there's a difference between "having a say in making the show" (duh - that's their job:rolleyes:) and manipulating the odds into getting the results that they want. that's not the show's tagline! they CAN'T fix, because that would be illegal, but it IS important that the act that they want gets far in the competition. they have to warrent signing them, and the further they get the more fans they have. acts like one direction and little mix very clearly had sony's backing, but would they have been signed if they'd been outed earlier in the comp? no.
if sony spies £££ with an act, then it's very obviously in their best interest to throw everything they have into making that act a success. the best time to start is when they're still on that platform of being infront of 8-10m viewers every weekend.
if they don't see those £££s, then why bother? and why let that act potentially damage the one they ARE investing in?
what's more likely?
Sony decide who they want to win and they then have to manipulate the public into liking them to make them popular?
or
Sony look at the public vote to decide who the public find popular, and then sign them?
or
the production company that is owned by Sony care about making the best TV show they can (one that generates tens of millions of pounds with virtually no investment) and realise that any money that is generated from a successful artist is a bonus?
Sony decide who they want to win and they then have to manipulate the public into liking them to make them popular?
or
Sony look at the public vote to decide who the public find popular, and then sign them?
or
the production company that is owned by Sony care about making the best TV show they can (one that generates tens of millions of pounds with virtually no investment) and realise that any money that is generated from a successful artist is a bonus?
imagine what option a smart person would pick.
a) might have been a possibility in 2006. I've heard rumours Leona Lewis may have already been signed to Syco at the time she "auditioned".
It's primarily a TV show of course and acts are selected to provide entertainment and drama....it's definitely not the case that the 12 best vocalists are chosen every year, far from it.
Sony decide who they want to win and they then have to manipulate the public into liking them to make them popular?
or
Sony look at the public vote to decide who the public find popular, and then sign them?
or
the production company that is owned by Sony care about making the best TV show they can (one that generates tens of millions of pounds with virtually no investment) and realise that any money that is generated from a successful artist is a bonus?
imagine what option a smart person would pick.
it's not as cut and dry as any one of those 3. the real world never is.
the producers know long before bootcamp and judges houses who they want to take through to the lives, and it's reflected heavily in the editing.
of course they'll have several options to see who sticks, but when they see potential in an act then they're going to do everything in their power to push that act on - esp. mid lives onwards. it makes logical sense that the act that they believe can be marketed better in the long run (even if they don't have the better voice) will be the one that they throw their weight behind, because it's through that method that they're going to make money.
the whole point of this conversation is that the judges are just a front. they're a few celebrity faces who get paid to drum up headlines and bring viewers. there's no real power or artistic leverage in the role at all - despite what the show would like the public to believe - because every detail of it is very carefully controlled by the producers. that goes beyond the standard production role of camera/lights/editing etc. they control who gets through to the lives in the first place and what happens with those acts (song choices, rountines, vts, styling etc) once they are there. i really don't get how you're disputing this....frankie's not the only one who's stated as much concerning the live shows, and the truth behind the audition process has long been known.
this isn't a simple "talent show" as it advertises itself. it's a money making business.
it's not as cut and dry as any one of those 3. the real world never is.
the producers know long before bootcamp and judges houses who they want to take through to the lives, and it's reflected heavily in the editing.
of course they'll have several options to see who sticks, but when they see potential in an act then they're going to do everything in their power to push that act on - esp. mid lives onwards. it makes logical sense that the act that they believe can be marketed better in the long run (even if they don't have the better voice) will be the one that they throw their weight behind, because it's through that method that they're going to make money.
the whole point of this conversation is that the judges are just a front. they're a few celebrity faces who get paid to drum up headlines and bring viewers. there's no real power or artistic leverage in the role at all - despite what the show would like the public to believe - because every detail of it is very carefully controlled by the producers. that goes beyond the standard production role of camera/lights/editing etc. they control who gets through to the lives in the first place and what happens with those acts (song choices, rountines, vts, styling etc) once they are there. i really don't get how you're disputing this....frankie's not the only one who's stated as much concerning the live shows, and the truth behind the audition process has long been known.
this isn't a simple "talent show" as it advertises itself. it's a money making business.
