c4countdown

Great final today. Well worth a look on the iplayer site if you never saw it.

Yes, it really was superb, well worth a watch if you have the time.

UC is the king of all quizzes and one of the few programmes I go out of my way to watch. I love it almost as much as Countdown.

I probably prefer University Challenge to Countdown, for the simplicity of the format and the drama it regularly produces (which can be said for Countdown too), although UC is severely lacking in a website into which I pour my obsessiveness of almost autistic proportions.

Today was a great final, shame the way the final score doesn't reflect the close and exciting game which panned out over the first 26 minutes of the show. I was rooting for Manchester, I thought they might just do it, 30 points up with 4 minutes to go.

Ben Pugh wrote:I probably prefer University Challenge to Countdown.

Blasphemy! Still, maybe you can go on when you've finished your A-Levels

I agree that it was a great final and excellent viewing.

UC has always been one of my favourites and Bamber Gascoigne was such a good presenter that I wish he could still be doing it.

Do you know that he used to get the questions sent to his house before the show so that he could research them further, make notes and ensure that he knew possible alternative answers, etc. A real professional!

Ben Pugh wrote:I probably prefer University Challenge to Countdown.

He should get banned for this. It made my little brother cry.

It was a great final, both captains have been outstanding through the whole series. I really thought Manchester had it sewn up until the last 4 minutes.

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Ben Pugh wrote:I probably prefer University Challenge to Countdown.

He should get banned for this. It made my little brother cry.

Kai, will we being seeing you on University Challenge in a couple of years time ( just before you run for the job of Prime Minister)?

ps. Someone should get that winning UC captain onto Eggheads (she would give Daphne a run for her money) or maybe Countdown.

Just for the record, Warwick won it a year or two ago, in my first year at the university. Coincidence? I think not!

Thanks to Jojo for starting this thread. I hadn't realised it was the final last night so just watched it on iplayer. Cheers!

Lee Simmonds wrote:Thanks to Jojo for starting this thread. I hadn't realised it was the final last night so just watched it on iplayer. Cheers!

No probs!

Dunno if others have seen this, but one member of the winning team is being investigated:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7917481.stm

Don't recall him making that big a difference really though.

Apparently he was responsible for starting the comeback by answering a question correctly.

Hannah O wrote:Apparently he was responsible for starting the comeback by answering a question correctly.

Ah right, so it was quite a big difference then after all.

Hannah O wrote:Apparently he was responsible for starting the comeback by answering a question correctly.

It sounds like this is the reason he was being investigated lol! Maybe just the way I read it, but yes... made me chuckle

Oh dear! just heard they've been disqualified now.

What a fucking joke.

Grrr, that is just stupid. I'm sure even Manchester will feel their 'victory' is tainted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7919830.stm

I feel sorry for Gail Trimble most. Such a shame, after such a great final.

Anything for publicity.

I wonder if they'll throw him out of the university as punishment for this whole debacle.

If I were Kirk, I'd be shitting it. His forthcoming series final win could well get overturned in light of this precedent being set.

The BBC need to get their act together and make sure the recordings are done in one academic year, spreading it across two years is asking for trouble.

Clearly they should make the final a rematch between the team that lost to Corpus in the semis.

Not that I'm biased or anything.

Well, I hear that even Manchester themselves are saying that Corpus Christi should have won anyway. Although the man didn't inform the BBC he was no longer a student and he could have done so, it is silly that they spread the recording over such a long time that major events can happen (i.e. people dropping out/graduating from that university).

Why did the whole team have to lose the series?

It's like the bad student/teacher scenario here. That means that if one person does something wrong the whole team has to suffer!

Oh, Jeremy-Bo-Beremy, why would you do this and how do you feel now that you've done it? You could have just said so before they won!

And now I see from another source that the scoundrel's name is Charles, and not Sam!

Why?

The BBC should have left it as it was and I am sure would have had the support of the Mancheser captain if not the whole team. It is a game played in the spirit of a game and should have been left as it was. No advantage was gained by Oxford for this technical blob.
The fault lies with the BBC (again) who have not thought things through. They could have said they were gong to tighten up on future entry requirements/rules.
As it stands they have messed up the entire standing of this iconic show.

[I bet eveyone is searching through the archives now for former blobs and I bet they find them - then what?]

According to this morning's Mail (sorry) at least three other teams have fielded ineligible players over the years. All to do with filming across academic years!

...and Guardian (sorry)

Indeed! My mum was saying that to me a moment ago- Cambridge was one of the culprits, I think? Well, this just highlights the need to film it in a sensible time frame.

They haven't messed up the standing of it forever, have they?

I've just watched Wonderland: I Won University Challenge. A very strange show. Several of the scenes showing how "eccentric" and isolated these highly intelligent people felt were obviously carefully planned for camera, and the stupid slow string-plucking music just emphasized the bizarreness of the whole thing.

Any interesting points, such as how highly intelligent people and the general population don't know how to relate to and fit in with each other, and how academic intelligence is often not compatible with practical common sense were swamped in production flourishes. It's probably still worth catching on iPlayer though, as it shows a good scope of people from various years of the show in its 40 minutes. One was a Peter Burt, but I don't know if he was the same one who appeared on Countdown.

Derek Hazell wrote: Any interesting points, such as how highly intelligent people and the general population don't know how to relate to and fit in with each other

I'm sure everyone in the world has heard this cliche several million times by now, I'd hardly call it interesting.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Derek Hazell wrote: Any interesting points, such as how highly intelligent people and the general population don't know how to relate to and fit in with each other

I'm sure everyone in the world has heard this cliche several million times by now, I'd hardly call it interesting.

How can something be a cliché when specific examples are being given by the parties involved?

As anyone who has ever read any of my posts would know, I hate clichés. But, even if this was one, it would still have been interesting to hear these indivdual experiences without the further alienation which this zoo-style programme provided.

Derek Hazell wrote:... and the stupid slow string-plucking music just emphasized the bizarreness of the whole thing.

Phil Reynolds wrote:asbolute n A socially unacceptable plucked instrument.

Lol. Thanks for wringing some humour out of a potentially tense situation, Alec.

Anyway, people can watch the programme for themselves. I was just commenting on something I had seen, which is still on iPlayer if you want to make your own minds up - whatever kind of minds they may be.

Derek Hazell wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I'm sure everyone in the world has heard this cliche several million times by now, I'd hardly call it interesting.

How can something be a cliché when specific examples are being given by the parties involved?

Not sure I follow your logic there, Derek. A cliché is simply something that has been repeated endlessly - it doesn't follow that it isn't true. In the sense Charlie was using it (viz. a clichéd opinion or statement, as opposed to a clichéd expression like "at the end of the day") it's usually quite the reverse; statements often only become clichés in the first place because they are so broadly true that they've been expressed ad nauseam.

But you're both right, of course. A clichéd truth by itself isn't interesting (because it doesn't tell us anything new), but specific examples of that truth often shed new light on the cliché and make us evaluate it afresh.

I really want to go on unviersity challenge, but my general knowledge it probably at about 1% of the required standard to do well on the show.
Should I put back my university application a few years and spend all my time reading relentlessly factual material?
Should I get Derren Brown to hypnotize general knowledge into me?
Should I do things for Paxman so that he lets me on the show?
Should I get a brain transplant?

'Starter For 10' is quite an entertaining little film - it's on Beeb 2 tonight (though I'm going to check out the Gary Glitter drama as it seems quite thought provoking!)

Sue Sanders wrote:'Starter For 10' is quite an entertaining little film - it's on Beeb 2 tonight (though I'm going to check out the Gary Glitter drama as it seems quite thought provoking!)

I've seen that; yes not bad.
I am going to watch "Collision" at 9, because I have enjoyed the writing of Anthony Horowitz (sounds Jewish!) before, and then watch the Gary Glitter thing on 4+1.
Imagine if we had a "What are you watching on TV tonight?" or "What did you watch on TV last night?" thread. It would probably be the longest ever!

It would be Facebook.