Author Topic: Holly's 1983 Absence  (Read 7412 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Season36Fan

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1475
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2009, 08:34:11 PM »
And that is your right.   Just out of curiosity, at what waist size does a person become "fat" ?

Let's all take a deep breath.
Wise words.

Offline SteveGavazzi

  • Loyal Friend and True &
  • Director
  • **********
  • Posts: 17988
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2009, 09:07:53 PM »
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Being beautiful does not require a size -2 waist.

This is very true.  I've seen some beautiful fat people in my life, as well as some butt-ugly thin people.
"Every game is somebody's favorite." -- Wise words from Roger Dobkowitz.

Offline hyhybt

  • Taking a Bonus Spin
  • *****
  • Posts: 871
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2009, 09:36:08 PM »
I don't know what she looks like now, but when she was on TPIR she definitely was *not* fat.

Offline price_authority

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1714
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2009, 02:26:18 AM »
If she became "traumatized" because she was told she was fat...well, then she was in the wrong line of work.  She decided to become a model...hmmmm...a model's job is to look beautiful and NOT be fat.

How utterly insensitive of you. Holly had reached middle age. I hope your parents or your biology teacher explained to you what happens when a woman reaches middle age. Things start to change. Holly was on medication due to these hormonal changes and it caused her to put on a few pounds. From what I've heard, at the behest of one Bob Barker, Holly went off the medication to lose weight.

In the future I hope you're more sensitive to the phenomenon of menopause when your wife/mother/sister/aunt goes through it.

Quote
What I do not understand is why Holly Hallstrom says that her experience working on this show was traumatizing if she returned.

The trauma occurred when she was kicked off the show, not when she was working on it.
Before you call your lawyer to sue me, know that everything contained in this post and in all of my posts past, present and future is entirely MY PERSONAL OPINION.

Offline chad1m

  • Taking a Bonus Spin
  • *****
  • Posts: 951
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2009, 03:33:18 AM »
This is very true.  I've seen some beautiful fat people in my life, as well as some butt-ugly thin people.
Nikki Blonsky and Amy Winehouse say yo.

Offline sjd93

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1276
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2009, 09:32:24 AM »
I don't know what she looks like now, but when she was on TPIR she definitely was *not* fat.

A few years ago I saw an interview with Holly on the Today Show - she is a little bigger now, but still not fat by any means.
Quote
I find it ironic how the show tries to mix up the prizes and offer "cool" things like over-stuffed trips and impossible to price items to make the show less "predictable." Yet, the same things happen every single time a show airs.

-temptation1979ga

Offline PriceForever

  • Walking the Golden Road
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2009, 10:47:30 AM »
How utterly insensitive of you. Holly had reached middle age. I hope your parents or your biology teacher explained to you what happens when a woman reaches middle age. Things start to change.

Then she should have retired gracefully.  People in sports also know that when they reach middle age they are no longer limber and fast enough to compete in their chosen sport.  They know that when they choose that career---and they retire, even though they don't really want to, at the appropriate time.

Women also know that to be a model, one only has a narrow window to remain one---one doesn't stay a model into middle age if you begin to sag.  If Holly wanted to extend her window, then she should have watched her weight and toned her body despite the advancement of middle age.  (There are some models in the fashion business who have remained toned and NOT fat into middle age)

No matter what line of work your in, one must remain competitive.  Being a model isn't like working for California's state government---where the workers have a job for life no matter what their quality of work is like. 

Holly's attitude (based on her long-long ago TV interviews)  was like "How DARE they fire me for not looking good!"

 


Offline sjd93

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1276
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2009, 10:53:02 AM »
PriceForever is right. I certainly don't think any of us here hold it against Holly for gaining weight, but if someone gains a lot of weight when they reach middle age, they are not going to be a viable game show model.
Quote
I find it ironic how the show tries to mix up the prizes and offer "cool" things like over-stuffed trips and impossible to price items to make the show less "predictable." Yet, the same things happen every single time a show airs.

-temptation1979ga

Offline Season36Fan

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1475
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2009, 11:09:07 AM »
Then she should have retired gracefully.  People in sports also know that when they reach middle age they are no longer limber and fast enough to compete in their chosen sport.  They know that when they choose that career---and they retire, even though they don't really want to, at the appropriate time.

