Friday, October 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

stevo4212
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:20 am

Re: Friday, October 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by stevo4212 » Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:37 pm

Okay, so my view seems to be too extreme.

Do the writers themselves really care if you quote the title exactly? The exact title is probably out of the hands of the creative personnel anyway in many cases. What if the screenplay said "1,000,000 Years BC" But the distributors changed it to One Million Years BC, because that is more gramatically proper?

I guess I have argued for the necessity of strict adherence to titles, like in the Pigeon/Pigeons case. But, then there are cases where the exact title is not necessary. Why don't the judges just exercise some internal consistency? They should probably just generally judge leniently, for the point of the show should not be to nitpick, but to show that you know what the writers are talking about. That approach would probably save the judges a lot of time, when there is a great deal of ambiguity.

User avatar
Dr. J
Decade Battler and Mustache Maker
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:35 pm

Re: Friday, October 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Dr. J » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:04 pm

stevo4212 wrote:Okay, so my view seems to be too extreme.

Do the writers themselves really care if you quote the title exactly? The exact title is probably out of the hands of the creative personnel anyway in many cases. What if the screenplay said "1,000,000 Years BC" But the distributors changed it to One Million Years BC, because that is more gramatically proper?

I guess I have argued for the necessity of strict adherence to titles, like in the Pigeon/Pigeons case. But, then there are cases where the exact title is not necessary. Why don't the judges just exercise some internal consistency? They should probably just generally judge leniently, for the point of the show should not be to nitpick, but to show that you know what the writers are talking about. That approach would probably save the judges a lot of time, when there is a great deal of ambiguity.
This is basically the gist of what Maggie told us. If there's no other work with a similar name, the judges will probably give you the benefit of the doubt. But she made it clear that only applies to the FIRST article in a title, not one in the middle or end. She also used the example of "Unforgiven" versus "The Unforgiven." Two different works, so you'd need to get the article right in that case. I think she said they once accepted "Ye Old Curiosity Shop" instead of "The Old Curiosity Shop," for example.

teapot37
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1683
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:02 pm
Location: Louisville KY

Re: Friday, October 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by teapot37 » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:19 pm

To be fair, the 'y' in "ye" is a corruption of the 'thorn' character (þ) that is pronounced "th". So "ye" is really just an archaic spelling of "the".
Not many people can say they've lost four times on Jeopardy!.

User avatar
glennfleishman
Valued Contributor
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:07 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: Friday, October 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by glennfleishman » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:23 pm

Dr. J wrote:This is basically the gist of what Maggie told us. If there's no other work with a similar name, the judges will probably give you the benefit of the doubt. But she made it clear that only applies to the FIRST article in a title, not one in the middle or end. She also used the example of "Unforgiven" versus "The Unforgiven." Two different works, so you'd need to get the article right in that case. I think she said they once accepted "Ye Old Curiosity Shop" instead of "The Old Curiosity Shop," for example.
We can all agree that in Final Jeopardy, it must be exact!

seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 6316
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Friday, October 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:57 pm

Dr. J wrote:This is basically the gist of what Maggie told us. If there's no other work with a similar name, the judges will probably give you the benefit of the doubt. But she made it clear that only applies to the FIRST article in a title, not one in the middle or end. She also used the example of "Unforgiven" versus "The Unforgiven." Two different works, so you'd need to get the article right in that case. I think she said they once accepted "Ye Old Curiosity Shop" instead of "The Old Curiosity Shop," for example.
They didn't, actually. http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=2092 And I remember Maggie mentioning as much in more than one green room briefing. (When she did it on the first ToC taping day in 2010, Stephen Weingarten made the same argument teapot did. I remember thinking of that argument myself at some point before that, too.) "Lucky" for the offending player, it didn't affect the result of the game.

Maggie also mentioned that "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and "The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" would be accepted, but "Rime of Ancient Mariner" would not (as evidenced in this FJ).

User avatar
Dr. J
Decade Battler and Mustache Maker
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:35 pm

Re: Friday, October 19, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Dr. J » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:08 pm

seaborgium wrote:They didn't, actually. http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=2092 And I remember Maggie mentioning as much in more than one green room briefing. (When she did it on the first ToC taping day in 2010, Stephen Weingarten made the same argument teapot did. I remember thinking of that argument myself at some point before that, too.) "Lucky" for the offending player, it didn't affect the result of the game.

Maggie also mentioned that "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and "The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" would be accepted, but "Rime of Ancient Mariner" would not (as evidenced in this FJ).
Oh, that's right -- I remembered the example, but not the correct ruling!

Post Reply