This week the dance off was predictable before the show. Next week not so easy and, just for a change, is likely to turn on how they perform. Anyone doing a rumba may well be at a disadvantage.
I didn't see Jake, I turned over to the Chase on +1. Going off the comments he was a contender.
Before tonight I would have predicted Mark and Sunetra in the bottom 2 with Sunetra going.
I must be Psychic.
Next week I predict a return to form for Jake and Simon and Mark in the bottom 2,with Mark going. If I am wrong then it isn't a predictable series.
Yeah it was predictable before the show......though on performance last night, Jake SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOWN THERE, FOR THE WORST AT I have seen on strictly.
Does show the eastender fanbase he has got though....I predict he will win the final, deserved or not.
Yeah it was predictable before the show......though on performance last night, Jake SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOWN THERE, FOR THE WORST AT I have seen on strictly. Does show the eastender fanbase he has got though....I predict he will win the final, deserved or not.
I agree - that AT was terrible. It was obvious though that Sunetra was on her way out.
If 'folk generally liked' Simon, why has he been in the bottom two twice?
And whether or not a contestant is technically 'the best' doesn't necessarily have that much currency with the public. Look at SCD6, where it's quite possible John Sergeant could have made the final and won, if the leaked public voting figures were accurate (and the order in which contestants exited suggested they were) …
Abbey was in the bottom two early on last year when she certainly wasn't in the bottom two with the judges, so clearly had a fairly poor public vote then.
Seems she had quite a good public vote come the final ! As much as many folk do have favourites, there can be big shifts in perception and the public vote.
I don't know where Simon has stood the last few weeks in the publuc vote and neither do you.
I accept poorer dancers can get big public votes for reasons quite unconnected to their dance ability, but that's rather a tangent to the question of whether the judges have a clear idea of who they want in the final as distinct to just marking as the shows progress.
BIB - sorry to burst your (and others') bubble, but the judges work to the producers' agenda. They're the ones who call the shots and while Craig is usually the most idiosyncratic, even he will toe the line when he has to.
What the producers want is as much 'drama' as possible. Simon was in the dance-off twice - now look at him! Jake topped the leader board last week - now he's near the bottom! The idea is to create as much artificial unpredictability about who might win, whereas the reality is the decision about who the producers (who are privy to how the public are voting) will probably have decided who they want already.
This isn't new - the most extreme example remains SCD 6, where one contestant in particular who was unpopular with the public kept being overmarked to keep her in the competition.
It's perfectly possible that both Frankie and Pixie aren't rating that well with the voting audience. Simon and Caroline have already appeared in the dance-off, so who knows what kind of public support they have now? Might that be why they are being scored so highly?
Like every other reality show - which Strictly is, it's not a pure dance competition - there's an element of SCD which is scripted. Whether we as viewers like it or not ...
Of course there's an element that scripted, but you seem to be saying that element includes the judges' marks.
Do you really think that Jake was at the top of the leader board last weak and near the bottom this week becuase the SCD producers told the judges to put him there, and not because of how well the judges thought he danced compared to the others?
I'm guessing your SCD 6 example is Lisa Snowdon, because that particular conspiracy theory seems ingrained in this forum, but I have never seen a convincing explanation of why the producers (or the judges, if there were acting on their own) would do it. Why Lisa Snowdon? Why on earth would they care?
It's something that would do great damage to Strictly and to the BBC -- not to mention the judges' reputations -- if it ever came out. Why would they take the risk?
Of course there's an element that scripted, but you seem to be saying that element includes the judges' marks.
Do you really think that Jake was at the top of the leader board last weak and near the bottom this week becuase the SCD producers told the judges to put him there, and not because of how well the judges thought he danced compared to the others?
I'm guessing your SCD 6 example is Lisa Snowdon, because that particular conspiracy theory seems ingrained in this forum, but I have never seen a convincing explanation of why the producers (or the judges, if there were acting on their own) would do it. Why Lisa Snowdon? Why on earth would they care?
It's something that would do great damage to Strictly and to the BBC -- not to mention the judges' reputations -- if it ever came out. Why would they take the risk?
Yes, a to me remarkable number of people appear to think such things.
Giod reply, though logic often doesn't seem to work
It's fairly obvious that different people think that different dancers are over and under marked. That's all that's fairly obvious to me.
I agree. Also, there are two different sorts of over-/under-marking claims.
One is just disagreeing with the judges. A judge gives it a 9; you think "no way was that a 9!" Or thinking the judges' marks aren't making much sense. "How can Bruno give ___ the same mark as ___?"
