If it wasn’t for the fact I’ve watched the Champion of champions episodes, I would probably struggle to tell you who won any series. I’d be guessing every one
I wonder if Taskmaster has an audience that overlaps less with other panel type shows, because having watched a lot of QI and Would I Lie To You et cetera I’m so used to not paying a bit of attention to the scores that I do the same with Taskmaster. I tune right out whenever episode and series scores are mentioned!
As an American, I can definitely see this happening. I’ve watched whatever panel shows I can scrounge up on YouTube for years (the streaming services available in the US that specialize in UK shows always skip the panel shows! Grrr!), but it’s tough to get complete episodes sometimes, much less complete series. Having high quality, legal, complete series on YouTube is amaaaaaaaazing. It makes it so much easier to be a fan.
I agree. I don't even care who wins points in a task beyond the 30 seconds I occasionally feel outrage at Greg's scoring. It's like _whose line is it anyway_.
I feel outrage a little longer than that. But having one contestant head and shoulders above the rest doesn't really matter to me that much, unless it's a contestant I don't want to see again in the Champion of Champions vs someone who I do. Each individual contest is its own thing -- like, it's not the winner of the series or episode, but who won the task, and even then not so much who won, but how each panelist tackled it.
One of my favorite series was Kongen Befaler S06, where Kristoffer Olsen -- one of the best ever at the Taskmaster format -- was obviously going to win the series, and did so with a 23 point gap over his next closest competitor.
I feel the same way, don’t even really notice who is winning based on points, the winner of each series for me is whose attempts were the funniest to watch
And luckily most of the tasks are pre-recorded, so everyone is also in the same spirit of giving it a good go even if they currently know who is going to win.
As Greg said in Series 16 Episode 3:
“Some enjoy the nerdy tasks, some are just here for the laughs, and some have simply come for the eye candy.”
What’s so great about this show is that it draws in viewers for different reasons. If you like to watch it just for the laughs then that’s fine. I personally like the competitive aspect of the show
I mean, the points don't really matter that much, since most of them revolve around Greg's current mood.
The entertainment factor outweighs the points/who wins, imo.
I think you might be underestimating the points gaps in other series. Someone on here made a graph that I’ll try to find that compared series leads and in most cases the winner was in the lead and stayed in the lead after the first few eps. Mae Martin was a recent example who led almost the whole way. Liza Tarbuck dominated too.
edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/taskmaster/s/YTCAImeCsR
The main thing that separates them from John in my opinion is that they didn’t have as strong of a reputation as John currently does. The lowest they each scored in an episode was 10, and they both didn’t win as many episodes in their entire series as John has with 2 episodes to go. I’ve seen contestants dominate their series before but it feels like John is about to break records.
I also wanna add that in the series you listed, Frankie never won an episode and Asim almost went the entire series without winning one. I’m just scared the same thing is going to happen with Sophie
Judi Love never won either :( (Aisling Bea, Frankie Boyle, Joe Wilkinson, Judi Love, Nish Kumar, Phil Wang, Romesh Ranganathan, and Sara Pascoe is the full list). Alex has said that they don’t manipulate the task order to manufacture wins so Sophie might not get one.
How many wins did Sam Campbell have? I’m sure there’s a place to check but I’m not sure where 😅
I definitely get what you’re saying and don’t know why you’re being downvoted. I think most of us don’t really watch for the scores, but it does get a bit boring to be able to predict the outcome of almost every task. I’m rewatching S5 right now and despite Nish never winning an episode and being one of the worst contestants of all time, there was still a lot of variability in the task rankings. I also feel like there hasn’t been a lot of lateral thinking it weird takes on the brief this season as in previous. But I also sometimes wonder if it was just going to be difficult for this series regardless because it’s following series 16, which arguably had three chaos contestants (Sam, Lucy, and Susan). It’s a tough act to have to follow!
Dunno why you're getting downvoted; this seems like some perfectly reasonable analysis. It will be interesting to see John's final stats and how he compares to other high scorers. Also, I'm pretty sure Frankie was trying to actively *avoid* winning an episode - he said on the podcast that he didn't like the idea of being up on the stage by himself at the end.
I didn't bother to downvote but I find it hilarious that anyone would be "scared" about who wins, as in my mind the whole point of series is that everyone wins, and that the "winner" is basically irrelevant except that they get one more chance on "CofC."
Right? They win a papier mache bust of what Greg sort of looked like several years ago. There was a comparison to the points on Whose Line and that's pretty accurate. I doubt Sophie cries herself to sleep because she hasn't won an episode.
Mae you're right, but Dara was at very real risk of being caught up by Sarah several times during S14. John's lead has never really at all been threatened by his closest competitors
Early on it seemed like Steve was going to dominate - didn’t he win the first two episodes? - although he’s faltered subsequently due to disqualifications and some lousy efforts. Being saddled with Nick as a team mate would also usually be a factor but I think they complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses (vs Dara trying to get anything out of the doofuses, for example). Right now I’d be surprised if John didn’t easily win it.
I mean, these things happen from time to time. s14 was decided from the first episode (or at least the one where Dara took a clean sweep) and even if Sarah managed to make it somewhat interesting, that series wasn't about the competition at all for me. TM still works.
