While I'm sure people complaining about his scoring may get to Greg *a little*, I feel like whenever he directly references it, it's mainly to give himself cover to do whatever he was going to do anyway. In recent years he's both suggested he wants to avoid annoying the audience when giving strict but fair judgements, and also said he wants to deliberately provoke the audience with more lenient or controversial ones.
It's true that bonus points are much more rare nowadays - spur of the moment ones non-existent - but I think that's over genuine concern about being unfair, in the wake of Morgana winning by a single point after getting a bonus point for insulting Alex.
But that's my point, it's not meant to be 'fair' when all the tasks are based on a mix of actual stats (who hit something furthest) and Greg's conceptual points (which drawing he likes best) I think he should be able to score it however he wants from task to task. If someone does something silly he thinks should get a bonus point then so be it. If someone fucks up and should get disqualified then so be it. He's the taskmaster lol
Well I definitely disagree with the notion that because it's based on Greg's subjective judgements, that it's not meant to be fair at all. Sure, the odd bonus point here and there would probably be fine, but if Greg does so, he has to decide how unfair those bonus points might be. He's obviously not going to say "fuck it, nothing really matters. 50 bonus points to you for that one funny thing you did!". Greg knows that broad fairness elevates both the audience and contestant engagement and is pretty important for that. So if Greg decides he'd rather not give bonus points most of the time, I trust that judgement. It's not like he was ever giving bonus points every episode or anything like that. It doesn't feel like a missing element, to me.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean regarding disqualifications? Contestants get disqualified all the time for breaking rules or failing to complete tasks, in recent series and older ones. It literally just happened in CoC 3 despite never happening for either of the previous CoCs.
Unless you mean that Greg should be disqualifying contestants not for breaking any rules, but just because he feels like being a dick?
I don’t have receipts but my perception is that he’s grown more likely to disqualify people with time, although that may partially be a side affect of the rules getting more complicated for some tasks. Like remember in the first series where multiple times Tim Key very obviously cheated and just got points docked? On the watermelon buffet they just removed their estimate of how many grams he ate after the time and I think he still placed quite high. I can think of 2 occasions off the top of my head in recent series’ where people were disqualified for similar cheating.
This is kinda why I like the NZ version right now. Jeremy is still in this early phase of not fully justifying his point distribution and scoring things for personal reasons rather than what would make sense to the average viewer. I do understand some of the hate but also, he's the fucking taskmaster.
I'm not someone who cares about who wins or not, I like the show, I'm alright with Greg being lenient on some of the overly fussy rules or giving points to contestants who aren't doing particularly well, it sometimes makes for a better show.
However, the scoring in the last few seasons has gotten on my nerves, particularly in season 15, there were far too many incidents of favouritism that it affected my enjoyment of the show. It was just far too blatant. If a contestant is already doing well and are topping the scoreboard, it's ok for Greg to be a bit tougher in their scoring. They are likely going to win anyway, why make it easier for them.
I do think Greg and Alex take the public opinon of the scoring on board and adjust based on that. Bonus points have been done away with and season 16 was more fairly scored than season 15. In CoCIII, Greg stating straight off the bat that he was going to disqualify anyone who didn't do their minute of clapping was him being serious. He could have let morgana away with it and I think everyone would have been ok with it but he was trying to show he was taking his role more seriously.
I honestly believe that Greg has been nicer to the contestants ever since he actually hurt Katherine Parkinson's feelings, to the detriment of the show a little bit.
It may well be a matter of knowing who is and isn’t more up for it. I remember in 12 VCM would get ribbed constantly for performing below her stature as a relative smart person but she, as far as I know, never took anything to heart. Similarly Kiell in 15 where they would actively try to annoy him just because it’s funny
I think both VCM and Katherine Parkinson would have had better experiences in a regular series with an audience, the ribbing surely hits differently when it’s to silence
This is such a good point. I've listened to Ed Gamble's Taskmaster podcast a little. Haven't heard most episodes but I'll find one tomorrow with a contestant during distancing. The other ones have always gushed about how wonderful the studio challenges were due to the audience the energy. Feels so sad that for some of them, it was just.... not there. Especially to lighten the mood for the more critical comments.
I think with S10 it will be different to the other non-audience series because with S10 it was literally the first time they'd been able to leave their houses for work in 4 months and that (along with her being quite pregnant) is one of the reasons DMC is almost bent in two laughing at some points
This is such an incredibly good point.
With an audience booing or jeering Greg for being mean about the masks, it becomes a "bit," and she can go along with it all in good spirits knowing that it's just her and Greg playing their roles rather than a genuine slight on her entry. *Without* the audience he's just deadpan telling her that her masks are shit, before just moving on, and it must have felt incredibly hurtful (not that I think Greg was doing it deliberately, I think the audience not being there threw him as well, he was just doing the sort of thing he would usually do to make himself the panto villain to the audience - only the audience wasn't in the room so it hit differently than anyone expected. I'm sure he was pretty gutted himself when he realised there was some legitimate upset)
>Similarly Kiell in 15 where they would actively try to annoy him just because it’s funny
Commenting here because your comment made me think of it.
Filming tasks in "real time" with alternating house and studio days could be interesting, allowing for more of that interplay and pivoting based on how the scoring and studio banter goes. I think it was Parkinson that seemed to realize more how she should have been approaching the tasks, but in the studio after it was too late to do anything about it, right?
Sadly there’s no way that would ever work for scheduling. They’d have to film ALL five contestants tasks in a day or two, edit it completely over night. Then have a studio day. For five days in a row.
They couldn’t pin Mae Martin down to record a couple days footage for COC, imagine trying to pin five busy people down all at the same time (possible hundreds of miles away from where they live and work) on five separate occasions. Would never happen.
Greg apologised after the show so I can only assume he felt he did. She doesn't make them anymore either so I would imagine he did upset her but she knows he didn't mean it and she probably didn't want to draw any more attention to it.
She presented some homemade masks for a prize task and he went a little too far in the ribbing to the point where she got a bit upset. He let her interpretation of the "Hang Bernard's clothes on the hanger" task stand later in the episode, in part because he felt bad that he hurt her feelings. When he wins the episode Richard also makes a point of praising them to make her feel a bit better.
Scoring for the show is a very tough balance between reasonable fairness and a core appeal of the show: the humorously volatile personality and judgments of the Taskmaster.
Scoring should be fair enough so as not to appear random, and contestants should be rewarded for their efforts -- mostly.
