c4countdown

Hi,
this is my first post and I will probably upset a few people with my immediate negativity, but please can someone explain to me why I have a sudden loss of enjoyment when watching the show? The whole re-spray that has happened within the show makes it seem almost along the same lines as a half hearted game show trying to fit in with the times. I dont understand why everthing was changed with the staffing. For me countdown was one of those classic shows ejoyed by all, the heart of the which has now been lost. O well, the show must go on I suppose, i only hope that it grows on me. However, right now my despondance it that which grows.

If you're the sort of person who watches it for the game and the contestants then you'll still enjoy it. Otherwise, no, I guess no one can tell you why you don't like it. There are plenty of other programmes.

Well no, I do watch it for the love of countdown. You are looking too much into my post, my point being that the decor is poor. This is a bad attempt by C4 to spruce the show up and its given a bad impression of what the show is about. It has lost its originality, and its intellect ,to a certain extent. I am also unconvinced by jeff stelling, a good football commentator but no countdown host. I say lets see Tony Robinson.

roland.keeley wrote:I am also unconvinced by jeff stelling, a good football commentator but no countdown host.

He light-years better than Des Lynam (in as much as he actually wants to be there) and Des O'Connor (in as much as he's infinitely sharper).

Jeff Stelling is not a commentator.

Hello and welcome!

I don't quite agree with the implied premise that the originality (and especially intellect) of the show lay in the pink colour scheme and not in the actual game (which hasn't been altered). I also don't agree that the old decor was better than the new one, but that's a matter of opinion.

roland.keeley wrote:You are looking too much into my post,

Please indicate which part of my post misrepresented you.

roland.keeley wrote:my point being that the decor is poor.

You mean you don't like the new set? Well, I do. It's called taste and there ain't no accounting for it.

roland.keeley wrote:It has lost its originality, and its intellect ,to a certain extent.

Originality? The show is virtually unchanged in 26 years. But yes, it certainly has dumbed down without an intellectual behemoth like Des O'Connor at the helm.

I am also unconvinced by jeff stelling, a good football commentator but no countdown host. I say lets see Tony Robinson.

*stabs self in the eye with a fork*

ive tickled charlie boy by the looks of things. Its funny how people like to think their opinion is final. Its an open discussion now into the look of countdown, not you trying to shoot the narrator. Be shhh! Theres a good girl.

Like i have said before, I hope it grows on me but for now its lost its feel. I appreciate countdown has its revamps from time to time but I just think that conforming to the popular trend is not classic countdown tactics. CD has always been for people interested in letters and numbers.

I've now fully adjusted to the new lineup, which is a miracle in itself given that people with autism and Asperger's dislike change...... Jeff is waaaaaaaay better than DO'C. The puns Jeff's used since he started........ dear oh dear........

roland.keeley wrote:ive tickled charlie boy by the looks of things. Its funny how people like to think their opinion is final. Its an open discussion now into the look of countdown, not you trying to shoot the narrator. Be shhh! Theres a good girl.

It's funny how when people get battered in a debate they start resorting to shite like that.

roland.keeley wrote:CD has always been for people interested in letters and numbers.

Yep. Which is completely unchanged, and if you record the show, you can fast-forward through the bits you don't like!

roland.keeley wrote:Its an open discussion now into the look of countdown,

I was engaging in a discussion, whereas you resorted to being childish.

roland.keeley wrote: Be shhh! Theres a good girl.

What the fuck? I mean seriously....

roland.keeley wrote: I appreciate countdown has its revamps from time to time but I just think that conforming to the popular trend is not classic countdown tactics.

What popular trend? Blue? I admit they had a few good songs but a popular trend they were not. Oh, you mean the colour, not the pop group. Hold on, now I'm even more confused. Blue is a popular trend? Damn, I must give back that Man U shirt of mine.

roland.keeley wrote:ive tickled charlie boy by the looks of things...Be shhh! Theres a good girl.

Yes, you really took Charlie's argument to pieces with this carefully calculated response. Bravo.

