There comes a time, I think, in every quizzer’s year, where you just long to be asked a set of simple, everyday questions again.
Prior to last Thursday, the last time that I played in a proper, non-specialist pub quiz would have been Monday 14th December. While I love Christmas and the holiday season, there’s always a time during the festivities when I find myself pining for an honest, no – nonsense pub quiz . Obviously most pubs either suspended their quizzes in the week leading up to Christmas, or those that went ahead tended to be Christmas themed. Then even when they started up again, the first quiz of the year tended to be a look back on the events of the previous 12 months. Our first quiz in the Aberavon Rugby Club on Thursday 7th, was an example of such.
Now, this is not a criticism of that quiz – it was a very good quiz, and had clearly taken a lot of time and effort to put together. But be honest, don’t you find yourself pining for a return to normality after a while ? For me this feeling usually sets in by about the 30th December. So you can imagine that by this last Thursday all I wanted was to play in a bog-standard ordinary quiz. A quiz where you’d be asked stuff like –
“Male is the capital city of where ? *“ and
“ Who was the lead singer of 80s group T’Pau ? **“ and stuff like that. Not particularly difficult, and nothing that different from what you’d find on the menu in a hundred other pub quizzes, but an ordinary, decent pub quiz.
Yes, most of the time you want to be tested. You want to be shown that you know things that you didn’t think you knew. You want to pit your wits against at least one team who have the ability to beat you if all goes well for them. On Thursday, though, I just wanted to answer some questions correctly. It had been a hectic week, as I mentioned in a previous post, and I wanted an easy night and an easy win. Is that so wrong ? Possibly. If I was a better person I would be far more corinthian about it, and be able to say that the playing of the game was far more important than who won or lost.
This coming Thursday its my turn to set the questions and act as question master in the club. Now this is no chore. Oh, there’s a few hours work involved, but it’s a labour of love. The questions and the handout are already prepared, only, well, its about this time that doubt begins to set in. If you set a quiz regularly for members of the general public and casual punters, rather than serious or semi serious quizzers, then you’ll know that if you think a quiz is too hard for them, you are almost certainly going to be right. The problem is how far you go in making it easier. I have never once had a complaint that my quiz is too easy for the participants on the night. I have had complaints that my quizzes are too hard, not often, but then they’re not the complaining sort in the club. So basically there is nothing holding me back from stripping back the level of difficulty further and further and further. Except for one mental hurdle. I have a nagging fear that one day another team will score 100% in one of my quizzes. In fact twice during the last 12 months I have been convinced, as I embark on the first round, that this is going to happen. So much so that I almost succumbed to the temptation to just alter the wording of a couple of questions. I didn’t, and rightly not, since the wording of a question is for me the most neglected aspect of the question master’s craft.
I’ll post the first half of the quiz on the blog on Friday, or sometime over the next weekend, when I’ll also be able to tell you how it went down at the quiz. You can let me know what you think about the level of difficulty. My gut feeling about this one is that there is no realistic chance of any team getting 100%, and I may even tone it down a bit before Thursday.
* Male is the capital of the Maldives
** Carol Decker was the lead singer of T'Pau
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Friday, 15 January 2010
Mastermind - First Round Heat 14/24
At the end of a very hectic and enjoyable week, what better than to kick back with the double bill of Mastermind and Q.I. ? We’ve reached show 14, which means there’s still ten more to go after this. So, that’s elementary arithmetic out of the way. Now let’s get on with the show.
When Stuart Maclagan applied to come on the show, I’ll lay odds that he was a dead cert to get in from the moment that the production team read what he wanted to do for his first specialist subject , none other than The History of the Eurovision Song Contest. I’m not going to lie, I love the Eurovision. If you’re interested yourself I can heartily recommend Tim Moore’s book “Nul Points”. So a great subject . It was interesting that Stuart Maclagan proved to be a mine of obscure Eurovision trivia, and yet he had to really struggle to dredge up the name of Jahn Teigen, famously the first ever nul points man. Still , Mr. Maclagan himself did considerably better than the great Teigen, scoring an impressive quinze points himself.
Tonight’s first Traditional Mastermind Subject came by way of Peter Cowan, who offered us Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Considering the importance they have had in the history of Rome, they only lasted a relatively short time, from 58 – 50 BC . In his filmed insert he explained that the results gave Caesar wealth, an army and power . That’s all very well, but was he happy ? Probably was actually. So should Peter Cowan have been with his 13 . He looked extremely nervous, but this was a tricky round he negotiated with skill.
Matthew Platts gave us the Russian born American writer Ayn Rand. In his filmed insert he put forward his view that Ayn Rand “ might almost be described as an American Thatcher “ . That’s an American version of the former British Prime Minister, and not someone from New York who makes roofs out of grass. Cards on the table, all I knew about Ayn Rand is that she wrote “Atlas Shrugged”, and I only know that because this book put the police chief off reading for life in the first series of “South Park”. And you thought that South Park wasn’t cultural ! 12 put Matthew Platts in third place, but not so far behind the lead as not to be in contention.
Traditional Mastermind Subject Two tonight came in the shape of Florence in the Renaissance 1400 – 1550 . Aline Griffiths explained her deep interest in the period during her filmed insert. Deep interest is as good a reason for taking a particular subject as any, but I have to say that I feared for her chances, simply because with such a catch all subject it can be very difficult to cover all the bases. Questions were perhaps a little long winded, and I think that maybe she might have done better to have nominated either the politics of the time, or the art . Still , double figures is never to be sniffed at.
