Page 4 of 4

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:12 pm
by VicGChad07
opusthepenguin wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:37 am Another edge case. For the Belize motto "sub umbra floreo" meaning I flourish in this. They wanted "shade." I said "shadows." Now, if I'd said "shadow," I think they'd have to give it to me. But I mistook a feminine singular for a neuter plural. (I know, I know.) I still think they might have let me get away with it.

I also said toe shoes. I'm counting that one unless some ballet snob can tell me why I shouldn't.
The facts expressed in each installment of the program were researched and found to be correct at the time of taping.

As for "shade"/"shadows", Alex would glance at the researchers for a nod either way, and it would continue on down to the Editorial Associate Producer and finally to the Producer; if they still aren't sure, then taping would be stopped for a few moments while the information gets checked out. Such instances have very rarely happened.

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:16 pm
by VicGChad07
MTGcollegestudent wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:01 pm Man...this game took a rough start for Susan and Alyssa. Rich himself didn't fare as well as expected. Normally, in situations where the first round ends, a player usually should have more than $5,000 in total by the end. By the time the interview break was finished, all of them went down more on their score.

-$1,200 - 2,000 = -$3,200
$600 - 1,000 = -$400
$3,400 - 1,200 = $2,200

Did Alex really have to go with the "It helps a lot if you start at the top of the category" cliche? We heard something like that two years ago...with the Nikki/Damien/Julie game. The "You might want to start at the top, the easier clues." cliche.

It blows my mind that the current champ who dethroned 5-time champ Jon Eisenman got really far in the red. $3,600 in negs in the first round?! My big question is...how did she even become champ when she did this bad in the first round?! Does this situation seem familiar? The Erin/Sophie/David game 5 years ago? Erin was just like that, where she had $3,600 in negs in the first round as well. Worse than that, Erin had dug her hole much deeper at -$4,600. It's pretty impeccable that she even got out of the hole to stay around for FJ!, like what Category 13 said, this game was all futile for Susan.

All I can say is...SO MANY BAD NEGS!!! X_X
Alex gets really agitated by people who start at the bottom instead of the top. We should all be glad he didn't sound like Will Ferrell's impression (though the ratings would skyrocket if he behaved like Will Ferrell's parody).

Needless to say, there are many people who think they can throw off others by picking the harder material at the bottom first. As we all know, the crew advise against this; if one starts at the bottom, one won't be able to get a feel for the categories.

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:20 pm
by VicGChad07
MattKnowles wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:16 pm I thought malleable was an acceptable response. Do they enforce a tougher acceptance criteria for bottom row clues?

I missed B. J. Thomas and Dylan Thomas but I've learned both of those before.

I'm curious to see how Rich does tomorrow. He got a lot right but missed some relatively easy ones too. If he had first day jitters and gets over them he could be a strong contender.
"Malleable" was marked "DNA" for "Do Not Accept".

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:20 pm
by VicGChad07
econgator wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:15 pm
MTGcollegestudent wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:01 pm Did Alex really have to go with the "It helps a lot if you start at the top of the category" cliche?
As poorly as they were playing, he absolutely did.

Rate payer? What the hell is that?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ratepayer

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:42 pm
by alietr
VicGChad07 wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:20 pm
MattKnowles wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:16 pm I thought malleable was an acceptable response. Do they enforce a tougher acceptance criteria for bottom row clues?

I missed B. J. Thomas and Dylan Thomas but I've learned both of those before.

I'm curious to see how Rich does tomorrow. He got a lot right but missed some relatively easy ones too. If he had first day jitters and gets over them he could be a strong contender.
"Malleable" was marked "DNA" for "Do Not Accept".
How do you know this?

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:52 pm
by jeff6286
alietr wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:42 pm
VicGChad07 wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:20 pm
MattKnowles wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:16 pm I thought malleable was an acceptable response. Do they enforce a tougher acceptance criteria for bottom row clues?

I missed B. J. Thomas and Dylan Thomas but I've learned both of those before.

