That FJ where the category was “Three-Named Women.” I told the wife the first name that sprang to my mind was Louisa May Alcott. But then when the clue was read, I went with Elizabeth Cady Stanton! This despite feeling the time period was a tad too late.
For that “International Landmark” category, not sure how anyone could think of anything besides a mountain. (I got that one right.)
But the contestants don’t really “know it” either. They are just cramming prior to being on the show.
I have said I am willing to change the show to make it more about actual smarts, thinking things through, than this decades long stale format. No one seems to agree. I guess everyone likes their perennials.
Here’s one rule change I would not mind seeing. I think it would be interesting if when the returning champion misses FJ but wins the game anyway, and the second-place finisher does get FJ right, give that person another chance by bringing both of them back the next day.
Make a pitch for a 30 minute game show format that demonstrates actual smarts (and is more entertaining than watching someone take their SAT’s) and I’ll subscribe.
Consider this scenario: Returning champ has $30k, second-place person has $1k going into FJ., Third-place person finishes in the negative and doesn’t play FJ. Second-place person gets FJ right and bets $1k; finishes with $2k. Returning champ misses FJ and bets $5k; finishes with $25k.
Do you really think that second-place person deserves to come back for another game?
I have always thought the “best” players that lose to dominant players like Amy (and Ken and Matt) should be given a 2nd chance.
disclaimer: Not sure how to define best and the players that earn the most money may not be the best players as they might try to protect 2nd place.
I’d be happy if they started giving second and third place the money they have at the end of the game. Not this penny ante $2K and $1K. Those are values out of the 80s.
In a lot of games there’s no point in betting in second and third. It won’t affect the outcome. You end the game with 25K in second place, or you end with 0, and you still get $2K.
Even WoF raises what we call “league minimum” for the final every year.
How about making the number of daily doubles random, like between 1 and 5 on a show? Instead of always and ever three, every single show? That would be a start!
Or have answers that are numbers, don’t need to be exact, just within a certain threshold? Like the population of a state, something like that. Identifying things by sound or pictures.
For a show that’s supposed to be for smart people… maybe change it up a bit. Real life is not this predictable.
Under the current format, if there were more than 3 Daily Doubles they probably would not clear the board. As a fan of the show, I am disappointed when I don’t get to see every clue.
Obviously they could free up time by shortening the “get to know you” interview.
How is that different from the questions already being asked? It’s still just memorizing a fact.
Audio and Video clues have been used for decades, possibly since the very beginning of the show.
What does a show being for smart people have to do with real life being predictable? 
Jeopardy not introducing silly gimmicks is one the high points.
It’s a type of question they aren’t asking now. It’s still knowledge.
I want to mix the show up more. Ask a heavy dose of population questions over a few weeks. Then drop them and move on to something else. So by the time future contestants are watching the show, the show is no longer heavily emphasizing that type of question.
I want a show more dependent on critical thinking and less dependent on cramming. Right now the show is not that great as a contestant, given the probability that you’re going to run up against a Holzhauer type crammer on a long run. Also reinstitute a maximum number of episodes a winner can be on the show.
Yeah, I would question putting forth a show that never, ever changes its format as a “test of intelligence.” I don’t expect to get my way. People want their middlebrow comfort food. Per this thread, others only watch when a Holzhauer type is obliterating other contestants. I’m not going to get my way, just pointing out a different way.
So your preference would be to make the show boring and unwatchable? “A heavy dose of population questions over a few weeks”?
Perhaps you’re looking for a different show than Jeopardy!? For example, I’ve been watching episodes of Only Connect on YouTube and it seems to require a different skill set.
Yeah, Jeopardy is Jeopardy. You can like the format or not, but turning into a different show altogether isn’t the answer.
I mean, Wheel of Fortune is great and all, but they really need to get rid of that stupid wheel.
And why do they need to play games to win on The Price is Right? They should add in some historical trivia questions there. Mix it up!
Anyone else remember early days of Wheel of Fortune when the winner had to use the cash to “buy” furniture, accessories and so forth from a display of merchandise? At the end, when the amount remaining was too small, they could take the remainder in a Service Merchandise gift certificate. But I think until then, they had to take stuff, no matter how useless or stupid. We used to joke about the contestant forced to buy a ceramic pig.
Letting the crammers stay on after 5 wins was a huge impact on the show. It was not the original show. I want the show to be more about actual thinking and less of a cramming contest. It’s possible to do that and not stray too far from the original format. I’m utterly unsurprised that people want no changes to the show.
Why would people want to make changes to something that isn’t broken and works fine? You have not given any compelling reason to make any changes other than “mix it up!” And I have no idea why you think memorizing the populations of various cities is any different than memorizing the list of presidents.
I’m a few days behind in watching the episodes. I saw a question today I think I would have gotten right, except I misread it. “Wait, they broke wind on someone’s casket?” “No, they broke a wand.”