Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

853fisher

Member
  • Content Count

    347
  • Joined

Everything posted by 853fisher

  1. I'm very weak in the Wild West. I just don't get into that part of history: I'm a bit prissy for it, maybe, although my move to California several years ago got has gotten me a little more interested in the frontier. Anyway, "long hair" confused me, but "buckskin" made me think of Davy Crocket. I guess I was thinking of his coonskin cap. Anyway, I spent the next 20 seconds trying to think of "the other one" and was awfully pleased myself for coming up with Daniel Boone right as the music finished. Not really even close! I might as well have said Frozen Yogurt. It was looking rocky for Brian for a little while, but he is a very strong player and I think he has a carefully considered betting strategy. Not a bad game for me, although "Books by Presidents" was much tougher than I expected. I could have done without seeing Kevin Hart. I guess people find him very "real," but I think he's a real jackass and I am grateful my interests rarely intersect with his work. Why does J! seem to like him so much? He presented a clue during the GOAT special too.
  2. Put me on the list of people who need a smack for not knowing "James Garner." I knew the name of the show, recognized his face, but his name wasn't coming. The late Joe Santos, who played Rockford's friend in the LAPD, was on the game show circuit for a few years in the late 70s and all I could hear while trying to think of "James Garner" was "from 'The Rockford Files,' Joe Santos!" in Johnny Olson's voice. Yeeesh. Now that I remember clearly, I really liked Garner in "Move Over, Darling" with Doris Day (which would have been "Something's Got to Give" with Marilyn Monroe and Dean Martin had she lived). I also missed "1999." I came up with 1982, 1999, and 2016 as the years referenced. I even thought, "1999, that's a great song...now what unites these three years?" I really didn't think "1999," the song, was released as early as the 80s. Talk about "if it were a dog it would bite you." I don't think I have earned any ice cream tonight. Even though I didn't deserve to feel smug tonight, I groaned at "vampires" too. A pack of vampires? Too bad. Of course Gabrielle joined me in missing FJ anyway so it was a moot point, but it could have been a lot closer. I loved the Catskills clue, which was so clever. I think Cheryl Hines is still on "Curb Your Enthusiasm," so I wasn't sure why that was in the past tense. I never knew Calista Flockhart and Harrison Ford were married, but a friend and I were talking yesterday about how "Ally McBeal" was one of the "it shows" for a few years and then, boom, it really doesn't seem well-remembered at all. My pleasure. I'm glad you enjoyed it! 🙂
  3. Perhaps whoever had the highest score in their last game? That would be $19,995 for Zach, while it remains to be seen who will win Wednesday and with how much. I'm sure they will address it, however briefly. 50 quatloos to the poster who gets closest to accurately predicting how they will handle this. 😉
  4. Ah, fair point, that! I still don't see how folks would consider that the most exciting potential part of the show, but different strokes, as they say. And I could at least get my facts straight along the way. 😉 By the way, Elliott reminded me of someone. I thought it was just someone I know socially, but it turns out he's the head writer for "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" and has had several other entertainment projects. I don't like anyone talking over my movies for any reason, but all my friends seem to enjoy that series, so I thought I'd share. One more thing (I'm in the J! Zone on a Monday, I guess): according to the weekly contestant roundup, the champion who would have returned at the beginning of the season were it not for COVID will do so Thursday. I assume they went back to taping 5 a day, so I thought we'd see him on a Monday, but perhaps they randomly chose which day to slot him back in on. He's not identified as a champ here, but I assume that's just a limit of their template. Almost everyone else this week is still from the Pacific Coast, or identified as "Originally from _____" (which is COVID-ese on game shows for "I too am from Greater LA but let's appear to have variety"), but the midwest has started to creep in. Zach is still shown from Metro DC, same as last year, so I guess they are relaxing their informal travel restrictions. I don't really think it's appropriate to be flying people across the country to appear on game shows yet, as we're still very much in the throes of it all, but I understand that reasonable minds could differ.
