Children in Talent Shows.

[Tom4784]

After last night what's your opinion on children on Talent Shows? For shows like BGT should there be an age limit to prevent young children from entering?

I'm on the fence on it really, It's a lot of pressure to be putting the kids under but then again out of all the kids that have got through the past three years we've only had one meltdown while the other child contestants have performed better then the adults at times.

But then again is one meltdown one too much? I think perhaps kid contestants should probably be looked at more in depth at auditions or something? To make sure they can cope? I don't know.

[Arneldo]

This isn't the first time we've seem young contestants break down on BGT. Natalie broke down in tears when she didn't make it though to the final, and Andrew last year crying when he didn't win.

I think it's a good idea - but in reality I'm not so sure. I felt really uncomfortable last night when I saw Hollie get upset and the idea that it may just happen again tonight is worrying. It is a lot of pressure to put young children under - although, some of them are fantastic. Look at Aidin this year, or George last year. And of course Connie Talbot from series 1.

I think it may be just as much pressure for them as it for some of the older contestants - it's just the younger ones are more likely to let their emotions get to them on stage. But I do think some sort of age-limit should be brought in. Perhaps 10-upwards. I really dont like the idea of having a 3-year-old going through what Hollie went through last night.

[Tom]

It happens to adults too so if you want to ban children for letting their emotions get to them then why not ban talent shows altogether?

If you watch X Factor you'll see this kind of thing happens all the time.

[MR.K!]

I think that there is no point in anyone under 16 entering, because they cant exacly release an album or anything can they ? Especially kids that are 10. Its just stupid, and they get through not becasue they are talented, but because they get the sympathy vote.

[Arneldo]

Originally posted by MR.K!
I think that there is no point in anyone under 16 entering, because they cant exacly release an album or anything can they ? Especially kids that are 10. Its just stupid, and they get through not becasue they are talented, but because they get the sympathy vote.

Connie Talbot, Faryl Smith and Andrew Johnson have all released albums off the back of BGT, and they are all under the age of 16. Andrew and Faryls both did really well as well.

[Z]

I don't think it's fair to prohibit them. I'd much rather see a ten year old girl live her dream rather than waste away the next six years of school wishing she could be a singer until she could actually compete in a competition, if such an age restriction was put in place. I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages; a talented ten year old may well get signed up by a company and dropped again; but they still have to complete their education so it's not the end of the world for them if it goes pear shaped within two years. If it doesn't, then the kid's clearly going to be successful, you know? I was annoyed that they put Hollie through on what was basically a sympathy vote, but she proved her worth in the final, and there have been so many talented children on the show that it's hard to argue against; but I think kids benefit from the 'cute' factor, which is highly unfair to the adults competing in these shows.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Zee
I don't think it's fair to prohibit them. I'd much rather see a ten year old girl live her dream rather than waste away the next six years of school wishing she could be a singer until she could actually compete in a competition, if such an age restriction was put in place. I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages; a talented ten year old may well get signed up by a company and dropped again; but they still have to complete their education so it's not the end of the world for them if it goes pear shaped within two years. If it doesn't, then the kid's clearly going to be successful, you know? I was annoyed that they put Hollie through on what was basically a sympathy vote, but she proved her worth in the final, and there have been so many talented children on the show that it's hard to argue against; but I think kids benefit from the 'cute' factor, which is highly unfair to the adults competing in these shows.

No I don't agree Hollie got through on sympathy vote at all. I think she was genuinely second best on the night with or without her situation. The fact she never even managed to top the voting despite everything that happened says it all about a so called sympathy vote, if it was the case she would've got through by public vote. But obviously when that does happen its a lose lose situation. If she did get through people are going to moan that it was sympathy vote whereas if she doesn't get through they're going to moan about wasted talent.

[Z]

Originally posted by Tom
Originally posted by Zee
I don't think it's fair to prohibit them. I'd much rather see a ten year old girl live her dream rather than waste away the next six years of school wishing she could be a singer until she could actually compete in a competition, if such an age restriction was put in place. I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages; a talented ten year old may well get signed up by a company and dropped again; but they still have to complete their education so it's not the end of the world for them if it goes pear shaped within two years. If it doesn't, then the kid's clearly going to be successful, you know? I was annoyed that they put Hollie through on what was basically a sympathy vote, but she proved her worth in the final, and there have been so many talented children on the show that it's hard to argue against; but I think kids benefit from the 'cute' factor, which is highly unfair to the adults competing in these shows.

No I don't agree Hollie got through on sympathy vote at all. I think she was genuinely second best on the night with or without her situation. The fact she never even managed to top the voting despite everything that happened says it all about a so called sympathy vote, if it was the case she would've got through by public vote. But obviously when that does happen its a lose lose situation. If she did get through people are going to moan that it was sympathy vote whereas if she doesn't get through they're going to moan about wasted talent.

Oh yeah, she was great the second time round, I'm not doubting the British public's decision; I'm meaning that the judges put her through on a sympathy vote, because they felt sorry for her that she'd messed up, and I genuinely believe that.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Zee
Originally posted by Tom
Originally posted by Zee
I don't think it's fair to prohibit them. I'd much rather see a ten year old girl live her dream rather than waste away the next six years of school wishing she could be a singer until she could actually compete in a competition, if such an age restriction was put in place. I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages; a talented ten year old may well get signed up by a company and dropped again; but they still have to complete their education so it's not the end of the world for them if it goes pear shaped within two years. If it doesn't, then the kid's clearly going to be successful, you know? I was annoyed that they put Hollie through on what was basically a sympathy vote, but she proved her worth in the final, and there have been so many talented children on the show that it's hard to argue against; but I think kids benefit from the 'cute' factor, which is highly unfair to the adults competing in these shows.

