooth, and he's not a broadcaster. That's fine when he's talking NBA. When he's trying to emcee a quiz show, his lack of vocal skills is going to stick out like a sore thumb. 

Perhaps that's why he has a co-host. I have no idea if she'll take the lead, or fumble through the game alongside O'Neal. I couldn't have told you who Rodriguez was when I read the news. And I'm not sure I've seen any of her work. Perhaps she'll surprise me. Perhaps she'll dazzle me with her emceeing prowess. I'll wager $5 she doesn't. 

It might be a fun show, and the co-hosts may step up to the challenge. But it's disappointing to read O'Neal and Rodriguez will be at the helm of a new, big money prime time quiz show. 

Somewhere between my cautious optimism about Hollywood Squares and my inevitable skepticism regarding Lucky 13 is the news that Who Wants to Be a Millionaire is also coming back. Jimmy Kimmel returns as host, because one job is not enough to pay the bills in Hollywood these days. It's unknown if the show is returning with another round of celebrities playing for charity or if Joe Public will actually get a chance to win life-changing money. 

It's a solid format that has been tweaked plenty over the years and continues to entertain, albeit to far smaller audiences than it did when it premiered in 1999. But the audience numbers have been good enough to encourage ABC to keep trotting Kimmel out there for another run. This is not the worst news we've had, certainly. 

Now who wants to bring back All-Star Blitz?  

In memory of Game Show Follies

I was a daily reader of a quirky game show blog called Game Show Follies. 

In the early years of the internet, I was a regular reader of a game show blog run by a guy named Steve Beverly. Steve has a diverse resume in broadcasting, and he is a big fan of game shows. As I recall, he launched his website to gather and disseminate all sorts of game show news in the late 1990s. I visited it frequently. 

Steve discontinued that website after several years, and despite my unwavering love of game shows, I didn't replace Steve's website with another. There were alternatives to get my game show fix online, but nothing seemed to capture my attention in the same way that Steve's website did. 

Until years later, when I stumbled onto Game Show Follies. 

I discovered it by chance one day during a Google search for some game show topic. A link to an entry at Game Show Follies was amongst the search results, so I took a look at the blog and soon became a regular reader. 

The blog had been around for years at that point, and yet I hadn't stumbled upon it until that day six or seven years ago. Whenever I found it, it took a while before it became habitual reading. But it became a daily destination within a few weeks or months. 

Game Show Follies featured one man's daily musings about the world of game shows, allegedly. The listed author's name was Casey Abell, and almost every day the author would post an article. Once in a great while s/he would miss a day. And once in a while s/he would post twice in one day. 

I never took notes, as I never considered I would reflect upon my years of reading, and commenting, on the author's daily postings. But I certainly wish I had saved screen shots of some of the most memorable, and ridiculous, posts in the long, glorious history of Game Show Follies. They were both brilliant and brutal. 

I wish I had screen shots because the blog's author dumped years of writing. After announcing, quickly and unceremoniously, that the author was retiring from the blog immediately, the author zapped thousands of blog posts spanning more than a decade, about a week after retirement. Erased from existence with a click of a button. Sure, I can probably find random memories from the blog at archive.org if I search for them, but that would require effort. No thanks.

I'm going to guess that most readers who perused the author's ramblings have wacky memories akin to mine. At times Game Show Follies was like a car accident. You couldn't look away. 

Early on I had a sense that the author of the blog had a penchant for talking down to her/his audience. It wasn't every week, but it occurred often enough.

I don't remember the comment, but the author's tone in making the comment certainly suggested the author was smarter than the readership, and that you were foolish for holding your opinion. 

So I came up with a stock response that I started using. I would comment on a blog post with some sort of response about how I don't know what to think about the subject, but perhaps I would be told what I should think... or something close to that. It didn't take long for the author to take offense to a redundant comment that suggested the author was arrogant in her/his thinking. I was quickly warned that my malfeasance would not be tolerated. 

What fun is it to be king or queen of your kingdom if you don't berate the peasants once in a while? 

