It's more than a bit true.

Popular does not equal good.

I've seen a long list of things she's done. You're not mentioning anything new.

There's been plenty of poor acting in Dr Who. At Home with the Braithwaites -- what sort of part did she have? IMDB says she was in only 4 episodes.

What shows she's a better actress than she seems in SCD?

It's interesting that actors tend to overact during the dances. Cherie didn't really act at all, and we've had some very odd faces from Tom, Natalie Cassidy and Lynda. Lynda's tango was simply dreadful. In contrast, Rachel acted well in her rumba and Zoe in her tango (non-actors).

100%, without a doubt, completely hit the nail on the head there my friend.

Your comment about British Theatre is inexplicable and hardly something we can debate at length on here, so I agree to disagree, along with a lot ot theatre supporters I trust.

Popular does not necessarily equal good but that advert was both popular and good.

I think I am mentioning something new.

What difference does it make whether she was in one episode, four or the whole lot? She was hired for a prestigious programme and many others, also prestigious, where she was in every episode if that matters so that blows that argument straight out of the water. Oh, the part was the cook making gravy, wasn't it? But you knew that? She was a therapist.

What shows she is an actress worth her salt is her long career and the fact that people remember and respect her from what she's done.

I think it's unfair to add Zoe to the title. Yes she acts but she actually dances too unlike the others mentioned who I happen to agree with Veri about.

Ali, Ricky W and Laila and Craig are all actors but seem to take the dancing seriously (and some are better at it than other..)

Good points. Lynda is actually getting on my nerves too but I hope she is better this week. I actually thought she should have gone before now. I am really sticking up for her on here because I don't like speciousarguments and illogical thought processes.

With regard to Zoe, she seemed to find it very difficult to 'act sexy' so it may be that when some people are out of their comfort zone, it affects their usual ability which they take for granted in their other life.

I agree. This thread has me bewildered.

Firstly anybody who uses Wikipedia should know the information is written by ordinary people and often contains mistakes or opinions presented as facts.

OP I don't recall you ever starting such a negative thread like this before. I don't really understand the point you are trying to make as your title names several celebs, but you only refer to Lynda in your posts. You have said you have read the Wiki page on her and looked at her imdb entry. Are you seriously suggesting that because Lynda has spent most of her acting career doing British TV or British theatre, this could mean her career has less merit in some way than if she had done some other kind of acting?

Lynda Bellingham may only be known as a panellist on Loose Women to a certain generation, but to others like me who can also remember her before she did the Oxo ads, she has always been considered a good actress with the ability to do all kinds of work. Plus unlike many actresses she made the successful transition from a pretty young thing to a character actress. She is 61 years old and has a body of work covering 37 years from 1971 to 2008 including Shakespeare, Dickens, Bafta nominated TV shows, films, children's TV, good comedies and dreadful comedies, good drama and dreadful drama - even when she was doing those Oxo ads she was still working as an actress (and bringing up her children).

Popular does not automatically mean good, but surely someone who has had such a varied career must have been good enough to keep getting work for almost 40 years?

But in any case how can we have had an awful lot of anything this year when each couple has only danced twice in the competition and once in a group?

"I just hope the public likes it" translates to me as "I just hope the public likes it and I don't get voted off in week one". If you've seen her interviewed since starting her training, doesn't she come over to any of you are being well aware she won't win, but wants to do well enough not to be disliked by the public and voted off near the start of the series? Couldn't her 'acting' in her first two dances be part of her learning to dance in that she may have over done it, rather than be shown to be lacking in that aspect?

The judges constantly tell actors they need to act the dance and I agree that it should be part of the over all performance, but why complain about this so early in the series?

As I said, bewildered.

PS Lynda Bellingham on SCD is nothing like Coleen Nolan on DOI.

Here's the IMBD list. What have you mentioned that isn't on it?

If this is a good example of her acting in Oxo commericals, I have to say I'm not impressed. But feel free to point to what you think is a better example if you wish.

People remember all sorts of things. It's only her acting that can show she's a good actress. She might be ok for the sorts of roles she's had, but I don't think it works well in SCD.

"At Home with the Braithwaites" was part of your argument, not mine. I simply pointed out that (according to imdb) she was in only 4 episodes, which obviously makes a difference for the sort of argument you're making. I'm sure if she had a larger part, it would be considered a point in her favour.

