Options
So lots of people think the show is manipulated or fixed....
Jessica_Hamby
Posts: 1,622
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Do you think that it's a good thing if they do that, so that the "right" people go the furthest in the show?
Also, if no, what would you do to make it fairer?
Also, if no, what would you do to make it fairer?
0
Comments
It didn't bother me once I realized there's still a somewhat fair game that's played, just not the surface game. You win by being one of the ~4 acts that appears to have commercial potential. And it's very much possible for a preseason favorite or underdog to move in or out of that pool, pushed there by the audience (see: Little Mix).
Truth be told, it's fairly inevitable. The recency effect, for example, is a well documented psychological phenomenon where people recall the last thing in a list the best. And conversely, over the years early slots have been very lethal. So producers have to take account of those things. They'd be fools to give an act they think will be a big draw the death slot in the first live show, before the audience has really connected with them, or to put a deadly dull one last. Plus I think some early experiences made the producers realize that the overall audience was likely to vote for certain acts (particularly older skewing singers with nice but not amazing voices and little star power) and then not buy their albums.
This - the vote totals/proportions are not false - hence why Maloney/Eoghan/Leon J were all dominating the votes - though the producers were responsible for still arguably behind that (pimping them pre-audition shows and giving them loads of pimp slots in the lives). But the judges' comments, song choices and position in the order is all heavily influenced by producers to get the person they want to win.
There's nothing wrong with it, I'd say. It IS an entertainment show. Though it's annoying when genuinely good acts like Misha B/Ella suffer and I think the producers feel the same way.
"This is Oscar, Oscar is one of twenty four and left home at 13 to provide...he's also bringing up dead wife's son from another marriage. Go on Oscar, sing now"
*Westlife song*
However the public can rebel...as seen with Cheryl's MiniMe and Only Sixteen.
However the section of song that is montage with their vote details (number etc) also has a part to play. A "money note" will get votes, whereas a dull part won't. Clever editing by the production team has a lot to answer for!
Yep.
In general it's easier to dump an act, thereby protecting other acts, than guarantee a big vote for an act. Other easy "deramping" tactics to spot are a lack of stage support (even with a ballad there will usually be effects), lukewarm judges comments ("you look like you were really having fun up there") and interestingly red/black lighting.
If you're interested in more, Sofabet has detailed analyses of the Wagner, Nu Vibe, and Janet Devlin assassinations where the tactics run into the double digits. The Wagner assassination is a completely by the books one that lays out all of the standard tactics, while the Devlin one is interesting because she was set up as a favorite with a passionate regional base and had to be ground down over a number of weeks after she started feuding with the producers.
The second is I would abandon the "themed" nights on the live shows. They are utterly useless and prove nothing. A brilliant act can get voted off cos they were crap on "Band Night". I believe that they should all be allowed to choose what they want to do from start to finish and demonstrate exactly what got them there in the first place.
I mean, Metallica started out as a heavy metal band. No-one ever turned around and said, "What ? Is that all you can do ?".
By eliminating the two things (the themed live nights and the judge's categories!) which the X Factor is all about - what's left?!
Whats left is exactly what the show is meant to be. A search for the best talent this country has to offer. This is not a platform for the judges and their opinions.
What? Then how the heck do the acts advance through each round? Do the producers decide then (which they do anyway)? I'm really confused as to what you think this show is. This is a search for talent yes, but at the same time it's an entertainment program!
Thats really enthralling, have you a link to sofabet, I would love to read it.
Sure! I love this stuff, it's probably 3/4 of the show's entertainment value for me.
Wagner
Nu Vibe pre-kill and post-kill
Janet Devlin - note the link to Craig Colton as well; a large majority of 2011 eliminations were highly directed kills that were a bit sloppier and more obvious with Simon gone.
X Factor 2011 Week 8 Review: Janet Devlin - the Princess Diana of the X Factor
http://sofabet.com/2011/11/28/x-factor-2011-week-8-review-janet-devlin-the-princess-diana-of-the-x-factor/
the far simpler explanation is she attracted a big following after an outstanding first audition but once the live shows started and she flopped badly, a lot of that following initially gave her the benefit of the doubt and kept voting for her hoping she would live up to that first audition but when that never happened they just lost patience
It was pretty obvious that Janet was sabotaged. You don't need to be a media expert to see that.
It's also pretty obvious that the show is not a level playing field for all, some get preferential treatment. And while I can understand the need to manipulate proceedings in order to try and maintain ratings (and therefore advertising revenues), it's still an underhanded and shady practice.
Get out! :mad: Logical and well thought out explains too a have no place on this kind of forum!!
X ~Factor is not even such an attempt, never has been and has never pretended to be. It's an entertainment show and they get more votes, more publicity, more viewers, hence more advertising revenue this way. TV is a business.
Edit to say that it's a common missaprehension to assume that any of the owners of the show care who wins. Of course they don't. They care who they can make a story around and create an interest, but the end result? Nope
Another year, the final 12 might include 4 handsome boys with great voices and 3 not bad looking boys with absolutely spine tingling voices. What would most viewers be thinking? "Oh God, not another cute boy singing Westlife, boring!"
Christopher probably got more votes out of that than he lost. Stripped to basics, he's got a reasonable voice, a limited range and average looks. With all the mucking about, he became musical Marmite, with some voting against him because of the demonisation and a lot voting for him for the same reason.
I remember his name and know exactly who he is, as I do for Kitty from the previous year but not for some of their more talented co-contestants. That's not a bad position to be in for reasonably ok singers who want to make a living out of it.
This exactly. We don't do sense here. Let us have our 'Cowell is a monster' and 'Fix Factor' conspiracy theories.
My god, this post got messed up! My auto correct is useless!
"Explains too" should be explanations, incase anyone was wondering...:o
The acts would advance through to the next round in exactly the same way as they do now.
Although, thats another small change I would make. Judges get the say in all shows up to the live ones and then the public takes over 100% of the vote in the live shows with the judges taking no part in it whatsoever. Its insane when you see acts like Jedward get voted through by the judges ahead of Lucy Jones who was by far the best act that year.
The judges can still express their opinions and guide the acts as best they can.
Oh, and as for what this show is, it is a TALENT show. BGT is an entertainment show.