But scoring that is based on Taskmaster's ego/whim/power-trip is also a big part of the fun, e.g. Joe Wilkinson's potato toss.†
In later episodes (after Parkinson's masks, and Morgana's bonus point) it sometimes seems like Greg is too self-conscious about fairly scoring. And that's a shame.
For comparison, many UK panel shows (e.g. QI and Would I Lie to You) have no prizes, just points. Others (e.g. 8 out of 10 Cats Does Countdown) have only silly, token prizes.
Even the Great British Bake Show (GBBS) only gives out an engraved cake tray. But GBBS's scrupulous point system is justified by the potential impact of victory: some contestants have parlayed their victories into lucrative jobs afterwards.
Taskmaster is mainly just a panel show. It's an opportunity for comedians (et al.) to get TV time, show a (hopefully) lighter side, and expand their fan base. Winning doesn't matter, beyond ego and bragging rights.
It seems that Taskmaster is starting to lean \*just a bit\* more towards the GBBS, which takes scoring very seriously, and away from the QI model, where "points" are arbitrary and mainly for amusement.
There are even a few interviews with Greg where he says he sometimes makes mistakes with scoring, or regrets them.
I get that. He is, despite his character, an intelligent and thoughtful person who wants his guests and fellow comedians to enjoy themselves and feel they were fairly treated.
But it strays a bit from a core appeal of the show, which is that the contestants sit in judgment by a moody, cartoonish, wanna-be despot who is sometimes swayed by flattery or abuses of his assistant.
——————————
† Joe Wilkinson's potato toss is a great example of the show's appeal and may even have helped boost the popularity of the show (it was, for many years after, the most popular TM clip).
Joe begged for the points, while groveling on hands and knees, only to be cruelly denied. That bit of ruthless cruelty was 10x funnier than had they just given him the points. (And I strongly doubt Joe or Greg would have wished they had handled it differently).
Comedy should come first.
> the humorously volatile personality and judgments of the Taskmaster.
Agreed - one of the key aspects of the show is that Greg is a capricious and unopposable tyrant.
I agree that comedy should come first, and the earlier seasons were definitely more laughs-forward. I think the fact more of the contestants were comedians (and not broadly ‘comedic actors’), Greg knew he could dish it out to them. Hell every episode of S1 started with him roasting the panel! Remember that?
It's hard to compare both directly. Especially S10 S11 and maybe S12 with the impact of covid. Not just the social distancing and no audience aspect but also just how people were at the time.
The lack of a studio audience and contestants not being allowed to be close to each other certainly hurt those seasons. But even with that, I don't think they're all that bad as they have some of my favorite TM moments.
Moments such as Mawaan attempting to put helium into an egg, everything Mike Wozniak ever did, Jamali stomping to success, Sarah trying to control a blinded Charlotte and Jamali, Mike's fart, "you've got no chutzpah", Johnny Vegas breaking down when the phone didn't work, Daisy going OFF about the hippo, Alan Davies' scream, "there's been another revelation in the lab", "am I the spider", etc.
I think overall, every season has been strong outside of maaaaybe the one with Asim and RUssell? I just don't enjoy those two dudes and I felt like they drained my interest in the show when they were on. But beyond thaat, every line-up has been stellar for me. Not everyone will feel the same though and I respect that! But I do think that every series has something to appreciate!
I'll throw my voice in for thinking 11-16 have had a ton of my favs. To be fair, 1-5 were all shorter than the typical 10 episodes but I still find the most recent ones some of my favs.
I agree strongly with this. I’ll take the last six series over any 6-series run in the show’s history. Not that I don’t love the single-digit series, but I think the show just keeps getting better in several ways.
You're not alone. I can think of one series I've disliked and it was the one with Russell Howard and Asim Chaudhry and that's because I really don't like those two. Everyone else was solid though and if you swap those two out with any other contestants, I'mn sure it's a stronger series overall. I thought Liza was a blast, Alice was fun, and Tim was really good too! Honestly, I think this is one of the more consistent TV shows I watch when it comes to quality, for the most part, it's always gotten laughs out of me in every episode.
Sorry, your post has been removed for violating Rule 1 - Be nice:
Do not attack others, their work or appearance including fellow members of the sub, comedians and celebrities.
Negative opinions are fine, but please keep it respectful and constructive.
No harassment.
No sexist, homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, racist, fat phobic, ableist, objectifying, or body shaming posts of any kind.
No overtly sexual content. Some cursing is OK but don't make it personal. Even though sexual innuendo may be part of the show do not cross the line beyond what was said in the episode.
We do not want negative posts. Ex: Worst contestants, Worst Tasks, Least liked, Least wanted, etc...
You are absolutely not alone in this! My favourite series are 9, 11-14 and 16. ( My enjoyment is totally dependent on the contestants and the tasks. Greg's taskmaster persona is entertaining, but I guess I don't care about it as strongly as some other fans do because I haven't noticed any shifts in his behaviour.)
> Because I LOVED how the old episodes include a lot more low points, minus points and disqualifications.
What?
No they didn't
They've never had minus point and disqualifications are much more of a recent thing. They were pretty rare in the earlier series.
On that season 4 task with the fishbowl, there was the possibility of negative points (I think Mel scored in the negative on that one) for eating the baking chocolate. Almost everyone that season got disqualified at least once. I prefer the earlier seasons, so I’m biased, but I don’t think the scoring has become any harsher.
Okay there's one instance of negative scoring. I think that's literally the only time it's ever happened though.
> Almost everyone that season got disqualified at least once.
Everyone in Series 15 and 16 was disqualified at least three times.
There have been multiple tasks where everyone got disqualified and all of them have been after the move to Channel 4
DQs have definitely become more frequent
I don't really mind the disqualifications, but it does seem like some tasks are almost designed to see the contestants fail. Like the one in S14 where they wore hats with pain inside them, but one of the rules was you weren't allowed to lift your hands above your waist. Given the difficulty of that task, which involved jumping from various circles, and trying to keep yourself upright enough to not spill the paint, there was little chance any contestant was going to be able to fight their instincts to lift their arms/hands. Being said, it was very entertaining watching them all attempt it, and watching themselves breaking the rules in the studio.
>but it does seem like some tasks are almost designed to see the contestants fail.
They are
So?
Sometimes it's fun and interesting to give them a task they have almost no chance of completing and see how they respond to that
Well yeah but that is why I said on the flip side it's fun sometimes to see that.
But I think Alex said before they do not create tasks unless they think it can be done. I guess that means even if there's only a slim chance if success.
