Most people on here are just bitter their ''favourite'' didn't win, even if Jules had said last night that there was a 3rd dog they still would have got my votes
Jules O’Dwyer used three dogs in final performance, not two
6 of 13
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“You are so illogical.
The who point of Jamies act is deception and illusion, the whole point of Matisses act is for him to perform tricks.
So when the dog is presented as performing a trick which it actually didn't how is this OK?”
“You are so illogical.
The who point of Jamies act is deception and illusion, the whole point of Matisses act is for him to perform tricks.
So when the dog is presented as performing a trick which it actually didn't how is this OK?”
Because acting dogs do tend to have their own stunt doubles anyway, unless you think Lassie was played by the same dog.
Quote:
“Like I said before, if Jamie performed a dangerous trick, but then it turned out it wasn't him, would that be OK?”
“Like I said before, if Jamie performed a dangerous trick, but then it turned out it wasn't him, would that be OK?”
No because he's not a actor.
The problem here is that we were not told. If they mentioned just before or just after then that would be ok.
The fact is the act is 'Jules and Matisse', while other dogs have been included that is fine. We were led to believe that Matisse was the main dog when in fact it wasn't, in the final, in what we judged on to win. That is naughty, but not hanging offence.
The fact is the act is 'Jules and Matisse', while other dogs have been included that is fine. We were led to believe that Matisse was the main dog when in fact it wasn't, in the final, in what we judged on to win. That is naughty, but not hanging offence.
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“Because acting dogs do tend to have their own stunt doubles anyway, unless you think Lassie was played by the same dog.
No because he's not a actor.”
“Because acting dogs do tend to have their own stunt doubles anyway, unless you think Lassie was played by the same dog.
No because he's not a actor.”
Completely irrelevant.
The dog isn't an actor, it's doing tricks and stunts, it's not "acting"
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“Completely irrelevant.
The dog isn't an actor, it's doing tricks and stunts, it's not "acting"”
“Completely irrelevant.
The dog isn't an actor, it's doing tricks and stunts, it's not "acting"”
It is a actor. It was acting out a story.
Originally Posted by Mandark:
“I guess both the dog and the magician were trying to deceive us so they're as bad as each other!
”
“I guess both the dog and the magician were trying to deceive us so they're as bad as each other!
”
No we all know what a magician is... slight of hand... but some supporters believed this woman and her dogs.. I would only vote to have her thrown out of the charade.. I didnt like her or her using those animals for her own benefit .
Originally Posted by Trmcg5:
“Did she train the dog to do that? If so, then I see no problem with that at all.”
“Did she train the dog to do that? If so, then I see no problem with that at all.”
Stop talking sense.
Originally Posted by all_night:
“The problem here is that we were not told. If they mentioned just before or just after then that would be ok.
The fact is the act is 'Jules and Matisse', while other dogs have been included that is fine. We were led to believe that Matisse was the main dog when in fact it wasn't, in the final, in what we judged on to win. That is naughty, but not hanging offence.”
“The problem here is that we were not told. If they mentioned just before or just after then that would be ok.
The fact is the act is 'Jules and Matisse', while other dogs have been included that is fine. We were led to believe that Matisse was the main dog when in fact it wasn't, in the final, in what we judged on to win. That is naughty, but not hanging offence.”
This! I'm glad she won but just wished she showed all 3 dogs at the end.
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“Thank you.
The reason it's nothing like a film stunt double is because this act is all about a dog doing friggin tricks and stunts..... the story was just a nice little side piece. To then find out the actual star of the show didn't perform all of the tricks and stunts, which are 90% the reason why it's so good is misleading, it's a fact and no stupid analogy or comparison to a Hollywood film will change that. You are just wrong.”
“Thank you.
The reason it's nothing like a film stunt double is because this act is all about a dog doing friggin tricks and stunts..... the story was just a nice little side piece. To then find out the actual star of the show didn't perform all of the tricks and stunts, which are 90% the reason why it's so good is misleading, it's a fact and no stupid analogy or comparison to a Hollywood film will change that. You are just wrong.”
And it was! 'a dog' walked a tightrope.
Originally Posted by calamity:
“No we all know what a magician is... slight of hand... but some supporters believed this woman and her dogs.. I would only vote to have her thrown out of the charade.. I didnt like her or her using those animals for her own benefit .”
“No we all know what a magician is... slight of hand... but some supporters believed this woman and her dogs.. I would only vote to have her thrown out of the charade.. I didnt like her or her using those animals for her own benefit .”
What nonsense. It's not just 'her' benefit. The dogs also get the benefit of having fun.
Originally Posted by calamity:
“No we all know what a magician is... slight of hand... but some supporters believed this woman and her dogs.. I would only vote to have her thrown out of the charade.. I didnt like her or her using those animals for her own benefit .”
“No we all know what a magician is... slight of hand... but some supporters believed this woman and her dogs.. I would only vote to have her thrown out of the charade.. I didnt like her or her using those animals for her own benefit .”
I know. The dogs looked so unhappy. Not a wagging tail in sight. No gleaming coat or anything. The PDSA need to be called ASAP.
Ps. I'm being sarcastic.
Originally Posted by Lyceum:
“I know. The dogs looked so unhappy. Not a wagging tail in sight. No gleaming coat or anything. The PDSA need to be called ASAP.
Ps. I'm being sarcastic.”
“I know. The dogs looked so unhappy. Not a wagging tail in sight. No gleaming coat or anything. The PDSA need to be called ASAP.
Ps. I'm being sarcastic.”
I bet the woman dumps her poor dogs in a canal and beats them with a brush.