Looks like our intellectual friend has been cowed into silence. I will rise above some puerile joke about him being shushed.

shused I am not! Getting on with things other than responding, so apologies to you countdown cronies who demand instant responses. Now on a serious note, a popular trend is business terminology and can refer to any organisation wanting to keep pace with growing market trends, hence popular trend. And i think that despite my childishness I think that my point has been made that I really dislike the way the studio now looks. It doesnt follow traditional countdown styles and I appreciate the fact that you all like it. Thankyou for your input, but i feel that they have gone a lil ott. End.

roland.keeley wrote:End.

Nuh-uh.

I can't help but think if Damian still browsed the forum he'd be spinning in his crypt.

roland.keeley wrote:It doesnt follow traditional countdown styles and I appreciate the fact that you all like it.

I have a funny feeling that the Countdown set was blue for most of the 80s. Or it might be the 90s, I'm not sure, but the point is that blue has more of a history as a countdown colour than you may think. However, I would agree that if you look at many current game shows (Eggheads, Weakest Link, Millionnaire) there is somewhat of a trend towards blue sets.

I prefer the pink and orange colours. I find the blue setting to be a bit cold and unwelcoming, although I'm getting used to it by the day. It also looks a bit too similar to Soccer Saturday for my liking.

I'm still in the process of warming towards Jeff. He's still doing too many football jokes. It also feels to me like there's not enough superfluous chatter between rounds. There's not much comment on what's just happened before moving onto the next game. I think he'll improve, and but at the moment I prefer both O'Connor and Lynam to him.

Katherine Birkett wrote:I've now fully adjusted to the new lineup, which is a miracle in itself given that people with autism and Asperger's dislike change...... Jeff is waaaaaaaay better than DO'C. The puns Jeff's used since he started........ dear oh dear........

I'd argue with those puns that have been used that we're approaching pre-2004 levels of punnery hence the adjustment.

I think that jeff on sky sports is very good, he is clearly very good at his job. I do think that becoming a countdown presenter is for the "oxford/cambridge" type with a good english wit. I do hope he adapts and shows me wrong as he will probably be on the show for a while, as is the proffessionalism he portrays. Stephen Fry or Tony Robinson would bring countdown back to its best, the richard whiteley erra will be hard to replicate. And in ref to the colour scheme I think that this is being looked at as the trend to which i refer. But it is more the decor style. Trying to be very modern but looking too much like they are trying too hard. Ott a wee bit.

roland.keeley wrote:I do think that becoming a countdown presenter is for the "oxford/cambridge" type with a good english wit.

I don't recall you making this complaint when Des O'Connor was hosting.

Having watched countdown from day one and knowing it is based on the Des Chiffres et Des Lettres which is as far as I know still running but has changed somewhat, though wether this has had an effect on viewers I do not know, it is the SHOW that I watch and enjoy.

I beleive both the new presenters appeal to a majority and that is why they were the right choice.

As an IT person I did think C4 may have gone computerised and maybe that would have uped its appeal to a younger audiance.

I sky+ every episode so fast forward the bits I dont like as Ben wisely suggests.

Blue pink red or mauve does not matter would even work in B&W.

But please not Stephen Fry (purely personal opinion)

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Damn, I must give back that Man U shirt of mine.

Absolutely, a fine choice.

roland.keeley wrote:
Hi, this is my first post and I will probably upset a few people with my immediate negativity, but please can someone explain to me why I have a sudden loss of enjoyment when watching the show?

Hi everyone.

My first post too and I've been having the same thoughts as Roland.

I've watched Countdown for over 20 years and always will. Only found this site when trying to discover who the new host was going to be. I've lurked for a couple of months.

As a mere viewer, rather than a contestant, yes I too am disappointed with the set. The colour appears harsh and, with everybody sat too far away from each other, it's somehow lost its 'cosy' feel.

Andrew Sachs is clearly a very nice man, but not exactly riveting viewing. Was he the best choice for the first week of the re-launch?

Jeff and Rachel are fine and they'll be even better when they develop a raport and a feeling for the show. Not quite there yet but that's understandable, they're still only on their second day!

But even when they do there'll still be something missing. I've worked out what that 'something' is and it's no fault of anyone connected with the show.

Sadly, that 'something' will be missing forever.

