[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I was referring more to the second part, about culling the categories equally, as they do at every prior stage of the competition. Culling them quickly so it's over in a shorter time does allow less time for progression and getting familiar with the acts and also for building up fanbases in time for finale week when it's the last head to head.

But, in terms of a girl like Grace getting booted out due to a bad week whilst a mediocre boy floats through happens regardless every single year. Heck, how many times have the judges wilfully made that exact decision during the sing-off/deadlock?

When it comes to that, the problem lies in talentless dreck making it to the live shows at all. The show's standards when it comes to talent needs to improve, no matter the process of eliminating them in the live shows.

However, I still maintain 12th place or 8th place, they're elimination fodder for the only places anyone cares about - 3rd, 2nd and 1st. The rest of them are just "those people eliminated throughout the lives." The order in which that happens is inconsequential IMO.

I see the point you're making (and I definitely agree re. putting fodder through to the lives in the first place, though I think this is the best bunch of finalists for a while) but my use of Grace and Holly as examples was less about them being culled over dull boys a la any other year, and more just because they're the favourites, you could swap them for whoever you like really - the same point would still apply. You could lose the favourites to fodder in any category, just because of a rule whereby someone from each category must leave. What if the three favourites were in one category? It's nonsense.

My main issue with this though lies in not being able to become invested in the acts over a lengthy period of time. The live shows are my absolute favourite part of X Factor and their insistence on reducing them for the second time in three years, and this time axing my actual favourite part (the sing-off), is so frustrating. They got almost everything right last year and this series was going so well, it's such a shame.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I see the point you're making (and I definitely agree re. putting fodder through to the lives in the first place, though I think this is the best bunch of finalists for a while) but my use of Grace and Holly as examples was less about them being culled over dull boys a la any other year, and more just because they're the favourites, you could swap them for whoever you like really - the same point would still apply. You could lose the favourites to fodder in any category, just because of a rule whereby someone from each category must leave. What if the three favourites were in one category? It's nonsense.

Then all three of those aren't going to win anyway. That's my point.

It's all about one winner, so whether Favourite A is knocked out by Favourite B in the final 2 or a few weeks beforehand is neither here nor there.

And, yes, I see the argument that a final with both of those favourites in it would be better than one of them versus a floater who slipped through in a fairly crappy category, that's where my point about the overall lack of quality control across the whole show crops up.

[supertv247]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Then all three of those aren't going to win anyway. That's my point.

It's all about one winner, so whether Favourite A is knocked out by Favourite B in the final 2 or a few weeks beforehand is neither here nor there.

And, yes, I see the argument that a final with both of those favourites in it would be better than one of them versus a floater who slipped through in a fairly crappy category, that's where my point about the overall lack of quality control across the whole show crops up.

Think 2011. Janet was the winner, so you could’ve just assumed by week 6 Janet will win - what’s the difference in 6 or 10 shows?
But Little Mix happened. They only happened because of the 10 weeks... nobody saw that happening at the start of the shows. The whole problem with this new format is unfair eliminations with no time for acts to grow. Not about one clear winner, or they may as well just crown the winner on week one going by what you’re saying

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by supertv247

Think 2011. Janet was the winner, so you could’ve just assumed by week 6 Janet will win - what’s the difference in 6 or 10 shows?
But Little Mix happened. They only happened because of the 10 weeks... nobody saw that happening at the start of the shows. The whole problem with this new format is unfair eliminations with no time for acts to grow. Not about one clear winner, or they may as well just crown the winner on week one going by what you’re saying

That's not my point though.

That's the only criticism I agree with, the length. The new format doesn't allow enough time for acts to progress and build up fanbases.

The order in which the acts leave the competition, IMO, is the least of its problems.

[supertv247]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

That's not my point though.

That's the only criticism I agree with, the length. The new format doesn't allow enough time for acts to progress and build up fanbases.

The order in which the acts leave the competition, IMO, is the least of its problems.

but the order is affected by the time

If they do double eliminations week one and then singles on week 2, there will have been 6 eliminations this year while the acts will have only performed twice. Let them all perform 6 times before eliminating them and the order could be completely different....

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by supertv247

but the order is affected by the time

If they do double eliminations week one and then singles on week 2, there will have been 6 eliminations this year while the acts will have only performed twice. Let them all perform 6 times before eliminating them and the order could be completely different....

Yes, however if they eliminated one from each category on alternating weeks then the length of the live shows would remain the same AND they would reduce the categories at the same rate.

Culling them quickly and regularly is the issue, not the eliminating them category by category. That's exactly how they narrow down the 1000s of applicants down to the live show cast as it is anyway.

And if we have a case of a talentless no hoper floating through to the top 5 then they should've thought about that at Bootcamp when putting that floater into their final selections.

Nobody at this stage of the competition should be bad. Everybody will like different acts dependent on taste and preference, but they should all be good.