Laila vs either Ali or Ricky. I think Chris has enough votes to get through even if he is bottom with the judges.
Your predictions for the bottom 2 this week
2 of 4
Originally Posted by Servalan:
“After last year, yes, I do think it happens - and we have all the ammunition in place for it to recur: two contestants who are extremely popular with the judges but (it would seem) less so with the public; and two contestants who I think we can safely say are more popular than the judges' favourites yet appear to be marked less favourably, regardless of what they do (and the fact that we will be in a QF will inevitably be used as justification for some low scores for them
).
I would love there to be a three-couple final. I don't understand how the BBC can guarantee their new voting system ensures that anyone can be saved and also no couple is safe.
But, like I say, I will continue to vote for my faves. It ain't over yet!
nancy1975 - yes, totally. I would have thought the producers/judges would have learned their lesson from last year - but, knowing the BBC, somehow I doubt it ...”
“After last year, yes, I do think it happens - and we have all the ammunition in place for it to recur: two contestants who are extremely popular with the judges but (it would seem) less so with the public; and two contestants who I think we can safely say are more popular than the judges' favourites yet appear to be marked less favourably, regardless of what they do (and the fact that we will be in a QF will inevitably be used as justification for some low scores for them
).I would love there to be a three-couple final. I don't understand how the BBC can guarantee their new voting system ensures that anyone can be saved and also no couple is safe.
But, like I say, I will continue to vote for my faves. It ain't over yet!
nancy1975 - yes, totally. I would have thought the producers/judges would have learned their lesson from last year - but, knowing the BBC, somehow I doubt it ...
”
Shall do all I can for Cola and Laila, but it does mean any pleasure I might have got, and indeed would have got from the remaining four is spoilt by the clique.
Originally Posted by nancy1975:
“Shall do all I can for Cola and Laila, but it does mean any pleasure I might have got, and indeed would have got from the remaining four is spoilt by the clique.”
“Shall do all I can for Cola and Laila, but it does mean any pleasure I might have got, and indeed would have got from the remaining four is spoilt by the clique.”
We can only do our best! "We shall fight them on the beaches ..." etc.
If the judges very obviously attempt to jettison the public's choices AGAIN, I predict a riot.
In which I will be participating!
Originally Posted by Servalan:
“We can only do our best! "We shall fight them on the beaches ..." etc.
If the judges very obviously attempt to jettison the public's choices AGAIN, I predict a riot.
In which I will be participating!”
“We can only do our best! "We shall fight them on the beaches ..." etc.
If the judges very obviously attempt to jettison the public's choices AGAIN, I predict a riot.
In which I will be participating!
”
Oh boy, just watch me.
I shall be shouting all the same points over from Austingate, regurgitated over and over and over and over...........................
Originally Posted by nancy1975:
“Oh boy, just watch me.I shall be shouting all the same points over from Austingate, regurgitated over and over and over and over...........................”
“Oh boy, just watch me.
I shall be shouting all the same points over from Austingate, regurgitated over and over and over and over...........................”
I think you are going to need a large supply of cocktails on Saturday night ...
(Or maybe we should all start now?!
)
Originally Posted by claire2281:
“Really tricky to call this week but if I had to guess at the mo I'm going to go for the shock and say Ali and Ricky.”
“Really tricky to call this week but if I had to guess at the mo I'm going to go for the shock and say Ali and Ricky.”
I'm with you, just a bit of a gut feeling and with everyone being better at ballroom Laila and Chris seem to have the better picks there.
Originally Posted by Servalan:
“I think you are going to need a large supply of cocktails on Saturday night ...
(Or maybe we should all start now?!)”
“I think you are going to need a large supply of cocktails on Saturday night ...
(Or maybe we should all start now?!
)”
Am already planning my intake although I won't be able to actually post until Monday which is probably just as well.
Am already slumped in the 'dark side' like Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones singing corny songs and slugging chardonnay. Anybody is welcome to join me.
No way will Ali be in the dance-off. I am also expecting Ricky to get mega-support from the judges but it will not prevent a place in the DO.
