American Idol Season 8 - NO 'IDOL GIVES BACK'!

[rrrobinsonjr]

Thank GOD!:up:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2008-12-15-american-idol-changes_N.htm (Changes this season)

[Magister]

Thank GOD!:up:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2008-12-15-american-idol-changes_N.htm (Changes this season)

You got your link messed up.
Changes this Season (http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2008-12-15-american-idol-changes_N.htm)

When doing the link, first do link, then description.

[That Don Guy]

One change I find interesting: if I am reading this right, Simon's vote counts double - so unless Randy, Paula, and Kara agree on a decision, Simon's word goes. (Then again, that's how it worked up to now, so technically it's not a change.)

One thing that appears not to have changed; making it look like everyone who auditions gets a shot in front of the judges, even though there was at least one shot in the commercials of someone at one of the stadium "first round" auditions holding a "golden ticket" (presumably, allowing them to go to the second round of auditions).

-- Don

[aindik]

Season 8 will open with three weeks of auditions rather than four, creating room for a second Hollywood week.

Bravo.

Starting Feb. 17, six male and six female semifinalists perform each week for three weeks, with the top man and woman in viewer votes moving to the finals, along with the next highest vote-getter.

The judges will bring back some semifinalists and pick three to round out the top 12, a practice that gave new life to Clay Aiken and Jennifer Hudson in the past. The final round won't necessarily start with six men and six women, as it has in recent years.

Interesting. There are 36 total semi-finalists, and they only perform once each during the semifinal round. Three completely different sets of 12 for three weeks. Kinda turns "elimination night" on its ear. Instead of 2 going home each week, 9 out of the 12 go home (with a 1 in 9 chance of being brought back).

I like it.

[rrrobinsonjr]

I've posted this before, but this new judge is clearly a move to oust Paula.

With all her carrying-on last week about the stalker, and her alleged mistreatment at the hands of the Idol producers, I think she knows she'll be gone next season and is laying the groundwork for a lawsuit.

[jradford]

One change I find interesting: if I am reading this right, Simon's vote counts double - so unless Randy, Paula, and Kara agree on a decision, Simon's word goes. (Then again, that's how it worked up to now, so technically it's not a change.)



They tried to mask it with a "he'll break the ties," but with only 4 judges and him being one, then yes, what you stated is technically correct.

I think the changes will probably be for the good, but the show has been pretty stagnant the last couple of years, and I don't expect that to change.

[Einselen]

Simon has changed his vote before to allow someone into Hollywood after Paula pleaded, rare but has happened. It would be interesting to see Simon say no but then on the tie breaker be like you know what, sure! :p

Thing is yes Simon has two votes. When Simon says no all others have to say yes or else Simon's no will count as I doubt there will be many times in which he will have a change of heart and say yes.

[rrrobinsonjr]

4 judges is really not a new thing. It's been done many times over the years with guest celebs on the panel.

[Einselen]

4 judges is really not a new thing. It's been done many times over the years with guest celebs on the panel.

During the time in which America is voting not on who goes to Hollywood or not.

[mattack]

Idol Gives Back is when they had professional musicians performing.. (FF through the charity junk).. so I think it's bad. Also bad to get rid of one week of Simon making fun of the bad singers.. that's the best part of the show. Though for the past season or two, I've watched the whole thing. Before that, I watched JUST the bad signers for a couple of seasons, then stopped watching.. and now I've been catching up on the early years via the chopped up 'rerun show', American Idol Rewind..

More making fun of bad singers!

[scandia101]

During the time in which America is voting not on who goes to Hollywood or not.

or maybe rrrobinsonjr is correct

Mark Mcgrath
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050118/122651__idol_l.jpg
LL Cool J
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050128/17333__idolcoolj_l.jpg
Kenny Loggins
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050125/kenny1.hmedium.jpg

[Einselen]

or maybe rrrobinsonjr is correct



I stand corrected, but it was only certain times unlike this time which it will be all (unless someone falls sick). There has been times which it was just Randy and Simon. I believe during those times though if you got a yes you were going through (I mean they can easily cut you in Hollywood quickly)

[barbeedoll]

I tend to agree with Simon's evaluations more than the other judges. He's the only one who seems to realize that they are looking to pick an eventual winner who can be successful in the business rather than running a charity show to be "nice" to everyone.

Barbeedoll

[That Don Guy]

I tend to agree with Simon's evaluations more than the other judges. He's the only one who seems to realize that they are looking to pick an eventual winner who can be successful in the business rather than running a charity show to be "nice" to everyone.
Remember, Simon is the only one with a vested interest in selecting the best of the best; the primary reason he's even involved with the show is to sign singers to his record label. (He admitted this on a Larry King interview.)

-- Don

[scottjf8]

Wow, I read this thread as "No Idol gives back" "Thank god :up:" and thought, that's pretty cold.

[tivoboyjr]

I've always thought AI should charge $1 per vote and then give 95% or so of that money to charity. That would be "giving back."

Not having the "gives back" show would also be charitable to viewers.