  5. 4/5 in Musical Theatre! I never thought I'd be unhappy after seeing Audra McDonald, but here we are. It's time I learn more about "Ragtime," the only one I have neither seen or heard in full. If you were tickled by the tidbit about "Fiddler" being popular in Japan, may I recommend "A Miracle of Miracles," the fabulous 2019 documentary about the show? I think it's on Amazon Prime and on demand through some PBS stations. I saw it at one of my favorite neighborhood movie theatres, which a year ago tomorrow was closed after 110 years with 10 days' notice. I read last night that the application of the out-of-town landlord, who barely negotiated with various arts nonprofits, to convert the space to retail was accepted by the planning board. Does this mean I stop writing letters now? I don't think so! Anyway, not one of my strongest games outside the musicals, but I had a lot of fun when I could pay attention! I had a stream of texts from my mother preparing me to help her and my father get a vaccine appointment tomorrow, since they had a hell of a time today. I don't know what they expect anyone to do who isn't good with technology or may not even have reliable internet service. Ma is of course on the short list of people who can interrupt during "Jeopardy!" before she goes to bed. 😉 I thought Ken oversold his feelings about the tiebreaker just a little. As a lifelong fan, he's always loved that most exciting kind of finish! Hasn't it been around less than five years? Of course it's his job to be the show's cheerleader, but it came off more than a little artificial to me.
  6. I wouldn't be opposed to more video or audio clues, but I'd be afraid we'd get something silly instead, with or without the gecko. Yours is not a bad thought. If that is the case, I hope Ken used his additional time on the show to work on equalizing things, maybe speaking just a mite slower instead. He's doing fine for ten episodes in and I have no problem with the speed of his speech, but if they decide to keep him around beyond the six weeks, I would rather he go just a skootch slower than have to insert micropauses. It's not easy, I know!
  7. Interesting, thanks! I must have edited my post while you were typing. You read the version before I kept thinking about alternates etc and changed my tune a little, ending up not far from your perspective. It's a dangerous thing when I get to thinking. 😉 As an aside, perhaps everyone but me realized this, but the host can see how the players have wagered and responded before the reveal. I probably should have guessed, given how on-the-nose Alex's comments always were, but I thought maybe he was just really good.
  8. I'm really picking nits here, but I am alone in feeling that there are some relatively cavernous pauses between responses and Ken responding affirmatively? At least a few times per episode I feel this way. The responses are unambiguously correct, not anything for which Ken should need to wait the judges, but things seem just that half a second slower than they should. I probably need to get over whatever I'm sensing, because we are generally clearing boards and I think Ken is fine overall, but I think he could be just a little quicker on the uptake. Something interesting from Thursday: although I still don't like the local news anchor gimmick, I thought it was pretty cool the way they had the two anchors introduce themselves on the first clues called, although they were not at the top of the board. I guess they must have recorded two copies of each clue. I thought it was an interesting insight into what the writers have to plan for. That's clever! But although it is an abridgment of "disrespect," I have always seen it spelled "diss." Interesting article. Thanks! I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced of the assessment that the producers really didn't mind paying two winners, but it'd be fair enough not to want to send people home having traveled at their own expense without competing because a slot was tied up. On the other hand, surely they invite alternates who won't make it to the stage 9 times out of 10? It's not like they couldn't afford to bring anyone back who doesn't get to play, perhaps prioritizing non-locals to play as scheduled to minimize the expense. As far as I know, everyone is still pretty local right now anyway. All other things being equal, I would prefer co-champions to a tiebreaker, but oh well.
  9. This sums things up well, from what I've seen watching all the American episodes and a fair few of the British and Australian versions. The chaser will occasionally make a negative offer for the safest slot, which is usually scoffed at and groaned about, but I saw it taken once! I can't recall well but I think maybe she still didn't make it to the Final Chase, bless her heart.
