MY REVIEW: THE PRACTICE (1976)

 

     Danny Thomas was a very successful comedian and actor.  He was an even more successful businessman and producer.  Some of his successful productions included "The Andy Griffith Show", "The Dick Van Dyke Show" and "The Mod Squad".  He would probably tell you that the most successful creation was The St. Jude Children's Research Hospital which continues to help children and families to the present day.
     However, by 1975 Thomas really didn't have anything more to prove as an entertainer.  His classic "Make Room For Daddy" ran for 11 years and he was always a big draw as a nightclub act but came across a show his son, producer Tony Thomas, was putting together as a pilot for NBC.  The younger Thomas and his producing partner Paul Junger Witt had other people in mind for the lead role of Dr. Jules Bedford, a older cantankerous but caring doctor who worked out of a run down office in an older area of New York City  and still made house calls but the elder Thomas won the role after auditioning for the network.  The program would be called "The Practice" and was created by an up and coming comedy writer named Steve Gordon.
     The 1st season which consisted of 13 episodes premiered in January 1976 to decent reviews but mediocre ratings.  Series regulars included David Spielberg as Jules' son Dr. David Bedford, who practiced medicine at a fancy Park Avenue location; Shelley Fabares as David's wife Jenny; Didi Conn as Jules' ditzy receptionist Helen and Dena Dietrich as Jules' nurse Molly.  John Byner would also make intermittent appearances as Dr. Roland Caine, an associate of David who was far more interested in making money than actually treating his patients.
    The 2nd season which consisted of 14 episodes premiered in the Fall of 1976 and some changes to the format were made.   John Byner's character was no longer seen and Mike Evans, who played George Jefferson's son in "All In The Family" and "The Jeffersons" was now seen here as Lenny, a medical intern.  Personally, I thought Evans was a great comedic actor who seemed underused on those Norman Lear shows.  Unfortunately, he wasn't given much to do here either and was back playing Lionel Jefferson on the show a few years later.  Also, guest stars were featured to lure people to the show such as Lucille Ball and Danny's daughter Marlo Thomas.  Oh, and David and Jenny were now living in a different apartment.  Jules' living quarters were never mentioned or seen in either season.  In fact, he ended up crashing at his son's place in several episodes.
     The ratings for the 2nd season did not improve and NBC cancelled the show after just 12 episodes aired.  All 27 episodes (including 2 unaired episodes) are now available as part of Warner Archive Manufactured On Demand collection of the complete series. Why wasn't it available prior to 2019?  I'm not sure.  I've never heard considered as a 'cult classic.'  But who knows?  Steve Gordon created a few more TV shows and movies and had a big hit on his hands as the screenwriter and director of the 1981 comedy film "Arthur" starring Dudley Moore when he passed away of a heart attack at the early age of 44 in 1982.
     My Grade: B

I ALSO WONDER

     There is a strange phenomenon happening in the world of movies these days.....and, no, it has nothing to do with the controversy with Martin Scorcese's Netflix film "The Irishman" being funded by the streaming service, playing for a very limited time in theaters and the going back to Netflix for maximum streaming consumption (they hope, as the budget for the epic Mob drams is around $150 million and there isn't a DC or Marvel character in sight).

     I'm instead referring to several episodes of a 20 plus year old sitcom that will be playing in select theatres over the Thanksgiving holiday.  Yes, "Friends" will be clogging up some screens at your megaplex (I'm betting on theater 26 myself) very soon.  They're all Thanksgiving themed episodes so that's something, I guess.  No new content.  No restorations.  Nothing different that what you're streaming or shows up on your dusty DVD box sets.  I'm not much of a fan of the show but if my local theater was showing 6 episodes of one my favorite series (i.e. "Seinfeld") I wouldn't go out of my way to rush down to catch them at the cinema.  Why?  Because it's everywhere else....at little to no charge.  And, besides, Kramer looks spooky enough on my 42 inch TV.  I think I would have one of those Mary Hart induced seizures if he was as large as Godzilla trampling through Tokyo.

     I could blame this on millennials who supposedly breathed new life into this show and "The Office" but I think these shows are comfort food for people who think life is getting a little too dark these days.  Understood.  And  I will watching the box office totals for this Fathom Events stunt to see if this actually starts a new trend.  But I will not be watching a decades old sitcom on the big screen no matter how hilarious it is to hear Matt LeBlanc uttering the phrase 'How you doin.' 

I WONDER

"Immediately remove and wash clothes or linens that may be contaminated with vomit or poop."