When she returned quickly to the chair I though that Aline Griffiths produced some good answers in her GK round, and I was a little surprised that she didn’t score more than 9. I can only suggest that she was perhaps just a little slow in her answers. 19 was not going to put her through, unfortunately. Matthew Platts answered his first half dozen answers confidently, quickly and well. After this correct answers proved a little harder to come by, and he levelled out at 10 , for a final total of 22. That’s not a winning score, but it’s a perfectly respectable one.
Peter Cowans then layed down the gauntlet. He managed to produce the best general knowledge round of the night, scoring 12 to end on 25. Considering how nervous he still appeared to be, I thought he had some good answers, and although Andrew Maclagan only needed 10 to draw and 11 to win, it was enough to put him within the corridor of doubt, as you might say. Stuart Maclagan certainly didn’t make short work of the score, but he kept ticking along. With three questions to go he had scored 10, but the rest of the round ended without another point. Would we have a tie break, then ? I did wonder, since John made a point of stressing the tie break rules halfway through the show. But no. Peter Cowan had only scored 2 passes, but Andrew Maclagan had done even better, with just one. By this slender margin he claimed the automatic semi final place. Still, 25 and 2 was also enough to put Peter Cowan onto the highest runners-up board, and so you never know. Well played gents.
The Details
Current Highest Scoring Runners Up
When Stuart Maclagan applied to come on the show, I’ll lay odds that he was a dead cert to get in from the moment that the production team read what he wanted to do for his first specialist subject , none other than The History of the Eurovision Song Contest. I’m not going to lie, I love the Eurovision. If you’re interested yourself I can heartily recommend Tim Moore’s book “Nul Points”. So a great subject . It was interesting that Stuart Maclagan proved to be a mine of obscure Eurovision trivia, and yet he had to really struggle to dredge up the name of Jahn Teigen, famously the first ever nul points man. Still , Mr. Maclagan himself did considerably better than the great Teigen, scoring an impressive quinze points himself.
Tonight’s first Traditional Mastermind Subject came by way of Peter Cowan, who offered us Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Considering the importance they have had in the history of Rome, they only lasted a relatively short time, from 58 – 50 BC . In his filmed insert he explained that the results gave Caesar wealth, an army and power . That’s all very well, but was he happy ? Probably was actually. So should Peter Cowan have been with his 13 . He looked extremely nervous, but this was a tricky round he negotiated with skill.
Matthew Platts gave us the Russian born American writer Ayn Rand. In his filmed insert he put forward his view that Ayn Rand “ might almost be described as an American Thatcher “ . That’s an American version of the former British Prime Minister, and not someone from New York who makes roofs out of grass. Cards on the table, all I knew about Ayn Rand is that she wrote “Atlas Shrugged”, and I only know that because this book put the police chief off reading for life in the first series of “South Park”. And you thought that South Park wasn’t cultural ! 12 put Matthew Platts in third place, but not so far behind the lead as not to be in contention.
Traditional Mastermind Subject Two tonight came in the shape of Florence in the Renaissance 1400 – 1550 . Aline Griffiths explained her deep interest in the period during her filmed insert. Deep interest is as good a reason for taking a particular subject as any, but I have to say that I feared for her chances, simply because with such a catch all subject it can be very difficult to cover all the bases. Questions were perhaps a little long winded, and I think that maybe she might have done better to have nominated either the politics of the time, or the art . Still , double figures is never to be sniffed at.
When she returned quickly to the chair I though that Aline Griffiths produced some good answers in her GK round, and I was a little surprised that she didn’t score more than 9. I can only suggest that she was perhaps just a little slow in her answers. 19 was not going to put her through, unfortunately. Matthew Platts answered his first half dozen answers confidently, quickly and well. After this correct answers proved a little harder to come by, and he levelled out at 10 , for a final total of 22. That’s not a winning score, but it’s a perfectly respectable one.
Peter Cowans then layed down the gauntlet. He managed to produce the best general knowledge round of the night, scoring 12 to end on 25. Considering how nervous he still appeared to be, I thought he had some good answers, and although Andrew Maclagan only needed 10 to draw and 11 to win, it was enough to put him within the corridor of doubt, as you might say. Stuart Maclagan certainly didn’t make short work of the score, but he kept ticking along. With three questions to go he had scored 10, but the rest of the round ended without another point. Would we have a tie break, then ? I did wonder, since John made a point of stressing the tie break rules halfway through the show. But no. Peter Cowan had only scored 2 passes, but Andrew Maclagan had done even better, with just one. By this slender margin he claimed the automatic semi final place. Still, 25 and 2 was also enough to put Peter Cowan onto the highest runners-up board, and so you never know. Well played gents.
The Details
| Stuart Maclagan | History of the Eurovision Song Contest | 15 – 1 | 10 – 0 | 25 – 1 |
| Peter Cowan | Caesar’s Gallic Wars | 13- 0 | 12 – 2 | 25 – 2 |
| Matthew Platts | The Life and works of Ayn Rand | 12 – 2 | 10 – 2 | 22 - 4 |
| Aline Griffiths | Florence in the Renaissance 1400 – 1550 | 10 – 2 | 9 –1 | 19 – 3 |
Current Highest Scoring Runners Up
| John Cooper | 29 – 3 |
| Ian Scott Massie | 26 – 2 |
| Les Morrell | 26 - 3 |
| Colin Wilson | 25 - 0 |
| Peter Cowans | 25 - 2 |
| William de'Ath | 25 - 4 |
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Whatever Happened to . . .
Yes, whatever happened to the Consolation Prize ? You may have seen my recent post about Sky TV’s Show Me The Answer the other day, and there was this nagging question in the back of my mind. The two poor contestants, who had their chance of the cash snatched away from them, had to leave the stage with nothing at all. Now, this is perfectly natural now – it’s the way of the world now. But time was when a losing contestant in a show like this would be presented with something in the nature of a consolation prize. Nobody should have to walk away from a show like that with absolutely nothing to show for it. How did we ever get to this state of affairs ?