Peter Dale wrote:

roland.keeley wrote:
Hi, this is my first post and I will probably upset a few people with my immediate negativity, but please can someone explain to me why I have a sudden loss of enjoyment when watching the show?

Hi everyone.

My first post too and I've been having the same thoughts as Roland.

I've watched Countdown for over 20 years and always will. Only found this site when trying to discover who the new host was going to be. I've lurked for a couple of months.

As a mere viewer, rather than a contestant, yes I too am disappointed with the set. The colour appears harsh and, with everybody sat too far away from each other, it's somehow lost its 'cosy' feel.

Andrew Sachs is clearly a very nice man, but not exactly riveting viewing. Was he the best choice for the first week of the re-launch?

Jeff and Rachel are fine and they'll be even better when they develop a raport and a feeling for the show. Not quite there yet but that's understandable, they're still only on their second day!

But even when they do there'll still be something missing. I've worked out what that 'something' is and it's no fault of anyone connected with the show.

Sadly, that 'something' will be missing forever.

I'm at a loss to explain how people preferred the Des eras to the Stelling era. It's unbelievable, Jeff.

Jon Corby wrote:

roland.keeley wrote:I do think that becoming a countdown presenter is for the "oxford/cambridge" type with a good english wit.

I don't recall you making this complaint when Des O'Connor was hosting.

im pretty sure that this is my 2nd day on this forum, so no I did not make this complaint. And Des is better than stelling. They will struggle so hard to find someone to replace richard whiteley!

roland.keeley wrote:And Des is better than stelling.

Are you mental?!?!?!

Stelling is superior for too many reasons to list so I'll just give two: a) he's not deaf and b) he has the ability to remember the contestants' names. Both ideal traits for a Countdown prsenter, I feel.

roland.keeley wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

roland.keeley wrote:I do think that becoming a countdown presenter is for the "oxford/cambridge" type with a good english wit.

I don't recall you making this complaint when Des O'Connor was hosting.

im pretty sure that this is my 2nd day on this forum, so no I did not make this complaint. And Des is better than stelling. They will struggle so hard to find someone to replace richard whiteley!

So you've watched the show for 20 years, but just happen to find this forum to coincide with the formative days of the "new regime" so you can bitch about it? You don't even know what you're compaining about, one second it's just the decor, then it's the show losing it's intellectual core, then it's the colours, then it's the host. You're unable to respond to any comments by others without either backtracking, or resorting to childish name-calling. Your spelling and use of English is atrocious. Seriously, go and read your OP back - is that the first impression you really want to give to this group?

roland.keeley wrote:im pretty sure that this is my 2nd day on this forum, so no I did not make this complaint. And Des is better than stelling. They will struggle so hard to find someone to replace richard whiteley!

Having just joined this forum after charlie punted it on the show today, i must say that that statement is absolute rubbish, Nobody will ever replace Richard Whiteley in the show, and by what i've witnessed since Mr Whiteleys Demise, Not one of the three Host's Have even Tried to, they have all brought their own kind of humour and skills to the game, Some didn't work and most did, which to me is the only thing they had in common with Mr Whiteley.

Currently I'm still forming my opinions on the new presenters/set. Jeff seems OK but he hasn't "won me over" yet. I get the impression that there is a bit of a sycophantic attitude from a few people - some of the "pillars" on the forum have expressed their views and there may be a fear of being ridiculed for not warming to the new people.

DavidM wrote:

roland.keeley wrote:im pretty sure that this is my 2nd day on this forum, so no I did not make this complaint. And Des is better than stelling. They will struggle so hard to find someone to replace richard whiteley!

Having just joined this forum after charlie punted it on the show today, i must say that that statement is absolute rubbish, Nobody will ever replace Richard Whiteley in the show, and by what i've witnessed since Mr Whiteleys Demise, Not one of the three Host's Have even Tried to, they have all brought their own kind of humour and skills to the game, Some didn't work and most did, which to me is the only thing they had in common with Mr Whiteley.

Oh dear, David, what's wrong with your command of the English language?

Peter Dale wrote:Sadly, that 'something' will be missing forever.

I reckon that if you went back and watched an episode from say, 1987, you'd be amazed at how much better it is these days.