At Home with the Braithwaites has won some awards. But that doesn't mean all the acting in it must be good. Eastenders wins awards but still has plenty of poor acting.

Tom did OK hamming his way to the win. I don't think it mattered but his showdance that some people say justified the win was a straight lift form 1930s films and you wonder if he had done something similar before either in training or for fun. I didn't think his acting before the final was good at all but it worked and playing Fred cemented his win. Cherie is a better actress -you wouldn't notice someone that good assuming a role.

Agree the last point but they didn't get credit for it.

Don't see the connection between para 1 and 2. Or indeed where this significant acting is if its not on TV or in popular theatre. There's films but there's not many good films out there either . And if there is acting anywhere else I think you will find its people who have been in soaps or popular theatre doing it. I don't think anyone specializes in unpopular theatre. Some of the acting in soaps is very good and those people do turn up all over the place.

Your first, main point is spot on though. We have some people who are going to have an act rather than dancing ability. In several cases its going to be a comedy act in the tradition of JS on SCD and Tucker Jenkins on DOI . Lynda isn't one of those though she may be hamming it up a bit. The "its an entertainment show" door has been opened and the comics and panto actors are going to try and stay on by exploiting it. The problem is that the judges can't mark it down and make it unproductive as the voters will react by backing it so the judges are legitimising it by saying "that was very entertaining". Its going to be very interesting if it works on the voters because we could have people staying in and being called entertaining for pulling funny faces whilst the good dancers are being criticised for detailed faults or not quite expressing the role.

Does it make it less valid with it being a stage version? Veri, you obviously don't know very much about the acting world! Many big name movie stars or soap stars are desperate to tread the boards to give themselves some credibility!


Psychosis - this says more about your recreational tastes than it does about Lynda's resume!

I wish Lynda would tone down the faces somewhat. The acting she displayed during her tango was very amateurish. Anyone can do exaggerated facial expressions - not good acting at all. In her Cha Cha Cha, she had a manic grin on her face the whole time. She was obviously going for "happy" but what she achieved was more like "psychotic".

I'm fed up of Lynda on the show, and hope she goes quickly. Not interested in someone who can't dance hamming it up for cheap votes.

However, the comments from the OP about British theatre show a massive lack of knowledge about the subject and rate among the most contrived rubbish I've read on here in a long time, which is going some. It's all the more surprising that it's coming from Veri, who I've previously found to be an exceptionally even-handed and fair poster. Very odd...

Maybe Lynda ran over her kitten or something...

I'm happy for her to go when the time is right. From what we've seen so far, that 'time' is at the very least after Rav, Joe and Craig exit - so she's got some life in her yet.

Given the unbelievably competitive nature of acting, working over 40 years is something to be admired regardless of whether you're actually any good or not. Her talent has been debated, and I'm not going to get into that here, but Lynda clearly has a good work ethic and a strong personality, and if this has bolstered her in terms of getting acting jobs then that's fair enough.

I have never yet agreed with Veri on anything, but there's a first time for all things - and I would agree that there is some dreadful crap in the West End and on tour these days, pandering to the need for fame to sell a show.

However, I've still managed to see some good stuff out there (reference 'popular actor' David Tennant giving a truly staggering performance in Shakespeare, the best Hamlet I've seen), and I wouldn't write off actors who've been in soaps, musicals made from big films or anything else without actually seeing it.

So Veri, I don't think the generalisation needs to be as sweeping as that yet, and you may need to redefine your idea of what makes an actor 'good' - but apart from that, well done, you finally said something sensible

PMSL

I agee some celebs are hamming it up a bit and they are not all actors btw, but I don't agree it is anything new to this series of SCD nor that it is any more extensive than normal.

But if hamming it up is replacing dancing for some celebs, then I think the judges can do something about it.

They can simply say there were not enough steps specific to that particular dance included in the routine and give examples of what was missing that they would have expected to see. What they shouldn't do it make the comment personal which is what happened with JS. The voting public are not idiots and if the judges say there was not enough technical content without making it personal, then I doubt if there would be any real backlash.

