My fault. Revived last year’s thread instead of starting a new one.Someone should edit the thread title.
And then Latvia gave twelve points to Kanye West.I think it was kinda shocking to see the mic being stolen away from that UK singer
But why should they be?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.
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.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.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?
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: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.![]()
It does not need to be crap, just not what the audience likes to listen to (which might be crap).BBC: "We chose you, but goodness knows woman, you're just crap."
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.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."
Sounds like they already gave the contestant their seal of approval. Critizing night be awkward.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?
As TS Eliot wrote:
"Humankind cannot bear very much reality"
The full voting details have been released.
Zero televote points were exchanged between Switzerland and Belgium.