  10. Who is directing, or failing to direct, Mariska such that some of these weird enunciations make the final cut? "That's why we keep fye-ting!" Nobody sounds like that at a moment of heightened emotion. I was pretty bored with this one. This show doesn't do light and shade well these days. I think it's a mistake to associate so many recurring characters outside of the NYPD with fallen morals and a "this didn't used to be you!" speech. I think it's a mistake to depict indiscriminate shouting "dago" and "faggot" and "halfbreed" as the hallmark of a member of the "old boys club" (take a drink) when there are a lot of bigots who do insidious things but have the wisdom not to spout off quite that way. And I think the "ripped from the headlines" or "here you are obviously supposed to insert [real life person / event]" moments look a little desperate when they're not timely. "Locker room talk" was the hot new punchline in, what, October '16? How long have the writers been waiting to riff on that one with "men's room talk"? They renewed this for how many more seasons? I virtually always stick with a show once I've started. After this long, I don't think I'll quit, but Lord, give me strength.
  11. I agree that maybe something's gotta give in how they pick contestants. I found everyone very likable in this episode, but they were clearly not up to the challenge as a team. I would rather they gave away less money if that's what was required to get people with better trivia chops, although TPTP seem to feel big money in primetime is important. He struck me as least invested in the smack-talk of the three, and that was not a problem for me. I think "I am a top Jeopardy! champion about to match wits with you" is enough to set the needed tone. He might be the one I enjoyed watching most too. When Sara said that he was known for his acerbic wit, I did wonder who she was talking about. I have seen everyone get caught before the Final Chase a few times. I think that on the ongoing British show and the last American version, the contestants pick one to represent them. If that one wins, they each get £1000 or $5000. I wonder whether they might split a little more on this new show, since they generally play for higher amounts.
  12. Boy, that FJ drove me wild! Too often I can remember reading about something, what got me there (in this case a Doctor Who episode), but not the fact itself. Anyway, maybe if someone had said “could it be Doyle” I would have remembered his interest in the Cottingley fairies or other little anecdotes and remembered it was him. Alas, I think my subconscious thought he had died by 1926. No, four more years left! Brian is sort of sneaking up on me. He doesn’t strike me as an unusually dominating player during the game, but then we get to the end and I see he has done very well. Perhaps it’s because his manner is so understated. Those two DDs in quick succession helped tonight, of course. Good for him. The Cleveland category was strange. Did they owe someone at WOIO a favor? I thought it added nothing to have the clues read by anchors the vast majority of viewers have never heard of before and will never see again. Maybe it’s just not something I’m used to, but I can't say I hope that becomes a regular feature. I have noticed myself drifting away more too. I think I am not ordinarily a very disciplined TV viewer. I'm too used to allowing myself to be distracted by the cats, a text from my parents when I know they're going to bed soon, the instinct to Google something that sounds interesting so I remember to read it later... For me I think it's not anything Ken is doing "wrong" as much as that I mended my ways for a while when we realized we would definitely only have so many more episodes with Alex, and forced myself to pay rapt attention. Now that sense of urgency is gone and I'm letting myself get back into bad habits. I think this is one reason I prefer seeing movies at the theatre: there's no option to screw around there. That sounds delicious! Thanks for really looking it up after I was a smartass. 😉
  13. Well, I made up my mind to enjoy this episode a bit more than the last one, and I did, a bit. I agree with everyone who doesn't love the way the song values escalate so quickly that someone can take it on very few questions at the end. I guess they think that makes things more exciting? And I could do without the "everyone needs to have an emotional backstory" aspect, but that is common to many shows these days. There was at least a lighter touch this time, but when Randy said "these stories are what are show is all about," I thought, it's not about naming these tunes? Jane is gorgeous, although I really think nobody looks great in thigh-highs, and perfectly fine as host. I think some game show hosts today suffer because the shows tend to be more tightly edited, perhaps eliminating some transitions and a little breathing room, giving the sense that they are just saying what's on the cards and nothing more. Ultimately, something OK to watch in the background, I think. They still have a good variety of songs, which is key. I wouldn't mind maybe a little bit of evergreen show tunes or something like that in the mix, but that's probably not realistic. Right, but I guess my lizard brain is telling me that although the character's name is indeed "Dr. No," if the question asks for the surname and the contestant says that instead of simply "No," then they don't really require that level of precision on "J!" Something doesn't work for me about "Name That Tune" being bigger sticklers than "J!" and for me it just doesn't make good TV to see a contestant getting dinged on a show like this for "Amazed By You" when they wanted "Amazed or "Beautiful" when they wanted "You're Beautiful" and so on. As you say, though, if that's the expectation they set its contestants and it's consistently enforced, it's maybe not what I would prefer, but it's fair enough. (By the way, I hope I'm not coming off very Internet-crazy adversarial! I just get pretty into this stuff.) Yes, I agree totally. That jumped out at me. I think "I'll Be There For You" was written specifically for "Friends," and the clue was pointing toward the show, but I don't think that matters. They should have required "I'll Be There For You" if they were going to draw a line at some of the other places they have. The clue for "Push It" pointed to Salt-N-Pepa, but they wouldn't have taken that if the contestant had said it.
