Re:Series 2 - Episode 13
-
How many times can someone confuse left with right and not go into losing status, seriously - it appears to only be dumb luck with respect to positioning that separates Simon from Julian IMHO in that regard.
As far as I am aware, this whole "losing status" thing is nothing more than an abstract description of a whole bunch of questions and concerns that the production team continually asked.
Unfortunately, with hindsight, we seem to occasionally interpret it as a production rule. In practice, I don't think it's anything more complicated than "Are the current team making good TV right now? If not, force them to make good TV or die".
I'm starting to think that I have been very naïve I genuinely thought that the outcome of adventures was mostly based on the skills of the team and that each adventure was more or less mapped out beforehand (subject obviously to the team taking the right objects, answering the riddles correctly etc).
Do we know to what extent the production team made decisions to kill off teams that didn't make good TV?
-
It seems that a lot of people with patchy childhood memories of Knightmare have grown up wondering whether it was ever won. This never happened to me because one of my earliest recollections of Knightmare is of Julian winning. I knew it was significant because Treguard's voice went high. Watching it again last week, it felt far less momentous. In fact, it bordered on uncomfortable. That was partly because we now know how much better Knightmare was to become in the following series.
I'm surprised at how tense the Medusa scene is! It makes for very exciting viewing, having the team doing a few seconds at a time, Julian behind the shield and Treguard's urgent, strained voice. It's actually quite a boring room in some cases (you don't have the shield and you die, really), but they always managed to make it interesting.
I felt the opposite. It should have been tense but the advisors' laughter at the outset, even if it was nervous laughter, undermined that. I also found it frustrating how Treguard saying "Stop!" worked both as a changeover instruction and as an instruction to Julian, reducing the challenge of guiding him to safety.
Ironically, Leo in Series 3 found the shield after meeting Medusa. Considering what the Medusa room did to the first team to encounter it, I'm sure a lot of watchers regarded it as anything other than a boring prospect.
Wild speculation, but I wonder if they ever considered giving Medusa a voice. It would have given Mary Miller something to do beyond Level 1.
It does make me laugh how Mogdred's idea of "the ultimate challenge!!" turns out to be a single guillotine blade slowly going up and down. g
"Ultimate challenge" was a definite case of overhyping. Also woefully inaccurate was Mogdred's use of the word "unaided". I can quite believe that after the quest was over, Hugo Myatt was instructed to accompany the team to the canteen and cut their food into little pieces for them. And there'd have been no shortage of salt to go on it, given the massive bag of the stuff that Julian had left over at the end of Level 3 for some reason.
As far as I am aware, this whole "losing status" thing is nothing more than an abstract description of a whole bunch of questions and concerns that the production team continually asked.
Unfortunately, with hindsight, we seem to occasionally interpret it as a production rule. In practice, I don't think it's anything more complicated than "Are the current team making good TV right now? If not, force them to make good TV or die".
Tim Child's own comments about losing status can be found in this post: http://www.knightmare.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=309#p4898
I wonder if Anthony Haigh ever went by the abbreviated name A-Ha in 1988. I suppose not, otherwise his advisors would have been "Hugh, Arthur, Juan".
-
I'm starting to think that I have been very naïve I genuinely thought that the outcome of adventures was mostly based on the skills of the team and that each adventure was more or less mapped out beforehand (subject obviously to the team taking the right objects, answering the riddles correctly etc).
I get the impression that the very early series are much more of a mapped out dungeon.
This would explain why, for example, a team might die even when they do well in the clue room questions - they simply take the wrong item. Or conversely if a team survives after doing badly in a clue room - purely by complete luck, they happen to take the correct items.
Considering the comments below about this team being "less deserving to win", I suspect this is the ultimate cause of that.
Do we know to what extent the production team made decisions to kill off teams that didn't make good TV?
As mentioned by Drassil, there is a quoted email from Tim Child: http://www.knightmare.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=309#p4898. However, whereas some people seem to read that as a definitive and clad-in-stone explanation of exactly how the production process worked, I see it as more of an abstract explanation formed retrospectively.
The explanation I recently received from Tim was more or less as I previously stated it and approximately corresponds with the explanation quoted by Steve in the post that I just linked to (but is a little less precise and much more general). Basically, it's a tradeoff between the desire to make good TV and the practicalities of having a filming schedule, probably also considering other complexities such as actor contracts and availability, prop availability, pre-filmed sequences, etc:
Obviously you don't kill off a team (even if they just walked off a cliff) if you have to stop filming for a day for the next team to show up. Similarly, team introductions are slow, and you don't want to have more than one per episode (I think this was an actual issue that Tim raised when I spoke to him). Hence, you extend their quest until practical and then kill them off.
Similarly, you don't want to prolong a quest (unless you have to) if the viewers know that the dungeoneer is doomed. It's just boring to watch.
If a team is making good TV, you might allow the occasional small lapse or mistake - after all, the end product is supposed to be entertainment and you may allow the occasional hiccough in gameplay in order to allow that.
And I think that's all there is to it. Trying to look for some kind of specific "status" of the team at any point just seems too fixed and too artificial to me.
