• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • The X Factor
Producers Are Trying To Sandwhich Contestants They Don't Want!!....
<<
<
2 of 2
>>
>
C14E
30-10-2012
The problem with these theories is always that there is no real motivation for this kind of thing. TV producers care about ratings. It makes sense that they might want to protect certain acts in order to sustain interest in the series. But why on earth would they be bothered about which one of 13 acts went home in week one and then week two and week three? So long as their big names stay (and they're protected by the judges vote anyway) they wouldn't care.

The last act on should always bring the house down (true in the old system, true in the new one). A good act should always be on when there's a scheduling junction on BBC1 (end of Strictly or end of Merlin). There should always be a good act "coming up" - where there are two acts in one segment, one of those acts should be good. On a practical level, there are issues with staging (particularly where two acts perform back to back). They'll also try and mix it up between the categories (so one judge doesn't have several acts in a row) and types of songs (don't put 3 dreary ballads on in a row).

When I say "good" - I mean in the TV sense. An act that might be a draw for viewers. Either someone really talented or possibly someone controversial or someone that has had a particularly eventful week.
Bananafish
30-10-2012
Originally Posted by C14E:
“The problem with these theories is always that there is no real motivation for this kind of thing. TV producers care about ratings. It makes sense that they might want to protect certain acts in order to sustain interest in the series. But why on earth would they be bothered about which one of 13 acts went home in week one and then week two and week three? So long as their big names stay (and they're protected by the judges vote anyway) they wouldn't care.

The last act on should always bring the house down (true in the old system, true in the new one). A good act should always be on when there's a scheduling junction on BBC1 (end of Strictly or end of Merlin). There should always be a good act "coming up" - where there are two acts in one segment, one of those acts should be good. On a practical level, there are issues with staging (particularly where two acts perform back to back). They'll also try and mix it up between the categories (so one judge doesn't have several acts in a row) and types of songs (don't put 3 dreary ballads on in a row).

When I say "good" - I mean in the TV sense. An act that might be a draw for viewers. Either someone really talented or possibly someone controversial or someone that has had a particularly eventful week.”

Well if you want just one example, they've been very deliberately (and very obviously) alternating the fortunes of the boyblands.

You can't have a battle of the boyblands with only one there, and you don't motivate fans of them to spend furiously with the change in the voting unless you keep raising them and dropping them.

Also Grumpy Gary's acts were all so obviously thrown under the bus at the start to get that whole story going.

And as for the Orange One, well that's been painfully obvious what's going on there.

Gone into it more in the voting change thread, but it's all far more unfair than before. Just much more subtle and less obvious than the death slot/pimp slot. People are just so used to that though that they are overlooking it all, and that's why the odds have been so out each week.

If you notice what is going on though, things like Kye being in the bottom 2 that week were obvious.
shraine
30-10-2012
Some of you guys need to look at running order and see what they are trying to do. Jade was sandwhiched in week 3. She must of sooo near the bottom 2. So in week 4 they done it again and they got rid.
<<
<
2 of 2
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map