And a Chinese dynasty that I've... well, you know, it's a Chinese dynasty.
You're killin' me this week, Alan.
Swan: I used to be the same way. "Oh, I'll only watch eps with topics I'm familiar with and/or that have boardies on them." But, I found those episodes (and the non-boardies and topics that didn't appeal to me) so entertaining and interesting (and I was learning something, my favourite thing to do) that I vowed to catch up on all of them.
(I feel the same way about the topics - although I have heard (and have on my iPhone) Blur's "Song 2", which is probably the one most of us have heard from them. I'm not expecting "Song 2" to make an appearance in the ep, since I'm gathering that's a Kid's Week question, being their most popular hit and all.)
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me
"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings
dhkendall wrote:Swan: I used to be the same way. "Oh, I'll only watch eps with topics I'm familiar with and/or that have boardies on them."
Don't get me wrong, David. I thoroughly enjoy THE EXPERTS each week regardless of my familiarity with the categories or players. I thought this week's episode was great fun, as always.
But as my gentle ribbing of Alan (we inhabited the same taping group for Round One of the UToC) suggested, one would be hard-pressed to come up with three more arcane topics -- from an average-viewer perspective -- than this week's trifecta.
For the record, I knew two answers, both in Jerome's category:
You guys are having the very same discussion about categories we've had SO MANY TIMES.
Here's the dilemma --- Do we offer all totally pop, totally current categories? (That's what I always advocate because it would get us the most views --- and the most young viewers. And I have no shame.) Or do we offer arcane obscure categories -- that frequently also happen to be funny? (That's what one of my partners always advocates because he has some integrity.)
As it happens, we haven't really had to solve this conundrum because of our more pressing problem of finding contestants. The week of this taping, we found a League expert, a Blur expert, and Jerome, who could have also done French Revolution among other academic offerings. And that was it. So that's what we went with. And of course, they were all terrific players. And who would have ever thought to match them up against each other?
So does this trifecta of arcana help us get viewers? Not so much. But does it establish our show's brand --- that we find people who LOVE LOVE LOVE something you never really thought about? Yes. Which is good and valuable in its own way.
But do we still want to appeal to 15-year-old boys? God help us, but yes, it would be nice.
So there you are. Problem unsolved!
And, by the way, we've got some very big, very popular categories in the pipeline now that people are seeing the show online. This past weekend, we taped Glee vs. Breaking Bad vs. Resident Evil. All of which will help balance the 19th-Century Russian Literature expert who's coming up soon.
Alan_B wrote: And, by the way, we've got some very big, very popular categories in the pipeline now that people are seeing the show online. This past weekend, we taped Glee vs. Breaking Bad vs. Resident Evil. All of which will help balance the 19th-Century Russian Literature expert who's coming up soon.
That's more like it , two of my favorite topics (though I wouldn't say I'm an expert in either). Offset somewhat by Glee, however.