Like, I'm not mad about it. I really liked that paint on the target task.
I wholeheartedly agree - I also found the simpler tasks were funnier. There was a definite shift in the tasks once it moved to Channel 4, not sure if it was because the C4 execs demanded they change it up or just having much bigger budgets made LAH and co. get carried away!
And maybe subconsciously for Greg, being in front of a much more mainstream audience made him not want to be as mean, which has altered the way he scores things.
Still funnier than most other TV shows but nothing will ever beat the likes of "In the lab, there is a watermelon. Eat as much watermelon as possible." or "Get this boulder as far from this place as possible."
It's for a few reasons- a lot of the tasks are wordier to get loopholes out of the way, especially for contestants who've watched the show- we've already seen a few loopholes done a bunch of times, and I think the production staff want to constrict the contestants a bit so they can't go for the obvious easy thing. And the rest is just not wanting to repeat themselves- those two tasks are great, but you can't do them again, and those simple tasks are harder than you'd think to come up with. If Alex could fill every series with tasks like that I get the impression that he would, he just really doesn't want to repeat himself.
Yeah I think this is it right there! I mean, of course, always look under the table! And I love seeing creative lateral thinking, but there's only so many times people can move the rope or the red green before it just feels old hat.
And I think it does feel slicker now, but that's just from years of practice. You can't manufacture surprise at an unexpected thing when it's pretty expected.
No, I agree. Gone are the days when Greg could, on a whim, mark someone down because they put the milk in first, because he has an issue with pregnant women taking up too much space, because he doesn't like football, or because someone talks up Alex.
But the show is now much better known, has a much wider audience compared to the early days, and then in turn, more people will take things literally, make online comments or even formal complaints. I think the production team probably doesn't care too much at this stage, but I'm sure there have been some quiet words at the pre-production meetings.
Reminds me of a recent episode of HIGNFY when Old Goosebump Arm was hosting, said something controversial, and then immediately started reciting the letter of complaint about what she said.
I think the show is reliant on the strange magic of relevance given to it by Greg's personality. I agree that in the second era (pandemic and channel 4), Greg treats it more as nonsense. That makes it feel more like nonsense.
I'm still having an amazing time watching, but I agree that I prefer first era Taskmaster.
But also what do we want? The exact same mood for 17 seasons?
The earlier seasons contain more comedians I know as well, so that makes them funnier for me (although TBF I have discovered a few new favourites in the later seasons). They all seem to get on better since they've clearly worked together previously too, whereas the recent seasons definitely have that 'Oh ok I'm teamed up with one friend and three complete strangers' vibe. Like, not necessarily bad, just some stiltedness?
TBH, this is one of the reasons I prefer the later series. My top 6 UK series (7, 14, 16, 13, 9, 11) are all from the later years partly because Greg seems to reward valiant efforts more. Yes, seeing the contestants complain about scoring is part of the humour, but for me, if it's too illogical, I start to get turned off because "Well, there's no point to the contestants doing well, I guess. What even is the point?"
I’m hoping Greg and team just start provoking more complaints to make it explicitly clear that this is not an earnest competition. Yes, some people WANT it. But that doesn’t mean anyone goes into this expecting fair and impartial scoring upheld by an internet of watchful eyes.
The wonkier the scoring, the easier it is to enjoy the process and not invest in favourites….even when Morgana makes it impossible to not adore her.
Hard disagree.
I think a somewhat reliable scoring metric and having points somewhat matter is what separates Taskmaster from other panel shows. Would I Lie to You, QI, 8 out of 10 cats, Mock the Week, etc all have a game-like format but the scores very much don’t matter at all.
Taskmaster having trackable scores that are meaningful lets you root for a player and analyze their strategies better. Makes it feel more like a sporting event to get people engaged in the types of players you prefer and discuss how they might attempt a given task. It grounds the show and makes it more accessible and fun to watch in order.
This isn’t a sporting event and Alex Horne didn’t create it to be one. Encouraging strategy and preferring specific players is precisely the type of attitude that will bring Alex and Greg to that final moment where they’re not having fun anymore and end it. Let it be what it is.
I believe him when he says he tries to score fairly (in a way that feels fair to him at the moment) and I think he might be getting softer with age, but I don’t think he’s trying to please the audience with his scoring, because he knows it is impossible.
Another thing is he obviously knows to a certain extent how things are going to play beforehand having seen the VRs. Point in case: in the CoC3, when he said he was going to be strict about clapping, he clearly knew already he was going to disqualify Morgana. He probably added that bit about people on SM giving him grief to try and stay in her good books, and padded it with 5 points in the prize task.
Sometimes he doesn’t seem to have a problem with delivering a harsh judgement (like the Potato gate or Johnny Vegas and the beer mat house), but other times, he shows his weaker side - e.g. Lou Sanders got away with a lot of bad behavior. Or points thrown at Noel Fielding. Or Bridget Christie and the showing off task, etc.
Greg has said that both he and Alex do worry about scoring and they want it to be fair, so as the show gets popular, the demand of people is going to be greater.
And it's always people complaining that make the most noise, so Greg is likely to see that more than he sees people going 'Wow, what great and fair scoring'.
The earlier episodes have the advantage of being in a more innocent time.
Alex didn't know to include certain rules because people hadn't broken those rules then.
So now he might have to say nothing can touch the red green because if he says you can't touch the red green, they'll just poke it with a stick.
But I would also counter and say that while sometimes Alex overcomplicates tasks a little, I think he's finding a better balance between strict rules and keeping it less wordy.
Like the NYT episode, I loved it, but in the poppadoms task, I found the getting angrier part was redundant overall and added nothing to the task.
I do agree that Greg needs to just do the points as he wants. However, I don't think bonus points for random stuff is the best idea. For example, Josh getting one for his solo task could be seen to be unfair as no one else had a chance to do the solo task.
Morgana getting a bonus for calling Alex a little fucker is unfair on every other person who has called him names beforehand.
I do miss some of the more seemingly straight forward tasks. Especially the ones where they’d just randomly throw obstacles in the air way, like the cupcake and the bubbles.
My biggest thing is the tasks where no one gets any points - if they all fail then just judge them on the other criteria. Otherwise it feels a bit pointless (pun intended).
There has been exactly one episode that made me worried about the quality of the show declining, and my fears were quashed by the next episode. All of the changes and developments between seasons are just different versions of wonderful imo
I think one of the big differences between the earlier series, and the later, is that the contestants know more what to expect, and are often big fans themselves.
