Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=399...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
American Idol - Rules Change - TiVo Community
Okay, this is not exactly something "now playing", so if it needs to be moved to another thread, go ahead...however, I just took a look at the American Idol rules for next season (auditions started this week in San Francisco), and I noticed that, for the first time, the contestants who "took the elevator ride" last season but were cut before making the final 24 are still allowed to compete.
(For some strange reason, the rule is not retroactive - if you were cut in the last cut prior to the live shows in any year before last season, you are still ineligible.)
-- Don
|
|
Yeah, I read about it here.
It's weird that there is a different cut off for each season...
But I can't remember if they had a different "top" number each season.
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, the show is there solely to find marketable talent.
Why leave talented people out simply because they weren't quite good enough to make it in a past year?
Maybe they're better now?
Maybe the competition this year isn't as stiff?
Maybe their style is more in step with this year's trends.
Whatever the case, if the producers really want to find people to continue the trend of Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, they definitely should try to include as many people as possible.
|
|
Quote: : Don Guy and I noticed that, for the first time, the contestants who "took the elevator ride" last season but were cut before making the final 24 are still allowed to compete.
I don't exactly know what you mean by "took the elevator ride", but infer from the rest that you just mean cut before final 24...
In previous years, they have had people come back at some point..
I've seen this from watching American Idol Rewind..
(I wasn't really into the show for several seasons....
Then watched mostly only the 'make fun of people' part at the beginning..
Then finally kept watching the last maybe 2 seasons.)
|
|
Quote: : I don't exactly know what you mean by "took the elevator ride", but infer from the rest that you just mean cut before final 24...
Yes, you are correct.
The elevator ride the OP is referring to is the final round of elimination during "Hollywood Week" before the normal competition rounds.
The contestants each ride an elevator up to the judges room one at a time, walk to a chair in front of the judges, and hear whether they are passed onto the competition rounds or if they are headed home.
|
|
|
I guess I don't have a major issue with this new rule as a lot of these kids are very young and they might get more seasoned in the year or two since they almost made it.
|
|
|
Looking forward to seeing some familiar faces next season then.
|
|
|
Does this mean Bo Bice can win?
|
|
Quote: : Does this mean Bo Bice can win?
No
|
|
Quote: : As far as I'm concerned, the show is there solely to find marketable talent.
Why leave talented people out simply because they weren't quite good enough to make it in a past year?
Maybe they're better now?
Maybe the competition this year isn't as stiff?
Maybe their style is more in step with this year's trends.
Whatever the case, if the producers really want to find people to continue the trend of Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, they definitely should try to include as many people as possible.
Agreed. Not sure why they weren't allowed back in previous seasons.
There could definitely be some growth in a year -- especially with the younger kids.
|
|
Quote: : As far as I'm concerned, the show is there solely to find marketable talent.
Why leave talented people out simply because they weren't quite good enough to make it in a past year?
Maybe they're better now?
Maybe the competition this year isn't as stiff?
Maybe their style is more in step with this year's trends.
Whatever the case, if the producers really want to find people to continue the trend of Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, they definitely should try to include as many people as possible.
The show is there for ratings more than it is there to find marketable talent.
They haven't found marketable talent since Carrie Underwood (with a 1/2 for Chris Daughtry).
But I do think that there are two possible reasons for this rule: 1) they know that the talent pool is dwindling.
Ratings were down this year so they don't want to necessarily exclude someone who is good enough to be on the show and generate ratings.
2) This rule is aimed at one (two?) specific person.
There is someone they regret cutting and want them on the show this year to generate ratings.
When they get down to the 24 and give the story of the person who got cut last year, that's them.
It won't be a "nerdy guy" or "soul sista." It will be the hot white chick or hot white guy.
|
|
|
Very interesting article including comments from a writer for AI concerning unfair labor practices.
I was completely unaware that writers were such an integral part of the show- even during auditions.
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=14720
|
|
Quote: : Quote: : As far as I'm concerned, the show is there solely to find marketable talent.
The show is there for ratings more than it is there to find marketable talent.
Yes, I agree. If the focus was "solely" on finding marketable talent, then there would be no reason to broadcast it.
Quote: : They haven't found marketable talent since Carrie Underwood (with a 1/2 for Chris Daughtry).
I disagree on two points.
First, they get full points for Chris Daughtry.
It isn't necessary to win to be marketable talent.
Second, they found marketable talent this past year, in the form of David Cook.
|
|
Quote: : Very interesting article including comments from a writer for AI concerning unfair labor practices.
The labor practices aren't "unfair".
That's a political perspective that some people hold, not the reality.
|
|
Quote: : The labor practices aren't "unfair".
That's a political perspective that some people hold, not the reality.
So the reality is YOUR political perspective?
|
|
Quote: : Second, they found marketable talent this past year, in the form of David Cook.
The jury is still out on David Cook.
There have been lots of contestants over the years (not just winners) about whom I said, "damn, they're good," and it hasn't materialzied.
|
|
Quote: : Yes, I agree.
If the focus was "solely" on finding marketable talent, then there would be no reason to broadcast it.
I disagree on two points.
First, they get full points for Chris Daughtry.
It isn't necessary to win to be marketable talent.
Second, they found marketable talent this past year, in the form of David Cook.
Plus the previous year's winner, Jordin Sparks, still has potential.
She's had at least two major hits that I know of, including the runaway hit "No Air" featuring Chris Brown.
Plus she's only 18, so she has many years of potential to generate revenue for them.
|
|
I think the rule change is to vindicate the "good talent" that may be excluded by allowing the likes of Sanjaya through at the expense of someone who is slightly less entertaining for a reality show but could make it as a "marketable asset".
It's true that the show is primarily a ratings winner and not a talent show but the marketability of the winner (and those who come close) must be a real plus to the producers.
I can't think of any other show in history that has that much earning potential from its winner!
Example: Who can name the winner of the second or third season of just about ANY reality competition?
(apart from absolute fans of that particular show).
|
|
Quote: :
2) This rule is aimed at one (two?) specific person.
There is someone they regret cutting and want them on the show this year to generate ratings.
When they get down to the 24 and give the story of the person who got cut last year, that's them.
It won't be a "nerdy guy" or "soul sista." It will be the hot white chick or hot white guy.
That's what I was thinking and it explains why it's only for last year.
They needed to get somebody in and since they basically make the rules, they changed them to allow it.
Happens behind the scenes in business and government all the time.
|
|
Quote: : That's what I was thinking and it explains why it's only for last year.
They needed to get somebody in and since they basically make the rules, they changed them to allow it.
Happens behind the scenes in business and government all the time.
That first hot brunette that got kicked off who couldn't sing worth crap comes to mind.
Amy something I think.
Ooh was she smokin', but she was bad.
Maybe she took singing lessons?
|
|
Quote: : That first hot brunette that got kicked off who couldn't sing worth crap comes to mind.
Amy something I think.
Ooh was she smokin', but she was bad.
Maybe she took singing lessons?
I think I remember her, and her name WAS Amy.
She went on record in the press saying that she got kicked off because she was "too good looking".
|
|
Quote: : So the reality is YOUR political perspective?
No, the reality is determined by our laws.
|
|
|
|