Also Strictly/X Factor overlap for 65 mins on Saturday 11th.
That's going to be ugly. Not sure either show has much room to move either given that they've got horribly bloated run times that weekend. Hard to see The X Factor finishing much past 10 or Strictly starting much before 6:30...
Also Strictly/X Factor overlap for 65 mins on Saturday 11th.
5.40 Pointless Celebrities
6.30 Strictly Come Dancing
8.35 Doctor Who
9.20 Casualty
10.10 National Lottery
10.20 BBC News
10.40 Mrs Brown's Boys (R)
6.00 You've Been Framed
6.30 Celebrity Chase
7.30 The X Factor
10.00 Through The Keyhole
Good thing. ITV going for the full head on 1hr clash. It will dent TXF but it will also put a dent into Strictly. Viewers will also be able to watch TXF straight after Strictly with the +1 showing at 8:30pm.
That's going to be ugly. Not sure either show has much room to move either given that they've got horribly bloated run times that weekend. Hard to see The X Factor finishing much past 10 or Strictly starting much before 6:30...
If rumours are to be believed then X Factor will have 16 acts to get through so even though it's a very long show it'll be pretty packed with not much room to shorten it. Can't see it moving to be honest. ITV should really plug the +1 option though.
Strictly is a bit bloated. X Factor's show is likely to have 8 advert breaks, so strip those out and it has effectively got a 115 minute slot for 16 acts. Meanwhile Strictly is actually 10 minutes longer at 125 mins even though it only has 14 acts. Suspect there may be some padding involved there which could be more difficult than usual with no Brucie to fluff his lines.
If rumours are to be believed then X Factor will have 16 acts to get through so even though it's a very long show it'll be pretty packed with not much room to shorten it. Can't see it moving to be honest. ITV should really plug the +1 option though.
If rumours are to be believed I can't help but think they might be better off splitting the first week (or two) of performances over the Saturday and Sunday shows. Then you kick-off Saturday with an elimination from the results of a week long viewer vote. Starting the following Saturday show with an elimination might also help them grab eyes away from Strictly.
NCIS Los Angeles' dip doesn't surprise me, it was always going to be down away from the mother show but I think if it can hold steady then it'll stay there.
I made a 'sort of joking' schedule about how you'd avoid Strictly, Doctor Who and The X Factor. But with 5 hours, 20 minutes of content across both channels, that's near on impossible. You could, just about, do this...
BBC One
17:50 - Strictly Come Dancing
19:55 - Doctor Who
20:40 - Pointless Celebrities
21:30 - Lottery Draws
21:40 - Casualty
22:30 - BBC News
22:50 - Mrs Brown's Boys
ITV
18:40 - You've Been Framed!
19:40 - The Chase
20:40 - The X Factor
23:10 - ITV News
At least Fudd may get to see the results of his +1 idea if that sticks.
As long as they push +1 for all it's worth. It definitely won't work if they sit back and think the audience will work it out for themselves.
Saying that 11 is a horribly late time for a show to finish when it's meant to be family friendly. Even half 10 would be better.
Arguably they should split the categories so Boys and Groups, say, perform on the Saturday and Girls and Overs on the Sunday. They could have the results on Monday. They could eliminate one act from each category (via public vote/sing off) to get it down to 12 quickly. A 150 minute show is bordering on the ridiculous - including adverts it's longer than a lot of films!
If rumours are to be believed then X Factor will have 16 acts to get through so even though it's a very long show it'll be pretty packed with not much room to shorten it. Can't see it moving to be honest. ITV should really plug the +1 option though.
Strictly is a bit bloated. X Factor's show is likely to have 8 advert breaks, so strip those out and it has effectively got a 115 minute slot for 16 acts. Meanwhile Strictly is actually 10 minutes longer at 125 mins even though it only has 14 acts. Suspect there may be some padding involved there which could be more difficult than usual with no Brucie to fluff his lines.
Strictly is bloated to give it time over the evening to grow and to eat into TXF slot. Padding galore on Strictly.
Really looking forward to TXF Live shows. 2hrs 30minutes might be a long time, but given the amount of acts it no wonder its so long.
So why put through that number of acts? Why not just stick to 12 acts and lose 30 minutes from a too long run time?
Same reason as Strictly, Bake Off and Britain's Got Talent have increased the number of contestants since series 1? It's an effective way of filling air time.
This years Gangsta Granny for the Christmas/New Year period?
This year's Gangsta Granny is David walliams's other book "The Boy in the Dress". So this Christmas, BBC1 has plenty of Family drama. They have the afore mentioned Boy in the Dress, Esio Trot and now this Harry Hill adaptation. Christmas is looking cracking this year!
