April 30, 2008Paula Abdul looks into the future ... by accidentOops! I forgot to mention Paula! How could I forget? What did you all think about her thinking Jason sang two songs? Ryan had to think fast and I think DC (he was next in line to be critiqued) was even embarrassed for her. Simon was smirking a little though. What was she thinking? WAS she thinking? You gotta LOVE live television… Here's a link to an AP story detailing the conversation: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jnYazWy0S3SgFQai-zX-VAG1EVlgD90C0PQG0 -- Amy |
.....Advertisement.....
|
...Advertisement...
...Advertisement...
Comments
[May 1, 2008 2:15 PM]
peteWhat she was thinking was that the remarks scripted (in outline) for her to deliver were to be given in full at that time, rather than just those remarks pertaining to the single song.
To think otherwise is to be willfully naive about the nature of the show, which in the post-audition rounds has never been the spontaneous and quasi-democratic show that it pretends to be.
Ms Abdul, unlike Simon Cowell and Randy Jackson, who capably extemporize within their defined judging personas, is not placed in the middle by chance. Her role, beyond her gender tokenism, is to offer unpredictablity within a sympathetic framework. However, on-air spontaneity presents a risk, more for the threat of boring the audience than outraging them. So Ms. Abdul, whose pedestrian inarticulateness has been spun as a charming attribute, has been provided with notes to assist her in crafting a coherent response. The irony is that Ms. Abdul's mistake introduced the very kind of "Toto pulls back the curtain" moment that her notes were designed to prevent.
For that matter, the call-in voting is not what ultimately determines the advancement of contestants either. Rather, it is the contestants' tested Q scores, the shows' need for storylines, and above all the producers' appraisal of the potential future value of the management contracts they hold on all contestants. The calls primary purpose, beyond the viewer participation facade, is as an additional profit center, from the split of text fees to the harvest of numbers and information that is then brokered.
To those for whom this critique sounds cynical and far-fetched, they might also be shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that there was gambling in the back of Rick's in Casablanca.
[May 1, 2008 3:09 PM]
heather froeschlI did hear on a radio discussion of this that during rehearsals the judges are frequently there and taking notes for thier critiques on the show. She may have just been thinking back to a rehearsal she'd seen earlier that day. Anyway, the controversy of it brings chat about the show!
[May 1, 2008 5:12 PM]
Amy Hanek : →http://www.houseonthegladehill.blogspot.comWhat? What?? There was gambling in the back of Rick's in the movie Casablanca? You're right - I am shocked AND appalled.
Interesting enough, I suspected much of this all along, but c'mon, the drama may be the high-powered jet fuel keeping this show above sea level.
Pete - I am thrilled to find my suspicions validated.
Still... I ... can't ... stop watching...