Show Discussion: The Question Jury

questionjuryWeekdays, 4pm,
Channel 4

Quizzy Mondays get temporarily quizzier this week with the launch of The Question Jury on Channel 4 afternoons, in the fabled Benchmark slot no less. Or one of them anyway.

Seven people in a jury room work as a team and face questions to win a cash prize of up to £10,000. At the end of the show they must select a Final Foreman who will play for all the money for themselves and win or lose will leave the show to be replaced by a new person the next day, with entirely new groups starting on Mondays.

An interview with the producers (one of whom is Wiiiiill Macdonald) suggests each person gets to be the Foreman once a show rotating, which suggests seven questions before the final, which suggests slow. They’re banking on the reality aspect to keep it compelling. Four weeks worth of shows have been filmed.

Does it work? Let us know what you think in the comments.


  1. Brig Bother says:

    I thought I put a link to the interview in but apparently I didn’t so here it is:

  2. Thomas Sales says:

    I think there’s more than seven questions in total, given that it mentions a quickfire round. In any event, we’ll find out tomorrow.

  3. John R says:

    In other news a first for the Mulhern Catchphrase as a contestant won £50,000. Seemed to split the Digital Spy community a little, especially when they discovered her Twitter stated the word ‘actor’!

    Watching the Nick Weir and Mark Curry re runs recently I forgot how much ‘help’ the contestants were given during the final round, and as for that awful setup where they sit down by a small tele…

    • Daniel H says:

      Just watched this and the jackpot winner was one of the most over the top contestants I have ever seen on a British game show, getting very excitable at nearly every correct answer.

      I watched the first episode after that which was pleasantly calmer.

      Well done to her though and to be fair she did win £50,000 and if you’re not allowed to go wild then, when are you?

      A couple of other points of note:

      Whilst still slow the Super Catchphrases seemed a tad easier on both shows

      You also now can’t be frozen out in the Catchphrase Qualifier which has the double effect of potentially hearing from the eliminated player a bit more but likely with a good chunk of dozy buzz-before-you-think answers

  4. Cliff says:

    Having done a run-through/audition of this, I can say that this is a really excellent game to play. Hopefully it’ll be just as much fun to watch.

  5. Andrew 'Kesh' Sullivan says:

    First episode broadcast, so I’ll provide the obligatory run-through for Andrew Hain.

    7 members of the public are The Question Jury and sit in a Jury Room with a Washroom off to one side. They must answer questions to bank money up to £10,000. For each question, one of the jury is named Foreman who relay the answers to an off-screen judge who communicates via a speaker on the desk. Questions are given to them on cards in envelopes by an off-screen Clerk.

    Questions 1 and 2 are worth £500 each.

    After this is the first of 3 quick-fire question rounds. They have 90 seconds to answer up to 10 questions, each worth £50. One of the 7 members of the jury MUST be silent throughout this round and they cannot pass on any question.

    Questions 3 and 4 are worth £1,000 each.

    The 2nd quickfire round plays exactly like the first, again for £5 a question, but this time 3 of the jury must be silent.

    Questions 5 and 6 are worth £1,500 each.

    The 3rd quickfire round plays exactly like the 2nd with 3 of the jury remaining silent, but each question is now worth £100 each and one incorrect answer at any point ends the round.

    Question 7 is worth £2,000.

    After all the questioning is complete, the judge asks who feels they should be the Final Foreman to stand up. Any of the jury who are left seated then cast their votes for who should be the Final Foreman. The chosen jury member then has to answer one final question in order to win everything that has been banked over the course of the show. They can debate the answer with the rest of the jury, but they must give the final answer on their own. If they are correct, they win the entire pot, but leave with nothing for an incorrect answer.

  6. David says:

    Well, I thought it was intriguing…

    Format rundown:

    7 players start the week- and the only people we see are these 7 people, limited to two rooms, a washroom and the jury room.

    There is no “host” per se- there’s an offscreen narrator, a clerk that gives the questions to the jury (but stays outside the door), and a “judge” who announces the correct answers through a speaker. The players themselves read the questions out,

    There is a foreman position that rotates through the game (each person is guaranteed to be the foreman for one normal question), and they say “our verdict is” to confirm their (unanimous) answer.

    Round 1 has 2 questions worth £500 each.

    This is followed by a quickfire round- the jurors pick the foreman for this one; they have 90 seconds to answer 10 questions the foreman reads out for £50 each. They must give an answer before they can move on- they can’t pass. In this round the foreman must pick one person to stay silent.

    Round 2 is 2 questions for £1000 each- then another quickfire round at £50 per answer- but this time the foreman can only pick three other people to help, the others must be silent.

    Round 3 is 2 questions at £1500 each- then a final quickfire round. In this round the questions are worth £100 each, but an incorrect answer stops the round immediately. Again, the foreman can only pick three people to help.