So why put through that number of acts? Why not just stick to 12 acts and lose 30 minutes from a too long run time?
Exactly. I'm enjoying all those defending the running time by saying there's 16 acts so it's ok, like they've been forced to have that many. Having extra acts hasn't improved quality in the past, the opposite in fact, so why is it necessary? Other than to bloat its running time to "eat into" Strictly.
I wonder if ITV are still desperately sticking to plans created when they assumed Cowell and Cole returning would be the second coming of the show and are just refusing to change them to accommodate the fact that hasn't happened. Making these clashes makes absolutely no sense when audiences are down across the board. Strictly has kept the exact same slot as last year, so its not like they've been forced into doing so. (I'm not saying Strictly isn't too long, it is, but it's not the one getting even bigger.)
So why put through that number of acts? Why not just stick to 12 acts and lose 30 minutes from a too long run time?
Dont start talking sense on here - it wont be appreciated.
The truth is both shows are bloated because they want the big audience for as long as they can - this year might be the first when that may not be such a good idea.
Exactly. I'm enjoying all those defending the running time by saying there's 16 acts so it's ok, like they've been forced to have that many. Having extra acts hasn't improved quality in the past, the opposite in fact, so why is it necessary? Other than to bloat it's running time to "eat into" Strictly.
I wonder if ITV are still desperately sticking to plans created when they assumed Cowell and Cole returning would be the second coming of the show and are just refusing to change them to accommodate the fact that hasn't happened. Making these clashes makes absolutely no sense when audiences are down across the board. Strictly has kept the exact same slot as last year, so its not like they've been forced into doing so.
What on earth are you talking about? If X Factor was reduced to 2 hours it'd still have exactly the same clash time with Strictly. They wouldn't shift it later as it'd finish unnecessarily late. The X Factor is 2 hours 30 because that is the time needed, and it's better to have a strong rating for 2 hours 30 than just 2 hours. If anything it's Strictly whose running time is over-inflated to eat into X Factor.
What on earth are you talking about? If X Factor was reduced to 2 hours it'd still have exactly the same clash time with Strictly. They wouldn't shift it later as it'd finish unnecessarily late. The X Factor is 2 hours 30 because that is the time needed, and it's better to have a strong rating for 2 hours 30 than just 2 hours. If anything it's Strictly whose running time is over-inflated to eat into X Factor.
Both are unnecessary inflated and probably wouldn't be as long if the other didn't exist/wasn't airing on that night.
What on earth are you talking about? If X Factor was reduced to 2 hours it'd still have exactly the same clash time with Strictly. They wouldn't shift it later as it'd finish unnecessarily late. The X Factor is 2 hours 30 because that is the time needed, and it's better to have a strong rating for 2 hours 30 than just 2 hours. If anything it's Strictly whose running time is over-inflated to eat into X Factor.
Although SCD is the same length and starting time as its been for a few years now isnt it?
Both are unnecessary inflated and probably wouldn't be as long if the other didn't exist/wasn't airing on that night.
But of course The X Factor is the one getting the stick. Strictly's inflation is what generates the long clash. The X Factor was always going to start at 7:30pm.
Exactly. I'm enjoying all those defending the running time by saying there's 16 acts so it's ok, like they've been forced to have that many. Having extra acts hasn't improved quality in the past, the opposite in fact, so why is it necessary? Other than to bloat its running time to "eat into" Strictly.
I wonder if ITV are still desperately sticking to plans created when they assumed Cowell and Cole returning would be the second coming of the show and are just refusing to change them to accommodate the fact that hasn't happened. Making these clashes makes absolutely no sense when audiences are down across the board. Strictly has kept the exact same slot as last year, so its not like they've been forced into doing so. (I'm not saying Strictly isn't too long, it is, but it's not the one getting even bigger.)
Strictly's finishing 5 minutes later than last year according to these provisionals, but your essential point remains. I suspect you're right about the assumption by ITV that they would be in a stronger position with Cheryl and Simon on board than they currently find themselves in. I suppose they don't want to be seen to be ducking the challenge.
Having said that, Strictly is coming away from these long clashes with heavy bruising itself. With the return of poor weather later this week (the rain has already arrived here in West Cornwall), the ratings for the two shows on that Saturday are particularly hard to predict.
But of course The X Factor is the one getting the stick. Strictly's inflation is what generates the long clash. The X Factor was always going to start at 7:30pm.
Nice editing there. So XF is starting earlier and has increased the number of acts but the long clash is SCDs fault for sticking with the same start and run time.
Comments
Good thing. ITV going for the full head on 1hr clash. It will dent TXF but it will also put a dent into Strictly. Viewers will also be able to watch TXF straight after Strictly with the +1 showing at 8:30pm.
