If it isnt broken then keep on fixing it untill it is.

I think that's true. It was quite a light-hearted series for the most part but the last few weeks probably changed things for series to come. I remember from the very start of series four everyone was determined to hate Emma Bunton (luckily she justified it retrospectively by being overmarked to the point of getting eights for 'smiling prettily' as Craig put it!). I do think that was a product of the Zoe Ball scenario the year before, where the public had the satisfaction of stopping the judges getting the winner they were determined to have. At least people only started disliking Zoe when she'd actually become annoying though!

I'm also trying to think if series three was the first time people really felt that a celebrity was being regularly overmarked. Maybe that was the beginning of the 'vote against the judges' atmosphere which we've had ever since. I know people voted for Julian and not for Denise in series two, but I don't remember there being any overmarking there. And in the final Denise did beat Julian into second place. Just a thought, but maybe the Zoe/Colin/Darren situation was actually the point where the show jumped the shark!

(as someone who voted for Darren five times in the final, I feel I should apologise )

Don't apologise to me - I put £10 on him in week 1 at odds of 33/1.

And yeah, Zoe I think was the first to get an "overmarked" backlash. I mostly blame it on it being the start of series to series mark inflation and people still being enamoured of St Jill of Halfpenny. People didn't like Denise/Claire's personalities, but I don't remember them being described as "overmarked" in quite the same way. When Zoe started getting higher scores than the designated Gold Standard contestant without being better, it rankled.

In that case, you're welcome!

I suppose they couldn't have finished series three by saying "actually, none of you is as good as last year's winner". Sadly they could legitimately have said Colin was the best male celeb ever and pushed for him to win (I say "sadly"- I was actually thrilled that Darren won and he is still my favourite celeb to appear on the show- but for the show maybe it wasn't the best thing). I wonder looking back if they had done that, maybe the public wouldn't have been goaded into voting for Darren.

The trouble is the same problems we had with last year will no doubt re-surface

I.E the judges shoving their "chosen one" down our throats and maybe just maybe being a tad too generous with their marks for that person- and undermarking the public favourite

The "public favourite" last year was John Sergeant, and I thought the judges were ridiculously generous to him

The BBc have been very clever announcing all these changes nice and early therefore guaranteeing maximum publicity and a ratings rise through the curiosity factor, at least for the first few shows.

Sorry Katie I should have qualified that- I meant when we got to the quarter finals

I think the public was always going to vote for Darren regardless to be honest - it's why I put money on him. Some times on the shows you just get someone with the right personality for the audience and they're unstoppable.

The public wanted a blokey male winner after two years of women, and a "journey" winner after Chris and Julian, but one who actually ended up at a reasonable standard of dancing so they wouldn't be too embarassed voting for him. Couple that with the mini cricket craze after we won the Ashes that year, and his engagingly blokey personality, I think it was a done deal from the moment he was cast.

I just voted for him in the final because I quite enjoyed watching him on the night! I didn't watch the show so regularly back then.
I knew what you meant, I was just teasing you, sorry

I'm not sure in fact I agree that there was a great deal of undermarking of either Austin or Tom. Austin was probably the worst of the QF, and Tom undoubtedly the worst of the SF. The public favourite shouldn't automatically get a free ride to the final- the judges are entitled to say he/she is the worst there on the night.

I'm not uneasy as I can't change anything.

If they make changes we don't like then we can vote with our fingers and stop watching. Today's announcement said the website would be improved to give viewers a chance to share their opinions. Maybe they will listen to us on there, because they don't pay any attention to any message boards including their own.

Are you from the BBC ?

Not as far as I'm concerned. I have nothing against Alesha, and I wanted her to win in that series. But with the best will in the world, Alesha can't possibly have the experience and expertise of a professional like Arlene. If they wanted to replace Arlene, they should have replaced her with someone of equal professional stature.

The fiasco of Tom and Camilla, the worst dancers, winning last time, peed me off so badly last year that for the first time I really felt that I'd wasted my time from October to December watching something that purported to be a dance competition when it was nothing more than a cheap, tacky popularity show - Big Brother with sequins. When Tom and Camilla "won" [spit!] last Christmas instead of Rachel and Vincent, I said I would not be watching future series.

Today's dreadful news has confirmed my belief that Strictly is finished. They're not even pretending any more that SCD is about dancing and most of the time I've never heard of the so-called "celebs". I shan't be watching any more series. It's over.

I don't understand how Alesha can be a judge on SCD when her tour - which includes Fridays and Saturdays - is going on and tickets still being sold for well into November.

Some of the saturday nights have been rearranged but when I looked earlier there was one saturday in Nov in Brighton still on.

The show isn't going to be on a Friday and Saturday throughout the series. It will just be launched on a Friday night - as it was last series I think.

Nail...head!


...and I'm so over Big Brother.

Am I feeling uneasy! Yes, very much!

