853fisher

I think the extended length of the opening remarks is in part a function of the new EP's stated desire to present Jeopardy! "as a sport." I notice the guys calling the games seldom say, you know, "welcome back to the Chase Center, after last night's game which went about as expected, nothing too wacky happened." There is a stat for everything and, if not, superlatives waiting to be invented on the spot ("Johnson has now made more three-pointers during the fourth game of the post-season than any other player under 6'2" in the Western Conference!"). I think there is yet balance to be found in the length and tone of this segment. The new interest in stats is welcome to a certain extent in my household, but sometimes the show seems to be trying too hard to establish a "story" where that is not especially necessary. Maybe this moment with so many superchamps will pass and they'll have to pivot to something else.

Ah, poor Sarah! If she had decided to take a wild guess in the last few seconds, it's not inconceivable she might have landed on the correct answer, sine it's one of "the" movies on every list she might have studied, even if she hadn't ever seen it. I'm not unhappy to see Mattea continue (I think my friend could beat her tomorrow!), but what a finish it would have been for Sarah to pluck a win from thin air. I thought that too. I also recall several mentions of various types of legal privilege in the news recently WRT the workings of our government.

The way I understand it, a sling and a slingshot are two different devices. A slingshot harnesses stored energy not unlike a bow, while a sling facilitates enhanced throwing. I'm sure I heard or saw "slingshot" when I was a child too. I was surprised not to be able to find a translation with that word when I tried a site that compares a few dozen Bibles.

RE the Miami news team category, I think the 5 clues in these categories are often read by just 2 or 3 people, so I was surprised to have 5 readers. Just for fun, I imagined that they were all such fans of the show at that station that they all insisted on doing it. RE "find the hidden word," I wish the show would keep those types of clues on the screen for longer. They could put them in the lower third like an FJ clue if they must. I was just starting to find a few of those when we went to a shot of the contestants doing the same. RE my friend Danielle who is playing Friday, thanks for all your kind comments! I asked to get off work an hour earlier and join her little party via Zoom. My boss said "sure, you've got an hour coming. Is it really for a friend playing Jeopardy? I can never tell with you!" ;)

I'll be very excited to see Danielle play on Friday. She and her now-husband have been good friends of mine since college, when I think we first met because she was president of the a cappella group I joined. She's a very curious "lifelong learner" type, and formidable in board games, so I think she has potential to do very well. I won't be able to root for Mattea after Thursday, if she is still playing, but I wouldn't put it past Danielle to become the next big champion. As I said to her when I first heard the good news recently, retroactive good luck!

I was surprised to see “a change is as good as a rest” in the $1000 box, because it was the only one of the 5 I’d definitely heard used. It’s the title of a very funny episode of the 70s “Britcom” about department store workers, Are You Being Served. The change in that case sees the staff of ladies and gentlemen’s apparel swapped with the toy department for a week. It’s very funny and, unusually for this show, rather heartwarming. I couldn’t possibly condone pirating media but I do think it’s on YouTube for anyone curious. And now I think that’s enough out of me for the day!

Ah, thanks for saying a little more. I think I understand your central point better. I guess I just feel differently about whether being a long-running champion in a challenging intellectual arena (as opposed to leaking a sex tape or being rude on a talk show or whatever) is an accomplishment that suggests to me an individual's other work may be worth learning about. There is still skill, knowledge, talent, whatever required for that other work. If the public did not find Amy's speaking interesting, found Ken's trivia books riddled with errors, etc, then things would end there. But I suppose I consider making serendipitous connections, finding different opportunities, etc just a part of life in society. I believe in bridging the systemic gaps that give some people totally unearned access others can hardly dream of, and this show is not immune to those issues. I'm thinking, for instance, of the point made that many qualified contestants couldn't possibly afford to take off work and fly themselves out to California to compete. However, that aside, I think sometimes you get lucky. If I won 50 games on Jeopardy and people looked me up to see that I've written and presented about XYZ historic topics, found that interesting and demonstrated interest in more, I would be grateful for a chance I wouldn't get otherwise to do more with something that, yes, was worthwhile before I went on Jeopardy. Somebody else with a PhD in those topics who does equally excellent work in that field might be put out I'd gotten that opportunity instead of them, because of a sort of fluke. Well, that's just the way it is sometimes. I don't mean to be dismissive, but as someone who's been both the "winner" and the "loser" in these kinds of situations, I feel that's life. All this reminds me, in a roundabout way, of a story my father told me about the stage actress Sutton Foster. He heard her say on a radio show that she got her big break when she was only 17 at an 18+ casting call. My father thought it was just terrible to hear her laugh about having gotten in to that audition, and said he thought less of her for having broken the rules. I thought it showed a bit of chutzpah and drive, that could just as easily have resulted in a blacklist if they'd decided they didn't want to bend the rules for her: it's a tough field and you have to take any opportunity to break in. I was fascinated by our different responses. What about the woman over 18 who might have gotten that big break instead, he asked, who had done her training and paid her dues and all that? Well, I thought, the decision makers must still have thought Sutton was better. And, in a way, she got lucky. Lastly, I just don't feel that most people are coming on the show hoping to pitch something / get this kind of opportunity, even the ones on the more showboat-y side. Maybe I'm being naive but I truly think of the few (to my knowledge) who have attempted to move into more public work as enjoying a fringe benefit of their success, taking a lucky opportunity in a world where there are not always many to be found. I don't discount your reaction, just sharing how I reacted differently.