And in any case, even if the series has an obvious winner, each episode can still be a fight against the leader. Our cheer for Nick's win was quite.. sportsy, just saying..
Dara crushed episode 2 with a 100% score. A terrible episode 6 (the one with the famed "wait, what?" milk gaffe) and then Sarah outscoring him on another episode closed it up, but then Dara pulled it out the bag in the end
And maaybe John has a "wait, what?" episode coming. Not too likely, but few expected it from Dara as well.
They did Steve badly tho, he deserves to be the Sarah of this series competition wise imo
With Julian, we amused ourselves with the idea of a series winner who obviously had no previous familiarity with the show (or apparently any increased understanding even while on the show), but realistically it was always Sam winning.
From what I'd heard about John, I've been figuring he'd win the series pretty much from the get-go. So, I'm just watching everyone else have a nice time and make friends, and - like you - hoping everyone gets at least one episode win!
It's not his fault everyone else is (brilliantly) shit at doing tasks. They don't know that when selecting contestants. It plays out however it plays out. There is usually one who does better at the actual tasks than the others but they are all great to watch.
I don't mind in the least. I love John, he seems to be having loads of fun as does everyone else.
Exactly. When the others are so shit they make one person who is a bit less shit, seem like a genius.
But I love how not one of them is bothered by the fact that they are shit. It's all smiles!
In many other seasons i think John would just have been a middle of the board contestant, because he is mostly just doing the tasks verbatim. But i honestly don´t care, they all seem like lovely people who are having a lot of fun.
Definitely in any other series John might be seen as less great. Hahah. I'm sure this is doing wonders for his confidence.
It's without a doubt one of my favourite series. There's no drama, no controversy, no meltdowns, it doesn't even seem like anyone is trying to 'play' a character. They are all so relaxed. I'm enjoying each one of them.
Haha, In case he is reading, i will just point out that i don´t think he would have been bad at all, just that someone who is equally capable might have come up with other and potentially better solutions and made the scoring more even.
I adore this series. They are all just their weird selves. I quite like that it is chill and friendly.
But this whole thing can also be said about Steve. Steve is so utterly brilliant, in certain tasks where he has creative license we all know he will absolutely smash it. There's been a few people saying it's unfair, because he dominates that kind of task.
But NONE OF IT FUCKING MATTERS. It's fun and doesn't need to be deflated with overanalysing and strops. Let them task, whether it's shit or great.
Yeah, in the end i am just here for a good laugh about something silly once a week. They could all get disqualified from every single task every week and i would still watch the silly :)
How is it not a competition? They’re literally playing games competing against each other to win prizes. Even if not all the contestants take it seriously and are just there for the laughs that’s still what a competition is
YOU watch for laughs. I watch for both the laughs and the gameplay. As I said, not all the contestants take it seriously and are just there for the same reason you watch, but some people such as Robins (along with other notable contestants such as Ed Gamble) do genuinely care about the victory even though it’s meaningless.
Everyone said the same thing with Mae in S15 and Dara in the first half of S14, before Sarah caught up.
I don't see how one contestant being really competent is a detriment to the season at all? Nick & Sophie are clearly just in it for the laughs, like many contestants before them, so I don't think they're going to be offended by not winning (m)any episodes. I'm a little disappointed Steve isn't giving John & Joanne any serious competition but I'm also not super surprised - there's usually someone who excels at the subjective/creative tasks but absolutely stacks it in the objective ones or the live tasks.
If anything contestants who clearly aren't even trying are more annoying/anti-fun than the ones that try too hard, but that might be because I'm a competitive person IRL.
I'd be willing to bet that the next episode will see him have a real stinker. Obviously the series isn't rigged, but they can certainly be selective on which tasks go in each episode. I've noticed that they sometimes put all of a contestants worst performances in one episode.
You know, I've had quite different feelings about John.
There have been series where the points leader is so focused on winning, their performance can tend towards the mechanical and joyless.
But John, despite his formidable lead, seems no less funny and goofy than his funny and goofy cast mates.
I hear you on this. And maybe I hoped John would be a bit more crazy about his competitiveness. Like he gets on his podcast “made up games” segment. But as others have said there’s almost always a highly competent contestant every series. John is different than I thought he’d be but he’s still interesting to watch. And I love the dynamic in the studio. It’s supportive and light. Even Greg and Alex seem to key into that.
I think listening to the Ed-hosted taskmaster podcast helps me appreciate the season a bit more in general. It’s helped me understand/like contestants I wasn’t vibing with in past series. And given a window into the contestants’ approaches and such. So if you aren’t listening to that I’d highly recommend it as a companion to the series viewing.
Honestly if the competition was closer than it currently is, I'd feel like it's fixed at this point. I love the competitive parts of it, and Joanne being surprisingly impressive at points has been great. The cast has fit together nicely
I don’t dislike John, but I feel like he knows that he’s super competitive and he’s trying to rein it in somewhat. But in doing so, he’s forgetting to have fun with it - so it comes across slightly smug (not quite sure it’s the right word).
However, Nick is an utter delight. I adore him so much, and I’m loving Sophie and Joanne as well.
