It would be interesting to know how much people are paid for the Dancing on Ice thing by ITV?
I heard the judges on Dancing on Ice get even more than the SCD judges, well over £100k. And Philip Schofield earns way more than Brucie for his presenting job on Dancing on Ice, something in the region of £900,000! I think it's all a bit ridiculous really.
As much as I like the judges on Strictly and find their comments entertaining, I think the pros are much more valuable than their salaries suggest. They put in so much work, and they make the show for me. It'd be a shame for the series to lose its upbeat feel, but as people have said, hopefully when the men and women are together next week it'll feel like Strictly again
Nothing about singing up makes ill feeling invalid, though. Nor does signing up make it stupid or childish.
I suggest that you are wrong - if you enter into something and agree to the conditions knowing full well what the pay differential are, you cannot allegedly "go off on one", complain to the papers or go into a sulk later on. The mature thing is
a) accept that sometimes life is not entirely fair and move on
or
b) carry on regardless as the job/contract has the same value to you now as it did before
or
c) decline the offer and do something else/something where the pay scales are more to your liking
Now this view might not be popular, but here it is, please accept it as a well-intentioned view from someone whose pragmatism has developed after a lifetime witnessing office politics:
What I have found is that in working life, whether in a factory, office, or on TV, people get paid differing amounts for different things. People also get paid different amounts for doing the same things. And sometimes people get paid what you consider to be something way above their abilities whilst someone else is being paid far too little. Sometimes you can get too hung up on what X earns, or whether Y should be getting the same as Z. But no-one ever stated that life was going to be fair or equitable. You make what you can of it, and move on.
As for being childish/stupid (a comment aimed at no-one here I might add) I firmly believe that when mature people start complaining "I want what he's got", that IS childish. And (if the report is correct), the likes of Brendan should be a little more mature in their outlook (having been around in the business and on TV for quite a few years). But of course, that might just be part of the Brendan "act"
The main reason the show is starting to pall for me is the showing too early of the favourites. At this point, we have four clear front runners and the rest are just fodder. There's no competition until we get down to the last few.
Where I think the BBC is getting it wrong is allowing the judges to feed into this, rather than judging the efforts of people as an improvement or otherwise on the previous week. Then, at least, we might get some variation from the Austin/Tom-Cherie/Rachel inevitibility.
It's so strange if you compare the show even to last year, but definitely to two or three years ago. All the joy seems to have gone from it.
It seems like all the celebs are nervy now, rather than the odd one, I guess the nature has maybe changed because they're more aware now of the benefit to them if they get far into the competition. So it's not just about having fun and hoping to get through, they have something at stake here.
I feel as if the BBC run it much more like a machine now- ITT has become very formulaic now compared to what it was when Claudia first started presenting when you never knew what they'd be doing next. Now you pretty much know you'll get a couple of 'Were you pleased/disappointed last week?'/'Are you nervous about this week?' interviews every night, and maybe the odd behind the scenes feature. The main show has the same kind of feel, with certain elements bigged up beyond all sense like the Tom/Austin 'rivalry', and some celebs without a 'story' getting knocked out of the limelight.
I get the impression the BBC are attempting to big up some of the new pros and some of those who've been on last time, in an attempt to make a drastic cut at the end of this year. We've seen so much of Vincent, Flavia, James, Ola, Kristina and Brian, it seems a bit marked to be just a coincidence. If that is happening, it's probably causing a lot of tension.
I'd also assume the situation with Nicole hasn't helped, although pros have not been invited back before, this was so marked in that Matt was accepted back. And although I don't think any other couple could be split like that, it shows a lack of respect that probably has them all on edge. I can understand the majority of people don't know much at all about the pros and don't care which of them returns, but for me that is a side of the show that really grates on me. Yes, they could be replaced, but they're still the backbone of the show, working far harder than anyone else to pull everything together, and for me they make the show something special.
If the BBC are thinking of this... well it would be a big mistake....The "old" pro's are - I agree with you - part of the back bone of SCD. All provide something "extra" either in terms of personaility, mentoring or choreographically.
They also provide a real sense of warmth & continuity to the show.
(At this point people will bring up Nicole....but I have to say unfortunately and despite being an incredible dancer Nicole made very little impact on the show. At this point people will bring up her celeb partners....but really Anton has had as many ropey partners and still stamped his mark, as have others. Just being a great dancer doesn't make you right for SCD. None of the other pros - 'love em or 'hate em- have made as little impression. That said I still feel for her as it must have been hideously upsetting.)
In terms of giving more attention to the new pros - the BBc are in a "damned if you do damned if you don't" situation. Used to be lots of threads on here complaining that newer pros' didn't get a chance to build up a fan base and were always being kicked out early because of it....
I think the real problem is there are just too many couples...by this stage I've usually got a handle on all of them ....not this time.
The extra folk and the extra work that must entail, might explain why the show is more "machine like" and relying on formula...
Instead of being a wee village SCD is a small city this year.
It all looked a bit flat last night. I think there are a few factors involved here, although I would seriously doubt that pay has anything to do with it. Dancers are like sports people in many aspects of their personality: when they are performing, pay simply isn't a consideration. Anyway, here is what I think caused the atmosphere:
The early start. Just as it never seems right when a Premiership football match kicks off at noon, the programme started too early. As they timetable things backwards from transmission time, that means a very early start to the day, which, presumably only those with a background in TV or film are really used to.
The relatively flat performances and low marking for the first few dances. I'm convinced that the first dance sets the scene for the evening. It wasn't great, although I didn't think it was as bad as made out, but it set the mood for the evening.
The judges. Len in particular is visibly more grumpy when he is doing both Dancing with the Stars and Strictly. He really should be doing one or the other.
Bruce. Sadly, he's probably gone on for a series too long. I was cringing at his links yesterday, and after a while kept switching to the football to avoid them all together.
The length of the show and the padding. Four alternate male only, female only, weeks is two weeks too much. Add on the extra work to film the Sunday show, and it's overkill.
Middling celebrities, and a clear delineation of abilities. Barring two of them somehow getting involved in a dance off, it is blindingly obvious that the last 4 will be Austin, Cherie, Rachel & Tom. That will subconsciously have an impact upon everyone's performance.
On pay, if the reported salaries are correct, it is clear that the dancers (and celebrities for that matter) are hugely underpaid, and the judges and especially the presenters (tellingly the participants and talent respectively in TV parlance) are overpaid. For the hours they put in to provide that amount of prime time TV, £30K is a low salary. If you add up the hours worked per week, then for the dancers that make it through to the later stages, it's a poor hourly wage rate. Add to that the fact that they are giving up dancing exhibitions or competing, and, if they run dance schools have to pay someone else to take their teaching commitments, and they really should be paid more.
I think that there is an atmosphere because every couple is taking it more seriously than last year and want to stay in SCD much longer. Not only that but both pros and celebs have other commitments.
Maybe if the BBC cut back SCD to twelve weeks there might just be less tension in the ranks. Why not go back to basics to see how things go? Bruce would have less time to tell his jokes for starters and the judges should be content with what they've got never mind fighting for air time and pay rises.
To be honest do these judges want pay rises included in their contracts. Len and Bruno
can't be doing too badly. Just how much do they get for DWTS after all there are two seasons a year for that. Arlene has Britannia High and Craig has his choreography and what have you.
Those who do need pay rises in my opinion are the pros amd celebs who really go out of their way to make SCD what it is a phenomenon.
P.S I agree with footiegirl. Promote Karen to the judging panel.
I think Jodie, Heather and Lisa are more than capable of being fun in rehearsal, probably all the women are - I wonder (just a thought) if in order to increase the voting, which has probably nosedived after all the scandals, the state of the economy and now it's not for CiN, they are trying to up the drama from the beginning, emphasising the tears and panic over the laughs in order to motivate us to vote? If so, for God's sake someone tell them to go the other way. People need an enjoyable show at the moment.
(I felt this very much last night, so I admit I'm biased. I had a very long difficult conversation with a family member about her huge health and money problems, and sat down to watch SCD wanting escapism - and just felt irritable with them all, especially the judges. Perhaps that was asking a bit much of a TV show.)
Having said that, I do think the men have a much more relaxed attitude and I am hopeful this will affect the women from next week on and things will get lighter.
The cost of paying the Henson Creature shop to apply the hideous prostheses to John Sargent must wipes a significant amount off the budget.
