BGT Final - the right entrants won

[Ken L]

kenl- Gee, I guess the millions that voted for them don't agree. I think that there must be a hellofalot of people my age and tastes for them to get so many votes, as they tell us the voting was in MILLIONS!!

 

"Millions" didn't vote for them.

The total vote was fractionally over 4m of which about 996,000 voted for Diversity.

There are more Polish immigrants in the UK than there are people who voted for them.

 

Personally, I think it might get interesting in about 5 years when the "Guitar Hero" generation get real instruments and start making real music.

Trouble is, by then, I'll probably be slipping into senility and queing up for my Riverdance tickets with all the other duffers......

[bluezulu]

it was entertaining and the best act won simple as that. and i enjoyed it.

[poledark]

Yep, good enternainment. But where does the idea that us "old duffers" voted for diversity come from? I would hazard a guess that most of there votes came from teens.

 

Den

[n4lly]

I did'nt vote for Diversity (give my money to Cowell).

I put a quid on them and won 12

[kleinboet]

I totally agree Den - I had listened and watched the other acts in the semi's, and didn't agree with some choices and was ready to vote for SuBo, but after watching that routine I changed my mind!

 

Kenl - OK, I was just repeating what was said by Ant & Dec - but with 8 finalists and them taking nearly a quarter of the votes, it wasn't just us 'old duffers' that voted for them - or am I wrong?

Edited June 1, 2009 by kleinboet

[Jim Roper]

With the news that Susan Boyle has gone into hospital suffering from exhaustion, I suggest that we pass no comment about her on this open forum. She has enough pressures on her without adding to them.

[Cranfield]

I think what people may find offensive is the formlaic nature of the programme...any imagination shown is by the acts themeslves, but as for the singers' choice of repertoire there's hardly a risk taken or a surprise choice of song or even surprising arrangement.

 

On that basis, the accusations of 'dumbing down' seems pretty valid.

 

At work today, it seemed to be the sole topic of conversation except for the FA Cup final yesterday.... I was glad I was busy!

 

There is something about popular 'entertainment' which seems really unwholesome... invariably I seem to look at what's there and asking the question "Why?"

 

I think all "competitive" programmes have to have a "formlaic" nature, to ensure a degree of fairness/even playing field.

 

This programme is "light entertainment" and can hardly be referred to as "dumbing down", this expression refers to something lofty that has been reduced to a lower common denominator, I would suggest that BGT never had those pretensions in the first place.

 

Any form of entertainment is just that,....... entertainment.

Its only the pseudo sociologists that apply questions like "Why?" to it.

[Ken L]

Its only the pseudo sociologists that apply questions like "Why?" to it.

 

I applied the question why am I watching this carp ?

I did that within 30 seconds of watching BGT and couldn't come up with an acceptable answer and so turned it off.

 

I did much the same thing with Big Brother, various dance shows, and about 95% of all "entertainment" pumped out at prime time.

 

Programs like BGT may not ever have ocupied the intelectual high ground so as you fairly point out, they can't be acused of dumbing down but terestrial TV used to contain a much higher proportion of programming that was better quality so it's fair to say that entertainment as a whole is dumbing down.

 

That said, I'm currently enjoying South Pacific (No, not the musical) on Sunday nights.

[gozzer]

With the news that Susan Boyle has gone into hospital suffering from exhaustion, I suggest that we pass no comment about her on this open forum. She has enough pressures on her without adding to them.

 

I'm sorry if I sound heartless and cynical Jim, but nobody dragged her, or any of the entrants, kicking and screaming to the auditions.

What did they expect?

They volunteered to go on a show hoping, for a chance in to a business that has a history of exploiting people.

All this, media hype is just another way to make the gullible part with their money. (How else do you think they finance the programme?).

It's got little to do with making 'stars', it's all about cashing in on some naive sod with a product that can be marketed.

When that product is past it's 'sell by date', they're dropped like a hot coal.

 

Susan Boyle has a decent voice, but if she had looked different, she wouldn't have recieved half the attention.

 

I would never vote on, or even watch this type of show, and only saw part of the final because my daughter was watching. The rest she watched in her room, because we wanted to switch channels.

 

John.

[Alan Stubbs]

I think all "competitive" programmes have to have a "formlaic" nature, to ensure a degree of fairness/even playing field.

 

This programme is "light entertainment" and can hardly be referred to as "dumbing down", this expression refers to something lofty that has been reduced to a lower common denominator, I would suggest that BGT never had those pretensions in the first place.

 

Any form of entertainment is just that,....... entertainment.

Its only the pseudo sociologists that apply questions like "Why?" to it.

 

Pseudo-sociology had nothing whatever to do with me asking myself why I was bothering watching a programme which failed to either entertain or educate. For me, BGT failed on both counts.

 

If BGT is a good yardstick to judge what passes for entertainment on terrestrial tv nowadays, then it fully justifies the greater selectivity I employ in what I watch and a vast reduction in the hours of tv I watch.

 

It was former US president Jimmy Carter who said "If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the lowest common denominator of human achievement." This seems to sum up 'entertainment shows' on tv nowadays.