[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

you have no idea what you're talking about



omg people criticise Dermot as wooden but Kate Thornton must've been the most irrelevant, robotic, emotionless presenter ever

Thankfully she faded back into obscurity

You're entitled to that opinion of course. It's wrong but that's neither here nor there.

Also millions (albeit a few) of people don't tune in to see Dermot presenting. They also don't give a toss about who is judging.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Because it's been going 12 years and, just like BB, the format is stale so it's not going to have the same impact year on year is it?

Hence brand new changes, or even a new show, being needed.

I don't disagree with that either, but there is absolutely no reason at all why a series in 2010 that was averaging like 15m viewers and peaked at nearly 20m for the final should then be followed the next year by a total crash and burn

The reason for it? The drastic, irreparable changes they made to the panel. It has never recovered. It is one thing having Simon leave, another having two, but replacing three judges from a golden era of the show with one irrelevance, another that's not that huge in the UK and then Gary Barlow is really asking for trouble - and it proved disastrous

I'm sure you'll say 'well Louis was still on the panel' and tbqh he was probably one of the only saving graces of those series but this is proof of how much the panel is important to the show. There's no logical reason why one series can perform so fantastically and the next not, unless you make such huge changes to the faces of the show

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

You're entitled to that opinion of course. It's wrong but that's neither here nor there.

Also millions (albeit a few) of people don't tune in to see Dermot presenting. They also don't give a toss about who is judging.

...yes they do, or else the media wouldn't spend months devoting time to stories of who's gonna be on the panel, nor would 2011's series have crashed and burned so much had they not made such drastic changes

Whether people acknowledge it or not, X Factor is entirely drama, judge driven. It can make or break a series, and yes people do subconsciously care about it

And as last year proved, if there isn't someone who can steer the show competently, it falls apart and becomes a laughing stock. Dermot is important

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I don't disagree with that either, but there is absolutely no reason at all why a series in 2010 that was averaging like 15m viewers and peaked at nearly 20m for the final should then be followed the next year by a total crash and burn

The reason for it? The drastic, irreparable changes they made to the panel. It has never recovered. It is one thing having Simon leave, another having two, but replacing three judges from a golden era of the show with one irrelevance, another that's not that huge in the UK and then Gary Barlow is really asking for trouble - and it proved disastrous

I'm sure you'll say 'well Louis was still on the panel' and tbqh he was probably one of the only saving graces of those series but this is proof of how much the panel is important to the show. There's no logical reason why one series can perform so fantastically and the next not, unless you make such huge changes to the faces of the show

Of course the panel is important to the show, just as the mix of contestants is.

But as you've just pointed out, Louis Walsh isn't the golden dust of the panel. The show will continue to decline this year with or without because after 12-13 years the show has already given us everything it has to offer.

Even American Idol knows it's time to call it a day.

[Jordan.]

@Jack Honestly I think people are sick of the forced 'drama' and that has what has actually killed the show. People liked and appreciated Dannii because she took the job seriously and was a breath of fresh air on the judges panel. If there was more judges who were serious about finding a credible artist who can forge a career outside of one single then the show might be able to rise again. Having Louis being a clown isn't going to do anything to save the show.

[Marsh.]

Yeah, I'm sorry, but the novelty of Louis' inane comments wore off about six years ago.

'You look like a little Luther Vandross"

"You owned t'stage"

"You look like a pop star, you sound like a pop star"

were funny and amusing the first maybe ten times. Now it's just sad.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

...yes they do, or else the media wouldn't spend months devoting time to stories of who's gonna be on the panel, nor would 2011's series have crashed and burned so much had they not made such drastic changes

Whether people acknowledge it or not, X Factor is entirely drama, judge driven. It can make or break a series, and yes people do subconsciously care about it

And as last year proved, if there isn't someone who can steer the show competently, it falls apart and becomes a laughing stock. Dermot is important

This is how I watch X Factor.

On catchup
I fast forward every part of dermot talking because he bores me to tears
I fast forward all of the judges comments because they bore me to tears. Because its the same every year. Same **** just different assholes producing it

[Pete.]

I grew tired of Louis' rehearsed saving of the joke act in the sing off

[Shaun]

I can't @ Dannii being labelled boring in the same post as wanting Nicole "Shamazinger" back. She was a catchphrase that was never funny in the first place and lived off her acts' charisma to make up for her lacking.

Dannii/Louis/Rita/Simon will do nicely

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

@Jack Honestly I think people are sick of the forced 'drama' and that has what has actually killed the show. People liked and appreciated Dannii because she took the job seriously and was a breath of fresh air on the judges panel. If there was more judges who were serious about finding a credible artist who can forge a career outside of one single then the show might be able to rise again. Having Louis being a clown isn't going to do anything to save the show.

It's not, what killed the show was the drastic change to the panel that everyone had come to know and love in 2011. They've tried to repair the damage ever since but it's very hard to draw people back once they've left

I can appreciate why people like Dannii, I'm not even saying I dislike her...but I really, really don't think the vast majority of casual viewers care about her now on her own without the rest of the golden era panel.

And I'm not going to make any comparisons to The Voice this series because I don't actually know how it performs ratings wise these days but certainly in the early series its terrible format and more ~serious~, credible nature wasn't helping it one bit. People want entertainment, that is what X Factor is. It has never been a genuine talent competition with music integrity and I don't know why people try to pretend it is

On the bolded point though: X Factor constantly produces acts with longevity, in comparison to The Voice that's barely had any successful artists from it

[Glenn.]

