Assuming cross-border consistency of practice among the various Idol shows around the world, Australian Idol had a winner (Casey Donovan) a few of years back, who, while a good singer, was effectively unmarketable and who utterly disappeared. She was too young, didn’t have camera presence or verbal facility when the red light was on, and seems to have got over the line for reasons that had little to do with sellability (the politics of weight issues seemed to come to dominate her candidacy).
This was the show’s second year. It derived such credibility as it had from being able to demonstrate that its winner turned into an actual pop star. If ever the show was tempted to cheat to stage a Disney Princess ending, this was the time, and I can’t imagine that Donovan was the favoured contestant from the point of view of the producers who had to go on to promote her stuff.
Yet she won.
On the whole, my feeling is that just letting the show run and letting quirky results happen as they do makes for better TV than engineered endings.
I don’t think AI was overjoyed about Taylor Hicks winning either, and I believe his album tanked.
I doubt they fake the phone votes, but there’s no question they try to manipulate the votes in a certain direction with backstories, editing and pimpery.
No, they were sued by a person who wanted to compete but was not the right age. I is considered an audition and not a game-show so they don’t have to follow the game-show laws.
This makes sense though. If you think about it, the 16 year old girl that calls in 45 times for Danny Gokey, is the same girl that’s going to buy all of his CDs, a shirt, two posters, concert tickets and anything else with his name on it. OTOH, the person that maybe got through to call in a vote to Lil, but either way gave up after a few tries is the person that might pick up the CD if she happened to see it at the store, or maybe download it from iTunes, if she happened to run across it.
Does that make sense? Does that make sense? The amount of enthusiasm one shows in their voting habits might very well coincide with how much money they would spend on said artist. Remember, it’s not a singing competition, it’s a question of who could make the record label the most money. That’s why during Hollywood week, if they have two singers that they consider pretty much equal, the better looking one goes through. Sometimes the better looking one goes through, even if they aren’t the better singer. It’s all about the ‘total package.’ If it were purely a singing competition, it’d be on the radio.
Normally don’t comment this early in the season since it takes me a while to figure out who the front-runners and underdogs are, but this is just too juicy to pass up.
Okay, we know that the final four (lowercase, no trademark infringement here!) wasn’t fixed. That still leaves three and two, and remember that there’s only one champion. (Sure, the title’s lost a lot of its luster, but it’s still pretty important.) You’d have to be ridiculously naive to not believe a certain amount of fudging is going on, especially since it’s public knowledge that they’re trying to prevent “mass” or “unfair” voting from “skewing the results”. There’s nothing strange about a single favorite getting bounced unusually quickly, so the producers wouldn’t go out of their way to prevent that. Let’s see if there are many more surprises when it’s down to six or five.
That’s just how it is with the mantle of secrecy. As long as the end result doesn’t look too ridiculous, we’ll never know for sure.
I think the simple truth is that they’ve been kicked in the face so many times…Clay “The One That Got Away” Aiken, the battle for least boring in season 3, Jennifer Hudson out, Chris Daughtry out, Taylor Hicks riding VFTW to victory, contestants being disqualified for lying on the application/a criminal past surfacing/disgusting Internet photos surfacing, the bizarre and possibly criminally insane inability of tens of thousands of fans to ignore anything William Hung does, etc. Much like UFC’s promoters in the mid to late 90’s, this is a bunch that is absolutely desperate for somthing good to happen for a change. If it takes a little, er, creative editing, so be it.
I’ll say it now: Sanjaya Malakar was the best thing to happen to them that season. Full stop. A wacky, colorful fan favorite who lights a fire under a huge chunk of the fanbase and causes the uptight brigade to shriek and rant and foam at the mouth (even here, and I thought we knew better by then) even though he doesn’t have a prayer of winning? You couldn’t pray for better publicity.
That’s the whole point. Pesonally, I think it’s a good addition even though I don’t really trust the judges’ opinions. Just another tool in the effort to have an outcome that’s closer to “happy” than “horribly disappointing”; I can’t fault that.
Because this is America, and winners matter. Even in AI, where the real difference between 1st and 2nd is less than in NASCAR, there’s the perception of the champion being above the runner-up. Think there ever would’ve been a movie about Fantasia Barrino if she finished 2nd?
Just look at the last season. David Archuleta was the clean, groomed, harmless, granny-friendly vanilla pop star, supposedly guaranteed gold. David Cook was the offbeat, grity hard rocker (okay, not really, but as hard as you’ll see on AI), great vocallist, definitely has his niche, but not huge middle-America appeal, not to mention disturbingly reminiscent of Michael Bolton. Cook won. He became an instant superstar. What kind of waves has Archuleta made lately?
You have a point here; the problem I have is that Daughtry was eliminated when it was down to four, after all the dark horses and lovable losers had left the building. Furthermore, so long as the contestant has enough votes to finish anywhere above last place (to bring up my favorite invented urban slang phrase about this show, “rock bottom plus one”), no harm is done. In fact, this may actually help him or her by reenergizing the fanbase (to bring up my second favorite IUSP re. AI, the “Bo Bice Scare”).
Think of this show as realtiy TV’s Heisman Trophy. It’s an indication of who’s hot at the time and in no way predictive of future success. Look at Scott Savol. He lasted way, way longer than anyone here expected (some of us were just fuming at this fact). He connected with a lot of viewers in a way we never anticipated and made it all the way to the round of 5 before he was finally sent packing. The show ended, the tour ended, and he was never seen or heard again. That’s just the way it is.
You know, I never considered that. I like to think most voters are savvy enough that there’s nothing to gain from knocking out a strong favorite out of sheer spite, but with sites like VFTW, it’s a naive dream.
Of course, this only strengthens the argument for my original voting plan, which was comprehensive rankings of all the contestants. Want to shaft someone? You still have to give the #2 spot to somebody; you really want to take the chance of Jason Castro winning it all? Of course, this would be far too complicated for lots of impulsive or unthinking voters, which makes it even better.
I almost think the drama and speculation concerning “fixing” benefits the show. From what I’ve read, ratings are down and the producers may be pleased that controversy has brought them back to the front page. (Because adding Kara D. as a fourth judge sure didn’t do it.)
As an avid viewer and non-voter and cynic, I would not be surprised in the least to learn that all votes cast are thrown into a giant pot so Ryan can dramatically announce how many people voted while carefully choosing his words to avoid specifying that X person got the fewest votes. On the other hand, how do you explain Taylor Hicks?
I’ll reserve judgment, remain skeptical, continue my non-voting/avid viewing position, and just enjoy the spectacle.
I think the “vote fixing rumor” is actually a plot to drum up interest. There is no bad publicity and all.
I watch, but honestly I don’t care if it’s fixed or not. And indeed, I find all the rumors and conspiracy theories kind of fun. But in the end I just need to be entertained.
Besides the article being pretty obvious bullshit (some unnamed “staffer” - i.e. “intern” just knows those are totally the top four, which were also the same final four that probably 90% of any random assortment of Idol watchers at that time would have chosen if you asked them), these were the real eye-rolling moments for me (bolding mine):
In what universe does a tall, glam rock drag queen from Los Angeles with flatironed hair and a lady voice sound or look or have any backstory similar to a bald, short, married southern car-dealership worker with a bleaty rocker growl? Lil Rounds a dead ringer for Fantasia? Bwuh? Besides both being African-American women, I don’t see any marked similarity. As for backstory? Well, I guess they are both moms…as are a few bazillion other women.
This is just general dumbassery reported as “news” when reporters are too lazy to come up with real stories.