  14. I forgot to ask, where in NYC is Alex’s son’s restaurant? I don’t know much about his family. Is it in Trebeka? I’ll see myself out.
  15. I definitely said "Sacramento and Carson City" and not "California and Nevada," because I definitely read the question slowly and carefully. Seriously, I wasn't sure they were as close as 100 miles to one another either, but the dates made things make sense. I knew it in my heart even if I would've been wrong. 😉 Nothing for Esther Rolle! Too bad. "Good Times" doesn't seem to be one of those shows that is always on somewhere so that it would seep into the consciousness of those too young to remember it when it was new. I was trying to remember the full cast and can't believe I forgot Janet Jackson was on it for a while. Have we seen a photo during the interviews before? Between that and the prop comedy last week, they seem willing to try a few new things there. OK, interesting! Just don't get too crazy. "Let's call the whole thing off" was worth a good chuckle. A lot of those interactions are coming across very natural and cute.
  16. I was between Motel 6 and Super 8 for FJ. I got to the right answer thanks to Lucille Ball. I watch a lot of TV from decades ago and, if an amount of money comes up, I like to run it through an inflation calculator and see what it would be today. After many passes through "I Love Lucy," I thought I would try her second series "The Lucy Show" recently. It was on the air in the mid-60s and I recalled that values quoted then tend to be about 8X in today's money. 51 was close enough to 6X8 for me. $6 in 1962, incidentally, was worth $8.50 in 1973, when Super 8 set their room rate at $8.88. Tough loss for Donesh, but he would've been very pleased had his gamble paid off. I have been playing a board game online with friends about the seven wonders of the world, so it was fresh in my mind. I thought "Rosanna Arquette" was suspect for essentially the same reason I thought "Dr. No" last week was questionable, when they asked for the surname of the antagonist physician in the "it has two letters" category, but whatever. I think the way Lisa grimaced and flailed about it made it seem even wronger than it otherwise might have. I did feel for her, as she seemed very tense throughout. I can live with those responses getting credit. "Khan" going through for "Ghengis Khan" was less thrilling. It's not as though Khan was his last name. I do think they need to pull up their socks in the judging booth a bit. They'll be permissive about any number of things like this and then, bang, we'll have another Barry / Berry. (Yes, I know they're not exactly the same situation, but it feels lacking consistency to me.) RE Ken, he continues to do fine. I wonder why they don't try to make his earpiece a bit less obtrusive? I guess they know we know the host has one in, but I never noticed Alex's as much. As someone often deeply averse to any change no matter ho superficial, I am not sure when I'll get over the new "CBS Media Ventures" card with new little musical flourish at the end, but I'll be sure and let you all know. I'm sure everyone is on the edge of their seats. Finally, a bit of unfinished business. Checking the J! Archive today, I notice the category yesterday was Movie Settings. It would've been nice to remember that while considering the clue, and then maybe I would've joined the vast majority in getting it! And Smith & Wollensky, the steakhouse? I have never heard of it in my life, and I've been around. To be fair, it was in the $2K box, and one of the players did know it. But it seemed pretty obscure to me. I looked at their menu and I'm sure I would enjoy a meal there but I don't see myself going out of my way for one. I have my vices I'll blow money on, but fine dining has never really been on the list. I was genuinely excited by the deal I saw in a Popeye's commercial recently, so I guess that tells you what my palate is used to. 😉
  17. Well, I did have my juice 😉 and I'll look forward to giving a third episode a try when it comes up. It came up in our group text of friends who love board games, game shows, etc. and all of us who have been watching agreed that we thought the first episode was great but, for various reasons, we didn't enjoy the second one much at all. Interesting. But does the audience have identical expectations of "Jeopardy!" and "Name That Tune"? J!, I would argue, does not consistently neg those kinds of responses anyway. Just two or three episodes ago, the category was "2-Letter Lit" and the clue was something like "surname of the physician antagonist in an Ian Fleming novel." The strictly correct response would have been "No," which has two letters and is the surname. The contestant who rang in said "Dr. No" and was ruled correct. I would argue that could be considered technically wrong in much the same way as "Play That Funky Music White Boy," and J! had no problem accepting it. The added information was not itself wrong, meaning he didn't say "Mr. No" or "Professor No"," and it included the operative part indicated by the clue. There have been maybe a few dozen other examples of that kind of thing this season. I don't want to get way into the weeds discussing another show, or so cranky that I need more juice again, but I don't think that "J!" can be used to demonstrate why that rule should be enforced as it was. Just my opinion though.
