c4countdown

Now having seen two shows, it's really reminding me of what the show was like a few years ago while RW was still about, and before Carol particularly became a TV personality in her own right.

Things are back to focussing on the contestants and the game, and not so much the institution of the show as it were.

Basically, I don't know if it was a concious decision from Damian et al, but it appears that they're back to running the actual game properly and letting the fun parts take care of themselves, which is why the show became charming in the first place. This is certainly helped by Jeff's apparent efforts to not be the focus of the programme (unlike Des Chif and Des Let), but also his non-neglection (what's the word I'm looking for?!) of the RW-style light humour (have we simply swapped Wetwang for Hartlepool?).

Anyway, it's good, and it makes me want to watch again, which I haven't done regularly since a couple of series before Richard died.

Ian Volante wrote:neglection (what's the word I'm looking for?!)

Neglect?

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:neglection (what's the word I'm looking for?!)

Neglect?

Non-neglect sounds wrong though as an antonym for neglect. That'll be cos it doesn't exist I suppose...

Appreciation? Incorporation?

Ian Volante wrote:Non-neglect sounds wrong though as an antonym for neglect. That'll be cos it doesn't exist I suppose...

I think the closest thing to an antonym for 'neglect of' is 'attention/attentiveness to', but in this particular context it doesn't sound quite right. Charlie is probably closer with 'appreciation of'.

Charlie Reams wrote:Appreciation? Incorporation?

Yes, appreciation works actually.

The new larger set does feel less intimate than the old one, as the studio audience has been pushed into the background, though losing the excessive cheering before the start is welcome.
Does dropping the opportunity for an audience member to win a Countdown mug for cracking a conundrum which has beaten the contestants mean that mugs will be rarer prizes than teapots?

P,S. Perhaps this post should have gone to the "New Look" thread?

PeterMabey wrote:Does dropping the opportunity for an audience member to win a Countdown mug for cracking a conundrum which has beaten the contestants mean that mugs will be rarer prizes than teapots?

Maybe they really dropped it to save some money, we all know they're strapped for cash, after all...

Charlie Reams wrote:In case this wasn't obvious, I think Jeff is damn awesome. Rachel is still growing into the role, as you'd expect, but she's light years ahead of where Carol was 1982.

Having seen a recording, I have to say that the broadcast programmes don't show Jeff to his full advantage. Live, I thought he was terrific - just what the show needed.

My main objection is to the editing, which seems so crude.

I was told at the recording that I attended that far fewer retakes were needed than when Deso and Carol were presenting. Nevertheless, the edits are now far more abrupt and obvious. The worst example was on Wednesday, was Andrew Sachs was halted in mid-sentence.

I also think that Rachel is terrific, although I would be delighted if someone would satisfy an old cynic and reassure me that when, on Wednesday, she demonstrated a numbers solution that evaded the contestants, it was authentic. It looked rehearsed.

harry wrote:I also think that Rachel is terrific, although I would be delighted if someone would satisfy an old cynic and reassure me that when, on Wednesday, she demonstrated a numbers solution that evaded the contestants, it was authentic. It looked rehearsed.

A second take was required for both mine & Rachel's solutions on this round, but I can reassure you that her solution was all her own work, in the 30 seconds. So if it did look 'rehearsed', maybe that explains it.

Considering that it was only really Carol's personal stance to only do the numbers herself, I wouldn't have actually been surprised if the new hostess (whoever they chose) did receive some kind of help - after all it's fairly well documented on here that Dictionary Corner get plenty of assistance, and this difference between the two disciplines is completely concealed from the average viewer. Anyway, I can categorically assure you that Rachel is not being fed solutions, which I think is your implication.

Jon Corby wrote:A second take was required for both mine & Rachel's solutions

What was the reason for the retake Jon? (purely out of interest)

Matt Morrison wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:A second take was required for both mine & Rachel's solutions

What was the reason for the retake Jon? (purely out of interest)

I farted.

Nah, she didn't give the solution particularly cleanly the first time around - I think she took the one off the first number in the multiplication rather than the second, and then realised and went back and changed it, or something like that. It meant that it ended up a little bit messy on the board though.

Jon Corby wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:A second take was required for both mine & Rachel's solutions

What was the reason for the retake Jon? (purely out of interest)

Nah, she didn't give the solution particularly cleanly the first time around - it ended up a little bit messy on the board.

Yeah, I think 'board control' will improve in time along with all the other facets of her role. It reminds me of when I first got the chance to write some stuff on a blackboard at school - harder than it looks! I remember on the first show Rachel's numbers were all about 5 foot tall each... and then noticeably more regular-sized since

Jon Corby wrote:

harry wrote:I also think that Rachel is terrific, although I would be delighted if someone would satisfy an old cynic and reassure me that when, on Wednesday, she demonstrated a numbers solution that evaded the contestants, it was authentic. It looked rehearsed.

Anyway, I can categorically assure you that Rachel is not being fed solutions, which I think is your implication.

Well John, that makes my inquiry seem more offensive than I ever meant it to be.

I suppose a combination of mischief and cynicism could have given rise to my feeling that she might have been given a nudge to help her break her duck. If so, it stemmed wholly from the fact that it looked and felt rehearsed - and you have explained why that was so.

harry wrote:Well John, that makes my inquiry seem more offensive than I ever meant it to be.

Sorry Harry, didn't mean to be offensive! (for a change )

Nope though, definitely her own work, within the time. I wonder actually if it would have been retaken for a contestant, as it was a kind of "multiply by.... oh no, hang on take the one off there, not there". Kind of thing you'd definitely get away with while giving your solution.