Leaderboard may go:
Ricky 4
Ali 3
Laila 2
Chris 1
Combined with public it then goes:
Ricky 5
Ali 6
Laila 4
Chris 5
Dance-off is Laila and Ricky. Laila leaves.
Leaderboard may go:
Ricky 4
Ali 3
Laila 2
Chris 1
Combined with public it then goes:
Ricky 5
Ali 6
Laila 4
Chris 5
Dance-off is Laila and Ricky. Laila leaves.
Originally Posted by nancy1975:
“Shall do all I can for Cola and Laila, but it does mean any pleasure I might have got, and indeed would have got from the remaining four is spoilt by the clique.”
“Shall do all I can for Cola and Laila, but it does mean any pleasure I might have got, and indeed would have got from the remaining four is spoilt by the clique.”
Originally Posted by Servalan:
“We can only do our best! "We shall fight them on the beaches ..." etc.
If the judges very obviously attempt to jettison the public's choices AGAIN, I predict a riot.
In which I will be participating!”
“We can only do our best! "We shall fight them on the beaches ..." etc.
If the judges very obviously attempt to jettison the public's choices AGAIN, I predict a riot.
In which I will be participating!
”
Call me an optimistic fool (which I am) but I have a sort of feeling that the producers may be listening a little more to public opinion - as expressed via the forums (fora?
) - this year. There have certainly been some issues - such as the marking of last weeks group VW - which have been discussed on ITT. Why was it discussed? Only, I would suggest, because this forum and I'm sure the BBC's was full of it over the weekend and early part of this week. There have been other instances, too - don't ask me what, precisely - I'm doing well to remember something that happened as far back as Tuesday as it is!'Ask Len' has also been conspicuous by its absence this year, as has all sorts of other gratuitous dross which was regularly slated last year.
I'll be gobsmacked, I say gobsmacked, if there's an elimination this weekend. I refuse to believe that even those lame brains at the BBC will not have been observing opinion about a two couple final AND the distinct possibility that yet again one of the public's favourites will be unceremoniously oiked out of the final, and not decided that maybe, just maybe, allowing all four remaining contestants through to the final is very possibly quite a good idea, actually. See - told you I was an optimistic fool.
All that notwithstanding, I have a strong suspicion that the producers want a female winner - same as they did last year, in my opinion. We've had one female winner in the last five years, is it? I think the Beeb want to level the playing field, by fair means or foul. As far as I'm concerned that's principally what last year's shennanigans was all about - didn't want Austin because not only was he male, but also would have been yet another sportsman in the final. Then jettison Tom (they tried, oh how they tried!) and leave the way clear for either Lisa or Rachel to win.
So if my optimism proves unfounded and there is an elimination this weekend, a male will leave, regardless of which one it is.
This is my theory, my theory it is. Right load of rubbish, isn't it?
Originally Posted by Servalan:
“All I think we can safely say is the producers, who will have access to the viewers' leaderboard, will brief the judges to try and negate our votes if at all possible.”
“All I think we can safely say is the producers, who will have access to the viewers' leaderboard, will brief the judges to try and negate our votes if at all possible.”
But why would they? The judges might want to manipulate the scores in certain ways but what do the producers stand to get from it?
Working to ensure the most popular contestant goes out would make no sense show wise. Nor is there any gain from Ali or Ricky winning above Chris - they're not BBC employees.
Why would they risk getting in trouble simply to appease the judges?
Originally Posted by ESPIONdansant:
“Alesha won before Tom so women have had a fair share.
Natasha
Jill
Darren
Ramps
Alesha
Tom”
“Alesha won before Tom so women have had a fair share.
Natasha
Jill
Darren
Ramps
Alesha
Tom”
They have - but only once since 2004. If another chap gets his name inscribed on the glitter ball this year, it starts to look even more lopsided.
Anyway, just my crackpot gut feeling, and also the only way I could rationalise some of Lisa's marks last year.
Series 1 hardly counts. There wasn't a single male in it who could put one foot in front of the other without tripping over.
I do wonder what would happen if Ali performed not so good this week whilst Ricky was at his best and they were in the dance off. Although the decision is meant to be on that performance I still think the judges would save Ali. I think she is perfectly safe right through to the final because whoever she is in the dance off with she will be saved.