This sentence comes from a government website.  They are using what is basically a slang term for feces or excrement.  What's next?  The Department of Housing and Urban Development telling us how to best inspect the 'crib' that our family deems acceptable?

MY REVIEW: PRESS YOUR LUCK (2019)

    

I must admit, I was a BIG fan of the original 1980's version of "Press Your Luck" and its host Peter Tomarken.  It was literally all bells, whistles and whammies all of the time.....and a few trivia questions thrown in to satisfy someone's need to justify watching such a razor-thin premise of a game show.  And for all of us who thought it was a giant hit show, it didn't fade away but rather burned out in a rather dull fashion after only three seasons on CBS daytime.
     Is all of this nostalgia enough to bring such a trifle of a show back?  Hell, yeah it is!  And of course now that it is a prime time beast, we have to super-size it; making the highs higher and the lows so much more sad and tear-jerking.  However, those nasty whammies just don't seem as nasty as they did when I was thirteen years old.  I guess real life will do that to you.  And the trivia questions seem even more dumbed down than before.
     And then there's the new host.  There are probably thousands of people more qualified to host this show ( both men AND women) but I suppose few women who look like they just walked off of a fashion shoot like Elizabeth Banks.  But I'm afraid her hosting skills leave a lot to be desired.  Her 'banter' sounds either rehearsed or wooden or both.  It's refreshing to see a non-comedian get the job but she acts like she studied at the Drew Carey school of game show hosting.
     Oh, and the contestants.  They seem to have been hooked up to a Red Bull I.V. before taking the stage.  No one can be that excited.  I know you're enthusiastic but take it down a notch or two, ok?
     The game board is what I really want to see but after a few episodes, I simply became bored.  All the bells, whistles and whammies just aren't that dazzling anymore.  This is an okay time waster but as a great game show it's only a mediocre one at best.
      My grade: C-

THE TIMES SURE-HAVE-A-CHANGED

    

Woodstock 50 is dead.  At least, in its dreamed-up-by-Michael Lang edition.  Why?  Because the rules have changed.
     The original 1969 was hatched on a handshake deal by Lang and a few others who wanted to hold a music and arts festival.  The place, bands, and size of the grounds constantly morphed during the seven months between conception and execution.  This type of 'ever changing scenario' would not be allowed in today's world.  Neither would a 'handshake' deal.  Hell, even Lang knew this at the start of his 50th anniversary idea because it was mostly and heavily backed by a Japanese financial conglomerate.  What kind of contracts and confidentiality agreements would poor old Max Yasgur have to sign if he were still alive today?
     Everything is a business now.  Air. Water.  Literally everything.  And how about these 'radius clauses'  (MEANING: a tour promoter stipulates that a performer, for a certain length of time prior to or following an appearance at a concert or festival, must not hold concerts at other locations within a certain radius of the city where they are to perform. In essence, it gives the promoter a form of territorial exclusivity, ensuring that the performer does not book concerts with competing promoters and venues in nearby areas, which can undermine ticket sales for their main event.)  This kind of thing forced several bands to drop out because of ties to companies like Live Nation who love this type of practice.
  Would legendary rock concert promoter Bill Graham have done that type of thing?  Hell no, man.  Live and let live, right?  When the original Woodstock ran out of tickets to sell, the promoters started to just let people in for free because they felt that if these people who came from everywhere, they shouldn't be denied entry because of their poor job at ticket selling.  Like, pretty heavy, huh?
     What would have happened if at the end of Jimi Hendrix's appearance at the 1969 event, he suddenly grabbed the mic and said 'I'm gonna be auctioning off this guitar I was playing right after the show and whoever gives me the most money or five football fields full of hash can have it?"  I believe the hippie dream would have gone up its own ass right then and there.
     Not everything needs a sequel.  Woodstock is just one of those things.  I'm sure Mr. Lang had good intentions (he was trying to raise money to promote voter participation) but these intentions are just going to have to stand on their own two feet as a separate entity.  Bummer.

