DS Forums

 
 

Should they raise the age limit for the show


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-11-2013, 16:14
Jessica_Hamby
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,543

Hannah, Tamera and Nicholas, while all good at what they do, would surely have more to offer in 2 years time.

Right now all three of them seem a bit bland to me. Luke would probably also be a bit better then and have more experience.
Jessica_Hamby is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 05-11-2013, 16:26
comment
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 917
Definitely not, I think the age is fine as it is. It wasn't high enough when they changed it to 14 but 16 is fine. The most successful act from X Factor are One Direction who were all 16, 17 and 18. Plus, since they're so young you get to see an huge improvement.
comment is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 16:27
Lucylocket88
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,990
I think sixteen is fine, but fourteen is too young in my opinion. The Australian version allows fourteen year olds to go on the show. I am not sure what the minimum age for the USA version is.
Lucylocket88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 16:30
Patti-Ann
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 16,408
Doesn't the US XF start at 12
Patti-Ann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 16:31
Lucylocket88
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,990
Doesn't the US XF start at 12
Far too young. The UK show has it right, regarding the minimum age, in my opinion.
Lucylocket88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 16:33
Roland Mouse
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 9,323
Yet Sam C at 19 is crap.

So how would a higher age help?

What they should be is change the name of the show and put an older age limit on it as they pretend it's open to all and yet have a go at the older ones for not being seen as relevant recording artists - Relevant to silly little tweenie record buyers that is.

This show cons people into thinking it's for everyone when it's just to find a kiddie/youth pop act.
Roland Mouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 16:34
Treewatcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,964
16 is the age of consent in the UK and rock/pop is about sex so you have to sell it in that way to the record-buying public. Other than that you make a clear distinction and say - this is an act that can be sold to the over 45 crowd (such as that dreadful Subo).
Treewatcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 16:36
Rangermick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Perth Australia
Posts: 760
16 should be fine but the problem this year is that the girls are all so young. It's supposed to be 16-24 and usually an older 1 or 2 can take the heat off the younger one. But this year we have 2 sixteen year old and one at 19 going on 13.
Rangermick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 16:38
Treewatcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,964
16 should be fine but the problem this year is that the girls are all so young. It's supposed to be 16-24 and usually an older 1 or 2 can take the heat off the younger one. But this year we have 2 sixteen year old and one at 19 going on 13.
The boys are all babies too.
Treewatcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 16:47
Rangermick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Perth Australia
Posts: 760
The boys are all babies too.
But the girls look more grown up. Society treats 16 girls as adults but the boys get a 3 or 4 more years to be just boys!
Rangermick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 16:52
Diceroll_81
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 901
16 is ok I think. Some of the younger contestants have trouble with the 'instant fame' the show gives them but then again so do plenty if the older ones.

Considering the difficulties the producers have been having attracting decent talent over the last few years (not surprising considering the uk is only a small country and the show's been on for 10 years), I doubt they will want to restrict themselves any more.
Diceroll_81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 16:54
RabidWolverine1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Inside Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde
Posts: 7,993
No 16 is not fine. We should be looking at least 21 years old as a minimum. Below 21 the life experience you have to make the best decisions for your life is severley lacking. I know 21 year olds are still learning but when I think about the difference in me as a person comparing when I was 21 to when I was 18 or 16 is worlds apart.

They need to hone there craft...do a few gigs, learn how to write songs and in general just mature themselves.
RabidWolverine1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 16:57
Treewatcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,964
But the girls look more grown up. Society treats 16 girls as adults but the boys get a 3 or 4 more years to be just boys!
This is true and those boys all look like Mummy's boys. They can barely tie their own shoe-laces so I would be very surprised if they even knew the facts of life. Sharon and Nicole were almost trying to deflower Nicholas on stage. It was acutely embarrassing.
Treewatcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 17:05
mashitup
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 353
Hannah, Tamera and Nicholas, while all good at what they do, would surely have more to offer in 2 years time.

Right now all three of them seem a bit bland to me. Luke would probably also be a bit better then and have more experience.
Nothing wrong with the age of the of the above! It's finding teens with the so called XFactor that's the problem! There's many great young acts solo/duets/ etc on Youtube. Far better than the usual teen acts on Xfactor (with the exception of a few) imho. I guess many of them don't want the stigma of association with talent shows!!
mashitup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 17:08
Roland Mouse
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 9,323
16 is the age of consent in the UK and rock/pop is about sex so you have to sell it in that way to the record-buying public. Other than that you make a clear distinction and say - this is an act that can be sold to the over 45 crowd (such as that dreadful Subo).
Yes the age of consent is 16, but as much as I love him, it's hard to imagine Nicholas as an oiled up porn star

Or a bare-chested, leather clad rock god for that matter!
Roland Mouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 17:12
earldbest
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,852
It's fine. They took a crack at 14 before I started watching and afaik Emily Nakanda brought it back up to 16.
earldbest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 17:43
noelw1969
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 907
Age really is of no consequence. Either you can or you can't.
noelw1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2013, 00:34
Sheechiibii
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,776
I don't mind the age being 16. I think it's the best age for the show. However, they should ban the use of the number during the live shows. Seriously, I absolutely loath the term 'only sixteen' and every time one of the judges uses it I want to switch it off completely.
Sheechiibii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2013, 00:41
Andy_Karl1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 133
16 in this era of time is old enough so nope 16 is alright below that is a no-no
Andy_Karl1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2013, 00:51
Soppyfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: My DJ Studio
Posts: 27,073
16 is fine...it's Australia that should raise the age from 14 to 16 and the USA version should take note as well.
Soppyfan is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2013, 04:56
StratusSphere
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,174
But the girls look more grown up. Society treats 16 girls as adults but the boys get a 3 or 4 more years to be just boys!
This is so true. However, consider Little Mix on the show - they nearly always dressed them to look 'young' and they were all in their 20s.

Just shows how you can change the age someone looks by the clothes you have them in. You wouldnt think wee Nicholas in his polo shirt and baggy jeans is the same age as Tamera in her dress and heels would you? They make the girls look 'sexy' to get votes and they make the boys look young and innocent cause they think thats what mums and grannies will like, inoffensive. I think its kinda unfair to both sexes tbh..
StratusSphere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2013, 06:51
Bert_Bertie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 356
Yes.
Fed up of kiddies
Min age 20
Bert_Bertie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 22:02
TerryM22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 17,998
Age really is of no consequence. Either you can or you can't.
You can much better in a few years time that's the thing though.
TerryM22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 01:00
BroadwayBabyNY
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 2,015
Yes...to age 18.
BroadwayBabyNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 11:35
TerryM22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 17,998
Yes that sounds reasonable, it would also put a stop to the exploitation of the youngsters who sometimes end up bursting into tears when things go wrong due to the pressure of performing on the show.
TerryM22 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:14.