This is on at 4:30pm on BBC2. I won’t be able to watch it until later, but feel free to leave your thoughts.
Edit: Watched it now. What do I think? (Here’s a link to Martyn’s recording review from July)
Well I think it’s alright actually. The game works on a technical level (although it’s interesting that short of attaining perfection, the single player’s best chance would appear to be getting precisely two right and two wrong as it makes working out the correct answers through elimination more difficult) and it moves at a fair old pace. The risky negotiation bit at the end feels quite unique and clever even if it’s a mishmash of other things. 45 minutes of it is probably a bit much – it’d probably work better as a slightly extended 30 minute game. I’m not entirely certain why the single player shouldn’t be allowed to go back and change answers within the time allowed. And there’s probably a better way of revealing the correct answers that logic already tells us are correct anyway.
The 12 Yard polish is probably to the show’s detriment, it lacks a certain warmth. Many shows work on a technical level, to actually be popular and well liked in daytime these days I think you need to be able to engage with it and I’m not sure what Perfection‘s “in” is. Still, it would make a good home game.
Oh look, the 100% font has made an unexpected comeback.
Nick Knowles seems like he’s swallowed the rulebook, doesn’t he? Racing through the rules like a bull in a china shop – probably a result of the first series turning into a practice dry run.
Intently dislike all this ‘usual suspects’ nonsense – doesn’t really work.
The game’s alright and isn’t particularly slow – but it doesn’t feel very satisfying as a quiz, and is a little bring if we’re honest. Couldn’t suffer 45 minutes of it each day.
‘Boring’ rather than ‘bring’, natch.
All in all, far better than I expected! Knowles is capable enough and it provides a good amount of entertainment and play-along potential. What I don’t understand is the slightly drawn out reveal of the correct answers when they’ve already told us that all the given answers are correct.
Not going to stop me tuning in again, but I can’t say I’d expect it to feature in this year’s Top 5.
I thought it was OK, but I feel it needs some reggae reggae sauce to spice it up a bit.
Although off the top of my head, I don’t know what this reggae reggae sauce could be.
Dancing girls?
Is there anything that dancing girls *wouldn’t* spice up?
That said, I’m not sure they’d be quite right for this show. I agree about the lag in answer reveals – just needs tightening up.
I said the show is ok, but having said that, I prefer this to Eggheads – and I like that two contestants get through the game each episode. From random choice, there would be a winner in 1 in 64 shows – obviously there’ll be more than that, but that seems reasonable to me.
I’ve just checked, and sadly the dancing girls are busy for our next Accumulate filming date. That’s a shame.
Runs along pretty well. Feels like the endgame will take a suprising amount of eps to knock off.
Graphics are a little dated but feel oddly drawn into the questions/contestants
I have to say I thought it was superb. Although I know what you mean BigBen about the lag with the reveal…
Before I go on, I should point out that people are not as anonymous as they think they are and should be careful if they are from certain production companies.
I’ll leave it at that.
I’m pretty sure that Paul Brassey, once of 12 Yard, has mentioned publically that Jellybean was his sister, and also – I think – In The Biz in her own right. I kind of lose track as to who works for whom, though there’s a large extent to which it’s not really our business. If I misremember then I apologise all round and retract this comment, obviously.
There are no accusations, or even particularly intended insinuations, of malpractice here; I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’.
It’s deeply disappointing how often it’s happening. It doesn’t fool anybody and if anything it only puts me off wanting to watch anything these people are involved with.
So sorry, I thought everyone knew I worked for 12 Yard and created the show, considering I posted my email here a couple of months ago asking if anyone from the Bar would like to come and sit through a recording; I assumed you would all know I was being facetious.
Frankly, you are all such a clever and selective lot that I already consider the show a massive accomplishment because you find it mediocre and not total shit.
Jellybean outed herself as Josephine (and a 12 Yard employee) on this site back on 22nd June. I think her praise of the show was therefore meant to be tounge in cheek. She’s my wife, not my sister by the way. No idea if anyone else from 12 Yard has posted. If they have they’re a bit rubbish at it since none of the other early comments were massively effusive.
Yes, the message was intended as a friendly warning (I wasn’t entirely sure how much it was tongue in cheek or whether you were acting as a disinterested third party). I had no real intention of outing anybody although it looks like someone did it for me.
I did know you were both married and not blood related though 🙂
As ever, the rule at Bother’s Bar (I say “as ever”, but I don’t think I’ve said it explicitly before) is that it’s great when TV people visit and it’s something to be positively encouraged, but if you don’t declare your interest up front then if I find out then I’ll blow it wide open – I don’t work in telly, I’m not bothered. I don’t even mind if you come here under an assumed name provided you stick to it. And if you want to tell me who you are in private then that’s great as well and I’ll promise not to tell anybody (unless you do something particularly heinous). If you want to do comment based secret PR, go and hassle Buzzerblog 🙂
I will watch the show soon.