Seriuosly though, as with all BBC versions of reality shows, there will be much more argy bargy backstage than with the X-Factor, despite Max Clifford pumping the tabloids with guff about backstage X-Feuds each week.
Apart from that just because the pro's sign up for the show dosen't mean they are happy with what they are signing up for.......a lot of us are not particularly happy with the job we do but we have no other choice.
Maybe the pro's feel (for the moment)that they can't turn down SCD because of the exposure associated with it and it help's that they are working with a good group of pro's most of whomn are friend's who have known each other for years.
Anyway,it is the way of the world and some people will always be at the bottom of the pecking order but if say 4-5 of the established pro's refused to sign up for next year unless some of their contract conditions changed i just wonder if the BBC would risk loosing that many in one go.
.
Im sure the BBC wouldn't care if 4 or 5 pros refused to sign, I know that a lot of people on this forum think that the pros re the lynchpin, hardest workers etc but the majority of the audience aren't on the forum, most viewers see it as a nice saturday night TV show, enjoyable but not life or death.
£30,000 for 16 weeks work maximum is not a bad salary, only the final 3 will work for that long & even if they are putting in 60 hours a week the whole time ( which isn't the case when you look at the training hours on ITT) they are still well exceeding the saverage salary. The pro's do have a choice, it's a completely different situation to people who have to go to their regular jobs to pay the mortgage, for most of the pro's SCD is a bonus, they could all carry on teaching or get regular jobs if they are not happy.
As much as I can't abide Bruce he has put 50 years in to reach this level of payment.
On a slightly different tack, regarding the pros, did anyone see Vincent & Flavia on ITT a week or so ago? They were shown dancing in some small ballroom in somewhere like Blackpool, even the shots of Karen from house to car seemed to indicate that they are not generally in the high-earning bracket that we might have assumed. They are just rather normal working people who generally dance in rather mundane and small dancehalls, without the accepted trappings of "stardom and fame" (apart from their fans of course). So SCD is really an odd vehicle where two or three worlds and levels of earnings come together. Now whether that is right or wrong is something else .....
I agree Billy well with the bit about most of the audience not caring about the pros anyway. They might be familar with Anton cos he's on "Hole in the Wall" and Brendan because he's in the papers (possibly Flavia and Vincent for the same reason) but I think that's about it. Sad but true - we're the hardcore on here and don't reflect the audience. Anton's eviction two weeks ago proves that fanbases don't save pros.
Interestingly someone who went last night has posted on the BBC board and they said that the atmosphere changed once the cameras stopped rolling....:rolleyes:
Nothing lasts forever you know. Maybe SCD is just at the beginning of dying a natural death? I do think it could be kept alive longer by reverting to the original formula of 12 couples and no single sex nights, a Saturday night, live, half-hour results show, and a little less hype.
Nothing lasts forever you know. Maybe SCD is just at the beginning of dying a natural death? I do think it could be kept alive longer by reverting to the original formula of 12 couples and no single sex nights, a Saturday night, live, half-hour results show, and a little less hype.
The viewing figures don't suggest that at all, and as has been mentioned, forum life is a very very small part of the viewing base (so might not be at all representative of the general feeling). When viewing figures start to slump, that's when it's time to change.
You are putting more emphasis on the contestants, rather than being a bit of fun for charity, on the face of it, it is now just a competition and all about winning.
You are putting more emphasis on the contestants, rather than being a bit of fun for charity, on the face of it, it is now just a competition and all about winning.
I can't believe some of you are personally attacking Bruce Forsythe for being paid so much. Why are you blaming him - its not his fault, blame the BBC for paying such a huge figure - they obviously think he's worth it. If you were offered that sum of money, or offered a huge pay rise, would you all turn it down? Course you wouldn't. So, don't blame Bruce, its not his fault he's offered all that money - blame the BBC. Or, is it just another personal attack by some posters on here who seem to have a dislike for Brucie?
By the way, to the poster who called Brucie past his sell by date and old and doddery - grow up and learn some manners. You are being offensive, and ageism is just as offensive as racism. To personally attack someone in a cruel and mean way just because of their age is disgraceful, and you know who you are. So, any more and I will report you to the moderators.
