Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, dhkendall, trainman, econgator

User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 6463
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Volante » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:51 pm

Peter the accountant wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:48 pm
So what made it so easy for those who got it right?
That the government had to pay out means it wasn't contracted work; they're probably paying off copyright infringement. Thus it had to shot by a private citizen, so we're probably looking at home movie quality style. And it had to be a massively historic moment to justify such a large payout for such a small clip.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 6628
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by opusthepenguin » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:57 pm

AFRET CMS wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:45 am
MattKnowles wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:39 pm
I'm usually excited to learn new things but tonight I learned the correct pronunciation of "Quixotic" and continued ignorance would be preferred.
I was [very mildly] surprised that Alex didn't take the pedantism opportunity to say, "We were looking for 'key-HOTE-tic" but we'll accept that."

Had an 11th-grade English teacher who not only would not have accepted "kwix-ott-ic" but would have spent the rest of the show making fun of the contestant. Of course, high school teachers were allowed to emotionally bully students back then.
And they were allowed to do it even if they were completely wrong. Tell the teacher to look up the correct pronunciation and stop ridiculing students who use it.

I'm not at all surprised that Alex didn't mistakenly correct the contestant. Though I suppose we don't know that he didn't. They would have edited that part out.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 6628
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by opusthepenguin » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:12 pm

Volante wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:51 pm
Peter the accountant wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:48 pm
So what made it so easy for those who got it right?
That the government had to pay out means it wasn't contracted work; they're probably paying off copyright infringement. Thus it had to shot by a private citizen, so we're probably looking at home movie quality style. And it had to be a massively historic moment to justify such a large payout for such a small clip.
Yeah, I think the government angle was what took my mind in the right direction. Plus, I had a very vague recollection of the court decision. But you have to key in on the possibility that the family involved is of the person who MADE and OWNED the 30 seconds of film rather than the person who was the subject of it. If you go down the wrong rabbit trail in that regard, it's going to be very hard to recover and get to the right response in 30 seconds.

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 3366
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by davey » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:41 pm

Peter the accountant wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:48 pm
You can color me confused. I'm at the tail end of the baby boom. I'm familiar with the JFK assassination, the investigations, the conspiracy theories. If you asked me point blank who shot the famous footage of the event, I could answer Zapruder. (At worst, I'd be tongue tied on names starting with Z.)

But I just don't see the connection between the clue and the answer. How do you connect them without knowing about some court case apparently from 1999? Usually there are multiple ways to tease out an answer, but I don't see a way without knowing about this dispute between the government and the Zapruder family. I'd argue that knowing about JFK's assassination is incidental to knowing about the dispute.

I'll admit that I started down the same path as TPH - trying to think of actors who may have done some cameo or commercial, or filmmakers who had a historical movie scene put to another use for the government. I wasn't thinking about physical pieces of film.

So what made it so easy for those who got it right?
What other historic 30-second film connected to the US government AND a famous name- and conceivably worth a lot of money - can you identify?
It occurred to me later that because of the 1999 date, someone might think the National Archive, say, had paid someone for the first bit of video ever posted on the internet. But of course if such a clip is known it's not so famous or connected to a famous name.

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 3366
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by davey » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:46 pm

billiej wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:22 am
davey wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:57 pm
Elijah Baley wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:21 pm
davey wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:21 pm
A friend of mine - not a J! watcher, and not a "trivia" person though a smart guy - says that In 1999 is deliberately misleading and should have been left out. This despite the fact that he got it, and within :30 I believe. I think he's just being a curmudgeon, but any response?
1999 wasn't particularly relevant but it does narrow it down somewhat by eliminating the past 19 years. They could have also left out 1999 and said that the film was shot in 1963. But there's making the clue easy and then there is practically answering it for the contestants.
Thanks - that closely mirrors my conversation with this fellow. I think he just doesn't have a Jeopardy! mind....
I found 1999 neither distracting nor helpful. American History + US Government + 30 second film was plenty to get to the answer almost immediately.
Thanks. It occurs to me too that 1999 juxtaposed to his family suggests a name and event out of the past, since he must have been dead.