I must say I have a soft spot for the men.
I supported Natasha and St Jill but not Alesha.
It's coz it's harder for the men, innit?
I supported Natasha and St Jill but not Alesha.
It's coz it's harder for the men, innit?
I reckon that this week Ricky could be in the DO again - just based on the fact that he is still making a lot of mistakes in the routines and both the forum posts and the judges are commenting on it - at this stage of the competition that may count! The other place could well go to Ali, although she does have a lot of public support; just because when the fans think they're safe and vote for the underdog the favourite actually suffers! Chris and Laila both appear to have a lot of support so could well be saved despite what will most likely be a poor judges vote whatever they do on the dancefloor !!!!
Personally - I don't support Ricky just because he's getting high scores despite the mistakes, other than that I have no definite favourite from the other three so roll on a good show Saturday and may the best dancers on the night go through to the SF.
Personally - I don't support Ricky just because he's getting high scores despite the mistakes, other than that I have no definite favourite from the other three so roll on a good show Saturday and may the best dancers on the night go through to the SF.
Originally Posted by ESPIONdansant:
“I must say I have a soft spot for the men.
I supported Natasha and St Jill but not Alesha.
It's coz it's harder for the men, innit?”
“I must say I have a soft spot for the men.
I supported Natasha and St Jill but not Alesha.
It's coz it's harder for the men, innit?”
It's not coz you is a girl, then??
Originally Posted by claire2281:
“But why would they? The judges might want to manipulate the scores in certain ways but what do the producers stand to get from it?
Working to ensure the most popular contestant goes out would make no sense show wise. Nor is there any gain from Ali or Ricky winning above Chris - they're not BBC employees.
Why would they risk getting in trouble simply to appease the judges?”
“But why would they? The judges might want to manipulate the scores in certain ways but what do the producers stand to get from it?
Working to ensure the most popular contestant goes out would make no sense show wise. Nor is there any gain from Ali or Ricky winning above Chris - they're not BBC employees.
Why would they risk getting in trouble simply to appease the judges?”
Of course it makes no sense to get rid of your most popular contestant: but last year proves the producers are more than happy to do that (see fancynancy's post). Rachel and Lisa were not BBC employees last year but pushed relentlessly by the judges despite being repeatedly relegated to the dance-off by the public.
One of the producers' key jobs is to 'manage talent' - and 'talent' means the judges. They have to keep them happy. So they indulge them. The fear is if they don't, they might leave.
(A bit of background: the BBC is very conservative in this respect - while the forums have long campaigned for a major shake-up of the judging panel, the BBC would not go further than replacing one judge. I could refer you to another long-running BBC One series where the lead actor has cost them millions by refusing to shoot scripts and demanding wholesale changes to production teams - yet the BBC is adamant that the show would not survive without him. And another continuing series where one actor past his sell-by date is able to demand £100k per episode and holidays whenever he wants simply because senior executives are terrified of losing him).
The judges, as we know from last year, have quite a different view to what Strictly is to the public. It's time the BBC got down off the fence and decided who the show is ultimately for.
Originally Posted by Servalan:
“Of course it makes no sense to get rid of your most popular contestant: but last year proves the producers are more than happy to do that (see fancynancy's post). Rachel and Lisa were not BBC employees last year but pushed relentlessly by the judges despite being repeatedly relegated to the dance-off by the public.
One of the producers' key jobs is to 'manage talent' - and 'talent' means the judges. They have to keep them happy. So they indulge them. The fear is if they don't, they might leave.
(A bit of background: the BBC is very conservative in this respect - while the forums have long campaigned for a major shake-up of the judging panel, the BBC would not go further than replacing one judge. I could refer you to another long-running BBC One series where the lead actor has cost them millions by refusing to shoot scripts and demanding wholesale changes to production teams - yet the BBC is adamant that the show would not survive without him. And another continuing series where one actor past his sell-by date is able to demand £100k per episode and holidays whenever he wants simply because senior executives are terrified of losing him).
The judges, as we know from last year, have quite a different view to what Strictly is to the public. It's time the BBC got down off the fence and decided who the show is ultimately for.”
