c4countdown

No one's started this yet so I will.

Interesting point of note:
In the BUTTER/MUTTER round of letters (I think the first letters game after the first ad break?)
the camera on Rachel starts with more of a wide-angle than usual, showing Rachel from head to toe and a lot more of the set (particularly the circle she stands on)... and then it panned slightly and zoomed in to reach the 'normal' angle for watching the letters come out.

I've never seen this kind of camera movement happen before in all my watching of Countdown (including this series).. just found it interesting.

2nd numbers: 50 9 7 6 4 3, target 141

alternate method if you don't want to use the 50:

7 x 6 = 42 ... + 9 - 4 = 47
47 x 3 = 141

yes, I'm THAT bored...

Letters round with C A N N O N S H I

CANNONS for 7; also maybe CHANSON if it has been assimilated

(I've also noticed that some letters rounds, such as that one,
miss out the Dictionary Corner response.)

Matt Morrison wrote: In the BUTTER/MUTTER round of letters (I think the first letters game after the first ad break?)
the camera on Rachel starts with more of a wide-angle than usual, showing Rachel from head to toe and a lot more of the set (particularly the circle she stands on)... and then it panned slightly and zoomed in to reach the 'normal' angle for watching the letters come out.

They did the same shot during my game, but yes, I'm pretty sure it's new for this series. Maybe it's to show off the new set, or the new Rachel. Either way it's good to see that the crew are still innovating cool stuff after all these years.

This was one of the programmes I attended, and they reshot the sequence in which "STD" came up, and Rachel said: "I don't want to touch that."

I'm glad they decided to keep it in, because it allowed Rachel a lighter moment.

Being of an age when such matters were referred to as "VD", I couldn't understand, for the moment, why people were reacting in such a way to "Subscriber Trunk Dialling".

harry wrote:Being of an age when such matters were referred to as "VD", I couldn't understand, for the moment, why people were reacting in such a way to "Subscriber Trunk Dialling".

It gets more complicated Harry... allow me to keep you informed!
I think (I don't keep tabs on this kind of stuff) that 'they' are now moving away from STDs towards calling them STIs ("infection" rather than "disease").

Your post reminded me of when I was young, perhaps 8 or something, and my mum had bought my grandparents two big arty letter sculptures that hang on the wall, a V (for Val) and a D (for David), which obviously spelt out "VD" - I couldn't understand why everyone was laughing!

harry wrote:This was one of the programmes I attended, and they reshot the sequence in which "STD" came up, and Rachel said: "I don't want to touch that."

I'm glad they decided to keep it in, because it allowed Rachel a lighter moment.

Being of an age when such matters were referred to as "VD", I couldn't understand, for the moment, why people were reacting in such a way to "Subscriber Trunk Dialling".

Agreed. I'm really glad they kept it! I think on the reshoot didnt she say something like "Was that a clap joke I heard?"

Matt Morrison wrote:Your post reminded me of when I was young, perhaps 8 or something, and my mum had bought my grandparents two big arty letter sculptures that hang on the wall, a V (for Val) and a D (for David), which obviously spelt out "VD" - I couldn't understand why everyone was laughing!

No doubt Val Doonican wouldn't think it funny either.

Dinos Sfyris wrote:

harry wrote:This was one of the programmes I attended, and they reshot the sequence in which "STD" came up, and Rachel said: "I don't want to touch that."

I'm glad they decided to keep it in, because it allowed Rachel a lighter moment.

Being of an age when such matters were referred to as "VD", I couldn't understand, for the moment, why people were reacting in such a way to "Subscriber Trunk Dialling".

Agreed. I'm really glad they kept it! I think on the reshoot didnt she say something like "Was that a clap joke I heard?"

Yeah, I'm glad they kept it in, although I would have also understood if they took it out as it would be easy for some lazy Daily Mail hack to start some "CAN NEW GIRL STOOP ANY LOWER" type bollocks, comparing her to Russell Brand and saying it's disgraceful and blah blah blah.

(My dad made the "clap" joke at the time too. He also did the "sofa, so good" one with 'settee' in Kai's game, and I groaned and told him to shut up. Then Jeff said it seconds later, and I laughed uproariously )

Ooh just thinking of Russell Brand - he'd be fab in DC - Susie would have a hard job getting him to behave himself!

Mark Kudlowski wrote:Letters round with C A N N O N S H I

CANNONS for 7; also maybe CHANSON if it has been assimilated

(I've also noticed that some letters rounds, such as that one,
miss out the Dictionary Corner response.)

CHANSON is fine, I had that too.

Can I just say what a fantastic game Steven played today, absolutely superb. I'm shocked the responses to this show have all been related to Rachel and camera angles rather than the players. I was soundly beaten 109-107 by Steven today and it's a pleasure to watch someone in imperious form. Well done (and hard luck Debbi to come up against a machine).

Kirk Bevins wrote:Can I just say what a fantastic game Steven played today, Well done (and hard luck Debbie to come up against a machine).

I must say I went home feeling very sorry for myself, but the man was on superb form - absolutely unstoppable. And he couldn't have been nicer about it.
Still glad I went thought, it was a great experience.

And sorry about spelling your name wrong, my mum is called Debbie. I knew yours didn't take the second 'e', oops.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Can I just say what a fantastic game Steven played today, absolutely superb. I'm shocked the responses to this show have all been related to Rachel and camera angles rather than the players. I was soundly beaten 109-107 by Steven today and it's a pleasure to watch someone in imperious form. Well done (and hard luck Debbi to come up against a machine).

He is useless, watch me twat him tomorrow!

Kirk Bevins wrote:And sorry about spelling your name wrong, my mum is called Debbie. I knew yours didn't take the second 'e', oops.

Don't worry, it happens all the time

Bad luck Debbi, unlucky running into him.Can't wait for tomorrow's game, should be a real humdinger.

Superb play, absolutely brilliant, well done than man. I got NITRITE but if I'd Debbi hadn't have declared a 5, I think he did have a 7 that he wasn't sure of it. Really well done, and as the proverb goes Debbi, "there's no shame in losing to a skilled opponent."

Edit: Really hard numbers today...

Rich Priest wrote:Bad luck Debbi, unlucky running into him.Can't wait for tomorrow's game, should be a real humdinger.

Will be the best game of the CoC, IMO.

David O'Donnell wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Can I just say what a fantastic game Steven played today, absolutely superb. I'm shocked the responses to this show have all been related to Rachel and camera angles rather than the players. I was soundly beaten 109-107 by Steven today and it's a pleasure to watch someone in imperious form. Well done (and hard luck Debbi to come up against a machine).

He is useless, watch me twat him tomorrow!

Spoiler!

I wouldn't normally write posts comparing scores, but I believe this would have been my heat if I could have gone to CoC. I won 100-99. I spent most of the show miserably lamenting my failure at the first numbers, but came through thanks to CANNONS, FIELDER and the conundrum. I'm not quite sure whether to feel happy or gutted about this.

On a less pathetically competitive note, Rachel was excellent today, chatting to Jeff and reacting really well to STD and PI(E).

Kai Laddiman wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Can I just say what a fantastic game Steven played today, absolutely superb. I'm shocked the responses to this show have all been related to Rachel and camera angles rather than the players. I was soundly beaten 109-107 by Steven today and it's a pleasure to watch someone in imperious form. Well done (and hard luck Debbi to come up against a machine).

He is useless, watch me twat him tomorrow!

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

David O'Donnell wrote:He is useless, watch me twat him tomorrow!

[/DO'D]

Sorry, I've always wanted to do that after all the abuse I got.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I was soundly beaten 109-107

That is indeed a sound beating.

harry wrote:This was one of the programmes I attended, and they reshot the sequence in which "STD" came up, and Rachel said: "I don't want to touch that."

That was a funny joke that, so I am glad they kept that in.

Well done to Steven and commiserations to Debbie.

That 9 at the beginning was a brilliant spot by Steven and also the conumdrum spot at the end was awesome.

If I live to be 1,000 I will never forgive myself for missing that first 9. It is one of my favourite 9 letter words and I missed it
Still, as I said, I couldn't have lost to a nicer guy. I'll watch with interest what happens to him now, as I wasn't able to stay for the later games owing to prior commitments.

Watching it back my game wasn't exactly flawless. Admittedly I'm picking bones, but FIELDER/YIELDER especially are words I kick myself for missing. It was bad luck for Debbi missing the nine in the first round, and throughout she was a very nice lady, who took the result graciously.

