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.

What is good news?

What a long, strange trip it has been. 

Casual viewers of TV's Jeopardy! wouldn't have a clue, but the online world of game show fanatics -- which can include me -- has been at war for a long, long time. 

Some of us thought Ken Jennings, a guy with no professional broadcasting experience that I know of, has been a host on Jeopardy. Others are adamant that Mayim Bialik, an actress with an extensive on-camera resume, was far superior as the host of Jeopardy. 

If you don't know how we ended up with two hosts of Jeopardy after the death of Alex Trebek, you're reading the wrong blog. 

Word circulated the other night that TV's Blossom would no longer share the job of hosting the daily Jeopardy game. She had been hosting a celebrity competition created for ABC's prime time schedule, and a big college tournament that also aired in prime time on ABC.

Bialik made the announcement via social media, evidently. Sony, Jeopardy's parent company, suggested in a statement that while she's no longer working on the daily game, the company looks forward to working with her on future prime time specials. 

Maybe the will, maybe the won't. 

In August 2021 Sony announced that Mike Richards, the show's executive producer, would replace Trebek. Bialik would be hired to host prime time specials. It was a surprise, as there was no indication that Jeopardy was going to have a consistent prime time presence. Bialik, who people seem to agree is beyond intelligent, was a guest host after Trebek's death, and somehow dazzled somebody at Sony. I didn't see whatever Sony execs saw, but I don't have to. 

There were theories as to why Bialik was so beloved by Sony rather unexpectedly. Only the execs know for sure. 

When Richards was bounced from the hosting gig after taping five episodes in late summer 2021, Sony opted to go with a temporary solution, they brought in both Bialik and Jennings as temporary hosts, splitting the duties for what ended up being just about an entire year of shows. In the meantime, Bialik began hosting prime time offerings for ABC. 

Fans, including me, thought that after a year, Sony would choose one as the full-time host of the daily game. The online fanatics made it clear on any article shared via Facebook about the hosting carousel that Jennings was far superior to Bialik, or vice versa. Some vowed not to watch the host they disliked, although I've questioned the wisdom. A bad hosts takes away from a show, but how bad does a host have to rub you in order to boycott a game show. I have noted this before: I'm weird, I watch a game show because it's an entertaining game, not because of who is hosting it. 

After a year, Sony decided to have Bialik and Jennings split the duties on an ongoing basis. That lasted almost one season. The Writers Guild of America strike earlier in 2023 resulted in Bialik bailing out on her Jeopardy duties in support of the writers. Some suggested she was part of the guild, as she might have been a contributing writer to shows she has worked on. I don't know, all I know is that some folks couldn't applaud loudly enough for her standing up for the writers. And because the writers were on strike, and Jeopardy employs guild writers for its questions, Jennings was deemed a scab for continuing to host. 

Never mind he's not an actor, or a writer, to the best of my knowledge. Maybe he is  a member of a Hollywood union. I don't know. Was he a scab? I thought a scab was a person who defied their union's strike to continue working, or took a striking worker's job. Some say it's anyone who goes to work at a job where others are striking, even if their job/union is not striking. 

I wasn't surprised by the lavish praise for Bialik from her apologists. She was doing what she believed in, or what was right. Jennings was a bad guy. 

But funny, nobody seemed bothered by all the other scabs. I never heard anyone call out the production crew of the show. I'm talking about camera operators, sound and light technicians, editors who packaged the production into 30 minutes, contestant coordinators who helped facilitate the daily competition or public relations personnel who send out press releases and handle other media duties of the show. Wouldn't they all be scabs, too, if Jennings is a scab? But nobody seemed bothered by the fact dozens of people continued to produce Jeopardy and continue drawing a paycheck. Bialik apologists were quick to vilify Jennings, but nobody seemed upset that the entire show's crew was working while writers were on strike. 

Bialik wasn't fired by Sony, but she seemed to be a bit forgotten as promotion for the new season of Jeopardy rolled out at the end of this past summer. The strike had been going on for a few months, and Jennings was the only host around. He continued hosting the daily game, but was also given the prime time gig as host of the celebrity edition this past fall. At that point the actors, represented by two merged unions, SAG-AFTRA, were on strike. To this point, no new prime time tournaments have been announced, as far as I know. 

Sony didn't say that Jennings was the permanent host of the celebrity show, which I don't expect will have a long prime time life, but it confirmed Bialik is done on the daily show. The lame excuse Jeopardy used: "To maintain continuity for our viewers."