I freely admit that, at the more serious end of the quiz show spectrum, consolation prizes were never the order of the day. Mastermind, University Challenge, Fifteen to One, just never had ‘em. But at the game show end of the continuum there were, once upon a time, more consolation gewgaws than you could shake a proverbial stick at. To mention just a few of the more well remembered game show consolation prizes : -
3 – 2 – 1 had a ceramic dusty bin. Ted Rogers always used to say “You Know How Much They’re worth !” Actually I didn’t then, and I don’t now.
Bullseye had the famous Bendy Bully, and also a tankard and a set of darts.
Blankety Blank – the chequebook and pen
The Crystal Maze – I’ve cracked the Crystal Maze crystals.
Blockbusters - dictionary
and so on. My Mother in Law once had a little rose bowl which was the consolation prize for “Three Little Words”, come to think of it. No, I have no intention of making any jokes or rude comments about my mother in law. She’s far too computer literate for me to take the risk.
I’ll be honest now. I look at the quiz show spectrum, and off the top of my head I can hardly think of any show that offers a consolation prize. Why not ? There are a couple of theories that occur to me, namely : -
1)We’ve grown up as an audience, and grown out of the Lewis Carroll Dodo-esque idea that everyone must have a prize.
- The problem of this theory is, if we’ve grown up and become more sophisticated as a TV audience, then how do you explain BBC1’s Hole In The Wall ?
2) People are perhaps, as a rule, more affluent, so couldn’t give a stuff about being given a carriage clock or a canteen of cutlery to go away with as a consolation prize.
- Possibly true, but then lots of consolation prizes were of the useless memento variety, which you couldn’t actually buy for yourself, even if you wanted to.
3) Many shows are made by independent production companies, who don’t really want to shell out any more than is absolutely necessary.
Probably an element of truth in this one.
Personally, I can’t help wondering whether its all part of the TV quiz and game show culture that was ushered in by the amazing success of Millionaire. After all, lets be honest, apart from a tiny number of people, if you got through the fastest finger, then you were definitely going home with more money than you came. In such circumstances, then, who needs a consolation prize. So Millionaire doesn’t have consolation prizes – so why should any of the shows that followed it ? The Weakest Link makes a positive virtue of it, one of its main catchphrases being – You Leave With Nothing.
Do we actually want to see consolation prizes, anyway ? Well, all I can tell you is what I feel about it. Cards on the table, I am very lucky because I won Mastermind, which means I have a lovely Dennis Mann Caithness Glass Rose Bowl as a souvenir. But apart from that, I have nothing tangible to show for any of the other shows that I’ve been on. Come and Have A Go If You Think You’re Smart Enough was a lot of fun, but it would be lovely to have just a little something I could show and tell about it. Would it hurt 12 Yard Productions to, lets say, give each member of the challenger’s team on Eggheads a souvenir eggcup, perhaps emblazoned with the slogan ‘don’t Put All Your Eggheads In One Basket ‘ that Dermot is so fond of. Mind you, it would have to be a big eggcup to get that on. Alright, I messed up Millionaire and only went away with £1000. Well, I have to say that the money is long gone. Couldn’t they give you a chrome plated cheque, with the symbolic figure of £1 million pounds on it ?
Mind you, now I come to think about it, perhaps there is another reason why production companies don’t tend to give out consolation prizes any more. So here it is : -
4) Ebay
I freely admit that, at the more serious end of the quiz show spectrum, consolation prizes were never the order of the day. Mastermind, University Challenge, Fifteen to One, just never had ‘em. But at the game show end of the continuum there were, once upon a time, more consolation gewgaws than you could shake a proverbial stick at. To mention just a few of the more well remembered game show consolation prizes : -
3 – 2 – 1 had a ceramic dusty bin. Ted Rogers always used to say “You Know How Much They’re worth !” Actually I didn’t then, and I don’t now.
Bullseye had the famous Bendy Bully, and also a tankard and a set of darts.
Blankety Blank – the chequebook and pen
The Crystal Maze – I’ve cracked the Crystal Maze crystals.
Blockbusters - dictionary
and so on. My Mother in Law once had a little rose bowl which was the consolation prize for “Three Little Words”, come to think of it. No, I have no intention of making any jokes or rude comments about my mother in law. She’s far too computer literate for me to take the risk.
I’ll be honest now. I look at the quiz show spectrum, and off the top of my head I can hardly think of any show that offers a consolation prize. Why not ? There are a couple of theories that occur to me, namely : -
1)We’ve grown up as an audience, and grown out of the Lewis Carroll Dodo-esque idea that everyone must have a prize.
- The problem of this theory is, if we’ve grown up and become more sophisticated as a TV audience, then how do you explain BBC1’s Hole In The Wall ?
2) People are perhaps, as a rule, more affluent, so couldn’t give a stuff about being given a carriage clock or a canteen of cutlery to go away with as a consolation prize.
- Possibly true, but then lots of consolation prizes were of the useless memento variety, which you couldn’t actually buy for yourself, even if you wanted to.
3) Many shows are made by independent production companies, who don’t really want to shell out any more than is absolutely necessary.
Probably an element of truth in this one.
Personally, I can’t help wondering whether its all part of the TV quiz and game show culture that was ushered in by the amazing success of Millionaire. After all, lets be honest, apart from a tiny number of people, if you got through the fastest finger, then you were definitely going home with more money than you came. In such circumstances, then, who needs a consolation prize. So Millionaire doesn’t have consolation prizes – so why should any of the shows that followed it ? The Weakest Link makes a positive virtue of it, one of its main catchphrases being – You Leave With Nothing.