Thanks
At least Fudd may get to see the results of his +1 idea if that sticks.
If rumours are to be believed then X Factor will have 16 acts to get through so even though it's a very long show it'll be pretty packed with not much room to shorten it. Can't see it moving to be honest. ITV should really plug the +1 option though.
Strictly is a bit bloated. X Factor's show is likely to have 8 advert breaks, so strip those out and it has effectively got a 115 minute slot for 16 acts. Meanwhile Strictly is actually 10 minutes longer at 125 mins even though it only has 14 acts. Suspect there may be some padding involved there which could be more difficult than usual with no Brucie to fluff his lines.
BBC One
17:50 - Strictly Come Dancing
19:55 - Doctor Who
20:40 - Pointless Celebrities
21:30 - Lottery Draws
21:40 - Casualty
22:30 - BBC News
22:50 - Mrs Brown's Boys
ITV
18:40 - You've Been Framed!
19:40 - The Chase
20:40 - The X Factor
23:10 - ITV News
As long as they push +1 for all it's worth. It definitely won't work if they sit back and think the audience will work it out for themselves.
Saying that 11 is a horribly late time for a show to finish when it's meant to be family friendly. Even half 10 would be better.
Arguably they should split the categories so Boys and Groups, say, perform on the Saturday and Girls and Overs on the Sunday. They could have the results on Monday. They could eliminate one act from each category (via public vote/sing off) to get it down to 12 quickly. A 150 minute show is bordering on the ridiculous - including adverts it's longer than a lot of films!
EDIT: AlexiR just said a similar thing.
Strictly is bloated to give it time over the evening to grow and to eat into TXF slot. Padding galore on Strictly.
Really looking forward to TXF Live shows. 2hrs 30minutes might be a long time, but given the amount of acts it no wonder its so long.
24 Hours in Police Custody won the slot in 16-34s yesterday so that is a threat and BBC Two's The Kitchen could be anything.
Same reason as Strictly, Bake Off and Britain's Got Talent have increased the number of contestants since series 1? It's an effective way of filling air time.
This year's Gangsta Granny is David walliams's other book "The Boy in the Dress". So this Christmas, BBC1 has plenty of Family drama. They have the afore mentioned Boy in the Dress, Esio Trot and now this Harry Hill adaptation. Christmas is looking cracking this year!
Exactly. I'm enjoying all those defending the running time by saying there's 16 acts so it's ok, like they've been forced to have that many. Having extra acts hasn't improved quality in the past, the opposite in fact, so why is it necessary? Other than to bloat its running time to "eat into" Strictly.
I wonder if ITV are still desperately sticking to plans created when they assumed Cowell and Cole returning would be the second coming of the show and are just refusing to change them to accommodate the fact that hasn't happened. Making these clashes makes absolutely no sense when audiences are down across the board. Strictly has kept the exact same slot as last year, so its not like they've been forced into doing so. (I'm not saying Strictly isn't too long, it is, but it's not the one getting even bigger.)
Dont start talking sense on here - it wont be appreciated.
The truth is both shows are bloated because they want the big audience for as long as they can - this year might be the first when that may not be such a good idea.
What on earth are you talking about? If X Factor was reduced to 2 hours it'd still have exactly the same clash time with Strictly. They wouldn't shift it later as it'd finish unnecessarily late. The X Factor is 2 hours 30 because that is the time needed, and it's better to have a strong rating for 2 hours 30 than just 2 hours. If anything it's Strictly whose running time is over-inflated to eat into X Factor.
Both are unnecessary inflated and probably wouldn't be as long if the other didn't exist/wasn't airing on that night.
Although SCD is the same length and starting time as its been for a few years now isnt it?
But of course The X Factor is the one getting the stick. Strictly's inflation is what generates the long clash. The X Factor was always going to start at 7:30pm.
So whats going to be on ITV at that time?
Tuesday is a one off music special 'Spandau Ballet: True Gold'. Wednesday is still Scott & Bailey.
Strictly's finishing 5 minutes later than last year according to these provisionals, but your essential point remains. I suspect you're right about the assumption by ITV that they would be in a stronger position with Cheryl and Simon on board than they currently find themselves in. I suppose they don't want to be seen to be ducking the challenge.
Having said that, Strictly is coming away from these long clashes with heavy bruising itself. With the return of poor weather later this week (the rain has already arrived here in West Cornwall), the ratings for the two shows on that Saturday are particularly hard to predict.
Nice editing there. So XF is starting earlier and has increased the number of acts but the long clash is SCDs fault for sticking with the same start and run time.