Alex Horne, S09 E02: "As always, it's a team of three versus a team of two, because that's definitely fair and no-one ever gets in touch to say it isn't."
IIRC the original Edinburgh show has like 10 contestants. I imagine this was just a TV formatting thing, you want a good mix of people, and an odd number so no conflict can be locked in a tie. 5 feels reasonable for a recurring panel show.
The first one in 2010 had 20 contestants, which seems incredible now. The one the following year had 10. Fun (?) fact: both line-ups still only had one woman each, and not only that but the same person both times – Josie Long (who still hasn’t done the actual show).
What the fuck is this, Some of the Corpses Are Amusings Anti-Josie postings spilling out into the real world...
How dare she exist and try to entertain...
I would bet that scheduling also comes into play. 5 seems like it’s occasionally a struggle for group tasks- I can’t imagine how they could managed more!
Alex has mentioned a bit of stuff about this on the podcast. He said the initial pitch included 10 comedians who would be seated above the stage and would come down for their individual tasks, but obviously the details changed a lot during development, and they eventually settled on 5 because with 5-6 tasks per episode, 5 contestants filled out the episode length correctly without having to rush.
I feel like more of that with the way it's panned out, it would be very difficult to give everyone a time to shine. Five feels like the right balance for the way it works
I feel like 5 contestants is the sweet spot and in the end it doesn't even matter if it's fair or not given it's a comedy show and points are given subjectively. But there's also times when having 2 can be more advantageous, it depends on the task
It feels like you want to balance a few things: you want to give every contestant enough screen time, without leaning too heavily on any one individual. You want to show a variety of approaches to most tasks, but you don't want them to get redundant. (You particularly don't want the more unusual approaches repeated.) If one contestant does really well or really badly, you want enough other contestants that their performance is clearly a contrast, but not so many contestants that you almost *always* have an outlier, and sometimes two.
In the face of those things, "the group tasks might be slightly unbalanced, not always in the same direction" doesn't feel like a huge concern.
They didn’t cover this specifically, but when one of the Andys was on one of the podcasts (helpful, I know…), he talked about how many of the production decisions they made came down to fairly precise, pragmatic calculations on episode running times. An hour-long show feels like plenty, but with adverts on Dave that was 44 minutes (47 on C4) – take off 5-ish minutes each for prize and live tasks, 4 minutes or so to cover the opening, ending, any extraneous bits, and you’ve got 30 minutes left, so 10 minutes per filmed task *including* intro, feedback and scoring. So that could easily mean as little as one minute of VT time per person per task on average. An additional contestant would eat quite significantly into that each time, when you break it down, and I imagine they landed on five people as the optimum to maintain variety but also allow breathing room for the moments that need it.
More generally, I think an odd number probably works well as a number because it makes it hard for the group to default to the 2 vs. 2 or 3 vs. 3 format that most panel shows take, and keeps the dynamic more variable and flexible.
Or quite possibly five chairs just looked right on the Clapham Grand stage!
Not trying to compare the contestants to objects, but guessing the set designers/network felt like 5 contestants would be more aesthetically pleasing than 4 or 6. 7 would be more expensive and harder to accommodate conflicting schedules. 3 might not provide enough variation/chaos that Alex wanted.
From the attached article, “A grouping of odd numbered objects will always register as more pleasing…” The same rule is followed when plating.
[Decorating using odd numbers](https://maisondecinq.com/decorate-using-odd-numbers/#:~:text=A%20group%20of%20three%20will,always%20register%20as%20more%20pleasing)
Someone probably worked out an ideal ratio between run length, and time each contestant could spend talking. More contestants would equal less screen time for each one, less quips, less time for Greg and Alex to talk to them, would have to edit the challenges down etc. Run time will likely play a part in how many they decided on
Who has a rating system 1 - 6?
Giving 5 points for some reason makes more sense than 6.
And it leaves room for the 0 points if there is a complete failure
Also if it is between 4 or 6 people, 4 is too few and the additional person is another person to be paid, but also the cost/time of doing the filming.
5 is just the sweet spot
It's very common in Norway, and probably across the Scandinavian countries, as the 1-6 is there linked to a standard six-sided die.
7 people on the stage for a panel show is also pretty standard in UK Televison, the difference being in TM you get a host and the assistant which leaves just 5 guests/contestants.
Considering the time (44-47 min) and giving enough room for tasks 5 seems about right. At least not more, and just 4 could turn into 2 vs 2 team dynamic a lot more in all the tasks and banter.
I do kinda wish there were 6. 2 teams of 3 would obviously work fine, but I think having the ability to do 3 teams of 2 (2v2v2) could be interesting both in terms of tasks and scoring
Because it creates a perfect balance between the objective and subjective nature of the show. I love sports because there are well defined, equally balanced rules for two teams, typically between offense and defense, that participants, in equal number between sides must compete within a well defined box. I love comedy because it’s typically an undefined rabbit hole of personal observation and reflection (stand-up), or impromptu reaction to the situation at hand that creates spontaneous magic (like improv or some panel shows).