The other is claiming the judges aren't even giving marks that they think are what the dance deserves, but instead have some ulterior motive such as getting a personal favourite to the final or getting a bottom two the producer's wanted. ("Favourite" here doesn't mean the judge thinks that person the best dancer; they're the judge's "favourite" for some other reason.)
It's only the second sort that takes us into conspiracy territory.
Now here's a controversial thought. It may not be clear who the judges want in the final four, because they are not working to a script nor have preordained opinions, and are marking as they see it each week.
I know, how naive to not understand it's all a conspiracy
Unfortunately, thenetworkbabe (whose post you were answering there) has some things as conspiracies too and doesn't think the judges mark each dance based on how good they actually thought the dance actually was. For instance:
The under/overmarking is irrelevant. What matters is the order- which is what the judges aim for and why some marks have sometimes to be odd to produce it.Marks also have to be higher than deserved often to keep a lid on the anti-judge vote. Its very often left to Craig to bring the total down to the right one while the other judges say nice things to stop people voting against them. ...
How is that supposed to work? For example, Craig gives his mark first. So how is it left to him to being the total down to the right one? Do the judges have a little conference (which the cameras always carefully never catch) in which they decide who gives what marks to get the right total?
(BTW, Craig's effects on the leader board aren't by giving different marks than the other judges; they're by the differences among his own marks.)
Of course there's an element that scripted, but you seem to be saying that element includes the judges' marks.
Do you really think that Jake was at the top of the leader board last weak and near the bottom this week becuase the SCD producers told the judges to put him there, and not because of how well the judges thought he danced compared to the others?
I'm guessing your SCD 6 example is Lisa Snowdon, because that particular conspiracy theory seems ingrained in this forum, but I have never seen a convincing explanation of why the producers (or the judges, if there were acting on their own) would do it. Why Lisa Snowdon? Why on earth would they care?
It's something that would do great damage to Strictly and to the BBC -- not to mention the judges' reputations -- if it ever came out. Why would they take the risk?
Of course the judges' scores are scripted to some extent. It's well documented that they get to see the rehearsals.
Of course the producers couldn't've known that Jake would fluff his AT - but they knew full well they were handing him a stinking pile of c**p when they told him and Janette they'd be performing to 'Zorba The Greek'. Nobody could have pulled that off and there was no way he'd get the same scores as the week even before he'd set foot on the dance floor.
As for SCD6, it's pretty obvious the producers - and at least half the judges - wanted Rachel Stevens to win. What better way of guaranteeing that than having her in a two-contestant final against the only remaining celeb with less public support than her? How else do you explain Lisa's massively over marked attempts at the latin dances in the weeks approaching the final, and the very obviously rigged scores in the semi final to ensure (they hoped) Tom Chambers' exit?
SCD6 is the series where the split between those who view Strictly as a pure dance competition and those who see it as a Saturday night reality entertainment show was deepest, courtesy of Sergeant-gate. If Sergeant had won - which he might well have - wouldn't that have destroyed the whole ethos of the series? So why wouldn't the producers have done their damnedest to prevent that from happening?
The judges do what they're told. They're not serious judges in a world class dance competition. And please let's not pretend that the producers don't have opinions about who they think should win. Of course they do …
4. Frankie & Kevin (5 points)
5. Mark & Karen (4 points)
If Mark received more votes than Frankie, he'd have an equal (or higher) combined points, and as public vote overrules judges points when combined points are equal, Mark would have gone through over Frankie. So Frankie had to receive more votes than Mark last night.
Thank You for my Glitterball, see you all next week ( though if i'm honest all the times I fancied had gone, so this was pure luck ) :cool:
Sorry forgot my manners, thanks again for this fun thread, it always makes me smile.
The right result for me although I did like Sunetra. Thought Jake should have been in the Do with her not Mark - hope the latter doesn't go out next week really like him - he will get all my votes
Call me old fashioned and maybe slightly cynical but why isn't SCD one person one vote -or would the beeb lose out on their cut of the phone profits (I said I was being a bit cynical lol)
I do agree, however, that the directors do have an agenda as to who the final dancers should be through the judges marking.
Call me old fashioned and maybe slightly cynical but why isn't SCD one person one vote -or would the beeb lose out on their cut of the phone profits (I said I was being a bit cynical lol)
I do agree, however, that the directors do have an agenda as to who the final dancers should be through the judges marking.
(now ducks below the parapet) :cool:
They don't get a cut of the profits - not allowed since the voting scandal a few years ago. They employ a company to deal with it. And don't forget that anyone with a BBC ID (such as registered for the BBC Message board or registered just for Strictly) gets three free votes on line.
