It is, but I think others are equally missing another point. In any interactive programme such as a reality entertainment show that polls public opinion then people are bound to discuss how opinions are formed and why. It is part of the show. Just as people discussed why Ricki doesn't connect with them what he could do to open up & reveal himself more, that he should be allowed time off for interviews, his run of mistakes, their opinions of his partner's character, what they thought of Ali and Brian and whether they should keep things low key, whether she could tame her nerves, whether she could be passionate (how hurtful is that!) how both competitors coped with injury or milked it etc

It is only fair that Chris is discussed in the same way. But his fans telling people to shut up, that they are being horrid when they discuss Chris & Ola's strategy and dancing ability, calling people dance purists etc just fuels resentment. They are the majority but that doesn't mean that their contestant should be above discussion and criticism as so many seem to believe.

Commenting on his lack of dance proficiency, how his stature effects certain dances, posture or hands is not malicous unless someone then goes on to call him names or lazy etc just as commenting on Ricky's stance is not malicious until people start staying they are repelled by his legs. The fact that more people take hysterical offense at mild criticism of Chris is little to do with the virulence of the comments but to do with the size of his support base. As a contestant he has probaly had the least criticism of them all.

Er - no, but you must have missed the point I was making. Ricky must have engaged with more of the public on Saturday to have leapfrogged Ali in the public's affections. What happened on Saturday has changed things. End of.

So there's no question of claiming Chris' popularity might not be so great. It's about Ricky raising the stakes and the impact that has had now. That's all!

I asked you before, where is your evidence for this majority of Chris supporters who take offence against non-bitchy criticism of his dancing? I don't and I know a lot of other people on here don't either. Quite the contrary, Chris supporters are quite happy to state that Ricky is technically the better dancer, but they will also acknowledge that they enjoy Chris's dancing more (for their own reasons). Most of us get annoyed when people start attacking him for absolut stupid reasons, and for applying armchair Psychology that has nothing to do with real life (e.g. he smiled during Ali and Brian's last dance ergo he is evil and smug).

Where have you been these past few weeks? There has been nothing but criticism of Chris!

It's very clear to me why people are voting for Chris. And trying to pick apart his technique - which everyone (Chris included) knows needs work - makes no difference.

These two sentences contradict each other.


But they would be wrong. Just as people could genuinely believe the world is flat but they would be wrong. You can respect a person but respecting a foolish opinion just means pandering idiocy.

Continuing your example if someone who said that John Sergeant was the best dancer in his year they would either be lying, blind or foolish. Someone who said they found his dancing entertaining anyway and he was the most enteraining would be honest and I would respect that as honesty is something to be respected. Just as someone who says Chris is a mediocre dancer but they like him anyway and he has entertained them throughout the series is honest and I would respect their honesty. The opinion that he is a great dancer, has improved more than the others, has worked harder than anyone else, is the underdog etc doesn't deserve respect any more than the opinion that the world is flat - and for the same reason. Why respect an untruth even though you should be polite to the person saying it?

And my opinion is clearly that everything is not subjective but that some things are right and wrong, some true and untrue and other things - but not everything- are subjective.

What bugs me is when people try to dictate to others what the show is supposed to be.

When we are asked to vote, we are asked to choose our 'favourite.' We aren't told what criteria must be used when deciding who our favourite is - it could be dance technique, it could be comedy value, it could be sex appeal, it could be the pro partner, it could be anything. And all reasons are valid.

People can vote for who they like, for whatever reason they like and treat Strictly as whatever show they would like it to be for them.

Glad to see we are in accord on something finally. Chris dance skills clearly makes no differnce to his popularity as has been said.

Er - no ... that's not what I said. Sorry!

Chris sells the dance in the way none of the others have. Even Darcy said that. Yes, he could improve his technique, but his showmanship surpasses the others. You used the vaguer term 'dance skills' - some of which can be come under showmanship, surely?

If Chris went out and sat on the steps doing nothing, he wouldn't get the vote - contrary to what your post seems to imply. His supporters vote for him because, to them, he is the best dancer.

You may disagree with that - which is, of course, your prerogative - but we all find different things in dancing to enjoy.

*applauds*

Answer to when this issue started was when it was conceived. It always was supposed to have competing tensions and fanbases and the concept that the audience weighs numerous factors in deciding who to support. Fenia Vardanis created and developed the show for the Beeb. She was interviewed by Nicky Campbell last year during the John Sergeant fuss. Here's a partial transcript someone made from the interview:

Nicky Campbell: Was your vision a dance contest or a personality contest?
Fenia Vardanis: The vision was an entertainment show, first and foremost. It's set in the world of dance, with celebrities learning a brand new skill out of their comfort zone; learning the skill of Ballroom and Latin Dancing. If we'd wanted a pure dance contest, we would have brought back "Come Dancing". We wouldn't have stuffed the show full of Cricketers, Comedians and Political Journalists.

