[MeMyselfAndI]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I've just told you what's similar about them. Maybe my memory is bad, but that's how I remember it.



A) If he's not dull why haven't we seen more of him over the series?
B) Could you really see him having a sell-out tour?
C) Could you really see him having chart success?
D) In what performance did he show us something 'different' [i.e the 'X Factor']?
E) If votes translate as not being dull, how come Rachel won BB9?

At the end of the day he is dull. Nice voice, but nothing different, special or interesting about him.

A) More interesting than Katie. He got more votes, people feel more entertained by him than katie

B) He would sell more than Katie obviously, as more people spent money on voting for him

C) more Chart sucess than Katie, she sings like 1980s songs that are old. The chart indusrty has moved on. John doesn't always sing 1980s hence billionaire

D) Judges Houses he was quite good. Better than Katie was she never sang basically

E) Big Brother and The X Factor are different. X Factor is mainly a singing competition.. Normally a 'good' singer wins if not the best singer.. (leona). You cant go by the X Factor and Big Brother totally different shows lmao