c4countdown

Craig Beevers wrote:Yea I dunno why they're so conservative in the last round, the pairs nearly always go for 1-2 'safe' answers that will never in a million years be pointless - although I suppose they really are pointless answers in one sense.

Yeah - plus I reckon the producers (or whoever is in charge of such things) needs to fix that bit so that they do the answers in reverse order, 'cos everyone seems to list them with their 'best' answers first, which kinda ruins the tension.

Chris on today's Pointless. In a word: phwoar.

If there was a prize for correctly guessing specific rounds' questions given the general topics, I think I would have a good chance of winning said prize.

Hugh Binnie wrote:If there was a prize for correctly guessing specific rounds' questions given the general topics, I think I would have a good chance of winning said prize.

Yes, "Games" was a bit obvious, wasn't it? Only trouble is, about 100 out of 100 would have guessed that one, so you wouldn't score very well! I'm disappointed that the "Prize Winning Artists" category has been retired, especially after I memorised the names of Malcolm Morley, Douglas Gordon and Tony Cragg in an attempt to look incredibly clever.

Hugh Binnie wrote:If there was a prize for correctly guessing specific rounds' questions given the general topics, I think I would have a good chance of winning said prize.

Totally. I wonder how much time they have between show filmings, because if you saw the subjects for the final you'd know two which would be on the next show, and sometimes it's sufficiently obvious what the question will be that you could easily learn a few likely pointless answers in about five minutes with the Internet.

I did quite well today on the Leonardo DiCaprio round, getting two of the pointless answers - Marvin's Room and Total Eclipse. I was also muttering UPPER at the screen throughout the round on "words you can make from PURPLE", which wasn't pointless but also wasn't shown among the most popular answers. Funny, too, that today's first round was on Monopoly after I'd mentioned it here only a couple of hours earlier in the "things I've never done" thread. I was rubbish in that round.

Oh, and as a public service, here's an area of outstanding natural beauty:

Phil Reynolds wrote:Oh, and as a public service, here's an area of outstanding natural beauty:

He looks like you, with hair. A touch of narcissism there?

For the sake of balance, neither I nor CF was convinced by this guy (haha, initially typoed that as gay).

Phil Reynolds wrote: Oh, and as a public service, here's an area of outstanding natural beauty:

I would.

Jennifer Turner wrote:He looks like you, with hair.

If only.

Michael Wallace wrote:For the sake of balance, neither I nor CF was convinced by this guy

Convinced by him of what?

Charlie Reams wrote:I would.

Poofter.

Friday's episode was the best yet; watch it if you care.

Are you referring to the Friday just gone, when the players got all 3 Pointlesses in the final round?

It says on Wikipedia that Alexander Armstrong's Pointless friend Richard Osman has stood in for Susie Dent on Countdown. I thought it was weird that nobody on here had mentioned it. But then I checked our Wiki and there is no mention of him, so it must be wrong.

Then, Derek, where did he get his start?

Jason, he has done a lot of work as a television producer. I think he started in 1999 with "Boyz Unlimited", a comedy spoof about a boyband. He has also done quite a lot of writing for TV. As you can see on the show, he is a pretty funny guy.

He didn't create any lightbulbs though - that was Osram.

So Jason, why haven't you posted in my USA thread yet?

He finally got in front of the camera after being behind it for so long!

On the flip side, Mike Richards is the executive producer of The Price is Right here in the USA, but he is not the same Michael Richards who played Jerry's neighbor on Seinfeld. He actually hosted a reality show called Beauty and the Geek and worked with Anne Robinson on the crew of the US version of The Weakest Link.

When people like that speak, it's a miracle!

And yes, Derek, I will post in your USA thread as soon as I take a look at it.

Only just caught this for the first time today, and entirely accidentally. I was having a strop with apterous so stayed on the sofa and stuck with it.

Possibly repeating what other people have said, but the way they reveal the 'other answers' at the end of each round is painfully uninformative. I've seen a few other shows with a reveal of "and here are the other answers you could have had" at the end of a round, and most choose the far more sensible method of displaying a list of all the answers on the screen - this satisfies all possible audience curiosities (which surely has to be seen as A Good Thing) and then specific answers can be picked out by the presenter (in this case, that Richard dude) to discuss at slightly further length. This approach was so obviously missing in the 'words from GARDEN' round where they said (I think) that there were 19 (or was it 9?) pointless answers, and then showed just 3 of them. That was ridiculously fucking annoying (I wanted to know if GAR and ANGER were pointless, amongst others) and would be so incredibly easily rectified. Such a simple thing that would improve the show no end.

