Dare to amend the J! format?

[Strikerz04]

[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.

[BrandonFG]

[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.

[BrandonFG]

[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.

[Kevin Prather]

[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!

[chris319]

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=

[GS Warehouse]

[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? :-)

[Matt Ottinger]

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.

[Don Howard]

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?

[Matt Ottinger]

[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.

[Clay Zambo]

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.)

[Robert Hutchinson]

[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.

[zachhoran]

[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.

[MikeK]

[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.

[Fedya]

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.  'Econobox' also has its own Wikipedia entry

[MikeK]

[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.  'Econobox' also has its own Wikipedia entry[/quote]

Wow.  I stand corrected.  I had never heard the term until Zach used it again, and again, and again, etc.