Comments
Yeah it was predictable before the show......though on performance last night, Jake SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOWN THERE, FOR THE WORST AT I have seen on strictly.
Does show the eastender fanbase he has got though....I predict he will win the final, deserved or not.
I agree - that AT was terrible. It was obvious though that Sunetra was on her way out.
Abbey was in the bottom two early on last year when she certainly wasn't in the bottom two with the judges, so clearly had a fairly poor public vote then.
Seems she had quite a good public vote come the final ! As much as many folk do have favourites, there can be big shifts in perception and the public vote.
I don't know where Simon has stood the last few weeks in the publuc vote and neither do you.
I accept poorer dancers can get big public votes for reasons quite unconnected to their dance ability, but that's rather a tangent to the question of whether the judges have a clear idea of who they want in the final as distinct to just marking as the shows progress.
Of course there's an element that scripted, but you seem to be saying that element includes the judges' marks.
Do you really think that Jake was at the top of the leader board last weak and near the bottom this week becuase the SCD producers told the judges to put him there, and not because of how well the judges thought he danced compared to the others?
I'm guessing your SCD 6 example is Lisa Snowdon, because that particular conspiracy theory seems ingrained in this forum, but I have never seen a convincing explanation of why the producers (or the judges, if there were acting on their own) would do it. Why Lisa Snowdon? Why on earth would they care?
It's something that would do great damage to Strictly and to the BBC -- not to mention the judges' reputations -- if it ever came out. Why would they take the risk?
Yes, a to me remarkable number of people appear to think such things.
Giod reply, though logic often doesn't seem to work
I agree. Also, there are two different sorts of over-/under-marking claims.
One is just disagreeing with the judges. A judge gives it a 9; you think "no way was that a 9!" Or thinking the judges' marks aren't making much sense. "How can Bruno give ___ the same mark as ___?"
The other is claiming the judges aren't even giving marks that they think are what the dance deserves, but instead have some ulterior motive such as getting a personal favourite to the final or getting a bottom two the producer's wanted. ("Favourite" here doesn't mean the judge thinks that person the best dancer; they're the judge's "favourite" for some other reason.)
It's only the second sort that takes us into conspiracy territory.
Unfortunately, thenetworkbabe (whose post you were answering there) has some things as conspiracies too and doesn't think the judges mark each dance based on how good they actually thought the dance actually was. For instance:
How is that supposed to work? For example, Craig gives his mark first. So how is it left to him to being the total down to the right one? Do the judges have a little conference (which the cameras always carefully never catch) in which they decide who gives what marks to get the right total?
(BTW, Craig's effects on the leader board aren't by giving different marks than the other judges; they're by the differences among his own marks.)
Of course the judges' scores are scripted to some extent. It's well documented that they get to see the rehearsals.
Of course the producers couldn't've known that Jake would fluff his AT - but they knew full well they were handing him a stinking pile of c**p when they told him and Janette they'd be performing to 'Zorba The Greek'. Nobody could have pulled that off and there was no way he'd get the same scores as the week even before he'd set foot on the dance floor.
As for SCD6, it's pretty obvious the producers - and at least half the judges - wanted Rachel Stevens to win. What better way of guaranteeing that than having her in a two-contestant final against the only remaining celeb with less public support than her? How else do you explain Lisa's massively over marked attempts at the latin dances in the weeks approaching the final, and the very obviously rigged scores in the semi final to ensure (they hoped) Tom Chambers' exit?
SCD6 is the series where the split between those who view Strictly as a pure dance competition and those who see it as a Saturday night reality entertainment show was deepest, courtesy of Sergeant-gate. If Sergeant had won - which he might well have - wouldn't that have destroyed the whole ethos of the series? So why wouldn't the producers have done their damnedest to prevent that from happening?
The judges do what they're told. They're not serious judges in a world class dance competition. And please let's not pretend that the producers don't have opinions about who they think should win. Of course they do …
I personally don't get the sex symbol thing but, as the say, there's nowt as queer as folk.
Deservedly so. Max Branning's arse is a thing of beauty.
Thanks
Sorry forgot my manners, thanks again for this fun thread, it always makes me smile.
I do agree, however, that the directors do have an agenda as to who the final dancers should be through the judges marking.
(now ducks below the parapet) :cool:
Loving the tension already
Who gets called out when is the only tension left.
Simon was in the dance off when Blue had concerts on a Saturday which he missed due to Strictly.
Odd coincidence ? Or their fan base not able to vote for them.