I think I owe both of you an apology in that case. Sorry!
Oooh there’s a mole among us! It’s the gameshow return we’ve all been waiting for!
Perfection is simply in the middle. Not brilliant but not crap either. Typical 12Yard production values. At least people will not moan that the show will drag as they can squeeze in two games per episode.
Like Pointless, there will be a few rollover games before somebody gets all six answers right.
Does calling the players “The Usual Suspects” make sense if you’ve seen the film? Because I haven’t, and to me it’s just a random phrase that don’t appear to have any connection to the quiz or the contestants’ role in it.
I think I said that in the intital review I wrote waaayyy back in July (or did I edit it out before I sent it to Brig?).
The only tenious connection, I thought whilst watching the recoding win the studio was that they are sort of lined up against a backdrop (a la identity parade) and are out the ‘steal’ some of the money. Err..that’s it.
I’d have called them ‘the players in the prizepot raiders booth’.
Yes a reference to the iconic film poster I suspect.
Do you think it might be written into Knowles’ contract that he could bring the isolation booth from Who Dares Wins with him to Perfection?
Quite liked it to be honest. Nice and quick, reasonably interesting questions, and contestants stupid enough for you to feel vaguely intelligent.
Wonder how long it will take for someone to win, everyone in the usual suspects seems very sure of themselves. think some teamwork might be necessary
I don’t know why i was expecting more. I liked everything but the core gameplay of the show, just felt a bit lacking to me.
Expecting more? With Nick Knowles. Wow, that is some high expectations. I was pleasantly surprised. Although i have to say, i didnt see the first series. What was it like?
Nick Knowles is starting to look like Bamber Boozler, from certain angles, when watched on a low res iPlayer stream. This, however, is not an endorsement of the show.
Oh! Nearly forgot. If this were Million Pound Drop, wouldn’t be all be debating this little nugget by now?
Question: Breakfast TV started in the 1980’s [True]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Warman
“During this time he presented Britain’s first breakfast programme Good Morning Calendar in 1977.”
Like some others, I found it a bit middle of the road – the questions were reasonably interesting, but the True/False element will inevitably lead to a bit of guesswork and it then becomes a bit of a lottery.
At least the jackpot is quite tricky to attain purely through guesswork. It’s not something I would be bothered about missing really if i’m honest, but it’s steady enough.
I’ve found some clips of Ni Hao Darwin, the third from the top is the full 81 minutes episode
http://format.blogosfere.it/2011/01/bonolis-vende-ciao-darwin-ai-cinesi-guarda-i-video-esclusivi-del-format-orientale.html
it’s like the original, without all the madness and the nudity that made it popular.
I’ve got to hand it to the OC writers with that “they equal 42” category -you knew the last answer was going to be in there somewhere, and the first one was easy enough, but those middle two? Evil….
One of the other intriguing things about Perfection is that there seemed to be four people as devisors for something that on paper seems quite simple.
Perhaps 12 Yard should have more belief in the vision of fewer people? The idea that the shows seem to be made by committee may be one of the reasons the shows tend to miss a certain X factor.
I’d have said 4 people isn’t that many, surely? There is also the possibility that while two of them came up with the basic concept and 90% of the rules, the other two suggest worthwhile bits that made it in, so should be credited also.
Well The Colour of Money had six and a long development for what was people shouting “stop” at a screen for big cash prizes.
I’d suggest that four is quite a lot, I can’t think of many shows that have that many or indeed more although I don’t doubt other people in productions will put their own mark on it in some way.
I think The Chase has at least 4 people listed but I can’t remember the exact number off the top of my head.
I’m going to have to look this up now. EXCITING THREAD DIVERSION AHOY!
I had read somewhere (perhaps someone official can yay or nay it) that Fintan Coyle and Cathy Dunning get £1,500 for every episode of Weakest Link broadcast, so perhaps it is not too hard to see why lots tend to get listed these days.
6 people are listed as having devised The Chase.
well i was only called in for the last few weeks but i would have said only one of them actually did the vast bulk of DEVELOPING the Chase alongside the producers, plus was informed one person had the original idea.
For what it’s worth, my show has 4 or 5 devisers. I had the initial idea, but in revisions the rest of us came up with little extra parts that get thrown in.
Blimey. Well I’m convinced that having a ton of devisors is a very modern thing that just never seemed to happen more than a few years ago.
It’s always fun and interesting to note that devisors still seem to get billing in the titles in France.
How many episodes is it going to take for it to be worth the while of any of the Usual Suspects while to leave the booth?
Surely unless the jackpot is huge and one of the Usual Suspects can negotiate a majority share *AND* they are confident the answer to all 6 statements; they will always stay put and wait for their own game?
