I think the winner of the first show got through on a doddle. I remember being amongst those really criticising this show, but since the second show it has got "100 times" more complicated...
Wow, it must have been bad the first week.
The later challenges get tougher, but starting out with things like guessing people's age and weight really dumbs down the "brightness" side of things. Intuition and guesswork have little to do with how bright someone is.
A big problem for me is I simply don't care whether one or another contestant wins. And as it doesn't matter I can't get involved apart from trying to get the answers right. It would be much better with a presenter who related better to the contestants. Claire Balding can't seem to do that at all.
Trying to jazz the scores up with animated volcanoes was just dreadful. For CB to have to say "if you get this wrong your lava will go to X and his volcano will erupt" once was bad enough but she had to keep saying things like that.
But the worst thing for me is the audience and its fake reactions. It's clear they are simply acting as directed. That's normal on TV of course but usually they get them to react more or louder than they normally would. Here they are reacting where they naturally wouldn't at all. Why should they clap so much for someone they don't know much about dropping out of the contest? Why clap when people return for another round? It doesn't seem how an audience would naturally react. Makes the whole thing seem contrived.
the "guess the weight" round and "spelling" round are much easier than the maths/ logical sequence rounds OR is it just that I'm crap at maths so I think that's really hard !? That Alan from tongiht's show has got to be a possible winner, he was awesome
The later challenges get tougher, but starting out with things like guessing people's age and weight really dumbs down the "brightness" side of things. Intuition and guesswork have little to do with how bright someone is.
It's what is termed "emotional intelligence", if you study people carefully you should be able to make reasonable estimates of their age and weight.
A big problem for me is I simply don't care whether one or another contestant wins. And as it doesn't matter I can't get involved apart from trying to get the answers right.
But surely that would apply to any quiz show with members of the public as contestants. In BB, they did video profiles so that the audience knows a bit about each player.
Trying to jazz the scores up with animated volcanoes was just dreadful. For CB to have to say "if you get this wrong your lava will go to X and his volcano will erupt" once was bad enough but she had to keep saying things like that.
But the worst thing for me is the audience and its fake reactions. It's clear they are simply acting as directed. That's normal on TV of course but usually they get them to react more or louder than they normally would. Here they are reacting where they naturally wouldn't at all. Why should they clap so much for someone they don't know much about dropping out of the contest? Why clap when people return for another round? It doesn't seem how an audience would naturally react. Makes the whole thing seem contrived.
There were quite long delays between each round, as it took them a long time to rearrange the set. During these intervals, there was a warm-up comedian entertaining the audience. I think the enthusiastic clapping may have been partly due to the floor manager, and partly because something meaningful was finally about to happen.
It's what is termed "emotional intelligence", if you study people carefully you should be able to make reasonable estimates of their age and weight.
Sorry, but I call it intuition. And appearances can be deceptive as any make-over show will demonstrate. It's nothing to do with being "bright" and it makes for a very random opening round.
But surely that would apply to any quiz show with members of the public as contestants. In BB, they did video profiles so that the audience knows a bit about each player.
True, but I still can't find myself being remotely interested in who wins in this show, unlike with other quizzes and game shows. In successful game shows the host interacts better with the contestants. In this one Clare B seems to be on autopilot.
We all had a chat with Clare in the green room beforehand, and the little bits of banter before the head to head rounds reflected that.
I can't say i noticed that on tonight's evidence, but then I don't think she's a good TV host unless there are horses involved in which case she really ups her game.
There were quite long delays between each round, as it took them a long time to rearrange the set. During these intervals, there was a warm-up comedian entertaining the audience. I think the enthusiastic clapping may have been partly due to the floor manager, and partly because something meaningful was finally about to happen.
Still seems terribly unnatural, and therefore unconvincing, to me. There were also little bits of very unnatural sounding applause (could have come straight from a lottery show) that seemed to have been edited in afterwards.
I do quite like this programme but it doesn't seem to know which direction it's taking. The first few rounds are really simple and then it goes into Mastermind/University Challenge mode and it sort of loses me. I like Clare Boulding but she is learning a new job really. Maybe giving her a prime time tv show was a big ask.
I do quite like this programme but it doesn't seem to know which direction it's taking. The first few rounds are really simple and then it goes into Mastermind/University Challenge mode and it sort of loses me. I like Clare Boulding but she is learning a new job really. Maybe giving her a prime time tv show was a big ask.
I agree. I thought the spelling was an absolute doddle but the volcano round with the maths stuff was very difficult. I like Clare too but she seems quite unsure of herself on this.