Women also know that to be a model, one only has a narrow window to remain one---one doesn't stay a model into middle age if you begin to sag.  If Holly wanted to extend her window, then she should have watched her weight and toned her body despite the advancement of middle age.  (There are some models in the fashion business who have remained toned and NOT fat into middle age)

No matter what line of work your in, one must remain competitive.  Being a model isn't like working for California's state government---where the workers have a job for life no matter what their quality of work is like. 

Respectfully, do you realize how insensitive and downright disrespectful your words are?  You are proving my point with every post!

My whole point is that a small segment of society (the publishers of popular entertainment) get to dictate what is and is not attractive by who they put in front of us, and it's variable.  Unfortunately, the current trend in this area is basically to turn women for perverted men to gawk at, rather than to respect and partner with in life.  

When we married, my wife was significantly smaller than she is now.  Having kids and other medical problems will do that to you.  I love her more now than then,  not just in spite of her looks, but because of them - the weight she gained was mostly from bearing my precious daughter.   It bothered her at first, but now she's learned that it's no problem, because it doesn't matter to me.    

The same thing should have been true of Price - the purpose of the models is to show the prizes, and they can do that just as effectively until they can't move around the stage well  enough to do so.   Your comparison of game show models to pro athletes is invalid.  At a certain point, a pro athlete becomes physically unable to compete.   GS Models can continue to show prizes, turn letters, whatever the job is, until they are physically unable to do so, but they're often not allowed to becasue they don't look good any more.   Have you ever seen a pro athlete fired because of looks?     Wheel hasn't ditched Vanna... and believe me, she's rough looking in person.  I saw her at King's Pizza in her hometown of Myrtle Beach a few years ago and it's very apparent that years of show biz have taken their toll.   She's still classy as ever though!  She got carry out and gave the cook a rather large tip.     More to the point, Price didn't ditch Bob because he went gray.  Indeed, he got a promotion!    

The whole situation could have been handled far better with the models, plain and simple.  If they wanted more va-voom, they didn't have to abruptly displace existing cast to do so, and they certainly didn't have to make any releases based on looks.  

Let's all take a deep breath.
Wise words.

Offline Demerolguy

  • In Contestant's Row
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2009, 12:59:34 PM »
The same thing should have been true of Price - the purpose of the models is to show the prizes, and they can do that just as effectively until they can't move around the stage well  enough to do so.   

My goodness, that could be at age 70(or even older!) 

Let's face it...anyone is qualified to do what a model on a gameshow does...points to prizes, turns letters, smiles.  Anybody can do that!  It doesn't take much talent to do any of those things!

The tough part of being a model and what makes a model different from any of us is they are suppossed to look beautiful.  (Keep in shape, do your hair properly, take care of your skin, have white teeth, etc). If they don't look good then..gee whiz...hire me...I can point to prizes really good!  But please...ignore the fact that I don't look good.

Being a model, like any job, can be a tough business...not everyone can handle the regimen.

My human nature is that I want to see beautiful things...especially beautiful women.  It's pleasing to the male eye.  (Ziegfield became rich and famous for his beautiful women in his follies).

And because I want to see beautiful women on television does not mean I think less of women who are not beautiful.

Offline sjd93

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1276
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2009, 01:06:54 PM »
Demerolguy is exactly right. Of course almost anyone can successfully smile, point at prizes, and flip price tags. But just as it would be awkward to have a 300 pound woman modeling prizes, it would be equally weird to see an 80 year old woman modeling. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, it would just be weird. Unlike hosting, having a modeling job does take place in a very narrow age window. Now, Janice and Holly were successfully able to widen that window by aging well and taking care of themselves, but at some point, it's just not gonna work anymore.

Would I have liked Janice and Holly to stay with the show a little longer? Sure. Do they both look good for their ages now? Sure (especially Janice.) But unfortunately, modeling can only go so far. It was necessary to bring in Brandi, Rachel, Lanisha,  et al, because they're young, fit, and attractive. And eventually, they'll have to be replaced too. In the modeling world, that's just the way it is.
Quote
I find it ironic how the show tries to mix up the prizes and offer "cool" things like over-stuffed trips and impossible to price items to make the show less "predictable." Yet, the same things happen every single time a show airs.

-temptation1979ga

Offline Season36Fan

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1475
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2009, 02:33:24 PM »
My goodness, that could be at age 70(or even older!) 
<snip>
The tough part of being a model and what makes a model different from any of us is they are suppossed to look beautiful.  (Keep in shape, do your hair properly, take care of your skin, have white teeth, etc). If they don't look good then..gee whiz...hire me...I can point to prizes really good!  But please...ignore the fact that I don't look good.
And my point is that "looking good" has more to do with how you take care of yourself and less to do with your waist size, which is what this all started with.  I don't think it would be awkward at all to have models who are more advanced in age, or who are larger than size 0, provided that they have done the things you so eloquently pointed out - stay in shape, do their hair, skin care, teeth, etc).   Those are WAY more important than weight or age. 