The author liked to make assumptions and generalizations about readers, as well. (Don't we all?) If you didn't like Steve Harvey's shtick, if you didn't think sexual innuendo was hilarious, you had to be an "older is better" viewer. If you didn't like today's overproduced, overly dramatic games with hosts who think they're as important to the show as the game, you were a dinosaur who only lived for the past. 

It was an idiotic conclusion, but I was labeled as one of the "older is better" crowd in response to some comment I made, probably about Family Feud. The game is relatively dull, and has been for decades. With or without sexual innuendo, it's just not very entertaining until you get to the bonus game. 

There's no debating that a show I've found to be dull through multiple hosts is doing well more than four decades later with Harvey at the helm. I watched it plenty in my youth, but as an adult, it fails to entertain me. But I can't find a show to be slow and boring for decades unless I'm an "older is better" guy. 

Yeah, that's the kind of flawed logic that permeated throughout the blog for years. 

Conversely, I agreed with the author about its GSN knockoff, America Says. It took years for me to watch America Says, as I haven't had a cable television package for about 15 years now. But America Says is a lot of fun. It's a fast-paced version of Feud, the host isn't trying to do improv comedy during the show and the questions aren't filled with lame sexual innuendo. If I was 17, I'd find Harvey's Feud to be hilarious. I'm not. Irony, newer is better when it comes to the Feud format.

So how else was his blog both memorable and ridiculous? 

Comment moderation

I have accused the author of kayfabe, a wrestling term that means to present a staged performance as authentic. Pro wrestlers usually don't hate each other outside of the arena. They're working together and are often friends. But they want you to believe they really hate the other guy when they don't. That's kayfabe. 

The author had weird polices and procedures over the years when it came to moderating her/his comments. S/he contradicted her/his fluid policies periodically, which were published on her/his blog and treated at times as if they were federal law. I eventually accused her/him of hypocrisy. S/he was outright fraudulent at times in what s/he said and did when it came to her/his blog comments. Sometimes the only explanation was kayfabe.

When I started, there was no comment moderation, as I recall. If you submitted a comment, it showed up on the blog post. 

This allowed for a lot of idiocy, and readers long before me were already jerking the author's chain. I don't recall if s/he was deleting comments or not, but s/he did have a policy regarding profanity on her/his blog. I appreciated that, as it's really unnecessary in the world we live in, and it adds nothing to a game show discussion. It just doesn't. 

At some point, the author was getting hit with a lot of nonsense. I don't recall if it was insulting, offensive, profane or simply pointless. The author issued some sort of warning, which only stirred the hornet's nest. As more ridiculousness spewed forth, the author would respond with some silly comment like, "I'm really getting upset!" Seriously, that was the tone of the response. And I'm supposed to believe that the author's actions weren't kayfabe?

Well, that soon ushered in an era of moderated comments. No instant gratification any more, and the author was now the ultimate gatekeeper. 

Yet the absurdity continued. 

The author liked to cite her/his adhering to those terms and conditions of the blog, golden rules s/he proclaimed s/he would live by when it came to comments on the blog. These were nothing more than rules posted on the blog that could be applied arbitrarily when the author was in a cranky mood, and proved that the author was really just a hypocrite.

One of the rules was "no spam," or something akin to that. That's great, except there's no definition of what is or isn't a spam comment. I would submit silly comments sometimes just to see what kind of mood the author was in. Some of which I knew would be rejected. I'd type all sorts of nonsense, including claims about drinking and intoxication. 

I'd also pass along feedback, a news tip or send other info that wasn't important to have displayed in a blog comment. When I'd submit such info or feedback, I'd start the comment with profanity, and sometimes note the comment wasn't for posting. The author didn't edit comments before publishing them, so they wouldn't be posted. Worked out well for both of us. 

There were comments that weren't published, however, that were sans profanity. They'd be simple, vague comments. For a while I was submitting comments simply praising the great work. Nothing about the daily blog post, just a compliment. Eventually those stopped being posted, because the author deemed them to be spam. What a clown. Generic praise on a daily basis was spam? Kayfabe or hypocrisy. Take your pick.

When I deemed the author mentally unstable at one point, I stopped commenting for a while. Eventually I returned to making occasional comments. I posted some of the same ridiculousness that had been deemed spam months earlier, in part because the author had started approving ridiculousness from others that should have been rejected under her/his fluid, goofy terms and conditions.  

