I said in the show thread I thought this Malaki stunt was done to create a talking point. And then I find this morning Radio Derby discussing whether parents put their kids under too much pressure after the scenes on BGT! Says it all really!
Bottom line, he wasn't ready as Louis Walsh would say. Some very young kids like Connie (BGT 2007) could handle it but not all. I hope he's left out from the live shows.
None of us know anything about the behind-the-scenes pressure the kid was under, whether it was pushy parent syndrome remains to be seen. But, if the kid had just suffered from stage-fright on the day, there isn't actually a cut and dry right/wrong way of dealing with that situation. Encouraging the kid to overcome his fears has some merit to it, as does letting him go home to build his confidence away from the cameras. For me the issue is whether the kid wanted to be performing in the first place.
if this whole thing was contrived, then that kid should receive an oscar! Yep, he was genuinely nervous and had stage fright - sorry, but I don't buy the "it was a fake" allegations.
Agreed, but the fact that the tears were real doesn't mean the editing and presentation of what happened wasn't contrived.
What do you mean 'Exactly'?
This thread isn't about age limits. The OP was suggesting that his mum was pushy and that he didn't really want to be there. I was just saying that it's not that he didn't want to be there, it's just that he looked the way he did because he was so nervous. Someone who's nine performing in front of all that lot would be nervous.
If you want to talk about age limits I think it should be 16.
The thread is about a form of child cruelty by encouraging or allowing young kids to perform in front of a huge live audience before they are ready. An age limit would be one way of preventing this.
It's very hard to induce tears if the emotion's not there. Even actors/actresses have difficulty doing this on demand.
I don't doubt that his tears and emotions were genuine. For me, that's not the question - and the whole 'Should children this young be entered into talent competitions?' is a smokescreen.
The real issue is with the editing of the show. Did his meltdown really need broadcasting if he did an audition that didn't feature him crying? If so, why? Because the only reason I can see is to create 'drama' (:rolleyes:) on a reality television series and to generate publicity for Simon Cowell from a child crying. And that, frankly, doesn't really pass as showbusiness ... let alone entertainment.
I don't doubt that his tears and emotions were genuine. For me, that's not the question - and the whole 'Should children this young be entered into talent competitions?' is a smokescreen.
The real issue is with the editing of the show. Did his meltdown really need broadcasting if he did an audition that didn't feature him crying? If so, why? Because the only reason I can see is to create 'drama' (:rolleyes:) on a reality television series and to generate publicity for Simon Cowell from a child crying. And that, frankly, doesn't really pass as showbusiness ... let alone entertainment.
Valid point, but I think there are 2 "questions" / issus here:
1/ 9 year old boy was put undue stress and broke down in tears. In my book, a form of child cruelty.
2/ ITV indulged themselves in the situation and decided to broadcast it in the name of entertainment.
The thread is about a form of child cruelty by encouraging or allowing young kids to perform in front of a huge live audience before they are ready. An age limit would be one way of preventing this.
I noticed that Cowell wasn't too happy with Malakai breaking down in tears. He forced a slight smile when the camera was on him.
Of course.
And that's why it ended up in the broadcast programme. Because Simon Cowell thought it would make for good television and nobody at ITV had the courage to tell him otherwise.
Cowell's idea of entertainment and ITV's willingness to bow to whatever he wants are nearly as bad as each other.
Kids should not be allowed to take part and a minimum age should be introduced. You knew Malakai would ge through but he shouldnt have been there in the first place. It was mistake putting him through and the other children as there will be waterworks at somestage for them when they dont go through or put out.
And that's why it ended up in the broadcast programme. Because Simon Cowell thought it would make for good television and nobody at ITV had the courage to tell him otherwise.
Cowell's idea of entertainment and ITV's willingness to bow to whatever he wants are nearly as bad as each other.
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of Cowell being disappointed that he'd not be able to make a fortune out of Malakai, because if he broke down in front of the judges, what would he be like on tour/in front of another audience?