I'm curious to see how Rich does tomorrow. He got a lot right but missed some relatively easy ones too. If he had first day jitters and gets over them he could be a strong contender.
"Malleable" was marked "DNA" for "Do Not Accept".
How do you know this?
Sounds like he knows it all. It's nice to finally have someone on this board that actually knows something about the show.

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:12 pm
by VicGChad07
jeff6286 wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:52 pm
alietr wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:42 pm
VicGChad07 wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:20 pm
MattKnowles wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:16 pm I thought malleable was an acceptable response. Do they enforce a tougher acceptance criteria for bottom row clues?

I missed B. J. Thomas and Dylan Thomas but I've learned both of those before.

I'm curious to see how Rich does tomorrow. He got a lot right but missed some relatively easy ones too. If he had first day jitters and gets over them he could be a strong contender.
"Malleable" was marked "DNA" for "Do Not Accept".
How do you know this?
Sounds like he knows it all. It's nice to finally have someone on this board that actually knows something about the show.
I'm just a normal everyday viewer...and fan of the show.

It also helps to have The Jeopardy! Book on hand.

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:15 pm
by Bamaman
The book had information about a clue on Monday's show?

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:23 pm
by VicGChad07
Bamaman wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:15 pm The book had information about a clue on Monday's show?
No, but it does give you some tidbits of info regarding their research and how they indicate acceptable and non-acceptable responses. :T

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:32 pm
by seaborgium
VicGChad07 wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:20 pm
MattKnowles wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:16 pm I thought malleable was an acceptable response. Do they enforce a tougher acceptance criteria for bottom row clues?

I missed B. J. Thomas and Dylan Thomas but I've learned both of those before.

I'm curious to see how Rich does tomorrow. He got a lot right but missed some relatively easy ones too. If he had first day jitters and gets over them he could be a strong contender.
"Malleable" was marked "DNA" for "Do Not Accept".
So why did Alex hesitate before ruling "malleable" incorrect?

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:34 pm
by dhkendall
VicGChad07 wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:23 pm
Bamaman wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:15 pm The book had information about a clue on Monday's show?
No, but it does give you some tidbits of info regarding their research and how they indicate acceptable and non-acceptable responses. :T
So then you can't say for sure it was marked DNA without knowing about that specific clue on that specific day. The best you can say is that it was "probably", "most likely" marked DNA.

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:58 pm
by mxc_takeshi
This Is Kirk! wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:06 am
mxc_takeshi wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 1:19 am I saw "attractive" and immediately thought of high cheekbones; I also thought of dimples but didn't change my answer.
The word used was "appealing," actually.
Oops. Thanks for the correction, Kirk.

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:40 am
by opusthepenguin
davey wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:58 pm
John Boy wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:30 pm
LT: cryptic, ductile, Tagalog, Marquis de Queensbury.
I hope that's a typo...I wonder if they would accept, since he wasn't French... :)
It's actually Marquess of Queensberry...
Depends on the pronunciation, Shirley. If you pronounce Marquis correctly, no dice. But if you pronounce it mar-kwiss or mar-kiss, you'd probably get away with it.

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:41 am
by opusthepenguin
VicGChad07 wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:16 pm Alex gets really agitated by people who start at the bottom instead of the top. We should all be glad he didn't sound like Will Ferrell's impression (though the ratings would skyrocket if he behaved like Will Ferrell's parody).
I think Will Ferrell would be a great replacement for Alex when he retires.

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:51 am
by earendel
xxaaaxx wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:39 pm"You pays your money"? What???
I always heard it as "you pays your penny, you takes your chance". I wonder if they would have accepted "penny".

Re: Monday, July 10, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:12 am
by Volante
earendel wrote: Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:51 am
xxaaaxx wrote: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:39 pm"You pays your money"? What???
I always heard it as "you pays your penny, you takes your chance". I wonder if they would have accepted "penny".
Yes they would (eventually, if it came to that, and assuming you said "you pays your penny" and not -just- "penny." "Penny" alone would be wrong)
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22you+ ... r+penny%22