The other thing I noticed was in the Queen songs round Richard said something about a particular song being the B-side to We Are The Champions, which he followed with "which is what Anne went for". Except she didn't, it was Anu that had chosen that song. Casual racism that might have been glossed over quite quickly had the cameraman/director then switched to a shot of Anu, the rightful subject, but to compound the situation they then decided to show Anne anyway. Slightly cringey and considerably amateur.

Finally, way too much padding. Do we need to look at Armstrong staring into the camera for two seconds before they switch to the score countdown layout, and then another two seconds before the countdown actually begins? It's cliched tension-mongering at its worst. I can imagine regular viewers must be either very fucking dumb, have memories like a sieve, or else have to sit through the first 5 minutes in utter pain, the explanation of the game went on for ages, and explained practically nothing - certainly nothing that couldn't have been guessed or squashed into 30 seconds. Do they really go through that spiel for the first five minutes of every show? Pointless.

Yea there's way too much padding and oversimplified scripted recapping of the scores.

Like virtually every round he'll say the exact same lines regardless of if the highest score is 100 and the next highest is 3 or if the highest is 10 and the lowest is 5. Think it goes something like "well x is the highest score you really need a pointless and hope everyone else scores high, looking good for y and if they keep scoring low they should make it through to the next round"

Craig Beevers wrote:Like virtually every round he'll say the exact same lines regardless of if the highest score is 100 and the next highest is 3 or if the highest is 10 and the lowest is 5. Think it goes something like "well x is the highest score you really need a pointless and hope everyone else scores high, looking good for y and if they keep scoring low they should make it through to the next round"

Not to mention the fact we apparently need reminding EVERY 5 SECONDS that "this is pointless, where you're trying to score as low as possible".

Michael Wallace wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:Like virtually every round he'll say the exact same lines regardless of if the highest score is 100 and the next highest is 3 or if the highest is 10 and the lowest is 5. Think it goes something like "well x is the highest score you really need a pointless and hope everyone else scores high, looking good for y and if they keep scoring low they should make it through to the next round"

Not to mention the fact we apparently need reminding EVERY 5 SECONDS that "this is pointless, where you're trying to score as low as possible".

Yeah, I'm getting more annoyed with it as each day goes by, particularly by not getting an inkling as to whether 'my answers' were any good. I'm also thinking - if Alexander Armstrong chose presenting this over presenting Countdown, then he's a fool because that CONSTANT labouring over the point of the game, doesn't really give him a chance to display his natural wit.

Sue Sanders wrote:Yeah, I'm getting more annoyed with it as each day goes by, particularly by not getting an inkling as to whether 'my answers' were any good...

Quite. Having just re-read my post from a couple of weeks ago, I clearly wasn't as angry with the show then as we all seem to be now. It's been surviving on my viewing schedule because I can carry on with whatever I'm doing and only pay attention when the game is actually being played -unless it's films starring someone I've never heard of in which case I still carry on with whatever I'm doing.

As well as the other annoying features already pointed out, I find it incredibly frustrating when what should be a good head-to-head round starts, only for someone to ruin it almost immediately.

Clive Brooker wrote:As well as the other annoying features already pointed out, I find it incredibly frustrating when what should be a good head-to-head round starts, only for someone to ruin it almost immediately.

Reminds of a recent pair of halfwits who must have slipped through the net. There was some question which required a country as an answer so first up one of them said Africa.

Craig Beevers wrote:Reminds of a recent pair of halfwits who must have slipped through the net. There was some question which required a country as an answer so first up one of them said Africa.

Yeah, it was "Countries with 6 letter names", they were first up and said Africa, then later on someone else said Chile.

And then there was "Three Weddings and a Funeral". At least that gave AA a good one-liner.

But it seems we are still watching.

Also, can anyone come up with a convincing reason for why you'd opt to go second in the semi-final?

Michael Wallace wrote:Also, can anyone come up with a convincing reason for why you'd opt to go second in the semi-final?

Um - well, I agree you'd want to go first, but a reason might be a blank brain so you let the other team's answer prompt you.

Clive Brooker wrote:And then there was "Three Weddings and a Funeral". At least that gave AA a good one-liner.

But it seems we are still watching.

Ah yeah, she was having a senior moment - my mum was always a big fan of the 'Three Ronnies'.

The daft answers are all part of the entertainment. I do tend to skip the first five minutes of the show as I'm bored too with the repetition of the rules, and I wish Xander would find something else to say when the wrong answer symbol is displayed besides "...you really don't want to see that." I also get slightly irked in the final when he says, "This has to be pointless" for each answer. No it doesn't - only one of the three has to be pointless. That's the, er, point.

If a second series gets commissioned (and I'm sure it will) they also have to do something about the clumsy shuffling around that the contestants have to do when changing places at the podium - it looks terrible, and is made worse by the fact that it's accompanied by a dramatic musical sting as if we're watching something hugely exciting instead of 10 people trying not to bump into each other.

But, those niggles aside, I think it's a really good game, and I particularly like seeing Richard Osman on screen for once - he's a great asset to the show. Someone ought to be collecting his dry asides when commenting on the answers. Two of my favourites have been "If I can just negotiate my way through the carnage of that last round..." and (when a contestant suggested Coriolanus as one of Shakespeare's comedies) "Coriolanus is actually a tragedy. Particularly for you."

Phil Reynolds wrote: But, those niggles aside, I think it's a really good game, and I particularly like seeing Richard Osman on screen for once - he's a great asset to the show. Someone ought to be collecting his dry asides when commenting on the answers. Two of my favourites have been "If I can just negotiate my way through the carnage of that last round..." and (when a contestant suggested Coriolanus as one of Shakespeare's comedies) "Coriolanus is actually a tragedy. Particularly for you."

Another great comment from Richard today, in revealing the 13 'pointless' Bees Gees singles.....

the ones only dogs can hear.

Ho ho.

Michael Wallace wrote:Also, can anyone come up with a convincing reason for why you'd opt to go second in the semi-final?

Today's semi-finalists chose to go second today ......and lost!

Also today. Alexander surpassed himself in saying something ridiculous

SPOILER

The finalists had to think of 3 pointless characters in Macbeth. Alexander actually said 'it's looking good for winning £6,000' as the total board was showing the results for their second answer....Lady Macbeth! What a twat. I would have expected better of him.

(I had a stab with just a random Scottish name - Angus - and would have won with that!!!)

I'm actually more surprised that "King of Scotland" was allowed as an answer. Isn't it Duncan, who is the King of Scotland? I think that was kindness being shown there.

Also, how did only 61 people say that Macbeth is a character in Macbeth

Also brilliant, the 5th time that Central African Republic has been a pointless.

1st for "Countries In Africa", 2nd for "Countries Beginning With C", 3rd for "French-Speaking Countries", 4th for "Capitals Beginning With B" (It's capital is Bangui) and today for "National Flags With Stars". What a Pointless country

James Robinson wrote:Also, how did only 61 people say that Macbeth is a character in Macbeth

Maybe the other 39 they asked were actors.

Derek Hazell wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Also, how did only 61 people say that Macbeth is a character in Macbeth

Maybe the other 39 they asked were actors.

Clever. Almost as clever as Phil. But not quite (no gerund)

Sue Sanders wrote:Also today. Alexander surpassed himself in saying something ridiculous

SPOILER

The finalists had to think of 3 pointless characters in Macbeth. Alexander actually said 'it's looking good for winning £6,000' as the total board was showing the results for their second answer....Lady Macbeth! What a twat. I would have expected better of him.

I was similarly disappointed with Richard in the same round for pronouncing "lieutenant" the American way.

Sue Sanders wrote:Alexander actually said 'it's looking good for winning £6,000' as the total board was showing the results for their second answer....Lady Macbeth! What a twat. I would have expected better of him.

I think he only did that because everyone was so surprised that their first answer, Macbeth, only scored 61. He was basically saying, after that it wouldn't surprise me if Lady Macbeth was a pointless answer.

The "King of Scotland" thing was interesting; Richard had established that only named characters were allowed, but he didn't actually say that they had to give the name. On the other hand, maybe the producers decided to let it go through because it didn't affect the result - had "Duncan" been a pointless answer, they might have been a bit stricter about them getting the name.

FTR, my three answers would have been Fleance, Young Siward and Lennox - none of which would have won me the money.

Must have been a pretty rubbish 100 people they asked for this question.

Country name that has 5 letters.

China only got 28 and that was the 3rd highest. Spain/Italy were in the 60s.

Think Kenya got 2, India 16 etc.

Craig Beevers wrote:Must have been a pretty rubbish 100 people they asked for this question.

Country name that has 5 letters.

China only got 28 and that was the 3rd highest. Spain/Italy were in the 60s.

Think Kenya got 2, India 16 etc.

I probably would have gone for Chile, assuming that most of the fuckwits they talk to couldn't spell it.

I'd have gone with Niger, which would have gotten 1 sadly

Craig Beevers wrote:China only got 28

It doesn't mean the rest hadn't heard of it, simply that it didn't occur to them within the 100 seconds. Most people asked to name as many of something as they can within a time limit will blank on some of the really obvious ones.

I was yelling (not literally) Crux Australis all through the constellations round.

At last, a country round where the Central African Republic isn't a winner

Dear lord I can't believe how those 2 women in the first round of today's episode got on the show. Surely there's some sort of ability-based audition?

Alexander: We're looking for pointless UK Michael Jackson hits. The most obscure you can think of...

Daft woman: Thriller?

[/facepalm]

You had to feel sorry for her though when Richard told her it was not only the most popular answer but the title of the highest selling album of all time!

Craig Beevers wrote:I'd have gone with Niger, which would have gotten 1 sadly

I got all 3 of the mentioned Pointlesses; Nauru, Palau & Qatar, but Richard said there was a fourth. I wonder what that is

Dinos Sfyris wrote:Dear lord I can't believe how those 2 women in the first round of today's episode got on the show. Surely there's some sort of ability-based audition?

Yeah, they were dreadful today and on Friday too. How did they get through the audition

I so hope there is a second series, so I can have a go. I wouldn't do bad, I don't think. That constellation question was mighty tough. I'd have only just got away with knowing the star sign constellations.

It looks as though tomorrow is the last in the series, there's snooker for the rest of this week and "Are you an Egghead?" starts next week.
Maybe we should mark the occasion by doing a Recap

Craig Beevers wrote:I'd have gone with Niger, which would have gotten 1 sadly

I was thinking of Zaire, but it was just one of my many answers every day that frustratingly just don't get mentioned. However, on the subject of why those women didn't fail the audition...if the questions fell right for them at , they'd have been fine. I expect many forumites would be appalled that the best I could managed Michael Jackson-wise But I've no interest in his music. But a few days ago when it was Bee Gees songs - well, I just reeled off all the tracks listed on my Mum's Best of the Bee Gees CD. I'm sure it makes good TV to have annoyingly thick people on - we're all shouting at our tellies and tuning in again, aren't we?

Sue Sanders wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:I'd have gone with Niger, which would have gotten 1 sadly

I was thinking of Zaire. They've got to address the issue of not giving the people at home the full set of answers

Unfortunately, Zaire is a wrong answer, meaning that you have scored 100 points!

It is known now as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There is a separate country called Congo, but I don't recall it being mentioned on the show.

It looks like they are doing a second series of the show.

Here's the application form as proof:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/beon ... less.shtml

James Robinson wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:I'd have gone with Niger, which would have gotten 1 sadly

I was thinking of Zaire. They've got to address the issue of not giving the people at home the full set of answers

Unfortunately, Zaire is a wrong answer, meaning that you have scored 100 points!

It is known now as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There is a separate country called Congo, but I don't recall it being mentioned on the show.

Ha, there you go then that gives away my age, and... even more of a reason to try to cover all the answers - more educational! I think some explanation would have been appropriate with the finalists too, that their pronouciation of Djokovic was too far off to be deemed correct. You put time into watching a programme - you feel you want these ends tied up.

Dinos Sfyris wrote:Dear lord I can't believe how those 2 women in the first round of today's episode got on the show. Surely there's some sort of ability-based audition?

Alexander: We're looking for pointless UK Michael Jackson hits. The most obscure you can think of...

Daft woman: Thriller?

At least it was a correct answer. Better than the woman who was asked to name an obscure Hugh Grant film and came out with "Three Weddings and a Funeral".

James Robinson wrote:It looks like they are doing a second series of the show.

Here's the application form as proof:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/beon ... less.shtml

Looks like the format is being tweaked:

Four pairs of contestants will be pitted against each other

Sue Sanders wrote:I think some explanation would have been appropriate with the finalists too, that their pronouciation of Djokovic was too far off to be deemed correct. You put time into watching a programme - you feel you want these ends tied up.

I don't think they did pronounce Djokovic wrong, they just got their tennis player names confused. I'm fairly sure their 'Djokic' would have referred to Jelena Dokić (commonly misspelt(?) as 'Djokic'), when of course as you point out they presumably meant Novak Djokovic. I reckon.

I only watched the last two rounds by accident today so I did happen to see that bit. For the points I made after my first viewing of the show, I find it way too annoying and rubbish to bother with again until they refine the format.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:I think some explanation would have been appropriate with the finalists too, that their pronouciation of Djokovic was too far off to be deemed correct. You put time into watching a programme - you feel you want these ends tied up.

I don't think they did pronounce Djokovic wrong, they just got their tennis player names confused. I'm fairly sure their 'Djokic' would have referred to Jelena Dokić (commonly misspelt(?) as 'Djokic'), when of course as you point out they presumably meant Novak Djokovic. I reckon.

I only watched the last two rounds by accident today so I did happen to see that bit. For the points I made after my first viewing of the show, I find it way too annoying and rubbish to bother with again until they refine the format.

Yeah, that makes sense - and if the board had had the 'Dokic' spelling - it might have been easier to see what the error was. Still think they owed us an explanation.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:I think some explanation would have been appropriate with the finalists too, that their pronouciation of Djokovic was too far off to be deemed correct. You put time into watching a programme - you feel you want these ends tied up.

I don't think they did pronounce Djokovic wrong, they just got their tennis player names confused. I'm fairly sure their 'Djokic' would have referred to Jelena Dokić (commonly misspelt(?) as 'Djokic'), when of course as you point out they presumably meant Novak Djokovic. I reckon.

I only watched the last two rounds by accident today so I did happen to see that bit. For the points I made after my first viewing of the show, I find it way too annoying and rubbish to bother with again until they refine the format.

Yeah, that makes sense - and if the board had had the 'Dokic' spelling - it might have been easier to see what the error was. But they chose to present the wrong spelling and give no explanation. Angry viewer

Sue Sanders wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:I think some explanation would have been appropriate with the finalists too, that their pronouciation of Djokovic was too far off to be deemed correct. You put time into watching a programme - you feel you want these ends tied up.

I don't think they did pronounce Djokovic wrong, they just got their tennis player names confused. I'm fairly sure their 'Djokic' would have referred to Jelena Dokić (commonly misspelt(?) as 'Djokic'), when of course as you point out they presumably meant Novak Djokovic. I reckon.

I only watched the last two rounds by accident today so I did happen to see that bit. For the points I made after my first viewing of the show, I find it way too annoying and rubbish to bother with again until they refine the format.

Yeah, that makes sense - and if the board had had the 'Dokic' spelling - it might have been easier to see what the error was. But they chose to present the wrong spelling and give no explanation. Angry viewer

You could tell something was up though, because they only showed the last names of Safin, Moya & "Djokic", whereas they normally show the first and last names.

Hmm those final answers were shite.

It's like I know lets just name the most famous people we can think of, they'll be pointless won't they...

Craig Beevers wrote:Hmm those final answers were shite.

It's like I know lets just name the most famous people we can think of, they'll be pointless won't they...

Whereas they'd have won the jackpot if they'd named some really obscure people that nobody's ever heard of, like Queen Elizabeth II or Ronald Reagan.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:Hmm those final answers were shite.

It's like I know lets just name the most famous people we can think of, they'll be pointless won't they...

Whereas they'd have won the jackpot if they'd named some really obscure people that nobody's ever heard of, like Queen Elizabeth II or Ronald Reagan.

They were a bit less obvious to the question, still surprising they were pointless.

JFK, Einstein and Hitler were almost certain to have been thought of.

Craig Beevers wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:It's like I know lets just name the most famous people we can think of, they'll be pointless won't they...

Whereas they'd have won the jackpot if they'd named some really obscure people that nobody's ever heard of, like Queen Elizabeth II or Ronald Reagan.

They were a bit less obvious to the question

Hitler is a more obvious Time Man of the Year than Reagan? Well, I suppose "obvious" is a subjective term.

It is when they specify that it is awarded for someone who has most affected the preceding year - in a good or bad way.

James Robinson wrote:It is known now as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There is a separate country called Congo, but I don't recall it being mentioned on the show.

The Congo is "split" into the DRC and the Republic of the Congo. There's no country just called Congo.