With some celebs on DWTS there has always been a lack of 'real' dancing too, but it is not hamming it up that is the problem (it does happen though), it is routines that have been choreographed with introductions and finales that eat up far too much of the dance time. But the result is the same - the celeb does far less steps specific to the particular dance. Len has no problem saying this on the judging panel, even though he is booed by the audience (no doubt encouraged by somebody from the production team on the dance floor out of shot).

I'm with Len on this kind of thing. Faff about for a moment or ham it up, but make sure the routine contains enough of the steps and moves expected for that dance.

To me Phil Tuffnell is a perfect example of a celeb hamming it up a bit, but producing the steps and moves we expect to see and doing that well.

Lynda has tried to act the part a bit over-enthusiastically. I think she doesn't want to be accused of not giving it a go. A bit more help instead of hindrance from the dress department would help, as would toned-down makeup.

I think she said she wanted to entertain - not sure if she said to be funny.

A lot of celebs go round with one expression on their face for the whole dance. Unless it's the correct expression, I'd prefer they did something more interesting. It gives people something to argue about then.

Just wanted to add - I don't want to see the celebrities 'acting' there way through a routine anyway.

I want them to feel the dance and convey that to the audience.

Alesha did this so well. She was a chameleon. Whatever dance she was given, she managed to capture the mood of it - genuinely, not artificially.

its the cheeky chappies I cant take to at all .the whole "amnt I a fun lad", or lassie as the case may be , gets right on my tits to be honest .

As a example of apparently one-dimensional soap actors who go on to achieve widespread recognition for their thespian skills, one need look no further than Ross - "Grunt Mitchell" - Kemp, for his portrayal of Henno Garvey in Ultimate Farce.

Never underestimate the soapsters.

This goes down well with the audience for a while, but after a couple of weeks I find it tends to grate on me if they are not also improving in their dancing (and even if they are sometimes)

Fame and ability don't necessarily contradict though. In many cases the famous people went to the same drama schools originally as the people who didn't get noticed. Thats more and more true as more people are trained. Its also true that someone who can sing live and do well on X factor can do well on a Westend musical stage if they can act as well. Many people who made it on stage after TV shows should have made it anyway. "Name" casting often gets the right people the job wheras traditional casting judging by results often doesn't have the same inspired idea behind it and produces a lesser performance.

The problem that turns up most for me is when the "name" is there because they will attract an older audience that remembers them from the 70s and 80 when I would rather forget them. It comes down to whether they can act for me but its perfectly clear that there's a market for ham acting and cheeky chappies out there. The danger is that if that audience is watching SCD, the funny bloke who pulls funny faces is going to be around far past their sell by date.

My posts have been more about Lynda because I thought I'd covered the others by saying "I blame Eastenders and soaps generally" , and then because I was answering posts about Lynda.

I'm not saying stage acting is less valid or that Lynda's career has less merit than some other sort of acting career. I'm not thinking about it in those terms. (In any case, someone whose acting career had less merit might well be a better dancer.)

Nor am I saying that all (or even most) of the acting in British tv and theatre has anything wrong with it. (Though I do think that most of the acting in some soaps is poor.)

It's just that British theatre and tv seems to have a lot of room for acting that is overly "theatrical" or that comes across as acting, and so -- given how Lynda acted while dancing in SCD -- it fits that most of her acting would have been theatre or tv. There are reasons why stage acting tends to be more "theatrical"; but it doesn't always transfer well to television (or film).

(That raises the possibly interesting question of whether the SCD dancers and judges are thinking of it as tv, or whether they think of it as a live performance that tv happens to be filming.)

On reflection, I agree about Zoe. I should have left her off the list (along with the other actors you mention). It's just that Zoe seems so "Eastenders" to me (even though she's not been in it).


I think that's right, though I would qualify it a bit. I don't think there's always a clear line between genuine and artificial, if the dancers are meant to be characters in a story. But if there's an element of acting, I'd still like the result to seem natural, rather than overtly theatrical or (worse) hammed up.

Unfortunately, with their "dance faces" and so on, the professional latin and ballroom dancers have opened the door to some over-exaggerated "acting", so we're probably stuck with it. I don't have to like it, though; and I don't.

(BuddyBontheNet, I think you're right that the judges could do something. But would they? Instead, they seem to like the overacted performances.)