A couple of days late again, and I'm not going to do this weekly, I swear, but here's another round of spontaneous reactions to an episode of Match Game, specifically the second week's show, courtesy of streaming video.
Are Rosie O'Donnell and Tituss Burgess the new Brett and Charles? I like Tituss well enough, but Rosie is hard to stomach under any circumstance these days, although she wasn't nearly as annoying as I expected last week.
After round 1 of game 1 I'm still not overwhelmed by this show. The panel isn't winning me over. I like Adam Goldberg, and so far he hasn't dazzled me.
Round 2 is underway, and it's clear that Alec Baldwin really loves the sound of his voice. And he's great at spouting off pre-scripted jokes.
Sherri Shepherd is easily winning "most annoying celebrity" on this week's show.
O'Donnell is the super match celebrity for the third consecutive time. Why do contestants think she's the Richard Dawson of the 2016 panel?
Why don't Baldwin's eyes open fully?
Why do they tell the contestants to dance like cheerleaders when they spin them around on the turntable?
Game 2 round 1, first question isn't about sex. Answers are limited to seemingly two responses, it seems, and yet "Jason" gave a third answer. It's a shame that half the questions seem to be sexual, but not surprising.
Shepherd is terrible at this game. She wins this week's JB Smooth award for stupidity.
Why is Goldberg wearing that dorky bandana around his neck?
After an unexciting game 2 we have another winner. It will be interesting to see what happens if this slow-paced show ever ends in a tie after two rounds.
Audience match for game 2: The contestant, whose name I have forgotten, blew it, so she gets $1,000 as a consolation prize so that they can have a super match. And she picked O'Donnell, like everybody else. She's the third out of four contestants to fail at the super match. Such a shame.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
ABC's Match Game: Instant reaction
I'm watching the new Match Game one night after it aired. I have avoided reading critiques of it to this point, so here are reactions to my initial viewing of the first episode.
I don't mind the updated look to the set. I'm sure some people wanted the classic Gene Rayburn set recreated.
It's obvious after the first segment that banter by the host and celebrities is mandated in order to stretch out the game play. Alec Baldwin's jokes aren't great, and they seem forced.
What kind of stimulants did they pump the initial two contestants full of? Marissa isn't over the top, but middle-aged Alissa is whack-tastic. (The lack of last names and cities of residence for the contestants is annoying. I'm old fashioned.)
First question of the show: A question about the "adults only" section of Costco. Exactly what I feared.
But the next two questions were somewhat clever without being overly sexual. The fourth question seemed to lead to only one possible answer, which game Alissa an easy win.
Who the hell is this JB Smooth and why does he think he's the star of the show? His dance session in the middle of the game with Alissa didn't entertain me, it annoyed me. A lot.
This Sutton Foster woman in the sixth celebrity seat is the opposite of Smooth. I don't know who she is, but at least she's not annoying.
And Rosie O'Donnell is rather sedate on this show, much to my surprise.
Two segments into the show and Baldwin has lost me as host.
After two segments Alissa is playing the audience match for up to $5,000, and she is nuttier than a fruitcake. It's hard to root for her.
Smooth is dancing again. Make him stop.
Alissa just lost the head-to-head match with O'Donnell, and I'm not the least bit disappointed.
So with one game in the books Baldwin has disappointed me as host, the emphasis on celebrity wisecracking is more than I care for and JB Smooth is insufferable. Despite all that, it's not a horrible update of the game. Perhaps today's game show viewers want the celebrity antics that I have little patience for.
Game 2: First question has a pun about Uranus, and the celebrities are making gay sex and genital wart jokes. And JB Smooth is canvassing the celebrities again for their answers. This guy is 10 times more annoying than I expected O'Donnell to be.
Question about Donald Trump wakes O'Donnell from her coma, predictably.
Smooth is not only annoying, he sucks at Match Game. Worst celebrity on the panel by a country mile.
Baldwin just threw to a commercial by suggesting sexual innuendo about Debra Messing. Why not, this ain't 1976.
I expected Michael Ian Black to be more entertaining than he has been. He's not bad, but I feel like he's underwhelmed by the show.
Round 2: Mick Jagger question about Viagra, followed by a Mr. Potato Head question suggesting drug or alcohol use.
I thought a couple of the questions from the first week of the show were creative and fun, but it's hard to applaud the writers when they go for cheap, obvious answers like "boner" in the Mick Jagger question.
I've got one final super match round to go for episode 1. I'll forgo further critique.
Overall the show isn't as lowbrow as I expected, but it certainly panders to that crowd. I doubt it's going to win over game show purists. Perhaps there's a large enough audience for what ABC is selling, but I'm skeptical this show has legs, either as a summer prime time offering or as a future syndicated program.
I don't mind the updated look to the set. I'm sure some people wanted the classic Gene Rayburn set recreated.
It's obvious after the first segment that banter by the host and celebrities is mandated in order to stretch out the game play. Alec Baldwin's jokes aren't great, and they seem forced.
What kind of stimulants did they pump the initial two contestants full of? Marissa isn't over the top, but middle-aged Alissa is whack-tastic. (The lack of last names and cities of residence for the contestants is annoying. I'm old fashioned.)
First question of the show: A question about the "adults only" section of Costco. Exactly what I feared.
But the next two questions were somewhat clever without being overly sexual. The fourth question seemed to lead to only one possible answer, which game Alissa an easy win.
Who the hell is this JB Smooth and why does he think he's the star of the show? His dance session in the middle of the game with Alissa didn't entertain me, it annoyed me. A lot.
This Sutton Foster woman in the sixth celebrity seat is the opposite of Smooth. I don't know who she is, but at least she's not annoying.
And Rosie O'Donnell is rather sedate on this show, much to my surprise.
Two segments into the show and Baldwin has lost me as host.
After two segments Alissa is playing the audience match for up to $5,000, and she is nuttier than a fruitcake. It's hard to root for her.
Smooth is dancing again. Make him stop.
