Game Show Forum > I don't think anyone here will ever top this

Full Version: I don't think anyone here will ever top this

Game Show Forum > Discussion Boards > The Big Board

J.R.

Mar 19 2004, 01:27 PM

I recently completed a trade with a Brit and some of the shows he gave me were some shows with one David St. John.

I looked him up on line and found his official website:
http://www.davidstjohn.co.uk/

It seems like he's been on over 25 game shows since 1982. (Including: $otC, Jeopardy!, Weakest Link) With all the talk over eligiblity with Todd Kim, I wonder if he's ever ran into this problem ? But maybe rules are diffrent over there than here.

Still, quite an impressive list
-Joe R.

clemon79

Mar 19 2004, 03:45 PM

QUOTE (JRaygor @ Mar 19 2004, 11:27 AM)

I wonder if he's ever ran into this problem ? But maybe rules are diffrent over there than here.

It's my impression that over there, repeat contestants are treated more like celebrities and good ones are ENCOURAGED to do show after show after show...ISTR a reverend or father or Other Man Of The Cloth who was also very well known as a contestant.

Matt Ottinger

Mar 19 2004, 04:10 PM

QUOTE (clemon79 @ Mar 19 2004, 04:45 PM)

It's my impression that over there, repeat contestants are treated more like celebrities and good ones are ENCOURAGED to do show after show after show.

Which would explain the popularity of the best-of-the-best Grand Slam show, whereas here we're wondering whether they could find enough worthy former champs.

leszekp

Mar 19 2004, 05:04 PM

Wandering around some British websites that reviewed "Grand Slam", it seems as though the show got mixed reviews, e.g.

http://bqa.org.uk/News/n6.html

http://members.lycos.co.uk/crispeater/grandslam.htm

While the general concept of bringing back former game show winners was appreciated, they apparently weren't all that impressed with the field assembled. Part of the problem was that contestants had to pony up 1000 pounds of their own money to participate, which combined with the winner-takes-all prize probably discouraged a fair number of well-qualified people from participating. And the uneven field apparently led to a number of one-sided matches that some thought didn't make for very good TV (conversely, when contestants were evenly-matched, the results were apparently quite compelling). I'm hoping Chris Dickson will chime in with his impressions of the show.

Although the initial announcement of the US version of Grand Slam indicated that the contestants would be former gameshow champs, a more recent Broadcasting & Cable article suggests that might not be the case. I'm not exactly unbiased, but I have to believe that selecting contestants who have already been tested, and who have proven themselves under the combined pressure of competition, time, audience and camera, is more likely to make compelling TV than selecting those who haven't. But what do I know ....

thgames65

Mar 19 2004, 07:19 PM

QUOTE (leszekp @ Mar 19 2004, 05:04 PM)

Although the initial announcement of the US version of Grand Slam indicated that the contestants would be former gameshow champs, a more recent Broadcasting & Cable article suggests that might not be the case. I'm not exactly unbiased, but I have to believe that selecting contestants who have already been tested, and who have proven themselves under the combined pressure of competition, time, audience and camera, is more likely to make compelling TV than selecting those who haven't. But what do I know ....

For those who haven't seen some of the articles about 64 Grand Slam, this is an excerpt from Variety's blurb:

Created by U.K. shingle Monkey, "64 Grand Slam" takes 16 players and pits them against one another in an NCAA-style tournament. Players are whittled down over eight weeks until the final episode, in which two finalists compete for a winner-takes-all cash prize. "We're looking for the fastest brain in America," Davies said. "This is not a show for trivia nerds. We're looking for anyone who can compete in gladiatorial fashion. This is a gameshow with balls." "This show will be like a sporting event," said ABC alternative topper Andrea Wong. "If anyone can make this game work, it's Michael." Wong said the net will order a pilot for the show; if things go as planned, a series could be on the air by summer.

Hoping Leszek and I both make the Sweet Sixteen.

Tim H.

dickoon

Mar 19 2004, 09:40 PM

QUOTE (leszekp @ Mar 19 2004, 11:04 PM)

I'm hoping Chris Dickson will chime in with his impressions of the show.

You rang, m'lord? :-)

I watched more than half of the 15 episodes of the first - only? - series, which has got to be a qualified thumbs up. The essential format itself is decent and has the potential to genuinely be exciting in a close match - though, as discussed, close finals were far less common than lop-sided blow-outs. The sporting contest atmosphere was unusually good; the British hosting was undistinguished, but the unseen question-master was one of the positive standouts of the year.

Definite room for improvement, though; the "swap" gimmick very seldom made things more interesting and might profitably be reconsidered, and there probably could be another round or two of interesting content in the duration of the show if the less-than-informed discussion chaff were trimmed further.

Returning to the first name mentioned in the thread, you can judge for yourself whether or not you find his brand of comedy at all amusing on the UK Game Shows mailing list.

Massively mutiple-time contestants: I find it very difficult to have any opinions one way or the other on this one. That's stretching game show fandom obsessiveness a little further than I can stand.

leszekp

Mar 20 2004, 01:02 PM

Thanks, Chris!

J.R.

Mar 23 2004, 04:32 PM

Hey, everybody. I took the time to contact Mr. St. John. And he allowed me to post his reply. Here's what he said:

Travis Penery mentioned that he had passed on some info on me, and I did take a look at the US quizzing site in which you post - it looks cool.

I also registered and was going to reply to the thread but it wouldnt let me in!

I did try the usual phone-in attempts on the early years of 'Millionaire' but never got any callbacks - it seems the odds are well stacked against most of us suckers who waste money on these premium phone lines. Plus you have some serious determined wannabes spending hundreds of pounds to get on. I would just love to appear on it though. (I asked him if he's ever tried out for "Millionaire")

You will have seen my website so have a fairly good idea of my experiences (20 shows so far since 1982) and now always trying for more, but often feel that I am a victim of my own success as and when I dont get an audition etc.

There is a vicar over here ( another David) an old guy who has been on more shows than me, I believe. He used to be a chaplain at Heathrow airport and is slightly eccentric, but seems to get on loads of shows wearing his dogcollar etc - good move....

Jeopardy was my favourite quiz of all, and I did pretty good on my first couple of shows, and stuffed the other players!

I like fast-moving quick-fire general knowledge games and Jeopardy had the added twist of giving the questions to the supplied answers. It didnt really take off in the UK, but I gather it's still pretty high up on the US favourites? (I had asked him about his J! appearence in 1996)

You may wish to paste this reply into your threads if you wish. Please feel free to ask me anything else.

David St John

And there you go !
-Joe R.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.