c4countdown

I'm getting a bit bored with Deal or No Deal.

15-to-1 was much better, loads of the great quizzers on there. I think they changed the instant nominate back, because of the intimidating Martin Riley (sp), anyone who nominated him, he would nominate them back straight away (after answering his question) in the first half of the show Also Eggheads Kevin and Daphne were regulars, CJ won one I think.

100%, no messing about with too much talk, straight into the 100 questions, good mental workout. They should have let the great Ian Lygo continue instead of cutting him off on 75 wins ( a more fitting cut-off would have been at the 100 wins) . Whatever became of him btw, expected to see him on Mastermind or something similar.

Yeah. So many 'quiz' shows now are nothing about questions and all about seeing how much time you can waste doing crap like talking about how you know the answer (although often that can be quite hilarious when the person then says stuff that is completely wrong). I think a good example is Take It Or Leave It - there are what, 15 questions and the show takes an hour? (I'm not too sure, I've only caught it a couple of times) Is it dumbing down? Do stupid people actually enjoy all that crap? Or is it just cheaper because you have to employ fewer researchers?

In one of the breaks when Deal Or No Deal was off the air for a couple of months, there was a show that I think was called "Win My Wage", where the contestant was told what the wages of 8 people were, but not who had which wage, and after eliminating 5 players, if the contestant correctly guessed who had the highest wage of the remaining 3 they would win it. I've probably made it sound quite dull, but I found it really interesting as an example of how people evaluate others based on first impressions, like "you look like a mum so I think you might only work part time".
Anyway, I'd like that show to come back because I'm bored of DOND as well. At first it was funny watching people go "I've got a feeling, I'm sure it's a blue! I'm 150% certain it's a blue! ...oh, sorry...", but it's getting old.

Daphne and CJ are so awesome. So is Olav Bjorkman, what an absolute legend.

Jojo Apollo wrote:I'm getting a bit bored with Deal or No Deal.

15-to-1 was much better, loads of the great quizzers on there. I think they changed the instant nominate back, because of the intimidating Martin Riley (sp), anyone who nominated him, he would nominate them back straight away (after answering his question) in the first half of the show Also Eggheads Kevin and Daphne were regulars, CJ won one I think.

100%, no messing about with too much talk, straight into the 100 questions, good mental workout. They should have let the great Ian Lygo continue instead of cutting him off on 75 wins ( a more fitting cut-off would have been at the 100 wins) . Whatever became of him btw, expected to see him on Mastermind or something similar.

I think Ian changed his name to Francisco and went on Spanish Countdown. A lot of the questions on 100% were a bit obscure for my taste, would love to see 15-1 back on TV though.

Jojo Apollo wrote:
I'm getting a bit bored with Deal or No Deal.

I've been bored with it since it first came on.

Jimmy Gough wrote:Daphne and CJ are so awesome. So is Olav Bjorkman, what an absolute legend.

Olav Bjortomt.

I agree 100% was awesome, though I particularly enjoyed the obscurity of questions. When I was 11 and older it helped me appreciate the wide range of trivia and knowledge out there, instead of stereotyping it all as ancient history and classical stuff which was more prevalent on other quizzes, such as the aforementioned 15-1. Though in the latter's case it made it all the sweeter when I could get an answer from home!

Roxanne wrote:In one of the breaks when Deal Or No Deal was off the air for a couple of months, there was a show that I think was called "Win My Wage", where the contestant was told what the wages of 8 people were, but not who had which wage, and after eliminating 5 players, if the contestant correctly guessed who had the highest wage of the remaining 3 they would win it. I've probably made it sound quite dull, but I found it really interesting as an example of how people evaluate others based on first impressions, like "you look like a mum so I think you might only work part time".
Anyway, I'd like that show to come back because I'm bored of DOND as well. At first it was funny watching people go "I've got a feeling, I'm sure it's a blue! I'm 150% certain it's a blue! ...oh, sorry...", but it's getting old.

I agree - I was invited to go on Win My Wage by one of the reseachers from Eggheads and didn't fancy it, but I must admit I really enjoyed it when it came on air. Certainly miles better than DOND.