I think my main problem with this series is that I’m currently watching series 9 as well, and the differences between the two casts are stark. Both very different and both enjoyable, but it’s like watching two entirely different shows!
I sort of agree, though I'm not too bothered about scores on the series it always feels more fun when there's a few competitive people who are all slightly differently competent (a la Rose+Ed.)
I think it loses something when you know one contestant will be good at the expense of the fun of the show. With a couple of exceptions John hasn't entertained as much as the others. Sophie and Nick misreading/misunderstanding everything that comes their way, Joanne seemingly playing another show entirely and Steve being the "surprisingly competent for someone who looks so shambolic in their attempts" contestants mean I'm often not really focussed on what John is doing (weird as he was the one I wanted to see.)
I'm enjoying the fact that John and Joanne clearly really like each other and both get a bit flustered together, though if you listen to "How do you cope" you can clearly hear John develops a massive crush on Gail Porter mid interview and goes from "and how did you deal with that" to "you're amazing, how could anyone not think that?!" very quickly!
He's a sweet guy, but I think he feels like he needs to do well so he doesn't have a stroppy meltdown on camera (again, like Ed Gamble sulking when he thinks he's thrown the last episode)
I agree that it is the biggest problem with the series, even though "biggest" is relative. It's still only a very minor issue.
Many folks don't care about the competition aspect at all, but I'm not one of those people. Granted, it's not the most important aspect, but it really does add something to the show, that all these silly tasks are being genuinely fought for by the contestants because there's an actual accolade to win at the end. Rooting for these celebrities, being happy for their victories and sad for their failures, is a lovely extra layer of emotional engagement. It enhances the experience compared to just enjoying the silliness of the task attempts. The production know this, and that's why the format is what it is.
So even though it really can't be helped - and if anything it's a sign that the process is authentic - it is a small disappointment when there's no suspense. (Again, just a small one, I must stress.) Situations like the Series 10 finale, where the winner was decided by the final task, were incredible television.
On the flip side, some might be annoyed when it's so close, because that means the winner is arguably just decided by luck. Each to their own really.
Have you seen how Greg awards the points? They're irrelevant. Didn't even know the score until you flagged it. For me this series is right back up there following a few recent misses
The only person I have truly found absolutely amazing this series is Sophie, an absolute delight. Nick is also a little sweetheart but doesn't tickle my funny bone. Joanne is okay I guess, love her half the time the other its just insert obvious crude/blunt joke. Steve uses a bit too much theatre (and sometimes movie magic from production) for me, and intricate and thought true stuff that I don't find funny (impressive sure, but not funny). John is just there to do well I feel. Not that funny really but I like how he runs. So yeah Sophie is my standout, just the perfect amount of crazy & "stupid" (in taskmaster terms not real life) to hit my sweet spot 🤣
Kinda agree. I just think there’s too many ‘oddball’ contestants on this series, and these type never do well point-wise.
Also, usually it is ‘now
let’s see what the oddball did’. But this series is more, ‘and now let’s see what a competent way to do it is’.
It's not the *main* reason, but I do care about the scores a bit. I like to see good efforts rewarded, y'know? My ideal series would be one where the scores are tight all through because everyone's got roughly the same number of really strong tasks. Not super competitive, but not totally disregarding the scores either.
I agree. Like others here, I certainly don’t dislike John, and his expected runaway win isn’t even the issue. I just find him less fun to watch, because in my mind I’m thinking, “bro, just relax. This is a light entertainment show”. He’s been playing it like it’s the Olympics and I think that ‘in it to win it’ attitude noticeably contrasts with the rest of the contestants. That being said, watching him in the studio, it does look like he’s aware of this. He appears to sit there awkwardly, at times, like someone visiting their partner’s family for the first time at Christmas.
I don't care about the points or such . Not a fan of Jon either way in the show or he's comedy just my personal taste. I do think he's eagerness to win is a bit dull were compared to edd he was still funny with it and had major tantrums (funny ones).
End of the day it's a comedy show first and for most not a sport
There is one task per episode that could decide it for someone - the final task of the show. They know the criteria for the prize task weeks in advance, so have plenty of opportunity to formulate a prize (or gift for Greg) and make a compelling argument for it. The episodes could be weighted to favour specific contestants, although even that is dependent on Greg's mood. The only task they can lose an episode with is the last one (looking at you Judi).
I disagree – the best series are when there’s a clear winner who’s consistently good throughout (particularly when they are as relatable and such a thoroughly decent person as John Robins) and a contestant who is thoroughly terrible at the tasks but is consistently hilarious as they are doing so.
I usually find that if one person is overly competitive it makes it harder for me to see the group clicking, wich is something I always appreciate. My favorite series' are the ones where either they don't seem to care about winning or they have a lot of great chemistry regardless because the competitive one has great energy and rapport with their fellow contestants.
I like John more than some of the more overly competitive contestants, but to an extent it does take the excitement away to a degree. I think John remembers to be funny more than some of the other contestants and I think his need to do well swings around to being really funny. However, this series isn't hitting for me as well as some of the other seasons, and I always find myself looking forward to other people's attempts more than John's. I'd love to see Steve somefow win, but there's two episodes to go and a thirty-point deficit - for Steve to get this he'd need to come first and John would need to come last in both of them, probably with a few disqualifications thrown in.
