Classic Posts - Family Feud

An old post about Family Feud from my old blog follows. BOTG talked about how ridiculous it was that the "triple" round basically decides the game, and renders the first two or three rounds as useless. Anyway, apparently it is still on TV. My thoughts from years ago follow.

The last time I've seen the show, I believe J. Peterman from Seinfeld was the host.


Why did I watch this show often as a kid, even though the structure of the show was ridiculous? Allow me to explain.


The overall premise wasn't too bad. Each family would have to guess what responses "100 random people" gave to random questions, usually about ordinary aspects of life. Whichever family performed better did the same in a final round with a chance to win money. Family Feud certainly is part of our cultural lexicon and has been a successful show for a long time.
 However, here are the three things that have started to bother me over time, in increasing order of annoyingness:



1) Why do they ask if a family wants to "Play" or "Pass" when they win the toss-up question? Theoretically, you'd see why a family would want to pass, I suppose... but, I'm sure in my lifetime I've watched this show at least 100 times and I've seen a family elect to pass maybe twice. It seems analogous to winning a coin flip in overtime in a sudden-death football game, and electing to "kick" rather than "receive". The best case scenario is that the other team fumbles or has to kick back, resulting in your possession... why not just receive in the first place?



2) It's annoying that sometimes a family gives what seem like "better" answers and they can't win a board because they miss one answer that is ridiculous that nobody would ever guess. I think the show's writers shouldn't use results to surveys if they are counterintuitive.



3) (This is what prompted me to write this post): The scoring structure is dumb. The family that gets to 300 points first wins. The first two rounds are usually worth close to 100 each, as the "top x answers are on the board" - and since 100 people were surveyed, the maximum amount of points each round is worth is usually somewhere between 80 and 100. 

Round 3 is worth 200 points, since scoring values are doubled. So, from time to time, a family will not only sweep each of the first three rounds, but also do so by sweeping the answers, and win after three rounds. However, this is not common. What usually happens is the game goes to a fourth round, where point values are tripled. So, often, the team that wins the triple round winds up winning the entire game, hence making the entire game up until this point almost insiginifcant. It would be kind of like a basketball game entering the 4th quarter and the referee going "Ok, since nobody is up by 30 points yet, let's have every basket for the last quarter count for 8 points each."


"Cold" does not equal "cool"

We all know it's "cool" to be "cool." But it is definitely not "cool" to be "cold." At least, not according the the pre-teen population here in Highland Mills, NY. As the splashing and bickering began to escalate in the pool today between my 8 year old, Thomas, and 10 year old, Nicholas, the following conversation was overheard:

T: (to Nick) "You're colder than me!"
N: "No. You're colder than me!"
T: "Oh yeah? You're always 3 times colder than me!"
N: "Well, you're 5 times colder than me!"
T: "Well, you're pi times colder than me!"
N: "You're infinity times colder than me!. Hah!"
T: "Pi is better because it never ends."
N: "Oh yeah? So is infinity! It never ends also!"

Squirrels

Squirrels, in my opinion, are in the same category of pest as the cockroach, the pigeon in NYC, and rats/mice. They are the rats of the tree world.

If you've ever lived in the suburbs, which almost 100% of us have, you've seen this crafty tough animal scamper around the trees in your yard. And if you've ever had a bird feeder, you know that these squirrels can perform almost impossible, remarkable physical feats to get at the feeders and eat the seed intended for birds.

Objectively, squirrels should be cute and harmless. However, I find them creepy, invasive and annoying. Mrs. Frazier has hung various feeders and the like around our yards in our various apartments, and now in our house. And, despite her best efforts, squirrels are almost impossible to keep away. Many people you'll talk to have "war stories" about keeping squirrels away from places in their yards.


Watch the following video as an illustration of their prowess as a squirrel runs an obstacle course. Amazing.





There are also many videos on YouTube of squirrels getting into bird feeders, such as the following, which for some reason creeps me out. It's like finding a rat in your kitchen pantry.

NBA Lockout

The more I think about the NBA lockout, the more I laugh and then almost cry (not literally, but I’ll be pissed if we miss any of this season). I was reading a couple of different sites, and the request from the owners seems to stem out of their bad decisions. Now, the owners want reform! But, they want to reform themselves. It also appears like the owners are outright bullshitting. So, in order for an NBA season, we have to hope the owners save themselves from … themselves.