Some excellent points. It's all about generating advertising revenue and TV ratings for ITV and money for Syco.....who wins is not of primary importance. It's not a talent show at all, more a Saturday evening light entertainment show with the "judges" and acts as it's characters.
Some excellent points. It's all about generating advertising revenue and TV ratings for ITV and money for Syco.....who wins is not of primary importance. It's not a talent show at all, more a Saturday evening light entertainment show with the "judges" and acts as it's characters.
It is clearly obvious what is going on with this show - it's about money money money. The judges are completely controlled by the producers. Simon is here to make money and he knows this is big business - the dude is a very shrewd businessman. Controversial joke acts make headlines for whatever reasons and the producers know it.
Does Frankie take over from Steve Brookstein to become the most unlikable X Factor contestant ever? I think so.
I don't know what brookstein did wrong to be 'disliked', apart from telling cowell he wanted to sing original material. Frankie was awful, couldnt sing for smarties, but the producers clearly set him up and then fed him to the wolves. I actually suspect much of what he says about the show and the producers in bang on the money
I wonder why Louis didn't like this obnoxious little cretin..mmm whatever could it be...his awful caterwahling? His boring as Monday morning personality? Or how he took a place away from other deserving boys and ruined it?
Some are saying that the judges comments are scripted. I'm not sure if I agree with that. They're not actors and most of the judges that there have been, I can't see any of them being told what to say.
However it does sound realistic that there's more producer influence than we are told. How about we find a DS member good enough to qualify for the live shows and then they can give us all the gossip.
Comments
what's more likely?
Sony decide who they want to win and they then have to manipulate the public into liking them to make them popular?
or
Sony look at the public vote to decide who the public find popular, and then sign them?
or
the production company that is owned by Sony care about making the best TV show they can (one that generates tens of millions of pounds with virtually no investment) and realise that any money that is generated from a successful artist is a bonus?
imagine what option a smart person would pick.
a) might have been a possibility in 2006. I've heard rumours Leona Lewis may have already been signed to Syco at the time she "auditioned".
It's primarily a TV show of course and acts are selected to provide entertainment and drama....it's definitely not the case that the 12 best vocalists are chosen every year, far from it.
it's not as cut and dry as any one of those 3. the real world never is.
the producers know long before bootcamp and judges houses who they want to take through to the lives, and it's reflected heavily in the editing.
of course they'll have several options to see who sticks, but when they see potential in an act then they're going to do everything in their power to push that act on - esp. mid lives onwards. it makes logical sense that the act that they believe can be marketed better in the long run (even if they don't have the better voice) will be the one that they throw their weight behind, because it's through that method that they're going to make money.
the whole point of this conversation is that the judges are just a front. they're a few celebrity faces who get paid to drum up headlines and bring viewers. there's no real power or artistic leverage in the role at all - despite what the show would like the public to believe - because every detail of it is very carefully controlled by the producers. that goes beyond the standard production role of camera/lights/editing etc. they control who gets through to the lives in the first place and what happens with those acts (song choices, rountines, vts, styling etc) once they are there. i really don't get how you're disputing this....frankie's not the only one who's stated as much concerning the live shows, and the truth behind the audition process has long been known.
this isn't a simple "talent show" as it advertises itself. it's a money making business.
Some excellent points. It's all about generating advertising revenue and TV ratings for ITV and money for Syco.....who wins is not of primary importance. It's not a talent show at all, more a Saturday evening light entertainment show with the "judges" and acts as it's characters.
It is clearly obvious what is going on with this show - it's about money money money. The judges are completely controlled by the producers. Simon is here to make money and he knows this is big business - the dude is a very shrewd businessman. Controversial joke acts make headlines for whatever reasons and the producers know it.
I don't know what brookstein did wrong to be 'disliked', apart from telling cowell he wanted to sing original material. Frankie was awful, couldnt sing for smarties, but the producers clearly set him up and then fed him to the wolves. I actually suspect much of what he says about the show and the producers in bang on the money
Still peeved off James was booted over him.
However it does sound realistic that there's more producer influence than we are told. How about we find a DS member good enough to qualify for the live shows and then they can give us all the gossip.