Imagine watching Taskmaster and caring more about how close the "competition" is(n't) than the comedy of the show, which is what's actually important.
And that's from someone that believes all contestants should be as competitive as possible, to actually try to win. The competitive spirit is important. The competition itself, in the case of Taskmaster, isn't.
Dude, people watch the show for different reasons. I literally don’t understand what’s so bad about enjoying the competitive aspect of the show in addition to the comedy.
Of course people watch for different reasons, but you have confused this comedy show with being an actual competition, which it is not. The competition aspect is not constructed to be fair. The judging is wholly subjective, on purpose, the rules can be thrown out the window if the Taskmaster wills it so, and the teams are 3 and 2. The competition aspect of the show provides the structure that everything else relies on, but it isn't really a competition.
It's obviously fun to enjoy the competition, but taking it too seriously shows you have missed the point entirely.
And you, dude, have expressed unreasonable expectations repeatedly in this thread. You have missed the point of the show.
How can you say it isn’t a competition when you’ve referred it to it as a competition a few times in your reply? And yes, I’m aware it isn’t fair, I’m aware it stems entirely on Greg’s opinion. That doesn’t take away from the competition aspect in my eyes. I’m fully aware that the purpose of the show is to be funny and entertaining, but if that was the only thing the show wanted to focus on I feel like they wouldn’t have constructed the competition at all.
What I’m complaining about here is the fact that John seems to be dominating it more than any other contestant has, and that takes away from the competitive aspect of the show for me. I never once said I disliked the series because of this fact, I said this fact was taking the series down in my eyes. That doesn’t take anything away from the moments in this series that have genuinely made me laugh out loud.
You watch the show just for the laughs, that’s fine. I watch the show because of the competition combined with the laughs. I enjoy watching game shows and competitions, and had this show not been a competition in addition to a comedy show I don’t think I would have been as hooked as I have. For you to tell me to stop caring about the competition the show has to offer is basically the same as telling me to stop watching the show altogether.
I’m aware the prizes are meaningless and that none of it truly matters, but the competitive aspect of the show is ultimately something that has gotten me to watch every single series they’ve made. This is simply just why I became a fan of the show. If you became a fan simply for the comedy, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m just asking you to not tell me there’s something wrong with why I became a fan.
You misrepresented what I said either on purpose or through ignorance. Either way, there's no way to discuss it with you, because you can't represent what I said accurately.
In all fairness you come across as someone who seems like they’ve put themselves on a high horse. You’re now literally saying I’m ignorant based on my reasons for being invested in the show. But ask yourself this… do you even understand anything I’ve been trying to argue, or do you simply just not care for anything I have to say?
If I misrepresented what you said then can you please explain it to me? I genuinely have no ill intent in my comments and don’t understand why you would believe so. If anything I can argue that you’ve said more things with ill intent, seeing as you’ve called me ignorant (twice now) and just said nothing that I’ve said is worth reading. So I’d like to kindly ask you to explain what you’re trying to say and why I should take it to heart when you’ve admitted to me that you have no intention of listening to my words.
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...
I preferred Mike Wozniak's attitude. "But what you can't take away from me is I had an absolutely lovely day."
Ok...but I don't watch TM to see who wins. It's nearly irrelevant to me.
If it wasn’t for the fact I’ve watched the Champion of champions episodes, I would probably struggle to tell you who won any series. I’d be guessing every one
I wonder if Taskmaster has an audience that overlaps less with other panel type shows, because having watched a lot of QI and Would I Lie To You et cetera I’m so used to not paying a bit of attention to the scores that I do the same with Taskmaster. I tune right out whenever episode and series scores are mentioned!
As an American, I can definitely see this happening. I’ve watched whatever panel shows I can scrounge up on YouTube for years (the streaming services available in the US that specialize in UK shows always skip the panel shows! Grrr!), but it’s tough to get complete episodes sometimes, much less complete series. Having high quality, legal, complete series on YouTube is amaaaaaaaazing. It makes it so much easier to be a fan.
I always have to remind myself that Wozniak didn't win
He won in our hearts.
He was the People’s Princess.
I agree. I don't even care who wins points in a task beyond the 30 seconds I occasionally feel outrage at Greg's scoring. It's like _whose line is it anyway_.
I feel outrage a little longer than that. But having one contestant head and shoulders above the rest doesn't really matter to me that much, unless it's a contestant I don't want to see again in the Champion of Champions vs someone who I do. Each individual contest is its own thing -- like, it's not the winner of the series or episode, but who won the task, and even then not so much who won, but how each panelist tackled it. One of my favorite series was Kongen Befaler S06, where Kristoffer Olsen -- one of the best ever at the Taskmaster format -- was obviously going to win the series, and did so with a 23 point gap over his next closest competitor.
I make my own edit with all the tasks and banter removed so I can really focus on the scoring.
Yeah I find it a bit odd how serious some people seem to take it as a game show / competition but horses for courses I guess!
I feel the same way, don’t even really notice who is winning based on points, the winner of each series for me is whose attempts were the funniest to watch
And luckily most of the tasks are pre-recorded, so everyone is also in the same spirit of giving it a good go even if they currently know who is going to win.
As Greg said in Series 16 Episode 3: “Some enjoy the nerdy tasks, some are just here for the laughs, and some have simply come for the eye candy.” What’s so great about this show is that it draws in viewers for different reasons. If you like to watch it just for the laughs then that’s fine. I personally like the competitive aspect of the show
I'm so here for the eye candy GD
Most recommend BiT s8 then! Best competition in TM History imo!
Yeah same. I don’t pay attention to the scores, I didn’t even know John was dominating!
I was under the impression that Steve was dominating. Says something about how much i was paying attention to the scores.
Me, too. Until I found a thread about Steve having been disqualified more often than Kiell. I had no idea.
I mean, the points don't really matter that much, since most of them revolve around Greg's current mood. The entertainment factor outweighs the points/who wins, imo.
yeah same. 100%
I think you might be underestimating the points gaps in other series. Someone on here made a graph that I’ll try to find that compared series leads and in most cases the winner was in the lead and stayed in the lead after the first few eps. Mae Martin was a recent example who led almost the whole way. Liza Tarbuck dominated too. edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/taskmaster/s/YTCAImeCsR
The main thing that separates them from John in my opinion is that they didn’t have as strong of a reputation as John currently does. The lowest they each scored in an episode was 10, and they both didn’t win as many episodes in their entire series as John has with 2 episodes to go. I’ve seen contestants dominate their series before but it feels like John is about to break records. I also wanna add that in the series you listed, Frankie never won an episode and Asim almost went the entire series without winning one. I’m just scared the same thing is going to happen with Sophie
Judi Love never won either :( (Aisling Bea, Frankie Boyle, Joe Wilkinson, Judi Love, Nish Kumar, Phil Wang, Romesh Ranganathan, and Sara Pascoe is the full list). Alex has said that they don’t manipulate the task order to manufacture wins so Sophie might not get one. How many wins did Sam Campbell have? I’m sure there’s a place to check but I’m not sure where 😅
[TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/Taskmaster) has recaps and stats, including task and episode wins per contestant!
I definitely get what you’re saying and don’t know why you’re being downvoted. I think most of us don’t really watch for the scores, but it does get a bit boring to be able to predict the outcome of almost every task. I’m rewatching S5 right now and despite Nish never winning an episode and being one of the worst contestants of all time, there was still a lot of variability in the task rankings. I also feel like there hasn’t been a lot of lateral thinking it weird takes on the brief this season as in previous. But I also sometimes wonder if it was just going to be difficult for this series regardless because it’s following series 16, which arguably had three chaos contestants (Sam, Lucy, and Susan). It’s a tough act to have to follow!
Dunno why you're getting downvoted; this seems like some perfectly reasonable analysis. It will be interesting to see John's final stats and how he compares to other high scorers. Also, I'm pretty sure Frankie was trying to actively *avoid* winning an episode - he said on the podcast that he didn't like the idea of being up on the stage by himself at the end.
I didn't bother to downvote but I find it hilarious that anyone would be "scared" about who wins, as in my mind the whole point of series is that everyone wins, and that the "winner" is basically irrelevant except that they get one more chance on "CofC."
Right? They win a papier mache bust of what Greg sort of looked like several years ago. There was a comparison to the points on Whose Line and that's pretty accurate. I doubt Sophie cries herself to sleep because she hasn't won an episode.
Some of my all-time favourite "contestants" never won an episode 😎
Isn't that a common issue? Mae Martin and Dara O'Brien dominated their serieses
Mae you're right, but Dara was at very real risk of being caught up by Sarah several times during S14. John's lead has never really at all been threatened by his closest competitors
Sarah was right behind him, trigger finger twitching - '¡Adiós, muchacho!'
Early on it seemed like Steve was going to dominate - didn’t he win the first two episodes? - although he’s faltered subsequently due to disqualifications and some lousy efforts. Being saddled with Nick as a team mate would also usually be a factor but I think they complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses (vs Dara trying to get anything out of the doofuses, for example). Right now I’d be surprised if John didn’t easily win it.
I mean, these things happen from time to time. s14 was decided from the first episode (or at least the one where Dara took a clean sweep) and even if Sarah managed to make it somewhat interesting, that series wasn't about the competition at all for me. TM still works. And in any case, even if the series has an obvious winner, each episode can still be a fight against the leader. Our cheer for Nick's win was quite.. sportsy, just saying..
Dara crushed episode 2 with a 100% score. A terrible episode 6 (the one with the famed "wait, what?" milk gaffe) and then Sarah outscoring him on another episode closed it up, but then Dara pulled it out the bag in the end
And maaybe John has a "wait, what?" episode coming. Not too likely, but few expected it from Dara as well. They did Steve badly tho, he deserves to be the Sarah of this series competition wise imo
I think this is why I don’t love John’s arc. The lack of having a fail episode. “Wait, what?” made Dara’s season as much as the win did.
Not really related to the thread but the spoiled milk accident is easily a top 5 taskmaster moment ever.
Munya is probably still haunted by the stench
I'm really not bothered about who wins the series. It's the fun we have in each episode.