And to my surprise, my silly comments started to get approved. Why? Who knows, other than the fact the author was a hypocrite whose terms and conditions were fluid. I even commented that it was good to see hypocrisy was back in play, and the author approved such a comment. It had no relation to the blog post I was commenting on, but s/he approved it. Maybe dementia was starting to set in and s/he forgot the edict s/he had made long ago. 

I included a reference to hypocrisy in my daily comments for a short period months or years prior, as the hypocrisy in the author's actions showed up occasionally on her/his blog, and I had seen it multiple times at that point. One day I got the stern warning that if I dared to reference hypocrisy in the future, my comments wouldn't be approved. There's an old saying about the truth hurting. 

I wasn't the only person who was subjected to the author's fluid terms and conditions, for the record. 

And I get it. If you have a blog that is generating daily traffic, you're going to have to hassle with a bunch of crap, just as anyone with email has to sift through and delete spam on a recurring basis. It's hard to police every blog comment and apply your general rules and regulations exactly the same. That's human nature. But the author was bad at it. It was as if kayfabe was in play.

It was as if the author was trying to be a puppet master, using hypocrisy to evoke a response when s/he needed entertainment, logic or past precedent be damned.

As for why I stopped commenting for a while: As I said, the author seemed mentally unstable. And at one point s/he was outright fraudulent in her/his representation of me in the blog comments. So I decided it was time to stop commenting for a while. When somebody exhibits signs of mental instability, you give them space. (I'm sure s/he would say the same thing about me.)

I don't remember what irritated me about her/his actions, but I had been responding to the blogs on a recurring basis for a while, with no ulterior motives. Nothing about my responses was intended to get the author going. Whatever set her/him off, s/he reverted to her/his ridiculous ways. I didn't ignore that in my comments. 

S/he must have been rather angry, depressed or bored, because in response s/he printed portions of my previous comments that hadn't been approved for the blog, stuff I wrote just to see what level the hypocrisy meter was at on a certain day. It was definitely nonsense, which s/he would classify as spam. It would be out-on-context stream of consciousness based upon something unrelated I had just looked at or read, perhaps with alcohol and intoxication references peppered in.

Printing unpublished comments and trying to use them to mock me was her/his way of trying to make me look bad, ridiculous or otherwise. This wasn't the first time the author tried to misrepresent me in a blog comment. And I'm convinced that's what s/he was trying to do again. Hypocrisy and kayfabe aside, s/he wasn't an idiot. S/he may have acted like one occasionally, but s/he knew what I was doing when I submitted nonsense that was certain to remain unpublished. 

Instead of an intelligent counter argument to my criticism, the author opted for fraudulence. At that point I decided I wasn't going to comment for a while. 

If you see a person on the sidewalk as you're walking down your street, and that person is acting mentally ill, do you engage with the person, or do you try to give that person space and avoid contact if at all possible? I'm not a social worker, so I chose the latter. 

I kept reading the blog, I just didn't bother to comment. After several weeks, I disagreed strongly with a position s/he took on something. So I finally commented, ending my sabbatical. And how did the author respond? S/he tried to portray my comment as my typical response. Noting I had been absent, s/he bemoaned my contrasting opinion as if that's what I always did, as if I always disagreed with her/him.

I didn't resume commenting regularly at that point, but for fun one afternoon not long after her/his misrepresentation of me, I looked back at about a month's worth of her/his blog posts before I took my sabbatical. I commented on almost every blog post leading up to the sabbatical. My comments shared my memories of a topic or my opinion on the news topic of the day, but comments suggesting the author's opinion was flawed, wrong or pure idiocy were nowhere to be found. But yeah, I was always taking up a contradictory opinion to her/his opinions. 

Lying to the readers or lying to herself/himself: Only the author knows for sure.

I guess it wasn't kayfabe, as I'd have to have been in on it for it to be kayfabe. The author was simply a fraud on a recurring basis. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. 

Funny stuff

Let's not forget that the author liked to act all high and mighty on a periodic basis. 