Do we actually want to see consolation prizes, anyway ? Well, all I can tell you is what I feel about it. Cards on the table, I am very lucky because I won Mastermind, which means I have a lovely Dennis Mann Caithness Glass Rose Bowl as a souvenir. But apart from that, I have nothing tangible to show for any of the other shows that I’ve been on. Come and Have A Go If You Think You’re Smart Enough was a lot of fun, but it would be lovely to have just a little something I could show and tell about it. Would it hurt 12 Yard Productions to, lets say, give each member of the challenger’s team on Eggheads a souvenir eggcup, perhaps emblazoned with the slogan ‘don’t Put All Your Eggheads In One Basket ‘ that Dermot is so fond of. Mind you, it would have to be a big eggcup to get that on. Alright, I messed up Millionaire and only went away with £1000. Well, I have to say that the money is long gone. Couldn’t they give you a chrome plated cheque, with the symbolic figure of £1 million pounds on it ?
Mind you, now I come to think about it, perhaps there is another reason why production companies don’t tend to give out consolation prizes any more. So here it is : -
4) Ebay
TV Watch - Only Connect
Only Connect – Polymaths v. Strategists
The Polymaths consisted of Andy Kelly, Nicola Morgan, and husband and captain Alan Morgan. I believe that Alan is the fine quizzer who won the People’s Quiz Wildcard shows of 2007, and thus took a place in the final. I stand willing to be corrected on this one. The team said that they felt that the name polymath fits the show better, than the more appropriate Jacks of All Trades But Masters of None.
The Strategists consisted of Chris Cummins, Sarah Higgins, and Michael Dnes. On first glance the Strategists looked young enough to be the surprise package of this year’s contest, like last year’s Mathematicians. Time would tell.
Round One – what’s the connection ?
The Polymaths managed to pick out the unloved music connection, but proved more than equal to the task, picking out rivers as a connection or two points. As if to make up the Strategists picked out the picture question straightaway. I thought that they showed excellent thinking to work out that Pegasus, Toucan and Pelican are all types of road crossing. 2 points apiece.The Polymaths would have benefited from taking the 4th clue for their next set, rather than answering on the third, as they missed out on seeing that Medina etc. were where religious founders died. The Strategists gratefully took the bonus, but then they also obliged by failing on their next set, though. The Polymaths redeemed themselves with 2 points on names of Seas on the Moon. The Strategists also managed to get a couple on phrases originally from Shakespeare since reused for other things, eg book titles. As the round ended they led by 5 to 4
Round Two – what comes last ?
The Polymaths struck back quickly by getting a good answer on imperial measures. They did even better by picking up a bonus, predicting that Wellington would indeed be the last on a list of the world’s most southerly capitals.Then they got the next connection on 2 clues, prompting Victoria to tell them they were too good. Well, they were impressing me ! Mind you , both teams will be kicking themselves for not seeing a list of longest ever reigning queens, and picking Victoria to complete the list. Full marks to the Strategists for seeing that Income Tax and VAT both come from the lyrics to the theme of Only Fools and Horses, so the 4th would be guarantee. The Strategists picked up the little bit of ground lost at the start of the round, and honours were evenly shared. The scores at the end of the round were just as close at the end as they had been at the start, and the strategists led by 9 points to 8.
Round Three – The Connecting Walls
The Strategists went first, and found the Dad’s Army connection in double quick time. In fact, the whole of the wall was solved in impressively short order, as the team had a good minute to go as the music told us that it was done. So all the pressure was on the Polymaths. My goodness, these teams were sharp tonight. They’d hardly looked at the wall before they solved the first set of shades of green. The last two sets defeated them, though, and I have to say that I couldn’t see them either. Sometimes you just can’t see them for looking , as it proved with words which could be followed by maid. D'Oh ! Still, the last 4 were nasty. All were famous violinists, the only one of which I knew was Kennedy, as in Nigel. I guess I might have gone for it, since I couldn’t think of anything else Kennedy might be, other than assassinated, which had gone already, or US Presidents, which clearly was wrong. Oh well, at last there was daylight between the teams, as the Strategists now led by 19 to 12.
Final Round – Missing Vowels
Last week we saw two well matched teams go into the last round, which well and truly sorted them out once and for good. The result in the end was pretty clear cut this week too. The younger team proved tonight to be a little sharper on this round, although the Polymaths gave it a good old lash. It didn’t make a difference, but they just failed to get out the name “Eva Braun “ in time as one of a set of mistresses, meaning that they lost a point, and handed it over to the opposition. As I said, it made no difference. In the end, the Polymaths scored a praiseworthy 15, but the Strategists managed a whopping 31. Good show
The Polymaths consisted of Andy Kelly, Nicola Morgan, and husband and captain Alan Morgan. I believe that Alan is the fine quizzer who won the People’s Quiz Wildcard shows of 2007, and thus took a place in the final. I stand willing to be corrected on this one. The team said that they felt that the name polymath fits the show better, than the more appropriate Jacks of All Trades But Masters of None.
The Strategists consisted of Chris Cummins, Sarah Higgins, and Michael Dnes. On first glance the Strategists looked young enough to be the surprise package of this year’s contest, like last year’s Mathematicians. Time would tell.
Round One – what’s the connection ?
The Polymaths managed to pick out the unloved music connection, but proved more than equal to the task, picking out rivers as a connection or two points. As if to make up the Strategists picked out the picture question straightaway. I thought that they showed excellent thinking to work out that Pegasus, Toucan and Pelican are all types of road crossing. 2 points apiece.The Polymaths would have benefited from taking the 4th clue for their next set, rather than answering on the third, as they missed out on seeing that Medina etc. were where religious founders died. The Strategists gratefully took the bonus, but then they also obliged by failing on their next set, though. The Polymaths redeemed themselves with 2 points on names of Seas on the Moon. The Strategists also managed to get a couple on phrases originally from Shakespeare since reused for other things, eg book titles. As the round ended they led by 5 to 4
Round Two – what comes last ?