No I don't agree Hollie got through on sympathy vote at all. I think she was genuinely second best on the night with or without her situation. The fact she never even managed to top the voting despite everything that happened says it all about a so called sympathy vote, if it was the case she would've got through by public vote. But obviously when that does happen its a lose lose situation. If she did get through people are going to moan that it was sympathy vote whereas if she doesn't get through they're going to moan about wasted talent.

Oh yeah, she was great the second time round, I'm not doubting the British public's decision; I'm meaning that the judges put her through on a sympathy vote, because they felt sorry for her that she'd messed up, and I genuinely believe that.

I don't buy into all the "you're a brave girl" BS, I don't think anyone goes into the business knowing there will be times like that and there will be knocks whether you're 5 or 55 but I do think she would have got through anyway. Amanda (second to vote) probably would have put Greg through just to balance it out a bit and to give Piers the casting vote, but in all honesty I think Greg was sh*t and wouldn't have got through.

[30stone]

Originally posted by Arneldo
Originally posted by MR.K!
I think that there is no point in anyone under 16 entering, because they cant exacly release an album or anything can they ? Especially kids that are 10. Its just stupid, and they get through not becasue they are talented, but because they get the sympathy vote.

Connie Talbot, Faryl Smith and Andrew Johnson have all released albums off the back of BGT, and they are all under the age of 16. Andrew and Faryls both did really well as well.

Yes and Faryl has been on

world record breakers show.

sang national anthem at twickenham and

wembley F.A cup final today.

[Z]

Originally posted by Tom
Originally posted by Zee
Originally posted by Tom
Originally posted by Zee
I don't think it's fair to prohibit them. I'd much rather see a ten year old girl live her dream rather than waste away the next six years of school wishing she could be a singer until she could actually compete in a competition, if such an age restriction was put in place. I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages; a talented ten year old may well get signed up by a company and dropped again; but they still have to complete their education so it's not the end of the world for them if it goes pear shaped within two years. If it doesn't, then the kid's clearly going to be successful, you know? I was annoyed that they put Hollie through on what was basically a sympathy vote, but she proved her worth in the final, and there have been so many talented children on the show that it's hard to argue against; but I think kids benefit from the 'cute' factor, which is highly unfair to the adults competing in these shows.

No I don't agree Hollie got through on sympathy vote at all. I think she was genuinely second best on the night with or without her situation. The fact she never even managed to top the voting despite everything that happened says it all about a so called sympathy vote, if it was the case she would've got through by public vote. But obviously when that does happen its a lose lose situation. If she did get through people are going to moan that it was sympathy vote whereas if she doesn't get through they're going to moan about wasted talent.

Oh yeah, she was great the second time round, I'm not doubting the British public's decision; I'm meaning that the judges put her through on a sympathy vote, because they felt sorry for her that she'd messed up, and I genuinely believe that.

I don't buy into all the "you're a brave girl" BS, I don't think anyone goes into the business knowing there will be times like that and there will be knocks whether you're 5 or 55 but I do think she would have got through anyway. Amanda (second to vote) probably would have put Greg through just to balance it out a bit and to give Piers the casting vote, but in all honesty I think Greg was sh*t and wouldn't have got through.

Nah the judges all put Hollie through; Simon said "I would have put you through" when they asked him, even though Piers and Amanda had already said Hollie. To me, it just looked like they had bought into the 'what a shame, she's only ten' vibe, because Hollie had sung again at the end so it was fresh in their minds. The guy she was up against didn't stand a chance, he doesn't even come into the equation, I just don't agree with the judges decision to put through a ten year old girl who couldn't handle the pressure of the semi finals to the final the following night.

[arista]

Dezzy it gives other kids Inspiration.
I am for it as it makes the whole deal a Family Event.



Life In The City.

[Tom4784]

Even though she deserved to go through on the Semis, the judges couldn't not put her through. If the tabloids can spin a scandal around a prank call they'd create a shitstorm if she didn't get though.

She is talented, just not ready.

[*mazedsalv**]

I would say that but loads of the kids are actually very good. George was last year and Shaheen this year, he could cope with all of the pressure, however Hollie couldnt. Kids deal with pressure on different levels, and Shaheen was the only one that didnt break down in the semi/finale.

But i thought Hollie getting a 2nd chance was bad, why for her? why not if Shaun/Susan/Diversity/Julian messed up? Its only because she was a 10 year old girl, Shaheen or Aiden wouldnt have gotten another chance.

[Tom4784]

Originally posted by *mazedsalv**
I would say that but loads of the kids are actually very good. George was last year and Shaheen this year, he could cope with all of the pressure, however Hollie couldnt. Kids deal with pressure on different levels, and Shaheen was the only one that didnt break down in the semi/finale.

But i thought Hollie getting a 2nd chance was bad, why for her? why not if Shaun/Susan/Diversity/Julian messed up? Its only because she was a 10 year old girl, Shaheen or Aiden wouldnt have gotten another chance.

They would have though. If a kid breaks down on stage they'll have to do their best to control the situation. It's very easy for newspapers to create a scandal and as a country when it comes to kids we can get very enraged.