    Then there is a final question for £2000.

    After this, the jurors have to pick a final foreman, who will go for the money accumulated- but will leave the show whether they win or lose the money, to be replaced by a new person the next day. The jurors who want to be the foreman stand up- after they explain why they should be the foreman, the jurors who decided to stay seated vote on who the final foreman is- and the foreman is given the final all-or-nothing question (the other jurors can help, but the final decision is the foreman’s alone).

    Question difficulty is about average- one good thing they do is on some questions they show the source of the correct answer. The narrator isn’t too annoying, and I suspect as the week goes on we’ll see some storylines among the jury (since all the action is limited to only two rooms).

    A solid B+ from me.

  7. Brig Bother says:

    Mmm. OK.

    I think the question difficulty is quite well pitched with plenty of possible pitfalls which makes for some occasionally intriguing discussion, but on the other hand it’s a pity that much of this seems to stem from ‘which is biggest/fastest/strongest?’ which made early Million Pound Drop a bit dull. I think a lot of us were hoping for something a bit more Million Dollar Mind Game.

    It does seem a bit odd that if it’s being put on to counter Tipping Point’s larger but older skewing audience with a younger audience who find structured reality appealing that the contestants seem fairly middle-aged.

    I think the game works fine and decently well but the reality aspect makes it a slow-burner and I daresay probably too slow burning for me. Am I compelled enough to want to tune in the rest of the week? Probably not. I do wonder how I might have reacted to it ten years ago though when I had more time.

    • David says:

      I wonder if they missed a trick by having the judge voice- you could have made it so the jury room and washroom were more futuristic and all the questions and answers were shown on a large monitor….So the only person outside the jury you’d hear would be the narrator, and since he doesn’t interact with the players you could say the show has no host at all (if you’re being technical, 100% had no host, but the voiceover gave the questions to the players and announced the scores to them, so he interacted with them a little)…

      • David B says:

        I would agree that the set seems to be following the DoND mould a bit too much. As you imply, all the getting up out of your chair business to get the question was a bit tiring after a while. There was probably a happy medium to be had.

    • Brekkie says:

      Is it another case of a promising format being ruined by being stretched to an hour?

      • Brig Bother says:

        I think an hour of it is fair for what it is, there’s not much wastage. The question is whether enough people want it for what it is. If you come for quiz it’s slow, if you come for reality it’s watching people do a quiz, tensions that are there probably won’t come out entertainingly until later in the week.

      • Brekkie says:

        Had chance to watch the first episode tonight and agree it does fit quite well into the hour and it is a format where the questions need time to breathe. It’s a pleasant enough hour of daytime TV, but not something I’ll be recording to watch after work from now on.

  8. David B says:

    I think, unlike a lot of recent shows, it pretty much sticks to the principle indicated by the title and there’s a lot to commend there.

    The only thing I don’t like are the speed rounds. They smell of padding, even if it’s been done on the admirable principle of getting more questions into each episode. There doesn’t seem to be much consequence to missing a question other than not banking any money. I think there could be more jeopardy.

    I’m not sure what happens on Fridays. Does that mean the person who joins then only gets one shot at the final? Seems harsh. I’d have preferred it if the finalist and the longest jury member leave, and two new people join.

    • Simon says:

      I think it will work DOND-esque so it will continue on from Friday to Monday with the same jurors (although that will leave 6 people on the final show of the run who won’t get a chance to win money).

      I did like it – far better to have contestants thinking out loud in this format than the artificial way they have to do it on things like In It To Win It.

      Clearly they have casted some people who are going to be annoying.

      • Thomas Sales says:

        I will say that when you do know the answer, like I did with the Greatest Hits question, waiting for them to deliberate can be excruciating. Giving Jurors three shots at getting to Final Foreman, a la Fifteen to One, is the best way forward in my opinion.

      • Cliff says:

        No, David was right. I suspect that’s something that would be fixed if the show was to get a longer run, but there are probably logistical/budgetary reasons for resetting the jury every 5 shows in this initial short series.

        • Brig Bother says:

          I’m intrigued to see how Fridays work as surely it’s in no-one’s interests to remain seated. Presumably everyone will get a free vote.

          • John R says:

            Nothing 🙁

            Which means the Friday player might as well basically not turn up, as they’re unlikely to ever get picked.

            Struggling to think how they can make it a bit more fair but not come up with anything obvious yet, I don’t think DOND style would work as it wouldn’t really offer any jeopardy if they all knew they were eventually going to get a go at the money, obviously there will be smaller and bigger prize pots but lets be honest the format means it will usually be hovering somewhere in the middle (4-6k mark).