It may also be worth observing that the combination of dances will have contributed to any perceived atmosphere. The rumba is clearly the hardest dance for the celebrities to do well, while the quickstep is also difficult to do because of the speed. Perhaps that mixture so early on did not help?
Most dancers are underpaid, even more are unemployed. The Strictly dancers know that their earning power for the rest of the year goes up through being involved in Strictly. I would assume that they are all able to charge much higher fees for PA's now.
Not one of the dancers is indespensible, and if they have any common sense they know that.
I don't think it is fair, I certainly do not beleive that Bruce earns the ridiculous amount he is paid, but it is what it is. They could leave, en masse, tomorrow and they would be replaced.
I can't believe some of you are personally attacking Bruce Forsythe for being paid so much. Why are you blaming him - its not his fault, blame the BBC for paying such a huge figure - they obviously think he's worth it. If you were offered that sum of money, or offered a huge pay rise, would you all turn it down? Course you wouldn't. So, don't blame Bruce, its not his fault he's offered all that money - blame the BBC.
Or more correctly, blame the free market in which they all operate. The BBC has to pay close to the market rate, or their performers will go elsewhere (as has happened before).
No I don't think there's any unpleasant atmosphere at all.
It's Strictly as it's always been to me - & some great dancing to look forward to.
I think the problem lies in the fact that many posters on here seem to want to live their life through a TV show. Every year posters bemoan the fact that it's "not as good as last year". When in fact, the overall standard has improved hugely from the early series.
If you've watched all the series - then inevitably you're going to get used to the format & have seen some things before. Personally I thought last year's series was the best so far. This year's series is going pretty well. We don't have any staggeringly bad dancing to sit through which is always a plus.
The issues about pay are interesting - but I don't believe that contributes to any 'atmosphere'. I personally would swap the pay of the pro dancers & Tess/Bruce - as Tess & Bruce are totally expendable to the show - and to me just bad & irritating.
I have to admit I haven't felt that there is a marked difference this year compared to past series. Brendan has always been a bit petulent when he has not got the scores that he seems to think he should have got. Yes I think the celebs take it more seriously then in the past, but after 5 series is there not some pressure on them from the audience to be as good as the year before.Whereas at the beginning of the series it was fun, now they know what is expected of them and feel they have to achieve that.
The only thing I have not like this series is too many dancers, before its was nice to have a week to introduce the dancers and then straight into the competition, thats when I think the series really begins.
As to all the complaints about the pay , I too believe the pros deserve more for all the hard work they put in ,but I think we need to get real here, in the entertainment world dancers are the lowest of the low with regards to pay. I know that the pro's work harder then anyone else ,but surely the show is the main thing, not who is in it. I would be disappointed if my favourite pro's were dropped but I would still watch it. Don't forget not all of the pro's have been in it since series one.The BBC know this and they also know there are a queue of profesional dancers who would jump at the chance to be in it, you only have to look this year that we have had people willing to come from the states and new zealand to take part. I think the dancers need to be honest 6 years ago, very few people outside the dance world had heard of most of them, and several were thinking of giving up dancing as a career as they were travelling all of the world to compete in competitions to make a living. Now they are household names, get invites to every showbiz do there is and get everything that is available to celebs. No doubt their personal appearence fees have gone up , as also the numbers of displays they do. Don't forget that with strictly and the tour that also means they are in full time work for 6 months of the year. How many of them , or anyone in the entertainment industry,could have said that before? I think that was clear when you saw the photoshoot in the OK mag, where several of the dancers wore their own hand made Saville Row suits! Don't think thats on the poverty line somehow.
The dancers knew the contract when they signed at the start of SCD and were happy enough then, and no'one could have expected the success of the series. If they are really not happy then don't sign up for the next series, no'one is forcing them to stay. However I think that most of them know where there bread is buttered, and how fickle TV is and in a few months no'one will have heard of them if they leave. I personally think that is half the problem with Nicole Cutler not that she is unhappy about being dropped, but with Matthew in the show and on tour that means no partner for several months and no income.
Comments
I agree. I've noticed more tension with Len, he really rolls his eyes when the other judges speak.