It's the most difficult set of conundrums they've ever had on Countdown - I think they've used three that I've never even heard of!

I did get this conundrum about 10 seconds before Steven. I'm not too cocky however as it's the first time it's happened in this CoC.

I was quite proud myself with the conundrum, as I was the first person to shout it out in the Green Room. (Thanks, guys, for keeping it in your head. )

Kai Laddiman wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Can I just say what a fantastic game Steven played today, absolutely superb. I'm shocked the responses to this show have all been related to Rachel and camera angles rather than the players. I was soundly beaten 109-107 by Steven today and it's a pleasure to watch someone in imperious form. Well done (and hard luck Debbi to come up against a machine).

He is useless, watch me twat him tomorrow!

Spoiler!

I know this post loses a lot of value from being posted after today's DoD vs. Briers game when the result is now public, but this WAS an obvious spoiler.

Here's some quick amateur psychology:
People on here (especially the long-time members) are so spoiler-aware that they'd only say something like that if it was deliberately untrue.
David would never post "I beat him" unless he had actually lost to him.
It feels ok to say something like that when it's not true, it feels like it's not a spoiler.
Of course, it is a spoiler, just a spoiler that you need to invert before you read into it.
"I beat him" written in the context of being a spoiler will nearly always be a guaranteed spoiler for "I lost to him".
And the spoiler-writing member is powerless to change that - they can't double-bluff by saying "I lost to him" if they actually did lose, as this, particularly after the event, will look like a horrible spoiler, and "telling people that A = A with a wink so that people think A = B when A does actually = A" is exactly the same as just telling people the truth, that "A = A".

I appreciate this is a highly pointless post (at the end of the day, Countdown games can only have one of two outcomes, spoiling the result isn't exactly disastrous) but I just thought it was interesting enough (just about) to point out, and wonder if anyone else read David saying "I beat him" as an absolute guaran-damn-tee that he had lost to Briers?

Incidentally, I think I've also read a spoiler for Charlie vs Junaid along the same lines.

Matt Morrison wrote:Incidentally, I think I've also read a spoiler for Charlie vs Junaid along the same lines.

I'm not sure what you're alluding to (PM?) but it strikes me that, if you can't tell til afterwards whether it was a spoiler, it's not really a spoiler.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Kai Laddiman wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote:He is useless, watch me twat him tomorrow!

Spoiler!

I know this post loses a lot of value from being posted after today's DoD vs. Briers game when the result is now public, but this WAS an obvious spoiler.

Yes, it was a spoiler. I regretted the post but had, by that time, no means of altering it. Sorry about that, I suppose I just thought it was funny and I may have been in a peculiar mood yesterday. So apologies to one and all!

Charlie Reams wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Incidentally, I think I've also read a spoiler for Charlie vs Junaid along the same lines.

I'm not sure what you're alluding to (PM?) but it strikes me that, if you can't tell til afterwards whether it was a spoiler, it's not really a spoiler.

You're bang on that it's not a spoiler, it's just me having a hunch that I have discovered an inadvertent spoiler, as opposed to the DoD post I was talking about which was a guaranteed spoiler. So on that level, don't worry about it. I'll tell you honestly afterwards whether I was right or wrong and what it was I picked up on (as I said, it's just my penchant for amateur psychology, I'm not the type who gets off simply on being right about everything). Even if I am right, it still wouldn't make it a spoiler by definition, as it's just a little something that would be glossed over unless you were reading into things inappropriately deeply as I like to do from time to time!

Interestingly enough I was saying to Matthew Green before the game how great it would be if an obscure element came up as the conundrum! No lie! Needless to say as a krazy khemist I got it straight away and as time passed I thought I might be able to grab the spotlight (this was before I found out they've stopped panning to the audience for the conundrum) but then Steven got it in the nick of time Well done to both players.

DebbiF wrote:Still, as I said, I couldn't have lost to a nicer guy.

You could have lost to me

DebbiF wrote:Still, as I said, I couldn't have lost to a nicer guy.

You could have lost to me [/quote]

Or Mark Owen out of Take That.

Matthew Green wrote:Or Mark Owen out of Take That.

Do you love Mark as much as you love Gary?

No.