The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: chris319 on June 30, 2004, 10:23:56 PM
-
Ho hum.
I'm finding I can tell if Ken is going to win again by the middle of the second segment (the segment with the contestant interviews). I can then tune to some REAL television like Greta Van Susteren.
-
Does she phrase all her stories in the form of a question?
-
Well, Chris, you are entitled to that, but I disagree with you. I rather enjoy watching Ken plow through questions at a ridiculous pace. I think it gets really exciting when he hits a daily double, and he has a very indecent amount of money at his disposal.
-
I agree with whoser. I'm not a big J! fan, but I've been quite interested in watching lately. It's like staring at the sun sometimes!
-
It's dangerous to look at the sun, John. But watching Ken breeze through each game kinda reminds me of a loooooong tennis rally that seems to go on for like 2 minutes sometimes. But hey, as NBC would say "It's MUST-SEE TV!"
-
Whether watching or playing, the best kind of tennis or racquetball rallies are the best kind. It's still Jeopardy, and I'll still watch.
-Travis
-
I think the publicity is getting more people to watch. I watched the show for the first time in years in anticipation of Matt's appearance, and I do check the show summaries now to find out what happened. If Ken stays on forever, maybe interest will wane, but I think the general public is just now starting to catch on.
-
As I've stated before, Ken's run has made me actually interested in Jeopardy and watching it. Before Ken's run got to 8 or 9, I never watched at all. Now, it's even more interesting watching Ken because he is no longer running away with it at Final Jeopardy, but actually has to keep a lead and stay winning. Of course, his opponents nearly always screw up in the end though.
-
Have not watched any first-run game shows in years, but I have been watching Jeopardy through this run. Prior to Letterman spoofing it last week, however, I wouldn't have known about Ken except for this forum, and most people still don't know about him.
-
[quote name=\'melman1\' date=\'Jul 1 2004, 11:15 AM\'] Have not watched any first-run game shows in years, but I have been watching Jeopardy through this run. Prior to Letterman spoofing it last week, however, I wouldn't have known about Ken except for this forum, and most people still don't know about him. [/quote]
Jennings' streak has been mentioned on Around the Horn; Pardon the Interruption; and I, Max (all sports debate shows) at least once this week, plus as I mentioned here previously, The Best Damn Sports Show Period has had the show's hosts and guests play the previous day's Final Jeopardy! since at least June 21. Most hard-core sports fans are not game show fans. (I happen to be an exception.)
The instructor of a night class I'm taking has jokingly said she wanted to leave class early to see that night's Jeopardy! with Jennings. Nobody asked her who Ken was. I'd assume that means almost everybody knows about Jennings' run.
I'd say more people know about Ken's streak than you think.
-
In addition to all the sports shows you mentioned, Ken's been profiled on many mnational news programs, he's been a punch line on Craig Kilborn, a topic of conversation on Regis & Kelly and a running joke on Letterman. This (and lots more, I'm sure) is all very good for Jeopardy.
Ken's appearances have certainly created a polarizing effect, as comments here and on Sony's board have shown. Whereas Jeopardy had always been...well, just Jeopardy, now there are strongly held opinions good and bad about what Ken's run means for the show. Judging from the polls and the comments I've seen, more people seem to enjoy the streak than not, but both sides are certainly speaking out.
-
The bottom line is that Ken Jennings is doing for "J!" exactly what Harry Friedman wanted the waiver of the five-game limit to do--and hopefully, most of those people coming around for the first time in a while might stick around after Ken's last game.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Jul 1 2004, 11:06 AM\']The bottom line is that Ken Jennings is doing for "J!" exactly what Harry Friedman wanted the waiver of the five-game limit to do--and hopefully, most of those people coming around for the first time in a while might stick around after Ken's last game.[/quote]
The first half of your comment appears to be happening, based on the most recent ratings I've seen. After dipping from 6.2 to 5.8 the week of Reagan's funeral (the week where Ken had only hit 7 wins, and wasn't getting the publicity he is now), the ratings for the week of June 12-16 are up to 6.5, about a 5% increase from two weeks earlier (and last year's comparables). I wouldn't be surprised if there's another pop the following week as well.
As for the second half ... we'll have to wait and see. Depends on a whole bunch of factors that nobody can possibly know:
1. Is J! really losing some of its hardcore audience who don't like watching Ken over and over? I know that Chris isn't alone in his feelings, but how many of the hardcore viewers feel that way? FWIW, I'm still taping the shows.
2. If Ken's run continues for many more shows, will even those who are currently interested in how he's doing get bored?
3. When (or perhaps I should say "If") Ken's run ends, how many of the new viewers will keep watching? And how many of the hardcore viewers who stopped watching will come back to the show again?
The unlimited rule was a gamble on J!'s part right from the start. If they had gotten a long-term contestant that people found unpleasant to watch, it could have hurt their ratings significantly. In Ken Jennings, they've got as good a poster boy for long-term contestants as they could have hoped for - smart, fast, and personable. I hope he boosts J!'s ratings a lot, if for no other reason than that it might inspire a revival of quiz shows.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the shows were taped in March. Is there any reason why they couldn't have been run during May sweeps? If I remember correctly, there was some sweeps stunt in May, which probably could have been shown at a later date.
