|
||||||||
Why not complain about Jesse Jane McParland? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
Well that is not fair for kids who want to enter in a group with people 16 and older so no it shouldn't be 16+
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,444
|
Quote:
They could make a rule that it's fine if they enter in a group with members above 16 and introduce a separate show for kids to compete in on CITV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
Do you hate kids that much? Connie, George, Faryl, Kieran, The Cheeky Monkeys, Gabz and Jack Carrol handled the pressure of the show well. Why CITV why can't it be shown on ITV with all 4 judges as the judges and Ant and Dec as the presenters. Maybe Little Brittains Got Talent could be shown during half term week for under 16s and normal BGT for mostly and adults and kids in a group with people 16 and older or a child with their parent like Stavros Flatley the following week.
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,444
|
Quote:
They could show it on ITV but there's already two Syco shows on there. Another one would possibly be overkill. If they had it on CITV, it could be a kid's Syco talent show with different judges who appeal more to a young audience such as Barney Harwood or maybe Stephen Mulhern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,996
|
Quote:
People are complaining about a third dog in Jules & Matisse's act, so why not complain about Jesse Jane McParland wiedling a sword?
After all, a kid shouldn't be playing with swords. It's highly dangerous and a much more worthy thing to complain about than a third dog in a acting dog act. The majority of people aren't complaining because the dog act was dangerous, it's because she led us to believe that it was Matisse who walked the tightrope, when it was another dog. She lied to us. |
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 17,332
|
The demonstration swords are not real ones, even Shaolin monks use bendy ones when doing some of their TV displays. Doubt she could cut a loaf of bread with the one she used on TV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
No I want Ant and Dec to present it and the same judges to judge it. And why should CITV show that goes off air at 6pm. There is a reason BGT is on during half term week.
One judge out of four. They wouldn't be able to stick with the same judges. To be honest, I think the main people watching a Children's BGT would be kids so it would make sense for it to be on CITV IMO. |
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
There were countless dangerous acts throughout the series, you can't compare one dangerous act (who you obviously didn't like, I should add) to what Jules and Matisse did.
The majority of people aren't complaining because the dog act was dangerous, it's because she led us to believe that it was Matisse who walked the tightrope, when it was another dog. She lied to us. |
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,996
|
Quote:
If anyone 'lied', it wasn't her but the producers.
This led us to think it was Matisse who walked on the tightrope, which was not true. |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
Jules could do the routine differently, and make the extra dog more obvious (like she did in the semi), but at NO POINT in the final were both dogs on stage. Not even at the end.
This led us to think it was Matisse who walked on the tightrope, which was not true. |
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,996
|
Quote:
Because the producers told her not to bring Chase out. There is absolutely no way you can blame Jules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
|
Quote:
Prove it.
The default assumptions here should be that Jules didn't do anything she's denied, and that the producers DID do things they HAVE admitted. At this point, other than Simon arguably lying about what he did or didn't know, the show overall seems to have admitted to being responsible for how her act was billed, and Jules doesn't appear to have been doing anything other than following instructions. The seeming need of the people here, the papers, and the GBP overall to crucify this poor lady are a shocking statement on British society. Reality shows lie, yes, I think we can assume that based on tons of things. But there's no reason to extend that to Jules short of proof. Innocent until proven otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
Prove it.
Quote:
"The moment I found out I literally put my head in my hands. I spoke to a lot of people after, and I did raise my voice," the music mogul explained to The Mirror. "But it was mainly people owning up to it. They felt embarrassed, they felt frustrated, they felt stupid, but you've got to man up to this stuff." Quote:
Cowell said he spoke with O'Dwyer for an hour over the phone in an attempt to reassure and placate her, continuing: "I feel that I let her down and that the show let her down. "She shouldn't have to be in this position because she didn't do anything wrong. But I hopefully reassured her she should put on a very good show for the Queen. Quote:
And despite rumours that there will be multiple sackings at ITV, he reiterated: "The producers are absolutely gutted. I was so depressed yesterday for the show, for Jules and for the producers themselves, because they are not horrible people. "They made a stupid mistake on a live show. They didn't think about how it would appear. I was frustrated because I didn't really know what I was judging until afterwards so I felt like a bit of an idiot." Quote:
"It wasn't one person saying 'hide the dog', so I welcome any investigation so [Jules] can walk out with her head held high."
It is a FACT.
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,996
|
Both were at fault. Jules should've called the act something else, as she obviously knew what each dog was capable of doing, and knew she'd use more than one dog if she went through to the live shows.
The main reason they won was because of the trick on the tightrope (as the rest of the act was nothing that special). It was Chase's trick that won the show, and he's not even acknowledged. |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
Both were at fault. Jules should've called the act something else, as she obviously knew what each dog was capable of doing, and knew she'd use more than one dog if she went through to the live shows.
The main reason they won was because of the trick on the tightrope (as the rest of the act was nothing that special). It was Chase's trick that won the show, and he's not even acknowledged. And who would want to generalise a act's name? The very people in charge of the show: the producers. |
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,996
|
If what your saying is true, and it bothered her that much, then she'd walk away, but she was obviously happy enough to enter the show, and do whatever these "evil producers" told her too.
I could understand if it was a child, but she's a grown woman. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
If what your saying is true, and it bothered her that much, then she'd walk away, but she was obviously happy enough to enter the show, and do whatever these "evil producers" told her too.
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34.



