Yes, I agree. Something has gone on that we are not privvy to. As May Blossom said, Ben is a goner anyway and ALW knows this so he took his chance to get rid of Seamus.

It's so obvious that Daniel and Lee will be in the final...and I hope Rob, don't know why?
Last edited by Chilli Dragon : 01-05-2007 at 13:49

ALW mentioned to Denise after watching Seamus forget his lines at the loin cloth sing to his mum; "If he can't see that as a singing teacher you've got to set an example, then he's not the Joseph for me" Nod nod says Denise. Looked like ALW had made up his made about Seamus prior to the singoff.

Interesting we got to see comments from ALW/Denise after Seamus, Chris B, lewis and Keith I think (I might be wrong, this is off the top of my head) but not the rest. We didn't see Craigs effort either and as Craigs only supporter I was a bit miffed

Yet again, the contestants are shown in different lights and I can't help feeling they are trying to 'groom' me. I appreciate theres a lot of money and reputations at stake, but he well end up with a duffer given the intro and links content. I really felt for Chris B after seeing him all poorly and teary eyed, and I don't rate him. They should all get equal air time with the same questions being answered. They bigged up the Daniel vs Lee rivalry and it sadly seems many have now seen an 'arrogance' in them both. They did that to Seamus from the start I think.
Last edited by trixiehobbit : 01-05-2007 at 14:07

I agree with you to a certain extent NathalieR. It doesn't matter one iota to me what the actors are like in real life when i go to watch a show. The performance they give is the only thing i judge them on.

This isn't a theatre show though. Its a TV show first and foremost - we know this, the voting public know this, the panel knows this, and more importantly the contestants know it too.

If Seamus couldn't portray a likable personality on what is not just a talent show but also a popularity contest then he deserved to go out imo.

But we haven't been shown all their 'personalities', just edited bits and pieces. For example, we've seen rather a lot of Lewis's gran's opinion of Lewis. I suspect, if asked, Seamus's gran would have spoken highly of him, too, given the chance. We also had a lengthy tour of the cement factory portacabin where Daniel works (but, as it turns out, only when he doesn't have better things to do). Guess what? All Daniel's colleagues think he's fab.
I wonder, if we'd toured Seamus's 'marketing company' or wherever it is he works, whether they'd have been nice about him? Maybe they'd have told us he was an arrogant kn*b, but usually in such circumstances colleagues are very supportive.

I felt the editing was highly selective and deliberately detrimental to Seamus, and as I enjoyed his performances far more than those of cardboard Chris, bland Ben and lifeless Lewis, feel severely miffed that one of the most entertaining and talented characters in the show has been lost because the programme makers didn't like him.

Seamus has two weeks to redeem the "arrogant" tag he got given in week one. He chose not to - and that's why he went.

The whole issue for ALW was that he knew he had a 'character' that he couldn't or more importantly the cast of Joseph wouldn't be able to work with. BUT, he knew he was actually a good singer so he wasn't going to be able to 'get him out' on his vocals. I suspect he was very worried that as the weeks went on that the public would actually see Seamus as one of the best performers in the show (he was) & he needed to get the issue of attitude out early on & get rid as soon as he could. I don't think he actually expected him to be in bottom two this week & it made his decision look decidedly odd keeping Ben but he just knew he had to do it. (Sign of a decisive guy - who has made millions!!). Lets face it he could have had another Steve Brookstein on his hands - wrong attitude but hidden from public on show. Public bought into the persona on screen but reality was very something different & look how that ended. Problem for ALW is that the winner does actually have to appear on stage at the end of this - not be dumped quickly!!

MB

Is it just me or does anyone think that making them sing in loin cloths in front of their mothers to put them off verged on being a bit sick?

PP is is a little strange having them perform in front of their mothers stripped down.

As for Seamus - he got the least public votes, ALW picked Ben. That's the way it goes....can't say I have noticed a conspiracy. Seamus had a good voice - but I found him so irrating to watch and he was never going to fit the role of Joseph.

I don't understand why he was even selected for the final 12.

Despite his great voice I would be more suited to the role - and I am a pleasantly plump 33 year old female accountant!

I think they should have had Sarah Brightman to sing to - she would've loved it ! And it would've made great telly

I don't think he had any choice in the matter at all. I think somebody else chose an angle ('Mr Arrogant') for Seamus in week one and thereafter, whether there was the supporting film footage or not, that was the 'story' we got, courtesy of the panel's comments.

Yes, he did act all petulant at the end was he was rejected in favour of the vocally all-over-the place Ben (Zoe had said as much only an hour or so before). I can quite understand why he had the hump.