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:

Jimmy Gough wrote:Daphne and CJ are so awesome. So is Olav Bjorkman, what an absolute legend.

Olav Bjortomt.

Thanks for the correction.

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:
I've been bored with it since it first came on.

Well it was novelty thing at first also seeing Noel Edmonds back on the box minus the Telly Addicts jumpers.

I used to love 15 to 1. IIRC the rights were owned by the quizmaster, so when he retired, that was it.

15 to 1 was fantastic and a worthy companion to Countdown. I'll never forget this, couldn't believe it at the time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9vIGc9uPIQ

Not a huge fan of Eggheads tbh, a little too slowly paced. I think Kevin is great but CJ is a petulant, annoying twat. IMHO, of course.

Junaid Mubeen wrote:I'll never forget this, couldn't believe it at the time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9vIGc9uPIQ

Wow, I remember seeing that. My favourite memory of that show is of some poor bloke getting the following question in round 1: "If a diadem is a crown, what is an anadem?" Clearly not having a clue, he shrugged his shoulders and said: "Half a crown?" As one of his three lives vanished with a ping, William G. Stewart left his spot mid-round to walk over to the guy - the only time I ever saw him do this - pointed at the extinguished green neon tube and said with heartfelt sympathy: "If it was within my power to make that light go back on again, I would."

(The answer, incidentally, is a laurel wreath.)

Junaid Mubeen wrote:15 to 1 was fantastic and a worthy companion to Countdown. I'll never forget this, couldn't believe it at the time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9vIGc9uPIQ

Awesome, what a legend. I knew that had happened, but hadn't seen that episode, so thanks for that link Junaid. He only came 2nd in the final though, according to http://www.quizplayers.com/w/QP:Bill_McKaig (well, I say 'only' but 2nd in the grand final of that quiz is still mightily impressive).
Another show that should be returned to the screens is 'Catchword', mainly because I can't remember what the format was and I'd like to find out! (All I can remember is there was one round where, given three letters, the contestants had to make the longest possible word containing those letters in order).

Jojo Apollo wrote:I'm getting a bit bored with Deal or No Deal.

Getting?

Dinos Sfyris wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:I'm getting a bit bored with Deal or No Deal.

Getting?

Yeah alright I admit I was bored of it after the first week. Being a newbie, just didn't want the DOND fans attacking me.

Jojo Apollo wrote:Yeah alright I admit I was bored of it after the first week.

I was bored with it after the first minute. I can't imagine how anybody could watch it, let alone play it.
Nor how anybody could compare it with a genuine quiz game such as 15-to-1 (whom God preserve).

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:Yeah alright I admit I was bored of it after the first week.

I was bored with it after the first minute. I can't imagine how anybody could watch it, let alone play it.
Nor how anybody could compare it with a genuine quiz game such as 15-to-1 (whom God preserve).

I liked 15-to-1 too (or should that be two?).

Rosemary Roberts wrote:I can't imagine how anybody could watch it, let alone play it.

Something tells me there's quite a difference between watching an inane gameshow on TV and getting the chance to win lots of money on an inane gameshow on TV.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:I can't imagine how anybody could watch it, let alone play it.

Something tells me there's quite a difference between watching an inane gameshow on TV and getting the chance to win lots of money on an inane gameshow on TV.

Yeah, I'd be well up for getting about £10k for a couple of weeks 'work' like that.

IMO There's enough General Knowledge based shows already on TV that we don't actually need any more.

Reading up on 100% on UKGameshows.com and it turns out that CJ de Mooi won a DVD player on 100% Sex.

Joseph Bolas wrote:IMO There's enough General Knowledge based shows already on TV that we don't actually need any more.

I don't think there could ever be too many shows in which being able to actually do something is rewarded. Conversely, I don't need any shows at all that raise random selection to a skill and simulate excitement by pretending that people have any influence over chance events. Or that raise gain control over the limit and pretend that the random whisperings emerging are supernatural. But I digress.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:IMO There's enough General Knowledge based shows already on TV that we don't actually need any more.

I don't think there could ever be too many shows in which being able to actually do something is rewarded. Conversely, I don't need any shows at all that raise random selection to a skill and simulate excitement by pretending that people have any influence over chance events. Or that raise gain control over the limit and pretend that the random whisperings emerging are supernatural. But I digress.

Not to defend DonD, which is shite, but I do find it a bit tedious that, with the exception of Countdown, basically every game show on TV is just a general knowledge quiz dressed up with a different format. More recent shows which dared to be different (Brainteaser RIP) ended up getting cancelled.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:IMO There's enough General Knowledge based shows already on TV that we don't actually need any more.

I don't think there could ever be too many shows in which being able to actually do something is rewarded. Conversely, I don't need any shows at all that raise random selection to a skill and simulate excitement by pretending that people have any influence over chance events. Or that raise gain control over the limit and pretend that the random whisperings emerging are supernatural. But I digress.

Not to defend DonD, which is shite, but I do find it a bit tedious that, with the exception of Countdown, basically every game show on TV is just a general knowledge quiz dressed up with a different format. More recent shows which dared to be different (Brainteaser RIP) ended up getting cancelled.

A good non-GK based game show was Vorderman's Big Brain Game. It was a gameshow that focused on brainteasers and puzzles. Also what made that show good was that regardless of who won, both contestants could still walk way with money.

In the final round, the main-game winner would have to correctly solve 4 puzzles focusing on different parts of the brain, to get £10,000. If they couldn't solve one of them, they could turn to the losing contestant to help them out and if they used their answer, that contestant would then get £2,500 for every answer bought by the winner of the main game.

Joseph Bolas wrote:A good non-GK based game show was Vorderman's Big Brain Game. It was a gameshow that focused on brainteasers and puzzles. Also what made that show good was that regardless of who won, both contestants could still walk way with money.

In the final round, the main-game winner would have to correctly solve 4 puzzles focusing on different parts of the brain, to get £10,000. If they couldn't solve one of them, they could turn to the losing contestant to help them out and if they used their answer, that contestant would then get £2,500 for every answer bought by the winner of the main game.

That does sound an interesting format. I wouldn't rate everybody winning money so very highly, though it beats concentrating on humiliating the losers, which is what turns me off Weakest Link and Dumber than a Hamster.

Joseph Bolas wrote:In the final round, the main-game winner would have to correctly solve 4 puzzles focusing on different parts of the brain, to get £10,000. If they couldn't solve one of them, they could turn to the losing contestant to help them out and if they used their answer, that contestant would then get £2,500 for every answer bought by the winner of the main game.

I recall another show a bit like this called The Vault, but it was General Knowledge based and quite enjoyable. There were 7 prospective contestants I think. 3 would get to play the main game to answer questions against the time to win money (can't remember what it was up to, but it was Saturday night I think on ITV so possibly between 100K and a million) while the other 4 were panellists who you could "buy" help from, but the 4 panellists could undercut each other. Say for example the main contestant was on 20K and the next question was worth 50K, one panellist might offer to answer the question for 20K. Then another might say "18K guaranteed correct answer" I think it was presented by Davina McCall and then someone else but I cant remember who.

Dinos Sfyris wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:In the final round, the main-game winner would have to correctly solve 4 puzzles focusing on different parts of the brain, to get £10,000. If they couldn't solve one of them, they could turn to the losing contestant to help them out and if they used their answer, that contestant would then get £2,500 for every answer bought by the winner of the main game.

I recall another show a bit like this called The Vault, but it was General Knowledge based and quite enjoyable. There were 7 prospective contestants I think. 3 would get to play the main game to answer questions against the time to win money (can't remember what it was up to, but it was Saturday night I think on ITV so possibly between 100K and a million) while the other 4 were panellists who you could "buy" help from, but the 4 panellists could undercut each other. Say for example the main contestant was on 20K and the next question was worth 50K, one panellist might offer to answer the question for 20K. Then another might say "18K guaranteed correct answer" I think it was presented by Davina McCall and then someone else but I cant remember who.

You were right, there were 7 contestants split up into 3 players and 4 brokers. It was also hosted by Davina McCall then Melanie Sykes and then Gabby Logan.

I think the should bring The Vault back. It's one of very few interesting general knowledge-based gameshows.