Why should somebody be made to feel inferior just because they don't have "command of the English language"? I really can't stand grammar bullies. Is this forum only for people with a certain literacy skill? How about introducing a test to exclude those unworthy?

Jimmy wrote:Is this forum only for people with a certain literacy skill? How about introducing a test to exclude those unworthy?

The whole written world is only for people with a certain literacy skill. Even if no one points it out explicitly, anyone reading a post which is capitalised and punctuated seemingly at random will make some assumptions about the author. However David's post wasn't really that bad, so it seems unnecessary to single him out.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Currently I'm still forming my opinions on the new presenters/set. Jeff seems OK but he hasn't "won me over" yet. I get the impression that there is a bit of a sycophantic attitude from a few people - some of the "pillars" on the forum have expressed their views and there may be a fear of being ridiculed for not warming to the new people.

Not at all mate. There's a big difference between somebody like you (ie who offers the forum plenty) saying that ^ ^, and somebody turning up with their first few posts rambling on about the intellectual core of the show being removed or "omg Rachel's well fick innt".

So you've watched the show for 20 years, but just happen to find this forum to coincide with the formative days of the "new regime" so you can bitch about it? You don't even know what you're compaining about, one second it's just the decor, then it's the show losing it's intellectual core, then it's the colours, then it's the host. You're unable to respond to any comments by others without either backtracking, or resorting to childish name-calling. Your spelling and use of English is atrocious. Seriously, go and read your OP back - is that the first impression you really want to give to this group?[/quote]

the arguement has stemmed further from the points I have touched on. Extra issues raised by the comments made. Easy to follow I think. Maybe thats why you think my use of english is bad.

roland.keeley wrote:the arguement has stemmed further from the points I have touched on. Extra issues raised by the comments made. Easy to follow I think. Maybe thats why you think my use of english is bad.

Maybe. But then, maybe not.

DavidM wrote:Having just joined this forum after charlie punted it on the show today, i must say that that statement is absolute rubbish, Nobody will ever replace Richard Whiteley in the show, and by what i've witnessed since Mr Whiteleys Demise, Not one of the three Host's Have even Tried to, they have all brought their own kind of humour and skills to the game, Some didn't work and most did, which to me is the only thing they had in common with Mr Whiteley.

The punctuation and Random Capitalisation here are a blatant wide-up attempt - nice try. I agree with the sentiment of your post though.


What baffles me the most about all this "It's just not like it used to be" debate is why anyone would start watching Countdown for anything other than the game itself. Sure, I can quite understand why someone would come to appreciate the friendly banter and feel of the show over time, but if you're not initially watching it for the game itself - why? So, considering that certain changes are enforced (Richard's sad passing, Des' L and O and Carol leaving/quitting), and that times change (i.e. a new set for a new couple of presenters makes sense), why the surprise that it's not instantly to your liking?

I fall firmly into the "I love the game" camp. Anything more is a welcome bonus, and whilst a poor presenter can dampen my enthusiasm to watch the show - chances are I still will do. Anyone looking solely for friendly chat and banter, a nice décor, entertaining DC guest etc, with no real interest in the game being played, should find Loose Women on Richard & Judy on one of the other hundreds of channels available. Stop moaning about things which can't be changed, or which shouldn't be changed solely because YOU don't like them. IMO of course.

roland.keeley wrote:I've tickled charlie boy by the looks of things. Its funny how people like to think their opinion is final. Its an open discussion now into the look of countdown, not you trying to shoot the narrator. Be shhh! Theres a good girl.

That's a bit harsh; you've given your opinion and he's replied. Or perhaps you meant that you think your opinion is final, the post is a bit ambiguous like that.

Well actually I like the new set, it's certainly easier on the eye than the previous two. And Jeff and Rachel are doing very well, I'd like to see Rachel talk a bit more, but this (in terms of recording) is only her second day at work! And yes I think people tend to get a but overheated about this sort of thing. I do recognise when someone is trying to wind us up however, and I think if you do that, you deserve everything you get...

Hi, Roland!

Yes, the show is very different with Jeff and Rachel!

roland.keeley wrote:ive tickled charlie boy by the looks of things. Its funny how people like to think their opinion is final. Its an open discussion now into the look of countdown, not you trying to shoot the narrator. Be shhh! Theres a good girl.