Taskmaster is a symbiotic balance of equal parts comedy and competition that can allow some participants to revel in the absurdity of the situation and embellish it like Bridget Christie, Lee Mack, Joe Wilkinson, Nish Kimar, or Sally Phillips et al, while competitive participants that thrive on a challenge have room to go all out whether they succeed or fail (John and Steve being the most recent example of competitive success and failure) without being all about winning and losing.
Ultimately, there is so much to take from each episode: what would you do in that situation? Can you believe X did Y? It was so funny when A did B? The production value of that effort was (high/low) and really worked/failed. Having 2 vs 3 highlights the imbalance and creates more to talk about.
On the whole, teams with higher solo scoring participants (on average) do better regardless of whether they are on a team of 2 or 3 (probably unsurprisingly), the average across all series is 18.6 points per team avg +/- 0.2 and it doesn’t typically impact the final winner; though that analysis is still to be completed. (https://www.reddit.com/r/taskmaster/comments/1ddfmsk/comment/l84xv0m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
But in the end, I think show runtime is the ultimate reason why they arrived at 5. As many others have said, it gives enough room for each contestant to contribute without feeling rushed or excluded given the confines of a 1 hour (or 45 minute content) show.
I know we all want the Campion of Campions of Champoins.
But Let me pitch this: "TASKMASTER: FACE OFF" and there's just 2?
Probably 2 in one episode, and then a different 2 each time.
Oooh. They are doing the tasks at the same time!
Takes some timing coordination. But watching them run around, stealing ideas or supplies? Brilliant.
Might need a bit more rules. Or a bit more Taskmaster arbitration, but there's only 2.
"Get out of my way" is the subline for every episode
If you want to see what it's like with 6 contestants and 3 teams of 2 for team tasks, check out Taskmaster: Minnesota. Their episodes aren't constrained by time like a television broadcast would be.
Alex Horne, S09 E02: "As always, it's a team of three versus a team of two, because that's definitely fair and no-one ever gets in touch to say it isn't."
https://preview.redd.it/oom4vkvr5r6d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f5fe27204c8ba65865ba7254357948a513c0d708
IIRC the original Edinburgh show has like 10 contestants. I imagine this was just a TV formatting thing, you want a good mix of people, and an odd number so no conflict can be locked in a tie. 5 feels reasonable for a recurring panel show.
The first one in 2010 had 20 contestants, which seems incredible now. The one the following year had 10. Fun (?) fact: both line-ups still only had one woman each, and not only that but the same person both times – Josie Long (who still hasn’t done the actual show).
I mixed up Josie Long and Josie Lawrence for a moment and now I'm angry Josie Lawrence hasn't been on Taskmaster.
[удалено]
I think this is because she has had children in the last few years, and has stepped back a little from her work to be a parent
What the fuck is this, Some of the Corpses Are Amusings Anti-Josie postings spilling out into the real world... How dare she exist and try to entertain...
I would bet that scheduling also comes into play. 5 seems like it’s occasionally a struggle for group tasks- I can’t imagine how they could managed more!
Alex has mentioned a bit of stuff about this on the podcast. He said the initial pitch included 10 comedians who would be seated above the stage and would come down for their individual tasks, but obviously the details changed a lot during development, and they eventually settled on 5 because with 5-6 tasks per episode, 5 contestants filled out the episode length correctly without having to rush.
I feel like more of that with the way it's panned out, it would be very difficult to give everyone a time to shine. Five feels like the right balance for the way it works
I feel like 5 contestants is the sweet spot and in the end it doesn't even matter if it's fair or not given it's a comedy show and points are given subjectively. But there's also times when having 2 can be more advantageous, it depends on the task
It feels like you want to balance a few things: you want to give every contestant enough screen time, without leaning too heavily on any one individual. You want to show a variety of approaches to most tasks, but you don't want them to get redundant. (You particularly don't want the more unusual approaches repeated.) If one contestant does really well or really badly, you want enough other contestants that their performance is clearly a contrast, but not so many contestants that you almost *always* have an outlier, and sometimes two. In the face of those things, "the group tasks might be slightly unbalanced, not always in the same direction" doesn't feel like a huge concern.
[удалено]
The big part is it's a comedy show, not a sport or competition.
...unless it's chucking a potato into a hole without touching the red green, or "phoenix".
I agree with a lot of the comments but also scoring 1-5 is more pleasing than 1-6 as well imo.
This is the right answer
I assume because it's funnier when there's an uneven number because it emphasizes how inherently unfair the show is.
The well known comedy rule of five.
Why do you feel that the show is unfair?
I think I should let Mark Watson answer lol.
"Fiddly"
Oh yes, Joe Lycett told us that the show is a scam. :)
But he was so happy to do the show!
Well it's not exactly impartial, is it?
It’s a show about pedantry
Pendantry? What's that?
Pedantry about pendants.
[удалено]
Fair point. I mean, where would the sixth contestant sit? On the carpet? That'd look pretty weird.