I really Sam a slap but I think I would cut myself on his cheekbones.
There's being a bad loser but smug winners are much worse.
I quite like the programme, however...
I agree with the comment on Sam. I'm surprised he didn't drown in his own smugness. "Ooh! Look at me everyone! Look at me!" Please God, don't let him win the final!
I agree with the comment on Sam. I'm surprised he didn't drown in his own smugness. "Ooh! Look at me everyone! Look at me!" Please God, don't let him win the final!
They actually filmed about 4 hours worth of tape for each contestant, and so far they've only shown a 90-second montage in the intros. So I think that you'll see a lot more smugness in extended intros for the finalists when that comes on.
All of the episodes were filmed a couple of days apart, and the producers were very secretive about not letting the contestants know anything about the shows which they weren't involved in.
For that reason, I suspect that the winner of the best runners-up show, on this Saturday at 7pm, may have an advantage in the final - they will have experienced two lots of challenges, and have had double the opportunity to see into the mindset of the question setters.
That Alan from tongiht's show has got to be a possible winner, he was awesome
Given Alan Gibbs won £125,000 on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? in 2005 and was on a winning team on Only Connect in Spring 2010. Then I would say he is the favourite to win it.
Comments
Oh thanks...I didn't know that, we are arguing about the coloured cube one!
The later challenges get tougher, but starting out with things like guessing people's age and weight really dumbs down the "brightness" side of things. Intuition and guesswork have little to do with how bright someone is.
A big problem for me is I simply don't care whether one or another contestant wins. And as it doesn't matter I can't get involved apart from trying to get the answers right. It would be much better with a presenter who related better to the contestants. Claire Balding can't seem to do that at all.
Trying to jazz the scores up with animated volcanoes was just dreadful. For CB to have to say "if you get this wrong your lava will go to X and his volcano will erupt" once was bad enough but she had to keep saying things like that.
But the worst thing for me is the audience and its fake reactions. It's clear they are simply acting as directed. That's normal on TV of course but usually they get them to react more or louder than they normally would. Here they are reacting where they naturally wouldn't at all. Why should they clap so much for someone they don't know much about dropping out of the contest? Why clap when people return for another round? It doesn't seem how an audience would naturally react. Makes the whole thing seem contrived.
But surely that would apply to any quiz show with members of the public as contestants. In BB, they did video profiles so that the audience knows a bit about each player.
We all had a chat with Clare in the green room beforehand, and the little bits of banter before the head to head rounds reflected that.
She was reading it from the autocue.
There were quite long delays between each round, as it took them a long time to rearrange the set. During these intervals, there was a warm-up comedian entertaining the audience. I think the enthusiastic clapping may have been partly due to the floor manager, and partly because something meaningful was finally about to happen.
True, but I still can't find myself being remotely interested in who wins in this show, unlike with other quizzes and game shows. In successful game shows the host interacts better with the contestants. In this one Clare B seems to be on autopilot.
I can't say i noticed that on tonight's evidence, but then I don't think she's a good TV host unless there are horses involved in which case she really ups her game.
That explains her poor delivery, but it also means someone actually wrote that rubbish. :eek:
Still seems terribly unnatural, and therefore unconvincing, to me. There were also little bits of very unnatural sounding applause (could have come straight from a lottery show) that seemed to have been edited in afterwards.
Ok show otherwise
I imagine the round with Diversity was slightly easier in the studio otherwise I was rubbish at it!
I agree. I thought the spelling was an absolute doddle but the volcano round with the maths stuff was very difficult. I like Clare too but she seems quite unsure of herself on this.
I quite like the programme, however...
I agree with the comment on Sam. I'm surprised he didn't drown in his own smugness. "Ooh! Look at me everyone! Look at me!" Please God, don't let him win the final!
All of the episodes were filmed a couple of days apart, and the producers were very secretive about not letting the contestants know anything about the shows which they weren't involved in.
For that reason, I suspect that the winner of the best runners-up show, on this Saturday at 7pm, may have an advantage in the final - they will have experienced two lots of challenges, and have had double the opportunity to see into the mindset of the question setters.
Bump for tonight's edition
I'll be here
Hi BG
Given Alan Gibbs won £125,000 on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? in 2005 and was on a winning team on Only Connect in Spring 2010. Then I would say he is the favourite to win it.
I have my brainy hat on tonight.
Which, in reality means, after 20 mins I'll be lost and have no clue
But dare we acknowledge each other?
I'm too scared to talk to you now! :eek:
*the sound of silence*
Oh, it's a number memory quiz.... That's me done for...
It is