The Polymaths struck back quickly by getting a good answer on imperial measures. They did even better by picking up a bonus, predicting that Wellington would indeed be the last on a list of the world’s most southerly capitals.Then they got the next connection on 2 clues, prompting Victoria to tell them they were too good. Well, they were impressing me ! Mind you , both teams will be kicking themselves for not seeing a list of longest ever reigning queens, and picking Victoria to complete the list. Full marks to the Strategists for seeing that Income Tax and VAT both come from the lyrics to the theme of Only Fools and Horses, so the 4th would be guarantee. The Strategists picked up the little bit of ground lost at the start of the round, and honours were evenly shared. The scores at the end of the round were just as close at the end as they had been at the start, and the strategists led by 9 points to 8.
Round Three – The Connecting Walls
The Strategists went first, and found the Dad’s Army connection in double quick time. In fact, the whole of the wall was solved in impressively short order, as the team had a good minute to go as the music told us that it was done. So all the pressure was on the Polymaths. My goodness, these teams were sharp tonight. They’d hardly looked at the wall before they solved the first set of shades of green. The last two sets defeated them, though, and I have to say that I couldn’t see them either. Sometimes you just can’t see them for looking , as it proved with words which could be followed by maid. D'Oh ! Still, the last 4 were nasty. All were famous violinists, the only one of which I knew was Kennedy, as in Nigel. I guess I might have gone for it, since I couldn’t think of anything else Kennedy might be, other than assassinated, which had gone already, or US Presidents, which clearly was wrong. Oh well, at last there was daylight between the teams, as the Strategists now led by 19 to 12.
Final Round – Missing Vowels
Last week we saw two well matched teams go into the last round, which well and truly sorted them out once and for good. The result in the end was pretty clear cut this week too. The younger team proved tonight to be a little sharper on this round, although the Polymaths gave it a good old lash. It didn’t make a difference, but they just failed to get out the name “Eva Braun “ in time as one of a set of mistresses, meaning that they lost a point, and handed it over to the opposition. As I said, it made no difference. In the end, the Polymaths scored a praiseworthy 15, but the Strategists managed a whopping 31. Good show
TV Watch - University Challenge
University Challenge – Quarter Final Match 2 – St. Andrews v. Manchester
Yes, it’s the return of St. Andrews and Manchester. St. Andrews, according to JP know everything about world war II fighter planes, and nothing about feminist theory. Their opponents, Manchester, containing our own Rach Cherryade, who I have to say looked fantastic with hair dyed to match her dress last night, were one of the most dominant teams in the first two rounds. On paper, though, these were two well matched teams. So how would this go ?
St. Andrews took first blood, with Mr. Flaherty, who’d impressed mightily last time out buzzing in before Manchester. Still, Mr. Whitfield from Manchester buzzed in to identify a definition of the word chimera for the second starter. This was followed by starters from Mr. Whyman, and captain Whitfield again. I’d love to say that I got a lot of their bonuses right myself, but it would be an utter lie, considering that I think I was away from school the day we did Science. Manchester were on a really good run, though. It was all pretty much one way traffic , so much so that St. Andrews still hadn’t managed to get in with their second starter by the halfway stage. With Manchester leading by 100 points it wasn’t exactly time to panic, but St. Andrews needed to get their skates on. Mr. Flaherty buzzed in to earn a set of music bonuses on the Five Russian composers.
Nick Daunt steadied the Manchester ship with the next starter, a very good early interruption , in my opinion. Captain Whitfield, as he had been doing all show, buzzed in correctly to take the next starter, and push St. Andrews a little closer to the brink of defeat. Mr. Flaherty buzzed in to suggest that Queen Charlotte, a royal consort for 57 years, had been the wife of Charles II. Worth a try, but wrong, and the situation for St. Andrews was becoming acute. They knew that they had to try to get quick points, so you can’t blame them for a couple of reckless interruptions. 5 minutes to go, though, and the game was over as a contest. Manchester made a forgiveable error suggesting that Pilsner lager takes its name from a city in Czechoslovakia. Right, but wrong, since the answer required was Czech Republic. It didn’t matter. At the end Manchester won by a thumping 195 to 50.
I must make my apologies to Manchester. Not for supporting them, I hasten to add, since they have proven themselves more than capable of overcoming the enormous drag effect of receiving support from the Clark sofa. No, I must apologise for thinking in my heart of hearts that they wouldn’t necessarily dominate St. Andrews in the same way that they dominated their first two opponents. Stunning performance, and you have one foot in the semis now. Well done. As for St. Andrews – nil desperandum. You can still do it.
Jeremy Paxman Watch
Last week he called the new rules “Byzantine”, but this time he seems to have mellowed a bit, calling them “almost comprehensible”.
While Manchester were grappling with a phone number bonus, he sat back with his arms crossed, and said “My producer wants me to hurry you up, but I’m enjoying it too much !”
When Rachael suggested that orthopaedics is directly concerned with the treatment of children, she was ignored by the skipper, who offered “lepers”. “Should have listened to Miss Neiman !” sniffed our Jeremy.
Interesting Fact That I Didn’t Already Know Of The Week
Its not a fact as such, but I have to say, on which other show would you get asked a question about spelling out word using a mobile phone keyboard ? This is just one example of what we love UC for.
Yes, it’s the return of St. Andrews and Manchester. St. Andrews, according to JP know everything about world war II fighter planes, and nothing about feminist theory. Their opponents, Manchester, containing our own Rach Cherryade, who I have to say looked fantastic with hair dyed to match her dress last night, were one of the most dominant teams in the first two rounds. On paper, though, these were two well matched teams. So how would this go ?
