A new set for a new season!

tonywarren · Post by **tonywarren** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:14 pm

An inside source reveals that it is not just the presenters that will be all new for CofC. Apparently the set is changing as well. Presumably it will be as well built and friendly as the last one. Personally, I have only just got used to the change to purple. The teapot will now be 2 generations behind the set.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:16 pm

tonywarren wrote:An inside source reveals that it is not just the presenters that will be all new for CofC. Apparently the set is changing as well. Presumably it will be as well built and friendly as the last one. Personally, I have only just got used to the change to purple. The teapot will now be 2 generations behind the set.

Does this source have a picture of what it will look like?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:18 pm

There's also new intro graphics to match the set, which look pretty cool.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:37 pm

Yes. Thank you, Kate, for letting me know in the first place!

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:26 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:There's also new intro graphics to match the set, which look pretty cool.

Seriously?

I didn't think they would change the title sequence (not sure why though).

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:46 pm

Joseph Bolas wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:There's also new intro graphics to match the set, which look pretty cool.
Seriously?

I didn't think they would change the title sequence

Seriously?

I would have thought it inevitable, given that the titles are specifically designed to match the colour palette used for the set.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:29 pm

Thanks gods, I've always hated the purple stripes. It was no better being on set in front of them, truly nasty!

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:34 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:Seriously?

I would have thought it inevitable, given that the titles are specifically designed to match the colour palette used for the set.

If my memory is correct (which it probably ain't

), there has been a total of 4 sets and 7 title sequences?

Just so people know, I ain't complaining about anything, I just didn't think that they would go to the trouble of creating a new title sequence.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:45 pm

Joseph Bolas wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:I would have thought it inevitable, given that the titles are specifically designed to match the colour palette used for the set.
If my memory is correct (which it probably ain't ), there has been a total of 4 sets and 7 title sequences?

So if the title sequence has changed more frequently than the set, doesn't that make it more likely that a new set will also be accompanied by new titles?

Sorry for this pointless thread everyone. It's just that specious reasoning tends to wind me up. Does the ODE have an entry for ignoratio elenchi? If not, check it out in Collins - it (and the one just below it for ignotum per ignotius) are two of my favourite definitions in the book.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:55 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote: it (and the one just below it for ignotium per ignotius are two of my favourite definitions in the book.

Any relation to ignotum per ignotius?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:02 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote: it (and the one just below it for ignotium per ignotius are two of my favourite definitions in the book.
Any relation to ignotum per ignotius?

Well done. I was wondering which of you would be first to spot that.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:19 am

Here you go Phil, a free hint to get your own back on Charlie:
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 124#p20124
Don't say I've never given you anything

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:29 am

Phil Reynolds wrote: - it (and the one just below it for ignotum per ignotius are two of my favourite definitions in the book.

Sorry - where is the closing bracket?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:33 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote: - it (and the one just below it for ignotum per ignotius are two of my favourite definitions in the book.
Sorry - where is the closing bracket?

Don't be so impatient, I'm sure it's on it's way (perhaps

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:36 am

Matt Morrison wrote: Don't be so impatient, I'm sure it's on it's way (perhaps

Surely you meant "its"? This has to stop - I'd be bored to death if I was browsing this thread.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:39 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote: Don't be so impatient, I'm sure it's on it's way (perhaps
Surely you meant "its"? This has to stop - I'd be bored to death if I was browsing this thread.

Glad you spotted one of my deliberate mistakes! You missed the other one though - I didn't close my brackets either

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:43 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote: Don't be so impatient, I'm sure it's on it's way (perhaps
Surely you meant "its?" This has to stopped - I'ld be bored to death if I was browsing this thread.

I don't even know where to start with that one.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:49 am

Ben Hunter wrote:I don't even know where to start with this one:

Please finish your post Ben, it was sounding interesting.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:18 am

Kate really did tell me that!

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:28 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote: - it (and the one just below it for ignotum per ignotius are two of my favourite definitions in the book.
Sorry - where is the closing bracket?

It's there now. Don't be so impatient.

Matt Morrison wrote:Here you go Phil, a free hint to get your own back on Charlie:
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 124#p20124
Don't say I've never given you anything

Haha. Funny, I never spotted that when I originally read Charlie's post.

Er, given both of the above, it's a shame that I'm a professional proofreader, among other things.

In my defence, I've been off work poorly this week (which explains why I've been posting so much random tosh in the last few days).