People would take cheap shots at her/him from generic Google accounts. Some readers had names attached to their account, but plenty did not. The author liked to ridicule those who didn't declare their full name on their Google account. If your name is Donald John Trump, you had better not set up your account to display your name as Dictator Donny, not if you wanted to contradict or criticize the author in any way. If you didn't spell out your name, you were chastised for criticizing the author. 

The irony in this is twofold. One, I had emailed the author a couple of years prior, passing along legitimate news fodder for the blog. My display name on the blog was generic, but I included my full name and made it relatively clear who I was in my email.

Despite the love/hate back-and-forth we had going, I never had contempt for the author. But I never got an acknowledgment of my email. The author would eventually claim s/he had never received it. 

But yeah, I was among the anonymous. 

The greater irony is that the author used a pen name, and admitted to it, if you can believe her/him. 

 "Casey Abell," we would be told, was a pen name for Ralph Abell. The author also provided links to a rather generic Linked In page under Ralph's name, and a link to a Twitter account that had no meaningful info, and had sat unused for some time. Ralph, as the author would frequently be called, may have still been lying about her/his identity, using somebody else's accounts and claiming that as her/his identity. That's far-fetched, of course, but not out of the realm of possibility. 

And Ralph had a couple of photos on the blog over the years, allegedly portraying Casey. A head shot and then a family photo. Again, doesn't prove anything legit, but it could have very well been the author. Once or twice I Googled Casey's name along with the Texas town s/he claimed to live in to see if there was evidence s/he was being honest about who s/he was, but little turned up when I did. 

At the end of the day I would have bet my $5 that the author was being honest in portraying herself/himself, but s/he was overly upset about anonymity on a blog, and for much of the time had portrayed Ralph as somebody named Casey. That's what you call a hypocrite, and that's why I refuse to rule out the idea that Ralph isn't a pen name, as well. 

There were a few other funny things when it came to the author. S/he was ripped by another blogger for her/his "laugh it off" response to women who are subjected to internet harassment. I never knew this at the time, but it was pointed out on her/his blog at some point by another reader. I don't need to weigh in with an opinion, but the fact that the author would get upset about stupid comments made toward her/him on her/his blog, yet once told women to laugh off such comments, is hilarious. And sad. 

Perhaps the funniest moment was when s/he referenced a celebrity from a long-ago appearance on The Dating Game. I think it was Farrah Fawcett. And somehow the author made it clear that s/he didn't realize Farrah had died years ago. That can happen, of course, but the way it read in her/his blog, and the flack s/he got for the comment months later was damn funny. 

Big fans

There were plenty of people who didn't think the author was particularly brilliant, or worth the time of day. 

Here's a comment I found from 2018 on a forum called Golden Road: 

"I've read some of his posts and his tone is mocking of pretty much the entire fandom. And not in a funny way- it's mean and rather stupid. He seems to actually despise game shows with terms like "moldy oldies" (any old game show), makes fun of buzzr on a regular basis for not being a "real network" and looking for the first sign of failure, takes constant shots at buzzerblog, the game show forum, golden road and game show garbage.

It could be he is jealous, because those forums he trashes actually have views and comments. Abell only has about two or three people actually reading his blog. Going back, the only entries with many comments are trolls and those insulting him.

Oh, and Casey, since you're apparently reading this, telling the whole world that you Googled me because I had a reaction to you that you didn't like is more than a little creepy."

The author did like to pick apart discussions on other forums and explain why those discussions were flawed and predictably biased. It was a strange obsession. 

I think the author had plenty of blog traffic. Was that 100 visitors per day or 500? Don't know. But it was far more than 2-3.

Whatever the readership was, I'd wager $10 that the majority of the readers wouldn't call themselves fans of the blog. 

The end

As ridiculous as so many of the author's posts and responses were over the years, I'm sorry to see her/him go. It was a daily commitment by presumably one author for many years. That's amazing. It's game shows, it's not important. But the author found something to write about and presented simple nuggets of info and opinion consistently. That's impressive. Sure, some of those nuggets were picking nits over opinions in another forum. But s/he did other, more creative stuff to fill the void, as well. If there was nothing current to write about, s/he would pull up a wiki entry about an old and/or forgotten game show and share a tidbit or two about what was written. 

