The title should be taken away from her, and the final re run.
Jules O’Dwyer used three dogs in final performance, not two
3 of 13
Originally Posted by jerefprdterra:
“The title should be taken away from her, and the final re run.”
“The title should be taken away from her, and the final re run.”
Actuallty since she and Jamie cheated I think they should admit they cheated re run the final but not let them take part
Originally Posted by Mandark:
“It was Mace who helped out in the semi.”
“It was Mace who helped out in the semi.”
Why is everyone calling him Mace? He's Chase
I don't think it matters that she used three dogs, by the way.
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“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.”
“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.”
People do do that. It's really no different.
Quote:
“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?”
“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?”
Because Matisse is the star, not the stunt dog. It's for the same reason why a stunt double isn't billed in a film.
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?”
It's not misleading. Matisse is the star, the stunt dog isn't.
Originally Posted by Mormon Girl:
“Actuallty since she and Jamie cheated I think they should admit they cheated re run the final but not let them take part”
“Actuallty since she and Jamie cheated I think they should admit they cheated re run the final but not let them take part”
They're not going to rerun the final because Jules & Matisse won fair and square and it would cost far too much to do it.
Also, Jamie didn't cheat.
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“People do do that. It's really no different.
Because Matisse is the star, not the stunt dog. It's for the same reason why a stunt double isn't billed in a film.”
“People do do that. It's really no different.
Because Matisse is the star, not the stunt dog. It's for the same reason why a stunt double isn't billed in a film.”
My god are you serious!!! It's not even comparable, the stunt double doesn't play a massive part in the full film, they don't do any "acting" they may be on screen for a matter of seconds.
In the case of this act we're talking about the main trick in an act about a dog which is doing tricks, would it have been OK for some other magician to have hid behind a mask last night and performed a trick which the magician Jamie couldn't do, and then he pretended like it was him?
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“My god are you serious!!! It's not even comparable, the stunt double doesn't play a massive part in the full film, they don't do any "acting" they may be on screen for a matter of seconds.”
“My god are you serious!!! It's not even comparable, the stunt double doesn't play a massive part in the full film, they don't do any "acting" they may be on screen for a matter of seconds.”
The stunt double didn't play a full part in Jules & Matisse's act either. Matisse was there majority of the time.
Quote:
“In the case of this act we're talking about the main trick in an act about a dog which is doing tricks, would it have been OK for some other magician to have hid behind a mask last night and performed a trick which the magician Jamie couldn't do, and then he pretended like it was him?”
“In the case of this act we're talking about the main trick in an act about a dog which is doing tricks, would it have been OK for some other magician to have hid behind a mask last night and performed a trick which the magician Jamie couldn't do, and then he pretended like it was him?”
That would be completely different. The tightrope was a dangerous part of Jules & Matisse's act and so a stunt dog who was more confident with it than Matisse was probably required. It really is no different to when a actor can't do a stunt in a film.
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“The stunt double didn't play a full part in Jules & Matisse's act either. Matisse was there majority of the time.
That would be completely different. The tightrope was a dangerous part of Jules & Matisse's act and so a stunt dog who was more confident with it than Matisse was probably required. It really is no different to when a actor can't do a stunt in a film.”
“The stunt double didn't play a full part in Jules & Matisse's act either. Matisse was there majority of the time.
That would be completely different. The tightrope was a dangerous part of Jules & Matisse's act and so a stunt dog who was more confident with it than Matisse was probably required. It really is no different to when a actor can't do a stunt in a film.”
It didn't play a full part? Performing the absolute show stopping trick wasn't a main part? Please tell me you aren't serious.
If the dog couldn't perform it, then she should have done a different trick, or showed how it wasn't actually Matisse.
Given the same thing with the magician, would it have been OK if the trick was dangerous, and Jamie wasn't able to do it?
It's the definition of misleading, can't get my head around people who think it's perfectly fine.
I can see why people have a problem with this. The name of the dog is in the act but people actually watched and voted for a 'stand in' doing the tightrope part....it is a bit misleading.
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“It didn't play a full part? Performing the absolute show stopping trick wasn't a main part? Please tell me you aren't serious.
If the dog couldn't perform it, then she should have done a different trick.”
“It didn't play a full part? Performing the absolute show stopping trick wasn't a main part? Please tell me you aren't serious.
If the dog couldn't perform it, then she should have done a different trick.”
