[Niamh.]

Since the voting figures revealed that Janet topped the votes each week and was pretty much on course to win, it made it even more clear to me that the mentors really can't push the act that has the best chance of winning. I mean surely Kelly knew that Janet was her best chance of taking it? So she was either told to deliberately **** up Janets chances or it was more important to her that Janet lost then one of her acts triumphing?

What does everyone think? I think, I seriously need to stop watching this show

[Jordan.]

I think Janet messed it up for herself tbh & the bad press she was getting didn't help

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

I think Janet messed it up for herself tbh & the bad press she was getting didn't help

Well, she did and she didn't, I think a combination of ****ty song choices (which a mentor is supposed to help with) and very negative comments from the judges and apparently bad relations with Kelly, chipped away at her. She was a nervous wreck the last few shows (imo of course )

[Marsh.]

But they weren't aware of the voting results until last night, were they?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

But they weren't aware of the voting results until last night, were they?

No, I don't think so. But it was quite obvious that Janet was her best shot, since she never hit the bottom 2 till very late in.

[MusicXian]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

But they weren't aware of the voting results until last night, were they?

Thenjudges are the biggest weapon for the production of the show. We are told that they do not know the voting results, but I think the producers tell them what to do with their acts to ensure them either being pushed for the win or being made to go out. If by now you still do not believe this then more fool you. In 6 weeks of judges voting to save an act, in 5 of them they kept the act who was bottom of the public vote. Coincedence? Me thinks not.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by MusicXian

Thenjudges are the biggest weapon for the production of the show. We are told that they do not know the voting results, but I think the producers tell them what to do with their acts to ensure them either being pushed for the win or being made to go out. If by now you still do not believe this then more fool you. In 6 weeks of judges voting to save an act, in 5 of them they kept the act who was bottom of the public vote. Coincedence? Me thinks not.

Considering there's a 50/50 chance of saving the bottom one each time it's not impossible. And I find your response very rude in its wording.

Of course The X Factor is staged to a certain degree, the judges don't mentor to the level that they are made out to. And yes, the producers have final say on what happens. But to say the votes are fixed is very cynical indeed. Especially when you start thinking the producers want to purposely push a lesser favourite for the win, and sabotage a popular one. There's simply no reason for it. If an act is popular they are more likely to bring in revenue when the show is over.

If the producers fixed the voting as much as they are accused of doing then Misha B would have made that final without a shadow of a doubt.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by MusicXian

Thenjudges are the biggest weapon for the production of the show. We are told that they do not know the voting results, but I think the producers tell them what to do with their acts to ensure them either being pushed for the win or being made to go out. If by now you still do not believe this then more fool you. In 6 weeks of judges voting to save an act, in 5 of them they kept the act who was bottom of the public vote. Coincedence? Me thinks not.

I believe the judges know what the outcome of the public vote is and the producers attempt to sway them to make better TV. It definitely happened when Simon was on the panel anyway, otherwise I don't think theres any way that he would have let it go to deadlock when it was Ruth v Girl Band or Bad Lashes (forgot which) after Ruth did her Purple Rain performance, and Simon really liked her. Another example is when it was Jedward v Lucy, apparently he was pushing Cheryl to save Jedward so he could keep his 'credibility', send it to deadlock and Lucie leaves the competition, show gets in the headlines due to shock exit but Cheryl refused to do it.

[robb]

Originally Posted by Tom

I believe the judges know what the outcome of the public vote is and the producers attempt to sway them to make better TV. It definitely happened when Simon was on the panel anyway, otherwise I don't think theres any way that he would have let it go to deadlock when it was Ruth v Girl Band or Bad Lashes (forgot which) after Ruth did her Purple Rain performance, and Simon really liked her. Another example is when it was Jedward v Lucy, apparently he was pushing Cheryl to save Jedward so he could keep his 'credibility', send it to deadlock and Lucie leaves the competition, show gets in the headlines due to shock exit but Cheryl refused to do it.

Didn't Ruth do Purple Rain against that other girl who was an early fave?

Anyway, I agree with you. I think the judges know EXACTLY who has done well in previous weeks. The Daily Star told us WEEKS ago that Janet had won the first 4 public votes, remember? THEY WERE PROVED RIGHT. I am conviced that to even things up in favour of the poorly supported Misha, who the judges wanted in the final, they put Janet on at the start of each show and Misha on at the end, until the semi anyway. That as much as anything cost Janet her place. We all know about the importance of the running order. Further, Barlow's criticism of Janet started around the same time, gradually eroding her confidence. The fact that Cowell supported Little Mix for weeks is also an indication of them knowing how each act is doing, and influencing the 'outcome'.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

But they weren't aware of the voting results until last night, were they?

They secretly know the results but act like they never knew until this point.

[Marsh.]

I think it was very clear in the show though that Kelly saw Misha B as the star and her best chance of winning. Amelia was awful in week 1 and Sophie was crap.
Especially towards the beginning Misha was far and away the best but public perception about something we don't have the facts on changed it for her.

It's wrong of her to neglect other acts like Janet though but when looking at her category Misha is the standout choice on first impressions.

[Niamh.]

I agree that Misha was very talented,and I'm sure kelly spotted that but she was in the Bottom 2 3 times, each time she was saved she had the lowest votes, so even if she was the most talented of the girls, it was fairly obvious, that she was never going to win it, where as Janet had a great chance of doing so but Kelly seemed to have totally neglected her best chance.

