Options
Should the judges give a choreography score separately?
marinamau
Posts: 4,226 Forum Member
✭✭✭
One thing that puzzles me is that some celebs get seriously undermark (Kara's AS) for chorography while others rightly so get low marks for choreography that the judges (and many here) don't like, yet the celebs in both types of cases have maybe danced beautifully without a glitch? Because it seems to me that they use the choreo only when they want to detract points.
It seems that they don't directly critize choreos yet they mark it down. I don't really understand, they should be splicit with their criticism if they are with their scoring.
I personally think that they should also score out of 5 the choreo and add both scores at the end.
It seems that they don't directly critize choreos yet they mark it down. I don't really understand, they should be splicit with their criticism if they are with their scoring.
I personally think that they should also score out of 5 the choreo and add both scores at the end.
0
Comments
yes.
Me too!!!!!
That is also a good idea that has crossed my mind for exactly the same reasons.
In salsa you are set a task to portray the spirit of salsa and perform linked-arms moves. Aliona choreographed an Aliona Dance. Regardless of whether the technique was simple or advanced it was not a salsa. It was like a geography exam where the candidate chose to write an essay on chemistry.
Works for me - and it would avoid the tied scores too (I think Widdy got 3 points for coming last one week - might even have been four)
I don't think choreography scores should be given separately. In fact I am very strongly against this since it is effectively explicitly marking the pros, rather than the celeb and that is not what the show is about.
I think that if the choreography is inadequate in its ability to demonstrate that the celeb can do the fundamental elements of the dance then it is right that the celeb gets marked down. The same is true if the choreography is used for avoidance (the faffing about type). It may be unfortunate but I don't see the alternative.
However I do agree that there is a subjective area i.e. one where personal taste comes into play. I do think it is a bit unfair when the celeb gets marked down in these cases, although it is difficult to think of an alternative solution since performance and audience enjoyment are difficult to divorce from choreography.
In theory, I do like Ianswaiting's idea of ranking the celebs, although I think that it might not be audience friendly. Watching the judges give their scores makes for an entertaining show.
What might be useful is to introduce required elements for every dance so that if couples do not include those they lose marks, then starting from a base of 0 they gain marks for how well they perform them. This could be worth, say, three or four marks out of the total ten.
However I think that it might be a good idea to score on technique and performance.....they did try this on DWTS once.
DWTS do it at least once a season & it really highlights the good couples.
I would be prefer marks to be awarded for technique and performance.
This is how I see it also. If the choreography is such that it fails to show off the contestant's mastery of the dance being judged, then how can the judges assign marks?
Picking up your last point here, I once saw a ballroom championship overseas on Sky. At the end of the dance, the couples came back onto the floor one by one to receive their placement marks from the judges. I'm sure they could do that on Strictly and it would get just as much audience reaction as the scoring does now.
I think that the judges should make it clear what they're criticising. - the choreograpy or the execution of it. They should also quit the personal insults and the mockery. There's no need for it.
OK for Olympic Ice Skating, but a bit over the top for a popular TV entertainment show.
The one reply that has put it clearly what I wanted to say is Riley.
And I agree that maybe it would be too much to consider.
The main point for me is that if I accept that they are marking only the celeb, then choreography should not come into it, no matter how much I like it or dislike it, a bit like when I am admiring a painting by two artists.
My frustration this series has been that I (and many more in this forum) think the marking has been highly ridiculous in one occasion and debatable quite a few times down to purely the choreography. If we are told they are judging only the celeb, then they should only be judging on how the celeb has done the technical and performance of the dance. Len should never have given Kara a 6 for a dance that she executed beautifully both technically and performance wise.
If choreo comes into play then I can accept both Kara and Scott's infamous AS because his higher marks took into consideration what it look a traditional AS. I really don't really mind either way but I think it should made explicit one way or another, otherwise looks to me like they are changing the goal post depending on who is dancing.
I agree that if Kara and Artem were doing Pamela and James' routines, they would be dancing them perfectly every single week. Artem has been giving Kara extremely difficult choreography and she has dealt with everything eh has thrown at her fantastically. I also agree there should eb a separate score for choregrahy, and once again it is Kara and Artem who have proven this above everyone else. First there was their near-perfect American Smooth which was disgracefully given a 6 by Len, and then last night (and again tonight) Craig marked them down for choregraphical reasons. I know they still came out on top, with very high scores. But Kara's Viennese last night was so much better than Pamela's dance last week that scored her 40. Incidentally, it was so much better than Pamela's dance tonight, which the judges have only just commented on but which I'm pretty sure is going to get her another 40, despite the fact Kara hasn't got a single 40 yet...........
Why? The choregraphy is made up by the pros - they are not being marked. You can't mark the celebs performance out of 5 and adding another score to one for 10 gives you extra points just because your pro is better.
While its true a rubbish routine can't earn you many marks, you can't give more marks for performing well a bad routine or an empty routine or a routine thats got illegal moves in it or one that doesn't have the required content. You can't be marked up for not producing.
You also have to allow for weak routines being designed for weak performers to avoid what they can't do. Is Anton's routine for Ann good because its funny or poor because it avoids her doing any content? Do you want to give her even more marks for acting as a sack of spuds because Anton has thought of a novel way to pretend to throw a sack?
Basically. it tells you something thats either obvious or subjective - that some routines are better than others. Essentially though thats either hard luck or because thats all you can do.
Thats very true - its like marking one at GCSE and one at A level. Thats not an argument for marking the choregraphy seperately though - its an argument for setting a tariff for the difficulty of the routine and multiplying that by the score. Thats gymnastics or diving scoring - but its difficult over a longer routine and too complicated for the audience to understand.
That would also look strange. Ann 's difficulty tariff might be .1 and they might give her 8 for performing her routine, Gavin's routines would be .3s, Matts would be higher but much of his would be irrelevant and unscored, Pamelas would be .9s and Kara's 1s. Your final scores after multiplying the mark by the tarif then might be Ann .8 Gavin 2.4, Pamela 9 , Kara 9. Its very complex, there will be votes because of the low numbers, there's still a problem at the top and the margins vanish when you give marks according to position on the leaderboard.
The answer is for the judges to to incorporate difficulty achieved into their marking more instead of penalising difficulty just missed. The problem then though is that if they give Pamela less everyone else but Kara gets less too and they can't throw marks at their bottom performers. Their problem though is that if Ann gets 3s and 4s from everyone and Gavin never gets past 6 they just get more votes - which is why you have mark inflation in the first place.
I agree that some routines are better than others, and some are wrong for the description, but if a celeb produces perfect steps of a crap routine it is not her or his fault, it is the pro. If the score is not judging the pros job then the contents of the routine should not matter.
What I am trying to say is that I can accept either scenario, the one that only considers the celebs part or one that considers both. What I can't accept is that sometimes it seems that the routine's matter for some contestants and sometimes it doesn't.
That is my frustration.
Agree its frustrating (even more so on DOI because the routines are all assigned by someone else so not even the pro on the team is responsible) You can't give someone 10 though for perfectly performing that they are given if what they are given isn't very much or its wrong. On the other hand Pamela is near enough to getting a full routine not to lose anything on their current scale if she perfroms it well.
The only answer to the Pamela/Kara problem is to make 9 the top mark for someone who goes as far as Pamela and mark everyone else lower accordingly. But you still end up with a problem as Kara can't still get a higher mark than Pamela until she performs perfectly. If you had decimal points you would give Kara 9.5 for a top tariff routine with a slight error and Pamela 9 for a routine at the next level down without - but they don't have any mark between 9 and 10 and they have been marking the weak people higher for a reason.