Whoever the author was, whatever her/his motivation, I'll never know. S/he shared writing on a consistent basis, and I admire that. S/he was either a puppet master or mentally unstable. I certainly know which one I'd wager my $20 on. Despite that, I'll applaud the effort to put her/his writing out there, no matter how foolish or idiotic some game show experts will claim it was. 

I didn't expect the end to be so sudden, unless the author died. And maybe s/he has in the months since the blog ended. We'll never know. But it's a shame that years worth of effort were pulled from the blog a week after her/his retirement. Not every piece of prose needs to be preserved in perpetuity, but after all those years of writing and making it available, why pull it down now? (I can think of one possible, reasonable answer.) 

Whatever the reason, I had to spend a couple of hours memorializing the wacky, weird world of Game Show Follies. I started this weeks ago, put in a couple of hours of writing and still wasn't done. It took me months to finally sit down and finish it off. It is done. You might think that the author's blog wasn't worth five minutes of memorialization, and you might be right. But I'll never forget the weird, wacky world of Game Show Follies, and I will not be the only one. Now we can all look back and laugh, together, assuming anyone ever finds this blog post. 

Rest in peace, Casey Abell. 

The fallacy of continuity

I previously wrote about my disbelief that local Jeopardy! affiliates were begging for one host of the daily syndicated game for the sake of precious viewer continuity. 

Having two hosts of any show is going to be divisive, I suppose. Jeopardy's executive director, Michael Davies, confirmed that Ken Jennings was a better host than Mayim Bialik, but he couldn't just say that. Saying the man was better at the job than the woman, you can't do that. He had to soften the truth by suggesting the affiliates, and other unspecified interested parties, were dialing up the Sony hotline, begging for one host or the other, all in the name of  "consistency."

Consistency and continuity are not the same thing, but they're close enough for my purpose. 

There's some fallacy that we need consistency and continuity in our game shows. I don't buy it. I'm calling BS.

I've already outlined why I don't believe the crowning of Jennings as king of the syndicated, daily Jeopardy! program was about consistency. 

Irony, Sony's other syndicated workhorse, Wheel of Fortune, is spawning similar claims. 

I dispute several claims, some preposterous, regarding Wheel and its pending transition from Pat Sajak to Ryan Seacrest. I won't cover all those today, but one of them is the fallacy that Vanna White needs to stick around for continuity. 

Really, without her at the puzzle board next fall, the wheels are coming off the wagon? TV's Randy West claims having White on set is really important to the future of the show. West has forgotten more about TV than I'll ever know, so if he says it's important, you best believe it. 

But I don't. 

It's really that important to have White on set come this fall? For who, the viewers?

I don't think so. At one point, we thought Sajak and White were going to walk off into the sunset together, despite the fact White is a decade younger than Sajak. 

What if they did? Are viewers going to stop watching next fall because the familiar faces aren't hosting the show? I doubt it. Highly.

Funny, when The Tonight Show went from Carson to Leno,  did they hold onto the band, announcer or cue card guy for continuity? Not that I remember. When Leno departed and O'Brien took over, what did they retain for continuity? How about when Leno left for his second time, and Fallon took over? They didn't even keep the show in the same state. 

And now I'm supposed to believe that continuity in television is so important? 

A game show is a different animal, some might argue. Yeah, it is. And what do I tune into Wheel to watch? The game, not the host. Mess with the game play significantly, change everything about the game, from the theme song to the set layout, and maybe I'll have problems watching the show. Make modest changes in the show, as has happened historically, and it won't matter if White is turning the letters or not next fall. 

Did having Rich Fields announce Drew Carey's first season of The Price is Right help me sleep better at night as Carey bumbled through his first year on the job? Not a bit. If anything, I was annoyed, and still am, that he was cut lose after one year of the Carey regime.

Some people will stop watching Wheel because they think Seacrest is a horrible human being who should burn in hell for his career success to this point. Others might start watching Wheel because they had no tolerance for Sajak's lame quips. Do we really believe that having White at the puzzle board is going to move the needle for a significant number of viewers in the positive direction? 

