So lots of people think the show is manipulated or fixed....

Jessica_HambyJessica_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?
«1

Comments

  • earldbestearldbest Posts: 3,894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The end/aim of the show is finding contestants that can sell. As long as the "ballots" aren't stuffed, I'm fine.
  • FizixFizix Posts: 16,932
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Of course it's manipulated, it's a soap opera. I never vote so it doesn't bother me on any personal level but it makes me see the show as a bit of a joke as the tripe stays and the good goes.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    It's not fixed, in the sense that the vote totals are real, but it is heavily manipulated. Everything from act placement to song choice and backing support to judges' comments is carefully calibrated. And then there's the fact that the audience doesn't control who goes until the final ~4.

    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.
  • fireemblemcrazefireemblemcraze Posts: 7,436
    Forum Member
    Nissl wrote: »
    It's not fixed, in the sense that the vote totals are real, but it is heavily manipulated. Everything from act placement to song choice and backing support to judges' comments is carefully calibrated. And then there's the fact that the audience doesn't control who goes until the final ~4.

    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,888
    Forum Member
    The votes are not fixed, however editing...such as

    "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.
  • sstephanie40sstephanie40 Posts: 672
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    "Last man in" or LMI as I call it - the pimp slot is well known as being nearly the safest seat to have. Most acts would like this as they are obviously fresh in the voting public mind.

    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!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    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.
  • noelw1969noelw1969 Posts: 936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The very first thing I would do to make things fairer is to abandon the "categories". They should simply have the best 12 acts they see regardless of who they are. This is a talent show, not a variety show.

    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 ?".
  • fireemblemcrazefireemblemcraze Posts: 7,436
    Forum Member
    noelw1969 wrote: »
    The very first thing I would do to make things fairer is to abandon the "categories". They should simply have the best 12 acts they see regardless of who they are. This is a talent show, not a variety show.

    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?!
  • noelw1969noelw1969 Posts: 936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • Nastyman69Nastyman69 Posts: 4,497
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't give a monkeys if it is fixed or manipulated - I just watch the show and enjoy it
  • fireemblemcrazefireemblemcraze Posts: 7,436
    Forum Member
    noelw1969 wrote: »
    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!
  • quasimoronquasimoron Posts: 20,996
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nissl wrote: »
    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.

    Thats really enthralling, have you a link to sofabet, I would love to read it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    quasimoron wrote: »
    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.
  • bookclub10bookclub10 Posts: 4,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Another one for you here. It's a really interesting site :)

    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/
  • mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    people really get too wrapped up in the conspiracy theories about the janet devlin exit

    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
  • EurostarEurostar Posts: 78,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The producers were quite arrogant last year in the way they tried to sabotage Christopher Maloney, from the looks of hatred every week from the "judges" (LOL) to the bad song choices and backdrops and ambiguous comments from his so called mentor.
  • Eve ElleEve Elle Posts: 6,507
    Forum Member
    mimik1uk wrote: »
    people really get too wrapped up in the conspiracy theories about the janet devlin exit

    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. :o
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 674
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mimik1uk wrote: »
    people really get too wrapped up in the conspiracy theories about the janet devlin exit

    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

    Get out! :mad: Logical and well thought out explains too a have no place on this kind of forum!!
  • Romola_Des_LoupRomola_Des_Loup Posts: 3,152
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    All TV shows are manipulated. Even with the most sincere attempt to film a warts and all documentary, without commentary or angle, somne footage is included and some excluded and it becomes manipulated, however unconsciously.

    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
  • Romola_Des_LoupRomola_Des_Loup Posts: 3,152
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    noelw1969 wrote: »
    The very first thing I would do to make things fairer is to abandon the "categories". They should simply have the best 12 acts they see regardless of who they are. This is a talent show, not a variety show.

    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 ?".
    I'd watch your show, but I think the point is that many existing viewers wouldn't. This year, for instance, there would probably have been at least 6 girl singers in the live shows with more than one big-voice soul diva and more than one pixie-dust quirky cracked voiced urchin.

    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!"
  • Romola_Des_LoupRomola_Des_Loup Posts: 3,152
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Eurostar wrote: »
    The producers were quite arrogant last year in the way they tried to sabotage Christopher Maloney, from the looks of hatred every week from the "judges" (LOL) to the bad song choices and backdrops and ambiguous comments from his so called mentor.

    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.
  • fireemblemcrazefireemblemcraze Posts: 7,436
    Forum Member
    Bjkaave wrote: »
    Get out! :mad: Logical and well thought out explains too a have no place on this kind of forum!!

    This exactly. We don't do sense here. Let us have our 'Cowell is a monster' and 'Fix Factor' conspiracy theories.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 674
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Bjkaave wrote: »
    Get out! :mad: Logical and well thought out explains too a have no place on this kind of forum!!

    My god, this post got messed up! My auto correct is useless!
    "Explains too" should be explanations, incase anyone was wondering...:o
  • noelw1969noelw1969 Posts: 936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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!


    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.