Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
mellytu74
Posts: 9408
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#51 Post by mellytu74 » Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:37 pm

Southpaw Fanny wrote:
mellytu74 wrote:
chad1m wrote:Yes, I've seen a Subway ad. No, I've never noticed Ryan Howard as the spokesman.

"Piss-poor excuse?" Aren't we getting a bit haughty over a lil' ol' game show?

Remember: Everyone acquires his or her knowledge differently.
Sorry, chad.

I should have put a transition phrase in there.

The piss-poor excuse comment wasn't directed toward you. It was directed toward bad PAF selection.

If you know your strengths and weaknesses, you should use your PAFs to fill them. I think we've all thought that for 10 years.

It just distresses me to see something like this happen -- even if it's NOT a BB :D -- because the question WASN"T about The Office.

It was about the National League MVP in 2006.

It's a sports question disguised as a TV question and we've all seen Hot Seaters who have been able to cut to the chase and ask the right PAF the essence of the question.

Sorry for the confusion.
I'm glad you clarified, Mel, because I was shocked that you would be so Philly-centric as to think that anybody who didn't know who Ryan Howard was just had a piss poor excuse.
No, no, no. It was never meant that way.

I was in a rush out the door and wanted to finish before I shut off the computer. I should have waited. Too much on my mind.

Until chad pointed it out, I thought I'd written something about how he (meaning chad) is a good enough game player to pick his PAFs to cover him, rather than leave himself open and uncovered on something he knew he might not know.

Ergo, "piss poor, etc."

The category was Sports on TV. It's not a question about The Office.

As far as the commercials, I know they are shown in California, so I was thinking of national scope.

BUT, I had my actress hat on.

I look at commercials because I want see how they are done (for example, I hate the Charles Schwab ones that have the feel of old "realistic" comic strips -- Rex Morgan, Brenda Starr, etc. -- because they have the animation -- $$ only for the voiceover folks and not the extras in the background. No real background actors = less work for real actors. And, yes, I REALIZE that's why they do it that way, to save $$).

Boonie turns off commercials or pays no attention.

So, it was surprise at not paying attention to the commercial, rather than not knowing who Ryan Howard is.

But not everyone pays attention to commercials and...

It was STILL a sports question.

User avatar
Southpaw Fanny
Here comes the screwball
Posts: 1299
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:33 pm
Location: Low and to the left

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#52 Post by Southpaw Fanny » Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:47 pm

mellytu74 wrote:
Southpaw Fanny wrote:The category was Sports on TV. It's not a question about The Office.

But not everyone pays attention to commercials and...

It was STILL a sports question.
OMG, until you mentioned this I didn't even realize that the damned category TOLD him it was Sports on TV! (Since i don't watch the show, I forget that they have the category tree now.)

It wasn't even a "sports question disguised as a tv question", they flat out told him it was a sports question! Even if he had no business calling his wife, to not even ask her "you've heard of a ball player named Andy Bernard?" is totally inexcusable.

He's now a quadruple fool for calling his wife "the Office expert" and he has no excuse, not even a piss poor one.
Screw you guys, I'm going home.

User avatar
chad1m
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Flint, MI
Contact:

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#53 Post by chad1m » Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:54 pm

The biggest fear I have, if i ever get on Millionaire, is the way my game will be picked apart by this place later.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B014Z7QO26/ref ... 6vb11BJ6JV
Get on a Game Show!, my e-book guide now available on Amazon!

User avatar
Spokesman for MBFFB
Merry Man
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:41 am
Location: Behind the podium

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#54 Post by Spokesman for MBFFB » Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:57 pm

chad1m wrote:The biggest fear I have, if i ever get on Millionaire, is the way my game will be picked apart by this place later.

We are patiently waiting for that opportunity.....

User avatar
Snaxx
Posts: 4668
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:24 pm
Location: I've been everywhere. Really? Not quite really.
Contact:

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#55 Post by Snaxx » Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:58 pm

chad1m wrote:The biggest fear I have, if i ever get on Millionaire, is the way my game will be picked apart by this place later.
Rec!

Though I do hope it is a minimal fear.

.

User avatar
Jeemie
Posts: 7303
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#56 Post by Jeemie » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:01 pm

chad1m wrote:The biggest fear I have, if i ever get on Millionaire, is the way my game will be picked apart by this place later.
If I ever get on, some of my posts on the Bored almost guarantee such an occurrence.

But I would love to have the opportunity to have my game play picked apart. That would mean I made the show.

So I say "Bring it on!"
1979 City of Champions 2009

User avatar
mellytu74
Posts: 9408
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#57 Post by mellytu74 » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:06 pm

chad1m wrote:The biggest fear I have, if i ever get on Millionaire, is the way my game will be picked apart by this place later.
I admit I was way harsh on the guy but it's a combo of many things.

1) Rushing off for some unsettling errands today and yesterday.

2) Feeling pissy because T-Bone wasn't in that particular RoF and, therefore, not one of the first nine with Meredith.

3) I generally try not to rag contestants because we never know what's going through their minds.

I especially feel bad for the PAF of the guy BEFORE this. She sounded scared to death (about the stamp question), when she spoke at all.

And, yeah, there will be people here who will gripe that the carryover guy needed a PAF about the stamp -- how many people pay bills online? Write emails instead of letters? Plenty.

So I am giving her more of a pass. (Edited to add about Forever stamps. We use them.)

It's just that the poor play on what I freely admit would be a dream question for me really bothered me. Perhaps it's because it WAS a dream question for me.

4) Feeling pissy in general for many reasons.

5) Did not mean to be as harsh on you as I sounded. Please read my mea cupla.
Last edited by mellytu74 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Weyoun
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:36 pm

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#58 Post by Weyoun » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:07 pm

chad1m wrote:The biggest fear I have, if i ever get on Millionaire, is the way my game will be picked apart by this place later.
You'll note that the other thread about the other Durstee is a lot shorter. The lesson being, don't post on the Internet your thought processes about how you handled the question you missed.

User avatar
doitneatly
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#59 Post by doitneatly » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:21 pm

Weyoun wrote:
chad1m wrote:The biggest fear I have, if i ever get on Millionaire, is the way my game will be picked apart by this place later.
You'll note that the other thread about the other Durstee is a lot shorter. The lesson being, don't post on the Internet your thought processes about how you handled the question you missed.

I would contend that we only had one Durst'ing yesterday. In the other case of a misleading PAF, (Brian Peterkin and the price of a stamp) the PAF abruptly answered at the last possible instant, with no indication of confidence level.

Without the immediate insistence of 100% certainty, it's just a bad answer and not a Durst. IMHO.

and since I haven't seen anyone else post this with the new youtube tag, here you go...

The Dursting starts at the 2:06 mark...
"When you don't know what you're doing, do it neatly."

User avatar
littlebeast13
Dumbass
Posts: 31141
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
Contact:

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#60 Post by littlebeast13 » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:25 pm

doitneatly wrote:
Weyoun wrote:
chad1m wrote:The biggest fear I have, if i ever get on Millionaire, is the way my game will be picked apart by this place later.
You'll note that the other thread about the other Durstee is a lot shorter. The lesson being, don't post on the Internet your thought processes about how you handled the question you missed.

I would contend that we only had one Durst'ing yesterday. In the other case of a misleading PAF, (Brian Peterkin and the price of a stamp) the PAF abruptly answered at the last possible instant, with no indication of confidence level.

Without the immediate insistence of 100% certainty, it's just a bad answer and not a Durst. IMHO.

and since I haven't seen anyone else post this with the new youtube tag, here you go...

The Dursting starts at the 2:06 mark...

Where have you gone dr_evil50.......?

lb13
Thursday comics! Squirrel pictures! The link to my CafePress store! All kinds of fun stuff!!!!

Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com

User avatar
ghostjmf
Posts: 7421
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:09 am

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#61 Post by ghostjmf » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:28 pm

8K: I had no idea. Actually, I was going for Kevin Malone, because that's the only one I recognized as being a baseball player's name. I would have ATAed here.

But they could have been mislead as well, because 3 of those characters on The Office turn out to have been named after baseball players. However, not all 3 players won MVP 2006.

This is what they call a "wicked hard question" for only 8K. My condolences to the contestant.
After "march of the 1,000-aires" I thought he was going to do better. Hard, hard question.
Last edited by ghostjmf on Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thousandaire
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:33 pm

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#62 Post by Thousandaire » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:35 pm

mellytu74 wrote:
I look at commercials because I want see how they are done (for example, I hate the Charles Schwab ones that have the feel of old "realistic" comic strips -- Rex Morgan, Brenda Starr, etc. -- because they have the animation -- $$ only for the voiceover folks and not the extras in the background. No real background actors = less work for real actors. And, yes, I REALIZE that's why they do it that way, to save $$).
I don't know why but that style of animation creeps me out big time. And last year (I think it was) they did an entire movie that way. Yech.

