I posted an earlier thread about Arlene Philips being bitchy (too much time on my hands methinks....) and after reading some of the comments concerning AP, do you think that the judges will "hone in" their comments this year, from what I can gather (from the earlier post) AP kind of went against the grain and was catty about some dancers, would this mean that the judges have to "abide by the rules" ie give constructive critisism rather than just catty remarks.

Arlene was less bitchy than Craig, less grumpy than Len and far less ridiculous than Bruno imo So I'm saying no, they won't reign it in and it will be like the muppet show on the judges panel once again

Btw...I'm not blaming Alesha for that

Well as I said on the other thread I object more to things said away from the judging table. I think thats where things went drastically wrong last year, far too much comment about individual celebrities on ITT and on other TV shows and in the papers. I have never objected particularly to comments made at the judging table its all part of the 'game' and accept that the judges are not always going to like who I like or dislike who I dislike, and what they say has never influenced my vote in any way. However when they watch 30 seconds of training footage on ITT and then make sweeping statements that does annoy me, I think they should be gagged away from the judging table.

I have just thought of something, if Alesha is qualified to be a judge because she has experienced the show then surely they dont need Arlene to be The One Show correspondant, Christine Bleakley would be more than qualified to do that herself having 'experienced' the show herself.

The Judges will, with utter predictability - do what the producers tell them!!!

JJ the cynic

The judges performances each year make me smile. Some of their remarks seem so pre-rehearsed. It's as if they'd decided if some performances were good or bad before they were executed.
None of 'em seem bright enough to manage that much alliteration and onomatopoeia "off the cuff."

You can't beat a bit of "carefully rehearsed spontaneity"
can you?

But it does entertain me, if not for the reasons for which the producers hope.

I didn't know there were any rules tbh. I think the judges have just evolved with the show, but not necessarily always in a way that shows them in a good light.

I don't want them to be reined in as such, but I would like to think they might finally take on board that they can have quite an effect on how the public votes by what they say. Easier said than done though I guess.

I know they can't help but have their favourites as it is only natural, but I just don't want it made clear who they are by how they comment or mark!

It has to be remembered that the first priority of most judges on any show like this seems to be; "self-promotion."

Their "look at me" act does get a bit tiresome.
As for their effect on the voting it works both ways, the public can get "bloody minded" and vote for someone who the judges don't want, as they did last year.

In the end as someone else has said, the judges are doing exactly what the producers want.
The danger is to think that this is in any way like the old "Come Dancing" or try to make it like it, as we all know what happened to that.

It's not much more than just a bit of fun, that in my opinion is starting to look rather long in the tooth, that's why the BBC keep messing with it, which I think will just hasten its demise.

Doghouse Riley talking rubbish. The Judges are trying to do their job to the best of their ability and at the same time entertain.

Alesha won't be too unkind or too anything. She will just be a big nothing.

Absolutely. The judges aren't independent with their own thoughts - they are clearly primed what to say and never was this more apparent than last year.

Yes, there was some OTT bitchery - an awful lot of it directed at poor Mark Foster, who wasn't exactly the greatest dancer but didn't really deserve the kind of playground name-calling certain judges resorted to.

However, this paled into insignificance next to the utterly blatant agenda to rubbish the public's favourites while promoting their own - all done thanks to the voting system and the dance-off. Pair that up with the appallingly cynical allocation of dances across the series and you have a recipe for disaster. No wonder SCD6 erupted into such acrimony.

That is what needs honing in this year. However, the quality of management displayed so far for SCD7 isn't exactly promising ...

You are welcome to your opinion and I won't "rubbish" it for you having one.

But don't "rubbish" mine because it doesn't concur with yours.
What we share is just an opinion gained from our own perceptions of what we have seen over a number of years.
If they are different, then so be it.
You and I are not privy to what goes on in production meetings. We must draw our own conclusions.

I don't think you can manipulate those voters who are either driven or irrational. The 60% voting against the judges according to the polls will vote against them whatever is said or whoever its said against. Faint praise hasn't worked better than cutting comment at convincing those voters that hopeless dancers should go before good ones. Moving all the marks up will just make someone bottom on 4 rather than 1. You can't do much more without making the marks look silly and making them very unfair to people who tried harder and did better - If you have a scale where 9 or ten is very good and 7-8 is good, the pathetic have to be given 1-2 or the mediocre can't be given 4-5.

The favourite argument is another problem - people get higher marks from the judges because they are better - people watching at home who don't like those people for a myriad of reasons, who like someone else for a myriad more and don't see or even look for what the judges are looking for, see this as favouritism. Its essentially the teacher's pet argument and no matter how the judges defend their marks they will seem wrong to people who don't like the result.

Its built into the structure of the shows where there are marks rather than vague comments, and the audience has a say in the decision. It used to be better on those shows where it was most noticeable when you were bad (because you repeatedly fell off the unicycle or fell over on the ice) but even falling over would now get you votes. Voters on all reality shows have declined in number and those left increasingly vote anti-judge until enough people start voting to swamp that vote or people start voting for the best of those left to win. Marks just cry out for some people who have had any bad experience of getting poor marks to get their own back and comments just create an underdog and sympathy vote on top.

SCD have tried cutting down the amount of damage the public vote can cause only to find themselves tied up in rules last year - this year it looks as if they are trying a more voter friendly panel. I doubt if it will work - the worst dancer will still hang on with a 30-40% vote, whether they are hilarious or a personality free zone, whilst potential semi-finalists go early.