Elijah Baley
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Elijah Baley » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:55 pm

Saturnalia wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:56 pm
Elijah Baley wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:09 am

If you went to school in the US, I'm not sure how you can say that you never studied JFK in school. And, even if it was glossed over, the existence of a controversy about how JFK was killed is pretty hard to ignore since it gets brought up every single year on the anniversary of the shooting. It's been referenced in any number of movies because of the cultural significance of the assassination as a kind of break from the America of the 50s and early 60s and the rest of that decade. Etc.
Things are different in Portland. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Or maybe I just had unusual luck with teachers.

11th-grade US History was very heavy on the (1890-1920) golden age of progressivism in the US, and everything after 1950 was glossed over or not brought up at all. In many cases, that's how my social-studies and humanities education was: heavy on material that was considered relevant to a certain set of political/moral concerns; light on everything else. (Not trying to start a political argument or anything, but that certainly has a lot to do with why I never studied JFK.)

Anyway, sure, I always heard about conspiracy theories, but somehow the relevance of the videotape to those theories never came up. I avoided Oliver Stone movies for a long time, because honestly, the first time I ever heard of the guy was in a rock memoir by the Doors' keyboardist, who ranted several times therein about what an awful guy and filmmaker Stone was.

It was only later, when I got more interested in the politics of that era (Caro's LBJ books had a lot to do with it) that I realized Zapruder was a thing. Also, in Popular Crime Bill James discusses his preferred account of what happened (the second-shot-was-actually-fired-by-Agent-Hickey theory) and analyzes the Zapruder tape briefly but memorably.
Uh, videotape??? :lol:

Just giving you a hard time - but yes, the Zapruder footage was shot on an old fashioned home movie camera. And if we wanted to watch home movies in those days, it meant hauling out a portable movie screen and then having someone who could thread the film through the projector, etc. It was actually a bit of an event - which, in hindsight, made it feel a bit more special. That graduated to slide projectors - oh, the joy of having a neighbor ask you over to see their vacation slides! Not.

We can only imagine if there had been thousands of cell phones available to record the scene as it happened ...

Peter the accountant
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:13 am

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Peter the accountant » Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:43 pm

davey wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:41 pm
What other historic 30-second film connected to the US government AND a famous name- and conceivably worth a lot of money - can you identify?
If you expand the possibilities to a copyright misuse claim, there's an awful lot of them. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Mitchell, Howard, Selznick, Gable, Leigh and others are potential claimant families. "What a glorious feeling, I'm happy again." Any Busby Berkeley big show scene or Fred & Ginger dance scene. Then there's the universe of commercials. Granted, these could fit into a culture type category as well. But they are also a part of history and uniquely American. They're not European History or Russian History or Chinese History.

I'm not arguing against the legitimacy of the clue or the response. It's a fair clue. I just don't see how you can quickly toss out all of these other possibilities without knowing about the dispute resolution mentioned in the clue.
--Peter

User avatar
TenPoundHammer
Otters are meant to swim
Posts: 7559
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by TenPoundHammer » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:22 pm

My problem was that "film" had me stuck in movies and unable to come up with a response that fit.
Ten Pound Hammer

This space for rent

User avatar
OrangeSAM
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:00 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by OrangeSAM » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:59 pm

Elijah Baley wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:55 pm
Saturnalia wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:56 pm
Elijah Baley wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:09 am

If you went to school in the US, I'm not sure how you can say that you never studied JFK in school. And, even if it was glossed over, the existence of a controversy about how JFK was killed is pretty hard to ignore since it gets brought up every single year on the anniversary of the shooting. It's been referenced in any number of movies because of the cultural significance of the assassination as a kind of break from the America of the 50s and early 60s and the rest of that decade. Etc.
Things are different in Portland. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Or maybe I just had unusual luck with teachers.

11th-grade US History was very heavy on the (1890-1920) golden age of progressivism in the US, and everything after 1950 was glossed over or not brought up at all. In many cases, that's how my social-studies and humanities education was: heavy on material that was considered relevant to a certain set of political/moral concerns; light on everything else. (Not trying to start a political argument or anything, but that certainly has a lot to do with why I never studied JFK.)

