I think there are two competitions running parallel every year in SCD, the one between the people who are good from the beginning, usually with a mix of natural talent and some perceived experience, and the competition between the people who are not naturally as good but are seen as being brave to try. Some weeks we lose one from one camp, some weeks from the other, and generally at least one learner will make to at least the semis. It's because there are different groups of people with different priorities voting.
I think this year, with no dance off, there's one contest between Kara, Scott, Matt, Jimi and Pamela, and one between Ann, Gavin, Patsy, Michelle and Felicity. We could argue about Jimi and Pamela - if Jimi has massive improvement or Pamela is seen as being incredible for her age, maybe they'll come to look like learners in comparison to Scott, Kara and Matt. But at least one learner will usually go to at least the semis, especially now we've no dance off, and if you don't count Jimi and Pamela I think it could as easily be Ann as one of the others.
I'd call Ann more of a joke contestant than a learner, because I think she sets out to be funny rather than to be good. I think the programme are actively supporting her, which helps her chances a lot, and I think is very wise of the show and much better than the sneering way they treated John Sargent, Kate Garroway and others, which just makes a victim of the person. She may well go through to the final - I never understood why Julian beat Aled, still bitter - but my instinct is that the joke will wear off. I think it's the journeys that people get behind and I don't think Ann is a journey. (I may be misreading her vote because I'm not fond of her myself.) But if she got to the final, I really don't think she could in a million years win. I think the voting is different in the final and that Kara, Scott, Pamela or Matt are all easily likable enough to beat her.
Sorry for the long post. I'm sure there is a shorter way of saying all that!
I agree with you, but unfortunately there are instances where someone falls from the "good dancer" camp before their time. Louisa Lytton was totally ROBBED!
Not a chance - sooner or later she'll rub up against the fanbase of someone more talented and they will block vote against her it may take until the final (unlikely but possible) but it will happen.
This week proved that there are plenty of people behind other contestants - for me the most encouraging was the testing and succeeding of Pam's supporters.
There are plenty of "wannabees" out there who would sign up. Let's face it the current "stars" are not exactly top rated and some of them need the publicity to re-launch fading careers.
As to Ann winning, I think it's unlikely but if she did I would be more than happy to see the judges faces not too mention reading the anguished postings here from dance anoraks. Yes, that is evil but fun!
Isn't it awful that Strictly Come Dancing has fans that like dancing :rolleyes:
Seriously, I wish some of the people who insist that dancing should have nothing to do with the entertainment factor of the show would just piss off and watch something else :mad:
Isn't it awful that Strictly Come Dancing has fans that like dancing :rolleyes:
Seriously, I wish some of the people who insist that dancing should have nothing to do with the entertainment factor of the show would just piss off and watch something else :mad:
Maybe you should tell that to the producers of the programme, who decide who is to be in the line-up.
Isn't it awful that Strictly Come Dancing has fans that like dancing :rolleyes:
Seriously, I wish some of the people who insist that dancing should have nothing to do with the entertainment factor of the show would just piss off and watch something else :mad:
Why can't you just accept that people watch the show for different reasons rather than resorting to insults?
Why can't you just accept that people watch the show for different reasons rather than resorting to insults?
I'm not actually insulting anyone I'm was just hoping that some people would go away and stop ruining it for me, if I was going to insult people I'd be calling all Ann fans morons, which I'm not
I do understand that people get different things out of watching the same programme, what I don't understand is how some people seem to be under the impression that dance should have nothing to do with the programme, I just don't get why they even watch.
I agree with you, but unfortunately there are instances where someone falls from the "good dancer" camp before their time. Louisa Lytton was totally ROBBED!
Maybe you should tell that to the producers of the programme, who decide who is to be in the line-up.
Maybe I have. I really think they have made a mistake in the way they are promoting Ann's involvement in the show and in whatever it is they have promised her to get her to take part.
I agree with you, but unfortunately there are instances where someone falls from the "good dancer" camp before their time. Louisa Lytton was totally ROBBED!
The thing is they were robbed (although not as much as Austin was btw ) by people who were not at that much of a different standard to them, and who were also putting in effort, improving each week and producing performances of a reasonable standard rather than a by a token comedy act.
Isn't it awful that Strictly Come Dancing has fans that like dancing :rolleyes:
Seriously, I wish some of the people who insist that dancing should have nothing to do with the entertainment factor of the show would just piss off and watch something else :mad:
But who is saying that? Nobody that I can see. Show me someone saying that. What is being said that is that it's possible for the poor dancers/joke contestants on Strictly to be entertaining, and that this is a perfectly acceptable aspect to the show. Nobody is saying "the good dancers aren't ever entertaining". As I see it, you have four permutations:
Good dancer and entertaining
Good dancer and boring
Poor dancer and entertaining
Poor dancer and boring
People are trying to say it's the *interplay* between these permutations that give the show a) its style, b) its opportunity for audience interaction via voting according to their preference, and c) a wide enough audience to make prime time scheduling.
If you remove any of those elements - whether it be by saying poor dancers shouldn't be allowed or voted for because they're entertaining, or nobody should have to learn to dance because it's really only a seaside special - then the show falls flat on its face.
Too many people take the show far too serious, its light entertainment on a Saturday night and if the GBP don't really care who wins, as I suspect is the case, helping to throw a spanner in the works is brilliant.
Reality shows are just cheap entertainment, let them eat cake, go widdieeeeeeee.:D
More evidence that AW has her eyes on the prize ...
Last Saturday's paso doble – a truly jaw-dropping spectacle performed to a soundtrack of Wild Thing by the Troggs – was likened to a car crash by the judges, but a John Sergeant-esque momentum of public support is building behind her. Having begun the contest as the bookies' favourite to be first to leave, Widdecombe is now 10-1 to win. In the event of these odds narrowing further, she has no intention whatsoever of bowing out, as Sergeant did, to protect the integrity of the show as a serious dance contest. Would it be fair to say she is quite a competitive person, I ask. "Yes," she flashes back, unabashed. "I would say that would be perfectly fair."
If she wins, good luck to her - but I can foresee a rather different brand of celebrity queuing up to do SCD9 ... none of whom will make any more effort to dance than AW does.
Ann could certainly get to the final, whether she could win or not though I don't know.
The JS campaign was a very strong one and he was, apparently, miles ahead in the voting. If the same people are getting behind Ann then it's a real possibility that she could win, especially with no dance off this year.
If Ann wins then I don't honestly see how they'll be able to do another series, who on earth would want to spend 3 months in a competition learning how to dance only to be beaten by someone who has consistently been at the bottom of the leaderboard?
The sort of people who get paid to do so, many in the hope of resurrecting their flagging career?
But who is saying that? Nobody that I can see. Show me someone saying that. What is being said that is that it's possible for the poor dancers/joke contestants on Strictly to be entertaining, and that this is a perfectly acceptable aspect to the show. Nobody is saying "the good dancers aren't ever entertaining". As I see it, you have four permutations:
Good dancer and entertaining
Good dancer and boring
Poor dancer and entertaining
Poor dancer and boring
People are trying to say it's the *interplay* between these permutations that give the show a) its style, b) its opportunity for audience interaction via voting according to their preference, and c) a wide enough audience to make prime time scheduling.
If you remove any of those elements - whether it be by saying poor dancers shouldn't be allowed or voted for because they're entertaining, or nobody should have to learn to dance because it's really only a seaside special - then the show falls flat on its face.
Should I piss off now?!
Not unless you have anything better to do. I actually agree with most of what you wrote.
But there are a number of people that as soon as anyone expresses an opinion about how poor a contestant like Ann is and how she is taking away their enjoyment of the show who immediately start whinging about the "dance purists" who don't know the meaning of the word entertainment, like that is some kind of insult. It's driving me nuts. Good dancing and the entertainment factor are not opposites of each other.
