• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • TV Shows: Reality
  • Britain's Got Talent
So even Stephen Mulhern had no clue on the dog switch
<<
<
1 of 5
>>
>
myscimitar
05-06-2015
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.
Helenbemerry
05-06-2015
Specsavers should be making a fortune at the moment
JasonWatkins
05-06-2015
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
pjc229
05-06-2015
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.
Dalekbuster523
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by JasonWatkins:
“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 ”

And 'So random guy on the front row didn't know either'.
MARTYM8
05-06-2015
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!
nessyfencer
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“And 'So random guy on the front row didn't know either'.”

I didn't know. Can I have a thread?
Dalekbuster523
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by nessyfencer:
“I didn't know. Can I have a thread?”

Ask and you shall receive.
Sarah Anne
05-06-2015
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
tellywatcher73
05-06-2015
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.
spikewoman
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by pjc229:
“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.”

She really must be.

So nobody saw her rehearsing nor was aware of an extra dog backstage? Chase isn't a handbag sized Chihuahua.
Old Endeavour
05-06-2015
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.
myscimitar
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by Old Endeavour:
“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.”

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.
Old Endeavour
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“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.”

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.
pjc229
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by Old Endeavour:
“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.”

It's not illegal, you should stop saying that as you make yourself look more and more stupid each time. Compound your indignance with the fact that you yourself are a STAGE HYPNOTIST, just about the biggest con/deceit of the audience going, and I laugh in your face at your hypocrisy. It's truly breathtaking.

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.
Kromm
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“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!”

Cowell knew. He's lying through his teeth saying otherwise. The whole production team knew everything about the act, and Simon as much as he tries to act like he's not a producer, when it's convenient, knows everything of any importance going on with his shows.

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.
Kromm
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by Old Endeavour:
“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.”

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?
Daewos
05-06-2015
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.
Kromm
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by Daewos:
“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.”

Or just get a dog and enjoy one doing tricks in your own home!

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.
myscimitar
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by Kromm:
“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?”

Few pence, she won 1/4 millions pound, plus her future 'Hollywood career etc' if you remember the guy in 'Who wants to be a millionaire' was taken to court.
pjc229
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“Few pence, she won 1/4 millions pound, plus her future 'Hollywood career etc'”

And it's well-deserved.

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
dellzincht
05-06-2015
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!
myscimitar
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by dellzincht:
“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!”

It was a least his voice and his was not miming to a backing singer!
pjc229
05-06-2015
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“It was a least his voice and his was not miming to a backing singer!”

And it was Jules's dog, that she trained.

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?"
myscimitar
05-06-2015
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.
<<
<
1 of 5
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map