-
I'm not saying they SHOULD but more wondering if they could.
I tape the show and find my self fast-fwd'ing a lot through a single show. So I wonder, is there room for more or is the format so established that it would be foolish to mess with it?
There's only about 16 minutes of game-play in a given episode. When you add the necessary introductions, interviews and closing credits, it's still only about 18-18.5 minutes of show.
But what could you add? A seventh category or sixth dollar amount seems like it would take too much time and stand-alone 'bonus' questions just go against what Jeopardy truly is.
Even though the idea might be intriguing to some, my guess is that they add this extra time for local-access commercial time, which makes the show that much more attractive to the affiliate that shows it.
Did that make sense? Any thoughts or other ideas? Or did I just waste everyone's time?
-
Huh?????
Cut the crap out of TPIR and it's a half hour show.
Cut the crap out of Wheel and it's 5 minutes long. Who needs to see that damned spinning wheel over and over? It turns. We get it.
I think Jeopardy, with 61 clues per show, is the best game show out there when it comes to minimizing excess and maximizing game play.
Or has Shop to you Drop become the standard here?
-
[quote name=\'SteveRep\' date=\'Sep 30 2005, 12:05 PM\']I'm not saying they SHOULD but more wondering if they could.
I tape the show and find my self fast-fwd'ing a lot through a single show. So I wonder, is there room for more or is the format so established that it would be foolish to mess with it?
There's only about 16 minutes of game-play in a given episode. When you add the necessary introductions, interviews and closing credits, it's still only about 18-18.5 minutes of show.
[snapback]98168[/snapback]
[/quote]
The funny thing is that in the Fleming days, with 22 minutes of program time, no visual clues, no Clue Crew and only one fee plug in the whole show (for most of the run), they rarely cleared a board and the game time was still roughly the same. The factors I can think of are the practice of having the audience applaud correct bottom-of-the-row responses. the fact that the show's wrapup was much longer (there was another commercial break after Final J! and before the wrapup--if Final J! was a triple stumper, Art gave the correct response after the commercial) or if Art's interviews were a little longer than Trebek's. The openings aren't that much different in length and Art's intros were about as long as Trebek's or even shorter, particularly he said pretty much the same things every day before "Let's play Jeopardy!"
On the other hand, it's been believed that Art talked faster than Trebek--but we still had few board clears. Perhaps were there more stumpers because the material was harder on the original (allegedly)? I don't know.
-
I hope I implied that I'm far-from-convinced that J! needs to be tweaked at all. It's already the leanest show out there. There's no 'crap' to be cut.
BTW, never seen the post-Finn STYD. You mean Pax still has game shows?
-
Check out the 1978-79 format if you want to see a tweaked format. In my mind, it's a cross between Jeopardy! and The Big Showdown that didn't really work (end game was too challenging, and could be lengthy).
-
[quote name=\'SteveRep\' date=\'Sep 30 2005, 11:22 AM\']BTW, never seen the post-Finn STYD. You mean Pax still has game shows?
[snapback]98181[/snapback]
[/quote]
Put it this way: you thought the FINN version ate ass....
-
The funny thing is that in the Fleming days, with 22 minutes of program time, no visual clues, no Clue Crew and only one fee plug in the whole show (for most of the run), they rarely cleared a board and the game time was still roughly the same.
In watching first-season Trebek episodes which have run on GSN in the past, the board was very seldom cleared then either. I believe it was on the second-season opener when they introduced that light around the board that alerted contestants when to ring in. There seemed to be fewer wrong answers after that and the board was cleared more frequently.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Sep 30 2005, 01:17 PM\']There seemed to be fewer wrong answers after that[/quote]
Amazing what knowing what they're asking before you ring in can do... ;)
-
I don't know. Like I was always told...
"If it ain't broke... don't fix it."
-
I actually thought the contestant elimination as seen in the '78 version and Super J! (the show) was a pretty neat idea. But the bonus round in the former and the point system in the latter? Not so cool.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Sep 30 2005, 02:17 PM\']
In watching first-season Trebek episodes which have run on GSN in the past, the board was very seldom cleared then either. I believe it was on the second-season opener when they introduced that light around the board that alerted contestants when to ring in.
There definitely wasn't such a light in the first season. I remember trying to watch the podium lights of the players on either side of me to see when to ring in, because they were easier to see through my peripheral vision than trying to see my own. And the board was seldom cleared, perhaps partly due to (as someone said earlier) the audience applause after the bottom questions of the categories.
