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.”
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.
You mean they’re all performers?
I mean they should show eachother solidarity.
“Ken is an actor” in that being a presenter is not different enough a job for this fight not to be his profession’s fight.
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.
Had my opinion on his character already not been colored by his past actions I may be more inclined to accept that explanation.
I went into this with the view that he’s a dick already.
So even if I didn’t believe solidarity was even more important in the face of potential reprisal I wouldn’t be very inclined to charitably read any of his actions.
It is two things: