c4countdown

Remarkably, for the new series they've managed not to change any of the rules.

Did it start today? I hope Sky+ remembered it.

Matt Morrison wrote:Did it start today?

Yep. Two very good teams made it through to the head-to-head round, making for quite an entertaining tussle.

The chess thing was crazy. They must have accepted "castle" too, but even then....

Never heard anything from my application for this series. Maybe I'll try again.

Paul and I made the selection pot, but weren't chosen for filming. Never mind, we'll apply again and hope to get another audition.

I'm hoping to try again too, but I'm taking my mate, Steve, this time. He's actually also sent a form off for Countdown within the last 3 weeks, so you never know, he could be a late challenger for this series.

Why is it so hard to get on the show? I remember for Countdown sending off my application form, replying with an audition date, attending the audition and (on my second try ) going on the show.

Kai Laddiman wrote:Why is it so hard to get on the show? I remember for Countdown sending off my application form, replying with an audition date, attending the audition and (on my second try ) going on the show.

Trying to compare it to your experience of getting on Countdown is a bit pointless (geddit?!?!!!), since a) Countdown is just one program, and ii) Countdown is fairly unusual in (apparently) being entirely down to your ability at the game, rather than ill-defined things like whether you're chatty enough or would make good TV or whatever.

Also, I'd imagine a show like Pointles, where you can actually win something, and where it's much less obvious to the viewer whether they're any good or not, has a much higher applicant to places ratio (but obviously that's just speculation).

Matt Morrison wrote:The chess thing was crazy. They must have accepted "castle" too, but even then....

I don't thimk Richard had "castle" on his list

It would have given more scope if fairy pieces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess_piece
had been included (or Chinese ones), but I suppose only a few of their 100 people would have been able to name any

It's a little bit boring, Pointless. IT IS pointless. Kinda.

Roxx and Myth were excellent contestants - reminded me a bit of Raccoon and CF. My favourite quip of theirs was when they chose Words as the category for the final because, as (I think) Myth said, "I use words all the time, in conversation."

Yeah, Roxx and Myth were awesome. I particularly enjoyed the juxtaposition of mad rockers and a teatime quiz show.

Michael Wallace wrote:Yeah, Roxx and Myth were awesome. I particularly enjoyed the juxtaposition of mad rockers and a teatime quiz show.

Mad rockers? Roxx turned out to be a Science teacher, ffs.

Yeah was definitely rooting for Roxx and Myth today, although the two old ladies were unlucky the way the first picks fell in the head to head as the Scrabble question could have gone either way.

Nice to see a words round for the final. Was very surprised to see superset as a pointless answer. It was the first one that sprang into my mind. Also Boneset is a nice word.

Same here - other words that I thought of (OK for Scrabble, haven't checked OED) were DOWSET (cooked sheep testicle) and SOMERSET (alternative spelling of somersault)

ZXQJK is the most epic word ever. Thought of BASSET as in basset hound but am not sure. Also got superset, subset, overset, upset, outset, cosset, and a few others.

Not forgetting one of RW's favourites - Moonset. Great word

Peter Mabey wrote:other words that I thought of (OK for Scrabble, haven't checked OED) were DOWSET (cooked sheep testicle) and SOMERSET (alternative spelling of somersault)

Neither would have been allowed.

Joseph Krol wrote:Thought of BASSET as in basset hound but am not sure.

I'd have thought that was capitalised but it turns out it isn't so it would have been allowed.

Interestingly, a word that no one has so far suggested here is MARMOSET and yet HWMBO and I both said it simultaneously when the question came up.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Interestingly, a word that no one has so far suggested here is MARMOSET and yet HWMBO and I both said it simultaneously when the question came up.

I thought of MARMOSET immediately too. Does this mean I'm gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Mark James wrote:I thought of MARMOSET immediately too. Does this mean I'm gay?

If you haven't made up your own mind on that one by the age of 29 then I can't help you I'm afraid. Was you second choice CLOSET by any chance?

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Peter Mabey wrote:other words that I thought of (OK for Scrabble, haven't checked OED) were DOWSET (cooked sheep testicle) and SOMERSET (alternative spelling of somersault)

Neither would have been allowed.

Joseph Krol wrote:Thought of BASSET as in basset hound but am not sure.

I'd have thought that was capitalised but it turns out it isn't so it would have been allowed.

I know I could go back and check, but it's presumably less effort to ask you what dictionary they said it was. Was it the OED? (And with that do you not have to specify the version or whatever, like ODE2r?)

I think they said Oxford English Dictionary, but the dictionary used is questionable, as there are likely more than 60 obscure to very obscure words with a common suffix like -set. Plus all the mentioned words appear in the ODE3.

I think they said Oxford English Dictionary, but the dictionary used is questionable, as there are likely more than 60 obscure to very obscure words with a common suffix like -set. Plus all the mentioned words appear in the ODE3.

Don't need to post it twice!
Don't need to post it twice!

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Mark James wrote:I thought of MARMOSET immediately too. Does this mean I'm gay?

If you haven't made up your own mind on that one by the age of 29 then I can't help you I'm afraid. Was you second choice CLOSET by any chance?

**** LIKE****

Joseph Krol wrote:I think they said Oxford English Dictionary, but the dictionary used is questionable, as there are likely more than 60 obscure to very obscure words with a common suffix like -set. Plus all the mentioned words appear in the ODE3.

UNDERSET (one of the pointlesses) isn't, though.

I've now run a search of the online OED, which gives 185 entries - however, that includes hyphenated ones, and also counts the same word several times if it occurs with more than one meaning, so there could well be only about half that many distinct ones.

BTW, looking at the definitions there shows that I got the meaning of DOWSET rather confused - an animal's testicles are DOWSETS, but in cookery a DOWSET was something like a custard. (Both derive from douce, sweet)

MARMOSET was Heather's first. Mine was PERCOSET which isn't a popular enough brand to have become word yet. Shame.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Peter Mabey wrote:other words that I thought of (OK for Scrabble, haven't checked OED) were DOWSET (cooked sheep testicle) and SOMERSET (alternative spelling of somersault)

Neither would have been allowed.

Sorry Peter, brain failure. I heard Richard say "Oxford English Dictionary" and just automatically went into Countdown mode and assumed that meant ODE3r. If there were 60 pointless answers then I guess they meant the full OED.

Did Michael Jackson not have a posthumous number 1?

Mark James wrote:Did Michael Jackson not have a posthumous number 1?

Not yet. Broke the record for the most simultaneous songs on the chart though.

Ian Volante wrote:

Mark James wrote:Did Michael Jackson not have a posthumous number 1?

Not yet. Broke the record for the most simultaneous songs on the chart though.

I'm pretty sure Man in the Mirror was Number 1 in the iTunes chart for a while, but I'm guessing that's not the official chart.

Absolutely raped -OUD. Distinct possibility we would have got all 3 pointless.

When I saw that this thread had been bumped today I assumed that c4cers must have been posting in their dozens about the weird bit at the end where Richard rounded off a list of pointless answers with "...and UNDERCLOUD", which had just been declared a wrong answer. Maxine even nodded and then looked at Richard all like WTF?

Phil Reynolds wrote:When I saw that this thread had been bumped today I assumed that c4cers must have been posting in their dozens about the weird bit at the end where Richard rounded off a list of pointless answers with "...and UNDERCLOUD", which had just been declared a wrong answer. Maxine even nodded and then looked at Richard all like WTF?

Sounded very much like THUNDERCLOUD to me.

Bit of both of you. Sounded very much like UNDERCLOUD but I never even thought twice and assumed without fear it was THUNDERCLOUD.

Craig Beevers wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:Richard rounded off a list of pointless answers with "...and UNDERCLOUD", which had just been declared a wrong answer.

Sounded very much like THUNDERCLOUD to me.

My bad.

Hmm a final question on horse racing. Don't think it gets any more pointless than that.

Craig Beevers wrote:Hmm a final question on horse racing. Don't think it gets any more pointless than that.

Oh I dunno, I can think of some things.

Virtually all the pointless answers were recent winners as well. Seemed a bit daft really apart from it being about a non-sport.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:Hmm a final question on horse racing. Don't think it gets any more pointless than that.

Oh I dunno, I can think of some things.

lol.

So round one today was 'countries ending in N', and Richard said there were 18 answers. The sporcle quiz on it has 24, but one of them is Taiwan (but it also doesn't have Russian Federation, which was correct). As far as I can tell from a quick glance, the rest are all fine according to the UN's website, so we can only conclude this is yet another pointles scandal

Michael Wallace wrote:So round one today was 'countries ending in N', and Richard said there were 18 answers. The sporcle quiz on it has 24, but one of them is Taiwan (but it also doesn't have Russian Federation, which was correct). As far as I can tell from a quick glance, the rest are all fine according to the UN's website, so we can only conclude this is yet another pointles scandal

Are you called 'Oxbridge' on sporcle?

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:So round one today was 'countries ending in N', and Richard said there were 18 answers. The sporcle quiz on it has 24, but one of them is Taiwan (but it also doesn't have Russian Federation, which was correct). As far as I can tell from a quick glance, the rest are all fine according to the UN's website, so we can only conclude this is yet another pointles scandal

Are you called 'Oxbridge' on sporcle?

Nope. I do have a sporcle name but I can't remember what it is.

Speaking of Pointless, me and my mate Steve have got an audition tomorrow morning for the show.

If successful, we'll be recording next month.

James Robinson wrote:Speaking of Pointless, me and my mate Steve have got an audition tomorrow morning for the show.

Good luck, James, etc.

Are you going to try a different plan of attack to last time?

Michael Wallace wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Speaking of Pointless, me and my mate Steve have got an audition tomorrow morning for the show.

Good luck, James, etc.

Are you going to try a different plan of attack to last time?

Well, I've changed my co-contestant, so that's a start.

James, I think the key to getting on Pointless is to focus on trying to be interesting/kooky/fun/interactive in some way and don't bother too much about getting the questions right.

James Robinson wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Speaking of Pointless, me and my mate Steve have got an audition tomorrow morning for the show.

Good luck, James, etc.

Are you going to try a different plan of attack to last time?

Well, I've changed my co-contestant, so that's a start.

How did it go

Michael Wallace wrote:How did it go

I think me and Steve did well with the questions, and I definitely think there was a lot more interaction between me and him, then when I went with my sister the last time. I think they quite enjoyed the interesting mix of a pairing that we were too, which is nice.

1st in the questions, again, 11 points this time. Even had a words question too. The pair that came 2nd even asked us for a pic with them, cos they thought we were certs to go on, which was nice.

There was quite an interesting mix this time. There was certainly no rubbish pair and everyone came across as a good pair who'd do good on the show. 4 out of 6 (including us) were asked to stay behind, and I think we defo came across much better this time.

Well, we'll know within 2 weeks if we're on the shortlist, so here's hoping....... this time.

Nice. Make sure you don't pick foreign politics (or whatever it was today) in the final - unless you've studied it obviously. Seem to be a mix of really horrible questions then the odd one which I think a lot of people on here would get a pointless on (elements ending in -IUM, word ending in -OUD).

Anyone else spot the continuity error on today's show. While Alexander was asking the first guy what volcano he was gonna pick you could see 22 on both the screen behind and the contestant's podium. My mam, who hadn't spotted this, thinks she's psychic so I let on that it must run in the family and confidently predicted he would go for Krakatoa and that it would score 22. Or maybe there was no continuity error and I genuinely did have a psychic vision of the result.

Mark James wrote:Anyone else spot the continuity error on today's show. While Alexander was asking the first guy what volcano he was gonna pick you could see 22 on both the screen behind and the contestant's podium.

