Exactly. And though he didn't end up in the bottom 2 last week, his performance was absolutely dreadful - sliding round all over the place. There's no way he's ready for something like this.

I think ALW took the opportunity to get rid of him because he would have been a handful. perhaps he is looking for someone he can mould and will listen to direction.

I was really surprised to see Seamus in the bottom two last night, but it's totally down to his attitude why he was there. He looked the part and could sing, his only problem was his ego. Had to go eventually, I think ALW has taught him a valuable lesson, although he probably won't take notice.
At first I thought 'show of my own' was actually 'Jo' of my own, but then my boyf gently pointed me in the right direction. Once he said that I stopped being suprised.
Lee to win, he's gorgeous, and really talented!

There is no way people would pay £50 or whatever a ticket to watch that arrogant twit good singer or not, IMO Ben totally outsung him in the sing off and deserved to stay

I wouldn't pay 50p to see Ben, but I'd certainly pay good money to see Seamus. Not £50 (I'd never pay that for anything), but I'd certainly be happy to pay.

Dont think there would be many with you BTW not saying I am a Ben fan just that he outsang him in the sing off, its Lee for me

Yes maybe people wouldn't pay to see Ben but because Seamus was such an arrogant whatever Andrew Lloyd Webber would have probably saved anyone in order to get rid of him. I think once you start criticising the show's editing on live telly you're time's up!!

That'll rule Daniel out, then

Just seen this on the BBC's Joseph website:

""What an extraordinary sing-off," mused Andrew. "I asked for emotion, and I got it." In the end, he voted to save Ben, meaning that Seamus left us tonight. Seamus joked that the result must have been a conspiracy, and Andrew urged him to see this as a stepping stone to future success."

LOL That made me laugh! Oh I understand now; he was just joking! How hysterical that was!
Last edited by Author 007 : 29-04-2007 at 16:17

For all his talents he hasn't yet mastered comic timing

TBH Chris saying he disagreed with ALW was also embarrassing (for him). ALW has an opinion and is there to give that. Perhaps an 'I'm sorry I gave that impression' but not to disagree. If you fall apart on camera and your ability to cope is questioned they do have a valid point.
Last edited by Kez100 : 29-04-2007 at 18:09

Every series has to have an unlikeable character. Remember in 'Maria' it was that girl with the witch-like nose who pulled out just before the live shows?

i totally agree with you

Ben is appalling - he sounds like his voice hasn't broken fully and moves like a robot. He is only still there because they were determined to get rid of Seamus.

I'm just curious as to why. Did Seamus change totally after they'd picked the finallists? What did he do or say that made them spin so hard against him - because they did. From week one we've been told how arrogant he is. When there was no 'incriminating' footage, a panellist would bring it up. Seamus was genuinely one of the best performers in the show, and without being fed all the helpful little bits of 'background' footage showing people beavering away in cement factory portacabins and grannys holding up banners, the public would, IMO, have put him in the final four easily.
All Seamus's critics seem to agree on his shortcomings - and they have nothing whatsoever to do with his performance; so rather than allow the public simply to assess him on that and risk letting him win, we've had a drip-drip-drip of negativity from the panel, constantly mentioning his 'arrogance' when they're supposed to be commenting on what he does on stage. On Saturday, when Bill Kenwright finally said something quite nice about his personality, good old Denise was quick to jump in and say the opposite.
Now Andrew Lloyd Webber didn't become a multimillionnaire simply by taking personal dislikes to talented people, so what did Seamus do or say that was so wrong? I have never seen a talent show entrant so remorselessly spun against, and think there's more to this than meets the eye.
Last edited by The Swampster : 29-04-2007 at 20:35

i couldn't believe it when he changed the words..i bet andrew was mad! it's a bit insulting i think!

If there is a big reason perhaps we will find the story gets sold.

Absolutely. And unless there was a strong reason which made him angry I can't see Seamus fighting his corner on National TV the way he tried to. He's not that daft. Why would he risk such a golden opportunity to show himself at his best? Being in the last twelve is great exposure for anybody.

I couldn't disagree with this more strongly. IMO Seamus did indeed have one of the better VOICES in the show, but was far from being one of the best performers. His singing style and showmanship were arrogant and "showy-offy" and he showed a complete lack of ability to ACT a song - nowhere more prominently displayed than in the final sing-off last night. ALW is looking for a charismatic lead who can sing, but perhaps even more importantly can ACT the role of Joseph - which requires the actor to display great comedic timing and likeability. Seamus clearly couldn't do this and that, to me, is his greatest shortcoming - and the one which led ALW to get rid of him last night. The show didn't need to "risk" letting him win as you put it - it was clear that he was disliked by the panel, by the other Josephs, by the studio audience who booed his "conspiracy theory" comment, and finally last night by the audience at home who decided not to vote for him.

There's no smoke without fire.......

