Question re different viewer attitudes to DWTS and SCD

Ellie1967Ellie1967 Posts: 2,644
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Some of us were discussing, in one of the threads 'downstairs', how SCD deals with celebs past training and a couple of us were curious about how viewer attitudes to it appear to differ on DWTS. Meryl Davis, Nicole Scherzinger and Jennifer Grey appear to be bigger 'ringers' than any we've had on SCD, but they all won while people like Natalie Gumede and Denise Van Outen got a lot of abuse etc. while on SCD. I was just wondering if any DWTS viewers had any theories on why it's so different there?

- Has the show always been presented as more 'entertainment' than focusing on it being all about beginners learning to dance?
- Is the press over there less harsh on 'ringers' etc.
- Is the show more open about everyone's past training on the main show?

Just curious if anyone had any thoughts? Thanks :)

Comments

  • DamahepaDamahepa Posts: 14,657
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The difference is probably in the attitudes by the respective productions.

    DWTS is far more about entertainment through the medium of dance, than it is about the competition itself as Strictly is. No doubt winning means a lot to the contestants- re: the Chmerkovskys, but as far as the production goes, DWTS is on a Monday night Prime Time slot, they have segments like Macy's Stars of Dance, guest judges, styles like Disco, Jazz and Contemporary, and Emmey nominated Derek Hough who could commit full blooded murder in the centre of the dance floor and still get at least a 6 from the judges... maybe even 8s if he did it with enough flair! And the audience respond to it. They don't give two flying monkeys whether the likes of Jessie J or Kevin Hart are qualified dance judges (I know there'll be people who are outraged, but on the whole they tend to get over it... unless it's Abbey Lee Miller because she's a total bit...) they care about the professionals putting on a show and the celebrities doing their routines with style. Prime example, Alfonso and Witney doing the Carlton in week 4. Not a single step of Jazz in that routine, but every single person wanted to give it a 10 and everyone was thrilled when the judges did. Another example being Nicole Scherzinger pretty much strolling through season 10- it doesn't matter that she was the best dancer by a country mile, Derek gave her entertaining routines and she performed them excellently.


    As for SCD? Well, it's more of a family show based around dancing, shown on a Saturday tea time. It has 4 world renowned dancers as judges, had, until recently, an ex-dancer as host, and has the likes of Joanne Clifton and Iveta Lukosuite, incumbent world champion and former world dance champion respectively, alongside likes of Anton and Kevin who, above all other things, are there to entertain. It also has the likes of Ann Widdecombe, Judy Murray and Scott Mills all getting decent lengths into the competition because they're good family entertainment, but that's balanced with the likes of Craig giving them 1s and 2s instead of 4s and 5s like in America. It's more about the journey, the likability and whatever else. Had Pixie Lott or Natalie Gumede done DWTS instead of SCD they would have won and won by a country mile! But they weren't "real enough" outside of performances or they weren't "connecting with the audience" enough.

    If anything, American voters are better. Yes, occasionally, you get Bristol Palin, but 99/100 the best dancer wins.
  • Ellie1967Ellie1967 Posts: 2,644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Damahepa wrote: »
    The difference is probably in the attitudes by the respective productions.

    DWTS is far more about entertainment through the medium of dance, than it is about the competition itself as Strictly is. No doubt winning means a lot to the contestants- re: the Chmerkovskys, but as far as the production goes, DWTS is on a Monday night Prime Time slot, they have segments like Macy's Stars of Dance, guest judges, styles like Disco, Jazz and Contemporary, and Emmey nominated Derek Hough who could commit full blooded murder in the centre of the dance floor and still get at least a 6 from the judges... maybe even 8s if he did it with enough flair! And the audience respond to it. They don't give two flying monkeys whether the likes of Jessie J or Kevin Hart are qualified dance judges (I know there'll be people who are outraged, but on the whole they tend to get over it... unless it's Abbey Lee Miller because she's a total bit...) they care about the professionals putting on a show and the celebrities doing their routines with style. Prime example, Alfonso and Witney doing the Carlton in week 4. Not a single step of Jazz in that routine, but every single person wanted to give it a 10 and everyone was thrilled when the judges did. Another example being Nicole Scherzinger pretty much strolling through season 10- it doesn't matter that she was the best dancer by a country mile, Derek gave her entertaining routines and she performed them excellently.