I heard the judges on Dancing on Ice get even more than the SCD judges, well over £100k. And Philip Schofield earns way more than Brucie for his presenting job on Dancing on Ice, something in the region of £900,000! I think it's all a bit ridiculous really.
As much as I like the judges on Strictly and find their comments entertaining, I think the pros are much more valuable than their salaries suggest. They put in so much work, and they make the show for me. It'd be a shame for the series to lose its upbeat feel, but as people have said, hopefully when the men and women are together next week it'll feel like Strictly again
a) accept that sometimes life is not entirely fair and move on
or
b) carry on regardless as the job/contract has the same value to you now as it did before
or
c) decline the offer and do something else/something where the pay scales are more to your liking
Now this view might not be popular, but here it is, please accept it as a well-intentioned view from someone whose pragmatism has developed after a lifetime witnessing office politics:
What I have found is that in working life, whether in a factory, office, or on TV, people get paid differing amounts for different things. People also get paid different amounts for doing the same things. And sometimes people get paid what you consider to be something way above their abilities whilst someone else is being paid far too little. Sometimes you can get too hung up on what X earns, or whether Y should be getting the same as Z. But no-one ever stated that life was going to be fair or equitable. You make what you can of it, and move on.
As for being childish/stupid (a comment aimed at no-one here I might add) I firmly believe that when mature people start complaining "I want what he's got", that IS childish. And (if the report is correct), the likes of Brendan should be a little more mature in their outlook (having been around in the business and on TV for quite a few years). But of course, that might just be part of the Brendan "act"
Where I think the BBC is getting it wrong is allowing the judges to feed into this, rather than judging the efforts of people as an improvement or otherwise on the previous week. Then, at least, we might get some variation from the Austin/Tom-Cherie/Rachel inevitibility.
If the BBC are thinking of this... well it would be a big mistake....The "old" pro's are - I agree with you - part of the back bone of SCD. All provide something "extra" either in terms of personaility, mentoring or choreographically.
They also provide a real sense of warmth & continuity to the show.
(At this point people will bring up Nicole....but I have to say unfortunately and despite being an incredible dancer Nicole made very little impact on the show. At this point people will bring up her celeb partners....but really Anton has had as many ropey partners and still stamped his mark, as have others. Just being a great dancer doesn't make you right for SCD. None of the other pros - 'love em or 'hate em- have made as little impression. That said I still feel for her as it must have been hideously upsetting.)
In terms of giving more attention to the new pros - the BBc are in a "damned if you do damned if you don't" situation. Used to be lots of threads on here complaining that newer pros' didn't get a chance to build up a fan base and were always being kicked out early because of it....
I think the real problem is there are just too many couples...by this stage I've usually got a handle on all of them ....not this time.
The extra folk and the extra work that must entail, might explain why the show is more "machine like" and relying on formula...
Instead of being a wee village SCD is a small city this year.
On pay, if the reported salaries are correct, it is clear that the dancers (and celebrities for that matter) are hugely underpaid, and the judges and especially the presenters (tellingly the participants and talent respectively in TV parlance) are overpaid. For the hours they put in to provide that amount of prime time TV, £30K is a low salary. If you add up the hours worked per week, then for the dancers that make it through to the later stages, it's a poor hourly wage rate. Add to that the fact that they are giving up dancing exhibitions or competing, and, if they run dance schools have to pay someone else to take their teaching commitments, and they really should be paid more.
Maybe if the BBC cut back SCD to twelve weeks there might just be less tension in the ranks. Why not go back to basics to see how things go? Bruce would have less time to tell his jokes for starters and the judges should be content with what they've got never mind fighting for air time and pay rises.
To be honest do these judges want pay rises included in their contracts. Len and Bruno
can't be doing too badly. Just how much do they get for DWTS after all there are two seasons a year for that. Arlene has Britannia High and Craig has his choreography and what have you.
Those who do need pay rises in my opinion are the pros amd celebs who really go out of their way to make SCD what it is a phenomenon.
P.S I agree with footiegirl. Promote Karen to the judging panel.
(I felt this very much last night, so I admit I'm biased. I had a very long difficult conversation with a family member about her huge health and money problems, and sat down to watch SCD wanting escapism - and just felt irritable with them all, especially the judges. Perhaps that was asking a bit much of a TV show.)