The show has lost more and more dance credibility as each series has passed, demonstrated through dumping professionals like Nicole for people like Hayley who is not even a professional dancer. The complete disregard for the brilliance and unpredicability of live TV being thrown out of the window so there can be a recorded show on a Sunday lacking any kind of tension because we've all looked up the result on here. This Arlene/Alesha thing is crazy. Why are they treating their audience like morons?! Some of us are watching for the dancing! Not some bloody sequined outfits and "Ooooh, she looks so pretty!"

I'm sad for Alesha because I think she was really popular which the majority of the SCD audience and this will change it all for reasons that are really beyond her control.

This is exactly the problem we had last year and actually Alesha replacing Arlene does not go far enough to counteract it happening again.

The solutions are simple: get rid of Bruno - the other proponent of blatant favouritism - and give the upper hand in the voting back to the viewers, so that the judges no longer have the ability to ride roughshod over public taste (whether they like it or not).

And as for people who claim the public won't always vote for the best dancers: sorry to burst your bubble, but Strictly isn't a pure dance competition. It's part dance competition, part reality show - and votes are, inevitably, cast on whether the audience like the participating celebrities. That's always been the case - no getting away from it.

Well personally I shall reserve judgement until I've seen the show and seen how it works with the new format. You never know, it might be better than last year

Yes, I too felt uneasy about the announcements yesterday. I cannot believe they would replace an experienced Dancer/choreographer with a pop star, even if it is the lovely Alesha Dixon who won in 2007. Why fix a show that is so clearly not broken?
Bruce is also taking a paycut and I bet the voting system, after last years semi final debacle, will ensure some other changes. In a sea of boring, poorly thought out programmes, I am worried that my favourite SCD is never going to be the same again.
Disgruntled Peaches of London
xxx

[quote=PeachesSCD;33647053]Yes, I too felt uneasy about the announcements yesterday. I cannot believe they would replace an experienced Dancer/choreographer with a pop star, even if it is the lovely Alesha Dixon who won in 2007. Why fix a show that is so clearly not broken?


Does the show really need so called experienced dancers/choreographers to judge some pretty flat footed celebrities, the quality of the celebrities dictates the tone of the judges. John sergeant was a disgrace, phil ( from Eastenders) terrible, mark Foster ....pleeeze, Heather Small clomped around like a man,
Give us better celebs if you really want to have a dance competition

[quote=yelsel;33647174]
gosh, well that tells me doesn't it?
I think that there is a great balance of the rubbish celebs with the great celebs. You can't have everyone being brilliant from the start. We need people like Heather Small to make it a show for everyone. She may have even surprised us by improving massively at the end. That's the brilliance of SCD. You never know how people are going to perform through the different weeks.
I just like Arlene because she gave constructive comments and looked at the dance from a choreography perspective. Len looks at it from a technique perspective and Bruno from an expressive one. I thought that gave a round view of the performances.

Honestly I think the show does need some shaking up (it would become very stale if it was the same thing over and over again) and the judges are the place to start.

For me, Arlene was the most irritating so I've no problem with her going. Maybe they'll define the roles of the individual judges a little more - if Alesha is going to be specifically there to be judging from a performance pov then that's fine by me. It would be better in a way if the judges all had their specialist areas they looked at then you might get a fairer balance of marks e.g. a lowish one from Len because of technical difficulties but higher from one of the others because despite that it was well performed. It also might help to stem the public backlash and stop the silly voting if they feel someone is hard done by.

As for the pros, well people move on. Most of the new pros last year turned out well and were liked so I'm happy for a few new ones every now and again. Particularly since we actually get to know them (unlike DoI!).

I think the problem with the dancing is that not every will vote for the best dancer.

Someone could be brilliant technique wise but just leave people cold, or for some reason or the other people will just dislike them and won't vote. At the end of it the celebs need the votes to stay in and the people who have no idea about dancing what so ever are going to vote for who they like and who entertained them. The judges will have no impact on that other then maybe they'll throw a vote to someone they felt was harshly done by. Not all the time, some people will listen because they want to learn and judge it on the dancing, but I know plenty who mute the judges or else just vote for whoever they like (which I did I voted for Brian and Heather every week and then Lisa, didn't care what the judges said no one was changing my mind ).

I do feel sorry sometimes when people like JS go through week in week out whilst not being able to dance. But to be fair he did entertain and people spent their time wanting him in. Whether or not it has to do with the judges I don't know, I know a lot of people including my mum and some friends who voted for him just because they liked him and to them he was what made Strictly. A man who was enjoying himself and trying to learn how to dance. Some of my friends can dance some of them can't. My mum hates dancing but watched the series because I made her. But at the end of the day they all loved him.

With the judges I think one of the biggest problems last year was JS was so much poorer then most of the other dancers that the only judge that seemed to be watching him half the time was Craig! Yeah 1s and 2s are harsh but at the end of the day Len was scoring nearly every celeb 6 or higher. If they didn't mark so high at the beginning of the series people wouldn't think Craig AS harsh (a 1 or 2 is always going to be harsh but compare a 1 to a 7 or a 1 to a 4 and which one seems worse?). I do agree that they brought JS score down when they wanted him out but it was too late and by then scoring the next worst dancer with a 6 or a 7 THEN you have people voting for John because the judges were mean to him.