From what I read a major problem with the current collective bargaining agreements is bad contracts. The Eddy Curry (or Sandman) example is constantly referenced and for good reason. Eddy had made 31 million over the course of the past three seasons and apparently, only played in 10 games. Also in those ten games, he wasn’t effective. The reasons behind Eddy’s failure to produce are due in part to his physical conditioning. Clearly this was a bad contract. The argument is put forth by the owners that contracts like Eddy’s, or Gilbert Arenas, is that they are stuck paying millions for long term deals for players who do not produce. Now, the funny thing about this “complaint” is that it is the owners who create the contracts they are complaining about! Nobody held a gun to James Dolan’s head and told him to give an overweight, unproven center millions. If Dolan overpaid, let him live with the consequences of being a bad owner and manager. On the other hand, Buss is not complaining about having to pay Kobe millions because he got the return on his investment. It’s called a business and there are no guarantees. If you want to help increase the probability that you make a profit, don’t make bad decisions!

Now, to the underlying issue… the owners are saying that only a few teams are profitable. I call bull shit! Granted I haven’t seen the books, but I’m inclined to believe the players that some of owners are hiding some of their revenue and inflating some of the costs. NBA games sell out on a regular basis, even in small markets, not to mention merchandise, and what TV and Cable Stations pay the NBA to broadcast the games. How many billion is collected in revenue from that? Also, I find it hard to believe that teams have been not making a profit for years. If they weren’t making a profit, did they run the teams out of charity? To entertain us? Bull! To steal a line from Uncle Junior from the Soprano’s this is clearly the case of a woman begging for food while holding a Virginia ham under her arm.

The owners need to be willing to budge, because, unfortunately, I like watching basketball, and they are clearly bullshitting. If the players make some concessions with their salaries, I guess the owners should have to learn to be better decision makers if they want to make a profit.

The King of Comedies

Mrs. Frazier and I were re-watching Talladega Nights the other night ("Why, if it isn't our mangy, transient grandfather"). By the way, I know my brother Beer-on-the-Girl is not a Will Ferrell fan. I do maintain that Talladega Nights is a consistently funny movie, even if its perhaps a bit over the top.

Anyway, afterwards I commented to Mrs. Frazier, "Wow, Will Ferrell's been in a handful of decent comedy movies. I wonder if there's anybody that's been in more than him." She responded, "Oh sure, there must have been. What about Eddie Murphy? How about Bill Murray?"

A good question... "Which actor has been in the most decent comedy movies?"

So we started naming famous actors that have been in a handful of comedy movies and going over their resumes. There is, of course, always some discussion about if particular movies qualify as "decent" or not.

Here are a handful of the first few famous comedy actors we thought of, and what may qualify as their "decent" comedy movies:

Will Ferrell: Austin Powers, Zoolander, Old School, Anchorman, Wedding Crashers, Talladega Nights

Bill Murray: Caddyshack, Stripes, Ghostbusters, Little Shop of Horrors, Scrooged, Groundhog Day

Steve Martin: Three Amigos, The Jerk, Little Shop of Horrors, Parenthood, My Blue Heaven, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

Eddie Murphy: Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop, Golden Child, Coming to America, Boomerang, The (first) Nutty Professor


Certainly, one could add or subtract comedies from each person's resumes, depending on one's opinion of what a decent movie is or not.

But the point: Two things stood out...

1) All of them have been in plenty of shitburger movies. Check out any of their resumes on IMDB. You will see a handful of movies in each person's resume that will have you saying, "Wow, they must have cashed in when they did that movie."

2) Look at the number of movies in each person's resume. What do you notice? They all only have 6 "decent" comedy movies! Why is there not one comedic actor that has 10 good comedies or more? Maybe many of them seem to have lost their comedic touch after they've been around for a while and aged. Bill Murray started doing serious, artsy films. Eddie Murphy got stuck in the kids movie rut and seemed to forget how to be funny.

So who is the king of comedy movies? Who did we overlook? Who has been in the most decent movies? And, what are the best individual comedic movie performances of all time?