Mayim Bialik will not be hosting Season 2 of “Celebrity Jeopardy!” as she continues to support the ongoing WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes, Variety has learned from sources.
On Monday, ABC issued a press release with changes to their fall schedule, noting that Ken Jennings will host the new season of “Celebrity Jeopardy!,” which premieres Sept. 27 at 8 p.m. ET.
ABC did not respond to Variety’s request for comment.
“Jeopardy!” showrunner Michael Davies revealed earlier this month that material for the star-studded spinoff series’ second season was completed before the WGA went on strike, so the upcoming season will feature completely original material. While Bialik and Jennings split hosting duties on “Jeopardy!,” the former was the sole host for Season 1 of “Celebrity Jeopardy!,” featuring such guests as Simu Liu, Andy Richter, Aisha Tyler, Michael Cera and more.
Back in May, Variety spoke to “Jeopardy!” writers Michele Loud, Jim Rhine and Billy Wisse on the picket line during the fourth day of the WGA strike.
“Our words are on the screen every night,” Loud said. “There is no ‘Jeopardy’ without writers. Without us it’s just an empty blue screen.”
Davies explained on the “Jeopardy!” podcast “Inside Jeopardy!” how the trivia series would proceed with its next season amid the WGA strike.
“We’re going to open the season with a second chance tournament for players from Season 37 who lost their initial game. Winners from that will advance to a Season 37 and Season 38 Champions Wildcard,” he said, adding that questions on these second chance episodes would be “a combination of material that our WGA writers wrote before the strike, which is still in the database, and material that has been re-deployed from multiple multiple seasons of the show.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Good. I’m encouraging everyone here to vocally support the strike.
I’m expecting the studios to start importing foreign movies/TV shows and coming up with absurd reality TV soon, so that could be fun.
That’s something I never really appreciated before. In Europe of course we mostly consume media produced in our own language or in English, but it’s completely normal to watch (and for broadcasters to air) shows from all over Europe, either dubbed or with subtitles depending on the country. Subtitles being the only tolerable way of course.
If a show started airing in French or German with subtitled on US television this would be a huge deal?
I want to watch some crazy Japanese game shows with subtitles on American TV.
Whatever happened to Takeshi’s Castle?
Outside of dubbed anime, I can’t think of cases where that would ever happen in the USA. Hell, it is somewhat rare to even get non-American English shows in the USA.
The USA can produce so much television profitably because it is the largest English language television market.
Your market at home is also much greater than what any European country could ever dream of. Spain has some occasional hits in Latin America (La Casa de Papel was huge everywhere), but they don’t have anything comparable to the American industry.
But for sure, the international market is huge - how terrified Hollywood is of offending China is solid evidence of that. :)
I would expect the Spanish market to be a lot more international since there isn’t one country that could dominate the way the US dominates the English market.
Mexico has 2.5 times more people than Spain, but the two countries have a similar GDP. There are also other close countries like Colombia and Argentina. In contrast, the USA has over five times the population of the UK with the USA having a higher GDP per capita than the UK. Other English speaking countries either have local languages to compete with, have far smaller populations, and/or have lower GDP per capita.
Hollywood needs the foreign market, now more than ever. However, it is really hard to compete with the giant that Hollywood is in its local market in English, let alone a foreign language.
It’s common on streaming platforms for foreign language shows to be huge hits. Squid Game was the most notable one, but Dark was another. Both Netflix.
On network TV? Never.
True, I remember Squid Game was huge in the US. Did people watch it with subtitles?
I don’t know about most people, but the default was dubbed so I guess they probably watched it dubbed. I’ve never been able to stand dubs, but that’s just me.
I’m fine with some dubs, like if they’re real well done, or dubs of some shows I grew up with for the nostalgia. Otherwise yeah subs or bust.
I think in animated shows it’s fine. Classic Disney movies often have fantastic translations, and it makes it fun to meet people around Europe because we all know the same songs but in different languages.
It likely wouldn’t be watched at all.
On TV, it would probably gain no traction. I’m sure a lot of old conservative folks would be turned off by being forced to listen to a language they don’t understand, and that’s exactly the type of people who would phone up their local TV station to complain about it. Younger people might not care so much, and would sit through, but if there’s something else on in English they would probably switch.
On streaming platforms, they would just never see it in the first place.
It’s probably a really good time for independent creators with no connections to the established industry to make some waves and fill that void.
- DadeMurphy ( @DadeMurphy@lemm.ee ) English2•2 years ago
I know you were kidding, but I am actually starting to enjoy more foreign films, as American films seem to shoehorn in identity politics at every turn.
Squid game was probably one of the best shows I have ever seen, followed by Alice in borderland. The wandering earth was a fantastic movie. Plenty more, but those are just some good examples of foreign entertainment that buries anything that has come out of hollyweird in the past decade, including the comic book movies.
Ken should have been the permanent host from the beginning.
I like the idea that the biggest champion becomes the new host
What is “The Highlander”?
It’s the Daily Double!
You have scored highly enough…
To face me.
*Scab Jennings
He’s not an actor and he’d already had this job. It would’ve been cool if he joined the strike but it’s not something to hold against him, either
Is it really nothing to hold against him though, when the person he’s replacing did join the strike?
The person he’s replacing is a member of SAG AFTRA (and maybe also WGA?) and he’d already been hired as her replacement. She’s not going on sympathy strike.
I…don’t see how that changes anything I said. It still sounds like Jennings is replacing someone who is striking.
A scab is hired to replace someone who is striking. He had previously (as in years) been hired to replace Bialik when she was unavailable. Due to her commitments to the strike, she is unavailable. He, not being a member of the WGA or SAG, has no commitments to the strike, but does have commitments to his contract, which states he is to replace Bialik when she is unavailable. Does that make sense?