            • miki b says:

              Regarding fridays entrant if that person smashes it!, they are in the running it would also be down to their personality

              • Thomas Sales says:

                Perfection had a random selection that in the final series limited contestants to eight games. I would prefer something like that as opposed a end-of-week cull.

            • miki b says:

              As i thought it is possible for fridays jury member to get selected even though it took good gameplay by charlotte to sit and have the power!,she sure pissed some people off lol!

  9. John R says:

    Not sure if I like this or not yet to be perfectly honest, although I wasn’t a huge fan of the court theme especially imagining myself coming off the back of watching Judge Rinder on ITV an hour or so earlier!

    The final also felt a bit flat too, get a category that stumps you and the panel and straight away Game Over. Probably needs some sort of twist as other rounds in the game certainly introduced some!

  10. miki b says:

    Great game,great potential.

  11. Brig Bother says:

    300k for this yesterday apparently. I have no clue what C4 would be happy with in that slot. It is not a great figure, but clearly it is very cheap to produce. As I always say, watch the trend, I don’t think Benchmark got pulled before it went under 200k.

    Three In A Bed was in the slot last week.

    • Jon Steadman says:

      I’m pretty sure Benchmark launched to 400k. Reckon C4 will be disappointed with 300k.

      Will need to see if it build or drops.

      • Brig Bother says:

        Yep, launched with 380k in a slot average of 604k according to previous comments – but that was the slot average last June so it may well have changed in the interim.

    • Brekkie says:

      C4 have struggled to launch anything in daytime really since childrens TV moved of ITV and especially BBC1. It used to be their time whilst the BBC and ITV fulfilled their PSB obligations, and against competition it’s just not holding up.

      That said I wonder if waiting for Wimbledon to be over was the best idea – with BBC1 and BBC2 dominated by tennis for the fortnight there were probably quite a few daytime TV viewers with little interest in the sport looking for something else to watch so launching a fortnight earlier might not have been a bad idea.

  12. Brig Bother says:

    Actually one thing that I’ve pondered, during the quickfire rounds various people have to stay silent, but could they gesticulate?

  13. Crimsonshade says:

    And we’ve had this decade’s “Poke Face” moment:

    According to All 4, this program’s title is “The Question Jufy”.

  14. jon says:

    How were the ratings yesterday?

  15. jon says:

    On a separate note, has anyone else played the chuckle brothers quiz app BB tweeted earlier?
    The TV pack has quite a few questions on gameshows.

    Not sharing my score – lost it all on game of thrones questions.

  16. Denise Davies says:

    Watched the show this week.
    Some of the contestants have been on other shows.
    We’re the invited ? Or just lucky to be chosen?

    • Cliff says:

      Invited to audition.

    • Billy Lewis says:

      I too have seen a lot of these people on shows before, but not on game shows, as extras in tv shows, but can’t put my finger on which shows been bugging me since I caught the show last week, turned it on today and again I see people I recognise from other tv programs, are channel four using actors for this show because the people really ham it up and are very over the top

      • Cliff says:

        Not scripted actors, no. But one of the women who was at the same audition as me had also recently auditioned for Love Island. The Question Jury is made by the same company as Made in Chelsea, so those sort of people (wannabe “reality stars”) are on their books. But the contestants on The Question Jury clearly aren’t scripted in any way.

  17. Denise Davies says:

    I recognise 2 people ( men ) for sure. And I think another woman.
    One of the people has been on a few programmes.
    Coincidence ?
    Cliff you said you auditioned.
    Where did you see ad,? Or were you asked/ approached.?
    Are you a serial game show contestant?

    • Jane says:

      Some game shows are on send in an application make it wacky so you get noticed. You then get invited to audition and then it’s fingers crossed

    • Paul says:

      I’m one of the contestants this week, and I cam tell you hand on heart, that even though I have been on other shows, I applied and auditioned like everyone else, if there were any special favours about (which I dont think for one second there were) then I missed out!

      • Jane says:

        Same here Paul I apply and audition if I’m right for the show I get in it if not I don’t. You have to sign a form to say you aren’t connected with anyone at the tv company so there can’t be special favours!
        For those who haven’t tried give it a go it is great fun!!

    • Cliff says:

      I’ve been on three shows in recent years, and been a standby on another, so I do sometimes get calls from producers asking me to come in for a run-through (as with the upcoming Stop the Clock) or an audition (as with The Question Jury). Sadly I haven’t actually made it to a recording for a couple of years now.

  18. miki b says:

    Even though i have been on a few shows if your not right for the show you wont get on!, i, like paul,know there are no favours as far as i am concerned.

    • David says:

      Quote, ‘not right for the show’ is obviously subjective, and who makes decisions as to ‘who’ are the right people, troubles me. But hey, much of this type of tv sets out to offend, as it is a catalyst for exposure.

