|
||||||||
Jules O’Dwyer used three dogs in final performance, not two |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Derby
Posts: 27,583
|
I guess both the dog and the magician were trying to deceive us so they're as bad as each other!
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
I wasn't necessarily referring to you, although to be fair, your argument is ridiculous. You voted for the ACT, not the dog. Jules was part of the act too, and you already knew there was another dog from the semi-finals, you can hardly say you were mislead into voting.
Are you also the sort of person who wants their money back when they find out that magic isn't real and full of deception and misdirection, too? |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 67
|
Quote:
My only issue would be that they didn't just reveal it on the night, Jules still trained the dog herself so I'm not really bothered who did the stunt
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 67
|
Quote:
I wasn't necessarily referring to you, although to be fair, your argument is ridiculous. You voted for the ACT, not the dog. Jules was part of the act too, and you already knew there was another dog from the semi-finals, you can hardly say you were mislead into voting.
Are you also the sort of person who wants their money back when they find out that magic isn't real and full of deception and misdirection, too? |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
Does it matter? I mean really? At all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,350
|
This was obvious at the time. Matisse couldn't of moved about so quick to be in position like that. I'm fine with this, the real talent here is Jules who has trained a number of dogs, as was clear in the semi final.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,350
|
Quote:
Exactly. It was hidden. Take the prize money away from her. So misleading and fake to the viewers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,066
|
I don't get the uproar. .we voted for the act. .and the act was great
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 67
|
Quote:
I don't get the uproar. .we voted for the act. .and the act was great
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,066
|
Quote:
Yeah...but where was the other dog in the act last night?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,464
|
[quote=shirlt9;78333561]I don't get the uproar. .we voted for the act. .and the act was great
If Matisse is scared of heights, she might have been better doing a routine that did not involve heights? |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
Quote:
Yeah...but where was the other dog in the act last night?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
Bit of a difference. We were voting for the dog who has this amazing talent, but it wasn't the dog we were voting for that was doing it. This isn't a film with an actors stunt double. We were purposely led to believe it was Matisse. Where was the third dog at the end if they were not covering it up?
How many times are we led to believe Daniel Craig is doing a stunt in James Bond but it's actually a stunt double? When you go see a movie like James Bond, you're paying for the lead actor with the 'amazing talent'. Just like when voting for Jules & Matisse. Yet nobody claims that's a con. |
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Albert Square.
Posts: 46,296
|
I dont care, glad they won, and they deserved it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastiesfan2012;7*****70
Why are you comparing this to a movie? EVERYBODY knows actors use stunt doubles. For the last few weeks we have been led to believe that Matisse is an amazing dog with this amazing talent. People have been voting for this dog.
So when it turns out the dog didn't do the main bit of the show which would've generated votes then viewers have been lied to. This is an act that has entered into a competition for us to vote for them. It's ridiculous to even compare to to a Harrison Ford film. This is exactly the same thing and anybody who claims they were misled by this is over-reacting somewhat IMO. |
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 10
|
There is just no pleasing people, is there? Some of you are acting like it was a man in a dog costume doing the rope walking. It was STILL a dog, the same 2 dogs she used in her semi final performance. If anything, the fact that she trained and coordinated 3 dogs on stage and yet made it all seem like a cohesive performance, makes it even more impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
hahaha, absolutely not the same thing.
The difference is how it's presented... you know when you're at the cinema what is on the screen isn't real. In this show, we were presented with a dog, Mattisse, that did tricks, so when you find out it wasn't that actual dog doing the best trick of them all it kind of kills it for people. Matisse wasn't running away from a dog catcher. Matisse isn't a toy dog who came to life. Matisse didn't steal sausages to feed to a disadvantaged three legged dog. Their narratives weren't real either. |
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 508
|
Quote:
It's exactly the same thing.
How many times are we led to believe Daniel Craig is doing a stunt in James Bond but it's actually a stunt double? When you go see a movie like James Bond, you're paying for the lead actor with the 'amazing talent'. Just like when voting for Jules & Matisse. Yet nobody claims that's a con. You watch a film for the film, the story, the entertainment. No one sits there saying wow, look at Daniel Craig doing that stunt there, it's what I pay my money for. Why was the act called Jules and Matisse, why not include the 3rd dogs name, the dog which performed the standout trick, and why did that dog not come out at the end? |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 508
|
Quote:
Guess what?
Matisse wasn't running away from a dog catcher. Matisse isn't a toy dog who came to life. Matisse didn't steal sausages to feed to a disadvantaged three legged dog. Their narratives weren't real either. You can go on and on about it, but it's 100% misleading, who did the big trick? Where was that dogs name in the title of the act, where was it at the end, why wasn't it mentioned? |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: S Wales
Posts: 1,277
|
Definite stitch up, maybe not the end of the world but definitely misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,867
|
What a con.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Another time, another place..
Posts: 24,629
|
There's no pleasing some people. I've read comment after comment on here about how 'cruel' Jules was to 'force' Matisse into walking a tightrope, and how she must be a really horrible trainer who makes her dogs do stuff, and now it transpires that she cares about her dogs so much she got a stunt double as Matisse didnt like doing the trick, but people are still complaining about her!! What does it matter if she used another dog for one part of the act? Matisse did everything else, and it's difficult enough to work one dog on a stage, to be able to work three is remarkable. When you watch a movie with a dog in it, it's not the same dog that does all the tricks and stunts, they use around 8 different dogs to play the same dog, because they can't all do the same thing. It's no different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: # SAVE THE BBC & CHANNEL 4 #
Posts: 849
|
have itv not learned anything in recent years about conning the public?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,773
|
Quote:
Jesus christ, not the same. The whole point of this act was "wow, a dog can be trained like this and do this stuff", nothing to do with the actual story line, no one is going to go on about the story line and criticizing it you plonker.
You can go on and on about it, but it's 100% misleading, who did the big trick? Where was that dogs name in the title of the act, where was it at the end, why wasn't it mentioned? After all, they added to the performance, sometimes to the point of hiding an otherwise boring performance, for example, the little girl with the swords who, without the "Ninjas" would be just leaping around shouting, yet they barely got a mention, it's disgraceful |
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 508
|
Quote:
so, in your view, when an act has a load of dancers, who let's face it, sometimes have to do amazingly complex routines, they should all be on stage when being critiqued by the judges.
After all, they added to the performance, sometimes to the point of hiding an otherwise boring performance, for example, the little girl with the swords who, without the "Ninjas" would be just leaping around shouting, yet they barely got a mention, it's disgraceful Why did they hide the fact? Please, just tell me why you think they didn't show that there was a 3rd dog involved last night. Also, just to address your point, there's nothing misleading about those dancers or ninjas. But this was the definition of misleading, the viewer was lead to believe it was matisse doing that trick, and it wasn't, it's simple. If you have an act which is about a women and her dog doing amazing tricks, and they were no doubt amazing, you expect that dog to do all the tricks, or atleast be told when there's a trick inwhich a different dog posed as that dog. Would it have been the same and all fine if they used a completely different breed of dog to do that trick? Should the viewer just have accepted it then? |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34.




