c4countdown

I started watching frequently again a few years ago and it seems to me that a lot of DC guests now largely talk to Nick about their own line of work (and in some cases seem more there for his benefit than anyone else's) or tell uninteresting anecdotes about minor mishaps, charity challenges, etc., which happen to have famous people's names in them. Personally I'd be mildly interested if one my friends or colleagues were doing Tough Mudder or accidentally locked themselves out of their house, but couldn't care less about a breakfast TV presenter doing the same.

Hard to make comparisons as I was basically a child when I watched before, but I remember the former producer John Meade saying it was important for guests to each have their own identity. That certainly seems to have been lost.

There aren't many I dislike in the current crop tbh, and I'm pretty intolerant, so I think you must just be more intolerant.

Think most of the current crop are alright, people who know me well will know who are the exceptions, but I feel a lot of the first time guests recently have been pretty poor. But keep the newbies coming, need to find new blood somewhere.

What would you rather they talk about, though?

Probably not the mildly racist anecdote from June Sarpong , that's for sure

It's pretty impossible to please everyone though, what you might hate someone else might love. There's only a very small number of guests who I absolutely cannot stand, which are the ones who seem disinterested and/or are always "I got....(insert obscure word anyone who wasn't an obsessive Countdowner would not spot in a million years)" when they very likely didn't. I mostly fastforward the anecdotes though as I record it to watch later. I want to watch the rounds, not the anecdotes really unless it's someone like Dr Phil, who always speaks about something really interesting and in which case I make an exception.

I can't really comment on whether they have got worse over the years as I've only been watching since February last year, but most of them look interested and there's a good variation of people.

I don't watch live and I fast forward most of the guests, but I'm not sure if that proportion would be any different in a different era. The most recent I didn't fast forward was Dan Walker. He's quite the raconteur.

Dan Walker came and did the presentations at my local Christian Youth local 5-a-side league and told the story of how he got into his current job at the BBC (not sure if this has been told on countdown before) - he's a very nice man and I appreciate that he has time for ordinary people - his kids also go to the school I used to go to.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:22 am What would you rather they talk about, though?

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:14 pm It's pretty impossible to please everyone though, what you might hate someone else might love.

Fair points. I guess it's not that easy to be entertaining for eight consecutive 1-2 minute slots. Dr Phil is certainly an honourable exception, and I quite like Dan Walker even though you might say he fits the template I described above. I think the difference is he does it with a good dose of self-deprecation.

I think overall, I'd rather have guests who are famous for being talented at something, rather than 'famous for being famous' types. Meade cited Richard Stilgoe and Bill Tidy as two examples who obviously offered something unique.

On the other hand, when I watch the 'classic' episodes I have to put up with Richard Whiteley marvelling like a village idiot at each word they come up with, so, swings and roundabouts.

Bring back Tim Vine.
He is usually quite funny/silly and usually gives value.
End of anecdote