Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Tigershark

Member
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

Reputation

127 Excellent
  1. I don't get why Abi's original tribe didn't vote her off in the first tribal council. She is not any help in challenges. As it has been said, she is so needy and paranoid, that keeping her happy is draining her tribe's energy. Tasha admitted that Abi is easily manipulated, so you definitely don't want her in an alliance, because she might flip. She is over emotional and any little thing might set her off, and something that may be perfectly normal or innocent might send her into a tailspin. I have a friend like that. She interpreted something I did that had nothing to do with her, as all about her, and in her eyes it was a horrible mean thing. For the next couple of months our only communication were a series of insane emails where she angrily told me all the things I did that were horrible to her. (And I mean completely insane- she told me one of the horrible things I did was going to New York without inviting her first. Because SHE likes New York, so if I go, I MUST invite her. I actually had to explain to her that if I was going to New York with my mom, it's a mother-daughter thing, and not a personal attack when I don't invite her.) While IRL, I you can ignore people like this for a few months while they calm down, you can't do that on Survivor. The living conditions on Survivor are stressful enough, the last thing you want is a crazy person draining all of your energy. I think the problem with the "strategy" of some of these players (Tasha, I'm looking at you) is that they are thinking too many steps ahead. While it's good to keep the long-term in mind while playing, you have to keep in mind that before you can get to point D, you have to get to points B and C first. The tribes seem hell-bent on getting rid of people that will be threats post-merge, but they forget that you are in a much better position if you go into the merge with numbers. You will have the numbers if you win challenges, so it makes the best sense to keep the players around who will help you win the challenges. In the early stages, you want to get rid of someone who is weak and is causing a lot of tribe dissension. This is reminding me of the Brains v. Brawn v. Beauty season, where the "Brains" tribe got rid of the alpha males because they were future "treats" and kept around some lady (her name escapes me) who was dead weight in challenges. She was so bad in challenges that another tribe tried to throw a challenge, but were unable to do so because the one lady dragged her team down so much. The only reason I could possibly see for keeping Abi around is that she is a person you want to still be there if you are one of the final two. But you will never get to the final two with her, because you will do something that Abi won't like, and she will go crazy and turn on you.
  2. There is a lot of speculation that when you are called to play in the mock game has some bearing on: 1) how well you did on the test and 2) the likelihood you will get the call. The common theory is if you are called first, it's good and last is bad. I don't buy it. I knew more than 45 of those questions, and I was somewhere in the middle. I got "The Call" as did another girl who was in the same mock game as me.
  3. I know this has been posted before, but it's still fun to watch. (And you can see me for a very brief second at about the 1 min. mark) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/29/alex-trebek-foreign-words-supercut_n_5631945.html I wonder if the person who gave Jess the advice to do something crazy saw my episode (the one that shows up in that video). I was up against a guy who had no chance of winning and did something crazy. It wouldn't surprise me at all if a reality show was his goal. I can't believe no one got Clayton Kershaw. I hate, hate, hate the Dodgers, so I probably would have had a disgusted look on my face if I answered that one.
  4. I actually saw that production of "A Winter's Tale" at the Old Globe! There were some really easy categories tonight. I was really hoping that the Amy Adams category would have a question about Enchanted. As a theater minor, I was screaming at my TV for Betrayal and Doubt. I was really surprised no one got the Jack the Ripper clue given that the 1860's, 1870's, and 1890's had been taken off the table.
  5. 49ers quarterback could refer to Steve Young, but adding the 4 Super Bowls detail meant it was Montana.
  6. I came here to post about the utter ridiculousness of the Joe Montana clue, but several people beat me to it. The clue said, 49ers, quarterback, four Superbowls. Adding the picture to all of that information was overkill. I'm a huge 49er fan and I got the answer from "Aaron Rodgers grew up idolizing him." There was a picture that went viral before a 49ers-Packers playoff game of two photos side-by-side, one of Kaepernick as a kid in a Favre jersey and one of Rodgers as a kid in decked out in 49ers apparel. That seemed to be a theme with a lot of the questions tonight. I though FJ had way too many clues in it. I think the clue would have been fine if it had said "This actress was nominated for Best Actress in 2002 and 2003, and won the Best Supporting Actress in 2004." But adding that it was an actress in her 30's, from Texas, who won for a Civil War Drama made the question too easy.
  7. I burst out laughing when I saw a category called "The Pen is Mightier." That was the highlight of an otherwise lackluster game. I agree with most of the comments about Bellamy, I found her to be extremely annoying. Someone on another board pointed out that she has a degree in English from Yale. She's not stupid, but she acted like such a ditz, that I wanted to smack her. She reminded me a bit of a girl I went to high school with: she was a very smart girl, but she would act like such a ditz at times, as if there was something wrong with being smart or she was trying to conform to some kind of stereotypical expectation (she was also a cheerleader). Watching Bellamy made me kind of sad. If you're a smart, capable woman, you should own it, not act dumb.
