Look, I wouldn’t want you to think I’m in the habit of sitting on my backside watching BBC daytime quiz shows on a Wednesday afternoon during term time. The fact is, though, that Covid hasn’t left me with a great deal of other options for the next few days.
That’s how I came to be watching The Tournament this
afternoon. I’ll be honest, I didn’t know anything about it until it actually
came on. So, what can we say. Well, it’s a daytime quiz show, so there’s no
point judging it against my favourite quizzes like Mastermind, University
Challenge and Only Connect. That’s not to do down daytime quizzes. There’s an
awful lot of care and skill that needs to go into even bringing a daytime quiz
show to the screen at all, let alone a show capable of entertaining its
viewers, or at the very least sustaining audience interest for 45 minutes. If
we think of the twin teatime behemoths of the genre, Pointless and The Chase, they’ve
both sustained high audiences and become required viewing for large swathes of
the population over more than a decade. How many other daytime/teatime shows
have come and gone in that time? Haven’t counted, but I bet the number is
larger than you think.
I’m not going to start with my first impressions of The
Tournament, but rather with a look at its game mechanics. 8 contenders face a
first round in which host Alex Scott asks 8 questions, with 4 multiple choice
answers. Players cannot lock in their answer until all four answers have been
read out. At the end of the round, the players are ranked according to the
number of questions they answered correctly, and then how quickly they locked
in their answers. Each player is then assigned a pot of money, with the number1
player getting most, and the number 8 player getting least.
The 8 players then take part in a set of 4 head to head
matches. So player 1 gets to choose which player they take on, and also which
category of questions they both answer. The incentive to take on a higher
ranked player is that the winners adds the loser’s money to their own. The
incentive to take the lower player on is that if you win in under the 2 minute
time limit, then you get a large cash bonus. Game play is basically a buzzer
quiz. Both contenders face each other on a light bridge made of steps, not a
million miles away from the sort of thing you see on The Chase. Buzz in and get
the question right and you take away an opponent's step and add one to your own –
until you’re full anyway. Once you’ve knocked away all of your opponent’s steps
you’ve won. Game play automatically stops after 2 mins – the one with the most
steps still intact wins. Then the next best player picks opponent and category,
and this repeats until 4 of the 8 have been eliminated.
This is also repeated in the next round, with two head to
heads. This time the player with the most cash makes the choices. Finally, the
last two contenders standing face each other, this time on General Knowledge.
If the winner knocks out the loser within 2 minutes, they get the chance to
play a gold round. Don’t know how that works because it didn’t happen in today’s
show. If they don’t, then they walk away with the cash amount they took into
the final.
If you’re as long in the tooth as I am, then the first time
you watch The Tournament you may well find yourself feeling a little déjà vu,
as there’s bits of The Tournament which are at least slightly reminiscent of
other shows. But then, quizzes are that sort of genre, and I don’t really mind
that. I enjoyed the head to heads, even if they were rather slated towards
popular culture and entertainment. That often goes with the territory in
daytime quizzes. I didn’t mind Alex Scott in the host’s role either. She’s
still a relative newbie to TV presentation, and she’s not a comedian so she’s
not going to have the same style as Zander and Richard Osman for example. But
she spoke clearly, projected some warmth, and didn’t get in the way, which is
pretty much what I want from a host.
So I enjoyed it? Pretty much. Nothing much wrong with it?
Well. . . Okay, this is not a HUGE thing, but the show does have a problem with the liberal slices of cheese it serves up at the start. At the start, each of the contestants has to issue their own ‘battle cry’
that is introduce themselves and make a boast about what they are going to do
to the opposition. I don’t know how embarrassed the contestants were at having
to issue these obviously scripted offerings, but I was cringing for them. There
was more wood in their delivery than an Oak Furnitureland advert. Unless your contestants are all ringers and members of Equity, don't script things for them to say, for heaven's sake. Then to add
insult to injury, Alex would then remind them of what they'd been told to say during the show. “Well Sue,”
she said at one point, “Yesterday you said you were going to boss the rest of
them.” Or words to that effect, Sue being a businesswoman. Sadly Sue did not
reply, “Well I had to bloody read that out or you wouldn’t have let me on the show.”