There are regularly comments, when I use YouTube for "Jeopardy!" or "25 Words or Less" (which posts all episodes on its official channel...ahem), that are literally just "_____ wins / loses!" or "17 days now!" or similar. If I just wanted the result, I can't imagine I'd look for a YouTube video, so I assume these people are just farming for likes. Of course it's selfish because they risk the comment being seen by those who have come to, I don't know, watch the damn video! YouTube always seems to sort a spoiler into the "top comment" that catches my eye before I can switch to full screen video. I often want to ask what the thoughtless posters are thinking, but then I realize negative attention is still attention. I get what you mean. I feel especially odd at times about what semes like an expectation of sharing. In a way the “overheard” segments seem intrusive to me. I wouldn’t like to be “overheard” by millions in a semi-personal moment after the game I came there to play was over. The interview segment is usually more than enough for me. I have wondered what the response would be like if a superchamp didn’t like to comment about their playing style, shied away from interview requests (not sure what contractual obligations there may be for contestants) and had no social media and a very private personal life. However, I can't begrudge Amy or anyone for trying to parlay several weeks of national exposure into new opportunities. If I were in that position, I too would think hard about how I could use my new platform to advance my pet projects. I note that Amy seems to be using her status / the agent to do things like book speaking engagements where she advocates for trans rights. I would probably feel differently if she were leveraging it to sell crappy merchandise or get on the Bravo / E! circuit or that kind of thing. But using success on a quiz show to advance a thoughtful point of view seems fitting. I felt the same way when Ken started writing books etc.

That is a cute photo, although part of me thinks I wouldn't publicize that my emotional regulation hasn't improved since I was 8 years old. No question that's a harsh reading of the tweet and I don't intend for it to be taken at face value exactly. My point is that I think many were trained, in childhood and adulthood, that some of the behaviors Mattea exhibits are not desirable or appropriate. Radical openness (some would say oversharing), a lack of interest in filtering, etc. are traits I associate with many young queer people in my circle, possibly heightened by a sense of having previously been hiding one's true self. Many are happy to discuss subjects I reserve for my closest family and friends with thousands of casual acquaintances online. I find that discretion and emotional temperance serve me better for what I want out of life, but I understand the other approach. Am I stretching too far trying to make a connection between sharing intimate details of one's life on social media and being chatty on a game show? Maybe, but this thought's been germinating for a while, so I thought I'd share.

Ben did quite well with relatively few correct answers. Per J! Archive, he actually had one fewer correct answer (and three more wrong ones) than Christina. Depending on the criteria, he's someone I think we might see again in the Second Chance tournament. I can't say Mattea stayed cool exactly, but the pressure she was obviously feeling seemed to fuel rather than harm her. I wish she would filter out "could it be...I think..." and "I should've bet more," but we're still clearing all the boards, so I guess it's not the end of the world. I don't especially enjoy the long monologue introductions. Ken seems very self-conscious delivering them, not half as natural as the witty remarks he sometimes makes during the game. As I think I said last time, maybe the list should have ended at 3 or 4.

I agree with you, especially since the arrangements the band uses often bear little relation to the ones used by the named artist. On the other hand, I do find it helpful to have some performer's name to try and place songs I don't immediately recognize. Popular music is so much more artist-driven than song-driven now. So I get it, I guess.

I don't tend to especially mind over-the-top personalities or a moment of silliness here and there, but all three contestants being so "on" was just a bit too much for me. I think I'm going to put the kettle on and find where I put the chamomile bags.

I spent some time last week researching the original theatrical run of "Sleeping Beauty" in and around San Francisco. In addition to beautiful graphic ads, the local papers often ran multiple short "advertorials" daily, each featuring a fact from the press kit for various movies, or information about a publicity stunt. My favorite was one stating that the manager of the theater hoped to add a copy of the program from the Tchaikovsky ballet's premier to his lobby display. “Programs from other performances of the [ballet] will not be accepted," the request concluded, a bit imperiously, I thought! They just don't do showmanship like that anymore. So, after spending several hours reading and writing about all this, did I get FJ right? Of course not! That would have required knowing the name of the Roman goddess of the dawn. Womp womp.

I think the tagline was "I am the rainbow flag designer," wasn't it? "Designer" was definitely repeated several times. My first thought was, "Gilbert Baker has been dead 5 years." I guess Lynn's point is that they collaboratively designed the first flags. AFAIK no one disputes that Gilbert fleshed out the meanings of the colors and took an active role in promoting the use of the flag around the country and world. But apparently Lynn does take exception to his being described and understood by many as a singular creator. As interesting as I found it, it did seem maybe a bit pointed for a venue that doesn't facilitate further discussion of these points.

