A 'hullabaloo" !!!!
kaycee
Posts: 12,047 Forum Member
✭✭
With all the hullaballoo that has dodged the last series of Strictly, with controversies appearing to be seen around every corner, I was wondering if DWTS gets the same sort of press - good or bad - in US? Or do the viewers there accept the results etc as they stand?
0
Comments
For one thing, we don't have a BBC. There's the big three plus Fox but every year they get fewer viewers. Dancing with the Stars may be the biggest hit in America (or at least comparable to AI) but it still only gets 20 million out of 300 million people to watch it, while for Strictly it's 10 out of 60 million -- 12 million viewers for this final, right? So that's 1/6th or even 1/5th of the UK population compared to about 1/16th (hope my figuring is accurate.)
I think the answer may be that we're more fragmented over here so no one television program is ever as central or as important - but maybe I'm way off the mark on that. It's an interesting question though. I hope somebody else has more insight than I do. It hardly ever reaches mainstream news, though I think the biggest news-magazine tv program "60 Minutes" did a segment with the Hough sister-brother pro dance pair last season, just as a sideline interview segment.
Incidentally, I really like dwts, although I was a bit disappointed with the last series. Mark, Julianne and Derek were great favourites when they danced for UK. We used to see Mark quite regularly when he practiced with the partner he had before Julianne. Shirley used to bring him, and sit with all the other mums.... And we saw their singing/dancing act 2Bs1G a couple of times ..... a talented threesome.
Hi Elsa,
SCD this year involved 13 Saturdays of prime time exposure, followed by a one-hour Sunday Results programme. As if that is not enough, there are 5 half-hour segments "It Takes Two" Monday-Friday, i.e. 7-days a week, 5.5 hours per week to ensure the pot stays boiling. No wonder fans become compulsive and ready to do battle against rival fans in the forum to the death.
The other reality TV show, UK's The Apprentice runs for 11 weeks, one hour transmitted midweek at 9pm. It is basically SCD without dancing and glamour, and fan hysteria stays at a (slightly) lower level -- rival fans merely want to hit each other, not kill each other. :eek:
But anyway -- I'm real interested in hearing your take on our show. I've been intrigued by complaints that it's too fake or showy though I realize I may be so used to it I don't notice it. I think I do like SCD better because I think it's a bit more genuine or real, but, well, SOME contestants on DwtS have been genuine and very likeable (Apolo Ohno, Jennie Garth, Kristi Yamaguchi, etc.) and there have been some on SCD I haven't liked (uh better remain mum), so I can't really say I completely prefer either show over the other. And I like both sets of pro's about equally.
And I ADORE your ITT soulmate! It's a gazillion light years better than what is sort of our equivalent, the cheesiest "entertainment news" programs in the galaxy - "Entertainment Tonight" and "Access Hollywood." They cover DwtS pretty solidly but they are so revolting -- kind of like the worst of your red-tops but live (oh, with all the juicy bits sanitized for Aunt Agnes in Peoria - just uggghhh.) And more fake than even Strictly/DwtS judges' comments and scores
BBC SCD does not have commercial sponsors. Instead it makes a huge fortune selling the show format worldwide, and a small fortune (£1million) selling tickets for SCD Tour in 6 provincial cities last year.
It would be sliding down a slippery slope if ever ITT is used like a saccharine commercial to plug the party line saying everything in the garden is rosy.
We have BBC America but they don't show SCD (which I wish they would instead last winter they re-ran DWTS season 2 which made NO SENSE!!!).
Our pros though are becoming mini-celebs in their own right by being on the show & they get the occasional paparazzi shots.
I'm a fan of both shows but sometimes I think DWTS focus's more on the entertainment side of the dances where I feel that some pros put too much fluff in the routines & not enough content in order to engage the audience (JMO though).
Like you I love both shows, and agree that whereas Strictly tries to focus on technique and presenting the dancers correctly (sort of:D), dwts sets more importance on razz-ma-tazz. Probably not surprising when it takes place in the show-biz capital of the world!!
Viva la difference!! There's a place for all.
Not really knowing just how much press and controversy "Strictly Come Dancing" gets in your country, I can only evaluate "Dancing with the Stars" against other American, competitive reality shows, and to my mind, in the U.S. "American Idol" is the biggest in terms of ratings, office/water cooler conversation, as well as press and controversy. You mention, that even some of your more serious news shows will discuss SCD. Well, that's the same here in regards to "American Idol." The "goings on" and controversies and outcomes of AI are even debated by "serious" people in the "serious" media -- although granted -- much of it is during their lighthearted moments and is tongue-in-cheek. For instance -- just off the top of my head --
1) my local fox morning news show has a weekly segment on "Idol" during the season evaluating the contest;
2) the Washington Post's TV columnist also does a weekly column;
3) AI results, the contestants, and the show itself are sometimes used as metaphors on our editorial pages or even outright discussed (I actually saw at least one comparison of Barack Obama's win and David Cook's);
4) David Cook was actually featured on the cover of the World Almanac, representing the year in entertainment;
5) the winner of AI goes on almost all the late night talk and morning shows, is interviewed on radio across the country and is featured in many of the entertainment/style magazines;
6) and people such as Hillary Clinton are quoted as voting for and supporting a contestant ... who later was invited to serenade Clinton.
Dancing with the Stars definitely does not get that level of attention here, although it certainly gets a good deal.
I think what feeds into this heightened attention is that AI's winner is, purportedly, an "amateur" or "semi-amateur" who is plucked out of obscurity to potentially become a star and WE -- the audience -- are a part of it; we live the dream with him or her. DWtS, in comparison and by definition, is purportedly about "stars" competing against each other who have no stake in the contest other than bragging rights. It's not like the winner of DWtS is likely to become a big, international dancing superstar. It is more a "man bites dog" kind of contest, i.e., let's see if this "B" actor or star athlete can put one foot in front of the other, while on "AI," you expect that the contestants can can carry a tune and you hope that one will turn out to be a grammy winning, platiunum selling singer/performer.
You can imagine, in comparing the two, that a controversy on AI would get much more attention and press than one on DWtS. After all, there's a huge "cash" prize/career at stake on the former show and must be seen as more on the "up and up" than a show that simply tries to see if a so-called celebrity can do the jitterbug, with no harm, no fail if he or she can't.
Simon Cowell is/was involved in them all and X-Factor is franchised through out the world, but he has an agreement not to introduce it in the USA as long as he stays with AI.
Here in the UK the X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing shows are in direct competition with each other and are actually on TV at the same time - and the media is full of both shows for months, including long before and after the shows end!