I miraculously knew the answer, probably because I just saw a live performance of Much Ado recently and I also remember some altar boy Latin (“Benedicat vos omnipotens deus…”). Shakespeare is definitely not my forte.
I was pretty sure about Benedick, but not 100% sure if it was Beatrice or Beatrix.
I had no clue about Benedick (or Benedict), so I did a quick Google search. Turns out that Shakespeare’s characters were indeed Beatrice and Benedick, but a later opera written by Frenchman Hector Berlioz based on ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ was entitled ‘Béatrice et Bénédict’, which of course has been Anglicized to ‘Beatrice and Benedict’.
I have re-watched that exchange several times. As quickly as Mayim ruled Ben’s answer incorrect, I think that she had been pre-briefed on that possibility.
I was unfamiliar with Much Ado About Nothing and hadn’t heard of Beatrice and Benedick.
And of course Mayim does a lousy job revealing the correct response. After we saw Ben’s response, a good host would say something like “ooh, so close, you picked the right play, Much Ado About Nothing, but the male character’s name is Benedick with a ‘k’, and that ‘t’ changes the pronunciation, so unfortunately we can’t accept that.” Instead Mayim just robotically says “unfortunately, that is not correct. Correct repsonse: Beatrice and Benedick, from Much Ado About Nothing.”
I think the host wants to keep a bit of uncertainty, if they can. So I’d expect Mayim to rule Ben incorrect, and then to explain why only after all three responses have been revealed.
I didn’t see the episode in question. Is that how it happened, or was there no explanation at all?
Ben was in the lead, so his response was the last to be revealed. The other two had both guessed ‘Romeo and Juliet.’ Mayim, per usual, ruled him incorrect, gave us the correct answer, and then showed Ben’s wager.
I don’t mind Mayim (though prefer Ken), but agree she did not do a very good job here.
Your description of what a “good host” would have said sounds a lot like what Alex Trebek would say, and I remember people here criticizing him for smugness. I get the impression it’s a no-win situation.
It needn’t be exactly how Alex would do it, but it is probably a good idea to clarify why that slight change would not be accepted.
And I’d say that the perceived smugness of the response here would depend largely on the delivery. I can imagine Bialik saying it in a way that would sound okay (to me, at least).
No one is following the Masters Tournament?
I’m watching the Final now. I’ll avoid any spoilers.
I am disappointed no one knew the Wagner group answer. They’re in the news almost every day.
If you knew the answer, more or less, because you saw the play, I don’t know if you’d even get the subtle difference. If they were able to anticipate that and brief the host, maybe they could have been more generous given subsequent spin-offs being ambiguous about the name since it was not the easiest question.
I don’t get upset about these things and understand rules iz rules. But it’s a lousy way for a great competitor to end.
Monday’s FJ was really lax on its answer (compared to Tuesday). They accepted The Wizard of Oz for the famous 1901 book. The book is actually The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The former is the name of the movie. Inconsistent much?
I watched all the Masters but haven’t seen today’s finals show yet. I really enjoyed the informal atmosphere and joking around with everyone. The only problem I have with the Masters is that the Daily Doubles took any suspense out of the game because they weren’t about strategy. The players went all-in almost every time so if one player got a couple big DDs, they would build an insurmountable lead. There were very few games where the winner wasn’t known before Final Jeopardy. But all in all, I liked it. And I expect James to take the crown when I watch the final later.
That’s the Holzhauer strategy that everyone has to adopt when playing against him, it’s how Ken won the GOAT.
Ah. I wasn’t watching Jeopardy when James was having his run. I assumed they were doing that because they weren’t playing for money, just to win. It makes for less interesting games.
Tough news about Mattea Roach. My best wishes to her and her family.
OK, it’s been almost 24 hours since the Master’s was shown, so I can now share this humorous exchange:
The clue was:
Subheads in a piece on this NY Rep: “Lied about where he went to…college”; “Allegedly swindled a disabled vet whose dog was dying”
Mattea’s answer: “Who was George Santos?”
Ken’s response: “I know you don’t say this very much, but George Santos is correct.”
That got a good laugh from the contestants and the crowd.
With Ben Chan’s “bad beat” after a very respectable 9 wins, both Mrs Maven & I predict a long string of 1 or 2 day champions. Ben will be a formidable contender in this year’s Tournament.
Depends on how it’s said. Trebek certainly would have been smug. Ken* would have been anything but smug. Ken is the host Jeopardy has been needing for a very long time.
Agree!
Is there a reason they call it a “signaling device” and not simply a “buzzer?” Maybe the latter is considered too low brow for a classy game show?