It's not as if the duo was swapping the podium daily. They'd host the show for weeks at a time, typically. I get that folks who like one host and dislike the other are going to have trouble sleeping without hosting continuity. But it's not as if the show was turning the world upside down by having two hosts. From what I've read, neither host was clearly outdrawing the other in terms of viewership. It that's to be believed, then perhaps I'm not the only person who watches Jeopardy for the game, not the host. 

So why did Bialik get dismissed from the daily game? I've read theories. 

TV's Randy West pointed out that while she was supporting the union(s), her absence and continued favorable ratings with Jennings at the helm only helped entrench him as the host in the eyes and minds of viewers and/or Sony executives. 

Some people think her dismissal was retribution for her support of the union(s). Maybe, I don't know. But it's not as if she backstabbed Sony, it's not as if she left the production high and dry. I have no doubt Jennings was happy to take on the additional workload. Unlike other game shows, Jeopardy had two hosts. It was easy to leave Bialik on the sidelines during the strike and continue business as usual with Jennings at the helm. 

It's not as if Jeopardy had to replace its host on short notice, like Wheel of Fortune did a few years ago when Pat Sajak was ill and unable to host. Vanna White was far from smooth as host for two weeks.

I'll throw out my own theory regarding why Sony handed Bialik an early holiday bonus of more free time in her professional life: Jennings is better at hosting the show and they could no longer deny it, regardless of whatever it was that had Sony execs so enamored with Bialik once upon a time. 

I don't think having two hosts during the season was such a crime, but the fanatics have scorned Sony for the awful decision. (Most of the credit goes to Michael Davies, the current executive producer.) I don't think it helped the show. Viewers were likely to have a favorite host, and be disappointed when their favorite wasn't hosting. The ratings didn't seem to bounce when the host changed, so there's no reason to think the show was going to fluctuate wildly with the return of Bialik. 

But we like consistency and reliability in our world, typically. While I think it's a bit of a farce to claim that it was important for viewer continuity to have the same host, we value familiarity, and Sony deemed it was important, too. Simple as that. 

The $64,000 question: Will we see Bialik return as the host of some future prime time tournament on ABC?

All I can do is guess, and my guess is we've seen the last of Bialik behind the podium. And if so, I have no complaints. 

Happy birthday Bob Barker

Bob Barker was trending on Twitter yesterday. 

And that wasn't a surprise. Although it has been more than three months since he died, Dec. 12 would have been his 100th birthday. 

There has been a modest tribute to Bob's life happening in recent days of faux-cable channel Buzzr. They trotted out episodes of game shows not called The Price is Right to honor Bob. Bob appeared on a few game shows that weren't his own during his lifetime, most notably Match Game and Tattletales. Buzzr got a lot of play out of them.

Although Buzzr does not air The Price is Right, it did air TPIR's very recent tribute to Bob that Drew Carey hosted. 

Barker has been a constant, however, on his own 24/7 streaming channel, launched in December 2020. That streaming channel, originally available only on faux-cable system Pluto, is also available on every Pluto clone I'm familiar with. "The Barker Era" channel has been airing an hour of first season TPIR episodes during prime time in recent days. I didn't watch a lot of those, and wouldn't watch them daily, but it was nice to see a few 1972-73 episodes, then 30 minutes in length, mixed in with the giant loop of early 1980s episodes that the channel has been churning through, and slowly adding to, since its inception. 

All of this was planned in anticipation of celebrating Bob's 100th birthday. His death at 99 turned these into birthday/memorial celebrations. 

I'll always appreciate Bob's natural skills as an emcee and general personality as a host. He was a lot of fun to watch growing up, and I was lucky enough to see him host six episodes of TPIR in my lifetime. I'm bitter I was never called as a contestant, but that's another story. 

As most tributes go, Bob is remembered fondly and praised for his work. And that's deserved. 

I don't despise the man, I don't refuse to watch him in perpetual rerun. But I don't sing his praises, either. 

I remember being slightly stunned when I first started watching early '80s TPIR episodes three years ago. It was a different time, we had different sensibilities, I am well aware. But I was a bit surprised to hear Bob's sexist remarks on the show. Were they criminal? No, but they wouldn't fly today. 

