Join the club. Did you used to watch the original? If not have a look on youtube at one of the old episodes and you'll see why some of us are so disappointed with this reboot masquerading as 15 to 1.
It's a shrill, nasal whine. Other than that it's fine...
I don't like her voice either, it's too high pitched for my taste, but I think she seems like quite a nice person so I feel a bit mean saying it and at least she is articulate intelligent .
The original Fifteen to One used to be rush home from school/uni must see viewing for me whereas this version is more I'll watch it if I'm in. I don't think it's terrible, but there is room for improvement. It's too long and waffly for a start, we don't need two ad breaks. I don't really like all the chatter with the contestants, but if they maybe did it for the final three only I won't mind. I also don't think Sandi should give out the extra bits of information when a customer is knocked out. It was awkward the other day, the lights had already gone out on the customer and she was still dishing out trivia.
However, I do think there is a good variety to the questions and the contestants and it isn't always obvious who is going to win.
Get over yourselves. Not only did my Mum watch the original, my brother was on the original too. Neither have anything bad to say about this (I am too young to remember it fondly).
Sandi Toksvig has been a fixture of some great panel games and game shows. She's lovely on this.
Get over yourselves. Not only did my Mum watch the original, my brother was on the original too. Neither have anything bad to say about this (I am too young to remember it fondly).
Sandi Toksvig has been a fixture of some great panel games and game shows. She's lovely on this.
I have nothing to "get over" thanks!
I preferred the original, nothing wrong with that, I like the originals with a lot of things. I liked the original better as it was just questions, I like quiz games like that, without a lot of talking.
I wasn't keen on Sandi Toksvig on her other quiz show on C4, but she's okay on this.
Ok, so because your mother used to watch it and your brother was on it back then it means we all have to like it now?
Also, if you 'all' can claim how much you loved it, then comparing it to people I know who also had strong feelings about the original isn't telling you all that you can't dislike it, but pointing out you're the standard of picky pricks that DS usually attracts. There's no difference in the quality of show - as it's kind of hard to do, when it's just a series of general knowledge questions.
LadySponge I think you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. I have only watched one episode and said the original was better, I may change my mind after a few more watches.
No, it means there's little difference, and you're all just being ***** for the sake of being *****.
LOL absolute rubbish! It means nothing of the sort. It just means your mum and your brother don't think there's much difference.
PS - It might have been my ears playing tricks on me but it sounded like green lady in the final said Prada instead of Prado. Can't imagine Bill G allowing that.
PS - It might have been my ears playing tricks on me but it sounded like green lady in the final said Prada instead of Prado. Can't imagine Bill G allowing that.
It's the production team who decide whether or not an answer is good enough to be accepted as correct, not the presenter.
I preferred the old series for two reasons I preferred the presenter and the questions were easier. There are too many geographical questions or questions about political leaders in obscure countries in the new version. I've just watched a segment from this old one and was able to answer a lot more questions than I can now.
LOL absolute rubbish! It means nothing of the sort. It just means your mum and your brother don't think there's much difference.
PS - It might have been my ears playing tricks on me but it sounded like green lady in the final said Prada instead of Prado. Can't imagine Bill G allowing that.
I thought that's what she said but I just assumed I'd misheard her as they would never allow such a bad mistake as a correct answer.
It's the production team who decide whether or not an answer is good enough to be accepted as correct, not the presenter.
William G Stewart was also MD of Regent Productions, the company that made the original series and, as such, would certainly have been involved in setting general guidelines regarding acceptability of answers. He also seemed pretty well informed regarding the questions he asked and, combined with his seniority, I would not be at all surprised if he had the final 'real-time' say as well. Sandi seems pretty clueless, tablet notwithstanding, and almost certainly has no such authority.
Nitpicking about what constitutes format, now this. What next? You seem to want to pick up on any potential discrepancy from people who don't share your view. You're clearly a 20 year old who still has much growing up to do. In the meantime I suggest you stick to your Holby and Casualty threads.
I said I wasn't going to complain any more but watching Sandi read her titbits and trivia after each question (and there is no doubt at all that she is reading them off the tablet,you can see it clearly,she's not conjuring them all up from memory) really is quite tiresome. I can't think of another quiz that does this. Do we really need to have it explained to us what a Grand Slam tennis tournament is?
Incidentally I don't know why people that go on these things don't learn all the Booker prize winners. They come up ALL the time. I remember Paul Sinna on The Chase saying he had learned them all,they come up so often.
If you used one of those peg or picture association memory techniques,you could learn them all in a couple of hours. Refresh every few weeks or so to keep the pictures in your head. That's how I learned all the US State capitals. Although they don't come up nearly as often.
Incidentally I don't know why people that go on these things don't learn all the Booker prize winners. They come up ALL the time. I remember Paul Sinna on The Chase saying he had learned them all,they come up so often.
It's common for quizzers to remember lists.
It's slightly different than having general knowledge on a subject more of a rememberance technique.
Other popular ones are kings & queens and national flags.
It's the production team who decide whether or not an answer is good enough to be accepted as correct, not the presenter.
You sound sure. Have you had it confimed by the production team?
In Only Connect the host does get to decide on whether to accept an answer on some occasions. The question editor used to post in the thread and confirmed it.
Those podiums with the lives on them are so badly designed that in the wide shots you can't tell the difference between people with three lives and two lives.
In Only Connect the host does get to decide on whether to accept an answer on some occasions. The question editor used to post in the thread and confirmed it.
