Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzu3 judges, Martin Short, Meahsa Brueggergosman and Stephen Moccio travel across Canada to find the countries best talent.3 judges, Martin Short, Meahsa Brueggergosman and Stephen Moccio travel across Canada to find the countries best talent.3 judges, Martin Short, Meahsa Brueggergosman and Stephen Moccio travel across Canada to find the countries best talent.
- Auszeichnungen
- 1 Gewinn & 2 Nominierungen insgesamt
Folgen durchsuchen
Empfohlene Bewertungen
CGT is a smaller, friendlier, and tamer spin off of its international counterparts.
Because Canada is a much smaller country than the U.S., the show will never get anywhere near the ratings that its American cousin gets. This means that the show must operate on a much smaller budget. Corners are cut in many obvious ways: The award for first place has a value of approximately $200,000, compared to $1 million for AGT.
Each episode is half the length of the American version: 1 hour for the performance episodes, and 30 minutes for the results show (compared to 2 hours and 1 hour respectively for AGT).
The show also must be much less accommodating for its contestants: They don't have the budget to fly in and put all their contestants in hotels. This means that there is no "judges round". Unlike the American version where contestants must perform, without an audience, in front of the three judges, in order to advance to the semifinals, contestants on the Canadian show make it to the semifinals based purely on the merit of their regional audition. Finally, only 36 contestants perform in the semifinal round (compared to 72 for the American version).
But let's get down to the most important aspect of this show: The quality of the performances. To put it quite simply, they suck. This isn't due to any lack of talent in Canada itself. The main culprit is a very poor and disorganized screening process for the show. The process of culling tens of thousands of auditions down to the best few dozen is a very difficult logistical task, and the producers of the show simply don't know how it's done.
One other very obvious difference with the Canadian version is in the judging. Many people say that the three judges (Stephan, Dina, and Martin) are much nicer than the judges on the American show. And they're right. After all, politeness is a quality that Canadians are very proud of. But here's the thing: That's not a good thing, that's a very bad thing, at least for people wanting to vegetate on their couch and be entertained for an hour on Sunday night.
To put it quite simply, Canada's Got Talent judges have demonstrated astonishingly low standards. Incredibly, they allowed nearly ninety (!) percent of all contestants through to the second round. However, they didn't do themselves or the contestants any favors by being this generous: The excess number of acts were simply culled after the audition round.
As anyone who watches AGT knows, there are many acts on CGT that got three emphatic "yes"es from the judges that would have received three very quick buzzes from the American judges. (Daddy Cool, anyone?) Maybe somebody should have told the three that they're hired as judges, not cheerleaders.
The host of the show, Measha Brueggergosman, seems to follow the same pattern. She cheers on virtually every contestant with almost mindless enthusiasm.
I guess it wouldn't be fair to roast the screeners, judges, and the host, without giving due criticism to the one other group that has shown terrible standards: The audience. They're just as culpable in cheering on and supporting the mediocrity.
What all of this adds up to is a talent show that has about the same caliber of talent as what you'd find in a high school gymnasium. It's quite apparent that the judges care much more about not hurting the feelings of the contestants than curing the boredom of their viewers. And the way the host pumps up and cheers on even the most talentless of contestants make the show far too often seem like a grade school talent show.
Canada's got talent, to be sure, but you will see almost none of it by watching this show.
Rating: 2 out of 10.
Because Canada is a much smaller country than the U.S., the show will never get anywhere near the ratings that its American cousin gets. This means that the show must operate on a much smaller budget. Corners are cut in many obvious ways: The award for first place has a value of approximately $200,000, compared to $1 million for AGT.
Each episode is half the length of the American version: 1 hour for the performance episodes, and 30 minutes for the results show (compared to 2 hours and 1 hour respectively for AGT).
The show also must be much less accommodating for its contestants: They don't have the budget to fly in and put all their contestants in hotels. This means that there is no "judges round". Unlike the American version where contestants must perform, without an audience, in front of the three judges, in order to advance to the semifinals, contestants on the Canadian show make it to the semifinals based purely on the merit of their regional audition. Finally, only 36 contestants perform in the semifinal round (compared to 72 for the American version).
But let's get down to the most important aspect of this show: The quality of the performances. To put it quite simply, they suck. This isn't due to any lack of talent in Canada itself. The main culprit is a very poor and disorganized screening process for the show. The process of culling tens of thousands of auditions down to the best few dozen is a very difficult logistical task, and the producers of the show simply don't know how it's done.