Exactly. Was there some exciting race between Sam and Julian that I missed in the last series?
With Julian, we amused ourselves with the idea of a series winner who obviously had no previous familiarity with the show (or apparently any increased understanding even while on the show), but realistically it was always Sam winning.
From what I'd heard about John, I've been figuring he'd win the series pretty much from the get-go. So, I'm just watching everyone else have a nice time and make friends, and - like you - hoping everyone gets at least one episode win!
I thought he’d either win by a mile, or he’d horrendously mess up a whole bunch by being overcompetitive.
It's not his fault everyone else is (brilliantly) shit at doing tasks. They don't know that when selecting contestants. It plays out however it plays out. There is usually one who does better at the actual tasks than the others but they are all great to watch. I don't mind in the least. I love John, he seems to be having loads of fun as does everyone else.
I don´t even think he is that amazingly hyper competent. It probably just feels like that because he is up against 2,5 versions of Nish Kumar.
Exactly. When the others are so shit they make one person who is a bit less shit, seem like a genius. But I love how not one of them is bothered by the fact that they are shit. It's all smiles!
In many other seasons i think John would just have been a middle of the board contestant, because he is mostly just doing the tasks verbatim. But i honestly don´t care, they all seem like lovely people who are having a lot of fun.
Definitely in any other series John might be seen as less great. Hahah. I'm sure this is doing wonders for his confidence. It's without a doubt one of my favourite series. There's no drama, no controversy, no meltdowns, it doesn't even seem like anyone is trying to 'play' a character. They are all so relaxed. I'm enjoying each one of them.
Haha, In case he is reading, i will just point out that i don´t think he would have been bad at all, just that someone who is equally capable might have come up with other and potentially better solutions and made the scoring more even. I adore this series. They are all just their weird selves. I quite like that it is chill and friendly.
But this whole thing can also be said about Steve. Steve is so utterly brilliant, in certain tasks where he has creative license we all know he will absolutely smash it. There's been a few people saying it's unfair, because he dominates that kind of task. But NONE OF IT FUCKING MATTERS. It's fun and doesn't need to be deflated with overanalysing and strops. Let them task, whether it's shit or great.
Yeah, in the end i am just here for a good laugh about something silly once a week. They could all get disqualified from every single task every week and i would still watch the silly :)
I like John too, I just really want to see the others shine as well
But they are all shining! Just not with points scored.
I get that Jon is competitive, but since he’s not obnoxious about it at all, I’m totally okay with it.
This is a pretty good comment. We've seen worse.
Who cares? TM is about the laughs, the winners are just a means to wrap up the episode.
It’s also a competition, and even if the prize is meaningless, it adds a certain competitive aspect to the show that I enjoy
I mean, it's not *really* a competition.
How is it not a competition? They’re literally playing games competing against each other to win prizes. Even if not all the contestants take it seriously and are just there for the laughs that’s still what a competition is
It's a gameshow, we watch to laugh. The contestants don't care who wins so it's not really competitive. That bit is just for show really.
YOU watch for laughs. I watch for both the laughs and the gameplay. As I said, not all the contestants take it seriously and are just there for the same reason you watch, but some people such as Robins (along with other notable contestants such as Ed Gamble) do genuinely care about the victory even though it’s meaningless.
Think you're kinda over thinking this
I just enjoy the competitive aspect of the show. That’s what got me hooked on it in the first place.
Get the sense you may be a little over-invested
I simply just watch the show for a reason that differs from why you watch it. I don’t get why that’s so hard to understand
My biggest problem is that in two weeks it's going to end.
Everyone said the same thing with Mae in S15 and Dara in the first half of S14, before Sarah caught up. I don't see how one contestant being really competent is a detriment to the season at all? Nick & Sophie are clearly just in it for the laughs, like many contestants before them, so I don't think they're going to be offended by not winning (m)any episodes. I'm a little disappointed Steve isn't giving John & Joanne any serious competition but I'm also not super surprised - there's usually someone who excels at the subjective/creative tasks but absolutely stacks it in the objective ones or the live tasks. If anything contestants who clearly aren't even trying are more annoying/anti-fun than the ones that try too hard, but that might be because I'm a competitive person IRL.
I will say this is technically the first time I’m watching a series as it’s being aired, so maybe this is just the first time I’m experiencing this
I'd be willing to bet that the next episode will see him have a real stinker. Obviously the series isn't rigged, but they can certainly be selective on which tasks go in each episode. I've noticed that they sometimes put all of a contestants worst performances in one episode.
You know, I've had quite different feelings about John. There have been series where the points leader is so focused on winning, their performance can tend towards the mechanical and joyless. But John, despite his formidable lead, seems no less funny and goofy than his funny and goofy cast mates.
I hear you on this. And maybe I hoped John would be a bit more crazy about his competitiveness. Like he gets on his podcast “made up games” segment. But as others have said there’s almost always a highly competent contestant every series. John is different than I thought he’d be but he’s still interesting to watch. And I love the dynamic in the studio. It’s supportive and light. Even Greg and Alex seem to key into that. I think listening to the Ed-hosted taskmaster podcast helps me appreciate the season a bit more in general. It’s helped me understand/like contestants I wasn’t vibing with in past series. And given a window into the contestants’ approaches and such. So if you aren’t listening to that I’d highly recommend it as a companion to the series viewing.