MR. STEWART GOES TO WASHINGTON

    

This article probably should have been titled "Why I Miss Jon Stewart As Host Of The Daily Show"  but I thought twice about that, especially since the show has become an almost an entirely different entity under its current host Trevor Noah; much like the way the show transformed when Stewart took over for Craig Kilborn.  Everyone is bringing something different to the table.
     In Jon's case it was his critical and watchful lens on the television media and its tendency to wander off from its supposed journalistic integrity in its naked and shameful pursuit of giant ratings.  John Oliver has a little fun poking the eye of the local CBS affiliate in New York City (WCBS) from time to time but for Stewart it was a never ending battle.  The broadcast networks and later the cable news outlets have become neutered by their sponsors and shareholders in what stories they can and cannot tell and in some cases how they tell them.  To him, MSNBC was just as guilty as Fox News in how unashamedly crass they where in how they 'dumbed down' the events of the day, even though it was clear he leaned more than a little to the left.
     Recently, Stewart has been back on TV but not in his previously satirical pose.  He has been working with surviving first responders of the Twin Towers attacks in hopes getting the 9/11 Victims Bill extended so that it never runs out of money.  He is speaking for many of those who literally can't.
This is not a 'bit' or a 'gag.'  I happen to agree with his point of view on this subject and most who don't are currently holed up in Washington D.C. taking their orders from a man who probably never even volunteered a decent line of Peruvian marching powder up to a fellow partier at Studio 54 back in its heyday.  And one of the Congressmen he called out personally fired back by saying that he didn't think Stewart was 'funny anymore' and called him a member of the 'left-wing mob.'  First, the left wing is too unorganized and diverse to be even considered a 'mob' and, more importantly, sir, he wasn't trying to be humorous; especially after one of the survivors who testified in front of a governmental committee a little over six weeks ago is now dead and buried.
     Now let's try to get our facts down before we start vomiting up falsehoods, shall we?


UPDATE:  Can you guess how the vote went by this picture?

A MOST UNINSPIRATIONAL BUT HILARIOUS QUOTE

"The three purposes of the University?--To provide sex for the students, sports for the alumni, and parking for the faculty."

^{-Clark Kerr}
Former President of the University of California

MY REVIEW: 'LIVE BEFORE A STUDIO AUDIENCE'

    

It's no secret that Norman Lear is one of the true pioneers of television.  After years writing for other people's programs, he decided to branch out on his own.  He started directing a few motion pictures and then had a idea while watching a British sitcom called "Till Death Us Do Part" while on business in England.  He decided to buy the U.S. rights, Americanize it by very loosely basing the characters on people he knew and changing the title.  However, this was no overnight success.  After 2 failed pilots, a third titled "All In The Family" debuted in early 1971....to low ratings.  However, summer reruns caught viewers eyes and it eventually became the #1 show for several seasons.

     Lear quickly started to break minor characters off into to 'spinoff' shows.  Edith Bunker's cousin Maude got her own show.  Maude's housekeeper Florida Evans got her own show.  The Bunker's neighbor's the Jeffersons got their own show.  Suddenly Lear was a rich and successful mini mogul in his own right, cranking hit after hit of topical and often controversial in-your-face comedy based mainly on characters that were sometimes bigoted, sometimes ignorant, sometimes arrogant but deep where supposedly well meaning.  The language subject on these shows were raw and uncensored and many local affiliates refused to broadcast certain episodes, but a hit is a hit in showbiz so these refusals never lasted too long.  Most importantly the scripts were meticulously plotted by some of the best comedy writers and were almost always flat out hilarious.

     After ruling the 1970's Lear's interests lead him elsewhere but at the age of 94 he had an unexpected comeback with an all Latinx version of "One Day At A Time."  Suddenly Lear was hot again.  Jimmy Kimmel took note of this and wanted to team up with Lear and had a novel suggestion: "Why not take one classic episode each of 'All In The Family' and 'The Jeffersons' and use the exact same scripts but with new actors taking on the iconic roles?"  Lear was game and even threw in another twist:  Do them live just like many early television sitcoms were done.

     And so this happened a few weeks ago and, like many diehard fans of these classic shows, tuned in to see how these classic but somewhat topically dated scripts would fare in today's world.  Oh, and they got TV best sitcom director ever James Burrows to helm these episodes.

     How did it go?  First, the actors updating the iconic roles and their versions of the characters seemed a bit irrelevant to me as long as they didn't do anything too distracting like getting Christopher Walken to play Archie Bunker.  And because it was live there where a few mistakes here and there but to me that was part of the fun; to see if the actor could 'get back on the horse and keep riding' which thankfully never failed to happen.

     Of course, it was heaven to see the surprise casting of Marla Gibbs stepping back into the her role as the Jeffersons' maid Florence Johnston and she knocked it clean out of the park. I almost cried.

