Monthly Articles

Observations by Bradley

Observations by Bradley - Feb 2004

I used to prefer to spend my evenings working through a 162-game baseball season on my computer (Software: High Heat Baseball 2000, Team: New York Mets) than spend them dozing through a night of television, but over the past couple of years, things have changed out there in TV Land. If you've gotten out of the house lately (e.g. work, church, school, local Western Professional Hockey League game, etc.), I'm sure you've heard folks going on and on about "American Idol". I was a little late catching on to this one, but I finally tuned in to "American Idol" back when Ruben and Clay were duking it out and I became very addicted. Yes, I even tried to vote once. But the same rule applies to these reality shows as it does to the rest of the capitalistic universe. In scientific terms (for all you amateur physicists out there), it's the "law of conservation of seeing something that's really working so you decide to go ahead with a similar idea - just making it different enough to call it your own - and cashing in on the craze that's sweeping the free world". Thus, "Survivor", "Average Joe", "The Bachelor", "Star Search", "The Apprentice" and so forth and so on. But we Americans love it, don't we? Where do you think they get all that money they're offering to those contestants? But that's not the point of this article. My point is to ask what happened to all the game shows that got our attention such a short time ago. I mean, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" is still on the air, but is any one still watching? That's when I enjoyed TV - when game shows ruled the airwaves. But what makes a game show GREAT (in my eyes anyway)? Allow me. The most obvious observation: The simpler the game the better. For example, the highly successful and long running "Wheel of Fortune" has an easy set of rules. Another good example is "Press Your Luck". Remember? "Big bucks, no whammies!"? In contrast, the even more successful and longer running "The Price is Right" (my sister, Christy's favorite game show ever) defies this rule with its Showcase Showdown. It's been on the air for nearly 400 years, and I still don't understand how you win your showcase AND the other contestant's. We know it's got to be simple (this is America), but what's the most vital part of the GREAT game show? The HOST, of course. Since I've aspired since second grade to be a game show host, an astronaut, or an owner/ general manager/ team doctor for the New York Mets, I think I know what it takes: 1) savoir-faire (I had to turn to the French for this phrase. Suaveness just wouldn't do.) - A host has to be smooth. He must convey a James Bond aura that is apparent to both the television and studio audiences. 2) wit - Hosts need to be able to react to any ridiculous comment by the contestant with a condescending retort. Put the contestant in his or her place. As host, you are presumed to be the champion of your game show format and you must come across as the smartest person alive. If anyone shows anything less than rocket scientist intelligence (those lights and cameras can make anybody's IQ drop 100 points), you've got to let them know how silly they look. The audience loves this. 3) authoritativeness - The host owns the show. He doesn't need any off-camera judges to settle questions that arise. He knows the rules. He makes the calls. This is his courtroom. He reigns supreme. 4) trademark - Each host, in order to establish a memorable game show, has to have his own trademark. It may be a phrase or action. Whatever it is, you have to have it. 5) great hair - Bottom line: You've got to have great hair. These are the characteristics - at least in my book - that make a great host. Some hosts that have excelled in these categories come to mind. (Footnote: I'm excluding Alex Trebec of "Jeopardy!" because I don't feel his show qualifies as a game show. Although it possesses many game show characteristics, it's not for the normal contestant.) Bob Barker of "The Price is Right" is very suave, fairly witty, very authoritative, and he's got that trademark phrase at the end of the show, "Help control the pet population..." I don't get it, but if that's his soapbox, so be it. As for as the hair thing goes, he should have never let the American people see him go from jet black to silver. Dick Clark appeared on "$25,000 Pyramid" (I think that's the right figure) and came across as suave, witty, and authoritative. I don't remember him having a trademark, but it was entertaining. Of course he had help from celebrities on the show. He has nice hair for a 1,000 year old man. Richard Dawson of "Family Feud" lacked in the first three areas but he really had the trademark going for him. He kissed every woman that came on the show. Great idea! Bad hair. He still had the army cut from his stint on "Hogan's Heroes". Regis Philbun was a great host. He's not very suave, doesn't have great hair, blew some obvious pronunciations on the shows I saw, but he's witty. Plus he had the trademark phrase "Is that your final answer?" going for him. He's a lot better than all the others out there today. That's why I considered "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", under his care, as one of the only new, GREAT game shows. But, Bradley, who would you say is the all-time greatest host? The man who embraced all qualities and became an icon for entertainment? No doubt about it, Wink Martindale. He's suave, witty, and authoritative. His name is his trademark - Wink Martindale. To me, that name screams GAME SHOW HOST. In addition, he's got a great hairdo. I don't have an exact count on how many shows he's hosted, but anyone that can make TIC TAC DOUGH fun has to be the best. The all-time champion of game shows? Wink Martindale. I'm confident. That's my final answer. Join me next time for "Who's Phillip and did he invent that screwdriver all by himself?" Official disclaimer: This column expresses the views owned solely by Bradley Littlejohn, not Paid In Full or Sogospelnews.com. So if you've got a beef, e-mail Bradley. But don't think for a minute that you can discourage me by punching holes in my arguments. And one other thing, I offer only observations. No real solutions. I don't think that far in advance.