Kate Horton · Post by **Kate Horton** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:29 pm

We had a sneak peak at the new set yesterday and it looks amazing (in my humble/positive opinion!).
As for the titles, don't get too excited folks, it's the last one but with a few small changes and the colours tweaked to match the new set. Pink was soo last season...

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:05 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:Haha. Funny, I never spotted that when I originally read Charlie's post.

Oh yeah, I do that all the time. Also I use "be" and "by" fairly interchangeably. I feel it would be snobbish to criticise other people's spelling from a position of superiority so I like to descend to the plebeian level occasionally.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:31 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Joseph Bolas wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:I would have thought it inevitable, given that the titles are specifically designed to match the colour palette used for the set.
If my memory is correct (which it probably ain't ), there has been a total of 4 sets and 7 title sequences?
So if the title sequence has changed more frequently than the set, doesn't that make it more likely that a new set will also be accompanied by new titles?

I think his point was that the changes may well be independent of each other.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:32 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote: Don't be so impatient, I'm sure it's on it's way (perhaps
Surely you meant "its"? This has to stop - I'd be bored to death if I was browsing this thread.

So - its on its way?

Richard Priest · Post by **Richard Priest** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:07 pm

When we were filming the series 58 finals Kate told those present that a new set was in the offing. She said it would be horseshoe shaped with the aim of making interaction between the celebrities a bit easier.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:03 am

Rich Priest wrote:When we were filming the series 58 finals Kate told those present that a new set was in the offing. She said it would be horseshoe shaped with the aim of making interaction between the celebrities a bit easier.

Yep, they definitely mentioned a new set up when I went.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:23 am

I can't wait to see it!

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:15 am

The new set is pretty immense, shiny and hi-tech, revolvey and spaceship-like.

And Blue.

Harry Whitehouse · Post by **Harry Whitehouse** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:53 am

One of the changes, which I regret, is that the audience no longer get the chance to answer missed conundrums.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:12 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:The new set is pretty immense, shiny and hi-tech, revolvey and spaceship-like.

And Blue.

I saw a picture that Simon Myers had posted on Facebook and it is lovely indeed. It was bit dark though, but I guess that's the quality of the photo.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:41 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:The new set is pretty immense, shiny and hi-tech, revolvey and spaceship-like.

And Blue.

Sounds like the set to Sky Sports News. Maybe Jeff Stelling only feels at home in UFOs.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:47 pm

Dinos, when you say "revolvy," do you mean that the contestants now sit at a turntable?

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:16 am

No but the letters board spins around and the numbers board is on the back.

Matthew Green · Post by **Matthew Green** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:35 am

Countdown is essentially now just Sky Sports Soccer Saturday. Which is good.

You just swap the football matches for rounds of letters and numbers, replace Georgia Thompson or whatever shes called with an equally attractive blonde and swap Richard Digance for Matt Le Tissier (if only). I'm just waiting for Susie to say 'It's unbelievable Jeff!

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:00 pm

Matthew Green wrote:Countdown is essentially now just Sky Sports Soccer Saturday. Which is good... I'm just waiting for Susie to say 'It's unbelievable Jeff!

a new octochamp called James Brown wouldn't go amiss either

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:33 pm

Matthew Green... You're very funny!

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:46 pm

For those of us who haven't seen the new set yet, here's a glimpse of part of it.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:52 pm

Is it just me who thinks that Jeff Stelling always looks like he should be leaning on a cane? That's the second photo where my brain has added one without me really noticing...

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:51 am

Ooh, very nice!

Joe Denniss · Post by **Joe Denniss** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:13 am

Matthew Green wrote:Countdown is essentially now just Sky Sports Soccer Saturday. Which is good.

You just swap the football matches for rounds of letters and numbers, replace Georgia Thompson or whatever shes called with an equally attractive blonde and swap Richard Digance for Matt Le Tissier (if only). I'm just waiting for Susie to say 'It's unbelievable Jeff!

Chris Kamara would work like a beaver in dictionary corner...

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:23 am

Michael Wallace wrote:Is it just me who thinks that Jeff Stelling always looks like he should be leaning on a cane? That's the second photo where my brain has added one without me really noticing...