Alissa just lost the head-to-head match with O'Donnell, and I'm not the least bit disappointed.
So with one game in the books Baldwin has disappointed me as host, the emphasis on celebrity wisecracking is more than I care for and JB Smooth is insufferable. Despite all that, it's not a horrible update of the game. Perhaps today's game show viewers want the celebrity antics that I have little patience for.
Game 2: First question has a pun about Uranus, and the celebrities are making gay sex and genital wart jokes. And JB Smooth is canvassing the celebrities again for their answers. This guy is 10 times more annoying than I expected O'Donnell to be.
Question about Donald Trump wakes O'Donnell from her coma, predictably.
Smooth is not only annoying, he sucks at Match Game. Worst celebrity on the panel by a country mile.
Baldwin just threw to a commercial by suggesting sexual innuendo about Debra Messing. Why not, this ain't 1976.
I expected Michael Ian Black to be more entertaining than he has been. He's not bad, but I feel like he's underwhelmed by the show.
Round 2: Mick Jagger question about Viagra, followed by a Mr. Potato Head question suggesting drug or alcohol use.
I thought a couple of the questions from the first week of the show were creative and fun, but it's hard to applaud the writers when they go for cheap, obvious answers like "boner" in the Mick Jagger question.
I've got one final super match round to go for episode 1. I'll forgo further critique.
Overall the show isn't as lowbrow as I expected, but it certainly panders to that crowd. I doubt it's going to win over game show purists. Perhaps there's a large enough audience for what ABC is selling, but I'm skeptical this show has legs, either as a summer prime time offering or as a future syndicated program.
Monday, May 2, 2016
The new Match Game: Rooting for it, betting against it
Last week the world learned that we're getting a new version of Match Game this summer.
This is far from the first time there has been talk of a new version of the 1970s classic, and it's at least the fourth crack at it in the United States. Most Match Game fans know that the show, in the classic format we all love, hosted by Gene Rayburn, went off the air in 1982. It had been on CBS daytime for much of the '70s and eventually added a syndicated version that hung on until 1982.
The first revival was a version on NBC that lasted about a year, and was combined with Hollywood Squares into one hour. This version is routinely panned by the fans. Although there were a lot of things wrong with the product, the idea of putting the two games together into one 60-minute show wasn't horrible. Rayburn co-hosted the program.
The show returned for one year in 1990-91 on ABC, sans Rayburn. An attempt at a syndicated version lasted one year during the 1997-98 season.
A new version of the show had some success on Canadian television a few years ago. I've seen clips of it online, and it's very similar to the classic, with mostly unknown comedians serving as the celebrity panel. The only notable comedian (for me, anyway) on the panel in this low quality clip is Norm Macdonald. (Online reviews of the show suggest that the questions and answers are mostly lowbrow, and that the panel is more annoying than entertaining. Perhaps that's why I didn't stream episodes of this show regularly when I discovered it a few years ago.)
Several years ago cable network TBS considered bringing the show back, using the classic set and going so far as to tape a pilot, but the show never got off the ground. (The host didn't impress me during the few seconds I was able to sample his work in the clip below.)
Let's do the math. Since the classic Rayburn version went off the air in 1982 we've had three failed versions of the show and a pilot for TBS that was never picked up. Yet 34 years later ABC is going to try to reignite the show yet again? In prime time? Good luck.
I want the show to succeed. I really do. But I'm also skeptical that it will. And if by some act of God it does succeed, I'll likely be disappointed.
The classic version worked because it had the right formula at the right time. The game play was competitive, yet funny. In the 1970s you couldn't be sexually explicit on television. References to boobs were made occasionally, but it wasn't overdone. If the questions suggested that the answer could be penis, it was never said to the best of my knowledge, even by a slang name. That kind of thing didn't fly on TV in the 1970s.
Instead the show relied upon the wittiness of Richard Dawson and Charles Nelson Reilly, among others. Add to that the goofiness of Brett Somers, Patti Deutsch, Joyce Bulifant and others, and you had an amusing show. Rayburn added his own humorous touch for good measure. Sometimes that meant reading questions while doing characters that would be politically incorrect today. A white guy doing a Chinese accent while reading a question about Confucius would be lambasted in 2016.
GSN produced a documentary about Match Game many years ago, and it contained a lot of interview clips with celebrities and off-the-air staff members. I don't remember who said it, but somebody explained that after so many years the novelty of questions featuring double entendres and sexual innuendo no longer held the same charm.
The appetite for Match Game wasn't there in 1990, and from the occasional episodes I have sampled online, the panel and host, Ross Shafer, just didn't have the chemistry to recreate the frivolity and entertainment of its predecessor, even with Charles as a regular panelist and Brett as a guest panelist during some weeks. (I need to find online clips of those episodes.)
I don't remember much about the 1998 version, I'm not sure if it even aired locally, but of the few clips I've seen of it, the show was more dependent upon sexual explicitness. A clip of the show from some "funniest game show moments" compilation show features every panelist giving some slang term for penis as an answer. This shouldn't be surprising, as broadcast standards had been lowered quite a bit between 1982 and 1998.
So here we are, 17 years after the last run of Match Game went off the air, waiting for ABC to try to rekindle magic we haven't seen in more than three decades. I wonder why I'm skeptical.
Baldwin seems like a good choice for emcee. He's witty and charismatic, and he has a variety of broadcasting experiences that should help him grow into the role quickly. A lot of what will make or break the show is the caliber of the celebrities it recruits for the panel. We're not going to see A-list celebrities on the show, but it had better not try to sell us washed up sitcom stars, long-in-the-tooth comedians or the uninteresting reality TV personalities that will be begging for a seat on the panel. And the panelists better be witty and sharp, because that's a lot of what people want from the show. Standard game play with funny questions and obvious answers won't cut it.
Yet even with a winning panel and host, will that be enough? Will people still want to tune in for an hour each Sunday night to see if celebrities match the silly answers given by contestants to questions about Dumb Dora?