What is annoying me about Ann is her inclusion as the "joke" contestant and the manipulation of her storyline. There have been older contestants every year who have had a varying degree of success based on how they perform, how the audience reacts to them etc. With Ann there appears to have been a production decision to allow her to totally dictate the terms of her appearance. I know there is always manipulation of the audience to some extent on these shows but this is just one step to far for me.
The sort of people who get paid to do so, many in the hope of resurrecting their flagging career?
Ok, I was being a bit melodramatic, there are clearly enough wannabes to carry on any reality tv show, after all they did manage two series of celebrity love island.
But who is saying that? Nobody that I can see. Show me someone saying that. What is being said that is that it's possible for the poor dancers/joke contestants on Strictly to be entertaining, and that this is a perfectly acceptable aspect to the show. Nobody is saying "the good dancers aren't ever entertaining". As I see it, you have four permutations:
Good dancer and entertaining
Good dancer and boring
Poor dancer and entertaining
Poor dancer and boringPeople are trying to say it's the *interplay* between these permutations that give the show a) its style, b) its opportunity for audience interaction via voting according to their preference, and c) a wide enough audience to make prime time scheduling.
If you remove any of those elements - whether it be by saying poor dancers shouldn't be allowed or voted for because they're entertaining, or nobody should have to learn to dance because it's really only a seaside special - then the show falls flat on its face.
Should I piss off now?!
I agree with much you say about the ideas behind the show, and the general appeal it has to the viewers,
However, Ann does not fall into any of you catagories, she has not even a reached a level where you could call her a "poor dancer"..and this is after many weeks of lessons from a top professional.
Fortunately, I don't see her winning. John Sergeant was a "one-off", there was a ground swell of support for John that I don't see for Ann. She is almost certainly more popular than two or three of the remaining contestants, so she will be around for a few weeks.
Let's face it, if the unthinkable happened, and she won..it would signal the end for SCD, the programme would never recover.
It will come down to those who like to watch car crash humiliation approximating dancing and those who want entertaining dancing.
Despite the obvious difference in ability last years winner Chris was at least entertaining and really did try to dance. Allowing Anton to use you as a floor polisher is not dancing and last weeks effort was not even entertaining IMHO.
There again I never was a fan of the Norman Wisdom (RIP) style of humour.
Comments
I think this year, with no dance off, there's one contest between Kara, Scott, Matt, Jimi and Pamela, and one between Ann, Gavin, Patsy, Michelle and Felicity. We could argue about Jimi and Pamela - if Jimi has massive improvement or Pamela is seen as being incredible for her age, maybe they'll come to look like learners in comparison to Scott, Kara and Matt. But at least one learner will usually go to at least the semis, especially now we've no dance off, and if you don't count Jimi and Pamela I think it could as easily be Ann as one of the others.
I'd call Ann more of a joke contestant than a learner, because I think she sets out to be funny rather than to be good. I think the programme are actively supporting her, which helps her chances a lot, and I think is very wise of the show and much better than the sneering way they treated John Sargent, Kate Garroway and others, which just makes a victim of the person. She may well go through to the final - I never understood why Julian beat Aled, still bitter - but my instinct is that the joke will wear off. I think it's the journeys that people get behind and I don't think Ann is a journey. (I may be misreading her vote because I'm not fond of her myself.) But if she got to the final, I really don't think she could in a million years win. I think the voting is different in the final and that Kara, Scott, Pamela or Matt are all easily likable enough to beat her.
Sorry for the long post. I'm sure there is a shorter way of saying all that!
I agree with you, but unfortunately there are instances where someone falls from the "good dancer" camp before their time. Louisa Lytton was totally ROBBED!
Totally agree
This week proved that there are plenty of people behind other contestants - for me the most encouraging was the testing and succeeding of Pam's supporters.
Isn't it awful that Strictly Come Dancing has fans that like dancing :rolleyes:
Seriously, I wish some of the people who insist that dancing should have nothing to do with the entertainment factor of the show would just piss off and watch something else :mad:
Why can't you just accept that people watch the show for different reasons rather than resorting to insults?