-
There were two weeks of special shows in May, the Kids and the Washington Power Players. Dropping both of those would have bumped up Ken's shows by two weeks, making him a 7-day winner by the end of sweeps.
-
Jeopardy has returning champions, so shows cannot be run out of order.
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 1 2004, 02:11 PM\'] Jeopardy has returning champions, so shows cannot be run out of order. [/quote]
Except for the fact, that, as mentioned, the Kids and Power Players weeks are completely out of the main run of the shows, so those two weeks COULD have been bicycled to a later date, feasibly.
-
D'oh. Leszek posted while I was reading the thread, so I didn't catch his post. I hate it when that happens! Grr!
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jul 1 2004, 02:35 PM\'] Correct me if I'm wrong, but the shows were taped in March. Is there any reason why they couldn't have been run during May sweeps? If I remember correctly, there was some sweeps stunt in May, which probably could have been shown at a later date. [/quote]
The problem with screwing around with the schedule is that Jeopardy does a very good job of keeping the shows rooted in the dates they're scheduled to air. For example, on my show on June 21st there was a category about the AFI Top 100 Songs TV special that would air, as Alex said, "tomorrow night". They frequently make similar references to the air dates, especially when it comes to holidays.
That's not to say they couldn't have done what you suggest, and on most any other show that's exactly what would have happened. But Jeopardy isn't just any other show. In my mind, shows like Pyramid, all the old GSN originals and even to an extent Wheel of Fortune are hurt by creating self-contained, generic little episodes that could run whenever.
It's hard to describe this very clearly, but when a viewer watches an unscripted show that seems to take up a specific place in time, that viewer will tend to be more involved in it. It's part of the appeal of live sports, late-night talk shows (especially, for obvious reasons, The Daily Show) and the morning news programs. Even taped as far in advance as it is, Jeopardy strives for that same sense of immediacy.
-
Was it this way when Thom McKee was on TTD? I'm serious, did Thom get this much press as well, esp. since his reign went into the summer as well (in his case, between two seasons)?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jul 1 2004, 03:47 PM\'] Was it this way when Thom McKee was on TTD? I'm serious, did Thom get this much press as well, esp. since his reign went into the summer as well (in his case, between two seasons)? [/quote]
We game show fans who were around at that time found it fascinating, of course, but Tic Tac Dough was never part of the culture the way Jeopardy! has become. There were a few human-interest stories, pretty much the same amount of attention Michael Larson got for his achievement, but certainly not an overwhelming amount.
In terms of publicity -- and ONLY in terms of publicity -- Ken's run and the ensuing attention can really only be compared to Charles Van Doren and similar "star" contestants from the late fifties. Even John Carpenter's notoriety for being the first Millionaire winner didn't last very long.
-
[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Jul 1 2004, 10:32 AM\'] Jennings' streak has been mentioned on Around the Horn; Pardon the Interruption; and I, Max (all sports debate shows) at least once this week, plus as I mentioned here previously, The Best Damn Sports Show Period has had the show's hosts and guests play the previous day's Final Jeopardy! since at least June 21. [/quote]
Also, Jennings winning on Jeopardy has made Sportscenter's Top 10 plays list the last 2 nights, at the #5 spot and the #4 spot. When he gets to $1,000,000+, that will probably put him at #1, assuming people still care then.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jul 1 2004, 12:26 PM\'] It's hard to describe this very clearly, but when a viewer watches an unscripted show that seems to take up a specific place in time, that viewer will tend to be more involved in it. [/quote]
Exactly what I loved about The Challengers.
-
The difference between a 6.2 and a 6.5 isn't momentous. What it proves is that a) people aren't getting bored and tuning out, and b) Ken wouldn't have given them that big a boost if they had run him during sweeps.
The posts in this thread have been interesting, but we are hearing from die-hard game show and Jeopardy! fans, not from casual viewers.
If they had gotten a long-term contestant that people found unpleasant to watch, it could have hurt their ratings significantly.
According to the late Dan Enright, this would not be the case. According to him, people would tune in to watch an unlikable contestant hoping that he would lose. He explains this in the 1992(?) PBS documentary in which he appeared.
If people didn't like Ken or whomever and were tuning out to the detriment of the ratings, there is a dilemma Harry Friedman may not have envisioned: How do you get rid of an unpopular Jeopardy! contestant? If you start asking him "Tex Rickert" questions you're going to have two contestants standing next to him who aren't going to know the correct response either.
-
We game show fans who were around at that time found it fascinating, of course, but Tic Tac Dough was never part of the culture the way Jeopardy! has become. There were a few human-interest stories, pretty much the same amount of attention Michael Larson got for his achievement, but certainly not an overwhelming amount.
