I guess both the dog and the magician were trying to deceive us so they're as bad as each other! 
Jules O’Dwyer used three dogs in final performance, not two
2 of 13
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?
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?
Originally Posted by unclekevo:
“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”
“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”
Exactly. It just stinks. And then today she's more than happy to announce this fact, straight after she's won the competition, face all over the television and £250,000 in the bank.
Originally Posted by dellzincht:
“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?”
“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?”
No. I know magic is fake. I didn't know this was fake. Where was the dog at the end?
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.
Originally Posted by eastiesfan2012:
“Exactly. It was hidden. Take the prize money away from her. So misleading and fake to the viewers.”
“Exactly. It was hidden. Take the prize money away from her. So misleading and fake to the viewers.”
Absolutely, then it can go to second place. You know, the guy who obviously really made a bank note teleport into a lemon. There was nothing fake involved with his act.
Originally Posted by shirlt9:
“I don't get the uproar. .we voted for the act. .and the act was great”
“I don't get the uproar. .we voted for the act. .and the act was great”
Yeah...but where was the other dog in the act last night?
Originally Posted by eastiesfan2012:
“Yeah...but where was the other dog in the act last night?”
“Yeah...but where was the other dog in the act last night?”
What on earth has that got to do with anything. .has made no difference to my feelings about the act at all..
[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?
If Matisse is scared of heights, she might have been better doing a routine that did not involve heights?
Originally Posted by eastiesfan2012:
“Yeah...but where was the other dog in the act last night?”
“Yeah...but where was the other dog in the act last night?”
Again, does it matter? I mean, unless you were personally affected by it, I think you're massively overreacting and looking to make an issue where there isn't one.
Originally Posted by eastiesfan2012:
“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?”
“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?”
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.
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.”
“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.”
When you watch a movie, you're led to believe Harrison Ford (for example) is doing all the action sequences. Yet you don't know when it's a stunt double and when it's Harrison Ford.
This is exactly the same thing and anybody who claims they were misled by this is over-reacting somewhat IMO.
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.
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“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.”
“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.”
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.
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“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.”
“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.”
haha a load of rubbish.
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?
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“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.”
“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.”
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?
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.
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“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?”
“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?”
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
Originally Posted by callmediva:
“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”
“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”
Except this was the absolute main trick in the act, in the final.
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?
2 of 13