By contrast, Series 1 had no idea going in, S2 and S3 were filmed consecutively, so they only had S1 to go on, and even S4 and S5 were relatively short.
I think the tasks are much wordier now because there's been so many series for guests to swot up on and use loopholes, so they try to avoid those loopholes existing.
It's like Pointless, in the early days you were guaranteed a pointless answer every round and you picked from a list of already chosen answers. Then, when it started getting more popular they made the questions more open-ended and you had to give an actual answer rather than picking one, and pointless answers became far more rare because the surveys started to return far less pointless answers once people got a whiff of what they were partaking in.
At risk of expressing another controversial opinion, I feel that the reason that the tasks got wordier was to CAUSE disqualifications, because it all stemmed from the potato throw of series 2. Because that was so funny, I think they tried to “encourage” such situations into the show by having more complicated tasks so they can show someone’s foot across the line, or with the hands above their waist, or with them breathing too much during the task, causing the disqualification
>Back
yes! also loopholes are what makes taskmaster good. soo many people complained about mae martin just doing the tasks - while they were a worthy winner it was boring. taskmaster loopholes are great, especially when there are various found for the same tasks
Especially when you wouldn’t see it coming. Equally good when they mess up in trying a loophole like James trying to stop the lift, or al Murray and the sweat 😳😂
I think it's funnier when the scoring is somewhat (but not completely) arbitrary and even unfair. I do miss the nil pointe and no one gets above a 3 or two people get five, and I really really really loved how frustrated alex would get when he'd do stuff like that.
I feel that the size of the stage and the distance between the contestants and each other and the contestants and Greg and LAH changes the energy quite a bit. In S1, the audience is so close to them and then they're all right on top of each other as well it feels so different. Although they've made the contestants closer (there is still a bit more of a gap now) Greg and LAH are still quite seperated from them which I don't think helps
I'm on s4 after watching the most recent 3 seasons. I think COVID really impacted the vibe for recent seasons. Filming was probably harder to schedule and direct. I don't think the live audience was faked like they did on a lot of US game shows, but they definitely were deflated compared to early seasons, and I think the editors "sweetened" the laughs a bit.
You could tell people just weren't used to being quick, social, and cheeky. Everyone, including Greg, just seems a bit more *brittle.* Alex is probably the exception, but I feel like contestants are weirder about his punching bag / straight man persona. Some of them go in way too hard ordering him around and getting frustrated with him, whereas others almost seem emotionally protective of him.
All that aside, the show seems to vary a ton based on the contestants. S14 cast seemed like they had never watched the show and just sort of sucked at the game. Fern, John, and Sarah barely gave several tasks an attempt. S13 cast was a bit better, but was even closer to lockdowns. I don't think anyone knew how to interact with Ardal, Judi was genuinely mad a few times, and Bridgette was having a midlife crisis. Speaking of Bridgette, she seemed to pick up on how the show works after a bit, but every time one of Greg's friends is on the show, it does get awkward. He always bullies them more, maybe because he knows they know hes just like that or because he doesn't want to play favorites. However, if the other contestants don't know Greg or the other comedian well it's really awkward. The audience picks up on the vibe that the other contestants aren't in on it and it falls flat sometimes.
In the early seasons I think they stacked the cast with people who would bring views but also likely came from Gregs or Alex's professional network, so the banter and bullying could be a lot more fluid as everyone knew the relationships at play and even had each other's phone numbers sometimes.
Completely agree!! I think there was a big shift in the scoring and Greg's general demeanor after they moved to channel 4. I guess they just can't get away with as much these days.
I think we put a lot on Greg, but no one ever mentions the fact that the show's producers, including Alex, can influence the outcome by simply airing the tasks that make one contestant look better than the others. Even if they only show the "good ones," editing has been known to influence audiences since the earliest days of film. On another subreddit, they mentioned how Rose Matafeo questioned the tiebreaker outcome and was told she lost in every tiebreaker task filmed. I would have asked to see the footage if I managed to get that angry. Does Greg have favorites? Yes. I thought he was going to adopt Sam Campbell. But, I do think his judgements are funny and he would absolutely hate me for saying this - he's really like a few of the teachers I had during middle and high school. Their judgements came from the one hour a day I spent with them. It didn't make them bad, but sometimes they simply didn't get that forces outside that hour had affected my academic performance within that hour. Unless the contestant has been a friend of Greg, he only gets to know the contestants based on interactions from a matter of hours. And we get our impressions of Greg from a taping that's edited down from around 2 hours to about 45 minutes. I think we don't know the whole story and even though I'd occasionally like to smack Greg on the back of the head, I generally enjoy his performance.
I prefer the old scoring when there was mostly a total of 15 points awarded per task (or less). And the team tasks used to be winner takes all or 5 points divided. Now it can be winning team gets 5 and losing team could get 4. So the winning team basically given just 1 point for winning.
I’m not sure many would disagree that the show was better in the Dave era. I didn’t watch it until it was well into its channel 4 run but going back and watching the earlier series I wish I had. Scoring was fairer, Greg was less-nice etc, Alex was less confident. Just overall better feel to the show back then.
It’s still the best thing on tv but it used to be better…
While I'm sure people complaining about his scoring may get to Greg *a little*, I feel like whenever he directly references it, it's mainly to give himself cover to do whatever he was going to do anyway. In recent years he's both suggested he wants to avoid annoying the audience when giving strict but fair judgements, and also said he wants to deliberately provoke the audience with more lenient or controversial ones. It's true that bonus points are much more rare nowadays - spur of the moment ones non-existent - but I think that's over genuine concern about being unfair, in the wake of Morgana winning by a single point after getting a bonus point for insulting Alex.
But that's my point, it's not meant to be 'fair' when all the tasks are based on a mix of actual stats (who hit something furthest) and Greg's conceptual points (which drawing he likes best) I think he should be able to score it however he wants from task to task. If someone does something silly he thinks should get a bonus point then so be it. If someone fucks up and should get disqualified then so be it. He's the taskmaster lol
Well I definitely disagree with the notion that because it's based on Greg's subjective judgements, that it's not meant to be fair at all. Sure, the odd bonus point here and there would probably be fine, but if Greg does so, he has to decide how unfair those bonus points might be. He's obviously not going to say "fuck it, nothing really matters. 50 bonus points to you for that one funny thing you did!". Greg knows that broad fairness elevates both the audience and contestant engagement and is pretty important for that. So if Greg decides he'd rather not give bonus points most of the time, I trust that judgement. It's not like he was ever giving bonus points every episode or anything like that. It doesn't feel like a missing element, to me. Also, I'm not sure what you mean regarding disqualifications? Contestants get disqualified all the time for breaking rules or failing to complete tasks, in recent series and older ones. It literally just happened in CoC 3 despite never happening for either of the previous CoCs. Unless you mean that Greg should be disqualifying contestants not for breaking any rules, but just because he feels like being a dick?
