Entertainment desk
< May 13	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 14

American Idol auditions

I have three questions about American Idol auditions:

According to our article on American Idol, there are three stages in an audition - first, with a group of selectors, then with the producers, and finally with the judges. If this is the case, then why do the selectors and producers let, to quote the article, "woefully inadequate contestants" go all the way to the judges? Is it for the show, or do they have a low standard? (which is unlikely, since they are the ones who make the the thousands of auditioners go down to just around a hundred.) But then again, if they turned away "woefully inadequate contestants", we would have never heard of people like William Hung.

Why does it seem that during auditions, sometimes the "woefully inadequate contestants" are the ones who take the rejection quite badly (example: Getting mad at the judges, crying, being upset, or trying to hit the cameraman [as seen in an audition episode from last season]), while those that are, according to the judges, "not ready yet" seem to take it well and not become upset about it? (example: The contestant seems to be in good spirits and does not have any regrets.)

Last season, during the Nashville auditions, there was an auditioner who was entirely covered in a purple suit, whose name was not known even to the judges. Wouldn't auditioning on Idol require disclosing their identities or something?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my cynical answer: As with any U.S. reality show, they take tons and tons of footage, but would like to only show stuff that would generate the most viewers and ratings. And one of those things that seems to attract many American viewers is seeing others make fools of themselves on national TV. And featuring "woefully inadequate contestants" and "uniquely dressed" individuals would fit into that category. Thus, I was not at all surprised that a person like William Hung would get "popular" and have a cult following. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that contestants like William Hung, or Larry Platt of "Pants on the Ground" fame, are brought to the judges not because the producers think they have a chance of advancing in the competition, but to provide entertainment for the television audience. (Platt was more than twice as old as the show's age limit.) The idea is probably to provide humor both from the unusual performances and the judges' reactions. As to the purple-suited contestant, he presumably had to fill out a form with his name, address, date of birth, etc. before being allowed to audition, so the producers would have known his name, but they could have kept his name a secret from Randy Jackson, Jennifer Lopez, and Steven Tyler. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's also my feeling. They only want to show footage that will entertain and attract viewers. Footage of those contestants who take rejection well does not really entertain enough viewers, and so that is left on the cutting room floor. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That has been one of the criticisms of Idol and what other shows, notably The Voice, have used to differentiate themselves from it. Singers who are technically good, but don't have very interesting life stories, may well be overlooked in favor of singers who are just OK but come from a trailer park, have a sick relative, etc., because people are perceived to be more interested in a hard-luck story. --McDoob AU 93 14:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the sole reason TV shows exist, ever, is to get people to look at advertisements for products. There is no other purpose, at all, so the answer to why any show puts anything on the air is because the producers of the show believe that will make more people watch the advertisements. That is it, and there is no deeper purpose. If putting a substandard contestant on TV causes more people to watch the comercials, then that is exactly what they will do. --Jayron32 19:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't apply to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for example, which is government-owned and whose legislative charter prevents it from getting involved in commercial advertising. Mind you, the adverts they broadcast for their own products, services, outlets and programs are becoming more and more endless (wink) as their range of activities becomes more kraken-like. The similarly government-owned Special Broadcasting Service was once also pristine and unsullied by tawdry advertisements, but it has now completely capitulated to the commercial world, and the quality has suffered accordingly, imo. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARD and ZDF are banned from broadcasting advertising on nationally observed non-workdays. --84.61.181.19 (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't there any versions of ARD or ZDF, which contain Austrian or Swiss advertising? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial interests may be the leading, or even sole, reason behind network decisions, but the motivations of those who write, direct, produce, or perform in them are many and varied. That said, "reality" tv shows like Pop Idol, Biggest Loser and Masterchef are unadulterated exploitation of both "talent" and audience for commercial gain, and have no redeeming features whatsoever. Why are we talking in dot points? FiggyBee (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct with some or most reality shows, but not MasterChef, which was originally a BBC show (and remains as such in the UK) and therefore not exploiting anyone. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Coles Australian Coles version of MasterChef Coles has moved on a Coles long way from the original then Coles. FiggyBee (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries, other rules. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know why I am, but I can't speak for anyone else. What's your reason? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]