Thursday, 21 August 2008

X-factor, truth's enemy

I'm sure it will have escaped your notice (because TR readers have better things to do with their lives), but the new series of X-Factor has hurled its obese lazy carcass on to our screens again.

The current series is at the stage still deemed acceptable by those who should know better - the bit where we all laugh at the 'rejects'.

'Hmm,' I hear you ponder, 'why put 'quotes' around the word reject? surely they are rejects plain and simple no need to put '' around it?'

The thing is, they aren't the show's real rejects. they have got further than thousands of others, who will have been turned away, not by Simon Cowell or Sheryl Cole, but by some unknown member of the ITV production team.

This is not shocking, its fairly obvious when you look at the sheer numbers involved, but it is a long way from the consciousness of most viewers.

It would seem (and this is backed up by a friend of a friend who tried out for the show) that you get put into three categories: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good

This is fairly obvious, those who are apparently talented.

The Bad

Not that good at singing in a boring way.

The Ugly

These are the idiots that are so bad they are funny, I have little doubt that most of these are fully aware of how stupid they look but are so desperate to get on TV they exaggerate their foolishness, to guarantee 5 mins in front of Cowell and the camera's .

Obviously only the good and the the ugly get anywhere near the celebrity judges.

This in its self is not what make it so terrible. It's the awful cut aways of judges reactions and their staged 'fallouts'. The even more staged bits in the lobbys

But Charlie Brooker, who I do not always agree with, puts it brilliantly here, far better than I could:


6 comments:

Credophile said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Credophile said...

Your blog's name is very similar to some Jesus-worship site. I went there first by mistake and thought you'd become a nutcase since I last saw you. Oddly enough the guy running that site is also named Arron. Sure, different spelling, but it still seemed possible. Good to know that wasn't your blog.

Arun said...

very good to know - i like your Blog no confusing that with a jesus fansite!

;) said...

What do you disagree with Charlie Brooker about?

Arun said...

His lame views on Boris Johnson, the fact he moans about papers reporting TV deception because papers lie too.

I suppose there is no one that i agree with all the time because then, essentially, they would be me!

Dan W said...

and the thought of another you is truly terrifying.