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say I do think Lisa got over-marked on occasion - even a non-dance expert like me could see she stumbled during her AS and yet she got the same marks as Tom who performed better. There's also the fact that in some cases - like Rachel's foxtrot which was a perfectly danced dance that happened to be as dull as ditchwater - the public are judging on different criteria to the judges. I also think sometimes the public will vote someone through a bad week when they got a dance which didn't suit them or they were injured or some other reason if they like the celeb concerned or believe they can do better another week. I'm afraid I've done it on a few occasions.

Thank you - your reply covers exactly what I would have said.

If we as non-dance experts can see errors than it is not unreasonable to expect a lower mark and quite frankly imho (although I am certainly not alone), Lisa and Brendan didn't deserve any of the 10s the judges awarded, let alone 20 - yes TWENTY - ridiculous.

When you think Jill and Darren only got five, I believe Colin and Erin got five, Mark and Karen seven, Denise and Ian two or three... So Lisa and Brendan supposedly performed as many outstanding dances as those four couples combined? I think not! The most memorable dance they did was their showdance, not in a good way!

This is an entertainment show and the judges are there for the "Pantomine Villain" element. Most viewers sitting at home dont understand the technicalities of the dances, and i include myself in that catagory. I dont care OR notice if it is a toe lead or heel lead or even if it is a dogs lead, all i care about is if i enjoyed the performance or not. I find myself disagreeing with the judges most of the time anyway. I can understand how this must frustrate the few "Purist" viewers who still think this is a real champoinship, but it never was and never will be . The only way that could happen is if it was only professionals taking part, and quite frankly that would be boring.

I agree with the general observation that everyone got marked rather highly last time round. I'd like to see more differentiation in the judges' scoring - otherwise, I'd ask 'why are they there?'

However, Len has said that noone is really worth a 10 since no one does a perfect dance and so the judges are adjusting their marks to meet the nature of the show i.e. the short lead in times that the pros have to teach the celebs.

I honestly can't remember now how Lisa and Tom's dances compared and so won't comment on that. But it seems that there is a general question as to whether a stumble is more of an error and should be marked down. rather than, say, constantly wrong technique or a lifeless performance. My personal opinion (and it is only my view) is that that the latter two are worse. However, this was the subject of heated debate on DOI when someone stumbled and the judges reacted differently.

I do dance and am studying for exams (although not nearly as experienced as some of the posters on this forum). Although I do know what is expected as far as the footwork is concerned, I do find it very difficult to tell whether it is right on SCD, since you've got to be quite quick to spot these things and the camera angles don't help. Len is very experienced and so if he thinks something is wrong, then I'd expect that to be a fair guide.

As a dancer, I suppose I could be included as one of your Purist viewers, as yes, I do like to see things done properly. But I do understand - absolutely - that scd is nothing like a proper competition, never was, and never will be. However, I still think the judges job is to judge the technique and quality of a dance; if a celeb has worked really hard to get their technique correct, then that should be marked higher - by the judges - than someone who just looks 'pretty' (or whatever!)

The viewers, on the otherhand, have the right to choose, and vote for, their favourites - for whatever reason and regardless of the standard of their dancing. And obviously lots of people are going to have differing views - which is just as well, otherwise you could get a situation where 1 celeb gets all the marks and the other 10-11 (or whatever) get none!

'Vive la difference' - it's what makes like interesting!

I would agree totally with your view.

That floor is, apparently, very fast (slippery) so I'm surprised there haven't been more slips. Normally, a judge will take more notice of how the dancer gets up and carries on, than they will of the slip itself, and a 'good' dancer who slips, would normally be marked higher than the 'weak' dancer who doesn't.

If, though, there are 2 (or more) performances that are equal in every other way (technically and performance-wise, etc) then it stands to reason the one who slips will get the lower mark.

LOL, still laughing about that "dance".



You have been debating ad nauseam that Alesha is there to judge from the perspective of a former contestant, are you now changing your mind and saying that she is there to be a pantomime villain?

I'm already imagining the faces Alesha's going to pull as Len and Craig "totally spontaneously" argue across her.

............or maybe even one or both of them telling her that she is talking rubbish

I would imagine they might be leant on just slightly a lot not to do that. Alesha's credentials are shaky to begin with - don't want anybody to undermine them further.

(To be fair to Alesha it was like that in the early series with the rest of the judges. None of them ever questionned the others until series 3 or 4 in any serious way. Ah how times change.)

I think they other three judges will be humble to Alesha and not give her a hard time, which kind of makes her appointment as a judge ridiculous, and boring TV.

It will be err interesting to see whether that happens. Len thought nothing of telling Arlene she was getting on his nerves, talking rubbish and generally talking down her opinion. I can't see Alesha getting the same treatment, and if it does happen I have an image of Jay Hunt coming on stage via the stairs and tell Len off for being racist and to have more respect for the yoof opinion.

No I think Len will be so nice to Alesha, another reason for my irritation with her appointment to increase.

As there are likely bonuses to be earned by those in charge of this programme, the instructions will go out to make it as controversial as possible, to get plenty of press coverage and hopefully a mention in Parliament.

Never mind the content or standard, I mean what a tragedy if the ratings are lower than last year?