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of Cowell being disappointed that he'd not be able to make a fortune out of Malakai, because if he broke down in front of the judges, what would he be like on tour/in front of another audience?
Cowell proved in the editing of his show that he is quite happy to sink to rock bottom - and if Malaki crying is part of that act, I'm sure he won't have any qualms ...
Interesting, if he sang a second song which had all the applause, why didnt they show him singing that? Why show him singing the first song again?
Damned if they do and damned if they don't. Lots of posters on here would have moaned if they had shown him singing another song. You'd have heard the cries of "set-up!" the other side of the world.
Was the kid dragged kicking and screaming onto the stage ....NO!!!! . He probably was the one who told his mum he wanted to go on there in the first place.. lots of people get stage fright but it doesnt stop them from doing something they love.. give the kid a break and stop blowing it up into something all out of proportion , the kid was obviously as happy as larry going home which you can clearly see him skipping up the road
FFS some people just go on and on and on .:yawn: its over and done with .kid went home happy now move on
Comments
Bottom line, he wasn't ready as Louis Walsh would say. Some very young kids like Connie (BGT 2007) could handle it but not all. I hope he's left out from the live shows.
If you're talking about Hollie Steel, that was on Britain's Got Talent in 2009.
It was Rachel Crow on America's X Factor, she is a bit older, aged 13 I believe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-S9Flw3CRk&feature=related
Agreed, but the fact that the tears were real doesn't mean the editing and presentation of what happened wasn't contrived.
Because that wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic.
The thread is about a form of child cruelty by encouraging or allowing young kids to perform in front of a huge live audience before they are ready. An age limit would be one way of preventing this.
Really!!! Dont think so
I would be even more horrified if he gets put through to the lives.
You can hear her saying: "you promised" to someone that's talking to her. Pushy parent, perhaps?
It's very hard to induce tears if the emotion's not there. Even actors/actresses have difficulty doing this on demand.
I don't doubt that his tears and emotions were genuine. For me, that's not the question - and the whole 'Should children this young be entered into talent competitions?' is a smokescreen.
The real issue is with the editing of the show. Did his meltdown really need broadcasting if he did an audition that didn't feature him crying? If so, why? Because the only reason I can see is to create 'drama' (:rolleyes:) on a reality television series and to generate publicity for Simon Cowell from a child crying. And that, frankly, doesn't really pass as showbusiness ... let alone entertainment.
This is my clip, less the ads. Notice the happy way they leave the studio.
Malaki Paul on Britain's Got Talent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RVNZronDh4
Valid point, but I think there are 2 "questions" / issus here:
1/ 9 year old boy was put undue stress and broke down in tears. In my book, a form of child cruelty.
2/ ITV indulged themselves in the situation and decided to broadcast it in the name of entertainment.
IMHO, both are morally repugnant.
Have a look at this child performs in Brazilians got Talent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_tb2KKjUpM
Of course.
And that's why it ended up in the broadcast programme. Because Simon Cowell thought it would make for good television and nobody at ITV had the courage to tell him otherwise.
Cowell's idea of entertainment and ITV's willingness to bow to whatever he wants are nearly as bad as each other.
Personally, I'd agree - but the first point you raise is ultimately between mother and son, not a broadcast issue.
The latter is an appalling lack of judgement on the part of both Cowell and ITV and a sign of how low Cowell is prepared to sink.
Looks like he's been banned!
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of Cowell being disappointed that he'd not be able to make a fortune out of Malakai, because if he broke down in front of the judges, what would he be like on tour/in front of another audience?
Cowell proved in the editing of his show that he is quite happy to sink to rock bottom - and if Malaki crying is part of that act, I'm sure he won't have any qualms ...
Damned if they do and damned if they don't. Lots of posters on here would have moaned if they had shown him singing another song. You'd have heard the cries of "set-up!" the other side of the world.
FFS some people just go on and on and on .:yawn: its over and done with .kid went home happy now move on