Pointless

Normally I'm not a fan of this kind of programme but for some reason I really enjoy 'Pointless'. I suspect this is largely down to presenters Alexander Armstrong and Richard Osman; they frequently have a laugh at contestants' answers but it never seems to be in a mean spirited way. It also helps that most of the contestants don't take thing too seriously; it isn't unknown for them to laugh as their wrong answers means they won't be going home with the cash prize.

The format is simple; the game starts with four teams of two answering questions on various subjects and after each round one pair is eliminated. For each question the lowest score wins… A hundred people were given a hundred seconds to give as many correct as possible… the score gained matches the number of people who gave that answer and a wrong answer scores 100 points.

The rounds are equally simple; using today's episode as an example:

Round one: One person in each pair had to name a Country that had won Miss World, the other had to name an England goalkeeper.

Round two: A list of six US TV shows was shown and one member of each team said which city one of them was set in, the list was then changed and the second team member named the city.

Round three (The head to head round): The first team to get the best score for two varied questions gets to the final.

The Final: The surviving team selects the topic, out of three possibilities, to be questioned on… today it was 'Sporting Greats' and they had to identify boxers who fought Mohammad Ali. In this round they give three answers and one of them must be 'Pointless' if they are to win the prize money… if they lose they still get the 'prestigious Pointless Trophy'.

I don't always watch the programme but if I start watching or walk in to the room when it is on I'll almost always watch to the end. I like how the questions with have multiple answers so not only do you have to get it right you must try to pick one that you think few other people will know… there is also enough time for viewers to think of the answers so even if you aren't lightning fast you have a chance to compete at home!

I am a bit of a saddo, as I really like this show when I catch it. Alexander Armstrong is an excellent front man for it and I really like him as a performer and was surprised to see him doing this. He has a special quality which comes across to the viewer (well this viewer anyway). The premise is that people try to find a pointless answer to the question posed thereby scoring as low as possible. Gentle humour is employed throughout and I like the fact that no-one is humiliated or made fools of in any way. I feel that the programme would benefit from a little faster pace but that is a minor quibble. It is almost educational sometimes too as one finds out facts one did not know before. Long may it last. Well I am adding to my review 16 months on and I am still addicted to it. If anything more so. It has really hit it's stride and Richard and Alexander's banter is witty, original and, unusually for a daytime quiz, funny. This one should run and run.

It's a good show and I like it, Alexander's goofy yet whimsical personality and the questions can be very interesting.

However, it's not as good as the old days! I saw an old episode recently and the chat between Alexander and Richard where they play off each other was much better, the contestants were more chatty. Now everything seems a bit wooden even between the contestants and them and Alexander. Also the rotation of guest hosts because no one wants to do it permanently now. Also Richard was more class - he was authoritative with his knowledge and didn't need to keep reading off the computer like the other new guest hosts! He would just say it from memorising or whatever.

I sometimes tune in for the Celebrity version nowadays but that's about it. I suggest you see some old eps on the PointlessTV channel on YouTube and you'll see what I mean.

I love this show! For Americans, I'd describe it as a blend of Jeopardy (you do need to know your stuff) and an anti-Family Feud (as you are trying to find the answer the studio audience previously knew least, not most). Contestants are rewarded most if their knowledge is deep on some subject, but one must also have broad knowledge because any one question could trip them up and eliminate them from play that day.

The presenters are perfect (I'd already loved Osman from QI, but Armstrong was new to me.) I laugh at myself for my total lack of knowledge of snooker and rugby (really not things here in the US, though I did play snooker one weekend in Canada), and I enjoy the heck out of knowing all the answers to the word and literature questions and most of the plant ones. I've been surprised at how much Brits know about American politics and how little about literature. I'm pleased at how different our favorite desserts and childhood games are. We are cousins, but we are not identical. All of that is wonderful, for it increases my knowledge of our similarities and differences, and also makes me want to bone up on my knowledge of UK politics! Turn about is, after all, fair play. I wish my streaming subscription carried more seasons, back to the beginning, but I'll hunt more down somehow on the interwebz. I'm addicted.

On the programme shown on the Monday 23rd of January 2012 two teachers from Scotland reached the final and their final question for £6250 was- Name an Australian Tennis player that won a Wimbledon tennis title either singles or doubles from 1980 to the present day. The finalists went for Mark Phillippousis,Mark Woodford and Todd Woodbridge. There first answer was Mark Phillippoussis which was 100 pointer meaning it was a wrong answer. Bong.

Mark Phillippoussis won the Wimbledon Junior Mens doubles championship title with Ben Ellwood in 1994. If I were one of the contestants I would be after my prize money.