Talk:The Krypton Factor

POV
I don't know who's responsible for this page, but it is great, with one exception. The trivia bit is POV. You can't say "that was a nice touch that should have been left in". CarlosUK 18:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Revival
The Krypton Factor was one of a kind and to be honest it would be brilliant to revive this fantastic and original programme. All we are left with today is vacuous, contrived and dull reality TV formats, which seems to make people think that anyone can become a 'celebrity'. They should keep the original theme tune, they should keep the original presenter, and not replace them with some dull 21st century indie-track or presenter like Jamie Theakston.

Copyright
The trivia section appears to have been lifted wholesale from the UKGameshows entry on this programme. 172.216.141.93 17:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1992/3
What's more, it's wrong. I am the 1992 winner, Andrew Craig. There was NOT a champion of champions show in 1993! Am I allowed to correct that, or would that count as original research? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manormadman (talk • contribs).

After checking with Wikipedia administrators, I've now removed the erroneous reference to a 1993 Champion of Champions roundManormadman 18:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Manormadman

I have once again removed the reference to the 1993 Champion of Champions round -- there was no such event. As the 1992 champion, I would know! And of course the reference is unsourced Manormadman (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Manormadman

I've changed the material from the which the trophy was made - someone has said it was a gold trophy, but in the first episode of the 1987 series, a recap of the 1986 is shown, with announcer Charles Foster announcing that David Kemp had been awarded the BRONZE statue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.42.66 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1992 trophy is sitting on my mantelpiece. As far as I can tell, it's made of brass Manormadman (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Manormadman

1995 revamp
That "revamp" completely killed it and it lost so many viewers that it was cancelled soon after. Nobody -audience or contestants- could ever understand what that end game was all about, and it took up so much of the programme that the previous rounds seemed pointless and worthless. I seemed to remember they removed more than one of the (excellent) original rounds too, it might have been the plane simulator one?? Walshie79 (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the new series...
I think it would be wise to start a new article covering the revival instead of putting it here because I feel that the new shows will be completely different from the originals. --Marianian (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree but until we find this out then it should stay. If the format is different then it would need a new article (e.g. Top Gear (original format) & Top Gear (current format)) -- [[ axg|undefinedSpecial:Contributions/AxGtalk  |undefined]] 21:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything, it sounds like "Series 19" will be more like Series 1-17 than Series 18 was. 18 was a complete change from the format of Series 1-17 if memory serves correctly. Nrms (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now the official press release is out it appears the new series will be following the format of the original series. I've tidied up the article to move bits out of trivia and the introduction, part of which is now in a new 'history' section. Brollachan (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Split this page?
I see that this article may need to be split into two or three separate articles because of the possibility of huge differences between the two incarnations. One example is the production company, which is not Granada TV for the revival, but ITV Productions instead. Other examples include different presenters and the long gap between the two incarnations (1996 to 2009 = 13 years). Any thoughts? --Marianian (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If splitting the articles I don't think they should be referred to as 'Granada Series' and 'ITV Series', primarily as Granada was an ITV region even back then. There's a brief review on Bother's Bar which indicates the changes aren't as huge as some thought.  I think it may be worth waiting until the first episode airs to determine whether a page split is required. Brollachan (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider the Gladiators example (original|revival). --Marianian (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, watched the new version last night, and I remember the original version as well, so here goes...
 * Yes; the set has changed a great deal, we have a new host, the assault course has been changed, there is now an ad break in the middle, and the Response round has been lost (those 2 are probably related); but the revival seems generally the same as the original run, so I don't really see a merit in splitting the page. Plus, we don't know how many series have been commissioned (do we?)
 * Other comments though... Am not sure I like the new style. There are other little changes that have been made - The Kyrpton Cube (isolation booth) for the Mental Agility round, the fact that the scores are announced to all after each contestant has been in there (or were they all wearing headphone... Was hard to see). The assault course is now much longer, so is heavily cut. And the flight sim is a great loss. Still, change is inevitable as TV tastes, attention spans, etc change :(

Nrms (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think a split is necessary, the format is pretty much the same as ever - actually, it's almost exactly the same as the pre-1986 format, weird lighting aside. --88.111.21.148 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a split will ensure that the older eras are appropriately covered. I think the coverage of the 2009 series on this article will compromise the coverage of older series. --Marianian (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any need to split the articles. The 2009 revival is, in essence, the same as the original. Despite the long hiatus, it is essentially a new series of the original programme and is, in fact, made by the same production company (ITV Productions being the successor company to Granada), at the same studios. Also, consider Blankety Blank, which has just one article, despite a seven-year hiatus, various presenters and a change of broadcast channel. 203.171.199.37 (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split, but if it is, three articles is overkill - two is enough 90.201.253.13 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep it as one page. This is fairly faithful to the original. With Gladiators, they are completey new versions --Numyht (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote for keeping it as one page. ITV Production is effectively the same as Granada since it was Granada that took over all the regions and resulted in the formation of ITV Productions. I think it says somewhere on wikipedia that programmes made by ITV plc (ITV Productions) for other non-ITV networks are credited as Granada. Anyway, the programme is the same it's just changed a bit.94.193.93.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC).

As the majority of comments to date have been against splitting the page (2 for, 6 against) I'm going to remove the split template from the article page. Brollachan (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

2010 Series
I watched the start of the new (2010) series last night and it appears that they've done away with the Intelligence round. Can anyone find anything to back this up? Given that the other series' rounds are explained in such depth, we may need to add this information. IndieSinger (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

2011
Emailed ITV and got the following response:

'Dear Mr ---, Thank you for your recent email regarding The Krypton Factor. There are no plans for a series this year. Sorry to disappoint.' db1987db (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)