    As for SCD? Well, it's more of a family show based around dancing, shown on a Saturday tea time. It has 4 world renowned dancers as judges, had, until recently, an ex-dancer as host, and has the likes of Joanne Clifton and Iveta Lukosuite, incumbent world champion and former world dance champion respectively, alongside likes of Anton and Kevin who, above all other things, are there to entertain. It also has the likes of Ann Widdecombe, Judy Murray and Scott Mills all getting decent lengths into the competition because they're good family entertainment, but that's balanced with the likes of Craig giving them 1s and 2s instead of 4s and 5s like in America. It's more about the journey, the likability and whatever else. Had Pixie Lott or Natalie Gumede done DWTS instead of SCD they would have won and won by a country mile! But they weren't "real enough" outside of performances or they weren't "connecting with the audience" enough.

    If anything, American voters are better. Yes, occasionally, you get Bristol Palin, but 99/100 the best dancer wins.

    Thanks for the reply :) very interesting. I thought it was probably to do with the show being pitched in a different way. Do you think because there's no ITT in the US people are less likely to worry about personalities and 'warming' to someone than they are here, or is that still a big thing?
  • DamahepaDamahepa Posts: 14,657
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ellie1967 wrote: »
    Thanks for the reply :) very interesting. I thought it was probably to do with the show being pitched in a different way. Do you think because there's no ITT in the US people are less likely to worry about personalities and 'warming' to someone than they are here, or is that still a big thing?

    Well there still is that to some extent, but they do a lot more in their "in training' VTs to make up for a lack of ITT and a lot more appearances on chat shows etc. So they still get exposure, just in a different way. That said, Sadie was definitely not a better dancer than Lea, Janel or Bethany, but was insanely more popular than those 3, hence her second place finish, so in a sense, it still matters, but less so, and certainly less backlash against the ringahs. Meryl Davis would never have won if it had been SCD, not in a million years!
  • Baz_JamesBaz_James Posts: 4,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    "while people like Natalie Gumede and Denise Van Outen got a lot of abuse "

    Did they? One should be very careful of taking the headlines in papers like the Sun, Daily Mail, and Mirror at face value. Whilst it is clearly the policy of these papers to pursue the 'unfair' angle to its limit, I'm inclined to doubt that it has any basis in fact. Of course voters will tend to favour those who have come from literally nothing to achieve the same standard as the alleged ringers but I honestly don't think it's anything like as big a deal as it's painted in the press or we would not have had so many of them reach the final and semi-final stages.
  • Ellie1967Ellie1967 Posts: 2,644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Baz_James wrote: »
    "while people like Natalie Gumede and Denise Van Outen got a lot of abuse "

    Did they? One should be very careful of taking the headlines in papers like the Sun, Daily Mail, and Mirror at face value. Whilst it is clearly the policy of these papers to pursue the 'unfair' angle to its limit, I'm inclined to doubt that it has any basis in fact. Of course voters will tend to favour those who have come from literally nothing to achieve the same standard as the alleged ringers but I honestly don't think it's anything like as big a deal as it's painted in the press or we would not have had so many of them reach the final and semi-final stages.

    Yes, they did. I don't take headlines at face value, but looking at the hundreds of comments underneath the articles, plus unpleasant tweets (particularly to Natalie and Artem) calling them 'cheats' etc. and messages on the Strictly facebook page and blog, it was clear many people had a problem with it. Either way, its not really surprising they reach the final stages when they are always high on the leaderboard and the dance off is used - no one really knows how low their vote could have been some weeks. Anyway, I was including the newspaper articles in the 'abuse' I mentioned - just curious as that sort of press coverage about so-called 'ringers' doesn't seem to happen as much with DWTS.
  • Ellie_Ellie_ Posts: 1,453
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think it has something to do with british attitudes towards underdogs and "fair" competition. Americans just want the best person to win. I actually respect that a lot more - I get sick of all the ringer accusations sometimes. And as someone else said, it's true - Meryl Davies wouldn't have won SCD and to me that's incredibly unfair as she would obviously be the best dancer. I wish she couldve gone on SCD rather than DWTS sometimes though... I want to see her do a paso doble!
  • JohnStannardJohnStannard Posts: 7,649
    Forum Member
    I aint sure
Sign In or Register to comment.