It was a very small part of the act. The stunt dog only appeared for a few seconds and she could hardly use a different trick because:
1. It wouldn't be as impressive.
and
2. The story kind of needed it IMO.
Originally Posted by Inspiration:
“Sick of dogs winning BGT.”
“Sick of dogs winning BGT.”
This is only the second dog act to win.
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“It was a very small part of the act. The stunt dog only appeared for a few seconds and she could hardly use a different trick because:
1. It wouldn't be as impressive.
and
2. The story kind of needed it IMO.”
“It was a very small part of the act. The stunt dog only appeared for a few seconds and she could hardly use a different trick because:
1. It wouldn't be as impressive.
and
2. The story kind of needed it IMO.”
Don't need to say anything about the bit in bold.
So would it have been OK if Jamie had done a dangerous stunt, except it wasn't him but a stunt double, but he pretended like it was him?
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“
This is only the second dog act to win.”
“
This is only the second dog act to win.”
Seems to be only in Britain where this type of act is popular though. The 'Got Talent' franchise is shown all over the world but to the best of my knowledge, no dog act has ever won elsewhere.
The Mirror says Jamie only lost by 2%. Would a third dog reveal taken away enough votes from Matisse to allow Jamie to win? That could be a big deal!
Personally I really don't mind that another dog was used for the tightrope walk - it's not like we didn't know Matisse had a double, because we saw his double in the Semi Finals. At the time I did wonder if it was the other dog doing the tightrope and I still voted for them. It was a fun, very skilled act and a worthy winner IMO. And to be fair, on social media the act is called 'Jules Matisse + Friends'. I don't feel duped. I think it's still very clever.
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“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?”
“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?”
Did you vote? If you did, did you vote for Matise or the act? If you voted for the dog, then I'm sorry but that's just crazy. You voted,surely, for the act, an act which included, as seen in the semi-final, a dog which looked very similar to the main "actor" dog. I'm the final you also got to see the 3rd dog. People who voted voted for the act, including the trainer. Did you hear what she said at the end of the show when she thanked her team? None of the team were seen, how big is the team? Are they friends or family? Does it matter?
All that matters is that it was entertaining and told a story. The actor dog got main billing, of course as does any lead actor, stunt doubles are just that.
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“Don't need to say anything about the bit in bold.
So would it have been OK if Jamie had done a dangerous stunt, except it wasn't him but a stunt double, but he pretended like it was him?”
“Don't need to say anything about the bit in bold.
So would it have been OK if Jamie had done a dangerous stunt, except it wasn't him but a stunt double, but he pretended like it was him?”
No. But that's different because it isn't a fictional story like with Jules & Matisse.
Originally Posted by Eurostar:
“Seems to be only in Britain where this type of act is popular though. The 'Got Talent' franchise is shown all over the world but to the best of my knowledge, no dog act has ever won elsewhere.”
“Seems to be only in Britain where this type of act is popular though. The 'Got Talent' franchise is shown all over the world but to the best of my knowledge, no dog act has ever won elsewhere.”
Because we're a nation who loves dogs and appreciates the effort put into these dog acts.
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“No. But that's different because it isn't a fictional story like with Jules & Matisse.”
“No. But that's different because it isn't a fictional story like with Jules & Matisse.”
People didn't vote for a story, they voted for a dog which could do amazing tricks, the story just gave it a little context.
But...but.... that's different. Hmmmmm no it's not, it's exactly the same.
They could have easily made a fictional story up which didn't involve walking across a tight rope.
Originally Posted by Mormon Girl:
“Actuallty since she and Jamie cheated I think they should admit they cheated re run the final but not let them take part”
“Actuallty since she and Jamie cheated I think they should admit they cheated re run the final but not let them take part”
Erm, Jamie didn't cheat. Neither did Jules, although it would of been nice to see all three dogs at the end
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“People didn't vote for a story, they voted for a dog which could do amazing tricks, the story just gave it a little context.
But...but.... that's different. Hmmmmm no it's not, it's exactly the same.
They could have easily made a fictional story up which didn't involve walking across a tight rope.”
“People didn't vote for a story, they voted for a dog which could do amazing tricks, the story just gave it a little context.
But...but.... that's different. Hmmmmm no it's not, it's exactly the same.
They could have easily made a fictional story up which didn't involve walking across a tight rope.”
I believe people did vote for the story actually. And all good stories involve peril; the tightrope was necessary.
Couldn't care less about the 3rd dog. Jules couldn't have said anything but she did. the fact is the dogs where trained by Jules and deserved to win
3 of 13