No I haven't; I just can't see why the host would get the final say. What would happen if a word had a different pronunciation to how it was spelt, and the host didn't know the pronunciation and thought that the correct answer was wrong? In this situation it may be slightly different to normal as William G actually was the producer of the show, but I would imagine that at the time he was presenting it he had to focus more on presenting duties that production duties (although I can't prove that).
Actually, I did hear an anecdote about this some time ago. Apparently on the original run, there was a contestant who gave a controversial answer, and they had to turn off the cameras and keep the contestants waiting for ten minutes while it was decided whether or not that answer could be accepted. Eventually it was decided that it couldn't be, and they had to re-film that bit with the contestant giving the same answer as before (which they now knew was wrong).
Nitpicking about what constitutes format, now this. What next? You seem to want to pick up on any potential discrepancy from people who don't share your view. You're clearly a 20 year old who still has much growing up to do. In the meantime I suggest you stick to your Holby and Casualty threads.
Not at all. People can share or dispute my opinion if they wish to, that's what a forum thread is for. I've defended this version of the show from some of the people who haven't appreciated it, but that doesn't mean to say that they have no right to state their opinion, just as that cannot be said about me either.
And for the record, I don't believe that my age has anything to do with the validity of my opinions here, nor does my history on other Digital Spy forums.
Comments
Yeah I watched the original. Was a lot better.
I don't like her voice either, it's too high pitched for my taste, but I think she seems like quite a nice person so I feel a bit mean saying it and at least she is articulate intelligent .
The original Fifteen to One used to be rush home from school/uni must see viewing for me whereas this version is more I'll watch it if I'm in. I don't think it's terrible, but there is room for improvement. It's too long and waffly for a start, we don't need two ad breaks. I don't really like all the chatter with the contestants, but if they maybe did it for the final three only I won't mind. I also don't think Sandi should give out the extra bits of information when a customer is knocked out. It was awkward the other day, the lights had already gone out on the customer and she was still dishing out trivia.
However, I do think there is a good variety to the questions and the contestants and it isn't always obvious who is going to win.
In fairness, we didn't have 4OD then, so there were a lot of things that were 'rush home to see', whereas now it doesn't matter so much.
Get over yourselves. Not only did my Mum watch the original, my brother was on the original too. Neither have anything bad to say about this (I am too young to remember it fondly).
Sandi Toksvig has been a fixture of some great panel games and game shows. She's lovely on this.
Because he clearly had curvature of the spine? Dick.
No, it means there's little difference, and you're all just being ***** for the sake of being *****.
I have nothing to "get over" thanks!
I preferred the original, nothing wrong with that, I like the originals with a lot of things. I liked the original better as it was just questions, I like quiz games like that, without a lot of talking.
I wasn't keen on Sandi Toksvig on her other quiz show on C4, but she's okay on this.
Also, if you 'all' can claim how much you loved it, then comparing it to people I know who also had strong feelings about the original isn't telling you all that you can't dislike it, but pointing out you're the standard of picky pricks that DS usually attracts. There's no difference in the quality of show - as it's kind of hard to do, when it's just a series of general knowledge questions.
LOL absolute rubbish! It means nothing of the sort. It just means your mum and your brother don't think there's much difference.
PS - It might have been my ears playing tricks on me but it sounded like green lady in the final said Prada instead of Prado. Can't imagine Bill G allowing that.
It's the production team who decide whether or not an answer is good enough to be accepted as correct, not the presenter.
I thought that's what she said but I just assumed I'd misheard her as they would never allow such a bad mistake as a correct answer.
William G Stewart was also MD of Regent Productions, the company that made the original series and, as such, would certainly have been involved in setting general guidelines regarding acceptability of answers. He also seemed pretty well informed regarding the questions he asked and, combined with his seniority, I would not be at all surprised if he had the final 'real-time' say as well. Sandi seems pretty clueless, tablet notwithstanding, and almost certainly has no such authority.
Nitpicking about what constitutes format, now this. What next? You seem to want to pick up on any potential discrepancy from people who don't share your view. You're clearly a 20 year old who still has much growing up to do. In the meantime I suggest you stick to your Holby and Casualty threads.
If you used one of those peg or picture association memory techniques,you could learn them all in a couple of hours. Refresh every few weeks or so to keep the pictures in your head. That's how I learned all the US State capitals. Although they don't come up nearly as often.
It's slightly different than having general knowledge on a subject more of a rememberance technique.
Other popular ones are kings & queens and national flags.
In Only Connect the host does get to decide on whether to accept an answer on some occasions. The question editor used to post in the thread and confirmed it.
Indeed,see my edited post above yours. You must have posted your reply while I was editing it.
Cheryl made the final!
No I haven't; I just can't see why the host would get the final say. What would happen if a word had a different pronunciation to how it was spelt, and the host didn't know the pronunciation and thought that the correct answer was wrong? In this situation it may be slightly different to normal as William G actually was the producer of the show, but I would imagine that at the time he was presenting it he had to focus more on presenting duties that production duties (although I can't prove that).
Actually, I did hear an anecdote about this some time ago. Apparently on the original run, there was a contestant who gave a controversial answer, and they had to turn off the cameras and keep the contestants waiting for ten minutes while it was decided whether or not that answer could be accepted. Eventually it was decided that it couldn't be, and they had to re-film that bit with the contestant giving the same answer as before (which they now knew was wrong).
Not at all. People can share or dispute my opinion if they wish to, that's what a forum thread is for. I've defended this version of the show from some of the people who haven't appreciated it, but that doesn't mean to say that they have no right to state their opinion, just as that cannot be said about me either.
And for the record, I don't believe that my age has anything to do with the validity of my opinions here, nor does my history on other Digital Spy forums.