I hope that the show tries to succeed without being "edgy." Will we see a lot of questions with sexual overtones and hear a lot of euphemisms for the penis? Questions begging for those types of answers will get old in a hurry. Then again, there's still an audience for the crap Jerry Springer is peddling, so maybe that's a key to the success.
So yes, I'm rooting for the show to succeed, but I'm selfish. I want it to succeed on my terms. And I'm skeptical that can happen. I suspect that its best chance to succeed is by following the formula Steve Harvey and Family Feud have mastered, dropping periodic sexual references into the show.
There are some folks who have already decided that they don't want the show to succeed, as they are certain a 2016 version could never be as much fun as the classic edition.
ABC probably isn't interested in pleasing them. I'm sure the network will be trying to draw viewers who don't wax nostalgic for the 1970s, and don't incessantly watch the '70s reruns.
I find the idea of rooting against the show to be silly. My expectations are incredibly low, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility we could end up with a show that is as good, or better, than the show we love from the 1970s.
Match Game, after all, started as a straightforward game with Rayburn as its host during the 1960s. Airing more than 1,700 episodes on NBC, the show lacked the comedic elements that the 1970s gave us.
Even during its early episodes from 1973, the new Match Game had some straightforward questions that had no element of humor to them. As the story went, according to that GSN documentary, the show wasn't doing so well out of the gates and the producers opted to go full throttle with the humor since they figured they were about to be canceled, and therefore had nothing to lose.
Had the producers remained faithful to the formula that worked so well in the 1960s, we'd never have had a 10-year run, staring in 1973, that is still highly regarded today.
It's unlikely that lightning will strike again in 2016, and odds are that any success by Baldwin and company won't resonate with me, or others who cherish the classic episodes. But I'm glad to see that ABC and Fremantle, the company that owns Match Game, are going to take another stab at it. Perhaps we'll all be pleasantly surprised, and laugh our blanks off this summer.
Monday, November 23, 2015
What do Wheel of Fortune and Gilligan's Island have in common?
I had a huge affection for “Gilligan’s Island” when I was growing up.
I’m not sure why, but somehow the silly, preposterous scenario captured my imagination as the show aired over and over on weekday afternoons during my youth.
Back then we didn’t have the Internet to help us obsess about a favorite TV show, old or new. We were lucky to find information about our favorite TV shows. Nowadays if you want to find out every last detail about any TV show in production, the Internet will provide you with hours of information. I’ve learned a lot of things about the history of game shows thanks to the Internet.
I learned a few things about Gilligan and company thanks to a comprehensive book I found about 30 years ago, and still have buried in a box somewhere: “The Unofficial Gilligan's Island Handbook.”
The book detailed every episode of the TV show, pointed out flaws in logic and continuity in the episodes, and discussed many facets of the show that were never really addressed. I think the political/leadership structure of the castaways, or lack thereof, was among the topics. The lack of sexual relationships between the castaways was another topic raised by the author.
One of my favorite tidbits that I learned from the book: While it was never noted on the show whether the character’s first or last name was Gilligan, creator Sherwood Schwartz said the character’s first name was Willy.
I read one of those “things you didn’t know about Gilligan’s Island” online articles not so long ago, and learned a thing or two, and reminded of a few other things I have read, but have forgotten. I assume they’re all true, which is dangerous when reading the Internet.
One of the things I don’t think I’ve ever heard: One of the show’s writers and/or producers wanted to introduce a dinosaur character that Gilligan would adopt as a pet. And it would be a talking dinosaur. Schwartz wanted no part of it.
Good thing, the show was preposterous enough without a talking dinosaur.
Not long ago I was dumbfounded by the online response to “Wheel of Fortune” giving away a trip to Paris on the same day that terrorist attacks were occurring in France. People were outraged that a television show was giving away a trip to a city where dozens of people were dying that same day. People really had no idea that the show was taped weeks, if not months, before it aired.
This nugget I read from the “Gilligan’s Island” trivia article is something I had read before, but had forgotten. Wikipedia acknowledges it, as well: “The United States Coast Guard occasionally received telegrams from concerned citizens, who apparently did not realize it was a scripted show, pleading for them to rescue the people on the deserted island. The Coast Guard would simply forward these telegrams to producer Sherwood Schwartz.”
Moral of my story: Our technology advances, our knowledge base expands, but we’ll always have people who are dumbfounded by the miracle of television.
I’m not sure why, but somehow the silly, preposterous scenario captured my imagination as the show aired over and over on weekday afternoons during my youth.
Back then we didn’t have the Internet to help us obsess about a favorite TV show, old or new. We were lucky to find information about our favorite TV shows. Nowadays if you want to find out every last detail about any TV show in production, the Internet will provide you with hours of information. I’ve learned a lot of things about the history of game shows thanks to the Internet.
I learned a few things about Gilligan and company thanks to a comprehensive book I found about 30 years ago, and still have buried in a box somewhere: “The Unofficial Gilligan's Island Handbook.”
The book detailed every episode of the TV show, pointed out flaws in logic and continuity in the episodes, and discussed many facets of the show that were never really addressed. I think the political/leadership structure of the castaways, or lack thereof, was among the topics. The lack of sexual relationships between the castaways was another topic raised by the author.
One of my favorite tidbits that I learned from the book: While it was never noted on the show whether the character’s first or last name was Gilligan, creator Sherwood Schwartz said the character’s first name was Willy.
I read one of those “things you didn’t know about Gilligan’s Island” online articles not so long ago, and learned a thing or two, and reminded of a few other things I have read, but have forgotten. I assume they’re all true, which is dangerous when reading the Internet.
One of the things I don’t think I’ve ever heard: One of the show’s writers and/or producers wanted to introduce a dinosaur character that Gilligan would adopt as a pet. And it would be a talking dinosaur. Schwartz wanted no part of it.
Good thing, the show was preposterous enough without a talking dinosaur.