Like i have said before, I hope it grows on me but for now its lost its feel. I appreciate countdown has its revamps from time to time but I just think that conforming to the popular trend is not classic countdown tactics. CD has always been for people interested in letters and numbers.

I don't know if anyone else thought this, but I thought this post might have been written as an exercise in spotting SPAG errors... you remember, like you had (have) at school.

Well, I watched it again today (the joys of half-term!!) and I think that Jeff and Rachel make a good team- it's refreshing to see them banter! Or rather, Jeff teasing the poor maths genius. If you're watching for the game first and hosts etc. second, I think that it's very easy to adjust to. If you don't compare Jeff and Rachel to Richard and Carol, it works! They're doing really well and it's unfair to always compare them to their predecessors- you're denying yourself the chance to adjust to them. They're taking the basic shape of Countdown and reshaping it into their own style, and it works well! I think Jeff's enthusiasm is brilliant and Rachel even manages to throw in a few comebacks to his comments.

I like the new set, the blue colours are much easier on the eye than the previous pinks/purples, i never could get used to those, and although Carol's dress sense wasn't that great (sorry Carol if you're reading, still love you though!), i'm not sure what she could have worn that wouldn't have clashed with the set colour scheme.

I like Rachel, now i've got over the envy that the job could have been mine if i'd found this site earlier and realised Countdown were inviting applications.

Haven't decided whether i can get used to Jeff's cheesiness yet, but am trying as he's from Hartlepool and had a right rant on Sky Sports defending Middlesbrough, where i'm from, after it got slated by C4's Worst Places to Live programme.

I am so glad Susie's still on the programme - if she had left too, and if they had installed the woman who sits in for her when she's off, i would definitely not have watched again.

I don't have a facility for recording the programme and watching later unfortunately, so i have to suffer the sometimes dull celebrity guests.

Diane Allinson wrote:I like the new set, the blue colours are much easier on the eye than the previous pinks/purples, I never could get used to those, and although Carol's dress sense wasn't that great (sorry Carol if you're reading, still love you though!), I'm not sure what she could have worn that wouldn't have clashed with the set colour scheme.

Point taken, although I never liked the way Carol dressed. Sorry.

Diane Allinson wrote:I like Rachel, now I've got over the envy that the job could have been mine if I'd found this site earlier and realised Countdown were inviting applications.

If that's true you should definitely send a photo to my email account. Or did you mean you're really good at the numbers?

Diane Allinson wrote:I don't have a facility for recording the programme and watching later unfortunately, so I have to suffer the sometimes dull celebrity guests.

This might suit you.

Martin Gardner wrote:

Diane Allinson wrote:I like Rachel, now I've got over the envy that the job could have been mine if I'd found this site earlier and realised Countdown were inviting applications.

If that's true you should definitely send a photo to my email account. Or did you mean you're really good at the numbers?

I will admit - Rachel would most probably have beat me on the screen test.

Martin Gardner wrote:

Diane Allinson wrote:I don't have a facility for recording the programme and watching later unfortunately, so I have to suffer the sometimes dull celebrity guests.

This might suit you.

Thanks Martin, can you fast forward on there? If you know, how quickly after the show ends is it available on the site?

Diane Allinson wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:This might suit you.

Thanks Martin, can you fast forward on there? If you know, how quickly after the show ends is it available on the site?

I'm usually home around five, and it's already on there. So less than an hour after it ends on C4, I would say.

Diane Allison wrote:I like the new set, the blue colours are much easier on the eye than the previous pinks/purples, i never could get used to those, and although Carol's dress sense wasn't that great (sorry Carol if you're reading, still love you though!), i'm not sure what she could have worn that wouldn't have clashed with the set colour scheme.

I like Rachel, now i've got over the envy that the job could have been mine if i'd found this site earlier and realised Countdown were inviting applications.

Haven't decided whether i can get used to Jeff's cheesiness yet, but am trying as he's from Hartlepool and had a right rant on Sky Sports defending Middlesbrough, where i'm from, after it got slated by C4's Worst Places to Live programme.

I am so glad Susie's still on the programme - if she had left too, and if they had installed the woman who sits in for her when she's off, i would definitely not have watched again.

