UK 2014: Molly - Children of the Universe

Is it a winner?


  • Total voters
    42
i haven't heard anything else yet this year but unless it's a very poor year i think this will really struggle. it's so formulaic and out of touch, the lyrics are so painfully trite and she looks and sounds like such an unappealing performer that i think it will be a serious contender for the absolute bottom of the table. probably my least favourite uk entry of the last 10 years after daz sampson.

yes, i thought engelbert was more exciting.

WHAT ACTUAL PLANET ARE YOU LIVING ON?
 
cwej I'm baffled by your gushing over this... it's so AVERAGE! The lyrics are cringe; "power to the people"? :manson:

It's My Time and Come Back SHIT all over this.

And is she seriously 26? If that's true, I'm 15.
 
Last edited:
It's My Time was one of the most boring ballads of the last 10 years. And Come Back was so average.

This is an ANTHEM!

I guess we'll see how it does compared to Jessica and Jade. I reckon we'll both be proved wrong and it will probably do about the same as they did.

(If she performs towards the end anyway. If she performs towards the start it could be completely lost. :( )
 
Last edited:
Well the lyrics don't bother me at all. I like how she's revitalized the tired World Peace genre and it's come at a good time with all that's going on in Ukraine.

YOU KNOW WHAT WE WANT AND WE GOTTA GET IT NOW! :disco:
 
Last edited:
Norway are favourites to win by a mile now though... I totally get why, but it's really not my thing, assuming Carl Espen does win of course.
 
Well I just put on a £10 bet for us to win at 10-1. It can't hurt.

If it is all political let's see how Russia do in the Semis.
 
I don't welcome the idea of Eurovision being fixed for a UK win, but would the ESC recognize that we're actually trying this year and therefore help us out with a pimp slot?
 
Ukraine traditionally give Russia very high marks. Be interesting to see if that trend continues this year.
 
Last edited:
If we have to rely on a 'pimp slot' then the song ain't good enough frankly.

Loreen would have won from anywhere, and I suspect Emmelie would have too.

Obviously it'll be a bit shit if we're one of the first 5 or so songs, but I wouldn't want or expect any special treatment.

It does sound like a very strong show opener, actually. If we're drawn in the first half that wouldn't surprise me at all. Although given Engelbert opened 2 years ago they might give us a pass on that front.
 
Last edited:
Are the sticking with that stupid rule from last year then for running order?
 
Last edited:
Are the sticking with that stupid rule from last year then for running order?

I've heard nothing to the contrary.

I'm more interested in them ditching the awful voting system that saw Spain bottom on both juries and tele votes but Ireland last overall, and going back to something people can actually understand.
 
Last edited:
Ukraine traditionally give Russia very high marks. Be interesting to see if that trend continues this year.
Given that a significant chunk of the population remains ethnic Russian, it's still highly likely.
 
I'm more interested in them ditching the awful voting system that saw Spain bottom on both juries and tele votes but Ireland last overall, and going back to something people can actually understand.

I've heard very few complaints about this.
 
I really dislike the new voting system, if only because it give juries a fair bit more power than televoters by virtue of them bring able to actively sabotage a song's chances by ranking it low. They essentially get the power of a negative vote, which a viewer doesn't have as they can only vote positively.
 
I really dislike the new voting system, if only because it give juries a fair bit more power than televoters by virtue of them bring able to actively sabotage a song's chances by ranking it low. They essentially get the power of a negative vote, which a viewer doesn't have as they can only vote positively.

The televote can also sabotage the jury favourites though...

I prefer it all in all.
 
Why would they be sabotaging songs anyway?

I'd say the public votes are easier to influence as a whole, gimmicks etc. You'd need multiple juries wanting to sabotage the same song to really make a difference
 
Anyway, inevitably at some point the jury vote will prevent a televote winner, and that's going to cause a major issue. Even moreso if there's a perceived lack of transparency.

It's surprising how in-line they've been so far. They only diverged in 2011, with the bizarre result of Italy winning the jury vote. If Sweden had scored another 3 televote points, however…

I don't think it'd be an illuminati-esque conspiracy or anything, but if juries are going to be involved it needs to be as clear as day, and I really don't think the current system is.
 
Last edited:
I'd say the public votes are easier to influence as a whole, gimmicks etc. You'd need multiple juries wanting to sabotage the same song to really make a difference

You wouldn't need multiple juries anyway. Let's say a contest has two clear favourites which are both strong songs and worthy of votes (off the top of my head let's hypothetically call them San Marino and Azerbaijan). Even if the Azeri public votes strongly in favour of the San Marinese entry, the Azeri jury can ensure that the public's will is overruled and that it gets no (or very few points) by ranking it dead last. At least under the older version it would probably have got about six points.
 