You read my mind


Very true.

The selective editing in Seamus' VTs reminded me of the way Darius was portrayed in 'Popstars'.


Daniel doesn't have a problem listening to direction. When he understudied in 'The War of the Worlds', he knew that should he have to fill in for any of the male performers any evening, he would be expected to portray the role and perform the song as close as possible to the original version or to the version by the performer regularly playing the role on the tour. As it turned out, he only had to fill in for Russell Watson and even then, only in the dress rehearsal.

Like anyone with a modicum of talent and half a brain, Daniel has opinions. There's nothing wrong with that.
Last edited by Forever Awkward : 29-04-2007 at 21:56

Double post

Great post!

I'm sorry - but this talk of "selective editing" really gets on my nerves. Reality producers and directors only pick up on what is happening within the group - and reflect that in the VTs. If Seamus was being an arrogant arse, trying to give unwanted advice to the other contestants, then clearly that is going to get shown on TV. In the same way that Daniel's disagreement with ALW and the numerous cry-baby incidents get shown - none of which show the respective Josephs in a positive light.

In normal reality shows the contestants don't get to see how they are being portrayed. No such excuses in Joseph - they see it each week. The clever contestant - when realising that a negative part of their personality is being portrayed - then alters the offending behaviour. I think we can assume Daniel was eating humble pie this week as a response to his less than flattering spat with ALW last week. The STUPID contestant - and yes I'm talking about Seamus here - ignores the VT shown on the first week, and furthermore makes it worse with his "I don't understand team" comment in the second week. Add to this the "Lee is my only real competition" line and it's no wonder that the viewing public turned against him.

As I've posted before - editing cannot make people SAY things that they didn't say - it can only highlight specific things. The producers chose to highlight Seamus' arrogance - but it was up to the viewers to decide whether they liked or agreed with what they saw. They didn't like it - they didn't agree with it - and so he got voted off......
Last edited by FeelTheForce : 29-04-2007 at 22:59

Yep. I never found him likeable but I was always interested in watching what he would come up with in his pefromances. I remember posting after the first show that Seamus' intro was unfair and the judges judged him too personally by being 'arrogant' and not team player. We were also camera-fed Antonys weeping girlfriend to add extra Aaah factor to his performance It was bordering on blatant. Someone didn't like him from the very start so it seems.


Feeltheforce: I think the producers happily chop away at footage to give us an inkling of things, but I also think they know full well that stirring things a bit doesn't do ratings any harm. They were bigging up the rivalry between Daniel and Lee last night, but we don't hear the questions they are asked before they reply. It's all in the phrasing, which we won't hear. We're left wth our imagination and form our own opinions of their 'personality' from a few minutes of footage. We haven't a clue what they're like really.

Absolutely.

Feeltheforce - I think your post shows a bit of naivety about the way not just these shows but a lot of the media works.

With the greatest of respect, I am anything but naive about how these shows and the media work. But Seamus cited, along with several posters, the notion of "conspiracy". There is no conspiracy, there is just reflecting what is happening - both in the Joseph house - and the views and opinions of the viewers at home.

Seamus acted a certain way - it gets shown.

Ben's girlfriend gets really emotional - the director shows that moment of "live reaction"

EVERYONE on this thread and others, and I can therefore presume many people at home, seem to think the show is a two horse race between Lee & Daniel, so OF COURSE the producers of the show are going to question them both on this - and their responses were very interesting. It doesn't really matter WHAT the question was before it - the statements they made, we can only assume, are true and honest.

Reality TV has to gauge the mood in the Joseph house, the mood of the judges, and the mood of the viewers at home. That's all that the producers and directors are doing...if people weren't talking about Seamus being arrogant, or Lee vs Daniel it wouldn't get shown.

I agree that sometimes we are steered to certain narratives - of course we are - but these are narratives that EXIST - not ones that are fabricated.

I thought he acted it better, Ben just looked like he thought he was going.


I don't think there was anything clear about it at all. All the performances I saw from Seamus were very good. Of course, if you get a tuneless number like Start Me Up, which invites you to stomp around like an arrogant twit, as opposed to, say, Mack The Knife or The Lady Is A Tramp, which invite a display of comedic timing and likeability, it's hard to show that you're capable of it. Could Seamus have done that? Well luckily for ALW, the public will never know.


It is not at all clear that he was disliked by the other Josephs. The panel were the ones who endlessly complained about him, not the other competitors. When McFly were asked who they liked best they said Seamus (being pop singers and unconnected with the show, I can only assume someone forgot to put them 'on message'). I believe the viewers disliked him because of the 'arrogant' background story they were fed, not his performance. Had Seamus's background story been interviews with his white-haired old gran saying what a kind boy he is, or the bigging up of an occasional job in a cement factory, the public would not have placed him at the bottom, IMO.



The justification for witch burners everywhere.