Not long ago I was dumbfounded by the online response to “Wheel of Fortune” giving away a trip to Paris on the same day that terrorist attacks were occurring in France. People were outraged that a television show was giving away a trip to a city where dozens of people were dying that same day. People really had no idea that the show was taped weeks, if not months, before it aired.
This nugget I read from the “Gilligan’s Island” trivia article is something I had read before, but had forgotten. Wikipedia acknowledges it, as well: “The United States Coast Guard occasionally received telegrams from concerned citizens, who apparently did not realize it was a scripted show, pleading for them to rescue the people on the deserted island. The Coast Guard would simply forward these telegrams to producer Sherwood Schwartz.”
Moral of my story: Our technology advances, our knowledge base expands, but we’ll always have people who are dumbfounded by the miracle of television.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
You mean Wheel of Fortune isn't broadcast live?
There are many, many important things in this world that I know little to nothing about.
And there are things I know a lot about, not because they're important, but because they interest me.
I'm not an encyclopedia of game show knowledge, but I know a lot more than the average person. And that's because game shows have interested and entertained me my entire life. I watched cartoons when I was young, but I was as interested in watching a game show as I was interested in watching cartoons by the time I was 6 or 7 years old. I enjoy the magic of animation, but I don't keep on top of what's happening in the world of animation. But game shows, I usually have some idea of what's out there from year to year, even if I don't gave access to GSN.
Several years ago I was going to Las Vegas in the fall, and it turned out that my trip would coincide with the taping of a new version of "Let's Make a Deal." For the first several months of its CBS incarnation the show was taped at the Tropicana, and I went to see it during my fall 2009 trip to Vegas. I didn't brag about this to everyone I crossed paths with. Had I been going to see "The Price is Right" then perhaps it would have warranted mentioning. LMAD is not a show woven into the fabric of society, it's not a show that everyone can relate to.
But I did mention my LMAD appearance several times, and more than once I received a strange comment in reply to it. I'd get a response along the lines of "that show is still on?" Never mind the fact it had been about 18 years since the show last aired on daytime television. Aside from a couple of short-lived, prime time attempts at resurrecting the show, (only one of which was technically LMAD,) the show had been all but forgotten by most casual viewers. And yet I heard the "still on" comment at least three times. It had just launched on CBS daytime that fall, so my snarky reply was, "Yes, after four weeks it is still on the air."
Not everyone pays an ounce of attention to what is or isn't on TV from one year to the next. Some people want to know when "Judge Judy" will air in their market, other people are far too busy to even know if the show is or isn't on the air these days, especially since so many people stream television programming and forgo traditional broadcast channels.
Last week's "Wheel of Fortune" episodes were special. It was a week saluting veterans, and it featured a couple of players who failed to solve what seemed like ridiculously obvious puzzles. It happens now and then, having it happen twice last week is not particularly notable.
But those cringe-worthy moments were compounded last week by the strange, unusual play of Nura Fountano, a player who will not be forgotten any time soon by diehard viewers of WOF.
Then came the coup de grâce, Friday's show. Given the show's typical airtime in most markets, its broadcast came within a few hours of a series of terrorist attacks across Paris, France. It was major news, and hard to escape the notice of, unless you were taking a long afternoon nap. I, and many other viewers, were aware of the chaos in Paris as our Friday night episode of WOF began.
During the show one of the trips that was offered as a prize on the wheel was a trip to Paris. Yes, unfortunate timing. When the show taped months ago, the producers decided to offer a trip to Paris as one of the prizes during a week dedicated to veterans, never knowing the city would one day be subjected to multiple acts of terrorism. And that show wound up airing on the same day as terrorism made worldwide headlines.
Plenty of people tweeted about the sad coincidence that had just unfolded overseas. Several people were outraged that the show would be so insensitive as to offer a trip to Paris when all hell was breaking loose.
Yes, there are people who have no idea that most TV shows are not live. I was dumbfounded by this. I'm guessing most WOF viewers who tweet are older than 13. And I'm not sure at what age you realize that most programs are pre-recorded, but how do these WOF viewers, casual or not, think that somehow the show insensitively offered a trip to Paris?
I questioned one woman's confusion. (She has since deleted the tweet.) She claimed ignorance, which blew me away. I questioned if she was aware that most TV shows are not live, to which she tried to belittle me for daring to comment to her directly. She also replied that "Dancing with the Stars" is live, as if somehow it's logical to assume every soap opera, prime time drama, talk show and game show is broadcast live. At that point it was time to be snarky, and I responded that I forgot teenage girls watch WOF and use Twitter. Her reply was an accusation of bullying, and pity, because she's an educated adult woman. If so, she's not very cognizant of the world around her.
There's no shame in not knowing the ins and outs of WOF, but I was amazed that allegedly educated adults in this country think the world they view through their television is always as live and spontaneous as the tweets they consume.
They say Twitter is dumbing down society. Chalk up another piece of evidence for the prosecution.
And there are things I know a lot about, not because they're important, but because they interest me.
I'm not an encyclopedia of game show knowledge, but I know a lot more than the average person. And that's because game shows have interested and entertained me my entire life. I watched cartoons when I was young, but I was as interested in watching a game show as I was interested in watching cartoons by the time I was 6 or 7 years old. I enjoy the magic of animation, but I don't keep on top of what's happening in the world of animation. But game shows, I usually have some idea of what's out there from year to year, even if I don't gave access to GSN.
Several years ago I was going to Las Vegas in the fall, and it turned out that my trip would coincide with the taping of a new version of "Let's Make a Deal." For the first several months of its CBS incarnation the show was taped at the Tropicana, and I went to see it during my fall 2009 trip to Vegas. I didn't brag about this to everyone I crossed paths with. Had I been going to see "The Price is Right" then perhaps it would have warranted mentioning. LMAD is not a show woven into the fabric of society, it's not a show that everyone can relate to.
