DS Forums

 
 

Is XF's decline more to do with bad judges, bad contestants or stale format?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-11-2012, 17:15
SamuelW
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8,397

Do you think the XFactor's decline the last two years has been mostly to do with bad judges, bad contestants or the fact the show is 9 years old and format has got stale and isn't fresh?

Nicole is supposedly better than Kelly last year according to lots of people so why isnt the show now more popular than last year? Does this, as well as the fact that Cheryl's return didnt do anything for the ratings, prove that the judges arent so much the problem? Could it be more to do with the fact that people are seeing through the format and that after 9 years of seeing this week after week, it's a bit boring and not that fresh. Could it be the format which needs to be fixed more than the judging panel?
SamuelW is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-11-2012, 17:20
Bananafish
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,454
Jumping the shark and losing too much credibility in the last peak year of 2010, same as happened with BB.

Everything else has just compounded the problem, especially trying to use Barlow to inject faux-credibility back while keeping the format and the manipulation exactly the same.

Hence why it will be all change next year to try and get back some trust from when people have happier memories of the show. Barlow basically killed the show.
Bananafish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 17:20
imagine___
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 481
Honestly, a stale format. The show's been going for nine years now, and it keeps saying that it's a 'serious show' when evidently it's not.

Either A) keep the show as serious and MAKE it a serious show (eg. credible judges, no manipulation of votes/audience perceptions, no Twitter feeds for the contestants) - and hence, a show that only focuses on the talent there.

Or B) admit it's an entertainment show and carry on from there. You can't bill X Factor as a serious singing show, and then bring out the likes of Wagner and Rylan out every week, and let very talented singers leave before they do.
imagine___ is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 17:21
vagbreath
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,192
Bad song choices, poor judges, transparent manufactured drama, terrible song arrangements, mashups, weak talent. Think that about covers my issues with it.
vagbreath is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 17:23
Mysteryxxxxx
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 190
Same shit every year...people want something new. Other people want the old thing..nobody anywhere is happy hence it's decline
Mysteryxxxxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 17:24
Bananafish
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,454
Honestly, a stale format. The show's been going for nine years now, and it keeps saying that it's a 'serious show' when evidently it's not.

Either A) keep the show as serious and MAKE it a serious show (eg. credible judges, no manipulation of votes/audience perceptions, no Twitter feeds for the contestants) - and hence, a show that only focuses on the talent there.

Or B) admit it's an entertainment show and carry on from there. You can't bill X Factor as a serious singing show, and then bring out the likes of Wagner and Rylan out every week, and let very talented singers leave before they do.
Next year will probably be option B and played as the self-parody which 2010 turned into.

BGT turned it round by not taking itself seriously.
Bananafish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 17:25
LW09
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,278
It's a combination of the three.

The reason it isn't rating better with a superior judge is because a lot of the damage was done last year. Viewers tailed off towards the end of the series and I suspect a lot of them would have stopped watching had they not already been in the habit of watching.

That meant this year was always going to launch with considerably less viewers and there was a lot of negativity surrounding the earlier episodes, not helped by the complete lack of buzz and the way they handled the 4th judge situation was a complete mess.
LW09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 17:43
LandslideBrad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,021
Really average contestants.
LandslideBrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 17:45
neorich
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 940
"The reason it isn't rating better with a superior judge is because a lot of the damage was done last year."

Agreed and much of that damage was done by the illusion peddled that somehow his presence would be a big departure in that he'd use his undoubted skills to bring some objectivity and sanity to the judging panel..

Yet, to be honest he's been a big disappointment to those of us who really believed he'd make a difference.
But, there he is, playing the game, standing ovations and all..
He promised much and turned out to be a bit of a Nick Clegg, delivering bugger all..

But yep, it's a combination of all 3 factors..a total revamp is needed and IMO that doesn't involve a return to the "glory days," like those that might've been ever lasted that long..

