Mainly entertainment, thats what I voted for...
BUT as the weeks go by the laughs stop, the winacotts and murrays go, and it all gets more serious as the dancers dwindle.....inevitable I suppose, but some take it to ever exreme degrees......
The duty of a dance competition is to ensure a high level of teaching and performance is maintained throughout the dance world. The duty of Strictly is to please and entertain a large, family-viewing demographic on a Saturday evening. The excitement tends to come from seeing someone venture outside their comfort zone (which is why sportsmen and blokey-blokes who turn out to be quite good generate a lot of support). We like someone surprising us by showing a whole other side of themselves (Oooh, him off Countryfile is doing a samba!)* Seeing someone do a slight variation on their day job seems less thrilling and irks our sense off fairness.
The duty of a dance competition is to ensure a high level of teaching and performance is maintained throughout the dance world. The duty of Strictly is to please and entertain a large, family-viewing demographic on a Saturday evening. The excitement tends to come from seeing someone venture outside their comfort zone (which is why sportsmen and blokey-blokes who turn out to be quite good generate a lot of support). We like someone surprising us by showing a whole other side of themselves (Oooh, him off Countryfile is doing a samba!)* Seeing someone do a slight variation on their day job seems less thrilling and irks our sense off fairness.
*Yes, I know Matt Baker was a bit of a ringer.
You are right of course - though personally I don't understand the phenomenon.
So how do you explain the success of The Olympics and Champions League football?
Would these events do even better if singers and actors were involved? Allow the chefs and soap stars to run around the hurdles and out of lane but if a Colin Jackson or Denise Lewis does it Len throws the book at them and they are out ...
It's an entertainment show and that's why the likes of Russell Grant, John Sergeant and Ann Widdecombe got votes week after week. They were entertaining. Of course, it is based on dance but not really a show for dance purists, imho of course.
Any program that is televised at peak time on BBC1 on Saturday evenings must necessarily be as entertaining as possible, to the widest possible audience.
It doesn't need to be a dance competition, but it must be entertaining.
We're very fortunate that, at the present time, the flagship Saturday night program is based around the idea of a dance competition.
Nowadays, it's an entertainment show that includes some dancing.
As someone said on here recently, the celebs don't really learn how to dance in any great depth or detail , they just learn how to produce a routine each week.
And the viewers can vote - most have no idea on the technicalities of ballroom dancing. The best they can do is vote on is which was the most entertaining.
It's an entertainment show with lip service paid to dancing, designed to beat the ratings of The X Factor. It used to be an entertaining dance show.
Many forum members have really got into the spirit of The X Factor, deciding which pro dancers they'd like to see eliminated next, mostly on the basis of their looks. Same principle and also for viewers , ' Who is the fittest celeb bloke we recognise from a soap/boyband'.
The more mainly subjective reactions become the norm, re pros and celebs, the more involved lots of people feel eg, " She's getting on my nerves, now", " He's lovely", " She/ he is past her/his prime" ie no longer fanciable or in the case of females - ' is too sexy I don't like her she has to go.'.
Frequent replies to anyone who disagrees - shut the door on your way out, enjoy the flounce, etc are as subjective and personal as are responses to the pros and celebs. Gives a tremendous feeling of power and importance to people who enjoy that sort of thing.
Meanwhile, the producers of SCD are delighted, to have succeeded in having gained lots of The X Factor viewers. SCD had to be altered, to appeal to that audience. It's actually not about dance or, entertainment. It's about ratings.
The constant, ironically, is change or as the producers call it, ' refreshing'. People can be distracted from getting bored with a format by making changes in pro dancers, music, props etc. The music now doesn't have to be appropriate for the dances. It can be any old rubbish providing that viewers can relate to it even in a non dance context.
The majority of viewers are being catered for because that gets the highest viewing figures - obviously. People are entitled to have what they want, in terms of majority preference but I'm glad it's about dancing which although it requires tremendous skills and stamina, isn't brain surgery.
Actually, I wouldn't take my car, to a garage on the basis of how attractive or not the mechanics are. Television is just for entertainment though, isn't it - stuff we've forgotten a few days later. It's there to give us what we want, not what anyone else thinks we might need or be ' improved' by.
Cue Pink Floyd - " We don't need no education..". That's what makes Britain great. We celebrate being thick and we like to see that reflected back at us via tv programmes. Power to the people ! It's a great illusion.
I voted entertainment show but I also feel it is a personality/likeability show. It cannot really be a dance show when many people do not vote for the best dancer each week so likeability must come into it.
Comments
Mainly entertainment, thats what I voted for...
BUT as the weeks go by the laughs stop, the winacotts and murrays go, and it all gets more serious as the dancers dwindle.....inevitable I suppose, but some take it to ever exreme degrees......
Dancing is entertaining .
The whole formula of SCD , the competitive part, the judging, the marking, the music, the costumes, the celebs, the pros make it a success .
I'm afraid that I think it's a pretty naff either / or poll.
*Yes, I know Matt Baker was a bit of a ringer.
You are right of course - though personally I don't understand the phenomenon.
So how do you explain the success of The Olympics and Champions League football?
Would these events do even better if singers and actors were involved? Allow the chefs and soap stars to run around the hurdles and out of lane but if a Colin Jackson or Denise Lewis does it Len throws the book at them and they are out ...
It doesn't need to be a dance competition, but it must be entertaining.
We're very fortunate that, at the present time, the flagship Saturday night program is based around the idea of a dance competition.
And the viewers can vote - most have no idea on the technicalities of ballroom dancing. The best they can do is vote on is which was the most entertaining.
Many forum members have really got into the spirit of The X Factor, deciding which pro dancers they'd like to see eliminated next, mostly on the basis of their looks. Same principle and also for viewers , ' Who is the fittest celeb bloke we recognise from a soap/boyband'.
The more mainly subjective reactions become the norm, re pros and celebs, the more involved lots of people feel eg, " She's getting on my nerves, now", " He's lovely", " She/ he is past her/his prime" ie no longer fanciable or in the case of females - ' is too sexy I don't like her she has to go.'.
Frequent replies to anyone who disagrees - shut the door on your way out, enjoy the flounce, etc are as subjective and personal as are responses to the pros and celebs. Gives a tremendous feeling of power and importance to people who enjoy that sort of thing.
Meanwhile, the producers of SCD are delighted, to have succeeded in having gained lots of The X Factor viewers. SCD had to be altered, to appeal to that audience. It's actually not about dance or, entertainment. It's about ratings.
The constant, ironically, is change or as the producers call it, ' refreshing'. People can be distracted from getting bored with a format by making changes in pro dancers, music, props etc. The music now doesn't have to be appropriate for the dances. It can be any old rubbish providing that viewers can relate to it even in a non dance context.
The majority of viewers are being catered for because that gets the highest viewing figures - obviously. People are entitled to have what they want, in terms of majority preference but I'm glad it's about dancing which although it requires tremendous skills and stamina, isn't brain surgery.
Actually, I wouldn't take my car, to a garage on the basis of how attractive or not the mechanics are. Television is just for entertainment though, isn't it - stuff we've forgotten a few days later. It's there to give us what we want, not what anyone else thinks we might need or be ' improved' by.
Cue Pink Floyd - " We don't need no education..". That's what makes Britain great. We celebrate being thick and we like to see that reflected back at us via tv programmes. Power to the people ! It's a great illusion.