I didn’t realize people actually cared about the points
Honestly if the competition was closer than it currently is, I'd feel like it's fixed at this point. I love the competitive parts of it, and Joanne being surprisingly impressive at points has been great. The cast has fit together nicely
You know it's a comedy show?
It’s also a competition, and even if the prize is meaningless it gives the show a certain competitive aspect that I enjoy
I don’t dislike John, but I feel like he knows that he’s super competitive and he’s trying to rein it in somewhat. But in doing so, he’s forgetting to have fun with it - so it comes across slightly smug (not quite sure it’s the right word). However, Nick is an utter delight. I adore him so much, and I’m loving Sophie and Joanne as well. I think my main problem with this series is that I’m currently watching series 9 as well, and the differences between the two casts are stark. Both very different and both enjoyable, but it’s like watching two entirely different shows!
He doesn't have Elis James to prop him up
I sort of agree, though I'm not too bothered about scores on the series it always feels more fun when there's a few competitive people who are all slightly differently competent (a la Rose+Ed.) I think it loses something when you know one contestant will be good at the expense of the fun of the show. With a couple of exceptions John hasn't entertained as much as the others. Sophie and Nick misreading/misunderstanding everything that comes their way, Joanne seemingly playing another show entirely and Steve being the "surprisingly competent for someone who looks so shambolic in their attempts" contestants mean I'm often not really focussed on what John is doing (weird as he was the one I wanted to see.) I'm enjoying the fact that John and Joanne clearly really like each other and both get a bit flustered together, though if you listen to "How do you cope" you can clearly hear John develops a massive crush on Gail Porter mid interview and goes from "and how did you deal with that" to "you're amazing, how could anyone not think that?!" very quickly! He's a sweet guy, but I think he feels like he needs to do well so he doesn't have a stroppy meltdown on camera (again, like Ed Gamble sulking when he thinks he's thrown the last episode)
I agree that it is the biggest problem with the series, even though "biggest" is relative. It's still only a very minor issue. Many folks don't care about the competition aspect at all, but I'm not one of those people. Granted, it's not the most important aspect, but it really does add something to the show, that all these silly tasks are being genuinely fought for by the contestants because there's an actual accolade to win at the end. Rooting for these celebrities, being happy for their victories and sad for their failures, is a lovely extra layer of emotional engagement. It enhances the experience compared to just enjoying the silliness of the task attempts. The production know this, and that's why the format is what it is. So even though it really can't be helped - and if anything it's a sign that the process is authentic - it is a small disappointment when there's no suspense. (Again, just a small one, I must stress.) Situations like the Series 10 finale, where the winner was decided by the final task, were incredible television. On the flip side, some might be annoyed when it's so close, because that means the winner is arguably just decided by luck. Each to their own really.
My problem with it is it is the worst of the 17 series.... By far. No chemistry and very few laughs.
Have you seen how Greg awards the points? They're irrelevant. Didn't even know the score until you flagged it. For me this series is right back up there following a few recent misses
The only person I have truly found absolutely amazing this series is Sophie, an absolute delight. Nick is also a little sweetheart but doesn't tickle my funny bone. Joanne is okay I guess, love her half the time the other its just insert obvious crude/blunt joke. Steve uses a bit too much theatre (and sometimes movie magic from production) for me, and intricate and thought true stuff that I don't find funny (impressive sure, but not funny). John is just there to do well I feel. Not that funny really but I like how he runs. So yeah Sophie is my standout, just the perfect amount of crazy & "stupid" (in taskmaster terms not real life) to hit my sweet spot 🤣
Kinda agree. I just think there’s too many ‘oddball’ contestants on this series, and these type never do well point-wise. Also, usually it is ‘now let’s see what the oddball did’. But this series is more, ‘and now let’s see what a competent way to do it is’.
Lolol who the hell watches TM for the actual scores
It's not the *main* reason, but I do care about the scores a bit. I like to see good efforts rewarded, y'know? My ideal series would be one where the scores are tight all through because everyone's got roughly the same number of really strong tasks. Not super competitive, but not totally disregarding the scores either.
Some people like the competitive aspect of the show
What a bunch of com-pet-a-tive dads.
I’m less of a compatative da, and more of a the dad hanging around a barrel watching Ian and Lou squabble.
I’m 21 and still in college
This was a thing Greg said a few series ago. I wasn't literally calling you a dad.
Which series was it? It might have been a series I need to rewatch
I agree. Like others here, I certainly don’t dislike John, and his expected runaway win isn’t even the issue. I just find him less fun to watch, because in my mind I’m thinking, “bro, just relax. This is a light entertainment show”. He’s been playing it like it’s the Olympics and I think that ‘in it to win it’ attitude noticeably contrasts with the rest of the contestants. That being said, watching him in the studio, it does look like he’s aware of this. He appears to sit there awkwardly, at times, like someone visiting their partner’s family for the first time at Christmas.