St. Andrews took first blood, with Mr. Flaherty, who’d impressed mightily last time out buzzing in before Manchester. Still, Mr. Whitfield from Manchester buzzed in to identify a definition of the word chimera for the second starter. This was followed by starters from Mr. Whyman, and captain Whitfield again. I’d love to say that I got a lot of their bonuses right myself, but it would be an utter lie, considering that I think I was away from school the day we did Science. Manchester were on a really good run, though. It was all pretty much one way traffic , so much so that St. Andrews still hadn’t managed to get in with their second starter by the halfway stage. With Manchester leading by 100 points it wasn’t exactly time to panic, but St. Andrews needed to get their skates on. Mr. Flaherty buzzed in to earn a set of music bonuses on the Five Russian composers.
Nick Daunt steadied the Manchester ship with the next starter, a very good early interruption , in my opinion. Captain Whitfield, as he had been doing all show, buzzed in correctly to take the next starter, and push St. Andrews a little closer to the brink of defeat. Mr. Flaherty buzzed in to suggest that Queen Charlotte, a royal consort for 57 years, had been the wife of Charles II. Worth a try, but wrong, and the situation for St. Andrews was becoming acute. They knew that they had to try to get quick points, so you can’t blame them for a couple of reckless interruptions. 5 minutes to go, though, and the game was over as a contest. Manchester made a forgiveable error suggesting that Pilsner lager takes its name from a city in Czechoslovakia. Right, but wrong, since the answer required was Czech Republic. It didn’t matter. At the end Manchester won by a thumping 195 to 50.
I must make my apologies to Manchester. Not for supporting them, I hasten to add, since they have proven themselves more than capable of overcoming the enormous drag effect of receiving support from the Clark sofa. No, I must apologise for thinking in my heart of hearts that they wouldn’t necessarily dominate St. Andrews in the same way that they dominated their first two opponents. Stunning performance, and you have one foot in the semis now. Well done. As for St. Andrews – nil desperandum. You can still do it.
Jeremy Paxman Watch
Last week he called the new rules “Byzantine”, but this time he seems to have mellowed a bit, calling them “almost comprehensible”.
While Manchester were grappling with a phone number bonus, he sat back with his arms crossed, and said “My producer wants me to hurry you up, but I’m enjoying it too much !”
When Rachael suggested that orthopaedics is directly concerned with the treatment of children, she was ignored by the skipper, who offered “lepers”. “Should have listened to Miss Neiman !” sniffed our Jeremy.
Interesting Fact That I Didn’t Already Know Of The Week
Its not a fact as such, but I have to say, on which other show would you get asked a question about spelling out word using a mobile phone keyboard ? This is just one example of what we love UC for.
Radio Listen - Brain of Britain
Brain of Britain – Semi Final 2/4
Semi final 2, on paper, looked to be a very heavyweight contest between
Ian Bayley
Bernard Fyles,
Chris Quinn
Martin Wyatt
To put this into perspective, Ian, Chris and Bernard were the top three scorers in the first round heats – all in the same semi final. Not that I’m complaining, mark you. Still, it was always going to be hardlines on two of these superb quizzers to have found themselves in this particular contest.
In round two, when Bernard Fyles correctly answered that the first provisional leader of the Nationalist state of china in 1912 was Sun Yat Sen, Russell Davies replied that he’d always found Sun Yat Sen useful for completing crossword puzzles ! A very wide ranging round this, it contained a music question, asking the contenders to identify the group who performed the first song that gave rise to the phrase Cool Britannia. No, I didn’t know it. The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band was the answer.
For the first two rounds Chris Quinn was making all the running, with good answers on his own questions, and great work on the buzzer. In round three the old Carol Hersey chestnut made its annual appearance, and was duly dispatched to the boundaries by Bernard Fyles. Ian Bayley started to make an impressive charge during the third round, and caught, although didn’t pass, Chris Quinn.
Listener’s Question. Firstly can you think of a modern writer whose middle name was Staples ? Secondly , what does the P in L P Hartley stand for ? Personally I though he was the nice old geezer who wanted a copy of fly fishing, but there you go. The team knew both, and so it was on with the show.
In round four poor Bernard Fyles couldn’t quite remember the name of the chap the film A Beautiful Mind was all about. Chris Quinn though knew it was Mr. Doggett who created the race for the famous coat and badge. However he failed on a Shakespeare question, then correctly remembered the SS Normandie.
It was all desperately close . Ian Bayley really upped the stakes, getting 4 in a row, but just missing out on identifying Susan Hampshire as the actress who played Fleur in the Forsyte Saga. Then Bernard Fyles chipped in his highest run so far, just missing out on five himself, failing to identify Blefescu from Gulliver’s Travels. Chris didn’t have any great luck on his set of question, and with Ian Bayley proving indefatigable on the buzzer, there was now daylight between them.
In the next round there was much amusement over Mark Twain’s definition of the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector – apparently a taxidermist at least leaves you your skin. As a contrast to the previous round , nobody scored brilliantly, to allow Ian a significant advantage going into the final round. Ian missed his first question ! A shock – could either Bernard or Chris snatch it at the death ? Bernard rattled off a few, but not the full set. Chris took a bonus before his own set. 1, 2, 3, 4 questions correct, but alas, not the fifth. So Ian Bayley, highest scorer in the first round, goes forward to the final, and wins a contest good enough to have been a final. Well done !