-
If too much more commercial time gets added to shows, I could see them being forced to cut the J! and DJ! rounds down to five categories per round. Isn't more commercial time these days the reason Osmond Pyramid went from 7 in 30 to 6 in 20 seconds in the maingame?
-
This format has lasted 41 years (33 years on Television), so the format, # of questions, and # of categories shouldn't be changed.
The one thing I thought can be added is a run the category bonus. If you correctly question all five answers in a category, you get a cash bonus that isn't added to your score, it is added to the money to take home ($2,000 in Jeopardy! and $4,000 in Double Jeopardy!).
So if you end up in second place and you ran a category in Jeopardy! and Double Jeopardy! rather than taking home $2,000 for the day, you take home $8,000 for the day. A cheesy idea I know, but it doesn't impair the game.
-
[quote name=\'SteveRep\' date=\'Sep 30 2005, 12:05 PM\']
But what could you add? A seventh category or sixth dollar amount seems like it would take too much time and stand-alone 'bonus' questions just go against what Jeopardy truly is.
[snapback]98168[/snapback]
[/quote]
They did add an occasional "bonus" category to DJ! in some episodes of the 1997-98 season. THis essentially added a seventh category to the DJ! round. The responses in that category had two possible answers. A contestant buzzed in and tried to guess one, and if correct, they could then risk the money they earned for their first response to try to guess the second correct answer. They would win double the value of that clue if they guessed the second answer, but would lose the money earned if they got it wrong. If a player got it wrong, as usual, another player could buzz in and answer whatever remained. A Daily Double never appeared in such "bonus" categories.
-
[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' date=\'Sep 30 2005, 09:26 PM\']The one thing I thought can be added is a run the category bonus. If you correctly question all five answers in a category, you get a cash bonus that isn't added to your score, it is added to the money to take home. [/quote]
Late in its run, the Fleming version did almost exactly that. It was a progressive jackpot that would increase $500 each day it wasn't hit. (This was around the time that The $10,000 Pyramid was raising everybody's stakes, and the $1000 for a typical J! win wasn't cutting it anymore.)
Thing is, it did disrupt the game, because Fleming would stop and mention when someone had gotten four in a row that the jackpot was at stake, and it seriously messed up the momentum.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Sep 30 2005, 08:30 PM\']
They did add an occasional "bonus" category to DJ! in some episodes of the 1997-98 season. THis essentially added a seventh category to the DJ! round. The responses in that category had two possible answers. A contestant buzzed in and tried to guess one, and if correct, they could then risk the money they earned for their first response to try to guess the second correct answer. They would win double the value of that clue if they guessed the second answer, but would lose the money earned if they got it wrong. If a player got it wrong, as usual, another player could buzz in and answer whatever remained. A Daily Double never appeared in such "bonus" categories.
[snapback]98208[/snapback]
[/quote]
yeah, I remember the infamous "bonus" top 40 music category in 1998. I think that slowly interrupted the game, but still managed to be two or three short of a complete board. You had to be quick to decide for the bonus, then answer the bonus before time's up.
-
[quote name=\'cool245\' date=\'Sep 30 2005, 10:26 PM\']Why did Pax ever renew Shop instead of Sweep?[/quote]
Because you touch yourself at night.
Zinger courtesy of Bed Bath and Beyond.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Sep 30 2005, 06:18 PM\']If too much more commercial time gets added to shows, I could see them being forced to cut the J! and DJ! rounds down to five categories per round. Isn't more commercial time these days the reason Osmond Pyramid went from 7 in 30 to 6 in 20 seconds in the maingame?
[snapback]98202[/snapback]
[/quote]
Even if the producers or Sony offered that, I think it's a cop-out and that the show could've easily done 7/:30. Maybe if the show hadn't spent so much time on hamming it up with the celebrities. I know, I know, they only had the two celebs, but maybe if they had kept the pair for an entire week, the interview time could've been stretched out, so that 7/:30 could be used.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Sep 30 2005, 11:19 AM\']On the other hand, it's been believed that Art talked faster than Trebek--but we still had few board clears. Perhaps were there more stumpers because the material was harder on the original (allegedly)? I don't know.
[snapback]98178[/snapback]
[/quote]
Oh, definitely! Two examples...
"Secret ingredient found in both Cheese Whiz and Crazy Glue."
