I've seen many comments about whether or not four previously eliminated acts should be brought back to get the replacement for Frankie.

Some people are really very happy with the idea. Others have just accepted it and are now talking about which out of the four would be best. Some aren't happy at all and think this is simply a 'stunt too far'.

So, was bringing back four previously eliminated acts the right thing to do as opposed to asking Johnny first, then asking The Risk if Johnny declined the offer - yes or no?

No I don't think that its a good idea.

Something had to be done as someone had to be brought back and maybe they are responding to the furore that was caused when these four went without a public vote in the first place. Remember what we were all saying a few weeks ago...?

Nope.

Not sure it's the wisest move to be honest with you. The whole show has become a shambles imo.

No. If would be a different matter if it happened earlier in the competition, or even if the four acts were able to perform again and then have a vote, but expecting people to vote based on a performance they gave weeks ago which got them eliminated by their own mentor.... but this, it's nuts.

Roughly a 1 to 2 Yes/No vote so far.

I thought the 'No' vote would have had much more of a commanding lead - going off the many complaints on here.

I suppose the good thing is perhaps more people are happy with this '4 back for a vote carry-on' than I initially thought - that, or many people have lost all interest in XF...

(I asked for this thread to be pinned, but it appears that my request has been rejected - like Johnny and The Risk)

It is probably a better idea than inviting any of the acts eliminated by public vote, because that would be working completely against what people had spent their money on and therefore cheating viewers.

The only downside to inviting Amelia/James/2 Shoes/Jonjo back is that is it really fair for them to enter halfway through the live shows having dodged all the pressure and hard work put in by the other acts throughout those weeks?

But it does allow the public to judge the four acts eliminated at the start of the live shows, which is surely what they deserved having made the live shows in the first place.

No but I can't think of a fairer alternative.

No. I think it's ludicrous to have a possible 'winner' that has only completed half the show.

I agree, but I do think the new phone vote should have been a freefone number with all the money going to charity, not just a part of it.

Its desperation time. Such a joke lol

This is what riles me, they didn't let us have a say in which of them went in the first week and now they want us to pay to correct their mistake

Just end it early

No

If the judges didn't think they were good enough at the beginning, how come they're good enough now?

No it's not fair, but then none of the available outcomes are fair. For me the fairest option would've been to just reinstate James Michael. It was a boy who got the boot, a boy should replace him. Had it been Misha B or Janet being shafted, I feel that Amelia Lily would've been thrown a lifeline no questions asked. Plus if James doesn't win the public vote and Amelia/2 Shoes/Jonjo are brought back, it will throw the entire judging panel out of sync. The winning judge will become unbearably smug as they'll consider it a one-up for them.

I want Johnny back!

What they have done is created another means of getting money from the viewers.

Definitely not. They should have probably just left it and not brought anyone back or anything.

Presumably they're contractually obliged to deliver a set number of shows. They could've finished early and then had a Christmas special or whatever the week after perhaps, with no voting. The winner's song could've been launched at the end of that, too. The only real snag is that it would tarnish the final.

I guess the act that comes back will feel it's fair that they should get a chance of a public vote. Myself I think it's wrong that someone should get a free pass to Week 6

I won't be voting for any of the four - I'd rather save it for Marcus

I think its all they could do?
None of the acts coming back faced a public vote-therefore whose to say they would still be there -gone if they had by now?

Frankie should never have been there in the first place-and GB and XFactor producers whoever-shouldn't have tried to embrace him as the 'wild ' guy of the show-they merely allowed him to do whatever he wanted in the hope that this would be acceptable-bearing in mind this is supposed to be a singing contest lol???

I don't think you've quite grasped the concept of a freefone number there...

Wasn't simply bringing back Johnny the obvious and fair choice? He was the last to go out so surely he should have been the first choice to come back?

Obviously, if they had just brought Johnny back then they wouldn't have really needed the well-staged press conference and another money-making phone vote.

So it's fair to ruin the chances of the remaining acts?

You have a really weird obsession and hatred for the X Factor, I really dislike people that come to a forum just to be negative wherever possible.


He was eliminated at least partially due to the public vote, it would be a slap in the face for the people who pay money to vote if they overruled that and gave him another chance. At least these four have not faced the public vote.

They had to bring someone back otherwise they would have run out contestants before the show was up.



It was either one of those 4 or Johny. If Johnny had come back then the people who voted last week would need their money back.