Bob would occasionally remark and lavish praise, so to speak, on young women who might find their way on stage alongside him, particularly if they were wearing short skirts. He'd make simple remarks, such as how a woman was much more interesting once she could be seen fully on stage next to him, or how the camera operators were so interested in a contestant. Far from criminal, but a bit creepy. 

One other comment that Bob made in the early '80s that stands out: A contestant on stage noted that she worked as an aerobics instructor. Bob remarked that TPIR could use her, as they had a lot of fat women at the show. He specified women. The audience leered a bit, I think. 

I don't care if it was a more tolerant era, there's no pretending that wasn't tacky and insulting in the 1980s. 

Bob got older, times changed and by the time he retired in 2007 he wasn't openly leering at young women, not that I recall. I'm sure he wasn't unique in his views and comments back in the early '80s, and watching him four decades ago will make me cringe occasionally, but I can accept some of his lesser moments in broadcasting. I am not without fault in my life, and I have to live with myself. I can live with Bob's faults, too. 

But the reason why I don't celebrate his career and endorse him as my favorite game show host of all time is because, like too many successful, powerful men in television, Bob took advantage of his position. 

Nobody has ever accused him of actions comparable to those of Bill Cosby, not that I recall, but during the 1990s his name was bandied about by former models and/or employees of the show who claimed Bob was less than honorable in his dealings with them. Bob may have been the host of the show, but I seem to recall he was given some executive power as time went on, which is not unheard of. With that power, a near 70-year-old Barker ended up having some sort of relationship with model Dian Parkinson. 

I haven't read a lot of extensive reporting on Bob's legal issues from the 1990s, but Dian was eventually terminated. She filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Barker as a result. Allegedly the legal wrangling would affect the other models on the show, as the women were asked to protect the show through their testimony, and their failure to adequately do so resulted in their dismissals, as well. 

It was a tangled web that spanned several years. How much was Barker guilty of? I don't know, but I'm a big believer in the smoke/fire analogy. Model Holly Hallstrom's successful lawsuit in 2005, 10 years after she was dismissed from the show, certainly makes me think Bob was less than an honorable guy when it came to the models who worked alongside him. By successful I mean that she got a big fat settlement at the last minute, and wasn't bought off early, with a non-disclosure clause. She took the settlement, but not a gag order, and was willing to go to trial to resolve the matter. She won, despite a settlement.

Bob was a great emcee and an engaging personality. He had incredible success hosting two long-running game shows during his career, with the first being Truth or Consequences, which he hosted for nearly 20 years, the last few concurrently with this Price is Right tenure. He'll always be listed among the greatest game show hosts of all time. And deservedly so. 

But I can't celebrate his longevity and forget how he tarnished his legacy during the 1990s. If nothing else, his would-be 100th birthday reminds me, again, that even beloved, successful people are not without their flaws, too. 

What is "Exhausted?"

I swear this will be the last thing I write, good or bad, about the future of Jeopardy.

I'm not exactly blogging on a daily basis about game shows, but I'm bored with the ongoing saga that is the Jeopardy host search. 

I wrote about names being floated as a potential new host more than two years ago. I was satisfied with the choice of a game show executive and occasional emcee, Mike Richards, being chosen as the new host. Disappointed, I was, but satisfied. 

And then 36 hours after I recorded a podcast, during which I endorsed the choice of Richards, despite some scrutiny of his past, it all went drastically wrong for Richards. And here we are. 

Nobody cares what I think when it comes to who's next, but here I am, nonetheless. 

I no longer care. I'll watch it, or I won't. Either way, it just doesn't matter to me any more. 

I didn't care for the parade of guest hosts on Jeopardy, and I wasn't offended by it. I read way too many articles the past several months about which host was the best, who might be in the running or why a few fans of the show were dying to see LeVar Burton host the game. It was amusing. 

I'm officially bored with the stories, speculation and questionable reporting about what will happen next. 

I grew up watching game shows, in an era where they may have been a dozen being produced on a consistent basis for daytime and syndicated television viewing. I watch game shows for a good game, or a fun game. I don't watch because of who the emcee is. I liked some emcees more than others, but I can't recall ever ignoring a game show because I had no appreciation or respect for the host. 

Today's weird world of televised entertainment has changed all that. So be it. I'm one viewer, nobody needs me. 

Jeopardy is an established game show. It has ascended to some sort of god-like status that I never imagined in 1984. The host is no longer just an emcee. Somehow the host is now a deity. I guess I've been in denial of that. 