We're never going to agree. IMO, IN SPITE of the VT's he acted petulant and arrogant throughout. His whole performance style was like a strutting peacock - with a smug, arrogant look on his face. I wasn't led to this conclusion by the VTs or the judges comments - simply by watching him perform. Hard as it may be to overcome - he simply wasn't LIKEABLE - and talent or not - if you haven't got likeability - then you simply are not going to get on in a competition like this - or I suspect in the industry in general. Of course there are arrogant performers, actors, musicians - but generally not until they've achieved some level of success. Seamus was acting like "God's Gift" to musical theatre from the outset - and it clearly got the backs up of the producers, the panel, the other Josephs, and ultimately the voting viewers. He only has himself to blame.

Totally agree with you. My initial reaction to the Daniel vs Lee thing was 'at least they have acknowledged that Daniel is also experienced'. However we didn't get to hear what questions were asked and although their comments sounded very reasonable to me, they apparently weren't to others. Personally I think they have both come across as very likeable so far - I've seen nothing to annoy me.

Those were the four who had trouble, so those were the four we got to see comments on. You should be pleased we didn't see Craig in this context since it means he carried it off.


Under most circumstances I'd agree with you, but these guys will be singing dressed like that in front of a large, paying audience. At some stage during the show's run something unexpected and embarassing will happen - messing with social phobias like this was an inventive way of seeing who would show grace under pressure.

I wasn't surprised that 3 of the 4 were amongst the younger of the contestants, I was surprised that Seamus had trouble with it.

Seamus came across to me throughout as talented but a little defensive.

I wish him well and hope he has indeed got his show!

That's what I said - his personality is repulsive and it sang out loud and clear.

Clearly we won't agree . I understand why Seamus's performances alone (without the background story) might seem arrogant to some; to me they seemed merely confident. I see a similar level of confidence in Daniel and Lee, perhaps because they, too, are used to performing in front of a large audience.

Sadly, because the programme makers (and in this I include the panel) felt the need to shove this 'arrogant Seamus' storyline down our throats, we will never know for sure whether lots of viewers would, as you say you did, have disliked Seamus entirely down to his manner while performing. Personally, had viewers been allowed to judge him - and reject him - on that basis alone (without always first having to listen to the panel's personal criticisms of him), I would not be complaining at all about the way in which he was treated.
Last edited by The Swampster : 02-05-2007 at 10:34

I totally agree with all you say. Seamus had been one of my favourite from the beginning and I haven't quite noticed him being particularly arrogant - a bit of a loner at times but maybe he had little in common with a bunch of 17-25 year olds. Funnily enough, the one I find to be a little arrogant is Daniel, but I don't think many would agree with me on that point. Yes, I am sure that there is more to this than meets the eye. Seamus had obviously done or said something that ALW didn't like or approve of. Didn't catch what Denise said after Bill's positive comment but whatever it was it certainly added to reasons not to vote Seamus.

I think it was mainly because he admitted early on that he wasn't a team player (not very useful in a theatre company!) and that he forgot his lines, I think ALW was expecting a great deal more of him than that because he was a vocal coach. I think it was really a combination of those two things (and then of course he clinched it by that OTT stunt at the end!). I have actually rethought my feelings on his arrogance - I'm wondering if it wasn't more a kind of extreme naivety.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories per se. However, I do think ALW knows exactly whom he wants in the final and how to persuade the audience that this is what they want. Look at Chirs, one of the judges' favourites. The minute he was in the bottom two, we were bombarded with image upon imgae of him crying or what not to get our sympathy.

Similarly with Seamus, ALW clearly did not want him as Joseph. As Seamus is a relatively strong performer, the focus had to be on his personality and so we were constantly shown arrogant Seamus VTs. And it worked, because Seamus is out, despite there have been quite a few weaker performances on the night.

I'm not sure where I stand on Seamus arrogance. I don't think he lacked confidence or at least the appearance of confidence. Although, I was never really bothered that much by his attitude. I certainly think that while he was clearly comfortable on stage, his arrogance was not apparent except for his last stunt. I personally thought that his problem was more naivety/tactless (not the right words but can't think of a better) not to realise that saying certain things will make him be perceived a certain way.

I don't think ALW has a huge antipathy towards Seamus (though he clearly had an issue over the lines business - the other guys were the young, inexperiences ones), but he does have an agenda for the show, in that he said he would like a young Joseph if possible. Having lost Antony against the older, experienced Craig (he pretty much had to let A go, after that performance), he wasn't going to lose Ben as well to keep Seamus, given a reasonable show from Ben. If it had been Seamus v Antony and Craig v Ben, then Seamus would probably still be there.