[stewart64]

I think the mentor thing may have originally been to give the show a distinction from Pop Idol and try and avoid copyright issues. I preferred the Pop Idol foremat and agree with the OP, what is the point.

[Tom]

I'd like it if they could but they can't drop the celebrity mentoring otherwise they're left with Pop Idol with no age limit and groups, plus a huge legal bill

I really liked the current panel until the live shows and I think if they didn't have their own categories I would have continued to like it. Also, if the contestants could choose their own image and songs it would be betterbecause the live shows ultimately disappoint. BUT, and its a huge one, giving the acts the control means the producers lose it and they can't stitch up certain acts to make others progress further. Just look at Janet's voting pattern to see that! had it not been for the sudden turnaround in week 6 and picking on everything, she quite clearly would have won

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Tom

I'd like it if they could but they can't drop the celebrity mentoring otherwise they're left with Pop Idol with no age limit and groups, plus a huge legal bill

I really liked the current panel until the live shows and I think if they didn't have their own categories I would have continued to like it. Also, if the contestants could choose their own image and songs it would be betterbecause the live shows ultimately disappoint. BUT, and its a huge one, giving the acts the control means the producers lose it and they can't stitch up certain acts to make others progress further. Just look at Janet's voting pattern to see that! had it not been for the sudden turnaround in week 6 and picking on everything, she quite clearly would have won

I agree 100% Tom. What I can't understand though is, why not let them do their own thing and leave who wins in our hands? What's so wrong with that? It's frustrating watching them bring down the people who they don't want winning, and pushing their choice on us.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by stewart64

I think the mentor thing may have originally been to give the show a distinction from Pop Idol and try and avoid copyright issues. I preferred the Pop Idol foremat and agree with the OP, what is the point.

Yeah, I've said this in another thread as well, but I believe that they either need to have mentors and a set of completely impartial judges or just revert back to having no mentors, like Pop Idol. Gary especially, was disgraceful this year with his comments that were so biased and tactical at times.

[muchadoaboutnothing]

Personally I believe that having X-factor over two nights spoils it. As the public are paying to vote there should be no bottom two where the judges decide - and if that had been the case I'm pretty sure there would have been a different outcome.

[fruit_cake]

Originally Posted by muchadoaboutnothing

Personally I believe that having X-factor over two nights spoils it. As the public are paying to vote there should be no bottom two where the judges decide - and if that had been the case I'm pretty sure there would have been a different outcome.

I agree, I can't be bothered to watch it two nights in a row. I'm not against mentors completely but I do agree there doesn't seem much point in them other than to stir up the public.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by muchadoaboutnothing

Personally I believe that having X-factor over two nights spoils it. As the public are paying to vote there should be no bottom two where the judges decide - and if that had been the case I'm pretty sure there would have been a different outcome.

I agree with this, again, it's just another example of them manipulating both us and the results, this is why I never vote in X Factor because it's not really our choice, no matter who has the lowest votes, the producers will pick who goes and who stays.

[fruit_cake]

I thought if there were any purpose in mentors it should be to make sure that what happend to Janet, doesn't happen! They should act like a safety net for when the public obviously get it wrong. How wrong I was

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by christmas_cake

I thought if there were any purpose in mentors it should be to make sure that what happend to Janet, doesn't happen! They should act like a safety net for when the public obviously get it wrong. How wrong I was

Yeah, or another idea would be, keep the Bottom 2 and have the sing off but reopen the lines for the 2 after they've done it and let the public vote for who they want to save between them.

[MTVN]

I suppose the idea of having mentors is just to make it more interesting really, and provide a bit of competition between the judges as well, it might not be the fairest way of doing it but I think it's the most entertaining

[Kate!]

The show could do with a complete revamp, it's gone quite stale really. I think it would benefit from a year off, let's have something like the competition for a group, on the lines of the Girls Aloud selection process as a one off, then bring it back, that would give them loads of time to come up with fresh ideas.

[Jords]

I personally think people need to stop taking the show so seriously and enjoy it more, and if you think there is any trace of 'sabotage' just vote for your favourite. Mentors make TXF unique from just a normal singing contest, it adds more competition and allows them to form more opinions in which we get an insight. I do however think that if youre in the B2 for the third time you should automatically get eliminated.

Also I was a big fan of Janet the first 5-6 weeks but then I just got bored with her as it was more of the same old and she forget her words on more than 1 occasion. The aim of the live shows is to find the best act at the END of the show, eliminating the weaker acts and finding those who are constantly improving or delivering. Janet became the weakest when it came to the final 5 as well as not showing any improvement. Yes she was a favourite at the start, but opinions change - be that of worse of her or of better of others (more of the case - Little Mix, Marcus and Amelia).

Misha B should have left before Janet even though Misha is more talented for the simple fact that it was Janet's first and Misha's third time in the B2.

[Jords]

Oh and just to add it definitely wasnt any sabotage imo, her position in the votings went -

1st - 1st - 1st - 1st - 2nd - 3rd - 4th

Which screams loss of interest as it wasnt a gradual decrease, if it was sabotage itd be a much dramatagic change 1st - 1st - 1st - 1st - 4th/5th or less