I don't have a facility for recording the programme and watching later unfortunately, so i have to suffer the sometimes dull celebrity guests.

I have read with interest the arguments about Countdown's new Presenters and colour scheme.
I fell in love with Rachel the first time I saw her. I love her youth and slight touch of gauche in her manner, but I know that she will achieve poise with experience. Rachel will achieve it a lot quicker if she would leave those high heels off. She would be able to stand properly, and in any case, her legs are quite long enough. Is there a masculine form of "bitchy"


I don't mind Jeff, he makes me laugh, so he must be alright for the job.
The most important people on Countdown are the contestants, and those people are players on a stage. the stage is the setting where the players are dominant, and when the setting is a dominant primary blue, the players are relegated to being bit players, they just merge into the dominant background.

One example I can quote, is when Rachel wore a red dress. Being a primary colour, it clashed with the primary blue of the set. that combination of primary colours went against the rules of colour harmony, and to me it looked garish and unpleasant. Rachel will always have this problem of what to to wear, and of course, it is not her fault.

Soft neutral background colours are essential for this type of programme, but if it must be an overall colour, then that colour should be a nice soft green. Green is nature's colour, and being a neutral complimentary colour to red, Rachel in her red dress would have looked gorgeous.

Even the teapot is now blue, so some people like blue, but others don't. you pays your money and you takes your choice, but nothing will change.

I wish to apologise for any mistakes in my grammar etc. Apparently, that is a crime in these pages. I regret that my young days living in Deptford were not conducive to a good education.

Before war, my dad and uncles never had regular employment. the main source of income was the hop-picking down in Kent, which lasted only about five weeks. I remember my family scrounging boxes from costermongers and chopping them up for firewood.

they'd borrow a barrow and we'd walk out of Deptford to where the big houses were. It was my job to carry a bowl of firewood up to the houses, and say, "a bowl of firewood for 2d" I was five years old. I don't think that our family were bothered much about Nouns and verbs etc. But, we had the R.O. (relief office) to help, and we had the means test. E.G. if you had a piano you had to sell it, presumably to your neighbours, whom were also out of work. We would loved to had job-seekers allowances etc. I also remember a line of men walking in the gutter opposite the old "Empire". A leg or arm missing, or blind with your hand on the man's shoulder in front. A man with a mouth organ, and a cap to collect pennies. war wounded and a nuisance. they would have liked to have had your privileges and allowances without having to work for it. So remember this and learn. Education without humility produces an ignorant bully.

George Jenkins wrote: I wish to apologise for any mistakes in my grammar etc. Apparently, that is a crime in these pages. I regret that my young days living in Deptford were not conducive to a good education.

I couldn't care less. I think everything you have to say is worth listening to. Just because I disagree without sometimes doesn't mean I don't like reading what you say here.

Martin Gardner wrote:

George Jenkins wrote: I wish to apologise for any mistakes in my grammar etc. Apparently, that is a crime in these pages. I regret that my young days living in Deptford were not conducive to a good education.

I couldn't care less. I think everything you have to say is worth listening to. Just because I disagree without sometimes doesn't mean I don't like reading what you say here.

I wish that you wouldn't say such nice things about me Martin.

Now my concience is hurting me because I was such a bully

Diane Allinson wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:This might suit you.

Thanks Martin, can you fast forward on there? If you know, how quickly after the show ends is it available on the site?

Yes, you can fast-forward; and the show can be viewed on the website within a few minutes of it finishing on C4. Today I got home about 4.30, so I started watching online and fast-forwarded through the letter selections so by the time I got to the first ad break I was able to continue watching from the same point on C4+1.

George Jenkins wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:

George Jenkins wrote: I wish to apologise for any mistakes in my grammar etc. Apparently, that is a crime in these pages. I regret that my young days living in Deptford were not conducive to a good education.

I couldn't care less. I think everything you have to say is worth listening to. Just because I disagree without sometimes doesn't mean I don't like reading what you say here.

I wish that you wouldn't say such nice things about me Martin.

Now my concience is hurting me because I was such a bully

Like I said, on this forum (or any other one) if everyone agreed, there'd be nothing to talk about!