-
As far as I am aware, this whole "losing status" thing is nothing more than an abstract description of a whole bunch of questions and concerns that the production team continually asked.
Unfortunately, with hindsight, we seem to occasionally interpret it as a production rule. In practice, I don't think it's anything more complicated than "Are the current team making good TV right now? If not, force them to make good TV or die".
If that is the case, did Julian's team deserve to win? I don't think they did. They didn't make better tv compared to most teams. They were prompted a lot and for entertainment purposes, didn't find it good tv.
At the time we were youngsters so we wouldn't be bothered thinking are teams making good tv or not. Watching it now, it does become more obvious. But at the same time, I don't agree with it.
I'm starting to think that I have been very naïve I genuinely thought that the outcome of adventures was mostly based on the skills of the team and that each adventure was more or less mapped out beforehand (subject obviously to the team taking the right objects, answering the riddles correctly etc).
Do we know to what extent the production team made decisions to kill off teams that didn't make good TV?
At the time I was lead to believe that. Yes it should be entertaining but at the same time, if it ends up with a team winning due to their entertainment factor and not down to their skill and wits, it becomes farcical and not a fair contest.
-
If that is the case, did Julian's team deserve to win? I don't think they did.
In my opinion, a team doesn't deserve to win merely because they are entertaining.
That would be bad TV.
They didn't make better tv compared to most teams. They were prompted a lot and for entertainment purposes, didn't find it good tv.
Again, I think you're looking for a hardcore absolute rule where none exists.
First of all, let's keep in mind this is all subjective. Furthermore, you're viewing an edited version of what actually happened, which is not the same as what the production team saw. There are serious disadvantages to both views and either your view or the production team's view might be distorted.
Secondly, I don't think that the team is so bad that it can't be said that good TV isn't being made. After all, you as an adult, with a far more discerning taste than a child, was obviously not so repulsed by the episode that you switched it off halfway through. One way or the other, the episode did something right to keep you watching. Good does not equate to perfection and nor, necessarily, should only perfect teams be allowed to win.
At the time we were youngsters so we wouldn't be bothered thinking are teams making good tv or not. Watching it now, it does become more obvious. But at the same time, I don't agree with it.
I completely disagree.
While it's true to say that children are more likely to watch TV regardless of what's on, I don't think you can say that the entirety or even the majority of Knightmare's viewers would have viewed the show had it been boring (i.e. bad TV).
[snip] Yes it should be entertaining but at the same time, if it ends up with a team winning due to their entertainment factor and not down to their skill and wits, it becomes farcical and not a fair contest.
I suspect you may have misread something I said. At no point have I suggested that a team would be allowed to win based on nothing but their entertainment factor.
"Good TV" includes having a fair contest.
-
I didn't misread what you have mentioned, the last statement was just my own opinion.
I'm not saying I'm right but at the same time I'm just giving my honest views. I'm not saying the production team were bad, they did an amazing job, but for Julian's quest, they did give the team an easy ride in my opinion. And when you compare their quest to other teams, for example Jamie's team, they didn't face much challenge.
For me good tv should be a team who can make good decisions without taking too much time, good interaction with other characters and to be challenged. Julian's team were not challenged enough and for me, it didn't make good tv. It left me a bit disappointed that they won, plus their reaction annoyed me.
Again just my opinion! Still it hasn't stopped me from enjoying Knightmare today and to talk about it!
-
Ah, sorry, I misinterpreted your last post then
I think the issue of an "easy ride" is a separate one to the whole winning/losing status, to be honest. I think, just because of how the dice fell, some teams just got it easier than others.
But honestly, I don't know what the background is. Maybe there were much harder rooms cut, or maybe there were other considerations that lead to the quest appearing easier than it actually was.
-
Watching the repeats with a critical adult eye I've found the tension between 'good TV' and fair gameplay to be absolutely key. I've started making notes for an article on the subject but real life keeps getting the way of any actual writing. It's also a topic that leads to some difficult conclusions. I wouldn't go as far as to say I think it was all a fix but it's not easy to say that all teams were treated fairly - the episode threads over the last few months give plenty of examples of where teams perhaps got a rough ride or weren't really challenged (though a team being allowed to get a bit further to suit the production schedule is a bit more understandable than an unfair death).
As for 'losing status' my interpretation was that this was always gameplay related i.e. a spell wasn't earned or the wrong item picked up. I have no problem with teams fluking their way through the dungeon or not knowing left from right when it doesn't matter - luck is after all part of gaming and ideally a challenge would eventually be presented which sheer incompetence cannot deal with - but I have a problem with the idea of artificially killing teams off just because they are dithering idiots.
I do think, perhaps more so in later series, that teams were rewarded for being entertaining. Barry is perhaps the strongest example - he was a superb dungeoneer but should have been killed by goblins when his advisors messed up and missed a bit of staff. A willingness to role play and engage charismatically with characters, coupled with generally excellent advisors, were rewarded with a short cut and a winning quest. Many (perhaps most) viewers may think this is perfectly reasonable but to me they made a mistake and should have died. It's particularly galling when you think of some of the unfair deaths.
