Originally Posted by spkx:
“Basically, disqualify everyone until Revelation Choir win.”
“Basically, disqualify everyone until Revelation Choir win.”
Maybe jerefprdterra would shut the f**k up at last...
The mirror reports that the final should be run again!
4 of 6
Originally Posted by dellzincht:
“Maybe jerefprdterra would shut the f**k up at last...”
“Maybe jerefprdterra would shut the f**k up at last...”
Nice to see a polite poster on this forum NOT. Revelatiion Avenue were robbed of a place i the final.
Originally Posted by jerefprdterra:
“Nice to see a polite poster on this forum NOT. Revelatiion Avenue were robbed of a place i the final.”
“Nice to see a polite poster on this forum NOT. Revelatiion Avenue were robbed of a place i the final.”
No they weren't, they were blatantly not as popular with the voters as you seem to think they were. Didn't win their semi final and didn't even get the wildcard.
Originally Posted by spkx:
“Then that's their fault for not getting the full picture and they've no real right to complain.
It'd be a very annoying show to watch if every act had to explain what exactly it is they do every time they performed for the benefit of those who have tuned in to the last show of a 20 episode series.”
“Then that's their fault for not getting the full picture and they've no real right to complain.
It'd be a very annoying show to watch if every act had to explain what exactly it is they do every time they performed for the benefit of those who have tuned in to the last show of a 20 episode series.”
As if that would be necessary. It's pretty obvious what each act is as soon as they start performing.
However, a name like Jules and Matisse and using a dog double is misleading.
Originally Posted by jerefprdterra:
“Nice to see a polite poster on this forum NOT. Revelatiion Avenue were robbed of a place i the final.”
“Nice to see a polite poster on this forum NOT. Revelatiion Avenue were robbed of a place i the final.”
Robbed my a*se ..!!
I didn't vote for 'em, the public didn't vote for 'em, and at the end of the day even their "golden buzzer" champion Amanda realised she'd made a mistake and couldn't even be a*sed to vote for 'em ..!!
Get over it ..!!
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“And then you end up with a act that anyone can do and the Queen won't enjoy as much.
Jules & Matisse won. End of story.”
“And then you end up with a act that anyone can do and the Queen won't enjoy as much.
Jules & Matisse won. End of story.”
The "queen" (who doesn't come to the royal variety anyway), doesn't really enjoy any of this crap. Do you think a monarch wants to sit around watching a bunch of reality nonsense when she would prefer sitting in her bed reading a book with a gin and tonic.
Originally Posted by BelfastGuy125:
“The "queen" (who doesn't come to the royal variety anyway), doesn't really enjoy any of this crap. Do you think a monarch wants to sit around watching a bunch of reality nonsense when she would prefer sitting in her bed reading a book with a gin and tonic.”
“The "queen" (who doesn't come to the royal variety anyway), doesn't really enjoy any of this crap. Do you think a monarch wants to sit around watching a bunch of reality nonsense when she would prefer sitting in her bed reading a book with a gin and tonic.”
When it's a dog act?
Yes.
Id like to know if anyone who actually voted for jules and matisse would not have voted if they knew it was a different dog on the ropes. .I very much doubt it would have affected their decision. .
Some people on here sound ridiculous with their theories
Some people on here sound ridiculous with their theories
Originally Posted by shirlt9:
“Id like to know if anyone who actually voted for jules and matisse would not have voted if they knew it was a different dog on the ropes. .I very much doubt it would have affected their decision. .
Some people on here sound ridiculous with their theories”
“Id like to know if anyone who actually voted for jules and matisse would not have voted if they knew it was a different dog on the ropes. .I very much doubt it would have affected their decision. .
Some people on here sound ridiculous with their theories”
I voted for the wonder dog, and would not have if I had known a stand-in was used.
Originally Posted by shirlt9:
“Id like to know if anyone who actually voted for jules and matisse would not have voted if they knew it was a different dog on the ropes. .I very much doubt it would have affected their decision. .