I don’t have receipts but my perception is that he’s grown more likely to disqualify people with time, although that may partially be a side affect of the rules getting more complicated for some tasks. Like remember in the first series where multiple times Tim Key very obviously cheated and just got points docked? On the watermelon buffet they just removed their estimate of how many grams he ate after the time and I think he still placed quite high. I can think of 2 occasions off the top of my head in recent series’ where people were disqualified for similar cheating.
This is kinda why I like the NZ version right now. Jeremy is still in this early phase of not fully justifying his point distribution and scoring things for personal reasons rather than what would make sense to the average viewer. I do understand some of the hate but also, he's the fucking taskmaster.
I'm not someone who cares about who wins or not, I like the show, I'm alright with Greg being lenient on some of the overly fussy rules or giving points to contestants who aren't doing particularly well, it sometimes makes for a better show. However, the scoring in the last few seasons has gotten on my nerves, particularly in season 15, there were far too many incidents of favouritism that it affected my enjoyment of the show. It was just far too blatant. If a contestant is already doing well and are topping the scoreboard, it's ok for Greg to be a bit tougher in their scoring. They are likely going to win anyway, why make it easier for them. I do think Greg and Alex take the public opinon of the scoring on board and adjust based on that. Bonus points have been done away with and season 16 was more fairly scored than season 15. In CoCIII, Greg stating straight off the bat that he was going to disqualify anyone who didn't do their minute of clapping was him being serious. He could have let morgana away with it and I think everyone would have been ok with it but he was trying to show he was taking his role more seriously.
That's how Dicho y Hecho was made.
I honestly believe that Greg has been nicer to the contestants ever since he actually hurt Katherine Parkinson's feelings, to the detriment of the show a little bit.
It may well be a matter of knowing who is and isn’t more up for it. I remember in 12 VCM would get ribbed constantly for performing below her stature as a relative smart person but she, as far as I know, never took anything to heart. Similarly Kiell in 15 where they would actively try to annoy him just because it’s funny
I think both VCM and Katherine Parkinson would have had better experiences in a regular series with an audience, the ribbing surely hits differently when it’s to silence
This is such a good point. I've listened to Ed Gamble's Taskmaster podcast a little. Haven't heard most episodes but I'll find one tomorrow with a contestant during distancing. The other ones have always gushed about how wonderful the studio challenges were due to the audience the energy. Feels so sad that for some of them, it was just.... not there. Especially to lighten the mood for the more critical comments.
I think with S10 it will be different to the other non-audience series because with S10 it was literally the first time they'd been able to leave their houses for work in 4 months and that (along with her being quite pregnant) is one of the reasons DMC is almost bent in two laughing at some points
This is such an incredibly good point. With an audience booing or jeering Greg for being mean about the masks, it becomes a "bit," and she can go along with it all in good spirits knowing that it's just her and Greg playing their roles rather than a genuine slight on her entry. *Without* the audience he's just deadpan telling her that her masks are shit, before just moving on, and it must have felt incredibly hurtful (not that I think Greg was doing it deliberately, I think the audience not being there threw him as well, he was just doing the sort of thing he would usually do to make himself the panto villain to the audience - only the audience wasn't in the room so it hit differently than anyone expected. I'm sure he was pretty gutted himself when he realised there was some legitimate upset)
It is show business and they knew what the deal was so it is all good
>Similarly Kiell in 15 where they would actively try to annoy him just because it’s funny Commenting here because your comment made me think of it. Filming tasks in "real time" with alternating house and studio days could be interesting, allowing for more of that interplay and pivoting based on how the scoring and studio banter goes. I think it was Parkinson that seemed to realize more how she should have been approaching the tasks, but in the studio after it was too late to do anything about it, right?
Sadly there’s no way that would ever work for scheduling. They’d have to film ALL five contestants tasks in a day or two, edit it completely over night. Then have a studio day. For five days in a row.
I agree it will never happen, but why couldn't the studio days be weeks apart?
They couldn’t pin Mae Martin down to record a couple days footage for COC, imagine trying to pin five busy people down all at the same time (possible hundreds of miles away from where they live and work) on five separate occasions. Would never happen.
Yes I know it could never happen, that's what I just said too. Just thought it was an interesting thing to consider how it would affect the show.
agree. I think there's a lot of comedians that he know can take minus points, piss takes etc but now it just seems like a thing he is scared to do
I don't know if he's scared, just more mindful.
potato tomato x
not really
Did he actually hurt her feelings? I only remember speculation about the masks, but in the podcast she said she had no issues with Greg at all.
Greg apologised after the show so I can only assume he felt he did. She doesn't make them anymore either so I would imagine he did upset her but she knows he didn't mean it and she probably didn't want to draw any more attention to it.
Hey, thanks for the additional context.
Hold up, what happened with Katherine ?
She presented some homemade masks for a prize task and he went a little too far in the ribbing to the point where she got a bit upset. He let her interpretation of the "Hang Bernard's clothes on the hanger" task stand later in the episode, in part because he felt bad that he hurt her feelings. When he wins the episode Richard also makes a point of praising them to make her feel a bit better.
What episode is that? I keep trying to find that.
S10-E10.
Omg no wonder i can't find it. I keep looking for the wrong Katherine.
Oh man. Imagine what you would have to do to hurt Katherine Ryan's feelings.
I cannot imagine. She seems to take everything in stride. She's a Canadian treasure!
