[ SECRET POST #5996 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5996 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.
[Eurovision 2023]



__________________________________________________



05.
[Back from the Brink]



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #857.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Rigged by whom?

It's well known that 5 countries more or less own Eurovision. Yet none of those countries have a fantastic winning record - if anyone would be able to rig Eurovision, they would. But why for Sweden?

Or did Sweden call every judge and bribe them? That doesn't seem very pausible. ABBA themselves seemed shocked by the news, and denied that they would appear next year, so I don't even see that strong of a motive. Judges just liked Sweden.

[(Anonymous)]

The theory I've seen is that they think that doing it as an ABBA anniversary thing next year will be profitable somehow.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, I don't think they had to bribe anyone. I think they just basically had to lead with "you know it's ABBA's 50th anniversary next year, wouldn't it be amazing for Eurovision if Sweden won?" I think they individually just chose Sweden: because the song was good, even if not "best," and it wasn't a hardship to choose it for the delayed gratification spectacle of it all.

[(Anonymous)]

If that were the case, wouldn't have been better to make ABBA to represent Sweden or make Swedish artist play a cover than... that?

ABBA is an amazing group and all, but I doubt they would have let anybody use their name for bribe Eurovision.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

Sweden, like meny Eurovision participants, hosts a competition to choose its entry. No doubt if Abba competed in Melodifestivalen, they'd have a good chance of winning, but I don't know how anyone could make them compete if they have no interest in doing so. Also, a cover would be disqualified before it even made it to the Eurovision stage, as the entry must be an original song, and it cannot be commercially released prior to a certain date, usually set about 8-9 months before the competition.

[(Anonymous)]

My theory is that it wasn't so much rigged as it was a sum of many individual factors. There's nothing wrong with Tattoo, but it's not on the level of Euphoria. And yet, the juries voted like it was the best song they'd ever heard; it got the highest percentage of the maximum available jury points in Eurovision history.

What I believe happened is that on top of the business-as-usual Sweden favoritism, the juries were just as aware as anyone else that Cha Cha Cha was poised to sweep the televote, so the individual jury members voted strongly in favor of Tattoo to the detriment of other equally decent pop songs. Just like the televoters, without any particular conspiracy, voted overwhelmingly in favor of Cha Cha Cha, to the detriment of other predicted audience favourites.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with this. Also, the whole "50th anniversary of ABBAs win" sounds kind of silly motive.

As a Finn I would've loved our Käärijä to win, but the truth is that Loreen also got over 200 points in televote. Yeah, the result was indeed quite an anticlimax when it was so obvius who was the people's favourite, but with the current voting system, it was a fair game.

Still, I do think the jury vote was kind of lazy when there were other quality songs too (personally I loved Czechia's entry!) and it would have been fair if their votes had been more evenly distributed. Loreen's song was good but it wasn't THAT good. And frankly, after Euphoria, it was kind of boring and offered nothing new.

Maybe the weight of the jury should be lowered to 25-30%? I mean, Eurovision isn't and shouldn't be too serious competition. It's silly and campy and that's why most people love it, so personally I think the televote should count more than the jury vote. I'm fine with having some kind of jury there, though.

Anyway, congrats Swedes! Even if this years entry wasn't your best, overall you're truly the masters of Eurovision, haha. And we're happy with our second place too!

DA

[(Anonymous)]

This was such a wholesome comment. Thank you.

/a Swede who voted for Finland