All I want is an emcee for the game. Somebody competent and personable. Viewers today must look at the hosts of game shows as entertainers. Too often we see comedians hosting shows, not emcees. You can be both. You can be one, and learn to be the other. But all I want is an emcee. I'm weird. 

I won't boycott Jeopardy if Mayim Bialik is the new, full-time host. And I'm sure she'd love the job if it is offered. 

Allegedly she had been the first choice of the Sony honchos in charge of Jeopardy, but it wasn't going to work with her latest sitcom obligations. I'd wager $2,000 she'd dump that sitcom as fast as possible if it meant she could land the Jeopardy gig outright, rather than the prime time specials and future projects she has been offered thus far. Jeopardy has the potential to be a long-term gig, and it's unlikely any sitcom role she has or will be offered will ever offer the potential of job security the Jeopardy gig promises. 

The renewed search for a new host suggested early on that it was Ken Jennings' job to lose. I think he would have been the first choice previously if it weren't for the fact he's periodically both unfunny and offensive on Twitter. Articles of the past week suggest that's the case.

I've read plenty of handicapping of what Jeopardy might do next, after it airs one week of shows that Richards hosted, and three fill-in weeks featuring Bialik. Some opinions, not surprisingly, lobby for Bialik. Some say Burton should now get the gig. 

Both were OK during their run. I barely sampled Burton's efforts during the week he was a guest host. In both cases, I was reminded I was watching an actor hosting a game show. I don't want to watch an actor host a game show. I want to watch an emcee.

Hire an emcee for the gig. Jennings doesn't fit the mold, but he's not an actor. He's still a better choice than Bialik or Burton. 

When the decision is finally made, and we move on as a country, I'll watch, or I won't. Either way, I am done caring about who the next host is, because I'm not the viewer Jeopardy is worried about. I'm a guy who wants to watch a good game show, and that's not the audience the honchos at Sony are catering to. 

I'll let people know I like, or don't like, the next host, and leave it at that. 

What is "Disappointed?"

Count me among those are disappointed that Ken Jennings isn't going to be the new host of Jeopardy.

He seemed to be the choice of many game show enthusiasts, based upon the wacky online world I navigate. 

Perhaps the most famous champion in Jeopardy history, Jennings seemed poised to make the improbable leap from contestant to host. He catapulted to a level of celebrity we seldom see by game show contestants. Plenty of people get their 15 minutes thanks to a game show, I can't recall any contestant who has become more of a household name than Jennings, thanks to a game show, in my adult life. 

But today we learned that, indeed, Mike Richards is the new host. (Who?)

Did Jennings lose out on the job because he has been less than perfect on Twitter? How much those insensitive/offensive quips/jokes years ago played into the decision, we'll never know. Or did Sony, the parent company of Jeopardy, choose another Alex Trebek simply because that's the right thing to do? 

Richards, our new host, doesn't have the name recognition of a Bob Barker. But he's not a bad choice, and not entirely surprising. 

The guy has a healthy resume, and it's primarily in game shows. He has at least one "reality" show on his resume, as well, and most of his career has been behind the camera. He has hosted a couple of traditional game shows on the Game Show Network, but he brings no familiarity to most casual game show enthusiasts. I wouldn't be surprised if most Jeopardy viewers had no idea who he was until he took a two-week turn as a guest host, immediately following six weeks of hosting by Jennings. 

While there was speculation that Sony might choose a celebrity to take over the show, I doubted it. Several news anchors/broadcasters took a turn at the podium in the past several months. Once upon a time, game shows looked to such folks as possible hosts for a show. Jeopardy certainly could have offered the gig to a broadcaster, but I didn't think any of the guest hosts they trotted out were likely to leave the gigs they have for the Jeopardy job. 

I didn't expect NFL malcontent Erin Rodgers would get the job, either. He did fine, and he would have loved the gig. He might have even been willing to retire if the job was offered to him on that condition. The guy loves swimming in the celebrity pool when he's not playing football, and having a potential long-term gig as the host of Jeopardy would have ensured his place among the Hollywood glitterati, potentially for decades. 

Rodgers would have brought a few new eyeballs to the show, I suppose, but he might have rubbed a few of the hardcore Jeopardy fans the wrong way. He did just fine as a guest host, and would have been fine as a long-term host, I suspect. But at the end of the day, it seems appropriate that Jeopardy is helmed by somebody who brings an air of authority to the proceedings. 

