[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

She is though she's a great judge in terms of constructive criticism, and a dedicated mentor, I will give her that - but X Factor's an entertainment show and she provides little or no drama which the show thrives and is built off

That said, I'd have welcomed a golden age Simon - Cheryl - Dannii - Louis panel for old times sake despite how much idc for the girls

Yeah, we all love the "drama", the arguing over a "rule book" how exciting.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yeah, we all love the "drama", the arguing over a "rule book" how exciting.

Yes...we do...

There's a reason why X Factor was at its height through 08-10 and the panel/contestants/all the drama and attention they created in the press have a lot to do with it

People can pretend they hate it all they want but all I'd say is firstly you're watching the wrong programme and trying to pretend X Factor is something it's not, and secondly...when that kind of ~drama~ is removed the show falls flat on its face

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Yes...we do...

There's a reason why X Factor was at its height through 08-10 and the panel/contestants/all the drama and attention they created in the press have a lot to do with it

People can pretend they hate it all they want but all I'd say is firstly you're watching the wrong programme and trying to pretend X Factor is something it's not, and secondly...when that kind of ~drama~ is removed the show falls flat on its face

The show is sh*te with or without it.

It peaked in those years because of the great mix of contestants. Not because of Louis Walsh squabbling.

The entire format is stale as sh*t.

No one's pretending it's something it's not. But let's not pretend Louis Walsh holds any worth in the entertainment stakes.

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Yes...we do...

There's a reason why X Factor was at its height through 08-10 and the panel/contestants/all the drama and attention they created in the press have a lot to do with it

People can pretend they hate it all they want but all I'd say is firstly you're watching the wrong programme and trying to pretend X Factor is something it's not, and secondly...when that kind of ~drama~ is removed the show falls flat on its face

That was when Dannii was on the show lol

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The show is sh*te with or without it.

It peaked in those years because of the great mix of contestants. Not because of Louis Walsh squabbling.

The entire format is stale as sh*t.

No one's pretending it's something it's not. But let's not pretend Louis Walsh holds any worth in the entertainment stakes.

It's both, I'd say last year's series had one of the greatest mixes of contestants ever, as did Sam Bailey's year...but they didn't do as well as the golden era?

Whether people want to admit it or not, or even know it themselves, they tuned in for the judge dramas and feuds, the fake fights, the ~deadlock~ sagas etc etc. Yes of course the contestants are important but the judges are just as much too

Originally Posted by LukeB

XFactor 2010 acts was TV Gold tbh. I think XF is all about the acts rather than the judges.

seriously? X Factor has always since like S4 been about the judges. The narrative in the press about who's going to be on the panel drones on for months every year, they have big, flashy introductions, there's manufactured drama surrounding them every series.

X Factor masquerades as a talent contest but it's an entirely entertainment driven primetime programme. Yes the talent pool is important but the judges are the stars of the show, especially in the eyes of the producers

Originally Posted by Jordan.

That was when Dannii was on the show lol

okay that's a fair point, but I still don't think objectively speaking Dannii herself brings much drama or attention to the show. Louis' deadlock dilemmas are incredible and provided press attention for days on end, Simon's just Simon, Cheryl as dull as I find her does or did get loads of press coverage and also had feuds with a few acts like Wagner/Raign...but Dannii? Not really, she was just the levelheaded, credible judge in amongst all the crap, which is fine, but bringing her back on her own? What's the point?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

It's both, I'd say last year's series had one of the greatest mixes of contestants ever, as did Sam Bailey's year...but they didn't do as well as the golden era?

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.

[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

[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.

[LukeB]

Originally Posted by Jack_

seriously? X Factor has always since like S4 been about the judges. The narrative in the press about who's going to be on the panel drones on for months every year, they have big, flashy introductions, there's manufactured drama surrounding them every series.

You had Wagner sailing through, Katie being in the bottom 2 all the time and never got sent home and we saw the legendary "you know what sod it" and you had the best act of the year Cher Lloyd who fumed people. But you also had some good talent like Rebecca/Matt. It was a bit of everything which we don't get.