Also; Nick alluded to the notion that one of the Usual Suspects might bluff that they know the 6 final answers. Why would it ever make sense to bluff? Surely if they come out of the booth and then can’t provide the correct answers neither the solo player or the Usual Suspect helping out take any money.
It’s not like Sell Me The Answer where what the solo player buys is an answer and the transaction takes place regardless of whether the answer is right or wrong.
Surely unless the jackpot is huge and one of the Usual Suspects can negotiate a majority share *AND* they are confident the answer to all 6 statements; they will always stay put and wait for their own game?
I’m not sure that’s if that’s quite true (although until it plays out I don’t actually know) – as a game it’s quite difficult to win so there will probably come a point where a share of a guaranteed sum might be quite attractive if they know the answers.
No I don’t know why people might bluff either.
Edit: Maybe the viewers at home and the Usual Suspects should be privy to how many the single player has got correct before deal making? This seems like a good idea in my head, but I can’t quite articulate why.
Edit edit: Actually perhaps just the US, as otherwise it would ruin the reveal for the viewers. However, I understand bluffing now – if the single player has got them all right then you want to come out and get a free share.
That did happen in ‘the wiped series’ (and the recording which my review was based on).
One of the usual suspects came out knowing they could help on two of the answers, and ‘dealt’ with the player at something like £3,000 for the help provided (the pot was at around £12,000 at the time) however, here’s the double jepardy that you haven’t picked up on – they, to come out have to be confident about the other answers given are correct. Even though their help gives the contestant 2 more dings on the sound effect that it would have originally got, you are exposing yourself to other 4 answers to which you are a hostage of fate.
For the record – both answers the usual suspect changed were correct, but the fifth one was wrong, so another £1,000 in the pot – but two out of the show for good…
..until the re-recordings in September.
“However, I understand bluffing now – if the single player has got them all right then you want to come out and get a free share”.
Ah, I see.
For anyone who doesn’t follow:
Player A gets all six right.
Usual Suspect B says: “I think you’ve got one wrong, and I’ll tell you which one for 60% the pot.”
Player A: “OK then.”
Player B: “YOU BLOODY IDIOT YOU WERE RIGHT FIRST TIME! THANKS FOR 60% of £x!”
Exeunt.
Exactly. I’d like to see this happen, though of course when it does, the great unwashed will moan that the bluffer is an evil bastard/bitch. Which may or may not be true, but in any case they will certainly be the best actual player of the game.
Meanwhile, here is a hilarious story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/18/itv-early-evening-news?CMP=twt_fd
What they want is Accumulate!.
Although if Brig can slide in there with Batak Attack! that would be fine too.
Why have I got the feeling Hold On To Your Seat is involved?
Don’t think so, I get a strong feeling that’s going for the 5-6 slot.
Something else that doesn’t quite feel right is the way that the answers are revealed. Green for true and red for false is all very well and good, but it would be better in my opinion if there was something else in the graphics other than the little tick and cross to tell you whether that’s actually what they were hoping for. Maybe their answers could also be colour coded so we can see if they match?
I liked the little suspense build up and music during the final reveal on the winning Perfection run today. Reminded me of ‘Who Dares Wins’
Talking of which, is ‘Who Dares Wins’ actually returning?
Later this year, 12Yard said around “springish”.
Having seen the first two programmes (and thus four games), I can offer my thoughts on Perfection, with the help of a second pair of eyeballs (SPE) – actually a second person.
I asked SPE after Monday’s first two games for some thoughts. ‘I’m not convinced, but I’ll give it a second programme.’ But SPE was not happy about the addition to the bench between games 1 and 2 becoming the solo player for game 2.
So on to game 3 and one of the four on the bench stated that ‘this is my first game’. The selector did its job and selected this person as the solo player. I could pick out what SPE was screaming at that moment: ‘That’s it! I’m not watching this any more!’ Err… why? ‘The contestant selector must be rigged!’ This I can understand, as what the selector had done was ensure the first three games had the same three Usual Suspects. Were they friends? The SPE thought so and, citing a conspiracy (of all things), turned off the TV in disgust. I had to watch Tuesday’s show from a different TV. Afterwards, I had to tell her that for game 4, one of those three was selected for their game.
Anyway, to the questions. Eighteen (plus Usual Suspect decisions) in a 20 minute game sounds slow, and maybe the reveals in the early rounds did drag out (although clearing up facts for the false statements is a good thing.) Reading earlier postings here about the Suspects trying out bluffing I can understand – but if the solo player was sure of going 6-for-6 in the final, that player would rightly rebuff the Suspects.
I had to guess some of the questions, I have got about 75% correct (and got at least one 4-for-4 perfection when the studio players had not.) and I got 5-for-6 in game 4’s final – not knowing what JLS stood for tripped me up.