Yes, that's true. I also thought he was quite a good sport. Not that Loni was unsporting, but Sean seemed especially gracious, appearing to smile and applaud sincerely as late as Mattea's last DD. I always appreciate that kind of attitude.

I can't say I disagree with you there! Very easy for me to be blasé about a stranger's money, but I'd be excited if she bet a little more. A 20-something on an internet clue, and she didn't feel comfortable enough to bet on herself just a little more in that FJ, for example? If I had $5 for every time she's said something like "oh, I should have bet more," I'd have enough to...well, still.

I recall that perception about Matt too. Some thought it was to give the others a chance to get on the board. Some thought it was to rest his own brain. I don't think he was ever asked about it in any of the interviews I read, but his response might have been revealing. At any rate, I don't mind Mattea going full steam ahead. After she's pulled far ahead, the challengers will walk away with the same $2K/$1K whether they finish with marginally higher in-game totals or not, and I understand why she'd want to show her best or simply amass more money. It also occurs to me that, since she doesn't leave the low value clues for last like Matt did, she couldn't easily back off on those clues in the same position.

Pulling that tag off was such a jackass move. I don’t believe for a second he thought that was just a sample, not part of the collection, or whatever he said. I think the chutzpah to do that was just an extension of the flippant and, to my eyes, disrespectful attitude the panelists often take with contestants with out-there interests. I do wonder how the show resolved that. The very highly valued Beanie Babies tend to be ones with misprints or similar, so it’s not like they can just give the guy any Hoppity hanging around someone’s closet. The woman associated with the rainbow flag was very interesting. Her particular expertise was in dyeing: here is a bit more of her story. As alluded to on the show, there is some bad feeling around Gilbert Baker, who was a friend of friends of mine. He was definitely an expert self-promoter, which helped him do much good, but he could probably have done a better job elevating the small team he worked with along with himself.

I've observed on social media that "swolemate" can be used to refer to a gym buddy (not necessarily also your romantic partner) or to a romantic partner with an athletic body (not necessarily anyone you train with). That seems like a great setup for a comedy of misunderstandings. The drawback: all the characters, like anyone I've met in real life who uses that term unironically, would be pretty insufferable.

I wonder whether all the celebrities got music handpicked for them or just some. It seemed clear to me that at least Cassadee/Jana and Kim/Shaggy did. I don't care for so much of any one genre during an episode. A mix is best. That's interesting! Next week's listings also show the generic "four new contestants compete" rather than information about the guests. I guess I skimmed the pre-season publicity and thought only celebs would be playing.

"It's time to put you all in jeopardy." Like Art Fleming and, in some of his early shows, Alex used to say. That was a fun moment! I know many find "kids say the darnedest things" funnier than I do. I still thought "when I was younger, I wanted to be a musician because I thought it'd be an easy way to get money and women" was goofy and trite. You had one shot to be on Jeopardy and tell the world something of yourself and you picked that? I just wan't vibing with him. People on Reddit, having been spotted "an area labeled with the French word for teeth," knew that word was "dents" and guessed Sudan in FJ, supposing it could have been a corruption of "Sud Dents," "sud" meaning south. Like "Dessert Stories" yesterday, I think that's pretty clever. The detail about size today didn't help me much, but I did get the right answer. It's all going on in your house. Delicious! I have neither, but I've read elsewhere that it's a scorpion. I can just about make that out with prompting. I know she mentioned on Twitter that her earrings have her astrological symbol, Scorpio, so it makes sense.

I think the intro would've worked better for me with 4 or 5 items enumerated, instead of what seemed like 20. It just went on a bit too long. Not necessarily in reference to this particular episode: While Ken's enthusiasm for the "superchamps" is understandable and often charming, I think his intros sometimes end up as a too-long monologue about that champ, followed by "and Dick and Jane are also here, let's go to the boards!" It can be just that little bit too much for me. I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like to teach the Mormon something about moderation and restraint. Who would've thunk it? ;)

The daily Reddit thread indicates the clue did have that notation. Interesting that the J! Archive, which includes a record of comments beyond the clues and responses, doesn't seem to make a note of that. I do miss the way their search used to work (I think they had some kind of technical difficulty a short while ago - maybe it's coming back.) God love 'em just the same!

Clues unrevealed because they ran out of time, yes. I found Ken's intro tonight interminable, and not half as funny as it seems many others did. (On the other hand, I found "that one was gnu to me too" hysterical.)

I guessed that the producers didn't think a disclaimer was necessary because the clue was a neutral statement of fact, "Volodymyr Zelensky was a comedian before becoming president of this neighbor of Russia," about a noncontroversial issue (by which I mean that Zelensky's background is unrelated to the current conflict). I think the clues that got disclaimers had tone more than content problems. There was the one that was flip about Putin's strongman tendencies ("this Russian president says he doesn't plan to run again next time...yeah right!" or something like that) and the one that described a "border dispute" a bit more flatly than it probably would have after tanks started rolling into Kyiv. So I took those disclaimers principally as an "oof, we would've written these differently now" mea culpa, with a side of "don't bother sending us letters, if you didn't know we tape months in advance, now you do," which wouldn't really apply for tonight's clue. Only the wackiest of the wacky would have complained about tonight's clue.