It's scary that games can go as badly as that, with very low offers to match. Felt very sorry for Aurora, as there was just nothing she could do about it. I thought the banker might offer a reasonable £250 at the final offer (following the theme of the £2,500), but he couldn't even manage to do that. The only positive factor is that she took it well.

What makes it worse is that it was only her 15th show; if I were her, I'd be wondering whether things would've been different if she'd done a longer run of shows!

The bad luck is still hanging around, but it mustn't be forgotten that there were some healthy games this week in the form of Laura's, Bessie's and Carol's; and even Nicholas's wasn't a total washout.

Totally agree with H there, Aurora just didn't have the luck, The promise of a mean offer at 2 box was very generous -especially as she could have easily had a 1p/£5,000 final pair, and it would have been nice if the banker could have honoured the spirit of that whatever the final pair, I think he just wanted to see if he could create another 1p winner at the end there and looking at it from his POV it was too good an opportunity to pass up.

Definately. I missed the first part today, and I was very surprised to find that it was Aurora's game. The way the game went, she just didn't have a chance to have a massive win. Personally, I think that type of game is the worst.

That, frankly, was unwatchable. Once the 100K went, I started fast-forwarding, and once the 5K went, I jumped straight to the final open.

I know I'm going to get a lot of grief for this, but Aurora should never have been put on the show. I don't know if she was much more outgoing when she tried out and then froze up when the cameras were turned on - I know she fainted early on in her time at the studio - but she offered viewers absolutely nothing on the wings, and even less in the chair. I didn't feel bad when she won the 1p, because she was such a blank on the screen. In fact, I'm almost glad she got it, because I'd rather Aurora has a game like that than Gary or Roy or Lillian, who have been much better players on the wings.

So it's perfectly acceptable for Noel to mention sex shops yet C4 utterly butcher The Simpsons when sex, prostitution, drugs, guns and Hinduism are all mentioned? Where is the consistency?



Harsh and ludicrous. I didn't realise the contestants had to offer entertainment value and should be punished for failing to do so.

I wondered that!

I don't know if things are the same over there as they are here in the US, but you don't get to be on a game show without proving to the person in charge of choosing contestants that you'll be entertaining when you're on camera. That's the nature of television, and those who believe otherwise are foolish. There is a tacit agreement between viewer and performer that you will give them your attention for their performance. You don't have to bounce off the walls or make animal noises every day like Russ did, but you should participate. Aurora said almost nothing on the wings, gave zero advice during anyone else's game, and generally was a part of the scenery during most of her stay. Even during her own game, she only said the absolute minimum necessary to complete the show. That's a poor choice of a contestant.


I never said Aurora deserved to have a bad game for not being entertaining. But if someone is going to have such a bad game, it's almost better for it to happen to a person who didn't really mean much to you than someone whose game you were anticipating for days. Don't get me wrong, if Aurora won a big amount of money, I'd be very happy for her. But she didn't, in fact her game fell apart from the word go. Games like yesterday's usually leave a very sour feeling afterwards, but because she was such a non-factor on the wings, it made her terrible game that much easier to handle.

Performance? I'm so glad that things aren't like that here. The last thing I want to see is people feeling that they have to put on some performance in order to get selected for the show. I like to see real people from all walks of life playing the game. Some of them will be naturally loud and boisterous, others will be softly-spoken. Some will have a strong emotional reaction to the events of the game and react accordingly with their behaviour, others will be very serene and calm no matter what the game throws their way.

In fact, the only players I don't like are the ones who try to hide their natural personalities. Quite often they do this by acting up with some contrived performance for the cameras!

I think they seek people for the show who are naturally entertaining in their own unique way (whatever that may be). What did they see in Aurora that made them think she'd be a good contestant? Well she was probably being natural at the audition and they could tell she was being herself and they liked that.

I think people who try too hard and are obviously putting on an act don't get on the show. The most important thing as far as I'm concerned is that the people are natural. If you had 22 players all trying to make an input and trying to get noticed, it'd be too overwhelming.

Also, don't forget that there could've been reasons for Aurora being quiet. We already know she she'd previously been ill, so maybe she simply felt poorly which is why she didn't say much.

They're not performers, though, they're regular people who happen to be contestants on a game show. Noel Edmonds is the performer. He's the one who gets paid to be entertaining, to keep the show going when a player is slightly quieter. The great thing about DOND is that we get a wide range of different personalities. One thing I've noticed is that the vast majority of contestants seem to be nice people.



To be fair, we don't know what's been edited out, and as others have said, she had been ill and may not have been feeling 100% for a lot of her time as a contestant.

I have to admit that this game was actually kind of dull.

Bad luck leading to a 1p win. Plus a quite silent-like player.