Some people on here sound ridiculous with their theories”
“Id like to know if anyone who actually voted for jules and matisse would not have voted if they knew it was a different dog on the ropes. .I very much doubt it would have affected their decision. .
Some people on here sound ridiculous with their theories”
I voted for Jules and Matisse. Had I know Chase did the rope trick, I'd still have voted for Jules and Matisse.
Had there's been 100 stand it dogs all doing a tiny part of the act, I'd have voted for Jules and Matisse.
The whole thing was sold on Matisse, his personality, what a great dog he was, how he was everything to the owner etc. Not a mention for poor Cinderella the other dog. We didn't get its biog or a video diary. Oh No, just wheel him out to do the hardest trick. The public voted for the dog not for the 'act' as such. To only have Matisse and not the other dog on stage after was disingenuous. The intent was to mislead the audience into thinking there was only one 'main' star dog.
Originally Posted by skp20040:
“I really am stunned that people have so much spare time that they complain about this , is this how trivial life has become that a sodding talent show is number 1 priority and calls for fines, axings and sackings ??? sorry but its pathetic.,
As for The Mirror and the option to vote to give the money to the choir as Jamie was not performing real magic, due to a hole in the lemon well it shows the level our journalist's have sunk too.
Who would ever have thought that not everything you see on TV is as it appears. How will people cope when they find out that babies in soaps are played by about 4 different kids.”
“I really am stunned that people have so much spare time that they complain about this , is this how trivial life has become that a sodding talent show is number 1 priority and calls for fines, axings and sackings ??? sorry but its pathetic.,
As for The Mirror and the option to vote to give the money to the choir as Jamie was not performing real magic, due to a hole in the lemon well it shows the level our journalist's have sunk too.
Who would ever have thought that not everything you see on TV is as it appears. How will people cope when they find out that babies in soaps are played by about 4 different kids.”
This.
I thought it was ridiculous that a dog won but it did and that's that. If people now feel stupid because they thought it was a real magic dog or because the magician didn't really make the impossible happen, then tough really.
It's a light entertainment tv show, none of it really matters. By next week, most of us will barely remember who won let alone care
Originally Posted by dellzincht:
“No they weren't, they were blatantly not as popular with the voters as you seem to think they were. Didn't win their semi final and didn't even get the wildcard.”
“No they weren't, they were blatantly not as popular with the voters as you seem to think they were. Didn't win their semi final and didn't even get the wildcard.”
Yep. I think they ruined their own chances of getting the wild card by how ungracious they were in defeat. No one likes a bad loser and the were the sorest losers this year.
I liked them a lot in their audition but they lost out fair and square
Originally Posted by Soapster1:
“The public voted for the dog not for the 'act' as such.”
“The public voted for the dog not for the 'act' as such.”
well more fool them, then.
The show is called Britain's Got Talent, Talent being the key word.
It shouldn't be because Matisse is "cute" or "has a special bond with his owner"
it's about, "wow that dog(s) /are talented aren't they?" not "awww look how he loves his owner, that's cute...I'll vote for that"
Originally Posted by Blondie X:
“Yep. I think they ruined their own chances of getting the wild card by how ungracious they were in defeat. No one likes a bad loser and the were the sorest losers this year.
I liked them a lot in their audition but they lost out fair and square”
“Yep. I think they ruined their own chances of getting the wild card by how ungracious they were in defeat. No one likes a bad loser and the were the sorest losers this year.
I liked them a lot in their audition but they lost out fair and square”
What did they do?
In the end they set out to deceive as she put the first dog in at the bottom to make out that it was the same dog going across the ropes and then the original dog appeared at the bottom the other side. So the whole thing was designed to deceive.
Whether that bothers you or not is neither here nor there. People paid money in a vote on an act that had set out to deceive. They are strict laws against that to protect people from being conned.
Whether that bothers you or not is neither here nor there. People paid money in a vote on an act that had set out to deceive. They are strict laws against that to protect people from being conned.
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“In the Semi final, she was honest enough about the dogs. In the final she avoided showing or telling anyone about the stand-in dog until she had won the money, then she was happy enough to,do so, to me this is a cheat.”