(Also sarcasm)
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“I bet the woman dumps her poor dogs in a canal and beats them with a brush.
(Also sarcasm)”
“I bet the woman dumps her poor dogs in a canal and beats them with a brush.
(Also sarcasm)”
the brush I believe.... and Im not being sarky..
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“I bet the woman dumps her poor dogs in a canal and beats them with a brush.
”
“I bet the woman dumps her poor dogs in a canal and beats them with a brush.
”
She is an animal trainer not some doting little old lady with a houseful of cats and dogs, what does she do with them when they are too old or ill to earn her some money.?
Not that it bothers me at all (didn't vote) but I think it was misleading in the same way that the girl doing all shouting and waving knives about would've been if a stunt double had carried out part of her act cos she couldn't do it.
The act was based on how impressive the talent of the dog, Matisse is (or how well it has been trained). It's equally impressive that the woman has trained multiple dogs to that standard but it should probably be billed as such, eg Jules and her dogs.
The act was based on how impressive the talent of the dog, Matisse is (or how well it has been trained). It's equally impressive that the woman has trained multiple dogs to that standard but it should probably be billed as such, eg Jules and her dogs.
Bosses have now released an apology statement: http://www.twitcelebgossip.com/15053...d-a-stunt-dog/
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“You are so illogical.
The who point of Jamies act is deception and illusion, the whole point of Matisses act is for him to perform tricks.
So when the dog is presented as performing a trick which it actually didn't how is this OK?
Like I said before, if Jamie performed a dangerous trick, but then it turned out it wasn't him, would that be OK?”
“You are so illogical.
The who point of Jamies act is deception and illusion, the whole point of Matisses act is for him to perform tricks.
So when the dog is presented as performing a trick which it actually didn't how is this OK?
Like I said before, if Jamie performed a dangerous trick, but then it turned out it wasn't him, would that be OK?”
So when magicians use uncredited doubles to perform a trick should they come out the end and explain that then?
Originally Posted by SpyInsider:
“Bosses have now released an apology statement: http://www.twitcelebgossip.com/15053...d-a-stunt-dog/”
“Bosses have now released an apology statement: http://www.twitcelebgossip.com/15053...d-a-stunt-dog/”
It genuinely beggars belief that people have complained and moaned that much the they've issues an apology.
Seriously. Do people have nothing better to do with their time than complain that the 'wrong' dog walked the tightrope.
Talk about third world problems.
The producers clearly knew there were two dogs. It's not as though she could hide it in rehearsals is it. Or hide a dog on her pocket backstage before she went on. If they all wanted it kept hidden then this morning Jules wouldn't have uttered a word about it would she. And if asked denied it and said it was in fact Matisse.
On Facebook last night a friend of Jules (I follow a lot of dog rescue pages and she was on one of those). Commented that it was Chase who had done the rope walk. That was right after the final.
So it was hardly this big secret deception some are making it out to be.
If you honestly have nothing better to do with your life than to actually call/email/write and complain about a dog walking a rope I feel sorry for you.
Personally I say well bloody done Jules. Absolutely deserved winner.
Originally Posted by AvinAGiraffe:
“Not that it bothers me at all (didn't vote) but I think it was misleading in the same way that the girl doing all shouting and waving knives about would've been if a stunt double had carried out part of her act cos she couldn't do it.
The act was based on how impressive the talent of the dog, Matisse is (or how well it has been trained). It's equally impressive that the woman has trained multiple dogs to that standard but it should probably be billed as such, eg Jules and her dogs.”
“Not that it bothers me at all (didn't vote) but I think it was misleading in the same way that the girl doing all shouting and waving knives about would've been if a stunt double had carried out part of her act cos she couldn't do it.
The act was based on how impressive the talent of the dog, Matisse is (or how well it has been trained). It's equally impressive that the woman has trained multiple dogs to that standard but it should probably be billed as such, eg Jules and her dogs.”
But we know that she has other dogs as part of her act, they were the ones millions voted for to get into the final in the first place.
Originally Posted by valkay:
“She is an animal trainer not some doting little old lady with a houseful of cats and dogs, what does she do with them when they are too old or ill to earn her some money.?”
“She is an animal trainer not some doting little old lady with a houseful of cats and dogs, what does she do with them when they are too old or ill to earn her some money.?”
No doubt chucks them out the back door because she can't be bothered anymore, or just starved them or some other such malarkey. Because it wasn't at all clear just how much she adored the dogs she's rescued from the dog pounds.
(Ps. Sarcasm again).
Originally Posted by spkx:
“But we know that she has other dogs as part of her act, they were the ones millions voted for to get into the final in the first place.”
“But we know that she has other dogs as part of her act, they were the ones millions voted for to get into the final in the first place.”
Not everyone who watched the final watched the semi final and the auditions - I didn't. And I had no idea that another dog might be used. I agree with AvinAGiraffe - having one, two or three dogs doesn't make the talent of the act any less impressive, but as a viewer having seen the act for the first time, was under the impression that it was the talent of one particular dog that we were being asked to vote for. All dogs used in the act should have been acknowledged at the end - as it is, the dog who performed arguably the most difficult part of the routine didn't get any acknowledgement.
Originally Posted by Sansa_Snow:
“It would be like for a singer's act having someone hidden off stage singing the high notes”
“It would be like for a singer's act having someone hidden off stage singing the high notes”
No it wouldn't. At all.
The 'talent' here is in the training of the dog. It doesn't matter if it's one dog or the other.
Frankly, I think training multiple dogs, working on the same routine is MORE impressive.
6 of 13