[aindik]

I've always thought AI should charge $1 per vote and then give 95% or so of that money to charity. That would be "giving back."

Not having the "gives back" show would also be charitable to viewers.

I've said before, numerous times, that they should just scrap the voting and decide who wins based on paid downloads of the recorded music. Proceeds to charity.

[Regina]

Wow, I read this thread as "No Idol gives back" "Thank god :up:" and thought, that's pretty cold.

LOL! Me too! :p I was like, "Yes, thank GOD! No more with the helping and the making the money and feeding the hungry and all that horrible stuff!" ;)

I like that they are mixing it up a little...I disliked the 6 girls/6 guys in the top 12 thing...never seemed quite fair to me. We'll see how things go. :o

[wooh]

Very excited that they aren't dividing the top by male/female. Always thought that was silly. The rest will be interesting to see how it goes.

[tivoboyjr]

I've said before, numerous times, that they should just scrap the voting and decide who wins based on paid downloads of the recorded music. Proceeds to charity.

Why not combine the two? Download the songs for a buck (which counts as a vote) and/or place a vote by phone/web/text, which also costs a buck and it all (or nearly all) goes to charity. Seems like a big improvement over the current system.

[Magister]

I've said before, numerous times, that they should just scrap the voting and decide who wins based on paid downloads of the recorded music. Proceeds to charity.

That is the actual way that Simon figures out who is successful, do they make money? There really isn't anything else.

Popular doesn't mean much if people aren't buying albums or tickets. (after the show, I know Eye-balls are important to advertisers)

[JLucPicard]

As he said, he brings up the "pay-per-vote" business all the time (ad nauseum, almost), but I have a feeling that would cause a MAJOR hit to the shows ratings.

I'm guessing there are a lot of people who vote that would not be voting if it cost them money to do so (myself included, because I just don't care enough about the outcome to spend money on it - to me it's just entertainment).

I kinda doubt that people will make it as much of a point to watch if there's not even the possibility of them voting (read: participating) anyway, so why watch? Taking it to the extreme, if you take all of these shows like this and put the voting exclusively in the hands of judges and leave out the "America Votes" factor all together, I just don't see the interest being nearly as great.

Yes, the end result they're looking for is someone who can make them money. So far they seem to have done that OK without charging the viewing audience for the 'priviledge'. Make it about who can raise the most money every week, and all you've got is a season-long telethon, not a quasi-talent competition.

Another thing that doesn't always get mentioned is that there is a huge portion of the general population (and I'm assuming that also means viewers of AI) that (a) don't get their music by downloading it from the net and/or (b) don't even have the slightest clue how to - or care enough to even try.

Anyway, I guess I've said my peace. Flame on!

[GoHalos]

LOL! Me too! :p I was like, "Yes, thank GOD! No more with the helping and the making the money and feeding the hungry and all that horrible stuff!" ;)

I realize that I'm being dense here, but that is how I'm reading it as well. How should I be interpreting it?

[tivoboyjr]

As he said, he brings up the "pay-per-vote" business all the time (ad nauseum, almost), but I have a feeling that would cause a MAJOR hit to the shows ratings.

I'm guessing there are a lot of people who vote that would not be voting if it cost them money to do so (myself included, because I just don't care enough about the outcome to spend money on it - to me it's just entertainment).

I kinda doubt that people will make it as much of a point to watch if there's not even the possibility of them voting (read: participating) anyway, so why watch? Taking it to the extreme, if you take all of these shows like this and put the voting exclusively in the hands of judges and leave out the "America Votes" factor all together, I just don't see the interest being nearly as great.

Yes, the end result they're looking for is someone who can make them money. So far they seem to have done that OK without charging the viewing audience for the 'priviledge'. Make it about who can raise the most money every week, and all you've got is a season-long telethon, not a quasi-talent competition.

Another thing that doesn't always get mentioned is that there is a huge portion of the general population (and I'm assuming that also means viewers of AI) that (a) don't get their music by downloading it from the net and/or (b) don't even have the slightest clue how to - or care enough to even try.

Anyway, I guess I've said my peace. Flame on!

No flames, but I am someone who has watched the show from the beginning and likes it, but I've never voted and probably never will. I rarely download music from the show, but have done so a little. I like to try to predict who will win more than I like to feel like I had a part in helping someone to win.

I think if there was a charge for voting, the results would be more "pure" and you wouldn't see as much of the "vote for the worst" stuff and the autodialers that manipulate the results. But I am sure AI thinks the system isn't broken so they're not going to try to fix it.

The typical viewer of AI, as I understand it, is a teenage girl who does vote and does know how to download music, so I'm not so sure about the validity of your last point.

I realize that I'm being dense here, but that is how I'm reading it as well. How should I be interpreting it?

My guess is the "thank God" part was re the constant hype about the "Gives Back" show and the lameness of the show itself - I know I won't miss it. Idol could still "give back" and help people without having the show. But that would mean Idol would actually have to *give* and not just take money from sponsors and viewers to redistribute.