So what would I like to see? Clearly, Any person added to the bench must be a Usual Suspect for at least one game before being eligible as the solo player for the next game afterwards. Also maybe a Pointless-style prize fund increase only when the solo player achieves a 4-for-4 perfection.
And finally, one test I have of a good game show is: would I like to take part if I had the chance? Definitely, but if I did appear, SPE might not be watching.
It would be a bit better if they had some form of physical random selector in the studio. Another 12Yard show has one they could borrow.
Agreed. Digital randomising is never fully convincing (see ‘Spinstar’); especially when the ‘randomising’ graphic looks like it’s been done in post (as it does here).
I’ve no doubt that it was a properly random selection – but analogue randomising is so more reassuring on screen.
No. The new contestant graphic wasn’t a post-prod job.
The new player spinner graphic was displayed on the left hand question display screen during the recording for the audience in the studio to see.
Ok, my take:
Interesting to see a two-games-per-show format come back. It’s been a while since we’ve had something like that.
The game moves on at a good pace and didn’t seem to drag.
Question quality was good. True and false questions can be a bit of a crap shoot sometimes, but these felt like a good mix of general knowledge and some worky-outy ones.
What I absolutely hate, I’m afraid, is the logic of when people are correct or not: e.g.:
-A false statement is on screen
-The contestant says it’s true.
-The contestant doesn’t achieve perfection.
-The US says it’s false.
-The statement turns red.
-That means that the statement was true.
-That means that false gets a tick.
-That means that the US were right.
Is anyone still following this?
To boot, the graphics are distinctly average and, as Brig says above, they do not help the understanding of the game one little bit. In short, you’ve got TRUE/FALSE, ticks/crosses and red/green leading to a right/wrong result. It’s unbelievably complicated and whoever came up with that marking scheme should be given a bit of a stiff talking to.
(If you’re reading this, 12 Yard: for instance, a much simpler idea would be to ‘slide’ the questions left and right on the screen. So the contestant puts all the False statements in a red box on the left, and all the True statements in a green box on the right. Then, during the reveal, you can see which statements are in the wrong place by seeing which statements have the ‘wrong’ colour (i.e. a red statement is in the green box or vice versa.)
They’ve also missed a trick in the end game by revealing the answers in sequential order. It’d be much better to take the principle from Take It or Leave It by doing them randomly (or seemingly so) but all the right answers are revealed first.
Something also doesn’t smell right about the money logic in the end game, which will usually be played for smallish amounts. If you have a situation where none of the US are prepared to help out the contestant, that’s rather a negative outcome. Why not have a situation where the US are allowed to help without “missing out” on their go as a main contestant? In that case, the US should only get their money if they help the contestant get all the jackpot questions right – which loses the bluffing aspect but it’s better than the snoozefest that is “Sorry, I’m not going to help” x 3.
>-That means that the statement was true
Uh, false, I mean.
David – keep watching.
Nick doesn’t always reveal the answers from top to bottom in the order they were answered during the final round every time…
Thanks for the feedback everyone (both good and bad), I love how detailed and constructive your format comments are which is super helpful and really refreshing (considering I get parental comments like “I prefer it when Nick wears a tie” and “Your lot really like blue don’t you?”.
“Your lot really like blue don’t you?”.
Whoever said that does have a point, given Eggheads and In It to Win It uses blue as their base colour.
This is true, but has little to do with me; it’s a production decision.
As did Dirty Money.
Say it right: Duuuurtee Munnee.
Having watched it each day this week – I have to admit there’s something compelling about this show. While it’s not something I’d watch absolutely every day, it’s something I like to flick over to several times a week.
I like the evolution of the suspects to becoming players, and it was demonstrated today how suspects can play the game without ever being a contestant, which was pretty cool.
I still think it needs that reggae reggae sauce of je ne sais quoi. I did think of a couple of things – firstly how about instead of whoever wins the round chooses two categories for the final round, they choose 1 then 2 then 3 for the rounds, to give a sense of progression?
The other possible thing was for one of the rounds (say round 2 in the middle) coming up with 4 true/false statements and then the player has to say how many they think are true, 0/1/2/3/4 – with the suspects getting a guess if they get it wrong.
Anyway, glad you like the comments Jellybean. I like constructive criticism 😀
Also, I like the colour blue. Just putting it out there. It’s not my favourite colour, but I like it.
I’ve watchef it a few times, each time I’ve found the first game OK but my mind starts wandering about halfway through the second.
I like the evolution of the suspects to becoming players, and it was demonstrated today how suspects can play the game without ever being a contestant, which was pretty cool.
Although “Panic Attack” did more-or-less the same thing.
Of course, Who Dares Wins is a 2-game-per-show format but I can’t think of any others…