Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I see that they now hide the details of the televote. Good psychology, but that was the interesting part of the tallying.
 
Someone should edit the thread title.
My fault. Revived last year’s thread instead of starting a new one.

Well, that was bloody ace. Back at the hotel now after spending three hours queueing outside the arena, two hours inside waiting then three and a half for the show itself. Only downer was what happened to poor SuRie, but she handled it well and the crowd absolutely loved her as a result. I’m not at all surprised with Israel’s victory, although I’m a bit shocked that Finland didn’t do much better. So well done Netta and commiserations to Saara.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
I was surprised that Finland ended so low but I think its support base went for Israel. And there might have been a referendum on separatism.
 
I think it was kinda shocking to see the mic being stolen away from that UK singer, and everyone just accepted not for the fact she was no longer singing ,but instead praised for how she handled it.

Is was clear, even though it's a good song, she was miming when the mic got stolen.. so why didn't everyone pick this up ?

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/may/12/stage-invader-storms-uks-eurovision-set


I would have seen this as a violation.... personally

"Eurovision producers offered the singer a chance to perform again at the end of the show, but she declined."
 
Last edited:
Austria sounded like typical UK Eurovision and did not get many votes from the public.

And good that the formulaic commercial stuff did not win.
 
Graham did a good job as usual, but the initial sequence should be watched once as is, which I had done in youtube.

I have to go back to the postcards I did not pay attention to.
 
I think some people in other countries get too easily offended about comedy, but it seems the BBC is never critical about their own entry.
 
I think some people in other countries get too easily offended about comedy, but it seems the BBC is never critical about their own entry.
But why should they be?
Do other broadcasters? Perhaps they do. Perhaps the French are savage about their entries… perhaps the Germans really put the knives into their contestants.
Do they?

Personally I thought Storm was another weak entry sung by a smallish (but decent) voice. No great shakes and expected it to do worse.

I am by no means a jingoistic, flag waving Britain First Brit, but why should the BBC be critical of the UK's Eurovision entry?
 
But why should they be?
Do other broadcasters? Perhaps they do. Perhaps the French are savage about their entries… perhaps the Germans really put the knives into their contestants.
Do they?

Personally I thought Storm was another weak entry sung by a smallish (but decent) voice. No great shakes and expected it to do worse.

I am by no means a jingoistic, flag waving Britain First Brit, but why should the BBC be critical of the UK's Eurovision entry?
After so many years of failure, it sounds like pandering. If they select the entry themselves, they will obviously not be critical, unless there's an internal firewall. People in the UK cannot vote for it.

I don't know if a presenter in other country is savage about their own entry.

These evaluations are subjective anyway and they are colored by distance. I don't agree with some of the sarcastic comments.

I don't doubt the technical prowess of many entries, but that alone does not make you win.
 
Last edited:
The full voting details have been released.

Zero televote points were exchanged between Switzerland and Belgium.
 
But why should they be?
Do other broadcasters? Perhaps they do. Perhaps the French are savage about their entries… perhaps the Germans really put the knives into their contestants.
Do they?

Personally I thought Storm was another weak entry sung by a smallish (but decent) voice. No great shakes and expected it to do worse.

I am by no means a jingoistic, flag waving Britain First Brit, but why should the BBC be critical of the UK's Eurovision entry?
As I am not watching this competition, I am unable to critique anyone.

To address the question posed- Only possibly hypothetically, if they recognize that the UK entry is sub standard, but I realize that does not make for good public relations to some degree. On the other hand there could be watchers who agree and appreciate it, but in the realm of country vs country competition, the people generally want boosters not critics. :)
 
Whoa, I hadn't noticed this: the UK got more televote points than Sweden!
 
As I am not watching this competition, I am unable to critique anyone.

To address the question posed- Only possibly hypothetically, if they recognize that the UK entry is sub standard, but I realize that does not make for good public relations to some degree. On the other hand there could be watchers who agree and appreciate it, but in the realm of country vs country competition, the people generally want boosters not critics. :)
Well since the BBC sponsors the UK entrant… has a competition (of sorts) then chooses the contestant with fanfare and song and dance. Promotes and plays endlessly… My question remains:

Why should they criticise their chosen entry?

Who in their right minds cuts their contestant off at the knees?

BBC: "We chose you, but goodness knows woman, you're just crap."
Contestant: *cries*
Country: "Bloody RightWing/Left Wing/Elitist/Eton schoolboy managed BBC!" and HomeBase sells out of pitchforks within an hour.

A good idea? Really?
:rolleyes:

As TS Eliot wrote:
"Humankind cannot bear very much reality"
 
I really liked the Netherlands entry to check out the album, but I expect a proper winner to break the mold somehow.
[doublepost=1526229418][/doublepost]
BBC: "We chose you, but goodness knows woman, you're just crap."
It does not need to be crap, just not what the audience likes to listen to (which might be crap).
 
Last edited:
I think it was kinda shocking to see the mic being stolen away from that UK singer, and everyone just accepted not for the fact she was no longer singing ,but instead praised for how she handled it.

Is was clear, even though it's a good song, she was miming when the mic got stolen.. so why didn't everyone pick this up ?

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/may/12/stage-invader-storms-uks-eurovision-set


I would have seen this as a violation.... personally

"Eurovision producers offered the singer a chance to perform again at the end of the show, but she declined."
She wasn’t miming. She had two backing singers off stage, to strengthen the vocal during the chorus. That’s quite a common tactic to fill out the sound. If you listen closely her voice is missing when she doesn’t have the mike. The vocal gets sharper again once she’s got a new one.
 
Well since the BBC sponsors the UK entrant… has a competition (of sorts) then chooses the contestant with fanfare and song and dance. Promotes and plays endlessly… My question remains:

Why should they criticise their chosen entry?

Who in their right minds cuts their contestant off at the knees?

BBC: "We chose you, but goodness knows woman, you're just crap."
Contestant: *cries*
Country: "Bloody RightWing/Left Wing/Elitist/Eton schoolboy managed BBC!" and HomeBase sells out of pitchforks within an hour.

A good idea? Really?
:rolleyes:

As TS Eliot wrote:
"Humankind cannot bear very much reality"
Sounds like they already gave the contestant their seal of approval. Critizing night be awkward. :)
 
I could see it happenning with an irreverent comedian in some other country if the ratings are lagging.
 
It is OK to try to showcase something authentic, but don't complain you're being treated unfairly. The same thing happens to France, Spain, and Portugal, who also have to deal with a language barrier (I think Italy has more fans).
 
Eurovision needs to get less poppy juries.

There's already the public for light evaluation.
 
Last edited:
The full voting details have been released.

Zero televote points were exchanged between Switzerland and Belgium.

When 'the big five' started Eurovision, and they all go straight through, it does sound a bit one sided.

http://eurosong-contest.wikia.com/wiki/Big_Five

"In 2000, a rule was created to allow those countries direct entry into the final of the Eurovision Song Contest regardless of their placing in the previous year's contest, fear of relegation,"
 
I think automatic qualification to the final actually hurts them.

If a country wants the same privilege, I welcome them to pay as much. As long as there are no fewer countries qualified from the semifinals.

I don't care.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.