And Jennings would have done just that. 

Yet they went with Trebek 2.0.

Everybody raves about how effortless, precise and flawless Trebek did the job for nearly four decades. I concur. And he was pretty good at it back in the 1980s, as well. But I doubt many people looked at Trebek as an intellectual elite in 1984. The guy was a Canadian refugee, and a somewhat successful game show host when Jeopardy returned to television with him at the podium. 

I was familiar with Trebek when Jeopardy launched its current run. I was watching game shows, and I had seen him host a couple. He had about 10 years of television experience in the United States, and gigs prior to that in Canada. And his greatest success in the United States was High Rollers, a show that ran for a few years under two separate runs. It was a dice game with general knowledge and trivia questions, far from the mental exercise that Jeopardy runs its contestants through. 

Trebek had hosted a couple of cerebral games prior to Jeopardy, but he didn't bring any great intellectual cachet to the proceedings. He was a solid, well-traveled emcee who turned out to be the right host at the right time. 

Richards has a long resume in the industry, too, and he is a lot like the guy he is replacing. He's a polished, experienced emcee. History has repeated itself. 

Some of the game show experts have chimed in online today. And by experts I'm talking about people like me, who don't work in the industry. The experts think Jeopardy's announcement that Richards will host the daily game, and that actress Mayim Bialik will host previously unannounced prime time specials and a potential spinoff series, is Sony hedging its bets, as if it's concerned that Richards may tank, and the show will suffer. So perhaps Sony is prepping Bialik as a backup plan by having her host prime time specials.

Maybe there's an ounce of concern in Sony's plan, but most of us who watch Jeopardy didn't tune in to see if Trebek was going to make a funny quip during the contestant interviews. We tuned in to watch a competitive game, with substantial money on the line. We'll keep tuning in, and Richards will do just fine.

If anything, Bialik is the lesser of the two talents. She brings a well-established air of authority to the proceedings, and is a successful actress. As a host, I found her style to be slightly distracting during her guest stint. Was it enough that I couldn't watch the show? No, of course not. But she isn't an emcee by nature, and that's what I want when I watch a game show, especially Jeopardy.

And it's atypical these days, but it's not unheard of to have two separate versions of a show airing with separate hosts. Everyone associates The Price is Right with Barker. And for more than three decades he was the host of the daytime show on CBS. But there was a separate nighttime version of the game that ran in three different incarnations. And each one had a separate host. The most successful was the first one, which ran for about eight years during the 1970s. Barker did take over as host of that, but for its first five years or so, a guy named Dennis James was the host at night. 

The long running Pyramid game show had a similar set up in the 1970s. Dick Clark hosted the daytime show, a nighttime version was helmed by Bill Cullen. 

Steve Harvey is hosting both the regular and the celebrity versions of Family Feud, but prior to Harvey, NBC's Al Roker hosted a celebrity edition rather than the daytime host, John O'Hurley, in 2008. 

O'Hurley wasn't exactly an institution during his tenure as the Feud host, and neither is Mike Richards. If Sony is looking to differentiate special prime time Jeopardy episodes, a separate host makes sense to me. (Nobody seemed upset that sportscaster Dan Patrick hosted a few years of Sports Jeopardy, which Trebek probably would have enjoyed and had fun with, given its casual atmosphere.)

Jennings will do just fine without the gig, and I have no reason to believe Jeopardy will go in the tank with Trebek 2.0 at the helm.

I would have made different choices had it been my call. And so would everyone else who watches the show, based on the fan feedback I read during the first 12 hours of the announcement. But it's 1984 all over again, and Jeopardy will be just fine. 

Bob Barker reminds us 2020 hasn't been all bad

Here it comes, nonstop Bob Barker!

Much to the surprise of seemingly everyone who adores game shows of the past, Bob Barker is back on TV. 

Well, sort of, but nobody is complaining. 

On Nov. 30 it was announced that Barker episodes of The Price is Right would be available, 24 hours a day, through Pluto TV, the streaming television app that amazes me. 

Pluto TV is like its own cable system, and its channels are available through an app for your phone and your fancy TV. When I found it a few years ago, when streaming video apps were a hot new commodity, I thought it was an interesting concept, albeit a bit clunky. Pluto seemed like a depository for streaming channels that weren't worthy of their own app on your smart TV. The commercial breaks were usually poorly inserted into the programming, and some of the channels featured content akin to watching amateur YouTube videos. 

