Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Britain's Brightest


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-02-2013, 12:36
Readingfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,702
Agreed that the scoring system for the 'stop the clock' round needs to change. Currently you might as well just plan to come in far below the time but get 3 or 4 words. (So if it's 28 seconds try and come in after 20 or so having got a few words - you'll get a positive score and won't lose anything.)

I think the final round does work. Going in to it in the lead is obviously (rightly) a big advantage. And I think they're allowed to go back to numbers that haven't been guessed so they can try a question more than once?
Readingfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 11-02-2013, 12:54
Millands Green
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 57
I enjoyed the concept but think the scoring system needs a big re-think.

I feel that the cahp who came 3rd (Alan?) can feel very hard done by. To me he was clearly the brightest but was ovoerly puniched for missing a number. As soon as he answered 1 less than the others on the first question (How many numbers did you see?), he had no chance of getting any other question correctly - grossly over punished for one error.

Secondly, going first on the match the couples round was again, a big disadvantage. The lady who went third had here frist 2 couples given to her on a plate bu lucily picking someone whose partner had been shown only minutes before wheres the bloke who went first had to blind guess for the first couple of rounds.

Finally, as said by someone earlier, how can knowing the name of a Spice Girls children be a sign of brightness. If anything it is the opposite.
Millands Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2013, 23:18
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,380
Finally, as said by someone earlier, how can knowing the name of a Spice Girls children be a sign of brightness. If anything it is the opposite.
Well, it's a sign of brightness because one aspect of intelligence is being able to memorise facts. It's not the only aspect, but that's part of it, and most quizzes test that and nothing else. Britain's Brightest was there to test all forms of brainpower, but that doesn't mean that general knowledge shouldn't be part of it. If there were lots of questions like that I'd agree with you, but there is nothing wrong with the odd one - after all, I'm sure someone like Kevin Ashman would know that, and a lot of people would say that he possesses a very capable brain - or at least, it's good at memorising facts.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 08:33
bargepole
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 318
... Secondly, going first on the match the couples round was again, a big disadvantage. The lady who went third had here frist 2 couples given to her on a plate bu lucily picking someone whose partner had been shown only minutes before wheres the bloke who went first had to blind guess for the first couple of rounds.....
They didn't show it on TV, but before the Pairing up the Partners round, they had a tie-breaker to determine the order of play. Alan won that, and actually chose to go first, a bad decision which almost certainly cost him a place in the final showdown.
bargepole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 10:24
margoh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 60
They didn't show it on TV, but before the Pairing up the Partners round, they had a tie-breaker to determine the order of play. Alan won that, and actually chose to go first, a bad decision which almost certainly cost him a place in the final showdown.
Interesting. Did he know it was a matching pairs game when he chose to go first?
margoh is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 23:16
_Andy_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
Interesting. Did he know it was a matching pairs game when he chose to go first?
Yes, we were all made completely aware of the rules beforehand. It's been fascinating to read the posts in this thread. I'm not surprised that the show has had a somewhat 'Marmite' effect on the viewing public - I guess that was the greatest challenge facing the production team: to make a show about intelligence palatable to a Saturday night audience. For my part (biased though it may be) I think they did a grand job. From the inside, the various challenges we faced didn't feel facile or irrelevant - most of them felt bloody hard. It's very easy to pontificate from the sofa - under studio lights against the clock in front of 600 people the pressure is considerably increased. I have nothing but respect for my fellow contestants, and it's heartening to read that many of you appreciated their efforts. BTW, Clare Balding is as friendly, genuine and interested a person as you could hope to meet. Just saying.
_Andy_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 07:29
BirthdayGirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 28,901
Yes, we were all made completely aware of the rules beforehand. It's been fascinating to read the posts in this thread. I'm not surprised that the show has had a somewhat 'Marmite' effect on the viewing public - I guess that was the greatest challenge facing the production team: to make a show about intelligence palatable to a Saturday night audience. For my part (biased though it may be) I think they did a grand job. From the inside, the various challenges we faced didn't feel facile or irrelevant - most of them felt bloody hard. It's very easy to pontificate from the sofa - under studio lights against the clock in front of 600 people the pressure is considerably increased. I have nothing but respect for my fellow contestants, and it's heartening to read that many of you appreciated their efforts. BTW, Clare Balding is as friendly, genuine and interested a person as you could hope to meet. Just saying.
Well done Andy! Deserved winner and welcome to the thread!
BirthdayGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 12:38
bargepole
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 318
.... It's very easy to pontificate from the sofa - under studio lights against the clock in front of 600 people the pressure is considerably increased. I have nothing but respect for my fellow contestants, and it's heartening to read that many of you appreciated their efforts. ...
Well done Andy on a deserved win.

I was in Heat 2, which Zoe won, and can certainly endorse your comment about the studio being much tougher than the sofa. When I watched the other heats on TV, I was often shouting out the answers before the contestants got them (even including your "How many ..." question ), but there's no pressure in that situation.

Somewhere in this thread I predicted that you'd be the favourite to win, due to having two goes at it compared to one for the other finalists. Once it got to the final showdown, your extra 14 seconds and the fact that Zoe had never done that game before, meant that you were nailed on - you still had to get the answers right though!
bargepole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 12:45
BirthdayGirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 28,901

Somewhere in this thread I predicted that you'd be the favourite to win,
He was always my favourite to win
BirthdayGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2013, 01:53
Futurespect
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 613
But that's the whole point ! If she'd been 'bright' enough to answer the first question she picked, he wouldn't have had the advantage.
Under the jurisdiction of Britain's Brightest, the incorrect answers would have led to new replacement questions. The initial time advantage stands. I hear what you're saying, but I felt the final round - and many of the previous - correctly fall under Britain's Best Gameshow Player.

The couples-matching game was nothing more than a modified Guess Who? And I'm sure thousands shouted out 'Tenby!' having never heard of it; among others. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it undermines the supposed reliance on place-names knowledge.

The numbers games were typically much better (when they weren't being silly about the presentation thereof), and "Counting Words" is very good with a scoring rejig. (For what it's worth, I'd award ten points for 26, five for 25 or 27, and minus one point per second either way.)

Oh, and also: were the results of each player hidden from the others until the end? It's obviously completely unfair if you play last with a known low target. The 6 to beat 5 made me wonder.

The final thing I'd like to say is about equating composure under pressure with intelligence. I disagree. I think it's about confidence combined with situational experience. To that end, I feel a few of the players were flattered by first-correct-answer, take-a-breather luck. Last Man Standing strikes me as a gameshow concept, designed for tension. I wouldn't eliminate players to safety, rather play on awarding points until the end.

Some very good brains on there, though, and well done, Andy. My complaints are all with the programme-makers.
Futurespect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2013, 02:20
bargepole
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 318
... Oh, and also: were the results of each player hidden from the others until the end? It's obviously completely unfair if you play last with a known low target. The 6 to beat 5 made me wonder..
Yes. When each player was in the chair, the others all went backstage with headphones, so nobody knew what score they had to beat.
bargepole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2013, 02:23
Futurespect
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 613
Good to hear.

It was only because of the playing order/editing, with a deliberately early bail on 6, with 5 to beat.
Futurespect is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:43.