If strike didn't remove their tops would you like them?

If Strike removed their tops and had beer bellies, would you like them?

It was not a swing beat, not IMO, it had a much more modern, almost pop beat to it, hence his resulting struggle.

And I would have thought it a shame if someone who was poor on the night had got through ahead of a very talented and interesting act.

And no, they're nowhere near like the Cheeky Monkeys of the future. They're completely different, apart from one thing - I think they stuck to what they were best at for the semi final stage. I don't think Charlie did, and he paid for it.

Oh for...I'm a straight guy.

Next question?

EDIT: That's like saying, would you have voted for Charlie if he was 50, instead of going for the 'awww, what a sweet kid, lets vote for him' routine which seems to influence the audience in some cases?

It was a very difficult one tonight. I think Charlie has more potential - he's a very talented kid, and he could (and probably will) go a long way. But I didn't like the song tonight, and personally, I found Strike more entertaining tonight.

I like Strike , yes, because they look good and take their tops off, but also because I love martial arts stuff, and I think they are very dedicated and extremely good at what they do. It's a difficult job making a martial arts routine entertaining, and personally I think they managed that.

But Charlie definitely deserved to be in the final - if he'd been on Tuesday's show, he'd almost definitely have got in ahead of the Cheeky Monkeys. And he handled it so well tonight, he's very mature for an 11-year-old and has an incredible voice. It's just a shame for him really, because it's so obvious how much he enjoys singing.

And who knows...maybe he'll come back next year and try again, like George Sampson did this year...?

It is a swing beat. It is a swing beat in every way. There is no denying it is a swing beat. To deny it was a swing beat which such an obvious trip in the beat is beyond comprehension so there is no point arguing that.

Strike just jumped around a lot.

They stole numerous moves from Nemesis, George and Flava. Their only personal move was jumping and kicking from the audition. Everything else was stolen. So by the same token you could give the other acts credit, in fact more credit.

Charlie didn't pay for it. He was used as collateral so Simon can send Faryl through to a record contract. The excuse for Andrew will be, his voice is going to break so Faryl is the sole concentration post end of season.

Cheeky Monkeys jump around and stretch their legs.

Strike jump around and stretch their legs.

The difference is, Strike lack the conscience and break time travel laws to come back and steal moves from other acts.

I wasn't replying to you. Have a look.

But to question the edit where you've completely thrown yourself in it - it is asking that. Do you judge the guy on the talent.

If you don't think the man can sing - that's your opinion but there are a lot of angry people around the place and youtube who think he can sing and he was chastised for the song he sung, not his talent. That is disgusting, vile and despicable but oh no - let's watch Cheeky Monkeys from the future instead who stole all their moves from other acts, because otherwise they would have been cheapened version of the Chippendales acting like kids who eaten too many sweets.

Maybe he should. He really didn't deserve to be in the final - bad song, not always in tune, and very shaky in parts - but with some time to improve he could be really good.

What next? Who's the most tallented sportsman, Christiano Ronaldo, Sydney Crosby or Lewis Hamilton?

They are all totally different acts so there level of talent can't be compared like that.

I'm also a Straight guy so them taking their tops off has no bearing on my preference.

To Counter your silly argument, what if Charlie was a balding middle aged guy, would that change your opinion of him?

LOL

Yes it can be compared.

Charlie is better. There.

Your argument doesn't wash because people like Charlie because he can sing, not his age, but he can sing.

In fact, I have no idea where you got that argument from but you sure didn't stop to think before you said "to counter your silly argument". Who are you talking to ?

The argument of would we like Strike if they didn't take their tops off or had beer bellies and man boobs.

Actually, if they had beer bellies and man boobs I'd like them more as it would be funny.

and what will they do next time

Well...

they copied off George, Nemesis and Flava this time.

Next time I expect them to copy off that Large dancing lady, Faryl and Bang On.

I think he should. He's 11, and he has an amazing voice for a kid. He was very unlucky tonight - I thought all three should have gone through tonight, but there are acts from other nights who I don't think deserve to be there as much as him. He was judged harshly tonight because of the song, but if he comes back next year, with the right songs, he's easily got the talent to get to the final, and possibly even win.