It's been dying a long lingering death for years now..propping it up with the likes of Cheryl Cole, or Sharon Osbourne will only fool some people for a few weeks.

Rich.
x
neorich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 17:48
neorich
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 940
Just to add, re contestants..

Countless thousands apply and out of all of that, we're left with this mob as the "best," of them?

With a few notable exceptions, it kind of calls into question the whole point of any of those people supposedly being paid for making the decisions to choose them.

Rich
x
neorich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 17:50
LW09
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,278
But yep, it's a combination of all 3 factors..a total revamp is needed and IMO that doesn't involve a return to the "glory days," like those that might've been ever lasted that long..
Going backwards to move forward would only work if Simon and/or Cheryl returned to sit alongside Nicole & Louis. Clearing out the current panel and replacing them with an old one makes it even more difficult to move forward. The viewing figures were substantially up during last years auditions suggesting a wider problem either with the panel or with the show. Bringing back a full older panel causes more problems in the long term, because when a judge ineivtably steps down, how do they go about replacing them?
LW09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:03
JustArun
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: London
Posts: 8,784
Average contestants.
JustArun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:12
Matt7
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,147
The sing off has become pointless as the judges never base their decision on who should go home on the performances.
Matt7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:15
AgeOfParanoia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: SOMEWHERE EAST OF IRELAND
Posts: 728
"The reason it isn't rating better with a superior judge is because a lot of the damage was done last year."

Agreed and much of that damage was done by the illusion peddled that somehow his presence would be a big departure in that he'd use his undoubted skills to bring some objectivity and sanity to the judging panel..

Yet, to be honest he's been a big disappointment to those of us who really believed he'd make a difference.
But, there he is, playing the game, standing ovations and all..
He promised much and turned out to be a bit of a Nick Clegg, delivering bugger all..

But yep, it's a combination of all 3 factors..a total revamp is needed and IMO that doesn't involve a return to the "glory days," like those that might've been ever lasted that long..

It's been dying a long lingering death for years now..propping it up with the likes of Cheryl Cole, or Sharon Osbourne will only fool some people for a few weeks.

Rich.
x
See BIB, and the lack of 'personality' judges does not help. I like Loius (for some strange reason), and I quite like Gary Barlow, shame he was landed with the overs this year, but not that keen on Tulisa or Nicole (or Kelly last year). I think it was better with Dannii Minogue and Cheryl Cole. It may be that some people only tuned in to see Mr Nasty himself, but I haven't really missed him all that much.......
Personally, I think it has run its course, and although they have some good singers, and some not so good singers (that have more ? Factor, than sing factor) there is no "stand out" totally talented star in this years, and last years wasn't much better. [I much preferred Marcus Collins and Amelia Lilly to Little Mix, but didn't like any enough to vote]
AgeOfParanoia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:21
lux lisbon 2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: White Hart Lane
Posts: 6,143
It's the blatant manipulation that leaves a bad taste in the viewers mouths.

Back in the old Pop Idol days it was clear that Cowell wanted Gareth Gates to win but the viewers obviously preferred Will Young, so talent won in the end. Same goes with the year Michelle McManus won, she was what the viewers wanted rather than the spoonfed choice, most of which are handpicked by the producers before we go to the live shows.

Now we see redundant sing offs, deadlock being the preferred option when the producers choice is in the bottom two to save thier choice, the 'unknowns' such as Katie Waissel who have recording contracts or Christopher Maloney who is a cruise ship vanguard.

People aren't as thick as the producers would like to think that they are and can see exactly what is happening, that is why they are switching off in thier droves.

If it weren't for the craic on the DS live show thread, I would never watch the show again.
lux lisbon 2 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:31
big dan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 7,257
All of the above. Series 7 is the perfect example; the staged theatrics became ridiculous with Wagner and Katie, but then we had 'worthy' talented contestants the viewers could root for like Rebecca and Matt. Then we had the fairly talented Cher who provided drama with the 'Marmite' factor.

