Rufus Hound for presenter?
kaycee
Posts: 12,046 Forum Member
✭✭
I've never been a great fan of Rufus Hound, but after his appearance on ITT (Friday 19 Oct) I couldn't help thinking he'd make a great presenter for the show. While remaining upbeat and lighthearted, he proved he has great knowledge about Strictly, and respect for the dancers/dances.
0
Comments
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a385592/rufus-hound-slams-digital-spy-forum-critics-youre-fking-morons.html
So I doubt if he'd cope well with criticism if he was ever made a presenter.
I do agree he does seem to be a fan of the show and he was quite funny last night, perhaps they should ask him on as a contestant but then he'd still have to face criticism
Can we also have Seann Walsh as co-presenter and let him loose to create havoc in the Tosspit?
Never seen anything else he's done...has he done any presenting?
I started to think he'd be OK as presenter but after reading your link, it's a big NO from me. People have to be able to take criticism in their stride in his profession.
He has ranted a few times. I don't think he was being totally serious though. The DS forums are kind of full of vitriol, hate and anger
I thought he was a total idiot :rolleyes:
Present a show like SCD? I really do not think he could cope.
Fair point. Brucie is just the pits
This.
He's a self-obsessed idiot who likes the sound of his own voice.
Really
It's hard to know whether he's being serious or not! I know DS put a video up of him ranting a while back - it was rather unpleasant to watch but then he did look a bit p**sed!
I know forums can be harsh but as maggie said you have to take the rough with the smooth if you put yourself in the media spotlight. Some of these 'celebs' & some of their obsessive fans/admirers seem to think they should be untouchable and beyond the slightest bit of criticism!
yes and his blaming Karen for Nicky's crap dancing showed how superficial his knowledge is. :rolleyes:
Exactly. He is right.
Digital Spy is so out of touch with the real world at times who, say, just watch a Saturday evening television programme and cheer for the ones who do well and feel sad for the ones that don't and then forget about it all until the next week.
I still love reading everyone's views on here but a five minute discussion with work colleagues on a Monday morning will give me a better idea of who is likely to win the competition rather than wading through all the posts here. Last year everyone I knew wanted Harry to win and most people's favourite pros seem to be Anton and Ola.
Your workplace straw poll would be more convincing if it included mostly women, who cast 80-90% of the phone votes.
On the basis of what evidence? Polls that don't poll every single person in the country (I haven't been polled, neither my family or my friends)? Or perhaps the imagery idea by some body that likes to intentionally forget about the male (straight or gay, old, young and middle aged) that votes as well, for their own agenda. I suspect both, but their evidence to use from is hardly solid if most of it comes from guess work or unbalance polls. No phone agency knew that last year my male housemate phone voted for Amelia Lily last year to rejoin Xfactor and then to win. And no agency knows that other male hms have made severl votes for female contestants on the BB shows, but of female hms, not so much, so how on earth do they tally up the so called evidence that it's def mostly women that vote when they have no visual recording of evidence of it? Do they actually see only females dialing away on their landlines or mobiles in order to know for solid fact that it's a majority of women that vote, no of course they don't. Or maybe we don't know we're being watched through the curtains of our houses when we dial that (which sounds more like the plotline of a tv drama than a fact based stats of which gender votes weekly/yearly for Stricly and Xfactor). So this idea that the majority of women that vote is just an idea, and nothihg more. With magazines I get it (due to a specifically catered for use of content), but with TV the generalisation seems an ambiguously made one, especially for shows that have both males and females in it so are obviously going to cater to both sides and not just one. If shows thought that only women voted (because they fancy the male contestant) then they might as well not waste the space of using women on shows at all and just up their ratings will an all male cast. Just love it when women are seen as the reason for all the awful outcomes on tv when it comes to phone-voting shows because obviously they have to be at fault if they're the 80-90% that vote. I hardly vote on these shows but I' of course put into this category of women that do every week despite not being asked by any statistic agency of whether i do or don't vote. I'd love to know how the hell someone knows if I've dialled from a phone or if one of my male housemates has.
NO! He hates DS and has an extremely small willy.
Someone who hates DS and has an extremely small willy.
I have to agree, Sir Bruce is still the Master.