I meant this to be short, but I somehow ended up writing an accidental and lengthy post. If you can’t be bothered to read the equivalent of an essay, just read the 1st paragraph or as far as the 3rd, which altogether are about 200 words and I've bolded.
Usually, sometime between week 3-5, the winner is established by certain comments that the judges make that talk about how "amazing their performance" was, and how it was "the performance of the series!" and they could "see them [the act] in the final," and usually, that act they give these comments or make these claims about either come runner-up or win it. Gary said that about James Arthur, so I think he is their "chosen one" to win." Also, James Arthur has had very good judges comments through-out. There will definitely be criticism, like there always is, but I reckon he is the one they will P.R-machine to the final via the comments.
Other winning contestants that exemplify what I'm talking about: Alexandra Burke - From the week 3 "Candyman" performance, the judges only praised her from then on; pretty much same thing with Matt Cardle from week 5; and with Joe McElderry, in week 3, Louis tipped him as "going all the way to the final". With Year 8, in week 5, Gary Barlow got up and said to Marcus Collins "That was the performance of the series", which was the exact same thing he did and said to James Arthur last week, and now he's said he's going straight to the final.
Marcus might not have won it, but did come runner up, so I think this method at least cements the contestant's place in the final 2. Also, I think last year was generally too much of a mess for the producers planned method to go how they wanted it to go.
The "established winner" tends to have an "alright" performance the 1st week that the judges praise, although not that much above the rest, but then usually by week 5 they're praising that contestant beyond belief, whilst the contestant who owned week 1 (in terms of judges' praise/comments) has a performance that is totally slated by the judges and ends up in the bottom two and becomes a shock elimination.
Examples from previous years: (Year 5) Laura White, (Year 6) Lucie Jones, (Year 7) TreyC Cohen, (Year 8) The Risk. Jahmene and Ella seemed to have that week 1 most praised performance so one of them will most likely be this year's shock week 5 elimination. The way the judges' praising of Ella has calmed down and began to decline this week and last week suggests it might be Ella, but I actually reckon it could be Jahmene because another recurring theme in X Factor is the "audition chosen one."
By this, I mean a contestant who performs (usually in the first audition show), blows the judges away and gets praise like the second coming for a large part of the competition (especially at the beginning), but is also given a hard time by the judges at times, whilst they turn out not to be as popular as expected with the audience yet the show seems to do everything in its power to get them to the semi-final, where they bow out. Prime examples: Diana Vickers is season 5's, Danyl Johnson is season 6's, Cher Lloyd is season 7's, Misha B is season 8's. They also usually tend to make a huge impact in the first live show. I think Ella might actually be this "audition chosen one" rather than Jahmene, but we'll see.
Now, I actually don't think these are chosen ones that the producers ever intend to win and reckon that they rather create these recurrences intentionally to establish a sort of narrative. It makes the show obviously predictable, but this predictability eludes most somehow, and I have no idea how they do it, but I believe this is all part of the narrative too.
Included in this narrative, I also think is a week 4 exit from a contestant who didn't shine that much in the auditions but seemed to be gaining gradual momentum in popularity, but has a bad week between weeks 2-4, and if they had survived week 2-4, would afterwards go on to become the runner-up usually, but in some cases, the winner. They are usually a singer who does not initially come across as the best singer in the competition, particularly in the first audition stage, but has something unique about them; e.g. a unique tone like Rebecca Ferguson, Sophie Habibis or Jade Ellis or can dance and sing really well at the same time, e.g. Olly Murs/JLS/Alexandra Burke.
It is usually someone dispensable at the week 4 stage because they are off the radar but not at the week 7-10 stage because of their underdog/dark horse status and how much they have grown. I’ve mentioned runner-ups and winners here because I think that part of the XF narrative is that the week 4 exit contestant, the runner-up and even sometimes the winner are interchangeable. By this, I mean that in the beginning, for the XF producers, the week 4 exit, the runner-up and the winner are all the same three people and that they don’t decide which of the them they are going to PR the hell out of to the final until that week 3-5 stage (e.g. this year, James Arthur).
Despite all I’ve said, I might be completely wrong in more than one sense: 1. The XF producers might turn the narrative completely upside-down on its head so that nothing matching what I’ve described happens, though I find this very unlikely… or 2. The show is not this far planned by the producers and there is no intentionally constructed narrative but rather just a naturally recurring one caused by the way in which the British public votes.