But I did mention my LMAD appearance several times, and more than once I received a strange comment in reply to it. I'd get a response along the lines of "that show is still on?" Never mind the fact it had been about 18 years since the show last aired on daytime television. Aside from a couple of short-lived, prime time attempts at resurrecting the show, (only one of which was technically LMAD,) the show had been all but forgotten by most casual viewers. And yet I heard the "still on" comment at least three times. It had just launched on CBS daytime that fall, so my snarky reply was, "Yes, after four weeks it is still on the air."
Not everyone pays an ounce of attention to what is or isn't on TV from one year to the next. Some people want to know when "Judge Judy" will air in their market, other people are far too busy to even know if the show is or isn't on the air these days, especially since so many people stream television programming and forgo traditional broadcast channels.
Last week's "Wheel of Fortune" episodes were special. It was a week saluting veterans, and it featured a couple of players who failed to solve what seemed like ridiculously obvious puzzles. It happens now and then, having it happen twice last week is not particularly notable.
But those cringe-worthy moments were compounded last week by the strange, unusual play of Nura Fountano, a player who will not be forgotten any time soon by diehard viewers of WOF.
Then came the coup de grâce, Friday's show. Given the show's typical airtime in most markets, its broadcast came within a few hours of a series of terrorist attacks across Paris, France. It was major news, and hard to escape the notice of, unless you were taking a long afternoon nap. I, and many other viewers, were aware of the chaos in Paris as our Friday night episode of WOF began.
During the show one of the trips that was offered as a prize on the wheel was a trip to Paris. Yes, unfortunate timing. When the show taped months ago, the producers decided to offer a trip to Paris as one of the prizes during a week dedicated to veterans, never knowing the city would one day be subjected to multiple acts of terrorism. And that show wound up airing on the same day as terrorism made worldwide headlines.
Plenty of people tweeted about the sad coincidence that had just unfolded overseas. Several people were outraged that the show would be so insensitive as to offer a trip to Paris when all hell was breaking loose.
Yes, there are people who have no idea that most TV shows are not live. I was dumbfounded by this. I'm guessing most WOF viewers who tweet are older than 13. And I'm not sure at what age you realize that most programs are pre-recorded, but how do these WOF viewers, casual or not, think that somehow the show insensitively offered a trip to Paris?
I questioned one woman's confusion. (She has since deleted the tweet.) She claimed ignorance, which blew me away. I questioned if she was aware that most TV shows are not live, to which she tried to belittle me for daring to comment to her directly. She also replied that "Dancing with the Stars" is live, as if somehow it's logical to assume every soap opera, prime time drama, talk show and game show is broadcast live. At that point it was time to be snarky, and I responded that I forgot teenage girls watch WOF and use Twitter. Her reply was an accusation of bullying, and pity, because she's an educated adult woman. If so, she's not very cognizant of the world around her.
There's no shame in not knowing the ins and outs of WOF, but I was amazed that allegedly educated adults in this country think the world they view through their television is always as live and spontaneous as the tweets they consume.
They say Twitter is dumbing down society. Chalk up another piece of evidence for the prosecution.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Wheel of Fortune: Nura, the aftermath
A lot has been said about Nura's bizarre play during the speed-up round of the Nov. 10, 2015, edition of Wheel of Fortune.
There's plenty of online interest in the story, and a lot of that interest is probably from casual fans who didn't see the show, but read the story and have made up their minds.
First, to the best of my knowledge Nura has not spoken about her bizarre play. I still can't find a story that identifies her by her last name. (Update: I have since found a story that notes she is Nura Fountano.) I haven't looked that hard, but the handful of recaps I've read don't give a lot of biographical information about her. I'm a bit surprised she hasn't appeared on a network morning show yet, and it wouldn't surprise me if she does. We'll see.
Many people seem to think that she was bailing out of the puzzle simply to let one of the other two players win money. Steve had yet to win any cash, Troy had won $4,300. If that was her motivation, that's her right, and bravo to her.
Some people get offended when a contestant steamrolls the competition, but you shouldn't have to apologize for luck or skill, and I assume most people on the show want to do their best, so they're not going to essentially disqualify themselves from a puzzle by doing the weird stuff Nura did. If people want to canonize Nura a saint for allegedly handing the puzzle to another player, they're welcome to do so.
Some people think that Nura was convinced she was automatically going to the bonus round, so she could eliminate herself from the puzzle and return after the commercial break. As she proved, and I detailed extensively, her strategy was nearly suicidal, and highly flawed.
Some people who think that was her strategy think it was brilliant. (This is not as widely held of an opinion, as far as I can tell.) My dissertation would suggest those people lack the critical thinking skills, and likely knowledge of the game, to realize why their belief is wrong. That's not a crime, that's just a fact of life regarding just about every topic of debate in this country. There will always be people with flawed opinions based on limited knowledge of a subject. I'm guilty of formulating opinions on topics I have limited knowledge of. It's only natural.
And WOF is hardly an important subject, so those who don't have the time to formulate a knowledgeable opinion on their perceived strategy Nura was employing might be better off in life than I am. We all geek out about different things.
I won't applaud Nura for bowing out of the final puzzle, but I'm not offended by it. I would have loved to read reactions to her strategy, whatever it was, had Troy been able to solve the puzzle and steal the victory from her. Would the aftermath have been more outrageous than it is now? We'll never know.
Bottom line: We don't know why Nura did what she did, but that hasn't stopped many from drawing their own conclusion as if it is a fact.
There's plenty of online interest in the story, and a lot of that interest is probably from casual fans who didn't see the show, but read the story and have made up their minds.
First, to the best of my knowledge Nura has not spoken about her bizarre play. I still can't find a story that identifies her by her last name. (Update: I have since found a story that notes she is Nura Fountano.) I haven't looked that hard, but the handful of recaps I've read don't give a lot of biographical information about her. I'm a bit surprised she hasn't appeared on a network morning show yet, and it wouldn't surprise me if she does. We'll see.
Many people seem to think that she was bailing out of the puzzle simply to let one of the other two players win money. Steve had yet to win any cash, Troy had won $4,300. If that was her motivation, that's her right, and bravo to her.