  19. Denise Davies says:

    I think you are putting words in my mouth.
    I’m not saying anyone got any ‘ special’ treatment.
    I’m just observing that I had seen people on t.v shows before.
    And was it the case that they were asked to appear.? Invited to audition ?
    You may not have been on a quiz show, but on another type of show. Reality?
    It’s just seems that you start to recognise the same faces.
    One of the contestants was on Judge Rimmer, and something else.

  20. Mmm-mmm-mmm. Entirely competent and has a nice build-up of tension but doesn’t immediately really do much for me. It feels slow but it doesn’t feel like it wastes time, except where it gets into revealing two possible correct answers.

    This comes into the category of show where much of the play-along value comes from working out how you’d play the game. As far as I can tell, I think players have a particular card to play: “I’m so confident in this answer, if you go with this and it’s wrong then I pledge that I will not stand to be The Final Foreman”, and challenge others to make the same pledge. Sure, there’s nothing stopping someone from making the pledge, getting it wrong and standing at the end, but it would make their case weak.

  21. Wrong Guess! says:

    I like the early rounds, but the end game doesn’t really work for me. Needs more jeopardy and to be a lot different from the main game.

    • Brig Bother says:

      I’m intrigued to find out what extra jeopardy you can add to an all or nothing situation!

    • David says:

      Sounds right, which Is why I cannot work out how Pete was selected having talked Arthur out of Wellington being the most southerly national capital city, after he asked him to speak up, then he instantly shot him down. But the rib tickler was the plum then talked himself out of the final prize, based on how he treated others on the jury, both he and Matt in particular left with their just deserts, nothing, love it ha ha. Take care.

  22. Denise Davies says:

    I don’t know if any of the contestants ( week 1 and 2) wish to say what other t.v programmes they have been on.
    I know that some were not game shows.

  23. Andrew 'Kesh' Sullivan says:

    Non-relevant news, but news all the same.

    I just got an email from Beonscreen, and it looks like the BBC are giving Time Commanders another go and are looking for contestants.

  24. Daniel H says:

    Getting to quite like this after thinking it was quite slow to begin with. I still wasn’t quite sure about the “everyone’s out after Friday” rule but it certainly resulted in quite a game today…

    • David says:

      Agree, simple fix, just let those in the room stay until they are nominated as final foreman. Add permissable back-stabbing, a little treachary and tactical voting, and unpleasant surprises, et voila. Take care.

  25. Justin Owdfart says:

    What a flawed format this show has, however it brings out the worst in the contestants. The last show (29/7) it was so obvious that 2 people had made a pact to get elected as final foreman, which sparked a big row. If the rest of the ‘jury’ couldn’t see that coming, then they really are as stupid as they come across. Good luck to Aaron, after being slagged off by the others all week for being wrong and inarticulate he walked off with the money without any help from the the others who were deliberately trying to throw him off track. I just hope he gave his ‘accomplice’ a few bob. But yes, compulsive viewing, although I think they’ll struggle for contestants in future.

    • David says:

      Just watched them all and I nearly totally agree, only to say I like the format but it could do with minor tweeking, my favourite protag by far was Becky, instantly likeable, sharp and her antics made me laugh, and considering humble nature of her job relative to others, imo after Jo and Arthur she consistently demonstrated a good ‘general knowledge’ for a woman of her age. I think Arthur had a really likeable sense of humour and imo a totally decent who is a genuine team player. Sorry so long. Can’t wait to get stuck into the next one. Take care.

  26. Dorothy Paterson says:

    Brilliant new programme. Will be glad when it comes back. Only sorry it was only four weeks. The interaction between the contestants and their idiosynchrasies make it very interesting.

    • Andrew 'Kesh' Sullivan says:

      Yeah, I’d like to see it come back as well. If a contestant call goes out, then I’ll be sure to apply for it as I’d really like to have a go

  27. David says:

    Really both funny and engaging to see the final outcomes for individuals who in my opinion deserved to leave the room with nothing, and I could not stop laughing when Aaron won the money as you saw a scheme backfire completely, as Imo Jo found the right answer on so many ocassions in that game, the devicive elements in the room the loud were allowed to dominate the wise. Funniest of all, the key agitants have thus far all left with nothing, whilst those conspired against were virtually gifted money they in essence, did not deserve.

  28. Epik says:

    I’m just catching-up with this show and watching Episode 14 was absolutely stunned to see that two jurors with supposedly high IQs (Jane 155, Matt 145 both tested by Mensa) did not know that 100 is the *average* IQ score.

    • Thomas Sales says:

      Good! Here’s hoping they do away with the “five shows and everyone’s out” rule. I don’t see how it’ll work where there are fewer than five shows in a week, for example due to the Paralympics or racing.

Leave a Reply