c4countdown

All you Brandreth fans will be as creamy as your mid-morning Cappucino as this week's Radio Times brings news of a forthcoming new BBC2 daytime quiz hosted by Gyles Brandreth called "Knowitalls".

Apparently there will be no questions; instead you have to pour out everything you know on a subject.

Can see a few people on these boards doing well on that.

Just to let you know, this programme starts on Monday (6:30pm BBC2), and runs every weekday for 3 weeks. So at least it might be something to talk about while Countdown is off air.

Thanks, Derek. Speaking as someone who enjoys knowledge-based games and can tolerate moderate quantities of Brandreth, that looks to be just the thing to tide me over the next few parched weeks.

I really liked this show, as quizzes go. It is such a different format, with no questions, and just people remembering every possible fact they can on one particular subject. There are 2 teams of 3, plus 3 experts who choose the topic, and a team member is put forward to speak on that topic. There are 3 key facts for each subject, which if mentioned give instant points. In the first episode, the experts were an entertainment expert, an historian, and a Cambridge science geek. Team members have previously been given an hour to think of as much information for their turn as they can, without the aid of books or the Internet.

Subjects of the first episode included:
Carry On films
Only Fools and Horses
Battle of Hastings
Elizabeth I
Charles Darwin
Planet Earth

Round 2 is a "Killer Fact" round, where they get 7 seconds to deliver a main fact on each category. These were on Frank Sinatra, The White House, and Electricity.

Round 3 was the "Quick Fire" round, where the whole teams get 90 seconds to call out facts on many different subjects, and again if any match what the experts had in mind they get points.

The winning team each day goes through to the quarter finals, for a chance to be crowned "Britain's Biggest Knowitall". It is not mentioned whether Gyles has been hanging on to this crown for years, just waiting for this chance to pass it on.

For those of you who were put off by Brandreth, due to the structure of the show there wasn't actually much of him. He gives a brief introduction to each contestant and round, but then it is just them and the experts.

Complete shite.

So, you didn't like it either then Rosemary?

Maybe I'm too easily pleased when Countdown is off air.

Derek Hazell wrote:So, you didn't like it either then Rosemary?

Maybe I'm too easily pleased when Countdown is off air.

I haven't seen it yet - I haven't had the time! Provided knowledgeable and articulate candidates are permitted to shine and nobody is encouraged to pray for success nor sneered at for their mistakes, I fully expect to like it.

I've just seen the first 2 episodes and I thought they were quite interesting.

It's an unusual quiz show, maybe because of Gyles Brandreth, but I thought he was quite good as the host.

That girls team on show 2 were just so dreadful by the end of the show. Thank god Barry's team won!

James Robinson wrote:Thank god Barry's team won!

SPOILER ALERT !!

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Thank god Barry's team won!

SPOILER ALERT !!

How is that a spoiler! It was on yesterday!

James Robinson wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Thank god Barry's team won!

SPOILER ALERT !!

How is that a spoiler! It was on yesterday!

I haven't watched it yet. But my enjoyment is probably not really spoiled.

James Robinson wrote:How is that a spoiler! It was on yesterday!

A lot of people will watch it on iplayer, or at least would have.

I watched the first couple of episodes yesterday. The main thing I found was that I was pausing it after the announcement of each subject so I could think about the topic for myself (and this isn't really possible in the final round either). Did anyone else find that the 'play along at home' factor was a bit lost?

Michael Wallace wrote:I watched the first couple of episodes yesterday. The main thing I found was that I was pausing it after the announcement of each subject so I could think about the topic for myself (and this isn't really possible in the final round either). Did anyone else find that the 'play along at home' factor was a bit lost?

Yeah, but was it actually ever claimed that you could 'play along at home'

James Robinson wrote:Yeah, but was it actually ever claimed that you could 'play along at home'

Well no, but for me that's quite a big factor in enjoying a quiz-type programme.

Michael Wallace wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Yeah, but was it actually ever claimed that you could 'play along at home'

Well no, but for me that's quite a big factor in enjoying a quiz-type programme.

Well, you're right about that, but I still find it enjoyable. Better than all these quiz shows that ITV are just putting on willy-nilly at 5 o'clock.

It's not the worst quiz in the world- even if it does involve Gyles Brandreth. I agree that it's quite an interesting idea for a quiz, espeically the last couple of rounds. I don't like the first round though; there just seems to be too much pot luck involved. Who decides which facts are more relevant than others? I can't remember any examples off the top of my head, but some 'key facts' seem incredibly obvious, whilst others seem rather bizarre. In yesterday's show, I think, one contestant named several actors with whom Alfred Hitchcock had worked, but didn't pick out the one they wanted and so missed out on about 4 points.
There's also the fact that the two teams get different subjects, and obviously some are going to be easier than others. It might be better if they just alternated giving a fact within, say, a 10 second time limit.
But like I said, at least it's fairly entertaining. Or at least, it's better than the alternatives at that time of day.

Neil Zussman wrote: There's also the fact that the two teams get different subjects, and obviously some are going to be easier than others. It might be better if they just alternated giving a fact within, say, a 10 second time limit.

But then one of the teams might've seen the subject before, so that would be unfair.

I think the basic format of the quiz is a very good idea. However, the execution is not to my taste. The blue lights and dramatic music don't fit in with what is a fairly simple parlour game. Also, Gyles telling the players to "go back to base" is pathetic. It's a bench. It's also too far away. Ideally, I'd like to be able to see the rest of the team behing their speaker, or at least get the sense that they're in the same room.