  18. You're not wrong. The situations aren't quite the same. I was just thinking in the general category of responses which, while clearly indicating knowledge of the underlying fact requested, are perhaps in some way technically "incorrect" or not exactly matching the clue or whatever one might call it. Now that I think about it, "From D to D" indicates "deltoid," and all the other correct responses were indeed "d...d"," but this clue was "the name of these muscles." A little consistency on these picayune issues, please? Do we think Primetimer is paying them to seed the rounds with these once in a while to keep tongues wagging? 😉 Thanks [Alex]!
  19. Me too (not that I knew anything until the contestants spoke up). There was one last week where I think the category was “it has two letters” and the clue was “this is the surname of the villain in an Ian Fleming novel.” The contestant’s response was “Dr. No,” which I thought should have been wrong because it should simply have been “No.” My interest in applying these rules I have ordained depends on how much I like the contestant, how pleasant or trying a day I’ve had, etc. 😉 Interesting game. Plenty of categories I am weak in, so a good chance to learn something. I did know Booth and wonder how well known the whole story is. I think most people know Lincoln was shot at a theatre (Ford’s), or that might not have been an unreasonable guess. Did we get a “thank you, Alex” today? I forgot to pay attention because I was busy harrumphing at my cat about missing FJ when all the contestants seemed to find it easy and I had just been thinking earlier today about the hints they throw in. And I’ll do it again now. Harrumph!
  20. I agree that violence against sex workers who interact with clients face-to-face is all too common. I believe it is far less often that those who interact with clients virtually, and often not remotely locally, are victims of home invasions or other physical confrontations as portrayed in this episode. A detailed discussion of the economics of these platforms when it comes to commissions, demand, etc would perhaps be straying too far from the episode, but I will say that additional overhead expenses would have made this work untenable for a large majority of people I know who have undertaken it. I appreciate that it can be dangerous to generalize from anecdotes, and my sample may not be representative, but every cam model I have known enough to discuss it was more concerned about reputational damage if their true identities leaked or other forms of harassment against which physical security would have been useless than about bodily risk.
  21. I think most webcam models are probably not in a position to afford the expense of security to protect them against a possibility which, while hideous, is in my estimation very uncommon.
  22. For all this show's flaws, I often think they do about as good a job as could be expected dealing frankly with sexuality on a broadcast network at 9pm. But I guess on this occasion Standards & Practices decided they could only say “rape” a few times times and only in moments of heightened drama? Every time they said "ravish," "ravishing," "ravishment fantasy," it snapped me right out of the illusion of a real world. It made me think more of those novels with Store Brand Fabio on the cover that my grandmother takes to the beach than how a webcam model would describe what they offer. I also thought, for all the "hello colleagues in the break room, by the way, I have just heard on the news that X% of relevant people do Y!" infodumping they sometimes do, there could have been a reference to safewords or other tools you can use if you are part of an, erm, ravishment fantasy. "Webcam model raped by a home invader" is perhaps not a relatable situation too many viewers, but "my partner wants me to __________, how do we know if we're still roleplaying or it needs to stop" is probably relevant to plenty of people. I know folks aren't watching for a PSA, but I think as unsubtle as they can be, these little tidbits can make a difference. (I'd better not say that too loud or Mariska will knock on my door and ask for an advocacy plaque.) Kidding aside, that was just a bit of a missed opportunity in my eyes.