Some people get offended when a contestant steamrolls the competition, but you shouldn't have to apologize for luck or skill, and I assume most people on the show want to do their best, so they're not going to essentially disqualify themselves from a puzzle by doing the weird stuff Nura did. If people want to canonize Nura a saint for allegedly handing the puzzle to another player, they're welcome to do so.
Some people think that Nura was convinced she was automatically going to the bonus round, so she could eliminate herself from the puzzle and return after the commercial break. As she proved, and I detailed extensively, her strategy was nearly suicidal, and highly flawed.
Some people who think that was her strategy think it was brilliant. (This is not as widely held of an opinion, as far as I can tell.) My dissertation would suggest those people lack the critical thinking skills, and likely knowledge of the game, to realize why their belief is wrong. That's not a crime, that's just a fact of life regarding just about every topic of debate in this country. There will always be people with flawed opinions based on limited knowledge of a subject. I'm guilty of formulating opinions on topics I have limited knowledge of. It's only natural.
And WOF is hardly an important subject, so those who don't have the time to formulate a knowledgeable opinion on their perceived strategy Nura was employing might be better off in life than I am. We all geek out about different things.
I won't applaud Nura for bowing out of the final puzzle, but I'm not offended by it. I would have loved to read reactions to her strategy, whatever it was, had Troy been able to solve the puzzle and steal the victory from her. Would the aftermath have been more outrageous than it is now? We'll never know.
Bottom line: We don't know why Nura did what she did, but that hasn't stopped many from drawing their own conclusion as if it is a fact.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Wheel of Fortune: What was Nura thinking?
In sports it doesn't matter how you win the game. Typically a win or a loss counts the same no matter how artistic or ugly the outcome was.
In baseball a team can win a low scoring game thanks to great pitching and defense. And a team can win a game with relentless slugging and offense.
Wheel of Fortune is not a sport, but like baseball it's a game in which strategy plays a big part of determining the outcome, although its winners often need a bit of luck to earn the victory.
Youtube is filled with videos showing blunders and gaffs by WOF contestants who dream of a victorious appearance on the show, not to mention a bountiful prize package at the end of that day.
On Nov. 10 we saw a woman named Nura Fountano demonstrate some of the most absurd strategy, or lack thereof, we've seen on the show in its 40-plus years. (Don't be fooled by that 33-year talk the syndicated program likes to spew. The show dates back January 1975.)
If you missed it, here's a recap. Most of the game played out like a typical episode of WOF. Contestant No. 1 was Steve, and he wasn't winning a thing. Contestant No. 2 was Troy. His strategy puzzled me a bit, and he had one highly painful moment when he failed to solve the final word of the prize puzzle. Contestant No. 3 was Nura, a woman who seemed to be a sharp player.
The final puzzle was played entirely as a speed-up round. Nura had a $9,670 lead over Troy going into the final puzzle. Troy was the first person to call a letter. Pat Sajak spun $600 for the final spin, making each consonant worth $1,600. Because of that Troy needed to pick seven consonants in the puzzle and solve it in order to win the game. Not an easy task, but not impossible. The final puzzle category was "what are you doing?" and the puzzle was FOLLOWING FOOTPRINTS.
Troy started by calling T. There were two of them. He had $3,200 in his bank. Nura followed by inexplicably calling Z. Sajak was confused by this, as you would expect. The game continued with Steve and Troy calling common consonants from the alphabet. Nura, however, opted for the most obscure consonants. She also called Q and X during the round, and on two of her turns she failed to call any letter, resulting in her turn being skipped due to the time limit she had to work with.
My reaction: I thought she was suddenly drunk. My girlfriend wondered if she was having a medical episode that was impairing her mental faculties. It was that bizarre.
Troy continued to build his bank as this played out, but Steve solved the puzzle. He pocketed $6,400 for the solve. Troy had $9,600 sitting in front of him, but could not cash in.
Had Steve not solved the puzzle, Troy might have been able to do so immediately following Steve's turn. Any one consonant in the puzzle would have put Troy at $11,200 or better for the round, which would have been enough for him to win the game and play the bonus round. With $9,600 in front of him, he would have been $70 short of tying Nura had he cashed in without selecting another consonant.
Nura's strange play put her in a position to lose the game had Steve not finally cashed in on the final puzzle.
Nura seemed to be doing anything she could to avoid winning the game in the final round. Why? We don't know.
Twitter comments about the game included several praising Nura's alleged strategy. The thinking is that her strategy was to not help either opponent solve the puzzle and/or let the opponents share in the wealth, as if she was going to coast to victory. As I just illustrated, she nearly gave the game away.
The strategy might work if it's a small puzzle and you have a lead greater than $9,670. But in this case the strategy was nearly suicidal, assuming she had any interest in winning the game and playing the bonus round.
Those who think Nura was trying to coast to victory while sharing the wealth fail to realize that a far better strategy would have been to try to solve the puzzle. The math proves it.
At $1,600 per consonant, Troy needed to pluck seven consonants from the puzzle, and solve it. The puzzle contained 13 of them. That means he had to get lucky, while his opponents got unlucky, assuming both opponents were trying to solve the puzzle, in order to bank cash for seven consonants.
By not calling logical consonants or not making a selection at all, Nura essentially turned the round into a two-person game. Therefore Troy was competing with only Steve for those 13 consonants on the board. He needed seven of them, and his odds of picking seven improved because of Nura's alleged strategy.
Troy opened with T, and immediately claimed two of the 13 consonants. Had Nura followed with any of the other four common consonants (L, N, R, S), she'd have picked off at least one, leaving Troy needing five of the remaining nine or 10 consonants in the puzzle. With Steve also trying to solve the puzzle, Troy's odds of getting five more would have been slim.
And if Nura was playing to solve the puzzle, by the time the turn came back around to her, she'd have been guaranteed at least one more consonant had she called one of the common consonants, since all five were in the puzzle. And because the puzzle was "what are you doing," we knew there was at least one G in the puzzle. At minimum she would have claimed two consonants, leaving Troy needing seven of the other 11 to beat her. That's a tough hurdle to clear.