That may be true, but Thom did have his picture on the TVGuide ads for "Tic Tac Dough" on local stations. I guess the fact that he was going to be back after summer hiatus allowed them to send out those ads. They didn't run them for long though - Thom lost two weeks after the new season started.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Jul 2 2004, 08:24 AM\']
That may be true, but Thom did have his picture on the TVGuide ads for "Tic Tac Dough" on local stations. I guess the fact that he was going to be back after summer hiatus allowed them to send out those ads. They didn't run them for long though - Thom lost two weeks after the new season started. [/quote]
WPVI Phila. and WOR in NYC had promos for McKee as I recall.
Did any stations do the same thing for Kit Salisbury, whose run also spanned from one season to the next? Not as likely I suppose, since TTD was starting to lose ground by 1984 thanks to the onslaught of Syndie WOF.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 2 2004, 01:00 AM\']
If people didn't like Ken or whomever and were tuning out to the detriment of the ratings, there is a dilemma Harry Friedman may not have envisioned: How do you get rid of an unpopular Jeopardy! contestant? If you start asking him "Tex Rickert" questions you're going to have two contestants standing next to him who aren't going to know the correct response either. [/quote]
But if the other two are experts on Tex Rickert, you might have something. An accountant who works on the weekends as a bartender could do well on "Potent Potables," baseball, math, etc. On Matt's show, neither gentleman was as well versed as the lady in the prescription drug category. Steve Carlin might advise J! to tailor the categories to what people know, short of actually giving them the answers and questions. A contestant that stays in the studio too long, however, might have problems with a "Current Events" category.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 2 2004, 02:00 AM\'] If people didn't like Ken or whomever and were tuning out to the detriment of the ratings, there is a dilemma Harry Friedman may not have envisioned: How do you get rid of an unpopular Jeopardy! contestant? If you start asking him "Tex Rickert" questions you're going to have two contestants standing next to him who aren't going to know the correct response either. [/quote]
My brother, who's not a Jeopardy fan at all, had an eerily brilliant suggestion: Make the questions easier. Great success on Jeopardy is a combination of buzzer speed and depth of knowledge. You can't do anything about the first without cheating, but if the questions are easier across the board, that advantage is eliminated.
-
My brother, who's not a Jeopardy fan at all, had an eerily brilliant suggestion: Make the questions easier. Great success on Jeopardy is a combination of buzzer speed and depth of knowledge. You can't do anything about the first without cheating, but if the questions are easier across the board, that advantage is eliminated.
So do you want Ken up against Celebrities or the Back to School/Kids Week contestants? :)
-Dean
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jul 2 2004, 09:17 AM\'] My brother, who's not a Jeopardy fan at all, had an eerily brilliant suggestion: Make the questions easier. Great success on Jeopardy is a combination of buzzer speed and depth of knowledge. You can't do anything about the first without cheating, but if the questions are easier across the board, that advantage is eliminated. [/quote]
Agreed, but you of all people know that Ken is both smart _and_ fast. You might knock him out that way, and you might also hand him a $75,000 payday that way... :)
-
What amazes me about this whole run is that other contestants are not only falling behind, but actually going into the red, it seems, more than usual. It's as if they are so surprised to actually get in on the buzzer that they lose track of the question.
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Jul 2 2004, 01:24 PM\'] What amazes me about this whole run is that other contestants are not only falling behind, but actually going into the red, it seems, more than usual. It's as if they are so surprised to actually get in on the buzzer that they lose track of the question. [/quote]
I'm pretty sure that's happened once or twice. There's a natural feeling of frustration if all you've ever done is yelled answers at the TV. At some point, I'm sure some people are trying to buzz in just to see if they can, and only then, of course, do they realize that there's a second part to it!
-
Ken has had 20-some-odd appearances to practice his lockout timing; his opponents have not.
The problem with trying to load the categories against Ken is that you have to come up with 12 categories in any given show about which he knows little and at least one of his opponents knows a lot. What are the chances of that? MAYBE if they had a contestant who was, say, an M.D. and they had twelve categories along the lines of "EKG Patterns" and "Receptor Cells", etc. they could pull it off, but that would look kind of fishy, don't you think? It might be fun for Alex learning to pronounce all of those medical terms.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 3 2004, 09:17 AM\'] MAYBE if they had a contestant who was, say, an M.D. and they had twelve categories along the lines of "EKG Patterns" and "Receptor Cells", etc. they could pull it off, but that would look kind of fishy, don't you think? It might be fun for Alex learning to pronounce all of those medical terms. [/quote]
Or, if, say, they had a neurotic mailman, and gave him categories like "The Postal Service", "Florida", and "Famous Mothers"....
....of course, he'd still be screwed come Final Jeopardy...
-
Using my medical example:
Final Jeopardy! Category: Defibrillators
Clue: The proper voltage setting for an Acme model 5678 with a patient weighing 196.5 pounds.
Good luck.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 3 2004, 03:49 PM\'] Using my medical example:
Final Jeopardy! Category: Defibrillators
Clue: The proper voltage setting for an Acme model 5678 with a patient weighing 196.5 pounds.
Good luck. [/quote]
[draws a picture of Malcolm that makes Chris lose his place]