Anyway, sure, I always heard about conspiracy theories, but somehow the relevance of the videotape to those theories never came up. I avoided Oliver Stone movies for a long time, because honestly, the first time I ever heard of the guy was in a rock memoir by the Doors' keyboardist, who ranted several times therein about what an awful guy and filmmaker Stone was.

It was only later, when I got more interested in the politics of that era (Caro's LBJ books had a lot to do with it) that I realized Zapruder was a thing. Also, in Popular Crime Bill James discusses his preferred account of what happened (the second-shot-was-actually-fired-by-Agent-Hickey theory) and analyzes the Zapruder tape briefly but memorably.
Uh, videotape??? :lol:

Just giving you a hard time - but yes, the Zapruder footage was shot on an old fashioned home movie camera. And if we wanted to watch home movies in those days, it meant hauling out a portable movie screen and then having someone who could thread the film through the projector, etc. It was actually a bit of an event - which, in hindsight, made it feel a bit more special. That graduated to slide projectors - oh, the joy of having a neighbor ask you over to see their vacation slides! Not.

We can only imagine if there had been thousands of cell phones available to record the scene as it happened ...
Not to menton that between shot and show, the film had to be "processed". Kids, ask your grandparents.

We're now living in the shoot and post age.
OCSam

User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 6463
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Volante » Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:11 pm

Peter the accountant wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:43 pm
davey wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:41 pm
What other historic 30-second film connected to the US government AND a famous name- and conceivably worth a lot of money - can you identify?
If you expand the possibilities to a copyright misuse claim, there's an awful lot of them. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Mitchell, Howard, Selznick, Gable, Leigh and others are potential claimant families. "What a glorious feeling, I'm happy again." Any Busby Berkeley big show scene or Fred & Ginger dance scene. Then there's the universe of commercials. Granted, these could fit into a culture type category as well. But they are also a part of history and uniquely American. They're not European History or Russian History or Chinese History.

I'm not arguing against the legitimacy of the clue or the response. It's a fair clue. I just don't see how you can quickly toss out all of these other possibilities without knowing about the dispute resolution mentioned in the clue.
Except the studio would be the name on the check if a movie was involved (even family owned, i.e., "Warner Bros" would be the payee, not Jack Warner)

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 3366
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by davey » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:40 pm

Volante wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:11 pm
Peter the accountant wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:43 pm
davey wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:41 pm
What other historic 30-second film connected to the US government AND a famous name- and conceivably worth a lot of money - can you identify?
If you expand the possibilities to a copyright misuse claim, there's an awful lot of them. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Mitchell, Howard, Selznick, Gable, Leigh and others are potential claimant families. "What a glorious feeling, I'm happy again." Any Busby Berkeley big show scene or Fred & Ginger dance scene. Then there's the universe of commercials. Granted, these could fit into a culture type category as well. But they are also a part of history and uniquely American. They're not European History or Russian History or Chinese History.

I'm not arguing against the legitimacy of the clue or the response. It's a fair clue. I just don't see how you can quickly toss out all of these other possibilities without knowing about the dispute resolution mentioned in the clue.
Except the studio would be the name on the check if a movie was involved (even family owned, i.e., "Warner Bros" would be the payee, not Jack Warner)
Yeah, I'm trying to follow how the US government steals the intellectual property (or 30 seconds of it) of a Hollywood studio in a way that causes such studio - or is it the heirs of Clark Gable? - to sue...a bit of a stretch...

User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 6463
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Volante » Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:04 pm

davey wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:40 pm
Volante wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:11 pm
Peter the accountant wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:43 pm
davey wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:41 pm
What other historic 30-second film connected to the US government AND a famous name- and conceivably worth a lot of money - can you identify?
If you expand the possibilities to a copyright misuse claim, there's an awful lot of them. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Mitchell, Howard, Selznick, Gable, Leigh and others are potential claimant families. "What a glorious feeling, I'm happy again." Any Busby Berkeley big show scene or Fred & Ginger dance scene. Then there's the universe of commercials. Granted, these could fit into a culture type category as well. But they are also a part of history and uniquely American. They're not European History or Russian History or Chinese History.