Even if Nura would have refused to solve the puzzle, no matter how obvious, by playing to solve it rather than playing as if she were drunk, she would have done a better job of coasting to victory while leaving cash for one of the other two contestants.
All that said, there's another factor that makes playing to solve the puzzle statistically smarter. Players tend to solve the puzzle as soon as they know it during the speed-up round. Because the turn passes with each letter called, there's no guarantee the turn will get back to you. Players seem to solve the puzzle as soon as they know it, regardless of the bank or the score of the game prior to the final round. And if they know the puzzle early, with just a few letters showing, they'll still solve the puzzle, take whatever cash they have and impress Sajak and the audience with their skills. That's just the nature of the game.
I'm sure more than one player has passed up solving a speed-up puzzle in hope of the turn coming back around and banking more cash. If I was playing the game and trailing by $2,000 during the speed-up round, I might pass on solving for $1,600 in the hope that the turn comes back around to me and I can bank more cash, solve the puzzle and win the game. This assumes I have the presence of mind to watch the scoreboard. I'm sure it has been done, although it likely wouldn't have been obvious to the home viewers. But again, under most circumstances, a player is going to solve the speed-up puzzle as soon as he or she can.
Had Nura created a three-way competition for the final round puzzle, odds are either Steve or Troy ends up solving the puzzle before Troy has banked $11,200.
If Nura's strategy was simply to avoid helping either player solve the puzzle, it was bordering on suicidal, given her position. If her strategy was to coast to victory and let one of the other players win additional cash, I just proved why her method was far more dangerous than had she played out the round like a normal human being and simply refused to solve the puzzle.
It doesn't matter how brilliant or lucky a baseball team is on any given day, a win is a win. There are no style points. Blackjack and poker players have strategies, some more sound than others. But the best strategy doesn't guarantee a win. The luck of the cards plays a factor. Nura's strategy was good enough for her to win on that particular day. Against other opponents perhaps she loses the game. Style points don't matter. But it doesn't change the fact her strategy was idiotic, as I proved.
As indicated earlier, a few people tweeted admiration for Nura, assuming she wanted to share the wealth. If that was her motivation, bravo. There's nothing wrong with that, but she gets no kudos from me.
Why do people compete on a game show, at least traditional game show? To win big money. That's what you're there for. In late October a gentleman destroyed his competition. He had good luck throughout the game, and won more than $35,000 during the game. His bonus round prize put his total at more than $80,000. A few tweeters criticized him for not sharing the wealth during the speed-up round. I don't get that.
If you go on WOF, you get one game to win whatever you can. There's no coming back as a returning champion to do it again. It's your one shot to win big. So why wouldn't you try?
If you don't care about coming home with cash and prizes, you're the exception, not the rule. If you're altruistic enough to want others to take home a nice cash prize, you're better than I am. If I'm ever on the show I want to do my best, and demonstrate how good I am at solving tough puzzles. I'm not there to take pity on others if I'm having a better run of luck, or am a better puzzle solver. WOF is not high school football, where the big school is supposed to play reserve players in the second half because it is crushing the small school.
The idea that people should share the wealth on WOF makes no sense. Do people think that returning champions on Jeopardy! should take a dive after they've won $100,000? Did people suggest Ken Jennings should take a dive after he had won $1 million? Why shouldn't he have shared the wealth with one of those opponents he bested during his 74-game wining streak?
Nura had the right to take a dive and the right to let another player share the wealth. If she was motivated to do the latter, I find that bizarre. But I don't have to understand the rationale for it. If she was guilty of the former, it was poorly thought out, at best, assuming she was the least bit interested in winning the game.
Tweeters are welcome to admire her for the perceived act of charity. Tweeters who praise her perceived strategy, however, don't seem to realize just how poor and unintelligent the strategy was.
In baseball a team can win a low scoring game thanks to great pitching and defense. And a team can win a game with relentless slugging and offense.
Wheel of Fortune is not a sport, but like baseball it's a game in which strategy plays a big part of determining the outcome, although its winners often need a bit of luck to earn the victory.
Youtube is filled with videos showing blunders and gaffs by WOF contestants who dream of a victorious appearance on the show, not to mention a bountiful prize package at the end of that day.
On Nov. 10 we saw a woman named Nura Fountano demonstrate some of the most absurd strategy, or lack thereof, we've seen on the show in its 40-plus years. (Don't be fooled by that 33-year talk the syndicated program likes to spew. The show dates back January 1975.)
If you missed it, here's a recap. Most of the game played out like a typical episode of WOF. Contestant No. 1 was Steve, and he wasn't winning a thing. Contestant No. 2 was Troy. His strategy puzzled me a bit, and he had one highly painful moment when he failed to solve the final word of the prize puzzle. Contestant No. 3 was Nura, a woman who seemed to be a sharp player.
The final puzzle was played entirely as a speed-up round. Nura had a $9,670 lead over Troy going into the final puzzle. Troy was the first person to call a letter. Pat Sajak spun $600 for the final spin, making each consonant worth $1,600. Because of that Troy needed to pick seven consonants in the puzzle and solve it in order to win the game. Not an easy task, but not impossible. The final puzzle category was "what are you doing?" and the puzzle was FOLLOWING FOOTPRINTS.
Troy started by calling T. There were two of them. He had $3,200 in his bank. Nura followed by inexplicably calling Z. Sajak was confused by this, as you would expect. The game continued with Steve and Troy calling common consonants from the alphabet. Nura, however, opted for the most obscure consonants. She also called Q and X during the round, and on two of her turns she failed to call any letter, resulting in her turn being skipped due to the time limit she had to work with.
My reaction: I thought she was suddenly drunk. My girlfriend wondered if she was having a medical episode that was impairing her mental faculties. It was that bizarre.
Troy continued to build his bank as this played out, but Steve solved the puzzle. He pocketed $6,400 for the solve. Troy had $9,600 sitting in front of him, but could not cash in.