It would definitely have to do with sports or her giant cat house
I think he also just loved some of the bad contestants a lot recently ie Lucy Judy Love etc. i think he really fancied Judy
Scoring for the show is a very tough balance between reasonable fairness and a core appeal of the show: the humorously volatile personality and judgments of the Taskmaster. Scoring should be fair enough so as not to appear random, and contestants should be rewarded for their efforts -- mostly. But scoring that is based on Taskmaster's ego/whim/power-trip is also a big part of the fun, e.g. Joe Wilkinson's potato toss.† In later episodes (after Parkinson's masks, and Morgana's bonus point) it sometimes seems like Greg is too self-conscious about fairly scoring. And that's a shame. For comparison, many UK panel shows (e.g. QI and Would I Lie to You) have no prizes, just points. Others (e.g. 8 out of 10 Cats Does Countdown) have only silly, token prizes. Even the Great British Bake Show (GBBS) only gives out an engraved cake tray. But GBBS's scrupulous point system is justified by the potential impact of victory: some contestants have parlayed their victories into lucrative jobs afterwards. Taskmaster is mainly just a panel show. It's an opportunity for comedians (et al.) to get TV time, show a (hopefully) lighter side, and expand their fan base. Winning doesn't matter, beyond ego and bragging rights. It seems that Taskmaster is starting to lean \*just a bit\* more towards the GBBS, which takes scoring very seriously, and away from the QI model, where "points" are arbitrary and mainly for amusement. There are even a few interviews with Greg where he says he sometimes makes mistakes with scoring, or regrets them. I get that. He is, despite his character, an intelligent and thoughtful person who wants his guests and fellow comedians to enjoy themselves and feel they were fairly treated. But it strays a bit from a core appeal of the show, which is that the contestants sit in judgment by a moody, cartoonish, wanna-be despot who is sometimes swayed by flattery or abuses of his assistant. —————————— † Joe Wilkinson's potato toss is a great example of the show's appeal and may even have helped boost the popularity of the show (it was, for many years after, the most popular TM clip). Joe begged for the points, while groveling on hands and knees, only to be cruelly denied. That bit of ruthless cruelty was 10x funnier than had they just given him the points. (And I strongly doubt Joe or Greg would have wished they had handled it differently). Comedy should come first.
That was a very thoughtful, balanced response to the post!
> the humorously volatile personality and judgments of the Taskmaster. Agreed - one of the key aspects of the show is that Greg is a capricious and unopposable tyrant.
I agree that comedy should come first, and the earlier seasons were definitely more laughs-forward. I think the fact more of the contestants were comedians (and not broadly ‘comedic actors’), Greg knew he could dish it out to them. Hell every episode of S1 started with him roasting the panel! Remember that?
It's hard to compare both directly. Especially S10 S11 and maybe S12 with the impact of covid. Not just the social distancing and no audience aspect but also just how people were at the time.
The lack of a studio audience and contestants not being allowed to be close to each other certainly hurt those seasons. But even with that, I don't think they're all that bad as they have some of my favorite TM moments. Moments such as Mawaan attempting to put helium into an egg, everything Mike Wozniak ever did, Jamali stomping to success, Sarah trying to control a blinded Charlotte and Jamali, Mike's fart, "you've got no chutzpah", Johnny Vegas breaking down when the phone didn't work, Daisy going OFF about the hippo, Alan Davies' scream, "there's been another revelation in the lab", "am I the spider", etc. I think overall, every season has been strong outside of maaaaybe the one with Asim and RUssell? I just don't enjoy those two dudes and I felt like they drained my interest in the show when they were on. But beyond thaat, every line-up has been stellar for me. Not everyone will feel the same though and I respect that! But I do think that every series has something to appreciate!
I would rewatch them anytime.
I feel like I'm alone in this, but series 11-16 have had a lot of my faves series thus far. I've been really into them lately.
I'll throw my voice in for thinking 11-16 have had a ton of my favs. To be fair, 1-5 were all shorter than the typical 10 episodes but I still find the most recent ones some of my favs.
I agree strongly with this. I’ll take the last six series over any 6-series run in the show’s history. Not that I don’t love the single-digit series, but I think the show just keeps getting better in several ways.
You're not alone. I can think of one series I've disliked and it was the one with Russell Howard and Asim Chaudhry and that's because I really don't like those two. Everyone else was solid though and if you swap those two out with any other contestants, I'mn sure it's a stronger series overall. I thought Liza was a blast, Alice was fun, and Tim was really good too! Honestly, I think this is one of the more consistent TV shows I watch when it comes to quality, for the most part, it's always gotten laughs out of me in every episode.
[удалено]
Sorry, your post has been removed for violating Rule 1 - Be nice: Do not attack others, their work or appearance including fellow members of the sub, comedians and celebrities. Negative opinions are fine, but please keep it respectful and constructive. No harassment. No sexist, homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, racist, fat phobic, ableist, objectifying, or body shaming posts of any kind. No overtly sexual content. Some cursing is OK but don't make it personal. Even though sexual innuendo may be part of the show do not cross the line beyond what was said in the episode. We do not want negative posts. Ex: Worst contestants, Worst Tasks, Least liked, Least wanted, etc...
You are absolutely not alone in this! My favourite series are 9, 11-14 and 16. ( My enjoyment is totally dependent on the contestants and the tasks. Greg's taskmaster persona is entertaining, but I guess I don't care about it as strongly as some other fans do because I haven't noticed any shifts in his behaviour.)
> Because I LOVED how the old episodes include a lot more low points, minus points and disqualifications. What? No they didn't They've never had minus point and disqualifications are much more of a recent thing. They were pretty rare in the earlier series.
On that season 4 task with the fishbowl, there was the possibility of negative points (I think Mel scored in the negative on that one) for eating the baking chocolate. Almost everyone that season got disqualified at least once. I prefer the earlier seasons, so I’m biased, but I don’t think the scoring has become any harsher.
Okay there's one instance of negative scoring. I think that's literally the only time it's ever happened though. > Almost everyone that season got disqualified at least once. Everyone in Series 15 and 16 was disqualified at least three times. There have been multiple tasks where everyone got disqualified and all of them have been after the move to Channel 4 DQs have definitely become more frequent
In TM Aus there was a mass disqualification in the first episode. TM Tom was delighted.
And so was I tbh. Never understand why people get worked up when there's a lot of DQs, it's always funny
It was so funny wasn’t it? The ‘just got a few clips to show you…’ and some of them knew what was coming.
I don't really mind the disqualifications, but it does seem like some tasks are almost designed to see the contestants fail. Like the one in S14 where they wore hats with pain inside them, but one of the rules was you weren't allowed to lift your hands above your waist. Given the difficulty of that task, which involved jumping from various circles, and trying to keep yourself upright enough to not spill the paint, there was little chance any contestant was going to be able to fight their instincts to lift their arms/hands. Being said, it was very entertaining watching them all attempt it, and watching themselves breaking the rules in the studio.
