The mighty Bartlett Pear Shaped haven't been to trivia for a while, only once since winning last year's grand final, so last Tuesday we figured we may as well try out this new venue we'd read about. We came third. Not that we were too fussed we didn't win. More like we were slightly pissed off at the way we went about not winning.
Karma got us.
There were three rounds of fifteen questions with a three point 'who/what am I?' at the end of each round.
The WAI? at the end of round one was about Daniel Defoe. During the fourth clue, by which point I'd openly sh1tcanned the three other tables who'd shouted out French people despite the person being banged up in Newgate Prison, I yelled out Alexander Dumas. I really did mean to yell out Defoe, but probably for reasons French, I yelled out the wrong bloke. I have the same problem with Sigrid Weaver who I automatically confuse with Sigourney Thornton. Anyway, the host misheard me and gave us the three points. Given my mellifluous diction, fvcknose how he would mistake Alexander Dumas for Daniel Defoe. Naturally, because I'm a very good sport, I accepted the umpire's decision. "You gots to take the good with the bad," I advised Boynton. "What goes around comes around." So, there we were after round one, leading on 13 with four or five teams on 10 and 11. A close run thing with the WAI? making the difference. After round two, the team that got the second WAI? led on 24 with us tied on 23 with another team. (It was a "what am I?" but I can't remember what it was.) (Update! It was Mt Fuji.) Then. The round three bonus question started off "Born in 1901, married in 1925, famous for charity work... ". My first thought had been Elizabeth Murdoch, but I knew she was coming up to her 100th birthday so I didn't say anything. Fool. As soon as I'd dismissed Dame Liz, one of the other tables yelled out "Elizabeth Murdoch!" - which was payed. I muttered something along the lines of "she's not 107 this year" to which the host replied "I meant 1909." Thanks. Pal. Nor did I have the time to add that she was married in 1928. Did I say "time"? Sorry, I meant Wiki. The final scores ended up with the Murdoch team on 35, the team that got the second bonus on 34 and us on 33. Like I said: you sews what you reap.
We also got dudded on Wattle Day. The answer was August 1 - wrong! Boynton knew it was September 1.
The unfinished business of 1913, that is, proclamation of Wattle as the national floral emblem, was completed during the Bicentennial Year, on the First of September 1988. Golden Wattle, Acacia pycnantha, was the actual species chosen. Continuing confusion over the actual date of Wattle Day required a long-awaited agreement among the Commonwealth and States to unify Australia's Wattle Day as the First Day of Spring (1st September) in every State and Territory. This took place in 1992 at the urging of Maria Hitchcock and supporters.
I dudded myself on Coke and Pepsi. "Which was invented first?" I wrote Pepsi thinking it must have been a trick question. That's despite knowing Coke was invented in the 1880s and thinking it was extremely unlikely Pepsi would have been invented before then. Unless you absolutely positively know an answer, once you get the idea a question might be a trick it's virtually impossible to shake the feeling you're being sold a dummy.
Where did we read about this new venue? Here. Specifically here. We didn't raise a rumpus over the five dollars, but I agree with Ed's description:
The old dude running the trivia looked like he crawled out from under a shelf at the nearby university library and he announced three rounds of fifteen questions. By question five of the first round we knew that we were going to be totally pwned. This wasn’t your “name the title of Britney’s latest single” kind of pop trivia. This was all about European battles of the seventeenth century and obscure references to obscure literature. As Jeremy said at one point: “At least when I’m hopeless at pop trivia I can dismiss the questions as being irrelevant. When I’m hopeless at this trivia I feel dumb because I should know the answers.”
It is true about the "old dude" but in his defence I should add that he must have been young at heart - his pants were full of holes.
Agree about the questions, which as far as we were concerned, were good ones. No stupid music, no dumb celebrity stuff, bugger all TV, minimal pop culture. Obviously there was a Logies question, but we got that right. (Curtain.) Even the sport questions were tough. Usually you cop the odd gimme: "Who won last year's NRL grand final?" or "Who won last year's Norm Smith medal?" But we got curly questions on aussie rules, bullfighting, racing, boxing and serate (a form of boxkicking). NONE of which we got right.
We're not going back, though. Despite the questions and food being fine, the vibe of the place was ordinary. There were shouter-outerers; they are never as funny as they think and way more annoying than they don't think. The host needs to polish his act; sitting at a table reading out questions without amplification is no one's idea of a good idea. Nine points out of 48 is too heavy a weighting for the three bonus questions; seven points out of 48 in mistakes is a juicy percentage. The team that won was a bit too pleased with themselves. If you don't do well, despite having eight players in the target demographic, you are morons. Courtesy of the Grodsoids, we knew you had to pay to play, but the sudden appearance of a basket accompanied by "it costs five dollars to play" was still strange. Leading at the time, we should have upped and walked out. That would have made a statement. And finally, no one seemed to know if you actually won anything?
As quiz shows go, Eggheads goes alright.