I've watched Pluto evolve over the years, and am a bit amazed at how it has expanded. Every month Pluto seems to add multiple channels. In some cases the channels are simply duplication of existing outlets available elsewhere, such as home shopping channels and Buzzr, a classic game show channel that is available as a diginet in many cities, including Minneapolis. (Buzzr also streams its channel through its own website.)

Other Pluto channels are dedicated to classic television shows. You can currently watch episodes of Love Boat, Three's Company, One Day at a Time, classic Doctor Who, Wings and The Addams Family, among others, any time day or night. There are also channels that feature a rotation of classic TV shows, and there's an on-demand arm of Pluto for some television shows and movies. 

And I didn't mention then news, sports, cinema or streaming music channels Pluto offers, as this isn't about Pluto. 

With little notice, it was announced Nov. 30 that Pluto was adding 24/7 Bob Barker as of Dec. 1. And for fans of yesteryear and Barker's hosting, it is glorious. 

The show is under the ownership of Fremantle, a television heavyweight that owns the catalogs and intellectual property of multiple production companies of the past. It owns a ton of game shows, including the catalog of Goodson-Todman, the prolific company that was churning out plenty of heavy hitters in the game show biz during the 1970s and '80s, including Match Game and Family Feud. 

In 1994 game show fans were gifted with a cable channel, Game Show Network, that licensed the rights to rerun game shows of the past. I will forgo recounting the roller coaster that is GSN's history, but I will note that in its early years GSN aired classic Barker episodes. But those haven't been on GSN for many years. 

More than five years ago we were blessed with Buzzr, a fake cable channel launched by Fremantle. Using its catalog of classic game shows, the free digital television channel has been running a modest selection of episodes from Fremantle's vast archive. But it has never included The Price is Right, either the Barker era or shows from the past 12 seasons featuring Drew Carey as the host. (Black-and-white ere shows from the 1950s, hosted by Bill Cullen, have shown up on Buzzr occasionally, but it's a very different show than Barker's version.)

I've never read why Buzzr doesn't carry the most valuable game show in Fremantle's catalog, but I have to assume that it has something to do with its existing contract with CBS, which has aired the show since 1972. I'm only guessing. 

So it quite the surprise to learn that Fremantle was making Barker episodes available exclusively through Pluto, 24 hours a day. 

Bob in all his glory

Bob loved chatting with the contestants.

I sampled a few hours of the show on Dec. 1, and it's as entertaining as I remember. (This is not a shock, I have occasionally watched bits and pieces of Barker's catalog through videos posted on YouTube. There's no shortage of partial and full episodes of varying quality available any time you want.)

Pluto launched with season 11 episodes, meaning the 1982-83 season. It is believed that season 11 was chosen because it is the first year the show no longer offered fur coats, something Barker wanted nothing to do with, according to many reports. 

Those early '80s episodes look as dated as you would expect, and they're still a ton of fun. From the sound of Johnny Olson's voice beckoning contestants to "come on down" to the fashions and hairstyles of the models and audience, it's all glorious. 

In the early '80s, people dressed up, at least somewhat, to attend a taping. Shorts, baseball caps and T-shirts proclaiming love for all things TPIR are hard to spot in the audience. I've seen a few people wearing jeans, and I've seen men wearing suits. Anyone wearing a suit to TPIR today would look highly out of place. 

Today's TPIR is rather streamlined, allowing for more commercials within its 60 minutes. Once upon a time, Bob bantered with contestants as they arrived in contestant's row or joined him on stage. If he was getting a good response from the audience, his banter with a contestant may last for a minute. You'd never see that today. 

Watching nearly 40-year-old episodes of the show highlighted details of its evolution that I had forgotten. Some of it is rather trivial. When the models were showing off a new car, they typically held a small sign with the manufacturer's name on it initially. I'm not sure why that was important. 

If it's not on a handheld sign, how is the viewer supposed to understand it's a Chrysler?

Today's TPIR still relies upon groceries and small household products for its pricing games. In the past, those products were plugged by name. Every last one, presumably because they paid a fee to be plugged in a pricing game. Nowadays you'll see a recognizable grocery item, but it often won't be referenced by name. This was not lost upon me, but you don't appreciate how many products were plugged until you watch a vintage episode. 