“Of course it makes no sense to get rid of your most popular contestant: but last year proves the producers are more than happy to do that (see fancynancy's post). Rachel and Lisa were not BBC employees last year but pushed relentlessly by the judges despite being repeatedly relegated to the dance-off by the public.
One of the producers' key jobs is to 'manage talent' - and 'talent' means the judges. They have to keep them happy. So they indulge them. The fear is if they don't, they might leave.
(A bit of background: the BBC is very conservative in this respect - while the forums have long campaigned for a major shake-up of the judging panel, the BBC would not go further than replacing one judge. I could refer you to another long-running BBC One series where the lead actor has cost them millions by refusing to shoot scripts and demanding wholesale changes to production teams - yet the BBC is adamant that the show would not survive without him. And another continuing series where one actor past his sell-by date is able to demand £100k per episode and holidays whenever he wants simply because senior executives are terrified of losing him).
The judges, as we know from last year, have quite a different view to what Strictly is to the public. It's time the BBC got down off the fence and decided who the show is ultimately for.”
You can't chuck titbits like that in amongst a gaggle of wimmin and give no clues!!!
Originally Posted by Servalan:
“Of course it makes no sense to get rid of your most popular contestant: but last year proves the producers are more than happy to do that (see fancynancy's post). Rachel and Lisa were not BBC employees last year but pushed relentlessly by the judges despite being repeatedly relegated to the dance-off by the public.
One of the producers' key jobs is to 'manage talent' - and 'talent' means the judges. They have to keep them happy. So they indulge them. The fear is if they don't, they might leave.
(A bit of background: the BBC is very conservative in this respect - while the forums have long campaigned for a major shake-up of the judging panel, the BBC would not go further than replacing one judge. I could refer you to another long-running BBC One series where the lead actor has cost them millions by refusing to shoot scripts and demanding wholesale changes to production teams - yet the BBC is adamant that the show would not survive without him. And another continuing series where one actor past his sell-by date is able to demand £100k per episode and holidays whenever he wants simply because senior executives are terrified of losing him).
The judges, as we know from last year, have quite a different view to what Strictly is to the public. It's time the BBC got down off the fence and decided who the show is ultimately for.”
“Of course it makes no sense to get rid of your most popular contestant: but last year proves the producers are more than happy to do that (see fancynancy's post). Rachel and Lisa were not BBC employees last year but pushed relentlessly by the judges despite being repeatedly relegated to the dance-off by the public.
One of the producers' key jobs is to 'manage talent' - and 'talent' means the judges. They have to keep them happy. So they indulge them. The fear is if they don't, they might leave.
(A bit of background: the BBC is very conservative in this respect - while the forums have long campaigned for a major shake-up of the judging panel, the BBC would not go further than replacing one judge. I could refer you to another long-running BBC One series where the lead actor has cost them millions by refusing to shoot scripts and demanding wholesale changes to production teams - yet the BBC is adamant that the show would not survive without him. And another continuing series where one actor past his sell-by date is able to demand £100k per episode and holidays whenever he wants simply because senior executives are terrified of losing him).
The judges, as we know from last year, have quite a different view to what Strictly is to the public. It's time the BBC got down off the fence and decided who the show is ultimately for.”
Pulls up chair, hopefully ...
The judges pay lipservice to the fact that 'entertainment counts' - usually after they've been grumpy on a Saturday when they've seen entertainment counting in close up.
Originally Posted by fancynancy:
“You can't chuck titbits like that in amongst a gaggle of wimmin and give no clues!!!”
“You can't chuck titbits like that in amongst a gaggle of wimmin and give no clues!!!
”
Originally Posted by mindyann:
“Pulls up chair, hopefully ...
The judges pay lipservice to the fact that 'entertainment counts' - usually after they've been grumpy on a Saturday when they've seen entertainment counting in close up.”
“Pulls up chair, hopefully ...
The judges pay lipservice to the fact that 'entertainment counts' - usually after they've been grumpy on a Saturday when they've seen entertainment counting in close up.
”
FancyNacy- you make me laugh- but so damn true!!
*pulls up chair next to MindayAnn*
Servalan- can we have clues like on the other Showbiz thread please (the guess the dirt one- yes I read it!)
2 of 4
