The stupid-game-show-contestant discussion ambles on at about.com. A few more of my maunderings...Other poster: I don’t think anyone disputes that there have always been "stupid" contestants. Of course there have, even "back then." But the quote you’re referencing is a claim that this was more the exception vs. the rule then than it is now. A series of YouTube videos does nothing to establish that this claim is in error.
Well, I dunno if there’s ever been a peer-reviewed study – heaven forbid – of "Changing Levels of Stupidity in Game Show Contestants 1950-2010" (New England Journal of Medicine – June 2, 2011).
But "good old days" thinking tends to run strong on game show boards. Sorry, I remain unconvinced that stupidity has gotten more common among game show contestants over the decades. Hey, they used to RIG game shows in the good old days, which wasn’t such a smart idea.
Come to think of it, I would bet big on Ken Jennings against Charles Van Doren...if the contest wasn’t fake. Of course, Watson could take down both of them, but we’ll leave the machines out of it for now.
Another poster: Not sure I buy the idea of there being some great change. Lingo–let’s be honest game show nerds–is hardly a top tier show. That a revival might have some contestants who don’t entirely understand its complexities is not that surprising.
Sure, Lingo's hardly top tier in ratings terms. It’s on GSN, where 500K viewers is big time.
But as a quality word game, I rank Lingo very high. And it’s gotten some shrewd contestants over the years. Check the final of its only tournament of champions, where four very smart contestants put on a sensational show. Final score: 775-550 (source: TV.com, and the score sounds right from my dim memory).
Anyway, I’ll be watching at 8:00PM Eastern tonight. I’m really interested in how Bill Engvall and company will handle the format.
No comments:
Post a Comment