I'm not arguing against the legitimacy of the clue or the response. It's a fair clue. I just don't see how you can quickly toss out all of these other possibilities without knowing about the dispute resolution mentioned in the clue.
Except the studio would be the name on the check if a movie was involved (even family owned, i.e., "Warner Bros" would be the payee, not Jack Warner)
Yeah, I'm trying to follow how the US government steals the intellectual property (or 30 seconds of it) of a Hollywood studio in a way that causes such studio - or is it the heirs of Clark Gable? - to sue...a bit of a stretch...
Incidentally, after looking up the case, it was over eminent domain, not copyright. The Zapruder family still holds copyright (so it's not in the public domain)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/16-million ... uder-film/

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 6514
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by alietr » Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:02 am

OrangeSAM wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:59 pm
Not to menton that between shot and show, the film had to be "processed". Kids, ask your grandparents.
Where's a Fotomat when you need one?

Peter the accountant
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:13 am

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Peter the accountant » Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:36 am

davey wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:40 pm
Yeah, I'm trying to follow how the US government steals the intellectual property (or 30 seconds of it) of a Hollywood studio in a way that causes such studio - or is it the heirs of Clark Gable? - to sue...a bit of a stretch...
Revenue sharing between the investors, studio, producers, and star actors is pretty standard. While the studio is going to be some kind of business, the investors and producers can be individuals, as are the actors. So any copyright infringement that results in money to the official copyright holder (probably the studio) would be split based on their revenue sharing agreements.

I have no problem imagining someone in government making a mistake and creating a copyright infringement. Even the US government is run by fallible humans. Mistakes are going to happen.

I've got to let this issue go at this point. I do thank you for the discussion. With some reflection, I think this might be a demonstration of the difference between the wide but shallow knowledge needed for trivia contests (including J!) vs. the narrower but deeper knowledge needed as a professional. There is an angle to this particular question which is in my professional wheelhouse. It does point out that you might need to approach questions in your profession a bit differently than other areas. Thinking as a non-professional -- particularly avoiding over-thinking -- could help get to the desired answer quickly.
--Peter

davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 3366
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by davey » Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:49 pm

Peter the accountant wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:36 am
davey wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:40 pm
Yeah, I'm trying to follow how the US government steals the intellectual property (or 30 seconds of it) of a Hollywood studio in a way that causes such studio - or is it the heirs of Clark Gable? - to sue...a bit of a stretch...
Revenue sharing between the investors, studio, producers, and star actors is pretty standard. While the studio is going to be some kind of business, the investors and producers can be individuals, as are the actors. So any copyright infringement that results in money to the official copyright holder (probably the studio) would be split based on their revenue sharing agreements.

I have no problem imagining someone in government making a mistake and creating a copyright infringement. Even the US government is run by fallible humans. Mistakes are going to happen.

I've got to let this issue go at this point. I do thank you for the discussion. With some reflection, I think this might be a demonstration of the difference between the wide but shallow knowledge needed for trivia contests (including J!) vs. the narrower but deeper knowledge needed as a professional. There is an angle to this particular question which is in my professional wheelhouse. It does point out that you might need to approach questions in your profession a bit differently than other areas. Thinking as a non-professional -- particularly avoiding over-thinking -- could help get to the desired answer quickly.
The only well-known actual intellectual property case I can think of involving a famous person that comes near being relevant is when Fred Astaire dancing was used in a vacuum cleaner commercial. But that was an intra-family dispute, I'm not sure it ever ended up in court. His daughter was upset, but his wife had every right to sell his image. The US government had nothing to do with it.
The task on an FJ is not to "expand the possibilities." Go for the obvious. Most people who got it probably understood that it was suggesting a 30-second film in which the US government has a strong interest, not a mundane dispute about fair use. And we know that this was not a dispute over copyright. The government seized the film, and the case was about how much it was worth.
Edison might have been a reasonable guess, assuming the National Archives or the Smithsonian wanted to purchase his earliest film. Though how that turns into a legal case a hundred years later I don't know.
Anything else? Say, film of the first atomic explosion. But what family name would be associated with that? Oppenheimer, I suppose.

Post Reply