I also find it hard to care about the teams. It would be better if you had them come up with a team name, as in Eggheads, just to get a sense of them having some communal link other than just being "Judy's mates". Alternatively, Gyles could talk to them more.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the show, but if I was producing it, I would stage it completely differently.

So far the so-called experts have not been very convincing, and having them pick out just three "key facts" for extra points is pathetic: when the subject was "the earth", one of the "key facts" was "the equator". What is so significant about that - it's just one of the lines we have chosen to draw on the thing. Having more key facts to aim at would be fairer, but that might encourage people to just stand there and spout a string of significant words rather than speak fluently about the subject. Dropping them altogether would put the experts more on the spot, which might be no bad thing.

And in the first program the guy who knew more about SInatra than the Entertainment expert was apparently penalised for his presumption: Brandreth didn't say he was wrong, just that they hadn't been able to confirm it. That is really no way to run a railway!

However, I would still say that the show is better than nothing, so in this interlude of nothingness I will keep watching it.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:And in the first program the guy who knew more about SInatra than the Entertainment expert was apparently penalised for his presumption: Brandreth didn't say he was wrong, just that they hadn't been able to confirm it. That is really no way to run a railway!

But proving something is wrong is pretty difficult, so where do you draw the line? If they'd said "Frank Sinatra was a zombie who liked Skittles" they'd have a pretty hard time confirming that as well.

Michael Wallace wrote:If they'd said "Frank Sinatra was a zombie who liked Skittles" they'd have a pretty hard time confirming that as well.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:And in the first program the guy who knew more about SInatra than the Entertainment expert was apparently penalised for his presumption: Brandreth didn't say he was wrong, just that they hadn't been able to confirm it. That is really no way to run a railway!

But proving something is wrong is pretty difficult, so where do you draw the line? If they'd said "Frank Sinatra was a zombie who liked Skittles" they'd have a pretty hard time confirming that as well.

I agree it could be difficult, but that is the sort of thing they are laying thmselves open to. I think they need more and better experts - people who really do know everything about each narrow subject, rather than experts on "history" or "science". Mastermind uses specialists to set its questions and manages to be sure of its facts - I haven't heard of anybody on that claiming they wuzz robbed. Knowitalls could restate the rules to require a fact that can be confirmed within a given stated time. People should know where they stand.


Charlie, I think a game that involved learning Wikipedia entries by heart would be rather difficult - it's a notoriously moving target, and only reliable until it becomes in somebody's interests to make it not so. For instance, by the time I looked at the page your "zombie" edit had already been deleted.

Andy Thomson wrote:Complete shite.

Yep. For one, Gyles is a cock, and secondly, most of the contestants appear to be worse than him!

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:And in the first program the guy who knew more about SInatra than the Entertainment expert was apparently penalised for his presumption: Brandreth didn't say he was wrong, just that they hadn't been able to confirm it. That is really no way to run a railway!

But proving something is wrong is pretty difficult, so where do you draw the line? If they'd said "Frank Sinatra was a zombie who liked Skittles" they'd have a pretty hard time confirming that as well.

I agree it could be difficult, but that is the sort of thing they are laying thmselves open to. I think they need more and better experts - people who really do know everything about each narrow subject, rather than experts on "history" or "science". Mastermind uses specialists to set its questions and manages to be sure of its facts - I haven't heard of anybody on that claiming they wuzz robbed. Knowitalls could restate the rules to require a fact that can be confirmed within a given stated time. People should know where they stand.


Charlie, I think a game that involved learning Wikipedia entries by heart would be rather difficult - it's a notoriously moving target, and only reliable until it becomes in somebody's interests to make it not so. For instance, by the time I looked at the page your "zombie" edit had already been deleted.

Well it's pretty obvious there are people in the background researching things to check facts, so I don't think having more and better experts would stop this sort of thing from happening again.

Craig Beevers wrote:Well it's pretty obvious there are people in the background researching things to check facts, so I don't think having more and better experts would stop this sort of thing from happening again.

Then they should make it clear how much effort they will put into checking an answer before they discount it. Of course, this would violate the fiction that the show is recorded in one continuous manic gasp.

Is it only me that absolutely hates the BanG Bang Bang "music" that punctuates the show? Is it considered necessary to wake up the audience's attention-span?

Michael Wallace wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Yeah, but was it actually ever claimed that you could 'play along at home'

Well no, but for me that's quite a big factor in enjoying a quiz-type programme.

Michael, I don't know if you have Virgin On Demand or not, but there is a BBC Irish show on there, called Panic Attack. It works really well for playing along at home, as there are upto 5 definitive answers to each question, and plenty of time for you to get your answers in your mind without having to pause. It's probably available on iPlayer online too, if you don't have VOD.

Derek Hazell wrote:Michael, I don't know if you have Virgin On Demand or not, but there is a BBC Irish show on there, called Panic Attack. It works really well for playing along at home, as there are upto 5 definitive answers to each question, and plenty of time for you to get your answers in your mind without having to pause. It's probably available on iPlayer online too, if you don't have VOD.

Thanks Derek. I'd seen that show before but I'd completely forgotten about it. It is indeed on iPlayer so I'll be reminding myself of it now - if I remember rightly it's rather good.