Maybe that's what they expect and then Piers can do another Winston Churchill speech.

Exactly: for a kid - he shouldn't be put through because he's young. There are kids that have good voices full stop, there's no way that we should be putting caveats on talent such as 'for a kid' - he was either just good or he wasn't, and just judging on the actual singing, it was only ok.

It's fine to be amazed that someone can do something at a young age, but when there are people who are both young AND can sing great even without the consideration of youth, then someone like Charlie has no place.

How can Strike have stole their moves from Nemesis and co. when they did exactly the same thing at the audition before they even saw these other acts?

Ok, it can be argued it's a fusion of other areas of talent but it still takes skill, daring and strength to do it.

Also, your argument is becoming more extreme. Before it was a simple 'Charlie was better'. Now it's some kind of conspiracy against him.


Yes, Charlie can sing. That's my opinion. Others may disagree. However, on the night, HE (or his family) chose to sing something that was out of his depth. EDIT: And therefore his singing was little more than average on the night. His singing was not good enough for me to qualify for the final, not on this occassion.

On X Factor, acts are criticised for choice of song and how it doesn't suit them. Why should Britain's Got Talent be any different?

And why are you becoming personal against Strike? Have they done something horrible against you?

at the expensive of Strike erm yes why because Strike are a novelty act and will eventually only have a Niche audience Charlie is more for everyone, ok wrong song, he is 10yrs old rejected at 10 lol, Strike don't don't have a hope in hell of winning this , Charlie had a chance with a decent mentor and good song choice ..
but faryl will win anyway lol

There's the problem right there ... Faryl has a great voice AND is really young ... Charlie only has a great voice in context of his age. If that was an older person singing like that, they'd have absolutely zero chance and there wouldn't be outrage over him.

Also, if he were the only talented kid there, then fine. But he's got competition and competition that can compete at adult standards. He'd be a waste of a final spot, we've already got Andrew and will undoubtedly have Faryl, both of whom I'd bet would be more popular.

lol. I hope not. Nothing against Faryl, just want a novelty/original act to win this year, instead of the same old singers.

I just think on the night, Strike were better. I think, because they mix the martial arts up with the choreography, they attract a more than niche market.

The idea for BGT is not to find a star per se. It's too find an act to perform at the RVP. After then, it's up to them. Strike have already had offers of work after the competition, however, check another thread on here about it, as have many others.

I think they're a lot bigger in popularity and skill than people are giving them credit for.

I would have preferred Charlie to go through, but it was a close choice between Charlie, Hoop La La, and Strike for the second place.

I'm sorry that Charlie didn't make it to the Final but quite frankly I would consider it a pre-ordained result on Saturday night because Simon is truly focusing on Faryl.

She is chosen one this time round, of that I'm certain. In some ways those who have made the Final will probably be even more disappointed after all the big build up.

Charlie Green is a name for the future in my opinion. Give him a couple more years and no doubt he'll have his opportunity.

(Paraphrasing Harry Hill)

So, who's more talented, Charlie or Strike? There's only one way to find out........FIGHT

Looks like Strike then.

Yes he should if you are talking about replacing the other kid who just flapped his arms about in a shower and who has no talent at all, but not replacing the real ADULT talent of Strike.

Why does every show like this get taken over by silly parents who want to turn it into a children's talent show? Add a sob story for mummy to bawl her eyes out to and you have this unhealthy obsession with little brats prancing around and winning not through any talent but because having a baby seem to short circuit some people's brains.

Adults have talent as well! They should raise the age limit or have two categories: 1. Talentless brats with a sod story and 2. A decent talent show for real adults with talent.

By novelty you mean different and interesting versus same old same old, mediocrity.

This show is about variety, and strike are different, they will have great careers now, they will get booked for all sorts. Tony jarr is an entertainer and does the same thing, so who says charlie have a better future.

If Charlie had been the last act he would have got through. I did not rate George at all who imo got through because he was on last. Charlie has much more potential and talent