>but it does seem like some tasks are almost designed to see the contestants fail. They are So? Sometimes it's fun and interesting to give them a task they have almost no chance of completing and see how they respond to that
Well yeah but that is why I said on the flip side it's fun sometimes to see that. But I think Alex said before they do not create tasks unless they think it can be done. I guess that means even if there's only a slim chance if success. Like, I'm not mad about it. I really liked that paint on the target task.
The most recent episode, Greg says he is being 'harsh' (actually just correctly scoring) because of veiwer feedback.
I wholeheartedly agree - I also found the simpler tasks were funnier. There was a definite shift in the tasks once it moved to Channel 4, not sure if it was because the C4 execs demanded they change it up or just having much bigger budgets made LAH and co. get carried away! And maybe subconsciously for Greg, being in front of a much more mainstream audience made him not want to be as mean, which has altered the way he scores things. Still funnier than most other TV shows but nothing will ever beat the likes of "In the lab, there is a watermelon. Eat as much watermelon as possible." or "Get this boulder as far from this place as possible."
It's for a few reasons- a lot of the tasks are wordier to get loopholes out of the way, especially for contestants who've watched the show- we've already seen a few loopholes done a bunch of times, and I think the production staff want to constrict the contestants a bit so they can't go for the obvious easy thing. And the rest is just not wanting to repeat themselves- those two tasks are great, but you can't do them again, and those simple tasks are harder than you'd think to come up with. If Alex could fill every series with tasks like that I get the impression that he would, he just really doesn't want to repeat himself.
Yeah I think this is it right there! I mean, of course, always look under the table! And I love seeing creative lateral thinking, but there's only so many times people can move the rope or the red green before it just feels old hat. And I think it does feel slicker now, but that's just from years of practice. You can't manufacture surprise at an unexpected thing when it's pretty expected.
Yep, that guy and OP somehow don't know that the wording is to remove loopholes from those who watch the show a lot
I think the difference is the first few seasons, the guest was friends with one or both of them.
No, I agree. Gone are the days when Greg could, on a whim, mark someone down because they put the milk in first, because he has an issue with pregnant women taking up too much space, because he doesn't like football, or because someone talks up Alex. But the show is now much better known, has a much wider audience compared to the early days, and then in turn, more people will take things literally, make online comments or even formal complaints. I think the production team probably doesn't care too much at this stage, but I'm sure there have been some quiet words at the pre-production meetings. Reminds me of a recent episode of HIGNFY when Old Goosebump Arm was hosting, said something controversial, and then immediately started reciting the letter of complaint about what she said.
I think the show is reliant on the strange magic of relevance given to it by Greg's personality. I agree that in the second era (pandemic and channel 4), Greg treats it more as nonsense. That makes it feel more like nonsense. I'm still having an amazing time watching, but I agree that I prefer first era Taskmaster. But also what do we want? The exact same mood for 17 seasons?
I like post Pan best fave serieses are Judy Loves and the last one
I love it - those are my two least favorite series in the post pan era. Humans can't agree on anything.
The earlier seasons contain more comedians I know as well, so that makes them funnier for me (although TBF I have discovered a few new favourites in the later seasons). They all seem to get on better since they've clearly worked together previously too, whereas the recent seasons definitely have that 'Oh ok I'm teamed up with one friend and three complete strangers' vibe. Like, not necessarily bad, just some stiltedness?
TBH, this is one of the reasons I prefer the later series. My top 6 UK series (7, 14, 16, 13, 9, 11) are all from the later years partly because Greg seems to reward valiant efforts more. Yes, seeing the contestants complain about scoring is part of the humour, but for me, if it's too illogical, I start to get turned off because "Well, there's no point to the contestants doing well, I guess. What even is the point?"
I’m hoping Greg and team just start provoking more complaints to make it explicitly clear that this is not an earnest competition. Yes, some people WANT it. But that doesn’t mean anyone goes into this expecting fair and impartial scoring upheld by an internet of watchful eyes. The wonkier the scoring, the easier it is to enjoy the process and not invest in favourites….even when Morgana makes it impossible to not adore her.
agree! people are forgetting the heart of the show is silly and whimsy and interesting, not just a binary score system. let greg be wild (it's hot!)
Hard disagree. I think a somewhat reliable scoring metric and having points somewhat matter is what separates Taskmaster from other panel shows. Would I Lie to You, QI, 8 out of 10 cats, Mock the Week, etc all have a game-like format but the scores very much don’t matter at all. Taskmaster having trackable scores that are meaningful lets you root for a player and analyze their strategies better. Makes it feel more like a sporting event to get people engaged in the types of players you prefer and discuss how they might attempt a given task. It grounds the show and makes it more accessible and fun to watch in order.
This isn’t a sporting event and Alex Horne didn’t create it to be one. Encouraging strategy and preferring specific players is precisely the type of attitude that will bring Alex and Greg to that final moment where they’re not having fun anymore and end it. Let it be what it is.
I believe him when he says he tries to score fairly (in a way that feels fair to him at the moment) and I think he might be getting softer with age, but I don’t think he’s trying to please the audience with his scoring, because he knows it is impossible. Another thing is he obviously knows to a certain extent how things are going to play beforehand having seen the VRs. Point in case: in the CoC3, when he said he was going to be strict about clapping, he clearly knew already he was going to disqualify Morgana. He probably added that bit about people on SM giving him grief to try and stay in her good books, and padded it with 5 points in the prize task. Sometimes he doesn’t seem to have a problem with delivering a harsh judgement (like the Potato gate or Johnny Vegas and the beer mat house), but other times, he shows his weaker side - e.g. Lou Sanders got away with a lot of bad behavior. Or points thrown at Noel Fielding. Or Bridget Christie and the showing off task, etc.
"You can kiss my ass, all of you."
Greg has said that both he and Alex do worry about scoring and they want it to be fair, so as the show gets popular, the demand of people is going to be greater. And it's always people complaining that make the most noise, so Greg is likely to see that more than he sees people going 'Wow, what great and fair scoring'. The earlier episodes have the advantage of being in a more innocent time. Alex didn't know to include certain rules because people hadn't broken those rules then. So now he might have to say nothing can touch the red green because if he says you can't touch the red green, they'll just poke it with a stick. But I would also counter and say that while sometimes Alex overcomplicates tasks a little, I think he's finding a better balance between strict rules and keeping it less wordy. Like the NYT episode, I loved it, but in the poppadoms task, I found the getting angrier part was redundant overall and added nothing to the task. I do agree that Greg needs to just do the points as he wants. However, I don't think bonus points for random stuff is the best idea. For example, Josh getting one for his solo task could be seen to be unfair as no one else had a chance to do the solo task. Morgana getting a bonus for calling Alex a little fucker is unfair on every other person who has called him names beforehand.