"This German Baroness could suck the chrome off a fender."
If this isn't hard material, I don't know what is!
-
Please report for work here on Monday at 10 am. Your new career awaits.
http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=270...ew=1&name=&qty= (http://\"http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=2700+Colorado+Avenue&csz=Santa+Monica%2C+CA&country=us&new=1&name=&qty=\")
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 12:49 AM\']"Secret ingredient found in both Cheese Whiz and Crazy Glue."
"This German Baroness could suck the chrome off a fender."[snapback]98227[/snapback]
[/quote]
Would Ken Jennings or Brad Rutter know those? :-)
-
In seriousness, I get very annoyed at the common misconception that the original show was more difficult than the current one. With the handful of shows we have for comparison, it's easy to see that this is just not the case.
My personal feeling is that those of us who remember the original show were thirty or more years younger then than we are now, and yeah, if you're a twelve year old watching the show, it's going to seem a lot more challenging than equivalent material thirty years later.
-
Sure, let's amend it. When a category is called, Alex will say, "The definition is...." and the contestant can just answer. No more of that 'who is', 'where is', 'what is' crap.
WOF has been going through a gradual amending process for a score of years. And within these pages, it's evident how much that's liked.
Please tell me about this progressive jackpot for running a category. During the last years of the NBC version of Jeopardy!, I was living in Italy where Mike Bongiorno's Il Risciatutto was king on RAI-TV. Did it start at $500 and could it only be won once per show?
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 12:11 PM\']Please tell me about this progressive jackpot for running a category. During the last years of the NBC version of Jeopardy!, I was living in Italy where Mike Bongiorno's Il Risciatutto was king on RAI-TV. Did it start at $500 and could it only be won once per show?[/quote]
I think that's right, but it was so long ago and no tapes of it exist, so I can't be sure. To be perfectly honest, I'm not even 100% sure that the jackpot was progressive. I just remember how awkward it was for Art to stop and talk about it every time they got close.
-
There's nothing the game needs, so far as I can tell. But, hey--TPTB came to me and said we had to tweak the show, here's what I'd add:
End of Jeopardy!, add a bonus answer. Player in the lead has first dibs; if s/he misses, it goes to the player in second, then the player in third. (In case of ties, the last correct questioner among the tied players goes first.
Question this answer correctly, you win the bonus: your choice of a prize or a dollar amount to be added to your score. (I'm not sure what the dollar value would be, or if it would be a set amount or an escalating value.)
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 11:02 AM\']In seriousness, I get very annoyed at the common misconception that the original show was more difficult than the current one. With the handful of shows we have for comparison, it's easy to see that this is just not the case.[/quote]
Just curious--would you base that statement on "batting averages" being roughly the same then as now, or on the content of the material itself, or something else?
As a young whippersnapper, I can't really make a good judgment on what was common knowledge 30-40 years ago. I do think Jeopardy! has moved towards including more pop culture material in the last decade, but A) I'm better at pop culture material, and B) that makes it just as different from J! '85 as from J! '65.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 11:15 AM\']
I think that's right, but it was so long ago and no tapes of it exist, so I can't be sure. To be perfectly honest, I'm not even 100% sure that the jackpot was progressive. I just remember how awkward it was for Art to stop and talk about it every time they got close.
[snapback]98244[/snapback]
[/quote]
IIRC there was a bonus prize of a trip or 1974-75 econobox for running a category on the 1974-75 nighttime weekly syndicated version, also.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 07:26 PM\']IIRC there was a bonus prize of a trip or 1974-75 econobox for running a category on the 1974-75 nighttime weekly syndicated version, also.[/quote]
Econobox? Is this another Zachronym which you use because it's too darn difficult to type "cheap car" or because you're trying to be the Noah Webster of the 21st century?
Please, Zach. Go outside and enjoy the weather, even if it's playing in a sandbox. You can play in the regular sandbox or the econo-sandbox. I think the latter is better for your needs.
-
HTML Triple Crown asked:
Econobox? Is this another Zachronym which you use because it's too darn difficult to type "cheap car" or because you're trying to be the Noah Webster of the 21st century?
