What are all of you sniveling about? Sure, the judges get some control over who wins these roles. And WHY NOT? The producer is putting up a lot of dough to produce a broadway show which could flop with the wrong people in the key parts. These judges know their business and can't afford to let only the public have total control over who wins the parts. As for me, at the beginning, I thought Max was totally out of his league and didn't have a chance. Now, he's my favorite for Danny. I judge all of them against the original screen hit, and think Max is more like Travolta than mose of the other guys. As for Sandy, my pick was gone several weeks ago. Now, I'd pick Laura too.

For the six people watching it has been stated throughout the show that the 2 Dannys and 2 Sandys that received the lowest number of public votes would be in a sing off and the judges would pick which 2 were "saved". This will continue until they are down to the last 2 Dannys and 2 Sandys at which point it will only be the viewers that will decide.

When I first watched this Sunday night I considered that this was a little odd. However, the fact remains that the winners will be the stars of a Broadway play!

If I were bank rolling a Broadway play, like David (?), I would make darn sure that the best Danny & Sandy were the stars as opposed to some less than talented performer that happens to know freinds with robo-dialing software ...

I don't think anybody cares... It's not like the production has a future anyway.

Yup, Billy Bush said that Allie and Jason received the fewest # of votes out of all of the contestants. And even Kathleen (one of the judges), when she was announcing who the judges decided to save, said that they (the judges) didn't understand how Allie could possibly be in that situation... and sort of implied that that was one of the reasons why they "saved" her.

I think it was just stupid to bring Ashley and Matt back, if they were just going to be the first ones to be let go anyway.

Besides, don't the judges (and everyone else) know by now that the "surefire" winners never win? People usually vote for the underdogs or people that the judges don't fawn all over.

Why is no one investigating shows that charge viewers for voting on their cell phones if they overrule the vote? Isn't this some kind of consumer fraud? I think the Federal Trade Commission needs to look into this.

Ok I read more elsewhere - and realized that I must have missed the part where Billy Bush said that Jason and Allie received the least amount of votes. So now it makes sense. But I still think Ashley and Matt had to go, it just sucks they pulled all that crap on them in the first place just to get more episodes out of the show.

I'm confused too with this post. From what it seemed on the show, the two lowest scoring (vote count) wannabe Dannys and the two lowest wannabe Sandys were pulled from the group and had to do a sing-off. And yes, Matt and Ashley were the worst so the panel, after the sing-off, said they were booted. Seems logical to me.. unless what you're trying to say is Matt and Ashley had MORE votes than Jason and Allie (i think that's their names.) If they wanted to avoid this they should have just left Matt and Ashley off the show instead of giving them a "second chance".

Can you clarify a bit more? Maybe I'll just search online for more info, I'm rather curious now.

It seemed like a sham to me, too. The way they have it set up, the judges can manipulate the results to have the Sandy and Danny of their choice win the competition, no matter how the audience votes.

I was watching Sunday night; I have a friend on the show. I was SO SO SO SO pissed about this!!!!!!!