hbomb1947 wrote:Lackadaisical Stumblebum wrote:If an auditioner burned through his lifelines and walked with 4k, he'd be pilloried 'til hell wouldn't have him. But, since he's a phone game contestant, he gets a pass.
He doesn't get a pass from me for walking at 4K, either. But the "burning through his lifelines" was, to a large extent, a product of difficult low-level questions (the split by a very smart audience on a mis-valued $2,000 question was the reason he needed to blow two lifelines on that question; and as I have stated, the Seinfeld question was also drastically undervalued). At least he left with more money than Brad Abbey . . .
Your previous response in this thread sure sounded like an overall pass.
That is just silly. Yeah, it was necessary to go to auditions to choose such awesome contestants as Brad Abbey (what a scintillating on-air personality he had) and Michelle Ribeiro. The result of Gary's appearance was as much a result of a syndibam-level stack as anything else
Michelle Ribeiro made it to 25k before she walked on questions that I found more difficult than these. Yet you knock her for getting there by auditioning while making an excuse for this guy. Why?
And I'm not down with the "he wuz jacked by the question writers". Up until the last one, they all seemed quite reasonable. And although I didn't know that one, it was still reasonable, a question about what is apparently a quite famous episode from a sitcom that was a cultural phenomenon.
A "very smart" audience doesn't come down to an almost four way split on knowing who did the apple with a bowler hat picture. I don't care if it was mis-valued, 2k or 25k, that's a pretty basic art question. Even if they weren't sure, a 'very smart' audience could have probably figured out that Warhol wasn't nearly that old, Duchamp would have put a worm in the apple and Dali's apple and hat would come out looking like a washstand and a moccasin.
Sharing smokes and a cup of joe with my friend, Insouciant Ruffian. Good times!
