DS Forums

 
 

Wonder if BBC will put pressure on judges to give Chris high marks


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-12-2009, 12:46
Monkseal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
The producers clearly wanted an angle on Tom to sell him to the public and he (and Claire) played ball. Beyond that, he had no influence over what the BBC broadcast. But that was hardly reflected in his scores from the judges - and as he was leaving Holby City (supposedly to try his hand in Hollywood), the BBC had no vested interest in promoting him unduly.

The difference between Tom and Lisa is that he was much more popular with the public than she was. The judges tried to counteract this and were only defeated when the public's vote ruled the roost in the final.

You may feel that Chris has been overscored this series. This is, of course, your prerogative, but I think you may find you are in a minority on that one. And it is in any case pretty obvious that he stands outside the judges' clique of favourites. So if the BBC is trying to push him forward, they're not making a very good job of it .
Are you arguing that he would be more popular if he was one of the judges favourites?

He got at least 52% of the public vote, from a position of being 2nd out of 5 in the leaderboard (sayeth the Daily Star). The BBC have clearly done an exceptional job of pushing him forwards.
Monkseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-12-2009, 13:48
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
Wonder if BBC will put pressure on judges to give Chris high marks
No.

Next conspiracy theory please ........ step right this way.
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 13:54
Servalan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,472
Are you arguing that he would be more popular if he was one of the judges favourites?

He got at least 52% of the public vote, from a position of being 2nd out of 5 in the leaderboard (sayeth the Daily Star). The BBC have clearly done an exceptional job of pushing him forwards.
Er - no ... I'd say the public respond to who the celebs are - on and off the dancefloor.

I can't access the Star's website - work won't let me! ('Reason: nudity" ) So I have no idea what they're saying.

However, being as the judges clearly favour other celebs over Chris, I hardly think the BBC can be held responsible for that voting share. I think that's down to Chris and Ola themselves. Viewers do have minds of their own, you know ...
Servalan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 13:59
nancy1975
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On an enforced UK holiday.
Posts: 19,360
Er - no ... I'd say the public respond to who the celebs are - on and off the dancefloor.

I can't access the Star's website - work won't let me! ('Reason: nudity" ) So I have no idea what they're saying.

However, being as the judges clearly favour other celebs over Chris, I hardly think the BBC can be held responsible for that voting share. I think that's down to Chris and Ola. Viewers do have minds of their own, you know ...
When we're allowed to have minds of our own.

Clearly the public relate in a big way to the hobbits. They can probably relate Chris's dancing in themselves as much as they may like the matching hoodies.
nancy1975 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 14:11
Veri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
They may want BBC Breakfast to get higher ratings. Chris winning would draw in more viewers. So I wonder if there will be subtle pressure on the judges to be lenient on Chris as it gets nearer to the final.
Or to mark down the better dancers. There seems to be a lot of pressure from forums to get them to do exactly that.
Veri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 14:17
Veri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
those in the know claim that Chris got over 40% more votes than anyone else last week....
Source?

Also, "percent more" is ambiguous because it gets used in conflicting ways.

In any case, even a percentage doesn't tell us how popular a celeb is the with SCD viewers. Since there are only 15 minutes to vote, and we're not told how many votes are received, it's possible that a tiny minority of the viewers is deciding the result.
Veri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 14:21
-Sid-
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 28,896
Or to mark down the better dancers. There seems to be a lot of pressure from forums to get them to do exactly that.
No there's pressure on the forums to mark the so-called better dancers more realistically.

Awarding someone a 10 when there are problems with their topline (as pointed out by James) and when they crashed into another couple (as pointed out by Flavia) doesn't sound very fair to me.
-Sid- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 14:21
Monkseal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
Er - no ... I'd say the public respond to who the celebs are - on and off the dancefloor.

I can't access the Star's website - work won't let me! ('Reason: nudity" ) So I have no idea what they're saying.

However, being as the judges clearly favour other celebs over Chris, I hardly think the BBC can be held responsible for that voting share. I think that's down to Chris and Ola themselves. Viewers do have minds of their own, you know ...
The BBC edit their VTs, they produce the It Takes Two segments about them, they give them airtime. Anybody who watches any edited reality tv show can tell you that if the producers wanted to tilt the show against them, they could have cut them off at the knees ages ago.

I'm not arguing (except in other places, for a laugh) that they're "producer favourites" or anything. (And I've said in other threads that their popularity is only helped by going above and beyond what the BBC provide them with storyline wise.) Just that the show has done better at tapping into their natural appeal than they have with other people. The fact that they're naturally very appealing goes a long way to explaining 53%+ out of 5, but it could never go the whole way.

Judges scores and "bias" aren't the be-all-and-end-all of the BBC anyway. Ricky Groves didn't get amazing judges scores the first few weeks. The show still tried to push him on us initially as the second coming of Jack Benny.
Monkseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 16:15
mindyann
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: pimple on the bum of back end
Posts: 18,770
The BBC edit their VTs, they produce the It Takes Two segments about them, they give them airtime. Anybody who watches any edited reality tv show can tell you that if the producers wanted to tilt the show against them, they could have cut them off at the knees ages ago.
I'm not arguing (except in other places, for a laugh) that they're "producer favourites" or anything. (And I've said in other threads that their popularity is only helped by going above and beyond what the BBC provide them with storyline wise.) Just that the show has done better at tapping into their natural appeal than they have with other people. The fact that they're naturally very appealing goes a long way to explaining 53%+ out of 5, but it could never go the whole way.

Judges scores and "bias" aren't the be-all-and-end-all of the BBC anyway. Ricky Groves didn't get amazing judges scores the first few weeks. The show still tried to push him on us initially as the second coming of Jack Benny.
Is that why they are Hobbits!?
mindyann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 17:17
fancynancy
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,870
Is that why they are Hobbits!?
No - they've both got furry feet. Hadn't you noticed?
fancynancy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 20:13
tonydancer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 989
No - they've both got furry feet. Hadn't you noticed?
And I'm very suspicious about the ring that Chris keep turning over and over in his hand.
tonydancer is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:00.