The Details
Ian Bayley 19
Bernard Fyles 18
Chris Quinn 17
Martin Wyatt 6
Semi final 2, on paper, looked to be a very heavyweight contest between
Ian Bayley
Bernard Fyles,
Chris Quinn
Martin Wyatt
To put this into perspective, Ian, Chris and Bernard were the top three scorers in the first round heats – all in the same semi final. Not that I’m complaining, mark you. Still, it was always going to be hardlines on two of these superb quizzers to have found themselves in this particular contest.
In round two, when Bernard Fyles correctly answered that the first provisional leader of the Nationalist state of china in 1912 was Sun Yat Sen, Russell Davies replied that he’d always found Sun Yat Sen useful for completing crossword puzzles ! A very wide ranging round this, it contained a music question, asking the contenders to identify the group who performed the first song that gave rise to the phrase Cool Britannia. No, I didn’t know it. The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band was the answer.
For the first two rounds Chris Quinn was making all the running, with good answers on his own questions, and great work on the buzzer. In round three the old Carol Hersey chestnut made its annual appearance, and was duly dispatched to the boundaries by Bernard Fyles. Ian Bayley started to make an impressive charge during the third round, and caught, although didn’t pass, Chris Quinn.
Listener’s Question. Firstly can you think of a modern writer whose middle name was Staples ? Secondly , what does the P in L P Hartley stand for ? Personally I though he was the nice old geezer who wanted a copy of fly fishing, but there you go. The team knew both, and so it was on with the show.
In round four poor Bernard Fyles couldn’t quite remember the name of the chap the film A Beautiful Mind was all about. Chris Quinn though knew it was Mr. Doggett who created the race for the famous coat and badge. However he failed on a Shakespeare question, then correctly remembered the SS Normandie.
It was all desperately close . Ian Bayley really upped the stakes, getting 4 in a row, but just missing out on identifying Susan Hampshire as the actress who played Fleur in the Forsyte Saga. Then Bernard Fyles chipped in his highest run so far, just missing out on five himself, failing to identify Blefescu from Gulliver’s Travels. Chris didn’t have any great luck on his set of question, and with Ian Bayley proving indefatigable on the buzzer, there was now daylight between them.
In the next round there was much amusement over Mark Twain’s definition of the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector – apparently a taxidermist at least leaves you your skin. As a contrast to the previous round , nobody scored brilliantly, to allow Ian a significant advantage going into the final round. Ian missed his first question ! A shock – could either Bernard or Chris snatch it at the death ? Bernard rattled off a few, but not the full set. Chris took a bonus before his own set. 1, 2, 3, 4 questions correct, but alas, not the fifth. So Ian Bayley, highest scorer in the first round, goes forward to the final, and wins a contest good enough to have been a final. Well done !
The Details
Ian Bayley 19
Bernard Fyles 18
Chris Quinn 17
Martin Wyatt 6
Sunday, 10 January 2010
TV Watch Extra - Sell Me The Answer
I’ve been meaning to catch this one for some time. I first heard about it last year when they were advertising for contestants, and it did cross my mind to try for it. Still, I doubt whether I’d have got on, and as it was I had applications for a couple of other shows to worry about at the time.
This has been a bit difficult to find, actually. There are certain Sky shows that they tend to shove on ad nauseam, and repeat a lot. This isn’t one of them. In fact it tends to be on in the afternoon a lot, which isn’t really all that convenient for me. Come to think of it, maybe the fact that Sky’s support for the show seems lukewarm at best should have told me something. Still, at last I managed to catch it on Sunday lunchtime.
Now, this is a quiz, but its also a game show, and it needs to be viewed in this light if its going to have a fair hearing. What intrigued me about the show is the fact that it is all based on having a group of people, the traders, who are prepared to sell each contestant the answers to a series of questions. This is done through a short but furious round of trading. If you’ve never seen the show, yet this sounds familiar, then there may be a reason for this. It started life as a gameshow on local radio in Manchester. However you might think its familiar because something similar was one of the unique selling points of ITVs The Vault of a few years back.
Each contestant is asked up to 10 questions, for which they win rising amounts of cash if they get a correct answer. If they give a wrong answer, then they leave with nothing, to coin a phrase. If they don’t know an answer, then they must shout “Sell Me The Answer”, and the 60 traders will each hold up a paddle with their unique number on it, and scream at the top of their voices to be picked. The contestant picks two numbers. Each person picked gets a few seconds to make a pitch to the contestant, who then picks one to come and trade. 30 seconds of horse trading follows, when they must agree on an amount of the prize pot earned so far for the questions. If they don’t agree, then the contestant has to answer on their own. If they do agree, then the trader must answer. However, even if they know the answer, they don’t have to give a correct one. At this stage the trader can turn round and say that they were bluffing even, and that they don’t have an answer.
If a contestant answers the 10th question correctly, then they have the options of either taking the money, whatever’s left, or going for the jackpot. I think a figure of £25,000 was mentioned.
That’s basically it. Now, I would imagine that if you are one of the traders, who I believe carry on from show to show, then it’s a hell of a lot of fun. As a viewer, though, its no great shakes. For a straight question and answer guy like me, the pace of the show questions-wise is absolutely funereal. One carry over contestant from the previous show was asked 4 questions, and the next contestant was asked 8 questions. 12 questions in an hour long show doesn’t cut if for me.
However it is a game show, and its not made for people like me. One suspects its for a considerably younger demographic – certainly both contestants seemed to be drawn from this group. You see the point of the show isn’t really the questions, it’s the trading. So if you start putting on contestants who need no help answering the first 8 or 9 questions, then you’re cutting out the traders far too much. Which leads you to make a choice. Either have some hard questions, or make sure you get people who don’t have a great general knowledge. On the basis of admittedly just the one show, I’d say that the producers have plumped for the latter.
