Well no, if that were true the BBC would be knee deep in law suits!
The big difference is the lack of cack! No joke acts, no teen fantasies who can't hold a tune, just (with the exception of Ruth Anne, who's pitch was problematic!) singers, all of whom have thus far shown that in a highly pressurised environment, they can hold their own. Their voices may not be to an individuals taste, but they can all sing!
But what have they bought? How can you buy 'the lack of something?'
But what have they bought? How can you buy 'the lack of something?'
They've bought a format that is a singing talent show that has three sections - blind auditions, battles, live shows. Each has its own 'gimmick' and each has a distinct difference to all other singing competition formats.
Honestly? It's a welcome change to the humiliatory culture of the others!
They've bought a format that is a singing talent show that has three sections - blind auditions, battles, live shows. Each has its own 'gimmick' and each has a distinct difference to all other singing competition formats.
Honestly? It's a welcome change to the humiliatory culture of the others!
1. Four revolving chairs - agreed, new idea. Take a bow
2. Battles - two people singing at same time, generally agreed to be an unsuccessful part of the show by the viewers comments
3. Live show - hardly a new idea.
1. Four revolving chairs - agreed, new idea. Take a bow
2. Battles - two people singing at same time, generally agreed to be an unsuccessful part of the show by the viewers comments
3. Live show - hardly a new idea.
So, £22m quid worth? Don't think so.
No one is saying its a whole new idea, but it's a new format, that's the point, and that differentiation is vital! The Voice moves right away from the humiliatory nature of all the others, quite rightly in my opinion! Purposeful humiliation has no place on television.
The price is based on its previous success the format has attained, and given the success it has brought thus far, yes, I would suggest it was! A brand new show that has, every single week, been getting 3 - 5 million more viewers than the BBC estimated it would...can't be bad!!
I guess it depends what you like to watch and what entertains you better - a talent contest or a gimicks show. Each to their own and there's nothing wrong with that.
Comments
But what have they bought? How can you buy 'the lack of something?'
They've bought a format that is a singing talent show that has three sections - blind auditions, battles, live shows. Each has its own 'gimmick' and each has a distinct difference to all other singing competition formats.
Honestly? It's a welcome change to the humiliatory culture of the others!
1. Four revolving chairs - agreed, new idea. Take a bow
2. Battles - two people singing at same time, generally agreed to be an unsuccessful part of the show by the viewers comments
3. Live show - hardly a new idea.
So, £22m quid worth? Don't think so.
No one is saying its a whole new idea, but it's a new format, that's the point, and that differentiation is vital! The Voice moves right away from the humiliatory nature of all the others, quite rightly in my opinion! Purposeful humiliation has no place on television.
The price is based on its previous success the format has attained, and given the success it has brought thus far, yes, I would suggest it was! A brand new show that has, every single week, been getting 3 - 5 million more viewers than the BBC estimated it would...can't be bad!!
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=38844723&postcount=2131 + http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1520546
In 2009, The X Factor cost £409,000 per hour. Dramas cost ITV £750,000 per hour.
In comparison, The Voice is likely about £285,000 per hour based on this.
Do some research before posting.
Xx..xX