As much as people here like to complain about Zach, econobox is perfectly legitimate jargon. At least, it's legitimate enough to be used in places like Business Week (http://\"http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2005/id20050830_930982.htm\"). 'Econobox' also has its own Wikipedia entry (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econobox\")
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 10:29 PM\']As much as people here like to complain about Zach, econobox is perfectly legitimate jargon. At least, it's legitimate enough to be used in places like Business Week (http://\"http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2005/id20050830_930982.htm\"). 'Econobox' also has its own Wikipedia entry (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econobox\")[/quote]
Wow. I stand corrected. I had never heard the term until Zach used it again, and again, and again, etc.
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 07:29 PM\']HTML Triple Crown asked:
Econobox? Is this another Zachronym which you use because it's too darn difficult to type "cheap car" or because you're trying to be the Noah Webster of the 21st century?
As much as people here like to complain about Zach, econobox is perfectly legitimate jargon. At least, it's legitimate enough to be used in places like Business Week (http://\"http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2005/id20050830_930982.htm\"). 'Econobox' also has its own Wikipedia entry (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econobox\")
[snapback]98296[/snapback]
[/quote]
Just because it's 'legitimate' and has its own Wikipedia article doesn't mean I have to like it or use it in conversation. (For that matter, many things have Wikipedia articles that really shouldn't, but that's a matter for another day.) It's no different from the silly language you can find in an issue of Variety. Why be simple when you can be 'witty,' 'clever' and use 'insider jargon' that no one will understand? Whatever.
Now, for the actual GS content:
Was running a category on the old Jeopardy THAT hard? Being too young, I'll take the word of the elder statesmen of the board that the material was not any harder in the old days- in that case, you could see category sweeps left and right.
Part two- was the 'bounce' employed on the old show, or was it very much "top down," or if you bother to change the category, taking the lowest valued clue in that column?
-
[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 09:30 PM\'][quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 10:29 PM\']As much as people here like to complain about Zach, econobox is perfectly legitimate jargon. At least, it's legitimate enough to be used in places like Business Week (http://\"http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2005/id20050830_930982.htm\"). 'Econobox' also has its own Wikipedia entry (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econobox\")[/quote]
Wow. I stand corrected. I had never heard the term until Zach used it again, and again, and again, etc.
[snapback]98305[/snapback]
[/quote]
And your apology to Zach will be in a forthcoming post, correct Mr. Klauss?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 11:23 AM\']And your apology to Zach will be in a forthcoming post, correct Mr. Klauss?[/quote]
Zach's never apologized to us for anything. Why should any of us do likewise for him?
I admitted I was wrong. Isn't that enough?
-
Zach's never apologized to us for anything. Why should any of us do likewise for him?
Why? Because you insulted him up one side and down the other when you were wrong, that's why.
I admitted I was wrong. Isn't that enough?
Not speaking in an official capacity as a moderator, no. I think you need to show some contrition for what you said based on an erroneous premise. I'm not going to penalize you if you don't, but if you're a mensch you'll will.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 11:42 AM\']I'm not going to penalize you if you don't, but if you're a mensch you'll will.
[/quote]
1) It would be a respectful act.
2) Respect is earned.
3) After the multitude of acts of Horanity foisted upon us over the years, that continue to go unabated, I'm thinking I'm willing to overlook a brief event of non-menschery, especially since the basic premise was still completely correct, if not in this specific instance.
/my own damned opinion
-
Chris (both of moderator type and non-mod type), you make valid points. My initial reaction was, admittedly, irrational and unjustified, even though Zach has a legacy of coining his own terms and then constantly using those terms even though 99.9% of the posters don't use them and/or criticize Zach for using them. I withdraw my original comments and humbly apologize.
-
[quote name=\'cool245\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 06:48 PM\']They should make it where the second and third place person takes home a small cash prize instead of prizes.
[/quote]
When's the last time you watched Jeopardy?
In case you missed the news flash from a few years ago; they DO take home cash and prizes. Just go eat some Kentucky Fried Chicken, OK?
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 09:29 PM\']HTML Triple Crown asked:
Econobox? Is this another Zachronym which you use because it's too darn difficult to type "cheap car" or because you're trying to be the Noah Webster of the 21st century?
As much as people here like to complain about Zach, econobox is perfectly legitimate jargon. At least, it's legitimate enough to be used in places like Business Week (http://\"http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2005/id20050830_930982.htm\"). 'Econobox' also has its own Wikipedia entry (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econobox\")
[snapback]98296[/snapback]
[/quote]
I believe I have also used the term many times in 35 years. Not in computer forums, mind you, but in conversations. But I think it's been awhile since I've said or typed "econobox".