I agree with Jordan.

You can apply the same statement to Big Brother. People get bored of forced drama.

[Ross.]

I've changed my mind I want Simon-Nicole-Dannii-Louis sorry Sharon

[Jordan.]

It's nothing to do with the panel... People are sick of the same thing every year and lack of artists making a career from the show, which is the whole concept.

Yes Louis causing an argument and getting media attention might bring in some interest but it doesn't save the fundamental problem of the show failing to deliver what it's purpose is.

[Lostie!]

Originally Posted by Ross.

I've changed my mind I want Simon-Nicole-Dannii-Louis sorry Sharon

Good lad.

[Marsh.]

I want the show dead.

[Jack_]

It has everything to do with the panel, or else how do you explain 2010's series finishing with an average of 13m viewers per episode to 2011's finishing with 10m? Or a 19m peak for the final compared with 15m? Where the hell do 3-4m viewers go in the space of a year when the show was at its peak? That is not normal: it is primarily driven by the irreparable, drastic changes they made to the well-loved panel.

I'd disagree that the show doesn't still produce successful artists either; Ella Henderson, Little Mix and Fleur have all had varying degrees of it since their series and they were all part of the 2011 onwards generation. The Voice has produced little if no talent whatsoever outside of the show yet it's still on air and people are still watching so how do you explain that?

[Glenn.]

Jack do you work for X factor?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Jack do you work for X factor?

I wish

[Marsh.]

Because NO show is going to keep those numbers. It happens and then people have seen it, the novelty has gone. Lightning doesn't strike twice and it's not as if it was a massive exodus of viewers it was gradual.

It's like BB peaking with BB3 in 2002.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Because NO show is going to keep those numbers. It happens and then people have seen it, the novelty has gone. Lightning doesn't strike twice and it's not as if it was a massive exodus of viewers it was gradual.

It's like BB peaking with BB3 in 2002.

It kept those numbers in 2009 too, 3-4m viewers is NO joke, that's pretty extortionate. A drop of 1-2 would've been understandable but that's a hell of a lot off the back of the most successful series in its history

The BB comparison is different because it was followed with...BB4. In this case S7 was followed by S8 which culled 3/4 of the iconic judges

[Ross.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

NO

Nah to the ah to the no, no, no
My name is no
My sign is no
My number is no
You need to let it go
You need to let it go
Need to let it go
Nah to the ah to the no, no, no
My name is no
My sign is no
My number is no
You need to let it go
You need to let it go
Need to let it go
Nah to the ah to the no, no, no

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

It kept those numbers in 2009 too, 3-4m viewers is NO joke, that's pretty extortionate. A drop of 1-2 would've been understandable but that's a hell of a lot off the back of the most successful series in its history

The BB comparison is different because it was followed with...BB4. In this case S7 was followed by S8 which culled 3/4 of the iconic judges

But that's why it's the most successful series, it's a peak. It was never going to continue hitting that.

Just as no matter what series followed BB3, it wasn't going to continue at its peak. It's a one off.

It increased from 2009, it didn't stay the same. Then it came back down to its same old average.

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

It has everything to do with the panel, or else how do you explain 2010's series finishing with an average of 13m viewers per episode to 2011's finishing with 10m? Or a 19m peak for the final compared with 15m? Where the hell do 3-4m viewers go in the space of a year when the show was at its peak? That is not normal: it is primarily driven by the irreparable, drastic changes they made to the well-loved panel.

I'd disagree that the show doesn't still produce successful artists either; Ella Henderson, Little Mix and Fleur have all had varying degrees of it since their series and they were all part of the 2011 onwards generation. The Voice has produced little if no talent whatsoever outside of the show yet it's still on air and people are still watching so how do you explain that?

The ratings aren't really that shocking, 2010 was just an amazing year for the show in every aspect and the shows peak, 2011 fell back to what it averaged in 2009. I honestly fail to see how you think the entire shows success resolves around who is judging it. People are not voting for or investing in the judges, they invest in the acts on the show. Good acts = more support, more viewers. If every year the act they're voting to win is getting dropped within months of winning and never releasing music people are going to get tired of the show and stop investing in it. It's as simple as that in my mind.

As for the voice comparison that's never created stars or been as big as XF so people just take it for what it is, I'm sure the ratings aren't too good on that either.

[Amy Jade]

I actually agree with almost everyone in some part. I think a bit of everything is wrong with the show.

I don't perticularly like Dermot but he was well received by viewers and I think his departure will have made some turn off, Olly was embarrassing last year.

Cheryl was dull and gave the impression she was there for the money and didn't care about her acts last year so she can go. I hope Sharon doesn't come back though.

They need decent talent and to get rid of the repetitive themes too.

[Pete.]

Originally Posted by Ross.

Nah to the ah to the no, no, no
My name is no
My sign is no
My number is no
You need to let it go
You need to let it go
Need to let it go
Nah to the ah to the no, no, no
My name is no
My sign is no
My number is no
You need to let it go
You need to let it go
Need to let it go
Nah to the ah to the no, no, no

Thank you in advance
I don't wanna dance