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.”

  • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is it really nothing to hold against him though, when the person he’s replacing did join the strike?

      • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • AnonTwo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I…don’t see how that changes anything I said. It still sounds like Jennings is replacing someone who is striking.

          • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • AnonTwo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • moody@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

        • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The important part is that he is already an employee there who does this job already, while not being union. If he wasn’t and he was hired to do the job because he’s not union he would be a scab.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why is Jennings not part of SAG? I find it hard to believe the union is cool with a host not being a member unless they don’t care about game show hosts in general, which is on them.

    • Overzeetop@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

    • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

          • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • atocci@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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:

                  1. I genuinely consider his position to be a moral failing
                  2. Even if all this were not going on I would want to see him fired because I hate him (though on principal never as retaliation because solidarity, even for people you hate; his position as worker would in that scenario outclass personal animosity)