You wouldn't need multiple juries anyway. Let's say a contest has two clear favourites which are both strong songs and worthy of votes (off the top of my head let's hypothetically call them San Marino and Azerbaijan). Even if the Azeri public votes strongly in favour of the San Marinese entry, the Azeri jury can ensure that the public's will is overruled and that it gets no (or very few points) by ranking it dead last. At least under the older version it would probably have got about six points.

EXACTLY

I just can't see a justification for it.
 
How has the running order for the final been decided in recent years?

Up until last year, a random draw. Last year, Swedish producers decided the order under supervision by the EBU (motto "Cheating is against the rules"), with the exception of the host itself who drew a random position.
 
Don't we have this system to stop having countries like Turkey and Armenia always getting at least 8 points from countries like The Netherlands? It's not all bad.
 
Up until last year, a random draw. Last year, Swedish producers decided the order under supervision by the EBU (motto "Cheating is against the rules"), with the exception of the host itself who drew a random position.

The Swedish producers didn't quite have free reign, each song was drawn to be placed in either the first or second half.

I like the idea of the producers being able to influence the running order to make a better show (the opening few songs of 2006 still give me nightmares), but I think SVT gave themselves a bit too much freedom. Why not divide the running order into (say) five sections, and randomly draw each song into one of those five. It still allows for a better show, but means the producers have a bit less influence.
 
Don't we have this system to stop having countries like Turkey and Armenia always getting at least 8 points from countries like The Netherlands? It's not all bad.

Oh I agree, in that sense I definitely think the juries are worth having. But at the end of the day, if Dutch citizens of Turkish descent want to vote for the Turkish song, they have every right to do so and their votes shouldn't be excessively pushed down.

As annoying as Turkey farting their way into the top ten with shit like Love Me Back and Shake It Up Shekirim was, they did only win the once (with an excellent song).
 
Last edited:
Oh I agree, in that sense I definitely think the juries are worth having. But at the end of the day, if Dutch citizens of Turkish descent want to vote for the Turkish song, they have every right to do so and their votes shouldn't be excessively pushed down.

If the song is terrible and juries place it low because of that I don't have a problem with this. If the song is great, but juries still place it low just because it will get televotes there is something wrong.
 
Well 'terrible' is highly subjective. Maybe the Turkish diaspora just really like that sound. Most of their entries did have quite an ethnic flavour.

For me the juries are there to make sure diaspora voting doesn't overwhelm the contest and all the countries have a fair chance. They're especially important in the semis in that sense.

But I think there's a fine balance to be struck, and this system makes me uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather have a system that cancels out some of those easy diaspora votes (maybe because the Dutch votes are always heavily influenced by them), but it is a tricky one.
 
If people keep voting stupidly, it's stupid to keep letting them do it.
 
Ultimately I don't really like a system where the tastes of five people can totally cancel out the public's tastes. Under the old system at least the public could never be totally overruled. Romania got the 12 from the Italian televote last year and no points whatsoever from their overall vote - that's fucking ridiculous. I'm pretty sure Margaret would've gotten points from us last year under the standard 50:50 system too. I don't really see what the argument for this new one is at all. It's unnecessarily complicating, it makes the semi results less transparent (last year we only got televote and jury averages for the semis, compared with points like we used to) and it causes perverse results.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather have a system that cancels out some of those easy diaspora votes (maybe because the Dutch votes are always heavily influenced by them), but it is a tricky one.

Well that's the rub, isn't it? The juries were brought it because people thought diaspora votes were unfair. They probably complained about the old system too, I don't think there's a system that will please everyone, because people are so keen to have a bogeyman to blame for perceived injustices.

Power to the people, etc (just as long as they agree with us)
 
Well that's the rub, isn't it? The juries were brought it because people thought diaspora votes were unfair. They probably complained about the old system too, I don't think there's a system that will please everyone, because people are so keen to have a bogeyman to blame for perceived injustices.

Power to the people, etc (just as long as they agree with us)

There weren't really any complaints about the system we had until last year. It did a good job of diluting diaspora votes by and large. That's why last year's change made so little sense - nobody was really calling for it at all.
 
There weren't really any complaints about the system we had until last year. It did a good job of diluting diaspora votes by and large. That's why last year's change made so little sense - nobody was really calling for it at all.

Is it the reason Turkey left, or am I making this up?
 
Is it the reason Turkey left, or am I making this up?

They objected to the juries full stop so far as I recall (I doubt the change helped though) and to the autoqualification of the Big 5. Bit of a weird thing to strop out about after so long.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom