Even the Sun front page attacking Jules and Matisse now

1356

Comments

  • babyshezbabyshez Posts: 993
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Iqoniq wrote: »
    All those who are saying they voted for the act need to look at it a different way.

    Say that a singer won, and then it turned out they were merely lip syncing, and the real vocals were provided by someone who was hidden behind part of the stage set. Would you still feel the same? It's the same principle, and you've still been deceived.

    What an odd comparison. Matisse actually has talent unlike the lip singer, and Chase only did that trick because Matisse is afraid of heights. Matisse CAN do that trick, Jules just thought Chase would be better as he's known as the "action" dog.

    Chase is still Jules' dog, he was trained by Jules. Your comparison makes little sense.
  • IqoniqIqoniq Posts: 6,299
    Forum Member
    babyshez wrote: »
    What an odd comparison. Matisse actually has talent unlike the lip singer, and Chase only did that trick because Matisse is afraid of heights. Matisse CAN do that trick, Jules just thought Chase would be better as he's known as the "action" dog.

    Chase is still Jules' dog, he was trained by Jules. Your comparison makes little sense.
    No, it's nothing to do with talent. The point is the fact that it wasn't entirely above board. If she'd had all 3 dogs on stage after the act then that would have been fair, but only having 2 was deceitful. I don't get why she didn't just do that as opposed to pretend Matisse was doing his own stunts. My scenario is still valid as it's the same thing - you've got something that's not what it first appears, but people have paid to vote believing they saw something they didn't (and before the pedants start - the point of magic is about illusion and the "how did he do that?" so it's allowed).

    I'm also curious how many people actually did vote for the act and not the dog at the end. The minute I saw it I knew she'd won. It was a blatant sympathy plea and probably the actual reason she won.
  • ParnebParneb Posts: 5,676
    Forum Member
    The Sun and its very short memory.

    The gutter rag called The Sun loves a story like BGT winner's dog act.


    The Sun needs to clean up its own newspaper before pointing its grubby finger at other people. And what about The Sun's 'phone hacking con tricks! They were simply, simply dreadful and caused complete misery to people who had done nothing wrong whatsoever. Would not give that tacky rag houseroom.

    Jules showed us Chase in the semi finals.
  • Lee_BromleyLee_Bromley Posts: 172
    Forum Member
    MrSuper wrote: »
    'Angry Simon Cowell', is that a joke? Do they seriously believe Cowell didn't know anything about the stunt dog? They're taking the piss! Of course he did! Every decision about the show goes through him. He's the boss!

    100% agree. He - and every member of the production crew - would have known exactly how each act worked. And if he continues to deny that he had no idea about the act involved then he should be sent on his way. You can't take credit for putting a show together then distance yourself once it becomes toxic.
  • Dalekbuster523Dalekbuster523 Posts: 4,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Iqoniq wrote: »
    No, it's nothing to do with talent. The point is the fact that it wasn't entirely above board. If she'd had all 3 dogs on stage after the act then that would have been fair, but only having 2 was deceitful. I don't get why she didn't just do that as opposed to pretend Matisse was doing his own stunts. My scenario is still valid as it's the same thing - you've got something that's not what it first appears, but people have paid to vote believing they saw something they didn't (and before the pedants start - the point of magic is about illusion and the "how did he do that?" so it's allowed).
    If she had shown Chase, it would have ruined the narrative as it would have been obvious Matisse hadn't walked the tightrope to give the sausages to the three legged dog. It's the same as if a stunt double was revealed in a movie.
    I'm also curious how many people actually did vote for the act and not the dog at the end. The minute I saw it I knew she'd won. It was a blatant sympathy plea and probably the actual reason she won.
    No it wasn't. It was vital to the narrative.
  • ParnebParneb Posts: 5,676
    Forum Member
    andrewr wrote: »
    I did not vote, but had I voted it would have been for the act - ie the trainer. The real talent here is that this lady is able to get dogs to do incredible things.

    She is the act - the dogs would be nothing without her. The second place act was an illusionist - we don't expect full disclosure of his act. Why should we of hers?

    I agree.

    And just look how happy those dogs are, they all adore Jules and she adores them.