I'm not actually insulting anyone I'm was just hoping that some people would go away and stop ruining it for me, if I was going to insult people I'd be calling all Ann fans morons, which I'm not
I do understand that people get different things out of watching the same programme, what I don't understand is how some people seem to be under the impression that dance should have nothing to do with the programme, I just don't get why they even watch.
The same as Gethin was robbed in the semis.
Maybe I have. I really think they have made a mistake in the way they are promoting Ann's involvement in the show and in whatever it is they have promised her to get her to take part.
The thing is they were robbed (although not as much as Austin was btw
But who is saying that? Nobody that I can see. Show me someone saying that. What is being said that is that it's possible for the poor dancers/joke contestants on Strictly to be entertaining, and that this is a perfectly acceptable aspect to the show. Nobody is saying "the good dancers aren't ever entertaining". As I see it, you have four permutations:
Good dancer and entertaining
Good dancer and boring
Poor dancer and entertaining
Poor dancer and boring
People are trying to say it's the *interplay* between these permutations that give the show a) its style, b) its opportunity for audience interaction via voting according to their preference, and c) a wide enough audience to make prime time scheduling.
If you remove any of those elements - whether it be by saying poor dancers shouldn't be allowed or voted for because they're entertaining, or nobody should have to learn to dance because it's really only a seaside special - then the show falls flat on its face.
Should I piss off now?!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s104/strictly-come-dancing/news/a285505/ann-widdecombe-dumbo-triumphs-again.html
:eek::rolleyes::eek:
Too many people take the show far too serious, its light entertainment on a Saturday night and if the GBP don't really care who wins, as I suspect is the case, helping to throw a spanner in the works is brilliant.
Reality shows are just cheap entertainment, let them eat cake, go widdieeeeeeee.:D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/nov/02/ann-widdecombe-strictly-come-dancing-fun
If she wins, good luck to her - but I can foresee a rather different brand of celebrity queuing up to do SCD9 ... none of whom will make any more effort to dance than AW does.
The JS campaign was a very strong one and he was, apparently, miles ahead in the voting. If the same people are getting behind Ann then it's a real possibility that she could win, especially with no dance off this year.
CRAIG ARE YOU LISTENING..........
The sort of people who get paid to do so, many in the hope of resurrecting their flagging career?
The very same.:D
Not unless you have anything better to do. I actually agree with most of what you wrote.
But there are a number of people that as soon as anyone expresses an opinion about how poor a contestant like Ann is and how she is taking away their enjoyment of the show who immediately start whinging about the "dance purists" who don't know the meaning of the word entertainment, like that is some kind of insult. It's driving me nuts. Good dancing and the entertainment factor are not opposites of each other.
What is annoying me about Ann is her inclusion as the "joke" contestant and the manipulation of her storyline. There have been older contestants every year who have had a varying degree of success based on how they perform, how the audience reacts to them etc. With Ann there appears to have been a production decision to allow her to totally dictate the terms of her appearance. I know there is always manipulation of the audience to some extent on these shows but this is just one step to far for me.
Ok, I was being a bit melodramatic, there are clearly enough wannabes to carry on any reality tv show, after all they did manage two series of celebrity love island.
I agree with much you say about the ideas behind the show, and the general appeal it has to the viewers,
However, Ann does not fall into any of you catagories, she has not even a reached a level where you could call her a "poor dancer"..and this is after many weeks of lessons from a top professional.
Fortunately, I don't see her winning. John Sergeant was a "one-off", there was a ground swell of support for John that I don't see for Ann. She is almost certainly more popular than two or three of the remaining contestants, so she will be around for a few weeks.
Let's face it, if the unthinkable happened, and she won..it would signal the end for SCD, the programme would never recover.
Despite the obvious difference in ability last years winner Chris was at least entertaining and really did try to dance. Allowing Anton to use you as a floor polisher is not dancing and last weeks effort was not even entertaining IMHO.
There again I never was a fan of the Norman Wisdom (RIP) style of humour.