Had Steve not solved the puzzle, Troy might have been able to do so immediately following Steve's turn. Any one consonant in the puzzle would have put Troy at $11,200 or better for the round, which would have been enough for him to win the game and play the bonus round. With $9,600 in front of him, he would have been $70 short of tying Nura had he cashed in without selecting another consonant.
Nura's strange play put her in a position to lose the game had Steve not finally cashed in on the final puzzle.
Nura seemed to be doing anything she could to avoid winning the game in the final round. Why? We don't know.
Twitter comments about the game included several praising Nura's alleged strategy. The thinking is that her strategy was to not help either opponent solve the puzzle and/or let the opponents share in the wealth, as if she was going to coast to victory. As I just illustrated, she nearly gave the game away.
The strategy might work if it's a small puzzle and you have a lead greater than $9,670. But in this case the strategy was nearly suicidal, assuming she had any interest in winning the game and playing the bonus round.
Those who think Nura was trying to coast to victory while sharing the wealth fail to realize that a far better strategy would have been to try to solve the puzzle. The math proves it.
At $1,600 per consonant, Troy needed to pluck seven consonants from the puzzle, and solve it. The puzzle contained 13 of them. That means he had to get lucky, while his opponents got unlucky, assuming both opponents were trying to solve the puzzle, in order to bank cash for seven consonants.
By not calling logical consonants or not making a selection at all, Nura essentially turned the round into a two-person game. Therefore Troy was competing with only Steve for those 13 consonants on the board. He needed seven of them, and his odds of picking seven improved because of Nura's alleged strategy.
Troy opened with T, and immediately claimed two of the 13 consonants. Had Nura followed with any of the other four common consonants (L, N, R, S), she'd have picked off at least one, leaving Troy needing five of the remaining nine or 10 consonants in the puzzle. With Steve also trying to solve the puzzle, Troy's odds of getting five more would have been slim.
And if Nura was playing to solve the puzzle, by the time the turn came back around to her, she'd have been guaranteed at least one more consonant had she called one of the common consonants, since all five were in the puzzle. And because the puzzle was "what are you doing," we knew there was at least one G in the puzzle. At minimum she would have claimed two consonants, leaving Troy needing seven of the other 11 to beat her. That's a tough hurdle to clear.
Even if Nura would have refused to solve the puzzle, no matter how obvious, by playing to solve it rather than playing as if she were drunk, she would have done a better job of coasting to victory while leaving cash for one of the other two contestants.
All that said, there's another factor that makes playing to solve the puzzle statistically smarter. Players tend to solve the puzzle as soon as they know it during the speed-up round. Because the turn passes with each letter called, there's no guarantee the turn will get back to you. Players seem to solve the puzzle as soon as they know it, regardless of the bank or the score of the game prior to the final round. And if they know the puzzle early, with just a few letters showing, they'll still solve the puzzle, take whatever cash they have and impress Sajak and the audience with their skills. That's just the nature of the game.
I'm sure more than one player has passed up solving a speed-up puzzle in hope of the turn coming back around and banking more cash. If I was playing the game and trailing by $2,000 during the speed-up round, I might pass on solving for $1,600 in the hope that the turn comes back around to me and I can bank more cash, solve the puzzle and win the game. This assumes I have the presence of mind to watch the scoreboard. I'm sure it has been done, although it likely wouldn't have been obvious to the home viewers. But again, under most circumstances, a player is going to solve the speed-up puzzle as soon as he or she can.
Had Nura created a three-way competition for the final round puzzle, odds are either Steve or Troy ends up solving the puzzle before Troy has banked $11,200.
If Nura's strategy was simply to avoid helping either player solve the puzzle, it was bordering on suicidal, given her position. If her strategy was to coast to victory and let one of the other players win additional cash, I just proved why her method was far more dangerous than had she played out the round like a normal human being and simply refused to solve the puzzle.
It doesn't matter how brilliant or lucky a baseball team is on any given day, a win is a win. There are no style points. Blackjack and poker players have strategies, some more sound than others. But the best strategy doesn't guarantee a win. The luck of the cards plays a factor. Nura's strategy was good enough for her to win on that particular day. Against other opponents perhaps she loses the game. Style points don't matter. But it doesn't change the fact her strategy was idiotic, as I proved.
As indicated earlier, a few people tweeted admiration for Nura, assuming she wanted to share the wealth. If that was her motivation, bravo. There's nothing wrong with that, but she gets no kudos from me.
Why do people compete on a game show, at least traditional game show? To win big money. That's what you're there for. In late October a gentleman destroyed his competition. He had good luck throughout the game, and won more than $35,000 during the game. His bonus round prize put his total at more than $80,000. A few tweeters criticized him for not sharing the wealth during the speed-up round. I don't get that.
If you go on WOF, you get one game to win whatever you can. There's no coming back as a returning champion to do it again. It's your one shot to win big. So why wouldn't you try?
If you don't care about coming home with cash and prizes, you're the exception, not the rule. If you're altruistic enough to want others to take home a nice cash prize, you're better than I am. If I'm ever on the show I want to do my best, and demonstrate how good I am at solving tough puzzles. I'm not there to take pity on others if I'm having a better run of luck, or am a better puzzle solver. WOF is not high school football, where the big school is supposed to play reserve players in the second half because it is crushing the small school.
The idea that people should share the wealth on WOF makes no sense. Do people think that returning champions on Jeopardy! should take a dive after they've won $100,000? Did people suggest Ken Jennings should take a dive after he had won $1 million? Why shouldn't he have shared the wealth with one of those opponents he bested during his 74-game wining streak?
Nura had the right to take a dive and the right to let another player share the wealth. If she was motivated to do the latter, I find that bizarre. But I don't have to understand the rationale for it. If she was guilty of the former, it was poorly thought out, at best, assuming she was the least bit interested in winning the game.
Tweeters are welcome to admire her for the perceived act of charity. Tweeters who praise her perceived strategy, however, don't seem to realize just how poor and unintelligent the strategy was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)