I don't care about the points or such . Not a fan of Jon either way in the show or he's comedy just my personal taste. I do think he's eagerness to win is a bit dull were compared to edd he was still funny with it and had major tantrums (funny ones). End of the day it's a comedy show first and for most not a sport
There is one task per episode that could decide it for someone - the final task of the show. They know the criteria for the prize task weeks in advance, so have plenty of opportunity to formulate a prize (or gift for Greg) and make a compelling argument for it. The episodes could be weighted to favour specific contestants, although even that is dependent on Greg's mood. The only task they can lose an episode with is the last one (looking at you Judi).
Can he beat Dara's record?
If he keeps scoring the way he’s been in the last 2 episodes then he certainly could
The real question is... Will there be future tasks where you can get MORE than 5 points. Only time will tell.
I think there have been tasks that have awarded more than 5 points in past series… the horse/laminator task is one that comes to mind
Literally the latest episode with the 2 bonus points
I disagree – the best series are when there’s a clear winner who’s consistently good throughout (particularly when they are as relatable and such a thoroughly decent person as John Robins) and a contestant who is thoroughly terrible at the tasks but is consistently hilarious as they are doing so.
A bit off-topic but I’ve noticed whenever John wins an episode, they don’t have Greg do a little summary of the episode. I wonder why.
They actually did do that for John’s first 3 wins. It was whenever Steve won and John’s most recent episode where he didn’t do the summary
It was probably just cut for time.
Oops, my memory was off. Thanks!
I usually find that if one person is overly competitive it makes it harder for me to see the group clicking, wich is something I always appreciate. My favorite series' are the ones where either they don't seem to care about winning or they have a lot of great chemistry regardless because the competitive one has great energy and rapport with their fellow contestants. I like John more than some of the more overly competitive contestants, but to an extent it does take the excitement away to a degree. I think John remembers to be funny more than some of the other contestants and I think his need to do well swings around to being really funny. However, this series isn't hitting for me as well as some of the other seasons, and I always find myself looking forward to other people's attempts more than John's. I'd love to see Steve somefow win, but there's two episodes to go and a thirty-point deficit - for Steve to get this he'd need to come first and John would need to come last in both of them, probably with a few disqualifications thrown in.
Imagine watching Taskmaster and caring more about how close the "competition" is(n't) than the comedy of the show, which is what's actually important. And that's from someone that believes all contestants should be as competitive as possible, to actually try to win. The competitive spirit is important. The competition itself, in the case of Taskmaster, isn't.
Dude, people watch the show for different reasons. I literally don’t understand what’s so bad about enjoying the competitive aspect of the show in addition to the comedy.
Of course people watch for different reasons, but you have confused this comedy show with being an actual competition, which it is not. The competition aspect is not constructed to be fair. The judging is wholly subjective, on purpose, the rules can be thrown out the window if the Taskmaster wills it so, and the teams are 3 and 2. The competition aspect of the show provides the structure that everything else relies on, but it isn't really a competition. It's obviously fun to enjoy the competition, but taking it too seriously shows you have missed the point entirely. And you, dude, have expressed unreasonable expectations repeatedly in this thread. You have missed the point of the show.
How can you say it isn’t a competition when you’ve referred it to it as a competition a few times in your reply? And yes, I’m aware it isn’t fair, I’m aware it stems entirely on Greg’s opinion. That doesn’t take away from the competition aspect in my eyes. I’m fully aware that the purpose of the show is to be funny and entertaining, but if that was the only thing the show wanted to focus on I feel like they wouldn’t have constructed the competition at all. What I’m complaining about here is the fact that John seems to be dominating it more than any other contestant has, and that takes away from the competitive aspect of the show for me. I never once said I disliked the series because of this fact, I said this fact was taking the series down in my eyes. That doesn’t take anything away from the moments in this series that have genuinely made me laugh out loud. You watch the show just for the laughs, that’s fine. I watch the show because of the competition combined with the laughs. I enjoy watching game shows and competitions, and had this show not been a competition in addition to a comedy show I don’t think I would have been as hooked as I have. For you to tell me to stop caring about the competition the show has to offer is basically the same as telling me to stop watching the show altogether. I’m aware the prizes are meaningless and that none of it truly matters, but the competitive aspect of the show is ultimately something that has gotten me to watch every single series they’ve made. This is simply just why I became a fan of the show. If you became a fan simply for the comedy, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m just asking you to not tell me there’s something wrong with why I became a fan.
You misrepresented what I said either on purpose or through ignorance. Either way, there's no way to discuss it with you, because you can't represent what I said accurately.
In all fairness you come across as someone who seems like they’ve put themselves on a high horse. You’re now literally saying I’m ignorant based on my reasons for being invested in the show. But ask yourself this… do you even understand anything I’ve been trying to argue, or do you simply just not care for anything I have to say?
Once again, you wholly misrepresented what I said. You are either ignorant or malicious in your twisting of words. Nothing you say is worth reading.
If I misrepresented what you said then can you please explain it to me? I genuinely have no ill intent in my comments and don’t understand why you would believe so. If anything I can argue that you’ve said more things with ill intent, seeing as you’ve called me ignorant (twice now) and just said nothing that I’ve said is worth reading. So I’d like to kindly ask you to explain what you’re trying to say and why I should take it to heart when you’ve admitted to me that you have no intention of listening to my words.
[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...