    Think of poor Wendy and her French owner. Doing her two stage acts NOT ONCE did she wag her tail and when the act was over she was commanded to leave the stage. She did as she was told without wagging her tail, or looking back at her owner,. And during her Final performance you could see her head trembling.
  • pericompericom Posts: 6,021
    Forum Member
    I wish when I take a driving test Im voted for the act of driving and not my talent :)

    The talent matters, it wasn't made clear in this case - they should have been up front about it.
  • Stuart25Stuart25 Posts: 12,217
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    myscimitar wrote: »
    I am sure the people who paid to vote for this act feel cheated. It be no difference than a magic act that appears in a different place using a double. If she was honest she have told and shown the other dog at the end, bet she have not got the votes then and she knew that!

    I paid to vote for Jules & Matisse and I don't feel cheated at all.
  • pjc229pjc229 Posts: 1,840
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Iqoniq wrote: »
    I'm also curious how many people actually did vote for the act and not the dog at the end. The minute I saw it I knew she'd won. It was a blatant sympathy plea and probably the actual reason she won.

    To make matters worse there's now video circulating of Skippy happily trotting round on all fours just hours before the show, seems like Jules got desperate for votes at the last minute.
  • spkxspkx Posts: 14,870
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Iqoniq wrote: »
    All those who are saying they voted for the act need to look at it a different way.

    Say that a singer won, and then it turned out they were merely lip syncing, and the real vocals were provided by someone who was hidden behind part of the stage set. Would you still feel the same? It's the same principle, and you've still been deceived.

    If the singer backstage was part of the act then it'd be fine. It'd be a pointless act but it'd still be okay. If they were billed and portrayed as a solo at it'd be deceitful.

    However in this case Chase is part of the act, as is skippy, Matisse and the FOURTH dog Fletcher. You're not voting for a specific dog you're voting for the overall act.

    Just like with a magician you're voting for the overall act, even though they might use doubles, stage hands, etc.
  • spkxspkx Posts: 14,870
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    myscimitar wrote: »
    Bet she knew if she was honest and brought out the other dog after the act, she would have lost votes and not won, and I recon she knew that, in my mind it fraud as we voted for Matissee, and not a stand-in

    She's explained why she didn't bring him out: http://www.tellymix.co.uk/reality-tv/britains-got-talent/222874-britains-got-talent-2015-winner-jules-odwyer-hits-back-at-fakery-claims.html

    TL;DR: Not enough time due to the backstage setup
  • almostblondealmostblonde Posts: 255
    Forum Member
    It is her act, she trained the dogs - brilliantly. Her only mistake as far as I can see is she should have named it differently, just called it "Jules and dogs", rather than naming one dog, the picky folk would have no gripe then. Good luck to the lady, a well deserved win.
  • Dalekbuster523Dalekbuster523 Posts: 4,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    pjc229 wrote: »
    To make matters worse there's now video circulating of Skippy happily trotting round on all fours just hours before the show, seems like Jules got desperate for votes at the last minute.

    ^_^

    Do you really expect people to believe such fictitious rubbish?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8
    Forum Member
    Not just the Sun with Jules and 'Matisse the tightrope walking dog' on the front page today, but also the Daily Mail and that quality paper, The Daily Star. Also mentioned in the Independent and the Telegraph.

    If only Jules had acknowledged Chase's contribution at the end, all this bad feeling wouldn't be happening. I'm surprised she didn't *want* to name check the dog!

    And her interview in the Sun does her no favours. One of the questions and responses:

    Question: But you do appreciate there are quite a lot of people who are taken aback?

    Jules' answer: I think there's only you. I don't think it's a problem. We thought about calling the act Jules and Mattise and friends, but got dubbed Jules and Matisse. But I had other ideas how to introduce my dogs.


    Yes, my friend, indeed you did. :)
  • pjc229pjc229 Posts: 1,840
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ^_^

    Do you really expect people to believe such fictitious rubbish?

    :D

    You never know, there's some spectacularly stupid people around it seems.
  • Dalekbuster523Dalekbuster523 Posts: 4,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not just the Sun with Jules and 'Matisse the tightrope walking dog' on the front page today, but also the Daily Mail and that quality paper, The Daily Star. Also mentioned in the Independent and the Telegraph.

    If only Jules had acknowledged Chase's contribution at the end, all this bad feeling wouldn't be happening. I'm surprised she didn't *want* to name check the dog!

    And her interview in the Sun does her no favours. One of the questions and responses:

    Question: But you do appreciate there are quite a lot of people who are taken aback?

    Jules' answer: I think there's only you. I don't think it's a problem. We thought about calling the act Jules and Mattise and friends, but got dubbed Jules and Matisse. But I had other ideas how to introduce my dogs.


    Yes, my friend, indeed you did. :)

    Good for her for sticking up for herself. Why should she put up with the negative backlash from the papers?

    Also proves that it was the producers' decision to call the act Jules & Matisse, not her's.
  • spkxspkx Posts: 14,870
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It is her act, she trained the dogs - brilliantly. Her only mistake as far as I can see is she should have named it differently, just called it "Jules and dogs", rather than naming one dog, the picky folk would have no gripe then. Good luck to the lady, a well deserved win.

    It'd would stop the complaints but really people are complaining just for the sake of it.

    Few of the act names actually describe the act accurately, most of them involve teams of people in the background or foreground but only one or two people are billed, this is especially true of magicians for example.

    At the end of the day, the act name is not meant to be a bill of who's involved, it's just a way of identifying each act.
  • wear thefoxhatwear thefoxhat Posts: 3,753
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lol, as the rest world worries about the economy, politics and ISIS rampaging across the Middle East, The Sun's main concern is a stunt dog, says it all really :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spkx wrote: »
    She's explained why she didn't bring him out: http://www.tellymix.co.uk/reality-tv/britains-got-talent/222874-britains-got-talent-2015-winner-jules-odwyer-hits-back-at-fakery-claims.html

    TL;DR: Not enough time due to the backstage setup

    But she could have mentioned he was part of the act.. So why did she not!
  • spkxspkx Posts: 14,870
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    myscimitar wrote: »
    But she could have mentioned he was part of the act.. So why did she not!

    We knew he was part of the act from the semi-finals.
  • mrsgrumpy49mrsgrumpy49 Posts: 10,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why did she not come clean when And and Dec asked her about Matisses training for the tightrope?
    It wouldn't have 'spoilt the narrative' after the event :confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spkx wrote: »
    We knew he was part of the act from the semi-finals.

    How did you know, the act was called Jules and Matisse, and he was the only one used in the first round, so why should we believe he was not the only one used again. If both dogs had been in all the rounds that have been different.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8
    Forum Member
    Good for her for sticking up for herself. Why should she put up with the negative backlash from the papers?

    Also proves that it was the producers' decision to call the act Jules & Matisse, not her's.

    If you'd ever seen the form you have to fill in when you get to that stage, you'd actually see that YOU are asked to fill in the name of your act. Nothing to do with being told what to do.

    Do you remember the year the woman went on with two dogs? Her act was called Donellda Guy (I think that's her name). No mention of the dogs. Why didn't Jules just use HER name as it was really her show anyway?
  • KrommKromm Posts: 6,180
    Forum Member
    Corabal wrote: »
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGchn-DWcAE_p_W.jpg

    I didn't want them to win but they don't deserve this treatment, they won fair and square. Cowell was obviously aware of what the act would involve, this rag strikes again.
    Simon wasn't just "aware". You can bet how the act was presented to the public was completely his decision, not Jules' (who logically we should all know would rather have been the focus of the act/publicity than one specific dog).

    It all comes down to Simon wanting another Ashleigh and Pudsey, which was a marketing success, thus money in the bank, for Simon. He's got every motive to have asked for the act to be presented as the similar "Jules and Matisse" branding, whereas Jules' only motivation was doing what she was told so Simon would manipulate things to get her into the live shows. If that hadn't be on the table I'm dead sure she would rather it have been presented as something like "The O'Dwyer Dogs".
    If you'd ever seen the form you have to fill in when you get to that stage, you'd actually see that YOU are asked to fill in the name of your act. Nothing to do with being told what to do.
    Why do you think what's put on the initial form is what they feel compelled to stay with? The producers see the acts even before they get on stage and present ideas for alterations to how the acts are presented. It's ALWAYS happened that way--the producers (Simon and his crew) ALWAYS put their stamp on things, even if Simon puts on a whole act like he's got no input when he's "judging" them.
  • Dalekbuster523Dalekbuster523 Posts: 4,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why did she not come clean when And and Dec asked her about Matisses training for the tightrope?
    It wouldn't have 'spoilt the narrative' after the event :confused:

    I believe it would. The narrative is that Matisse walked the tightrope, not Chase. The stunt double in a movie isn't revealed after the film has finished.
Sign In or Register to comment.