I could have done much better with a bigger, high quality picture but hey:

Simon Myers · Post by **Simon Myers** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:59 pm

For those of you who abhor postage stamp sized pictures or blurry background shots, here are some nice higher resolution shots of the new set taken from the first filming day of the CoC a couple of weeks ago. Please note that despite my efforts with Photoshop, the set does look a bit dark due to the poor quality of my camera; the actual set is just as well-lit as the old one in real life and on television.

If it's not immediately obvious from the pictures, the letters and numbers board are now one, with a pause in filming required for the necessary rotation and rolling-in of the numbers trolley.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:06 pm

Simon Myers wrote:Please note that despite my efforts with Photoshop, the set does look a bit dark due to the poor quality of my camera; the actual set is just as well-lit as the old one in real life and on television.

I saw these on Facebook and I thought the set looked a bit dark. I quite like the picture you took of the clock in the middle of the floor.

I have been trying to spell out words boggle-style

and have found at least the following:

BAR, BARK, BARN, ARK, WAQF, WAX, WAND, AND, AWN, NAW and WAN

Simon Myers · Post by **Simon Myers** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:23 pm

I intended to post it, but obviously it snook by. Here it is:

Kathleen Batlle · Post by **Kathleen Batlle** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:44 pm

Hi everybody, especially Charlie who I want to congratulate for at least getting to the final and what a way to lose by getting the conundrum. Perhaps the glass trophy will be easier to house than all those huge books anyway! I haven't been to this site for a while because I've been busy writing Christmas cards, but now I find that, not only the countdown set is new, but this site is new too. I really like the new set and the colour is easier on the eye than the last one. I just hope it all works well and the new presenters are as successful as Richard and Carol were.

Jennifer Turner · Post by **Jennifer Turner** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:26 pm

Those of you who don't like my criticism of the show should look away now.

That set looks really, really nice.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:37 pm

Yes, that set looks futuristic and yes, it does look very nice!

Jacob Sutton · Post by **Jacob Sutton** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:41 pm

Love the new set, never really did take to those purple stripes. Can't wait for January 12th

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:43 pm

Jay S wrote:Love the new set, never really did take to those purple stripes. Can't wait for January 12th

It's a long time to wait though

Jacob Sutton · Post by **Jacob Sutton** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:50 pm

Yeah but from what I've read on the forum it should be well worth it.

12 January will roll on very quickly for me anyway, got an AS ICT exam that morning!

Lesley Jeavons · Post by **Lesley Jeavons** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:36 am

The set is gorgeous! Really really different and attractive.

It has a kind of posh hotel swimming pool look to it.

But still, I'd rather they'd saved the set budget to pay Carol more.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:54 am

Lesley Jeavons wrote:But still, I'd rather they'd saved the set budget to pay Carol more.

I guess you're just being comically provocative in the Corby mould, but for the record, the budget for the set wouldn't have paid for much Vordermaction.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:37 pm

There's just been an advert on More 4 introducing the new line-up on Channel 4 from the 12th January, which was presented by Rachel and Jeff and has Rachel in front of the board throughout and Jeff in the chair.

You get to see the set at the end as well, and it's alot brighter than what I've seen via pictures on Facebook.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:39 pm

Joseph Bolas wrote:There's just been an advert on More 4 introducing the new line-up on Channel 4 from the 12th January, which was presented by Rachel and Jeff and has Rachel in front of the board throughout and Jeff in the chair.

You get to see the set at the end as well, and it's alot brighter than what I've seen via pictures on Facebook.

Apparently, this was the first advert they'd ever done (the Countdown BTS people, anyway).

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 5:43 pm

Joseph Bolas wrote:There's just been an advert on More 4 introducing the new line-up on Channel 4 from the 12th January, which was presented by Rachel and Jeff and has Rachel in front of the board throughout and Jeff in the chair.

You get to see the set at the end as well, and it's alot brighter than what I've seen via pictures on Facebook.

Do you know if we can see this advert online somewhere, e.g. in between a particular programme and then we can watch it on 4oD perhaps?

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 5:51 pm

I believe adverts are cut out of 4od.

Also I remember a Countdown advert with a montage of Conor just before his final..

John Bradley · Post by **John Bradley** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:03 pm

Just seen this - set looks great and J&R looking good - bring on the 12th.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:17 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Do you know if we can see this advert online somewhere, e.g. in between a particular programme and then we can watch it on 4oD perhaps?

Not that I know of Kirk. All I could suggest is to watch More 4 until it comes up in the ads.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:30 pm

A good slogan for another promo of the new series of Countdown would be, "Kick it!"