Host Gethin Jones is likeable enough, if a little bland. Bearing in mind this is a game show, and not a real quiz as such , you couldn’t actually say it was bad, even though it really isn’t my cup of tea. Yet on the negative side, I did find that, while not as bad as Shafted, this show does to some extent seem to make a virtue of mean spiritedness. Our first contestant today was asked, for his 10th question, what the Christian name of Scott of the Antarctic was. He asked the traders, and picked one who looked him straight in the eye , and told him he knew the answer 100%, then proceeded to trade him out of a couple of thousand pounds of prize money. Then he had the cheek to say, well, what I think is the answer, what I THINK I remember, is that its William. The contestant didn’t have an answer of his own, gave William, and lost what remained of the wedge. All of which paled into insignificance against what happened to the next contestant. On her last question she was asked,
“Which French film actress and sex symbol became heavily involved with animal welfare and animal rights ? “ Now, if you went into the street and asked 100 people to name a French actress and sex symbol, even now, decades after she retired the majority of people would give the right answer. Our contestant didn’t know it. Instead she plumped for a trader who promised she was a journalist who worked for an animal rights group. The trader bullied her out of £1800, and then had the cheek to say, “I’m sorry, I don’t have a clue. “ The poor contestant, who to be fair to her was out with the washing, offered “Marie Antoinette. “ Thank you and goodnight. I’m sure you get the picture. It seems to me that there’s a big, hard lump of coal where the show’s heart should be, and regardless of issues over the dearth of questions, overly easy questions, or poor contestants, the lack of heart is the reason why I probably won’t be watching again.
This has been a bit difficult to find, actually. There are certain Sky shows that they tend to shove on ad nauseam, and repeat a lot. This isn’t one of them. In fact it tends to be on in the afternoon a lot, which isn’t really all that convenient for me. Come to think of it, maybe the fact that Sky’s support for the show seems lukewarm at best should have told me something. Still, at last I managed to catch it on Sunday lunchtime.
Now, this is a quiz, but its also a game show, and it needs to be viewed in this light if its going to have a fair hearing. What intrigued me about the show is the fact that it is all based on having a group of people, the traders, who are prepared to sell each contestant the answers to a series of questions. This is done through a short but furious round of trading. If you’ve never seen the show, yet this sounds familiar, then there may be a reason for this. It started life as a gameshow on local radio in Manchester. However you might think its familiar because something similar was one of the unique selling points of ITVs The Vault of a few years back.
Each contestant is asked up to 10 questions, for which they win rising amounts of cash if they get a correct answer. If they give a wrong answer, then they leave with nothing, to coin a phrase. If they don’t know an answer, then they must shout “Sell Me The Answer”, and the 60 traders will each hold up a paddle with their unique number on it, and scream at the top of their voices to be picked. The contestant picks two numbers. Each person picked gets a few seconds to make a pitch to the contestant, who then picks one to come and trade. 30 seconds of horse trading follows, when they must agree on an amount of the prize pot earned so far for the questions. If they don’t agree, then the contestant has to answer on their own. If they do agree, then the trader must answer. However, even if they know the answer, they don’t have to give a correct one. At this stage the trader can turn round and say that they were bluffing even, and that they don’t have an answer.
If a contestant answers the 10th question correctly, then they have the options of either taking the money, whatever’s left, or going for the jackpot. I think a figure of £25,000 was mentioned.
That’s basically it. Now, I would imagine that if you are one of the traders, who I believe carry on from show to show, then it’s a hell of a lot of fun. As a viewer, though, its no great shakes. For a straight question and answer guy like me, the pace of the show questions-wise is absolutely funereal. One carry over contestant from the previous show was asked 4 questions, and the next contestant was asked 8 questions. 12 questions in an hour long show doesn’t cut if for me.
However it is a game show, and its not made for people like me. One suspects its for a considerably younger demographic – certainly both contestants seemed to be drawn from this group. You see the point of the show isn’t really the questions, it’s the trading. So if you start putting on contestants who need no help answering the first 8 or 9 questions, then you’re cutting out the traders far too much. Which leads you to make a choice. Either have some hard questions, or make sure you get people who don’t have a great general knowledge. On the basis of admittedly just the one show, I’d say that the producers have plumped for the latter.
Host Gethin Jones is likeable enough, if a little bland. Bearing in mind this is a game show, and not a real quiz as such , you couldn’t actually say it was bad, even though it really isn’t my cup of tea. Yet on the negative side, I did find that, while not as bad as Shafted, this show does to some extent seem to make a virtue of mean spiritedness. Our first contestant today was asked, for his 10th question, what the Christian name of Scott of the Antarctic was. He asked the traders, and picked one who looked him straight in the eye , and told him he knew the answer 100%, then proceeded to trade him out of a couple of thousand pounds of prize money. Then he had the cheek to say, well, what I think is the answer, what I THINK I remember, is that its William. The contestant didn’t have an answer of his own, gave William, and lost what remained of the wedge. All of which paled into insignificance against what happened to the next contestant. On her last question she was asked,
“Which French film actress and sex symbol became heavily involved with animal welfare and animal rights ? “ Now, if you went into the street and asked 100 people to name a French actress and sex symbol, even now, decades after she retired the majority of people would give the right answer. Our contestant didn’t know it. Instead she plumped for a trader who promised she was a journalist who worked for an animal rights group. The trader bullied her out of £1800, and then had the cheek to say, “I’m sorry, I don’t have a clue. “ The poor contestant, who to be fair to her was out with the washing, offered “Marie Antoinette. “ Thank you and goodnight. I’m sure you get the picture. It seems to me that there’s a big, hard lump of coal where the show’s heart should be, and regardless of issues over the dearth of questions, overly easy questions, or poor contestants, the lack of heart is the reason why I probably won’t be watching again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
