Well I'm Gemini and can see both sides of the argument but I think at least it gives them a chance to win public votes. Good old money spinner for charity too.
Results:Do you think bringing back four previously eliminated acts was the right thing to do?
Yes
84 (28.67%)
No
209 (71.33%)
Voters: 293. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in?
Do you think bringing back four previously eliminated acts was the right thing to do?
3 of 3
I think it was the right thing, because they were never involved with public vote. If they got kicked out by the viewers it'd be a different story IMO
No, it is not right to give any of these acts a free pass to week 6. They have not put in any of the hard work that the remaining acts have, neither have they struggled through facing the public vote week by week. It's like allowing a runner to join a race when it's halfway through! The only really fair solution would have been for last week's vote to be void and for Johnny and The Risk to both come back and then start the competition over again from there. However, they would never have done that because it would have meant refunding all the public's voting costs.
I think it was the lesser of a variety of evils, but only just, and it's still a dreadful decision.
They could have brought back Johnny, but I've decided I'm glad he left on a high with everyone rooting for him and wanting more from him, and didn't risk leaving on a less happy note or being rejected all over again.
They could have chosen someone to bring back without a public vote, like a contestant that recently left the competition. But, seeing a face we thought had been publicly voted out wouldn't generate anything but bored irritation. It wouldn't help the act to be voted out straight away, twice, and it wouldn't help the show to reverse a decision reached with the help of public votes. It wouldn't feel like a "twist", it would just be weird.
They could have brought back no one, and had a vote free show, but that would have made for a very boring show and isn't a realistic choice given that they would have lost the money from voting.
This way, they stir up lots of debate and get people talking about the show, potentially get to spice up a rather boring line-up of acts with someone new, generate more money from votes and distract people from the absence of Frankie and the disaster that entire situation was for the show.
Unfortunately, it means completely shafting the people who have competed so far for their place in the competition! It completely stinks and essentially I think the show managed to back themselves into a corner where there were no good option left.
They could have brought back Johnny, but I've decided I'm glad he left on a high with everyone rooting for him and wanting more from him, and didn't risk leaving on a less happy note or being rejected all over again.
They could have chosen someone to bring back without a public vote, like a contestant that recently left the competition. But, seeing a face we thought had been publicly voted out wouldn't generate anything but bored irritation. It wouldn't help the act to be voted out straight away, twice, and it wouldn't help the show to reverse a decision reached with the help of public votes. It wouldn't feel like a "twist", it would just be weird.
They could have brought back no one, and had a vote free show, but that would have made for a very boring show and isn't a realistic choice given that they would have lost the money from voting.
This way, they stir up lots of debate and get people talking about the show, potentially get to spice up a rather boring line-up of acts with someone new, generate more money from votes and distract people from the absence of Frankie and the disaster that entire situation was for the show.
Unfortunately, it means completely shafting the people who have competed so far for their place in the competition! It completely stinks and essentially I think the show managed to back themselves into a corner where there were no good option left.
Thanks to all who voted and posted in this thread.
It's all water under the bridge now, but it shows that it was another aspect of the show that didn't go down well with the majority of viewers - roughly 3 out of every 4.
Next year... well, me and the Mrs won't be watching. TXF has become just too silly for us.
It's all water under the bridge now, but it shows that it was another aspect of the show that didn't go down well with the majority of viewers - roughly 3 out of every 4.
Next year... well, me and the Mrs won't be watching. TXF has become just too silly for us.
Originally Posted by Gallifreya:
“No, it is not right to give any of these acts a free pass to week 6. They have not put in any of the hard work that the remaining acts have, neither have they struggled through facing the public vote week by week. It's like allowing a runner to join a race when it's halfway through! The only really fair solution would have been for last week's vote to be void and for Johnny and The Risk to both come back and then start the competition over again from there. However, they would never have done that because it would have meant refunding all the public's voting costs.”
“No, it is not right to give any of these acts a free pass to week 6. They have not put in any of the hard work that the remaining acts have, neither have they struggled through facing the public vote week by week. It's like allowing a runner to join a race when it's halfway through! The only really fair solution would have been for last week's vote to be void and for Johnny and The Risk to both come back and then start the competition over again from there. However, they would never have done that because it would have meant refunding all the public's voting costs.”
Im not really keeping up with this, but would that be the case? If people were voting for acts to leave then they would have to refund voters money if the last act to go got a reprieve. But since people just vote for their favourites to stay, the show would have no need to refund anything? No one would have wasted money. Whereas at the moment, arguably the people who spent their cash on votes for the last act that went (Johnny? The Risk?) have lost out. Or am I missing something obvious to everyone else?
Originally Posted by staceyxxx23:
“Definitely not. They should have probably just left it and not brought anyone back or anything.”
“Definitely not. They should have probably just left it and not brought anyone back or anything.”
You can't do a final at Wembley with 2 acts. It would be a joke. Not to mention a semi-final with 3 acts - they could barely stretch that to an hour.
I don't understand why Johnny wasn't brought back, or why the public have to vote in a contestant who barely survived the judges house.
Originally Posted by *Laura*:
“I don't understand why Johnny wasn't brought back, or why the public have to vote in a contestant who barely survived the judges house.”
“I don't understand why Johnny wasn't brought back, or why the public have to vote in a contestant who barely survived the judges house.”
I don't know why either.
Especially so if he hadn't got less votes than Kitty.
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“Well they were eliminated by the judges as opposed to by the public weren't they?”
“Well they were eliminated by the judges as opposed to by the public weren't they?”
Correct, but that doesn't justify changing the rules half-way through!
The producers got what they deserved for that totally totally pointless double elimination last week.
Originally Posted by George7:
“I suspect some people don't understand that people did not vote to eliminate Johnny and The Risk, they were voting to keep their favourite act in.
Any particular act could be many people's second or third favourite, and yet that act could go because many people will (understandably) vote once for their favourite.
...and as for comments about voters claiming their money back if Johnny had been brought back, that couldn't happen because they weren't voting to evict someone.
The only people who may have cause to claim phone vote money back were those who voted for Frankie...”
“I suspect some people don't understand that people did not vote to eliminate Johnny and The Risk, they were voting to keep their favourite act in.
Any particular act could be many people's second or third favourite, and yet that act could go because many people will (understandably) vote once for their favourite.
...and as for comments about voters claiming their money back if Johnny had been brought back, that couldn't happen because they weren't voting to evict someone.
The only people who may have cause to claim phone vote money back were those who voted for Frankie...”
This - They could have brought Johnny and The Risk back and had another double evicttion this week.
Originally Posted by mag99:
“...They could have brought Johnny and The Risk back and had another double evicttion this week.”
“...They could have brought Johnny and The Risk back and had another double evicttion this week.”
That certainly would have been a much better option than what they did.
i am amazed so many dont feel it is the right thing to do.
I for one said this is what they should do before it was announced as it was fair to the public as they hadnt voted for or against any of this lot,
I for one said this is what they should do before it was announced as it was fair to the public as they hadnt voted for or against any of this lot,
Originally Posted by MrsWatermelon:
“No but I can't think of a fairer alternative.”
“No but I can't think of a fairer alternative.”
Bring no-one back, and extend the final or semi-final over two weeks, with one week having no elimination.
Instead have an original material week where the contestants play their own music and perhaps an extended set with no interval to show how natural they really are on stage.
Instead of making X Factor even more of a joke, doing that might have given it a bit of credibility.
3 of 3