User avatar
ghostjmf
Posts: 7421
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:09 am

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#63 Post by ghostjmf » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:47 pm

turns out I just got dursted myself by Google; Kevin Malone is more famous as former General Manager of Montreal Expos & LA Dodgers. Andy Bernard is a pitching coach, but like, Malone, never made it into the majors.

User avatar
ghostjmf
Posts: 7421
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:09 am

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#64 Post by ghostjmf » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:52 pm

Thousandaire says, re Schwab commercial animation style:
I don't know why but that style of animation creeps me out big time.
The technique is rotoscoping; I love it. Different strokes etc. There's a weirder, longer name for the technique I'm still Googling for that I once read & thought would make a great BAM Q.

You will not like Richard Linklater's "Waking Life", I suspect. The movie did make me seasick, but that was because of another technique used in the film, not the rotoscoping per se.

User avatar
mellytu74
Posts: 9408
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#65 Post by mellytu74 » Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:14 pm

ghostjmf wrote:Thousandaire says, re Schwab commercial animation style:
I don't know why but that style of animation creeps me out big time.
The technique is rotoscoping; I love it. Different strokes etc. There's a weirder, longer name for the technique I'm still Googling for that I once read & thought would make a great BAM Q.

You will not like Richard Linklater's "Waking Life", I suspect. The movie did make me seasick, but that was because of another technique used in the film, not the rotoscoping per se.
I don't dislike rotoscoping as a technique.

I HATE rotoscoped TV ads because the use of rotoscoped background actors (extras) means fewer jobs for REAL background actors. The main character(s) who is/are voicing the copy are fine.

My argument is that Charles Schwab commercials take money out of the pockets of working actors.

THAT"S why I don't like them.

User avatar
ghostjmf
Posts: 7421
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:09 am

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#66 Post by ghostjmf » Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:51 pm

mellytu74 says:
I don't dislike rotoscoping as a technique.

I HATE rotoscoped TV ads because the use of rotoscoped background actors (extras) means fewer jobs for REAL background actors. The main character(s) who is/are voicing the copy are fine.

My argument is that Charles Schwab commercials take money out of the pockets of working actors.

THAT"S why I don't like them.
OK. I unnerstand. It looks like Thousandaire really does dislike (is creeped out by) the technique, though.

User avatar
littlebeast13
Dumbass
Posts: 31141
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
Contact:

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#67 Post by littlebeast13 » Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:54 pm

ghostjmf wrote:mellytu74 says:
I don't dislike rotoscoping as a technique.

I HATE rotoscoped TV ads because the use of rotoscoped background actors (extras) means fewer jobs for REAL background actors. The main character(s) who is/are voicing the copy are fine.

My argument is that Charles Schwab commercials take money out of the pockets of working actors.

THAT"S why I don't like them.
OK. I unnerstand. It looks like Thousandaire really does dislike (is creeped out by) the technique, though.

And when actors are out of work, they have to take up other jobs, like plumbing........

lb13
Thursday comics! Squirrel pictures! The link to my CafePress store! All kinds of fun stuff!!!!

Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com

User avatar
Jeemie
Posts: 7303
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#68 Post by Jeemie » Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:12 pm

littlebeast13 wrote:And when actors are out of work, they have to take up other jobs, like plumbing........

lb13
Or else they take up contestant slots on a certain game show...
1979 City of Champions 2009

User avatar
MarleysGh0st
Posts: 27934
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Transcript 09/09/09 - Matt Sittel

#69 Post by MarleysGh0st » Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:16 pm

littlebeast13 wrote:
ghostjmf wrote:mellytu74 says:
I don't dislike rotoscoping as a technique.

I HATE rotoscoped TV ads because the use of rotoscoped background actors (extras) means fewer jobs for REAL background actors. The main character(s) who is/are voicing the copy are fine.

My argument is that Charles Schwab commercials take money out of the pockets of working actors.

THAT"S why I don't like them.
OK. I unnerstand. It looks like Thousandaire really does dislike (is creeped out by) the technique, though.

And when actors are out of work, they have to take up other jobs, like plumbing........

lb13
Or like auditioning for game shows? :shock:

Okay, that's it! If it'll keep the WE/WEs off of SyndieBAM, we need to outlaw rotoscoped commercials immediately! :twisted:

Post Reply