  23. I liked the first episode and loved this second one. I hope the show is doing well in the ratings. I wasn't totally sold on Sara at first, but she really appealed to me this time. The little exchange of "did you write that [joke about the Police] yourself?" and her grinning "no, no I did not" was very charming. I agree with several comments above that she looks beautiful and should read a little faster. (I think she is probably reading at exactly the speed the producers want, unfortunately.) James, on the other hand, I thought should have spoken a little slower. I found him difficult to understand a few times but otherwise I was glad to see him. I'm not sure his affect was so different than when I've seen him elsewhere, but it was a little strange. Oh well, it wasn't "off" enough to spoil things for me. The lounge was certainly less interesting to me without him in it. I thought the questions were varied and interesting. Here is the Playbill article about most-revived musicals. I enjoy show tunes but never would have put some of these on the list, including the top one. I'd be curious to see it without the ten-day City Center runs included. I knew musk oxen because I was raised near the zoo in DC where pandas, the last of which are due to be sent back soon, were star attractions for years. Bad trade if you ask me! I always confuse alveoli and areolae, which I fear may pose a problem to me one day. The set is growing on me too. The two streams or arrows in opposite directions are a nice unifying element, and look great in the final chase. I did think that the canned audience noise at that point in the game was distracting and totally unnecessary. Finally, I might give Sara a note or two to help with pronunciations. "Pampa-le-moose" was especially bad, but I know not everyone can be Alex. The commentary is interesting about whether the premise is "mean" or not. I think, to borrow from WWE-style wrestling, the chasers are definitely presented as the "heels" or villains and the contestants as the "faces" or heroes. Still, some of us like a villain! I generally root for the contestants, although I like this bunch of chasers and don't mind when they succeed. I'm sure Mark Labbett the person is lovely, but I really disliked Mark Labbett the TV character and rooted against him every time on the last US version, so that's a change for me. An interesting difference between the US and UK shows is that these chasers are well-known personalities too many of us here, while I think the original UK batch was not as familiar outside of hardcore quiz circles, because they'd had more like one-off "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" appearances than weeks-long runs with associated publicity. At any rate, I choose to think of the chasers on this version not as taking money away from contestants but as the element of many games that takes a little luck to beat, like the big wheel or whatever else. They haven't earned it until they beat whatever the show's mechanism is, so money they don't win isn't being taken from them. I think I will definitely be looking forward to this every week.
  24. Good game. Ken's pronunciations are excellent and give me a little fuzzy feeling. There's also something really pleasing to me about a pretty steady progression through the categories one at a time in one or the other order. Like others, I'm sorry to see Lucy go, but I like Jennifer too. I wouldn't've minded if Gautham had gotten his sea legs either. He seemed to know what to do, avoiding a late wager that could have left him with $0 like so many forget to do, and maybe it was a bad board for him or he was very nervous. At least he and I can hate "Big Bang Theory" together. Had I been on the show, we might have completed the set of _____ Pacific Railroads, because I would've bet money Fresno was founded by the Southern Pacific. Diego Rivera made me think of a mural at a nearby college which is liable to be sold to help them dig out of a financial hole, if they can't find someone to endow it in place. What a shame. I can't say whether I'd've gotten FJ because I spoiled myself by being somewhere I should've known not to be so late in the day before having watched. I think I would probably have ruled LBJ out because he served a good term and a half, and might've talked myself into Ford or Nixon, although I should've known they were too recent. I think I knew she met Kennedy. I could remember reading about it, but not the title. And after it was revealed, I recalled having seen the title once or twice after first reading about it and not remembering what it was, therefore having to look it up again. And yet I still didn't remember. D'oh! I don't want another subscription but I'd like to watch it. Maybe with a friend who has it when that's possible again one day.
  25. All I can think of was Tim Curry, Martin Mull, and the late great Madeline Kahn in "Clue."
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size