The pricing games are a bit simpler in design, and a little less flashy, than their modern counterparts, but they're still fun. Occasionally the '80s technology comes up short during an episode, and you will see some of those technical glitches in the show. I think those sorts of things still happen, but with less frequency in 2020. 

Barker played to, and off, the crowd frequently. He'd turn to the audience for a response at some point most every day, it seemed. And he'd be quick to point out when the consensus from the audience was wrong. 

He also ribbed contestants occasionally. During one episode he joked about how he had told them during a commercial break he would kick them in the ankles if they failed to spin the wheel one full revolution during the Showcase Showdown. He continued with this bit by suggesting he'd move to the knees, and then suggested working his way up toward the head. In the early '80s, this was seen as playful and fun. It wasn't mean spirited, but I suspect such proclamations from Drew Carey in 2020 might not be laughed off. 

So far I've seen a few retired games show up in moments I've watched. One was Poker Game, which was in the rotation for more than three decades and was retired in 2007. It was mostly a guessing game, but I found it entertaining. 

Make a better hand for yourself than you do for the house, and you win a prize!

Another game that showed up in 1982 was Trader Bob, a game that ran for about five years in the early '80s. The game simulates a trading post, but isn't that exciting. It basically requires players to pick the more expensive item from three pairs of small prizes in order to win a bedroom set or dining room group. 

It's Optional was another game that had a five-year run, starting in 1978. It wasn't used frequently, according to online reports, and that's probably because the contestant was playing for two new cars. The episode I saw featured two Ford Escorts. The premise of the game is to guess which options to add to the price of a stripped down car so that the price of the car is comparable to that of a fancier car, without going over. I'm guessing in most instances a contestant had to pick out about $1,000 worth of options to equalize the price of the two vehicles, with a $100 margin or error. 

It's Optional was a reminder that air conditioning wasn't standard in cars way back when. Some of the other options you could choose for your stripped down vehicle were tinted glass, cloth bucket seats, color floor mats and automatic transmission. 

It was an odd game, and I'm not surprised it disappeared more than 35 years ago. 

Pick your automotive options, and if they add up to a magic number, you win two new cars!

The Price is Right used fancy split-screen technology during It's Optional.

When I saw Pick-A-Pair, it brought back a vague memory of the game from my youth. The game debuted in 1982, but has had a different presentation for many years. The game is simple, there are six grocery items comprised of three sets of equally-priced products. The contestant has two chances to find a matching pair of items. 

Since 1988, all six products are on display on a long, flat tabletop, speeding up the game play, no doubt. In its early years, the products rotated into view on a miniature Ferris wheel, making it impossible for the contestant to see all six grocery items at the same time. 

Pick-A-Pair was colorful and slow in its early years.

The showcases bring back fond memories. Plenty of showcases weren't that spectacular in the '80s, as three was no car or truck, boat or fabulous trip to be won. But plenty of showcases offer one of those coveted prizes. 

The showcase nostalgia comes from the fact that the show used skits periodically. There's be a short story that linked the showcase prizes, and sometimes the story included props, an elaborate set or pencil sketches to accent the story. The presentation wasn't highly technical, so the props and special effects were akin to a high school theater production.  

Olson, the announcer, would sometimes appear in the skits, and costumes for some or all of the models were frequently part of the presentation. In one showcase, a model was dressed up as an organ grinder's monkey. In another, a model was dressed up as an alien.

What better way to introduce the prizes in a showcase than emulating an auction?

Illustrations about types of clubs set up the showcase prize presentation during a showcase.

There were simple showcase themes in the '80s that were abandoned long ago. One recurring showcase was a trip down Main Street. Two doors open in a dark studio, and each door has two prizes behind it. The idea was that the prizes represented a look into the storefront windows of a bustling downtown district. 

The showcases weren't mind blowing or fall-off-the-couch hilarious, but they represent a bygone era of the show, and offer nostalgic fun. Much to my surprise, one of the showcases I saw today used the Star Wars theme as its background music. From a licensing standpoint I would have assumed that episode would have remained in moth balls. 

For those that have had a love of games shows throughout their life, seeing Bob work his magic on a periodic basis is a welcome, and unexpected, opportunity. 

Fun fact: Bob celebrates his 97th birthday next week. 

Temptation, played for a car, has been in the show's pricing game rotation since 1973.

Shell Game has been around since 1974. 

A 1982 showcase features a Pac-Man arcade cabinet. I was a bit obsessed with that game and the idea of winning one on The Price is Right would have blown my mind.