     But, of course, the main question was: would the original scripts which were not changed one word (causing one contentious word to be bleeped) be as funny as they were over 40 years ago.   Yes and yes to both episodes because they were impeccably structured originally and only a fool would try to change these Emmy Award winning writers words.  And some parts of these scripts are unfortunately just as relevant as ever.  People who say Lear was trying to change the world with these shows are missing the point.  Getting people with differences to have a meaningful dialogue is what was and still is desired.

     And, of course, it was refreshing to see characters having differences and then having them try to work them out with the people they disagreed with standing just a few feet away without any 'firewalls' between them.

     If Lear and company can find a way to this again with more daring episodes like 'Maude's Pregnancy' or  the "Good Times" classic 'Black Jesus' episode with as much care, I say 'bring it on!' 

MY OWN 'VANISHING POINT'

   

As hard it may be to say this, I can no longer in good conscience consider myself to be a regular Saturday Night Live viewer.  No, I am not going to call the show 'Saturday Night Dead' or any of that nonsense.  However, it simply amuses me when it tries to make me laugh or doesn't amuse me at all.
     Out of probably hundreds of sketches this year, only about four or five would be considered keepers and, honestly, I can't even remember what they are right now.  I understand that NBC is trying to reach a certain demographic and I bet I'm no longer a part of that club.  Hence my hands going for the remote to see what else is on when I shouldn't or all the time when they introduce the musical guest.
    There is a recent 90 minute video on YouTube of John Mulaney talking with Bill Hader.  This video made me laugh much more than any recent SNL episode.  It's very telling how much I laughed at their pitches for sketches that were rejected or didn't make it after dress rehearsal.
     I still like the Marx Brothers if that makes anyone happy.

MY REVIEW: BAXTER! (1973)

 

Okay, so this isn't even a golden oldie.  In fact, there are few reviews anywhere on the web about this movie.  It was probably a box office flop though I can't even confirm that.  "Baxter" was written by Reginald Rose ("12 Angry Men" and "Whose Life Is It Anyway") and based on a novel by Lin Platt who was best known for writing for Hanna-Barbera cartoons like "Top Cat" and "Jonny Quest" which explains why that company is listed as one of the co-producers of the film.  Whether this story is autobiographical in any way is also unknown.
     The story, of course, concerns a pre-teen boy whose parents have recently divorced after a messy marriage and the physical abuse of the kid.  Baxter, played by Scott Jacoby, ends up moving from California to England with his Mom.  Neither parent shows any love or affection for him as they are both very self-involved and selfish.  The boy is confused, angry and knows he's growing up faster than he should.  He talks like an adult except for the fact the he has never learned how to pronounce his R's.  Oddly enough, at the British school for Americans he attends, no one laughs or makes fun of him.  I think they know someone deeper is troubling this boy.
     He soon makes friends with a young married couple (one Brit gal and one French guy) who live in the same apartment complex and eventually becomes a surrogate child to the friendly couple who really take an interest in the child's life.  The French shows a scar on his face, caused by the Nazis in World War II, to make Baxter feel less self-conscious about his speech impediment which didn't really make sense to me but, hey, at least he tried, right?
     He later makes friends with a British girl who was spying on Baxter across the street with a telescope from a different apartment.  They're both unsure about how to friends as they both have been alone in their own ways.
     Later, Baxter starts seeing a school speech therapist played by Patricia Neal.  She soon learns how much Baxter is unwanted by both of his parents and get him to starts to get him to speak properly some of time.  She also learns that Baxter is beaten and left in a locked closet by his Mom after he breaks a telephone after being told by his Dad that a poker game is more important than him.  The speech therapist show up at Baxter's apartment to find him after he fails to show up for school and ends up decking his Mom and then says 'I hate violence, Mrs Baxter, and tomorrow I'm going to hate myself for this, but right now I warn you if you so much as move, I'm going to break you into little pieces.'
    Geez, was the Debbie Downer character based on this kid?  I didn't even tell you the part where he tries to die standing up after he decides he's not wanted anymore after his girlfriend moves away and the French man's young wife dies of pneumonia.  At the end of the movie, he decides to stay with his surrogate Dad who is still greiving for this loss of his young wife. Yikes!
     The movie was produced in England and directed by the Brit Lionel Jeffries and I suppose the story resonated more with the British as the country was going through an impoverished time with high unemployment and there have been many families like this.
     The acting is first rate but I'll be damned if I knew if there was a point to this film beyond the fact that all children deserve love and affection.  That subject was hammered home continually throughout the movie.  I still liked it for the subject matter even though I'm not sure I loved it.
     