This doesn't explain Julian's win of course. Perhaps they just wanted another win for variety.
Ultimately, when two winning quests happened on the last episode of a series thanks to some form of short cut, it's hard to think of KM's gameplay as being an exemplar of fairness.
A more positive conclusion is that Mr Child achieved his primary objective of making fantastic television so who cares about fairness? But I'm glad my seven year old self didn't see the show with these cynical adult eyes!
-
Without going off topic too much, I agree with everything you have mentioned and I'm looking forward to the article!
One thing, Julian himself was a good dungoneer. The advisers I felt could have been better. Julian did everything right that was asked of him, it's just I felt him and the team could have come across more challenges. Maybe then, their victory might have been more justified.
-
Both winners in series 2 were pretty much spoon-fed.
It's not that they didn't anything wrong but they were never giving the chance to either.
Also, getting left and right wrong is no reason the force a kill, I don't expect a team to be absolutely perfect, it just means they might step off the edge or fall down a hole of their not careful.. luckily for this team they didn't.
-
I didn't like this win (especially the teams reacton when they won) they didn't seem very enthusiastic or even remotely happy they won, just meh, I also think they won the quest far too easily (the medusa room was good with treguard telling the team when to look and direct the dungeoneer though), km was and still is a gameshow that a lot of people would give their right arm for and I hated that this team just didn't seem to care that much period, the first team were atleast happy and really excited about it.
If that was Me on km then I would've been over the bloody moon if I won.
-
This episode made the weekly top 10 on Challenge + 1:
1 CLASSIC WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE (TUE 2200) 44,000
2 CLASSIC WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE (MON 2200) 32,000
3 PRICE IS RIGHT (FRI 1330) 23,000
4 FAMILY FORTUNES (SUN 1730) 20,000
5 DEAL OR NO DEAL (MON 0702) 20,000
6 TOTAL WIPEOUT USA (WED 1901) 20,000
7 TNA IMPACT (SUN 2203) 19,000
8 KNIGHTMARE (FRI 2329) 18,000
9 NOEL'S ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A 10 YEAR OLD? (MON 0830) 18,000
10 CLASSIC WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE (WED 2200) 18,000
-
Memorable episode, with another winning team. Yay!
In the clue room there was a powerful feeling of deja-vu. Julian nearly walked straight into the cavernwight by the left-hand door. In episode 3, team 3 did exactly the same thing.
Thankfully there was no repetition of team 3 in the medusa's room tho.
Where was the stone statue of Christopher? Has it been stolen?
Liked the way Treguard had them take turns guiding Julian for a few seconds each in that room.
Comfortably made it thru the last few rooms, altho their directional movement was a bit slow. Nice moment when they completed their quest.
It's a shame that Julian's team have been slated so much. They were a very intelligent team and it's not their fault that the quest they were set was less exciting than some.
One final comment on this team: Becca's hat looked really cool.
Moving on and this time it truly was a case of "after the lord mayor's show". Team 11 didn't exactly set the dungeon alight. They negotiated a bomb room far more calmly than most teams, but after that it nosedived. They only scored 1/3 against a predictably grouchy Igneous, then misread the label on the potion bottle as "poison"....
-
In my opinion, Julian's team are the least impressive winners of Knightmare. It's a disgrace that they go down as more successful than Leo or Martin in the history books!
What strikes me about this wining team was the lack of riddles compared to many other teams. Several of the riddles I haven't known the answer too, but this lot gained help from Merlin and got past the dragon without having to do anything other than some basic directing. Leo's team in series 3 had a horrid riddle in level 3 which they got wrong and sealed their fate. It seems that the probability of winning is inversely proportional to the nomber of riddles a team gets on a quest, as it seems to be most of the deaths are from failing to earn magic or useful information.
-
Neither winning team in series 2 faced any questions in level 3 and there were some suggestions that it had not been tough enough.
In series 3 the single difficult make-or-break question in level 3 raised the bar, but proved too much for both teams who reached that point.
It must have been very tricky for the producers to find the optimum level of difficulty, especially as there were teams aged anywhere from 11 to 16.
-
There is definitely significant bias going on, the winning teams have been given an easier ride, although to be fair to them, they still had to avoid blunders. There is a difference between judging the show watching it for the first time as a child and watching it now over 30 years later. It would be interesting to find out if there had been attempts to minimise bias i.e. make quests as level as possible in difficulty, so that a team which gets everything right is almost certain to win, and a team that makes a mistake has a chance to win if they correctly guess the right clue room objects, would it make great TV? Does the attraction of professional sport come from admiring the skill of the competitors, or the uncertainty of the winner due to the luck factor?
-
Is it bias, or is it just imperfect balance?
To me, bias implies a wilful desire. An imperfect balance, on the other hand, could simply arise because it's fundamentally very difficult to say (especially in advance) whether two quests are equally hard. Add the fact that the quests had a predetermined path to the equation and a badly performing team could win through sheer luck. That doesn't mean there's a bias though (to my mind, anyway).
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login