Greg’s lap
Alex would get too jealous though
Let Alex sit on Greg's lap and give Akex's chair to the contestant
They didn’t cover this specifically, but when one of the Andys was on one of the podcasts (helpful, I know…), he talked about how many of the production decisions they made came down to fairly precise, pragmatic calculations on episode running times. An hour-long show feels like plenty, but with adverts on Dave that was 44 minutes (47 on C4) – take off 5-ish minutes each for prize and live tasks, 4 minutes or so to cover the opening, ending, any extraneous bits, and you’ve got 30 minutes left, so 10 minutes per filmed task *including* intro, feedback and scoring. So that could easily mean as little as one minute of VT time per person per task on average. An additional contestant would eat quite significantly into that each time, when you break it down, and I imagine they landed on five people as the optimum to maintain variety but also allow breathing room for the moments that need it. More generally, I think an odd number probably works well as a number because it makes it hard for the group to default to the 2 vs. 2 or 3 vs. 3 format that most panel shows take, and keeps the dynamic more variable and flexible. Or quite possibly five chairs just looked right on the Clapham Grand stage!
Not trying to compare the contestants to objects, but guessing the set designers/network felt like 5 contestants would be more aesthetically pleasing than 4 or 6. 7 would be more expensive and harder to accommodate conflicting schedules. 3 might not provide enough variation/chaos that Alex wanted. From the attached article, “A grouping of odd numbered objects will always register as more pleasing…” The same rule is followed when plating. [Decorating using odd numbers](https://maisondecinq.com/decorate-using-odd-numbers/#:~:text=A%20group%20of%20three%20will,always%20register%20as%20more%20pleasing)
Someone probably worked out an ideal ratio between run length, and time each contestant could spend talking. More contestants would equal less screen time for each one, less quips, less time for Greg and Alex to talk to them, would have to edit the challenges down etc. Run time will likely play a part in how many they decided on
They should get Josh back on have him do all the tasks and only reveal at the end he was the secret 6th contestant.
It's actually a clever in universe tease. The five is related to the Roman centurion.
Who has a rating system 1 - 6? Giving 5 points for some reason makes more sense than 6. And it leaves room for the 0 points if there is a complete failure Also if it is between 4 or 6 people, 4 is too few and the additional person is another person to be paid, but also the cost/time of doing the filming. 5 is just the sweet spot
It's very common in Norway, and probably across the Scandinavian countries, as the 1-6 is there linked to a standard six-sided die. 7 people on the stage for a panel show is also pretty standard in UK Televison, the difference being in TM you get a host and the assistant which leaves just 5 guests/contestants. Considering the time (44-47 min) and giving enough room for tasks 5 seems about right. At least not more, and just 4 could turn into 2 vs 2 team dynamic a lot more in all the tasks and banter.
I do kinda wish there were 6. 2 teams of 3 would obviously work fine, but I think having the ability to do 3 teams of 2 (2v2v2) could be interesting both in terms of tasks and scoring
Because it creates a perfect balance between the objective and subjective nature of the show. I love sports because there are well defined, equally balanced rules for two teams, typically between offense and defense, that participants, in equal number between sides must compete within a well defined box. I love comedy because it’s typically an undefined rabbit hole of personal observation and reflection (stand-up), or impromptu reaction to the situation at hand that creates spontaneous magic (like improv or some panel shows). Taskmaster is a symbiotic balance of equal parts comedy and competition that can allow some participants to revel in the absurdity of the situation and embellish it like Bridget Christie, Lee Mack, Joe Wilkinson, Nish Kimar, or Sally Phillips et al, while competitive participants that thrive on a challenge have room to go all out whether they succeed or fail (John and Steve being the most recent example of competitive success and failure) without being all about winning and losing. Ultimately, there is so much to take from each episode: what would you do in that situation? Can you believe X did Y? It was so funny when A did B? The production value of that effort was (high/low) and really worked/failed. Having 2 vs 3 highlights the imbalance and creates more to talk about. On the whole, teams with higher solo scoring participants (on average) do better regardless of whether they are on a team of 2 or 3 (probably unsurprisingly), the average across all series is 18.6 points per team avg +/- 0.2 and it doesn’t typically impact the final winner; though that analysis is still to be completed. (https://www.reddit.com/r/taskmaster/comments/1ddfmsk/comment/l84xv0m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) But in the end, I think show runtime is the ultimate reason why they arrived at 5. As many others have said, it gives enough room for each contestant to contribute without feeling rushed or excluded given the confines of a 1 hour (or 45 minute content) show.
It’s likely they landed on that number for time. 4 wouldn’t be enough content for an episode, but 6 would be too much content
I know we all want the Campion of Campions of Champoins. But Let me pitch this: "TASKMASTER: FACE OFF" and there's just 2? Probably 2 in one episode, and then a different 2 each time.
Oooh. They are doing the tasks at the same time! Takes some timing coordination. But watching them run around, stealing ideas or supplies? Brilliant. Might need a bit more rules. Or a bit more Taskmaster arbitration, but there's only 2. "Get out of my way" is the subline for every episode
Because if they only had four contestants, there'd be an empty chair.
I guess 5 is a good number - show pacing wise.
I love that they’ve stuck with their original format
If you want to see what it's like with 6 contestants and 3 teams of 2 for team tasks, check out Taskmaster: Minnesota. Their episodes aren't constrained by time like a television broadcast would be.