I'M WHELMED

     It's been awhile since my last posting.  Sorry about that.  There have been some recent changes that have prevented me from having enough time to update this ol' blog of mine.  Don't fret;  there will most likely be more to come.....just at a slower pace (think of pouring molasses).   Meanwhile, just go outside and enjoy yourself.  God knows you've earned it after reading enough of my gobbledygook.

R.I.P. TO CRASHING

     I've just learned that HBO has cancelled the Pete Holmes semi-autobiographical series "Crashing."  I had a feeling that this was coming as the network barely promoted the show.  That's probably because the network couldn't rightly call the show 'sexy', 'edgy', 'haunting', or 'groundbreaking,'  It wasn't.  It was funny, sweet, realistic, and not cynical.  In other words, a real rarity for these times.
     I'll not say anything more than this except to watch all three seasons now.  Especially if you're looking for the exact opposite of "Big Little Lies" or "Succession." Thanks.

IS THERE A BETTER (OR BIGGER) PICTURE?

    

     The 2019 Oscars gave just about everyone something to celebrate as well as criticize.  What else is new?  Even with a more diverse slate of nominees and winners, many people felt the need to shit all over the Best Picture winner "Green Book."  I didn't think it was the best film of last year but I certainly didn't think it needed to be pummeled into the ground either.  Many viewers were upset at civil rights hero and Senator John Lewis for introducing a clip from this film.  Because he felt the film was important, many viewers and commentators rushed to the conclusion that poor old misguided Lewis didn't even see the movie.  How do you know this is true?  Is it possible that someone his age may still have a different world view of race relations than the younger filmmakers who supposedly are more enlightened and 'woke'?  It's certainly possible.  But does that make it right to condemn him for his views?  You certainly have that right but with all the things he has done to help improve race relations in this country, I don't think throwing him under the bus is necessarily the correct response but, then again, that is the exact drawback of social media:  People tweet their first emotional responses without thinking rationally first.  I know this because I see all of the deleted tweets and apologies that occur the next day.
     Spike Lee won his first competitive Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay but apparently turned his back and started walking out of the theater when "Green Book" was announced as Best Picture.  Is this really the message he wants to send to young people?  I honestly don't know.  Octavia Spencer is one of the producers of "Green Book."  Do you think she would have helped make this movie if she didn't really believe in it?  Again, I honestly don't know.
     Personally, I believe Robert Redford should have been nominated for his performance in the 70s throwback heist film "The Old Man And The Gun."  I think it was a very nuanced and gutsy performance.  However, I'm not going to bitch and moan about it.  And do you know why?
     Because I believe we currently have a government that is not working for the people and the decisions they are making are causing ripple effects across the entire world that we will not be able correct any time soon.  Once the proverbial horse is out of the barn, its very difficult to wrangle him back in again. To me, real life and death matters a bit more than winning or losing.  I'm sorry if I seem more concerned about the state of the world than who won what award but I guess I'm just funny that way.

NEVER ENDING MATH EQUATION

    

For those of you looking here to read some story on Modest Mouse (you may have to Google that reference), I'm sorry but it really has something to do with what I'll be talking about here.
     With the brutal attack of cable news pundits from all sides of an issue, you're head might spinning after hearing all the different ways a subject can be turned into an opinion or, in one man's case, actual talking points for the leader of the free world to memorize and regurgitate to the media the following day.
     This is where the political machine has got this method down to a science, even if some of them don't believe in actual proven scientific facts.  One of the most popular phrases in the mathematical or scientific community is to view the question, simplify the actual meaning or expression and then justify why that meaning (or theory) is the 'truth.'  They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I say the truth is in the emotions of the beholder as well.  Once we manipulate your emotions, we have you wrapped around our finger.  Once the supposed the truth is narrowed down to sound bytes, slogans and headlines; you can easily be persuaded.  This is especially true if you make no effort or have no desire to do your own research to verify what is trying to be proven.  And because people are so busy these days working more than one job, being enslaved to technology, social media and wanting to escape the horrors of the real world, we will be satisfied to just believe the most convincing answer and move on with our mundane lives.
     We want drive-thru answers to questions that require a full fine dining explanations.  Go ahead and order when you're ready.....if you dare.