So Jennings had a clause to replace Bialiik, and it’s being used to make them scab?
Sounds very scummy on the network’s part.
It’s not scabbing if it’s already your job. He’s not being hired to replace her, he already works for them.
Edit: Yes, it’s still scummy on the network’s part, but that’s no surprise.
She’s literally an actor and thus a member of the union that is striking. He is neither.
She is part of SAG. SAG is striking so she needs to in order to remain in the union. Jennings is NOT part of SAG and there’s no reason for him to join the strike as that would harm all the other staff on the show who would be out of work.
If an accountant leaves his profession to become a commercial pilot, does he get a pass to fly when the rest of the pilots go on strike?
Hosting a TV show is totally an acting gig and I absolutely hold it against those who side with management during a strike.
Granted I already dislike him for additional reasons, but even if I didn’t hate him already I’d be disappointed by this move.
Not according to the union’s own rules, it’s not. You can have your reasons for disliking him, but at least base them in facts.
At any rate, this dumb argument is a distraction from the real enemy, which is greedy fucking studio execs who so all be run out on a rail. They could end this strike tomorrow without being a penny poorer for it.
I’m not in SAG and not bound by their rules on what to consider actors.
I’m saying a host “is an actor” in the same sense Rob Gordon says bass guitar and lead guitar are the same job.
I mean I’m pretty sure SAG directly disagrees with you about that as they don’t cover presenters.
It would be nice if they would open their doors more but they won’t even cover wrestlers.
I never said dude was in the same union. I said he should be showing showbiz solidarity.
You said you considered him an actor - the union that is striking does not. That seems pretty obviously relevant.
Does that extend to the gaffers and everyone else who would get fired? I don’t really think you understand the details of this. Hollywood unions have done a very good job of insulating themselves from retaliation after strikes - everyone has to do it so it’s pretty hard to hold striking against anyone. Plus whatever is baked into contracts. Jennings would be striking alone, unprotected. It’s kind of weird that people are holding him to this when the union isn’t.
Yes, in a broad sense. The fact he’s not in SAG doesn’t make presenters, actors, improv performers, hosts, stand-up comics any less all the same cloth—any more than the existence of non-union actors.
I’m calling it a dick move to not show solidarity, not a violation of a specific union contract.
Mayim Bialik chose not to present questions while the question writers were striking and Ken Jennings could have done so too.
I judge him for that choice.
But then it sounds like he could easily be retaliated against by the network since he isn’t part of the union and not being covered by it’s protection. I don’t think I can fault him for that.
- DadeMurphy ( @DadeMurphy@lemm.ee ) English20•2 years ago
I honestly don’t understand why she is on the show in the first place.
Ken is the greatest Jeopardy player of all time and deserves the job.
Whether or not Alex Trebek was really smart, he certainly gave off that vibe like he knew a lot about the subjects he quizzed the contestants on.
I understand she is some sort of scientist, but they are a dime a dozen.
Why does being good at the game make you a good host? I’m not saying he isn’t, but being a good host requires an entirely different skill set than being a good player. Bialik was there because her brand is intellectual nerdiness that Jeopardy wants to leverage, but also because she’s been making TV off and on her whole life. That kinda feels more relevant to the skillset required to making TV.
Bialik’s delivery of questions is really good. The only downside of her hosting is she sometimes has very long pauses before she says someone is correct. I’d heard speculation that it’s because she made a slip up early on when she awarded points for an incorrect answer and the producers wanted to make sure that doesn’t happen again.
Since Ken is arguably the Jeopardy goat*, he’s much less likely to make this type of mistake.
*Brad Rutter should be up there because he beat Ken a few times in tournaments of champions and was unable to have Ken’s streak because Brad was from the 5-wins-and-go-home era.
- DadeMurphy ( @DadeMurphy@lemm.ee ) English2•2 years ago
While I agree with your last paragraph, I also disagree. Yes, he was from the original format, but to me, that just shows how good Ken really is. I’m not saying he was unbeatable, as you pointed out some examples of his losses, but I honestly don’t see anyone ever coming close to his record.
It’s one thing to win 5 in a row, it’s a whole other thing to win 74. I can’t even comprehend that level of pressure.
- DadeMurphy ( @DadeMurphy@lemm.ee ) English1•2 years ago
For the reason I mentioned about Alex. If you’re going to host a show about knowledge, it seems logical to assume the host would fit the part. We’re not talking about hosting let’s make a deal. And having the greatest player of all time, host, would certainly garner more viewers than people who watched blossom or big bang theory, and would certainly be taken more seriously.
If I’m being honest, Alex didn’t really have the greatest personality either, but he had presence to make up for it.
Ken Jennings would scab.
Are you really this ignorant of what an actor is?
Dude preforming on stage for an audience?
Nope that is not an actor as you could be an orator, poet, musician etc. A game show host is not acting.
If a poet preformed as a form of content during an actor or writer strike I would judge them the same way I am judging Ken.
All the things you listed are “actors” in the same way some people refer to all carbonated beverages as “coke”.
Ok but that isn’t how the union or most people see things.
It’s how I see things.
Never relied on a union to tell me what to think (only when not to work).
Can’t say what “most people” think as I have not met most of them. Impressive that you have, though.
Your opinion is irrelevant since the union decides who gets to join.
I have met most people and it turns out they don’t like you because of your inability to understand colloquial speech and your instance that your opinions are factual.
Jennings is a vast improvement over Bialik. Some great things are already happening because of the strikes.
I liked Mayim for Celebrity Jeopardy, but I am interested in seeing Ken’s interactions with the celebrities. I think his wit will make for a great show.