Usually, sometime between week 3-5, the winner is established by certain comments that the judges make that talk about how "amazing their performance" was, and how it was "the performance of the series!" and they could "see them [the act] in the final," and usually, that act they give these comments or make these claims about either come runner-up or win it. Gary said that about James Arthur, so I think he is their "chosen one" to win." Also, James Arthur has had very good judges comments through-out. There will definitely be criticism, like there always is, but I reckon he is the one they will P.R-machine to the final via the comments.
Other winning contestants that exemplify what I'm talking about: Alexandra Burke - From the week 3 "Candyman" performance, the judges only praised her from then on; pretty much same thing with Matt Cardle from week 5; and with Joe McElderry, in week 3, Louis tipped him as "going all the way to the final". With Year 8, in week 5, Gary Barlow got up and said to Marcus Collins "That was the performance of the series", which was the exact same thing he did and said to James Arthur last week, and now he's said he's going straight to the final.
Marcus might not have won it, but did come runner up, so I think this method at least cements the contestant's place in the final 2. Also, I think last year was generally too much of a mess for the producers planned method to go how they wanted it to go.
The "established winner" tends to have an "alright" performance the 1st week that the judges praise, although not that much above the rest, but then usually by week 5 they're praising that contestant beyond belief, whilst the contestant who owned week 1 (in terms of judges' praise/comments) has a performance that is totally slated by the judges and ends up in the bottom two and becomes a shock elimination.
Examples from previous years: (Year 5) Laura White, (Year 6) Lucie Jones, (Year 7) TreyC Cohen, (Year 8) The Risk. Jahmene and Ella seemed to have that week 1 most praised performance so one of them will most likely be this year's shock week 5 elimination. The way the judges' praising of Ella has calmed down and began to decline this week and last week suggests it might be Ella, but I actually reckon it could be Jahmene because another recurring theme in X Factor is the "audition chosen one."
By this, I mean a contestant who performs (usually in the first audition show), blows the judges away and gets praise like the second coming for a large part of the competition (especially at the beginning), but is also given a hard time by the judges at times, whilst they turn out not to be as popular as expected with the audience yet the show seems to do everything in its power to get them to the semi-final, where they bow out. Prime examples: Diana Vickers is season 5's, Danyl Johnson is season 6's, Cher Lloyd is season 7's, Misha B is season 8's. They also usually tend to make a huge impact in the first live show. I think Ella might actually be this "audition chosen one" rather than Jahmene, but we'll see.
Now, I actually don't think these are chosen ones that the producers ever intend to win and reckon that they rather create these recurrences intentionally to establish a sort of narrative. It makes the show obviously predictable, but this predictability eludes most somehow, and I have no idea how they do it, but I believe this is all part of the narrative too.
Included in this narrative, I also think is a week 4 exit from a contestant who didn't shine that much in the auditions but seemed to be gaining gradual momentum in popularity, but has a bad week between weeks 2-4, and if they had survived week 2-4, would afterwards go on to become the runner-up usually, but in some cases, the winner. They are usually a singer who does not initially come across as the best singer in the competition, particularly in the first audition stage, but has something unique about them; e.g. a unique tone like Rebecca Ferguson, Sophie Habibis or Jade Ellis or can dance and sing really well at the same time, e.g. Olly Murs/JLS/Alexandra Burke.
It is usually someone dispensable at the week 4 stage because they are off the radar but not at the week 7-10 stage because of their underdog/dark horse status and how much they have grown. I’ve mentioned runner-ups and winners here because I think that part of the XF narrative is that the week 4 exit contestant, the runner-up and even sometimes the winner are interchangeable. By this, I mean that in the beginning, for the XF producers, the week 4 exit, the runner-up and the winner are all the same three people and that they don’t decide which of the them they are going to PR the hell out of to the final until that week 3-5 stage (e.g. this year, James Arthur).
Despite all I’ve said, I might be completely wrong in more than one sense: 1. The XF producers might turn the narrative completely upside-down on its head so that nothing matching what I’ve described happens, though I find this very unlikely… or 2. The show is not this far planned by the producers and there is no intentionally constructed narrative but rather just a naturally recurring one caused by the way in which the British public votes.



