A loveable miscellany of all things quiz
Hi, my vote would be to not put In It To Win It in the Hall of Shame. It's not Hall of Fame material by any means, but it is what it is - a harmless, good fun Saturday night family quiz show.Let's face it - we've seen far worse examples of those, some of them in the HOS already with doubtless more to follow. And we've seen worse hosts than Winton, who is a pretty personable fellow. There's a time when I want to see a Paxman brutalise the contestants, and times when I really don't mind someone being a bit nicer to them, and Winton achieves the latter without being excessively patronising either.Can't say I like the balance much when it comes to Mastermind's recidivism; is there a point where it puts people off entering because they think their chances are so much lower due to returning contestants being prioritised? Or is the show's appeal and fame such that such a concern is irrelevant? Returning candidates naturally have an edge on the entry tests/auditions, but could that mean we're missing out on some potentially excellent contestants who just had the misfortune of coming up against many returners in the application stage?Having never done a TV quiz I'm unqualified to answer such questions, but next series I think they should tone down the returning candidates a bit more, allow a few more newer contestants a go.
Hi Adam,Thanks for your thoughtful and pertinent comments. Yeah, I think I probably made it clear that I don't see In It To Win It in the hall of shame, but hey - I'm just one vote. I'll be tweeting this later.The recidivism rate so far is particularly high this series, noticeably high. But . . . we don't really know the reason why. Maybe this just reflects a particularly high percentage of application from recidivists this year? Maybe The calibre of virgin applicants has dropped - if they still use basically the same selection process as they did 7 years ago they give you 20 GK questions in the audition - and there is a cut off point below which they won't invite people on, basically to save them from themselves. I doubt that returning contestants are being prioritised. In all honesty what I think they're doing is just discounting players' previous experience - not letting it count against them, and treating maybe every applicant as a first time applicant. That's just my opinion, and not something I can in any way prove. As a two series Masterminder myself I can't possibly condemn anyone for having a second - third - fourth bite of the cherry. Had I not had the good fortune I had in 2007, chances are that I would have come back again and again if I'd been allowed. As to whether the noticeably high rate of recidivism in this series puts off first timers - it's a fair question, but not one I can answer, not being a first timer. So let's throw this one open to the floor. How about it guys - what are your views?
In answer to your question about the One that got away: I really see University Challenge as the jewel in the crown. My college put a team in during Bamber's last series, and they held the audition to select the four over a weekend I was away from college. We had a strong team, and who knows if I would have been picked or not, but I would love to have tried out for it. Granada laid on a coach for the supporters up to their studios in Manchester and it was a great experience being in the audience. It was a strange format that year. In the first round, matches were over two programmes. The classic starter and bonus round in the first, and a wierd subject specific baton round in the second. Personally, if it ain't broke don't fix it. I was glad that they returned to the classic format in the Paxman years. Do you remember the baton round?
Post a Comment