I don't. Wheel hasn't survived 40+ syndicated seasons because the witty banter between Sajak and White at the end of the show is some sort of comfort food for game show viewers. 

It's time to quite pretending we're all such fragile creatures.

The Jeopardy! lie?

 About two months ago I was endorsing the end of Mayim Bialik's tenure as a part-time host of the daily Jeopardy! games. 

TV's Blossom broke the news that she was no longer hosting the daily game in any capacity, and Sony quickly confirmed the news, suggesting they hoped to continue to employ her in some capacity for a future prime time stunt. Unless Jeopardy ends up in prime time 12 months of the year, I'd bet against seeing Bialik on the Jeopardy set again, but stranger things have happened. 

What puzzles me is that Jeopardy's executive producer, Michael Davies, recently spoke about this old news. I'm not sure why he was compelled to speak. Perhaps Sony likes seeing its off-camera drama covered by the media, and having Davies finally open up about old news was the best the show could muster after going several weeks without generating click bait on Yahoo. 

Davies parroted what Sony said: We like TV's Blossom, we would like to work with her again, we have no plans that call for her services, but we'd really like to work with her again. Ken Jennings is the better host, but our ratings were comparable for the daily show with both hosts. 

I've read that more than once, that neither host moved the needle when it came to day-to-day viewership. Some people really, really, really despise one host or the other -- according to comments on social media -- and some are indifferent to the host at the end of the day. I prefer Jennings, but I didn't have to boycott the show when Bialik hosted it. 

So why was it so critical to exile either Jennings or Bialik from the daily game if both were bringing in comparable ratings? Davies addressed that, and I don't believe it. 

I have read some form of this claim several times. "Over the past two and a half seasons, what we’ve heard from a lot of from television stations and other interested parties is that they wanted more consistency. They wanted a single host," according to Davies. (Yes, that quote is grammatically flawed.)

A lot of television stations? I'm skeptical. 

I don't work in TV. I have no connections to the important people at my local television stations. 

Plenty of people are not smart. I've met plenty of those people. 

It would not shock me to learn from an executive at my local NBC affiliate, the station that carries Jeopardy in the Minneapolis market, that people have called the station, posted on the station's Facebook page or sent an email to the station, lobbying for one host or the other. My NBC affiliate has nothing to do with the production of the show, of course, but never overestimate the intelligence of the local viewer. I'm sure my NBC station has had several comments about the host of a game show it broadcasts twice each weekday.

But how many people are we talking. Let's say a whopping 25% of viewers think complaining about Jennings or Bialik to the NBC affiliate would have any influence whatsoever. I suspect far fewer than 25% of viewers thought once about registering a complaint with anyone about the dual hosts. And of those who did consider it, how many actually took the time to follow through? And of the small percentage that actually registers a complaint, where will that complaint end up? At the easiest place to leave a complaint,  the station's Facebook page. (That's my guess, I have no idea how anyone actually followed through with registering their complaint.)

I have a hard time imagining that Jeopardy affiliates across the country were calling up Sony executives and the top brass at Jeopardy, bemoaning the dozens of viewer complaints they were receiving about two hosts. Sounds made up. 

Davies never said that Sony or Jeopardy received hundreds of calls and complaints from the affiliates, or "other interested parties." He claims to have heard from a lot of stations. How many is a lot? Are we talking 100 stations, or five. And what exactly is an interested party? I'm an interested party. I didn't call Davies to cast a vote, but I'm interested. 

His explanation is just vague enough to suggest there was a groundswell of support for removing TV's Blossom from the daily show. But I'll never believe it. 

It doesn't matter whether I do, or not. Davies doesn't know me or care what I think. But his need to clarify that Jennings was the better host, etc., and justify the decision by claiming affiliates were clamoring for one of the hosts to be fired from the daily show, seems quite unnecessary at this point. And again, it sounds made up. 

And if there was no fabrication regarding the groundswell of momentum for axing Bialik, then I've lost another ounce of hope for humanity. 

There's no harm in having an opinion and bandying it about on a Facebook post regarding Jeopardy. But perhaps that's not good enough any more. Perhaps Karen really did speak to the manager. 

I remain skeptical.