|
||||||||
So even Stephen Mulhern had no clue on the dog switch |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
So even Stephen Mulhern had no clue on the dog switch
Stephen Mulhern on BGT's Jules & Matisse stunt dog controversy: 'We had no clue'
Read more: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s107/...#ixzz3cAIRRudD Follow us: @digitalspy on Twitter | digitalspyuk on Facebook So for everyone saying we should have noticed, even a close-up presenter had no idea. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,440
|
Specsavers should be making a fortune at the moment
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,635
|
I'm eagerly awaiting the next thread "So Kevin the stage hand didn't know either"
I'm sure we can cover every eventuality with a new thread in the end
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,202
|
I love that not only is she clearly a fantastic dog trainer, she is a far, far better illusionist than the runner-up. Truly a worthy winner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
I'm eagerly awaiting the next thread "So Kevin the stage hand didn't know either"
I'm sure we can cover every eventuality with a new thread in the end ![]() |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,289
|
Do people seriously believe this.
Mulhearn does the after show, will interview all the acts, observe rehearsals which will go on for hours, hang around backstage etc etc Did he really never notice there was more than one dog being used in the act - or that Jules had several dogs all this time. And Cowell didn't know either. Why do they insult people's intelligence! |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Loony fae Aberdeen
Posts: 8,195
|
Quote:
And 'So random guy on the front row didn't know either'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
I didn't know. Can I have a thread?
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
|
If the thread wasn't started by this user I would have put money on it being a joke.
I laughed out loud when I read the title
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,968
|
This is just getting ridiculous now. It's a bloody dog act! We didn't just discover that Obama has been having it away with Putin fgs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,424
|
Quote:
I love that not only is she clearly a fantastic dog trainer, she is a far, far better illusionist than the runner-up. Truly a worthy winner.
So nobody saw her rehearsing nor was aware of an extra dog backstage? Chase isn't a handbag sized Chihuahua. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
It doesn't matter if you spotted it or not (even though those claiming they did, didn't come forward with anything until days later) but it does show that the whole thing was set up to deceive. That is what is wrong. She won on the back of an act set up to deceive. That's illegal as far as the money paying voters are concerned and totally unfair to other contestants.
Well, whatever happens, this stunt has damaged any chance of her having a career at this. People don't like being conned and this has left this act with a dirty mark against its name. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
Quote:
It doesn't matter if you spotted it or not (even though those claiming they did, didn't come forward with anything until days later) but it does show that the whole thing was set up to deceive. That is what is wrong. She won on the back of an act set up to deceive. That's illegal as far as the money paying voters are concerned and totally unfair to other contestants.
Well, whatever happens, this stunt has damaged any chance of her having a career at this. People don't like being conned and this has left this act with a dirty mark against its name. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
I have no-idea that this is not being taken serious as yes, by putting the dog behind a panel for the switch and not bring it out at the end it def seems to be a con, and should be looked into.
Just because 2 fans of her act are spamming this forum and shouting down anyone who rightfully feels that justice should be done, is neither here nor there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,202
|
Quote:
That is what is wrong. She won on the back of an act set up to deceive. That's illegal as far as the money paying voters are concerned and totally unfair to other contestants.
She didn't set out to deceive anyone. If she had, she might not have made the cardinal error of leaving the correct dog's collars on, and telling everyone who would listen that Chase performed the tightrope walk. The fact that nobody noticed at the time (hint: you're not supposed to) means she (and her dogs) performed the act very well. Far better than the magician himself fared. Suck it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
|
Quote:
Do people seriously believe this.
Mulhearn does the after show, will interview all the acts, observe rehearsals which will go on for hours, hang around backstage etc etc Did he really never notice there was more than one dog being used in the act - or that Jules had several dogs all this time. And Cowell didn't know either. Why do they insult people's intelligence! Mulhearn has no reason to. He certainly knew how many dogs there were and that they were all in the act, but the details of a SPECIFIC performance, which dog did what on that day I mean, likely wasn't something he had any REASON to know. Because its NO BIG DEAL. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
|
Quote:
There should certainly be a full investigation as money in a vote was involved and that is covered by some serious laws.
Just because 2 fans of her act are spamming this forum and shouting down anyone who rightfully feels that justice should be done, is neither here nor there. "Money in a vote" was involved, but the cost of a legal investigation and court proceedings FAR outstrips whatever few pence you think was "stolen" from you--even multiplied by every vote received for her on that episode. Do you really think recovering your petty, tiny investment in this show is worth wasting MILLIONS of pounds to force it through the legal system? |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6,967
|
Good grief, how obsessed are some people? Foaming at the mouth in rage about a light entertainment show on TV. Is there nothing more important in life that they have to post so many times on this? Get a life does come to mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
|
Quote:
Good grief, how obsessed are some people? Foaming at the mouth in rage about a light entertainment show on TV. Is there nothing more important in life that they have to post so many times on this? Get a life does come to mind.
![]() Honestly, the funniest part of this to me is some of these same posters occasionally appear in the Big Brother forum defending everything about that travesty of a show (which commits FAR bigger fraud). Again, not that BGT isn't also chock full of lies and fraud. But it's Simon and the producers doing it. Blaming some poor woman stuck in the middle of this is just pathetic. I mean if people are really THAT outraged, then you need to protest with your TV remote. Don't WATCH next series. And leave the poor contestants alone. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
Quote:
Are you SERIOUS?
"Money in a vote" was involved, but the cost of a legal investigation and court proceedings FAR outstrips whatever few pence you think was "stolen" from you--even multiplied by every vote received for her on that episode. Do you really think recovering your petty, tiny investment in this show is worth wasting MILLIONS of pounds to force it through the legal system? |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,202
|
Quote:
Few pence, she won 1/4 millions pound, plus her future 'Hollywood career etc'
If the people that paid her that £250,000 think they have been defrauded, then that's quite a different matter. I await with bated breath to see if they begin legal proceedings
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
Oh no, a Hollywood career? Better sue Paul Potts as well then, he got a MOVIE made out of his life story and we all voted him the winner even though he wasn't just a Carphone Warehouse salesman!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
Quote:
Oh no, a Hollywood career? Better sue Paul Potts as well then, he got a MOVIE made out of his life story and we all voted him the winner even though he wasn't just a Carphone Warehouse salesman!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,202
|
Quote:
It was a least his voice and his was not miming to a backing singer!
Thing is, he could mime, if he wanted to. We see outright miming acts all the time (I'm thinking guys in high heels miming along to 'Single Ladies', for example). We see singing acts strongly enhanced by backing singers and vocal effects. The question is "was I entertained by that act?", not "do I fully understand the minutiae of what I have just seen?" |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
The complaints to Ofcom are getting large, so a lot of people do feel conned, really hope they look into it and make BGT strip of her from the title, and refund the money to phone-ins.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34.