“In the Semi final, she was honest enough about the dogs. In the final she avoided showing or telling anyone about the stand-in dog until she had won the money, then she was happy enough to,do so, to me this is a cheat.”
I agree she has cheated if she could have said before people voted that she used another dog for the tightrope then she may not have won.
Even if she used three dogs they are still trained and they managed to keep them going without having all the dogs break loose.
Paw choice of words.
Throw me a friclin' bone here.
Jules has been collared, and may no longer have the lead.
The public were sold a pup, and now feel they were given it doggy-style.
There should be a claws in contestants' contracts, no matter how well Cruft-ed the act.
Yep, probity is a bitch, aint it though?
Throw me a friclin' bone here.
Jules has been collared, and may no longer have the lead.
The public were sold a pup, and now feel they were given it doggy-style.
There should be a claws in contestants' contracts, no matter how well Cruft-ed the act.
Yep, probity is a bitch, aint it though?
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“Congratulations, you just won 'Over-reaction Of The Year'!
How do you feel? Or do you reckon you 'cheated' to win?”
“Congratulations, you just won 'Over-reaction Of The Year'!
How do you feel? Or do you reckon you 'cheated' to win?”
The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind...
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“And then you end up with a act that anyone can do and the Queen won't enjoy as much.
Jules & Matisse won. End of story.”
“And then you end up with a act that anyone can do and the Queen won't enjoy as much.
Jules & Matisse won. End of story.”
You mean, Jules, Matisse, Chase and Skippy .
Originally Posted by Old Endeavour:
“In the end they set out to deceive as she put the first dog in at the bottom to make out that it was the same dog going across the ropes and then the original dog appeared at the bottom the other side. So the whole thing was designed to deceive.
Whether that bothers you or not is neither here nor there. People paid money in a vote on an act that had set out to deceive. They are strict laws against that to protect people from being conned.”
“In the end they set out to deceive as she put the first dog in at the bottom to make out that it was the same dog going across the ropes and then the original dog appeared at the bottom the other side. So the whole thing was designed to deceive.
Whether that bothers you or not is neither here nor there. People paid money in a vote on an act that had set out to deceive. They are strict laws against that to protect people from being conned.”
Not forgetting the £250,000 . I think the fairest thing now would be to split the £250,000 between all the finalists .
Originally Posted by Paace:
“Not forgetting the £250,000 . I think the fairest thing now would be to split the £250,000 between all the finalists .”
“Not forgetting the £250,000 . I think the fairest thing now would be to split the £250,000 between all the finalists .”
You cannot be serious.
Originally Posted by Paace:
“Not forgetting the £250,000 . I think the fairest thing now would be to split the £250,000 between all the finalists .”
“Not forgetting the £250,000 . I think the fairest thing now would be to split the £250,000 between all the finalists .”
That's the exact opposite of the fair thing to do. Because doing that would mean the 0.023% of people who complained would be taking away the vote for the other 99.9% who are happy. And that's not how things work. And nor should it be. Because it's the very opposite of fair.
The final received 1043 complaints. 90 of those were about Amanda's dress. Some (I don't know exact numbers) were about Jamie's Raven not using magic to put the note in the Lemon. Some were about Alisha's dress. So not even all of the 1043 complaints were about Jules.
Given the final received 4.5 millions votes. That means all but an absolutely minute minority of those voters are happy.
So why exactly do you feel it would be fair for 1043 people to dictate the outcome decided by 4.5 million people?
The tiny 2% Jamie lost by was actually around 90k votes. And if 90k people have come forward to complain then yes, the prize money should be investigated and perhaps something should happen. But as it stands less than 1k people have complained about Jules. Had those 1k people voted differently it would have had zero impact on the result. Had 10k/20k/30k people votes differently it still would have had zero impacts on the result.
You didn't like the act. Great for you. But the overwhelming majority of people who voted have no issue. And what your suggesting is plainly and simply ridiculous. And the absolute opposite of fair.
4 of 6