My human nature is that I want to see beautiful things...especially beautiful women.  It's pleasing to the male eye.  (Ziegfield became rich and famous for his beautiful women in his follies).

And because I want to see beautiful women on television does not mean I think less of women who are not beautiful.

Simply hinging beauty on looks means you think less of women who aren't "beautiful" (by that definition).   Wouldn't you want to be judged not just by your looks, but also your accomplishments, which are directly related to the amount of pride you take in yourself?

Demerolguy is exactly right. Of course almost anyone can successfully smile, point at prizes, and flip price tags. But just as it would be awkward to have a 300 pound woman modeling prizes, it would be equally weird to see an 80 year old woman modeling. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, it would just be weird. Unlike hosting, having a modeling job does take place in a very narrow age window. Now, Janice and Holly were successfully able to widen that window by aging well and taking care of themselves, but at some point, it's just not gonna work anymore.

Would I have liked Janice and Holly to stay with the show a little longer? Sure. Do they both look good for their ages now? Sure (especially Janice.) But unfortunately, modeling can only go so far. It was necessary to bring in Brandi, Rachel, Lanisha,  et al, because they're young, fit, and attractive. And eventually, they'll have to be replaced too. In the modeling world, that's just the way it is.

First, this isn't runway modeling.  There is much more to it than smiling, flipping tags, etc.  I daresay that not every model could do Price because Price is more performance than modeling.  It takes a certain personality to do it successfully (just look at the many threads around here).   So long as Janice, Dian, and Holly (or the current cast, for that matter) keep the performance going, and take pride in their presentation (both personal appearance and performance), they should have been (and should be) allowed to continue.

Further, I also understand that having an aging cast might negatively contribute to the desired demographics of the show, in that people relate to others of their own age moreso than those of other age groups.   However, it would have been easy enough for the producers at the time to bring in one or two younger models and start a rotation (like we have today) without completely casting aside anyone.   I'm sure in the beginning, nobody even thought of Price lasting 37 years, or they probably wouldn't have signed long term model contracts anyway. Many of these factors contributed to the decidedly negative way some of the original models cycled off the show.   

Ultimately, sex sells.   That doesn't mean it's right or just.
Let's all take a deep breath.
Wise words.

Offline sjd93

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 1276
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2009, 02:40:02 PM »
I completely agree that the classic models should have been more slowly phased out, and gotten respectful goodbyes, instead of what really happened, which is that they were unceremoniously let go in a very short amount of time and completely replaced with the new models.

And you're also right that there's more to it than flipping tags... I was wrong about that. You also have to consider showcase performances, personality, etc.

But ultimately, there is a point where the classic models would not work anymore. You're right that they should have been allowed to continue longer. I think that they all should have stayed and retired with Bob. However, the flip side of that is that in addition to a new host, we would have had to deal with new models too in season 36, making that change even more difficult. This is a tricky one...
Quote
I find it ironic how the show tries to mix up the prizes and offer "cool" things like over-stuffed trips and impossible to price items to make the show less "predictable." Yet, the same things happen every single time a show airs.

-temptation1979ga

Offline pleenko

  • In the Audience
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #28 on: July 28, 2009, 05:18:41 PM »
But ultimately, there is a point where the classic models would not work anymore.

Indeed:

• Dian—when she stopped having sex with Bob (her boss) and bared all for a second time in a racier Playboy layout
• Holly—when she gained a few pounds while not publicly trashing Dian during Bob's first sexual harassment lawsuit
• Kathleen—when she testified under oath in Holly's case, contradicting Bob's testimony
• Janice—see Kathleen
• Nikki—when she became too popular and got too much press and studio audience attention
• Claudia—when she complained about producer Phil Rossi's sexual harassment and racial remarks

Gee, is it possible that Chantel, Heather and/or Gena also felt uncomfortable working in this atmosphere?




Offline Axl

  • Double Showcase Winner
  • ******
  • Posts: 4450
Re: Holly's 1983 Absence
« Reply #29 on: July 28, 2009, 07:51:04 PM »
^^^^^ Bingo!

This whole set of exchanges seems to accept the notion that Holly was actually fired for her weight.  Does anyone still really believe that?  Really?