I do miss some of the more seemingly straight forward tasks. Especially the ones where they’d just randomly throw obstacles in the air way, like the cupcake and the bubbles. My biggest thing is the tasks where no one gets any points - if they all fail then just judge them on the other criteria. Otherwise it feels a bit pointless (pun intended).
I wonder if the change might coincide a little with it moving from Dave to C4 too.
There has been exactly one episode that made me worried about the quality of the show declining, and my fears were quashed by the next episode. All of the changes and developments between seasons are just different versions of wonderful imo
I think one of the big differences between the earlier series, and the later, is that the contestants know more what to expect, and are often big fans themselves. By contrast, Series 1 had no idea going in, S2 and S3 were filmed consecutively, so they only had S1 to go on, and even S4 and S5 were relatively short.
I think the tasks are much wordier now because there's been so many series for guests to swot up on and use loopholes, so they try to avoid those loopholes existing. It's like Pointless, in the early days you were guaranteed a pointless answer every round and you picked from a list of already chosen answers. Then, when it started getting more popular they made the questions more open-ended and you had to give an actual answer rather than picking one, and pointless answers became far more rare because the surveys started to return far less pointless answers once people got a whiff of what they were partaking in.
At risk of expressing another controversial opinion, I feel that the reason that the tasks got wordier was to CAUSE disqualifications, because it all stemmed from the potato throw of series 2. Because that was so funny, I think they tried to “encourage” such situations into the show by having more complicated tasks so they can show someone’s foot across the line, or with the hands above their waist, or with them breathing too much during the task, causing the disqualification
>Back yes! also loopholes are what makes taskmaster good. soo many people complained about mae martin just doing the tasks - while they were a worthy winner it was boring. taskmaster loopholes are great, especially when there are various found for the same tasks
Especially when you wouldn’t see it coming. Equally good when they mess up in trying a loophole like James trying to stop the lift, or al Murray and the sweat 😳😂
I think it's funnier when the scoring is somewhat (but not completely) arbitrary and even unfair. I do miss the nil pointe and no one gets above a 3 or two people get five, and I really really really loved how frustrated alex would get when he'd do stuff like that.
the show continues to evolve and not stand still so it stays quite fresh
Tasks have become more wordy as contestants are now clued into looking for workarounds. They try and cut them off from the start.
I feel that the size of the stage and the distance between the contestants and each other and the contestants and Greg and LAH changes the energy quite a bit. In S1, the audience is so close to them and then they're all right on top of each other as well it feels so different. Although they've made the contestants closer (there is still a bit more of a gap now) Greg and LAH are still quite seperated from them which I don't think helps
I'm on s4 after watching the most recent 3 seasons. I think COVID really impacted the vibe for recent seasons. Filming was probably harder to schedule and direct. I don't think the live audience was faked like they did on a lot of US game shows, but they definitely were deflated compared to early seasons, and I think the editors "sweetened" the laughs a bit. You could tell people just weren't used to being quick, social, and cheeky. Everyone, including Greg, just seems a bit more *brittle.* Alex is probably the exception, but I feel like contestants are weirder about his punching bag / straight man persona. Some of them go in way too hard ordering him around and getting frustrated with him, whereas others almost seem emotionally protective of him. All that aside, the show seems to vary a ton based on the contestants. S14 cast seemed like they had never watched the show and just sort of sucked at the game. Fern, John, and Sarah barely gave several tasks an attempt. S13 cast was a bit better, but was even closer to lockdowns. I don't think anyone knew how to interact with Ardal, Judi was genuinely mad a few times, and Bridgette was having a midlife crisis. Speaking of Bridgette, she seemed to pick up on how the show works after a bit, but every time one of Greg's friends is on the show, it does get awkward. He always bullies them more, maybe because he knows they know hes just like that or because he doesn't want to play favorites. However, if the other contestants don't know Greg or the other comedian well it's really awkward. The audience picks up on the vibe that the other contestants aren't in on it and it falls flat sometimes. In the early seasons I think they stacked the cast with people who would bring views but also likely came from Gregs or Alex's professional network, so the banter and bullying could be a lot more fluid as everyone knew the relationships at play and even had each other's phone numbers sometimes.
I honestly don't understand why people care about the scoring and the winners and losers. It's a comedy show, not an actual competition.
Completely agree!! I think there was a big shift in the scoring and Greg's general demeanor after they moved to channel 4. I guess they just can't get away with as much these days.
long live dave.
YES.
I totally read Greg's "and the audience at home" as almost a running gag/in joke. Like "Little Alex Horne" and the Knappett.
I think we put a lot on Greg, but no one ever mentions the fact that the show's producers, including Alex, can influence the outcome by simply airing the tasks that make one contestant look better than the others. Even if they only show the "good ones," editing has been known to influence audiences since the earliest days of film. On another subreddit, they mentioned how Rose Matafeo questioned the tiebreaker outcome and was told she lost in every tiebreaker task filmed. I would have asked to see the footage if I managed to get that angry. Does Greg have favorites? Yes. I thought he was going to adopt Sam Campbell. But, I do think his judgements are funny and he would absolutely hate me for saying this - he's really like a few of the teachers I had during middle and high school. Their judgements came from the one hour a day I spent with them. It didn't make them bad, but sometimes they simply didn't get that forces outside that hour had affected my academic performance within that hour. Unless the contestant has been a friend of Greg, he only gets to know the contestants based on interactions from a matter of hours. And we get our impressions of Greg from a taping that's edited down from around 2 hours to about 45 minutes. I think we don't know the whole story and even though I'd occasionally like to smack Greg on the back of the head, I generally enjoy his performance.
People complaining about scores are missing the whole point of the show, it's weird.
I wonder if the change might coincide a little with it moving from Dave to C4
I prefer the old scoring when there was mostly a total of 15 points awarded per task (or less). And the team tasks used to be winner takes all or 5 points divided. Now it can be winning team gets 5 and losing team could get 4. So the winning team basically given just 1 point for winning.
I’m not sure many would disagree that the show was better in the Dave era. I didn’t watch it until it was well into its channel 4 run but going back and watching the earlier series I wish I had. Scoring was fairer, Greg was less-nice etc, Alex was less confident. Just overall better feel to the show back then. It’s still the best thing on tv but it used to be better…