Having said that, I do think the men have a much more relaxed attitude and I am hopeful this will affect the women from next week on and things will get lighter.
Seriuosly though, as with all BBC versions of reality shows, there will be much more argy bargy backstage than with the X-Factor, despite Max Clifford pumping the tabloids with guff about backstage X-Feuds each week.
Im sure the BBC wouldn't care if 4 or 5 pros refused to sign, I know that a lot of people on this forum think that the pros re the lynchpin, hardest workers etc but the majority of the audience aren't on the forum, most viewers see it as a nice saturday night TV show, enjoyable but not life or death.
£30,000 for 16 weeks work maximum is not a bad salary, only the final 3 will work for that long & even if they are putting in 60 hours a week the whole time ( which isn't the case when you look at the training hours on ITT) they are still well exceeding the saverage salary. The pro's do have a choice, it's a completely different situation to people who have to go to their regular jobs to pay the mortgage, for most of the pro's SCD is a bonus, they could all carry on teaching or get regular jobs if they are not happy.
As much as I can't abide Bruce he has put 50 years in to reach this level of payment.
You are putting more emphasis on the contestants, rather than being a bit of fun for charity, on the face of it, it is now just a competition and all about winning.
good point
That was uncalled for
By the way, to the poster who called Brucie past his sell by date and old and doddery - grow up and learn some manners. You are being offensive, and ageism is just as offensive as racism. To personally attack someone in a cruel and mean way just because of their age is disgraceful, and you know who you are. So, any more and I will report you to the moderators.
Not one of the dancers is indespensible, and if they have any common sense they know that.
I don't think it is fair, I certainly do not beleive that Bruce earns the ridiculous amount he is paid, but it is what it is. They could leave, en masse, tomorrow and they would be replaced.
It's Strictly as it's always been to me - & some great dancing to look forward to.
I think the problem lies in the fact that many posters on here seem to want to live their life through a TV show. Every year posters bemoan the fact that it's "not as good as last year". When in fact, the overall standard has improved hugely from the early series.
If you've watched all the series - then inevitably you're going to get used to the format & have seen some things before. Personally I thought last year's series was the best so far. This year's series is going pretty well. We don't have any staggeringly bad dancing to sit through which is always a plus.
The issues about pay are interesting - but I don't believe that contributes to any 'atmosphere'. I personally would swap the pay of the pro dancers & Tess/Bruce - as Tess & Bruce are totally expendable to the show - and to me just bad & irritating.
The only thing I have not like this series is too many dancers, before its was nice to have a week to introduce the dancers and then straight into the competition, thats when I think the series really begins.
As to all the complaints about the pay , I too believe the pros deserve more for all the hard work they put in ,but I think we need to get real here, in the entertainment world dancers are the lowest of the low with regards to pay. I know that the pro's work harder then anyone else ,but surely the show is the main thing, not who is in it. I would be disappointed if my favourite pro's were dropped but I would still watch it. Don't forget not all of the pro's have been in it since series one.The BBC know this and they also know there are a queue of profesional dancers who would jump at the chance to be in it, you only have to look this year that we have had people willing to come from the states and new zealand to take part. I think the dancers need to be honest 6 years ago, very few people outside the dance world had heard of most of them, and several were thinking of giving up dancing as a career as they were travelling all of the world to compete in competitions to make a living. Now they are household names, get invites to every showbiz do there is and get everything that is available to celebs. No doubt their personal appearence fees have gone up , as also the numbers of displays they do. Don't forget that with strictly and the tour that also means they are in full time work for 6 months of the year. How many of them , or anyone in the entertainment industry,could have said that before? I think that was clear when you saw the photoshoot in the OK mag, where several of the dancers wore their own hand made Saville Row suits! Don't think thats on the poverty line somehow.
The dancers knew the contract when they signed at the start of SCD and were happy enough then, and no'one could have expected the success of the series. If they are really not happy then don't sign up for the next series, no'one is forcing them to stay. However I think that most of them know where there bread is buttered, and how fickle TV is and in a few months no'one will have heard of them if they leave. I personally think that is half the problem with Nicole Cutler not that she is unhappy about being dropped, but with Matthew in the show and on tour that means no partner for several months and no income.