It’s just something that really grates on me. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like
the kind of show that halts the action to ask the contender about their prize
wining collection of egg cosies knitted from their own nostril hair either. But this
aspect of the show is just so false that it not only adds nothing to the show,
it takes away from it. Also that end game needs work. Not having the gold round felt like an anti climax to me, and I'd definitely want to tweak this.
So, for all that, will it catch on? For me the coin is in the
air on this one. It might well find an audience. However my big concern is that
as much as I like the 2 minute head to head format, 7 of them in succession is
really a bit repetitive. If I were asked to make suggestions to make the show
more viewer friendly, first change would be to get rid of the scripted
introductions, and the second would be at least a slight change of game play
for the second round, and then again for the final. If we look at the Chase,
for example, there are three clearly different types of round in the show. Even
in Pointless, while the point of the game doesn’t change they very cleverly
vary the types of question to provide variety in any single show.
Well, if the producers of the show want the benefit of my
suggestions, you know where to find me.
4 comments:
I started The Tournament, but the amount of cheese in the contestant introductions completely put me off as well! Maybe I'll give it another try soon.
I've liked a lot of the daytime quizzes over the last decade, and have been disappointed that most of them haven't lasted long - maybe it's me, but I felt that the daytime quiz shows in the 2000s were given quite a bit more time to find their feet than the ones in the 2010s... perhaps that's because there's been a different Government with less investment in new ideas, or maybe just because I was a child in the 2000s so the time seemed longer.
Of the ones that have been and gone in the last few years, the one that was by far my favourite was The Code (don't know if you saw that). I always say that a good quiz show has difficult questions and easy rules, and The Code had all of that. The format didn't take any effort to understand at all; it was literally, 'Look at three questions, each with a suggested answer next to them, and determine which of those answers is correct. If you're right, you can try out a digit to open our safe, and if you get all three digits you can take home the contents of the safe. But get just one question wrong and it's all over.' The difficulty level of the questions and the tiny margin for error meant that despite being simple, it was a real challenge even for a good contestant to win the money.
But aside from the format, the other reason I loved it was for the atmosphere. I had extremely poor mental health around the airing of both series, and much as I love quizzing, I find I can't always take these shows when I'm in a bad place - there's often so much intensity to them, the lights, the faux tension that's added and so on. The Code I actually found quite therapeutic - the hosts, Matt Allwright and Lesley Brewis, were just friendly, intelligent and supportive of everyone. Only one contestant/team played at a time, so there was no competition between anyone. I found when I was experience depression or anxiety, I was able to chill out in front of The Code and think of nothing but the questions. I've never found another quiz show that has quite that effect on me. There are many shows that I've felt sad aren't coming back, but The Code is the only one I actively miss (of course, it's entirely possible that the reason it appealed to me so much is precisely why it failed!)
By the way, I think Impossible is axed... Rick Edwards implied as much to me on Twitter. It's a shame, I liked that one and it's one of the few I feel they really put the effort in to promote and keep going with... the rules did tend to be a little more complicated than I'd like, but it's a nice feel-good show.
Hi George - thanks for taking the time and trouble to comment. I do understand your point about anxiety and depression - during my darkest days a couple of years ago I really couldn't take daytime shows at all, and the only quizzes I could watch were UC and Mastermind- the latter especially because it always brought back a nice memory, and made me feel for a short while that I wasn't completely useless.
I didn't see The Code at all, so I'm not in a position where I can comment. I am sorry if it is true that Impossible has been axed - and I'm afraid to say that I have heard the same from other sources. For me this one pulled off the difficult feat of being accessible and enjoyable to the general public, but also having enough 'meat' in it to appeal to the more serious quizzer as well.
Here's a link to an episode of The Code if you're interested in seeing how it worked (there aren't many on YouTube, but this one is):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q5RfMgtBHs
Cheers George!
Post a Comment