  8. During the pre-show orientation, they tell the contestants to say the full name of the category once, and then after that to shorten it. TPTB want the boards cleared as well. They also strongly discouraged picking the higher value clues first for two reasons: 1. negbait answers to higher value clues are sometimes eliminated with the easier clues and 2. because sometimes there will be a pattern to a category, and a higher value clue will be much easier if you've figured out the pattern. I saw an example of this in my game. The highest value clue was "The innermost of the Galilean moons of Jupiter." While I can name a few moons of Jupiter, no way do I get that clue correct without recognizing the pattern. All of the previous answers had been two letter words ending in "o." Since that was the last clue in the category, it essentially was name a moon of Jupiter that's two letters and ends in "o," which is a much easier question. The exception to the start with the lower valued clues and work your way down is when it's near the end of the round, and you're behind and need to catch up. Then go for the higher value clues.
  9. I nearly threw something at my TV and refused the watch the rest of the episode with the $400 clue in Broadway musicals by song. I've seen Les Miserables a half a dozen times, and there are no songs called "The People's Song" or "Paris." That was really terrible. If you are going to put a clue about Les Miserables, it should have said "I Dreamed a Dream" and "Bring Him Home." If I were a contestant, I would have thrown a hissy fit during the commercial break because of that clue. Did the writers even bother to do any research on that question? It takes 20 seconds on google to get a list of songs from Les Miserables.
  10. I got home from trivia night at a bar, and having already been spoiled as to the results, refused to watch the show. I'm such a huge musicals fan, and to me, this question was super easy, and I didn't really want to watch a show where a contestant wins with a bad guess on an easy musicals question. Not only is Oklahoma not set in Iowa, but Oklahoma premiered in 1943. Yes I know Oklahoma features a song "Kansas City," but I would think that the clue would hint that the show was set elsewhere if that was the case. There's only three musicals I can name that are set in Iowa (and I can name a lot of obscure musicals), and one of those is very recent. That leaves State Fair and Music Man, and Music Man is way, way more popular than State Fair. What I don't get is that if John was assured of a victory, why did he bet anything at all on this category? Judging by his guess, I'm thinking that Broadway Musicals is not a strong category for him, so why lose $5,000. I remember seeing an interview with Ken Jennings about why he didn't like to make large FJ bets when he had a lock game and he mentioned that when you are assured of winning, you are essentially betting your own money. If it's a category you are not strong in, it's not worth losing money over.
  11. That's funny, because I was a Chemistry major, and for almost all of our exams we were allowed to have a copy of the periodic table. I think the reasoning was that we could focus on understanding the concepts and reactions more if we weren't worried about the periodic table. A lot of times, I have a hard time when it comes to these categories because we never had to memorize it. Other than the element symbols we saw all the time, like carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, the halogens, and the major metals, (and molybdenum, which came up a lot) I sometimes struggle with these categories.
  12. I'm less familiar with child custody/surrogacy issues, but the short answer is yes a case where someone tries to bind a non-party to a contract would, in almost all cases, not survive a motion to dismiss. A lot of times a motion to dismiss just entails a lawyer filing paperwork, and does not entail a visit to the courtroom. (At least it does in California, I don't know about Florida.) As a lawyer, the whole Alba being afraid of courthouse, so Jane dismissed the lawsuit story was laughable because the writers clearly don't know how the American legal system works. A case like that would 1. not require Luisa's presence; 2. would probably be settled quickly and out of court, and no one, except possibly the lawyers, would have to go to court, and 3. There is no reason why Alba would be involved. When it comes to horrible errors in the legal system, I'm willing to forgive a show like this, which is very stylized, but less forgiving when it's a serious legal drama like The Good Wife (usually good, but there was one episode last year that got everything wrong) or How to Get Away with Murder (I lasted one episode).
  13. Haven't watched last nights episode, but now I'll have to see it. Still, for me, nothing beats the dumbfounded expression on Alex's face when my FJ wager was revealed. The producers wisely edited this out. He was utterly shocked that a woman could add five digit numbers. Nearly ruined the moment.
  14. To be fair, I probably would have done the same. Twilight is awful, and Bella is a terrible character. Yet another clue about Hawaii where no one gives a correct response, although this time it was a DD. I can't believe Eugene missed the Josephine DD. It seemed so easy to me. It seemed to me that if you know the bare basics about French history, it was not hard to figure out. I could tell by his wager, he probably did not have any confidence in that category.
  15. Wannabe debuted when I was in high school, so FJ was an instaget. Sometimes it's interesting to see these highbrow contestants respond to a lowbrow question, because a lot of times they don't like it.
×
×
  • Create New...