MAIL FORWARDED TO A NEW ADDRESS IN SIBERIA

 

Everyone is flawed.  We know this but we repeatedly try to make sinners out of saints and vice versa.  There is a difference between getting arrested for shoplifting and being found guilty of spousal assault.  There is no such thing as the court of public opinion but we repeatedly use this nonsensical institution to make final judgments on people who get caught sinning.  We hold our public figures to a ridiculously high standard that they'll never be able to achieve.  We are looking for these people to be heroes when we should be casting our eyes and ears elsewhere.

     If a person is found guilty of something illegal such as having sex with a minor, serves his time, attends therapy, and then proceeds to save several people who were trapped in a burning building, how do we judge him?  Is there any change in perception of that person?

     If a person apologizes for appalling behavior on audio or video several decades ago, do we forgive them or do we severely punish them to make an example to the rest of the world that this type of behavior is never acceptable?  Do we still punish the person after a lifetime of public service and helping the same people who are punishing him?  Will we ever let this person back into public life or will we forever banish them to their own private Siberian-like hell?

     Every incident should be judged on case by case basis-not in the court of public opinion but in an actual courtroom.  To me, this is simple common sense that has been devoured and swallowed by the faceless mob courtesy of social media created for the sole purpose of provoking emotions and knee-jerk reactions rather than laying out all of the evidence in a rational matter and then making your best judgment to find one a upstanding person or not.  And what really qualifies one as upstanding?  Isn't that subjective as well?

     We celebrate national holidays for people we now know were far from perfect people but yet did everything they could to make life better for many of us.  How do we separate private life from public service?  Have we lost the ability to forgive but not forget?

      Going back to my first two scenarios, would you perception change if the person arresting for shoplifting was doing so because they were trying to feed their family after being let go from their job?  Would you perception change if the person found guilty of spousal assault wasn't correctly diagnosed with PTSD after serving in a overseas war causing them to lash out irrationally because of an illness that was overlooked? 

      We know the answers.  How willing are we to roll up our sleeves and face them?  I have a scary feeling that the easy way out doesn't have a return entrance.

MY REVIEW: MATCH GAME 2008 PILOT

    

The recent death of Bob Einstein  (a.k.a. Super Dave Osbourne) has brought forth some interesting and heretofore unknown facts about the comedy legend for the casual fan.  First, his brother is another comedy legend, Albert Brooks who changed his name for show business purposes as his real name, Albert Einstein, just might be a little confusing.  Their father, Harry Einstein, was a famous comedian during the golden age of radio.
     However, the most interesting artifact for me popped on YouTube a few days after Bob's death.  This would be most of the 2008 pilot for a proposed revival of  "Match Game" that was commissioned by TBS but never became a series on that or any other network, at least in this incarnation.
     The pilot was hosted by comic Andy Daly and featured celebrities such as Bob.....er, Super Dave, Sarah Silverman and Norm MacDonald among others.  The set was an exact replica of the 1973 revival that was the top rated game show for awhile in the 70s.  It even appears to have been shot in Studio 33 at CBS Television City where the famed 70s version was taped.
     The rules even seem similar to the 70s version right up to the bonus round.  This is where things are a little different.  Instead, of the audience match where the top three answers would decide how much money they would play for in the final head to head match with a celebrity of the contestants choosing,  there was five phrases that had the final word blanked out and the contestant, with some help from the celebrities, would have to guess the final word for each one for a chance to go on to the final head to head round.  I have intentionally left monetary values out of this review as I believe they are a bit irrelevant to what is basically a crapshoot of a Friday night party game at someone's key party (70's version only.)
     All in all, this was a very good revival effort (with Daly being a competent host) and the changes were minor and did not harm the freewheeling nature of the original 70s version.  For those not in the know, Gene Rayburn did a version of this show in the 1960s that was much different and lacking in the goofy humor the later updates of the show possessed.  I will say that the 1996 pilot for a proposed syndicated revival with Charlene Tilton (WTF?) was horrible and the 1998 one season syndicated effort with Michael Burger, who was also a competent host, was just too mean spirited.
     The only version of the franchise I haven't seen now is a much talked about and little seen 2004 pilot called "What The Blank" made for the Fox Network (with that title, who else could it be?) with Fred Willard hosting.  I would have went with the title of the German version of the show, "Schnick Shnack", but that's precisely why the networks will never hire me.  I'm just a lone wolf.  However, I will give the 2008 pilot a grade of B+ as it is more or less similar to the current Alec Baldwin version except that the contestants on the current version seem to be way too excited as if they were forced to enjoy some complimentary cocaine in the green room before entering the stage.  Tone it down, people.  Remember; hugs not drugs.