Combined with that we had a judging panel that sparked public and media interest, but even then the dynamic wasn't that great. Simon and Cheryl had their heads firmly lodged up each other's backsides, and she and Danni barely interacted in order to appear civil. Yet this merely added fuel to the fire where the behind-the-scenes feud rumours were concerned, which again leads back into the positive factor of the media interest.

Saw a quote from Louis today stating that Nicole and Tulisa get on better than any other female pair of judges before... why aren't we seeing this on-screen then? We seen a lot of Nicole criticising Tulisa's acts and her defending them last weekend, but there was no banterous sparring in sight. The show needs a panel who are not segregated into little camps, who can all joke and bicker with each other. I also just seen another article suggesting a possible return for Sharon and Simon; I don't think we need such a direct step backwards, but I hope there is a grain of truth in their plans for next year as that is definitely the kind of direction they should go in imo.

It's weird, the show probably takes itself more seriously now with the over-produced glossiness than it ever did in it's early years, when it actually felt more real.
big dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:40
Hassaan13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,707
Not in terms of the contestants IMO. Some of them are the best ever.
Hassaan13 is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:42
zelda fan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,130
Do you think the XFactor's decline the last two years has been mostly to do with bad judges, bad contestants or the fact the show is 9 years old and format has got stale and isn't fresh?

Nicole is supposedly better than Kelly last year according to lots of people so why isnt the show now more popular than last year? Does this, as well as the fact that Cheryl's return didnt do anything for the ratings, prove that the judges arent so much the problem? Could it be more to do with the fact that people are seeing through the format and that after 9 years of seeing this week after week, it's a bit boring and not that fresh. Could it be the format which needs to be fixed more than the judging panel?
All the reasons in your title and that it has become soo contrived are the reason x factor is starting to die.
zelda fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:55
Michelle32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,636
Stale TV. I reckon people are getting fed up of the same tripe on every Saturday & Sunday nights.

All numbers are down for weekend TV - not just X Factor. Need some new, and different, shows.
Michelle32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:55
Hound of Love
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 56,124
Bad song choices, poor judges, transparent manufactured drama, terrible song arrangements, mashups, weak talent. Think that about covers my issues with it.
Spot on!
Hound of Love is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:57
moonburn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,352
Dont think it helped start of this year Cowell promised massive changes.Lessons learned from last year nothings changed they are still hawking stories to the tabloids its all the same Panto
With a very bad head judge.

I dont think people realise just how disliked Gary Barlow is
moonburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 18:59
Mysteryxxxxx
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 190
Stale TV. I reckon people are getting fed up of the same tripe on every Saturday & Sunday nights.

All numbers are down for weekend TV - not just X Factor. Need some new, and different, shows.
I'm not sure that's it really. Modern technology is going to count. People have youview or +1 or iplayer they watch stuff when it's convenient for them not automatically when the tv channel is airing it. Also in particular with itv and adverts it makes sense half the time to say screw it, i'll just youtube the performances and watch the final 20 minutes on sunday when someone has to go. I can see quite a number of people doing this..hell ive done it a number of times.

Im sure the response is strictly is doing great. But really strictly is just doing the same as it always has. It has no adverts and most of the viewers are old so the whole modern technology isn't really for them.
Mysteryxxxxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 19:02
wns_195
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dewsbury, England
Posts: 8,710
It's due to rubbish judges, sob stories and manipulation.
wns_195 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 19:02
celebmania
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 531
The deadlock situations and joke acts have turned the show against some people.

I remember Series 1/2 (even 3) were more intimate. Smaller production values - and more about the music and acts. Think it should go back to basics.
celebmania is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 19:19
abigail05
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 801
It's due to rubbish judges, sob stories and manipulation.
Manufactured boy bands that nearly always do well in the show. Once a boy band has been 'put together', you know they are going to be the next one direction. Yawn!

Manipulation at its worst.
abigail05 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:11.