The show would be much improved if, instead of three judges, every member of the audience just pushed a "yes" or "no" button. Then, after 75% of the audience had pressed "yes," the contestant goes on to the next round, and after 75% of the audience had pressed "no," the contestant is eliminated. The current format, with three people judging is flawed in many ways:
1. It is more accurate to have hundreds of people making the decision, instead of just three people.
2. It wastes too much time having the judges banter among themselves, saying "next," asking the contestants for their name, age, what they are going to do, and so on. Jerry Springer, who has great appeal, has a limited role now. His contribution could be expanded if he introduced the contestants and gave their name and other information. The crowd responds well to Springer, but he is being held back.
3. The judges, now, buzz-off many of the worst acts, which are fun and entertaining to watch, often after just a second or two. If the audience were in control, they would be able to regulate how long each act is on the stage, and we could watch the "stupid," but hilarious acts for as long as the audience decided was appropriate. Now, the feeling of the audience is often at odds with the judges, who are no more competant to judge than any three people who could be selected at random from the audience.
4. The judges currently waste far too much time. Eliminating the judges would allow additional time to see, perhaps, 4 or 5 more acts during each show. A good deal of time is wasted because the judges actually "vote" three times. The first time they vote is when they either push or don't push the "X" buttons. The second time they vote is when they elaborate verbally on how much they like or don't like the contestant. The third time they vote is when they go down the line and "officially" say "yes" or "no," which wastes a lot of valuable air time. The show could move along faster and be made more exciting if the audience were in charge. The judges (the "Three Stooges") also waste more time with their own antics, which although interesting in their own right, take away from the main focus of the show and reduce the number of contestants who could perform on the show.
5. The judges, I believe, do not represent a cross-section of the American "buying" public, and they drain out a good deal of time making inane comments. They often wonder, aloud, how such terrible acts can be on the show. Obviously, these acts have already performed for the show's producer and they have been booked to come back and to be on the show for their entertainment value and to increase the ratings. These "bad" acts have not simply walked in off the street and onto the stage of their own volition. They are there because someone in charge of the show has asked them to be there. If the "judges" really don't want these "bad" acts, then the producers of the show should only book high-quality acts. This entire scenerio, of course, is absurd because it should be obvious to the viewing audience, to the judges, to the contestants, and to the producers (who booked them), that the terrible acts are there to draw in more viewers by creating an entertaining atmosphere. When the judges keep questioning why the bad acts are there at all, it insults the intelligence of the millions of people who watch the show and who know very well why the bad acts are there. It is totally absurd, too, that the audience is held back, suppressed it appears, by the judges, who seem to feel that thei own opinion is vastly superior to that of the hundreds of people in the audience.
6. This show should focus on three elements: The Contestants, the Audience, and Jerry Springer, as the host. This is a time-tested formula that goes back to Art Linkletter and earlier television. This is a formula that has consistently worked for dozens of variety shows. In America's Got Talent, The judges, the judges' table, the buzzers, and the big "X's" hanging high up on the stage should all be eliminated as unnecessary, distracting, and counter-productive to this program.
Full Version: Make The Audience the Judges
Have you watched this show before this season?
Everyone gets to vote AFTER the initial auditions.
Everyone gets to vote AFTER the initial auditions.
QUOTE (lafong @ Jun 20 2007, 12:39 PM) 
The show would be much improved if, instead of three judges, every member of the audience just pushed a "yes" or "no" button. Then, after 75% of the audience had pressed "yes," the contestant goes on to the next round, and after 75% of the audience had pressed "no," the contestant is eliminated. The current format, with three people judging is flawed in many ways:
1. It is more accurate to have hundreds of people making the decision, instead of just three people.
2. It wastes too much time having the judges banter among themselves, saying "next," asking the contestants for their name, age, what they are going to do, and so on. Jerry Springer, who has great appeal, has a limited role now. His contribution could be expanded if he introduced the contestants and gave their name and other information. The crowd responds well to Springer, but he is being held back.
3. The judges, now, buzz-off many of the worst acts, which are fun and entertaining to watch, often after just a second or two. If the audience were in control, they would be able to regulate how long each act is on the stage, and we could watch the "stupid," but hilarious acts for as long as the audience decided was appropriate. Now, the feeling of the audience is often at odds with the judges, who are no more competant to judge than any three people who could be selected at random from the audience.
4. The judges currently waste far too much time. Eliminating the judges would allow additional time to see, perhaps, 4 or 5 more acts during each show. A good deal of time is wasted because the judges actually "vote" three times. The first time they vote is when they either push or don't push the "X" buttons. The second time they vote is when they elaborate verbally on how much they like or don't like the contestant. The third time they vote is when they go down the line and "officially" say "yes" or "no," which wastes a lot of valuable air time. The show could move along faster and be made more exciting if the audience were in charge. The judges (the "Three Stooges") also waste more time with their own antics, which although interesting in their own right, take away from the main focus of the show and reduce the number of contestants who could perform on the show.
5. The judges, I believe, do not represent a cross-section of the American "buying" public, and they drain out a good deal of time making inane comments. They often wonder, aloud, how such terrible acts can be on the show. Obviously, these acts have already performed for the show's producer and they have been booked to come back and to be on the show for their entertainment value and to increase the ratings. These "bad" acts have not simply walked in off the street and onto the stage of their own volition. They are there because someone in charge of the show has asked them to be there. If the "judges" really don't want these "bad" acts, then the producers of the show should only book high-quality acts. This entire scenerio, of course, is absurd because it should be obvious to the viewing audience, to the judges, to the contestants, and to the producers (who booked them), that the terrible acts are there to draw in more viewers by creating an entertaining atmosphere. When the judges keep questioning why the bad acts are there at all, it insults the intelligence of the millions of people who watch the show and who know very well why the bad acts are there. It is totally absurd, too, that the audience is held back, suppressed it appears, by the judges, who seem to feel that thei own opinion is vastly superior to that of the hundreds of people in the audience.