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 01:15 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 11:02 AM\']In seriousness, I get very annoyed at the common misconception that the original show was more difficult than the current one. With the handful of shows we have for comparison, it's easy to see that this is just not the case.[/quote]
Just curious--would you base that statement on "batting averages" being roughly the same then as now, or on the content of the material itself, or something else?
As a young whippersnapper, I can't really make a good judgment on what was common knowledge 30-40 years ago. I do think Jeopardy! has moved towards including more pop culture material in the last decade, but A) I'm better at pop culture material, and B) that makes it just as different from J! '85 as from J! '65.[/quote]
It's not based on any mathematical formula. It's simply the observation of someone who writes (and judges the relative difficulty of) trivia material semi-professionally.
Of course, you've also brought up my OTHER pet peeve about complaints regarding Jeopardy material. While it may be true that there is more of an emphasis on pop culture material now than there was in the past (and by no means am I conceding that point), I don't believe that inherently makes the game easier. Some people (myself -- and yourself -- included) would do better on pop culture material, others would do better on literature, or history, or some other subject. A well-written movie or TV category is just as valid as a well-written science or geography one, and it can have just as much challenging material.
Last season, they had a pop culture category of Oscar Ceremony Quotes and not one of the five clues was answered correctly. Just last week, they had a pure mathematics category that didn't fare much better. The key is balance, and I think the Jeopardy writers and producers are constantly making small tweaks to find that balance.
-
In the midst of all the Horanity, someone did point out something that I should've remembered: That the reason for few cleared boards in the Fleming days may've just been because you were allowed to buzz in as soon as the card was revealed. Leading to regular...
"State Mottoes for $20, Art."
"The answer is: [ding as player buzzes in] 'The Land of Enchantment.' Conrad."
"Uh...uh...uh..." [buzz buzz]
"I'm sorry. Anyone else?"
[buzz buzz]
"What is New Mexico? New Mexico. Fran, ma'am, you were the last correct questioner, please select."
As someone else said, when you actually hear the whole clue before you can signal, it makes a difference...
-
I don't remember the material from early in the Trebek version's run, and wasn't alive for the Fleming version's run, but were there as many punny clues as there seem to be now? (Not only that, but the puns are usually put in quotes, giving a pointer that makes the clue easier than if there were no quotes.)
The other thing I've commented on in the past is bottom-of the category clues that effectively ask who was the US President in a given year, which drive me up a wall whenever I see them.
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Oct 3 2005, 07:46 PM\']I don't remember the material from early in the Trebek version's run, [...] but were there as many punny clues as there seem to be now?[/quote]
Feel free to see for yourself (http://\"http://www.j-archive.com/showseason.php?season=1\"). :)
But yeah:
9/17/84 ANIMALS $300: When husbands "pop" for an ermine coat, they're actually buying this fur
9/19/84 ASTRONOMY $600: Planet once thought unique, it no longer runs "rings" around its neighbors
And not only punny, just flat easy:
9/18/84 BIOLOGY $1000: Deoxyribonucleic acid
9/18/84 RELIGION $1000: This word for the Mohammedan religion means "submission to the will of God"
And this just from a cursory glance at the first three episodes. When adjusting for changed dollar values, my scores with the '84 games are about triple my scores with current episodes.
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Oct 3 2005, 10:46 PM\']I don't remember the material from early in the Trebek version's run, and wasn't alive for the Fleming version's run, but were there as many punny clues as there seem to be now? (Not only that, but the puns are usually put in quotes, giving a pointer that makes the clue easier than if there were no quotes.)[/quote]
The puns and embedded clues have always been a part of the Trebek version, but were not typically part of the Fleming version.
-
[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' date=\'Oct 3 2005, 10:11 PM\']And not only punny, just flat easy:
9/18/84 BIOLOGY $1000: Deoxyribonucleic acid
[snapback]98491[/snapback]
[/quote]
I wasn't even 2, but was DNA as big as it is now? I think the first I heard about it was when the OJ situation broke out in 1994.
ObOJ: Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of "the verdict".
ObGameShow: The OJ Trial took its toll on Dawson Feud II.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Oct 3 2005, 09:22 PM\']I wasn't even 2, but was DNA as big as it is now? I think the first I heard about it was when the OJ situation broke out in 1994.
[snapback]98500[/snapback]
[/quote]
Oh yeah.