One other very obvious difference with the Canadian version is in the judging. Many people say that the three judges (Stephan, Dina, and Martin) are much nicer than the judges on the American show. And they're right. After all, politeness is a quality that Canadians are very proud of. But here's the thing: That's not a good thing, that's a very bad thing, at least for people wanting to vegetate on their couch and be entertained for an hour on Sunday night.
To put it quite simply, Canada's Got Talent judges have demonstrated astonishingly low standards. Incredibly, they allowed nearly ninety (!) percent of all contestants through to the second round. However, they didn't do themselves or the contestants any favors by being this generous: The excess number of acts were simply culled after the audition round.
As anyone who watches AGT knows, there are many acts on CGT that got three emphatic "yes"es from the judges that would have received three very quick buzzes from the American judges. (Daddy Cool, anyone?) Maybe somebody should have told the three that they're hired as judges, not cheerleaders.
The host of the show, Measha Brueggergosman, seems to follow the same pattern. She cheers on virtually every contestant with almost mindless enthusiasm.
I guess it wouldn't be fair to roast the screeners, judges, and the host, without giving due criticism to the one other group that has shown terrible standards: The audience. They're just as culpable in cheering on and supporting the mediocrity.
What all of this adds up to is a talent show that has about the same caliber of talent as what you'd find in a high school gymnasium. It's quite apparent that the judges care much more about not hurting the feelings of the contestants than curing the boredom of their viewers. And the way the host pumps up and cheers on even the most talentless of contestants make the show far too often seem like a grade school talent show.
Canada's got talent, to be sure, but you will see almost none of it by watching this show.
Rating: 2 out of 10.
F#%* off with non-stop unrelenting bs CAMERA SWITCHING EVERY 0.001 SECONDS! You literally cannot enjoy a single act due to the sporadic editing. Seriously... Who ever is in charge of production need to grow a pair and go into that editing room, rip them all a new one and fire the managers. The camera zooming in/out and the crane shoots were all done way to fast and were constantly cutting off parts of the bigger groups no matter which angle they switched to. Also I would like to actually get to see the exciting part of an act not the judges reactions to them... A complete shame to see what could have been a good show fall flat on its face because they had an amateur camera crew and then put a bunch of TALENTLESS buffoons in charge of editing a talent show.
4/10.
8/10 for the acts and touching moments.
Minimum marks for the video editing, and more points off every time the video editor cuts away from the talent to show audience, judges or host reaction shots. If you really want to add these valueless extras, they could be screen inserts instead of cutaways. More points off for every fractional-second cut. The show's name is "Talent", after all, so give us a chance to focus on the talent!
Maybe try thinking about why this show exists, and what the audience is looking for, and then make a few editorial changes. I keep coming back to see the talent; then I keep being disappointed every time the producers prove that they hate their audience.
8/10 for the acts and touching moments.
Minimum marks for the video editing, and more points off every time the video editor cuts away from the talent to show audience, judges or host reaction shots. If you really want to add these valueless extras, they could be screen inserts instead of cutaways. More points off for every fractional-second cut. The show's name is "Talent", after all, so give us a chance to focus on the talent!
Maybe try thinking about why this show exists, and what the audience is looking for, and then make a few editorial changes. I keep coming back to see the talent; then I keep being disappointed every time the producers prove that they hate their audience.
The host is annoying and the judges i dont find good because the acts are not good and can not compare to agt and there getting golden buzzerd when there not good.
What a disservice to the talented acts. We rarely see an entire performance. Is this the producers fault? No one cares to consistently see the audience or judges' reaction while the acts are going on.
So many performances could have been riveting, especially the acrobatic, dance and thrill acts.
Perhaps the producers thought this was an artistic way to showcase our Canadian talent, but alas, fell very, very short.
I would have rated the show higher if I was to speak directly to the talent acts, but the way the camera captures the action loses all the impact.
This could have been so captivating, but instead comes off as irritating.
What a shame!
So many performances could have been riveting, especially the acrobatic, dance and thrill acts.
Perhaps the producers thought this was an artistic way to showcase our Canadian talent, but alas, fell very, very short.
I would have rated the show higher if I was to speak directly to the talent acts, but the way the camera captures the action loses all the impact.
This could have been so captivating, but instead comes off as irritating.
What a shame!
Wusstest du schon
- VerbindungenVersion of America's Got Talent (2006)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How many seasons does Canada's Got Talent have?Powered by Alexa
Details
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was Canada's Got Talent (2012) officially released in India in English?
Antwort