6. This show should focus on three elements: The Contestants, the Audience, and Jerry Springer, as the host. This is a time-tested formula that goes back to Art Linkletter and earlier television. This is a formula that has consistently worked for dozens of variety shows. In America's Got Talent, The judges, the judges' table, the buzzers, and the big "X's" hanging high up on the stage should all be eliminated as unnecessary, distracting, and counter-productive to this program.
1. It is more accurate to have hundreds of people making the decision, instead of just three people.
2. It wastes too much time having the judges banter among themselves, saying "next," asking the contestants for their name, age, what they are going to do, and so on. Jerry Springer, who has great appeal, has a limited role now. His contribution could be expanded if he introduced the contestants and gave their name and other information. The crowd responds well to Springer, but he is being held back.
3. The judges, now, buzz-off many of the worst acts, which are fun and entertaining to watch, often after just a second or two. If the audience were in control, they would be able to regulate how long each act is on the stage, and we could watch the "stupid," but hilarious acts for as long as the audience decided was appropriate. Now, the feeling of the audience is often at odds with the judges, who are no more competant to judge than any three people who could be selected at random from the audience.
4. The judges currently waste far too much time. Eliminating the judges would allow additional time to see, perhaps, 4 or 5 more acts during each show. A good deal of time is wasted because the judges actually "vote" three times. The first time they vote is when they either push or don't push the "X" buttons. The second time they vote is when they elaborate verbally on how much they like or don't like the contestant. The third time they vote is when they go down the line and "officially" say "yes" or "no," which wastes a lot of valuable air time. The show could move along faster and be made more exciting if the audience were in charge. The judges (the "Three Stooges") also waste more time with their own antics, which although interesting in their own right, take away from the main focus of the show and reduce the number of contestants who could perform on the show.
5. The judges, I believe, do not represent a cross-section of the American "buying" public, and they drain out a good deal of time making inane comments. They often wonder, aloud, how such terrible acts can be on the show. Obviously, these acts have already performed for the show's producer and they have been booked to come back and to be on the show for their entertainment value and to increase the ratings. These "bad" acts have not simply walked in off the street and onto the stage of their own volition. They are there because someone in charge of the show has asked them to be there. If the "judges" really don't want these "bad" acts, then the producers of the show should only book high-quality acts. This entire scenerio, of course, is absurd because it should be obvious to the viewing audience, to the judges, to the contestants, and to the producers (who booked them), that the terrible acts are there to draw in more viewers by creating an entertaining atmosphere. When the judges keep questioning why the bad acts are there at all, it insults the intelligence of the millions of people who watch the show and who know very well why the bad acts are there. It is totally absurd, too, that the audience is held back, suppressed it appears, by the judges, who seem to feel that thei own opinion is vastly superior to that of the hundreds of people in the audience.
6. This show should focus on three elements: The Contestants, the Audience, and Jerry Springer, as the host. This is a time-tested formula that goes back to Art Linkletter and earlier television. This is a formula that has consistently worked for dozens of variety shows. In America's Got Talent, The judges, the judges' table, the buzzers, and the big "X's" hanging high up on the stage should all be eliminated as unnecessary, distracting, and counter-productive to this program.
You are an intelligent person. Unfortunately---people with intelligence are not the majority of the prime-time audience who watch the program. Not meaning to insult anyone---but the demographics reflect people who just want to be entertained---not to think. The demographics reflect people who have been told what to do all day. . and just want to be entertained during their hours away from work. I am just as guilty of it as anyone else. I agree with you 100%, though.
QUOTE (watanabee @ Jun 20 2007, 04:44 PM)
You are an intelligent person. Unfortunately---people with intelligence are not the majority of the prime-time audience who watch the program. Not meaning to insult anyone---but the demographics reflect people who just want to be entertained---not to think. The demographics reflect people who have been told what to do all day. . and just want to be entertained during their hours away from work. I am just as guilty of it as anyone else. I agree with you 100%, though.
Wow, you do realize that there is no intelligence demographic right? Prime time is when the majority of people happen to be watching television (intelligent and otherwise), which of course is why they call it prime. When is it you think the intelligent people are watching tv, from midnight to 3 AM or something? AGT happens to be getting the largest share of that market in that timeslot, it has nothing to do with intelligence of the viewers or anything else, it's purely about entertainment.
QUOTE (Squirreli @ Jun 20 2007, 05:20 PM)
Wow, you do realize that there is no intelligence demographic right? Prime time is when the majority of people happen to be watching television (intelligent and otherwise), which of course is why they call it prime. When is it you think the intelligent people are watching tv, from midnight to 3 AM or something? AGT happens to be getting the largest share of that market in that timeslot, it has nothing to do with intelligence of the viewers or anything else, it's purely about entertainment.
That's exactly what I said above. .. you just it placed in different wording. .. .and yes.. there IS an intelligence demographic via the advertisers, the creators, the network. ..my dear sir/madam.. we are being spun.. . and they are getting paid.
QUOTE (watanabee @ Jun 20 2007, 07:25 PM)
That's exactly what I said above. .. you just it placed in different wording. .. .and yes.. there IS an intelligence demographic via the advertisers, the creators, the network. ..my dear sir/madam.. we are being spun.. . and they are getting paid.
What you said is absolutely not the same as what I said. You must have a selective reading issue or something.
QUOTE (Squirreli @ Jun 20 2007, 07:28 PM)
What you said is absolutely not the same as what I said. You must have a selective reading issue or something.
Point taken. Now let's get back to the topic at hand.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.