Wow. I didn't notice this at all when I watched it earlier but just had another look and once you know it's there it seems so unbelievably obvious. I'm guessing they had to do an immediate retake for some reason and forgot to reset the graphics.

One thing I notice a lot now having been on the last series is how often Alexander says, "Remember, we're looking for the names of volcanoes" (or whatever). When we were there, if he didn't say this during the round itself, they recorded him saying it a couple of times afterwards and edited it in. No idea why, unless maybe it's for the benefit of viewers who switch on during the round and are too thick to work out what the question is.

Phil Reynolds wrote:No idea why, unless maybe it's for the benefit of viewers who switch on during the round and are too thick to work out what the question is.

Given how often they explain the rules and what the topic of the round is etc. etc. I think it's just that they don't expect much of their audience. I'd quite like someone to make a shortened version that cuts out all the explanations and repetitions (I mean, some of the banter is good, but I don't need to have Richard explaining what "countries ending in N" means).

Yeah the whole "a wrong answer is worth 100 points" explained EVERY SINGLE ROUND is a reet drag.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:No idea why, unless maybe it's for the benefit of viewers who switch on during the round and are too thick to work out what the question is.

Given how often they explain the rules and what the topic of the round is etc. etc. I think it's just that they don't expect much of their audience. I'd quite like someone to make a shortened version that cuts out all the explanations and repetitions (I mean, some of the banter is good, but I don't need to have Richard explaining what "countries ending in N" means).

Agreed. It's ridiculous that the head to head is best of three rather than first to three, like in the first series, when they could easily make time for it. Also, there should be an individual prize for getting a pointless answer as well as adding to the jackpot.
Finally, despite the show being called Pointless there should be more reward for obscure knowledge that isn't quite pointless. In the final round if the points total of your three answers is less than ten, I think you should still win. Even say a fraction of the jackpot.

Mark James wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:No idea why, unless maybe it's for the benefit of viewers who switch on during the round and are too thick to work out what the question is.

Given how often they explain the rules and what the topic of the round is etc. etc. I think it's just that they don't expect much of their audience. I'd quite like someone to make a shortened version that cuts out all the explanations and repetitions (I mean, some of the banter is good, but I don't need to have Richard explaining what "countries ending in N" means).

Agreed. It's ridiculous that the head to head is best of three rather than first to three, like in the first series, when they could easily make time for it. Also, there should be an individual prize for getting a pointless answer as well as adding to the jackpot.
Finally, despite the show being called Pointless there should be more reward for obscure knowledge that isn't quite pointless. In the final round if the points total of your three answers is less than ten, I think you should still win. Even say a fraction of the jackpot.

I see where you're coming from, all your suggestions would just further complicate the format of the game and are made in the midst of a discussion about how they already have to appeal to the lowest common denominator when explaining all the very obvious rules over and over again. You'd never make a game show producer.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Mark James wrote: Agreed. It's ridiculous that the head to head is best of three rather than first to three, like in the first series, when they could easily make time for it. Also, there should be an individual prize for getting a pointless answer as well as adding to the jackpot.
Finally, despite the show being called Pointless there should be more reward for obscure knowledge that isn't quite pointless. In the final round if the points total of your three answers is less than ten, I think you should still win. Even say a fraction of the jackpot.

I see where you're coming from, all your suggestions would just further complicate the format of the game and are made in the midst of a discussion about how they already have to appeal to the lowest common denominator when explaining all the very obvious rules over and over again. You'd never make a game show producer.

All of my suggestions? Maybe the last one is a bit complicated but who can't understand you get a personal prize for getting a pointless answer. Family Fortunes had random personal prizes for particular answers and you don't get more lowest common denominator than Family bloody Fortunes. As for me not being a good game show producer I came up with the idea for Poker Face before Ant 'n' Dec so there.

James Robinson wrote:Well, we'll know within 2 weeks if we're on the shortlist, so here's hoping....... this time.

Well, we've made it onto the SHORTLIST!!!

So, a busy month ahead for me then, possibly.....

Just have to wait and see now, I guess.