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
    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)