Nicky Campbell: So the Judges are wrong?
Fenia Vardanis: No the judges are there...

Nicky Campbell: But Fenia, they think it's a dance contest!
Fenia Vardanis: Well, they would do. The judges and the professional dancers, who I think are fantastic, add so much to the show. But they are representing the dance world so naturally they are going to point us in the direction of the best dancers and in their eyes it IS a dance contest. But the fact that the format has given 50% to the judges and 50% to the audience, that 50% of audience power - well, we've seen how it can overturn the judges result.

Nicky Campbell: It's called democracy?
Fenia Vardanis: Indeed!

So the show does exactly what it's supposed to do.

Wel said Sid , I would adore Mathew Cutler if he sat on the steps and hummed Kum Ba Yah ,
I reserve the right to then cast a vote for him .

Best is not subjective when set against clearly not the best. Its subjective only at the point where its very good against very good and there's no marking code to decide. Thats what the public vote in a final is for - to decide which aspects of being very good it wants to reward more. Its perfectly possible to say who are best but to do so you have to apply relevant criteria and in a dance competition they should have something to do with doing the right steps,stance, difficulty, dancing to the music and a story and conveying relevant emotions.

The alternative is whats happened to Strictly - any criteria apply. On Strictly people will vote for you if they think you are funny, if you got least votes, if they think you would be a good mate in either sense, if you pull funny faces or if you bring the house down doing the funniest paso seen so far. They vote for journeys even when the train didn't leave the platform - they even now vote for trips to Blackpool. On Dancing On Ice they will even vote for you if you fall over. You are right people will find umpteen reasons to vote for John Sergeant including backing the under-dog, panto voting against the judges or because they like the idea of a 60 year old being a naughty boy. The problem is that people would also vote if you put a cute Toddler on stumbling a few steps or someone started doing John Cleese silly walks in the Argentine Tango. It is what happens and the BBC can't seem to stop happening. Doesn't mean its appropriate or that the show can possibly survive as dancing alone becomes an irrelevant criteria .

I vote for the nicest dress!

No wonder poor Ali didnt stand a chance then

To me that just proves that the judges have been rubbish from the word go... I've seen series one and no way was Natasha better than Claire!


I think the first victim may actually have been Denise in series two.

Thats because in most fields of life its asumed that people will understand what the relevant criteria are. The Dancing in the programme title gives the game way. You wouldn't expect people to vote for the funniest singer to get a record contract or employ the funniest plumber or the sexiest doctor or the dancer who couldn't do the steps.

If the opposite were true there would be no point having a three month show or anyone learning any dances. People could just turn up on night one tell a joke, pull a funny face tell us what tragedy they had had recently, read the BNP election mainifesto or throw a custard pie at Craig. Its not vote for a celebrity for any reason you can think of.

Best is very much subjective, since the show isn't designed to define who achieved the highest technical standard to the highest level of performance as best.

You've got the words of the creator above. The show is about "celebrities learning a brand new skill out of their comfort zone; learning the skill of Ballroom and Latin Dancing". Arguably someone who starts off the show as a good dancer is neither out of their comfort zone, or greatly learning a new skill ... so probably could have some people argue as being eligible for disqualification on grounds of not fitting the starting criteria for contestants; but let's not go there.

The problem those from the 'best dancer must win' school have is that making that their criteria for winning the show means that the prize sometimes needs to be awarded to someone on Day 1. There can often be someone there who nobody is gonna match, no matter how hard they train in the X number of weeks of the show, on level of technique and performance combined. Ricky Whittle arguably fits that example. Set up a show on that basis, and you don't have a TV show. Why bother to watch people train for weeks if they're never gonna match the natural abilities and experience of someone already talented at what you're being asked to learn? The fact it's not meant to be a 'best' dancer show but a 'learning to dance' show means the audience part of the vote gets to factor many things in to the equation of who did 'best'.

The general audience asks itself 'Who improved the most from where they started?' The Best Dancer Must Win school doesn't care; the best dancer must win.

The general audience asks itself 'Is the age of the contestant a disadvantage that should be factored?' The BDMW school doesn't care; the best dancer must win.

The general audience asks itself 'If someone has had past dance experience at stage school or in a music career is that an advantage to weigh?' The BDMW school doesn't care; the best dancer must win.

The general audience asks itself 'Do the physical attributes of the contestant need to be a factor in determining how well they do?' The BDMW school doesn't care; the best dancer must win.

The general audience asks itself 'How much joy does the contestant bring to the learning process and how well they transfer that to me?' The BDMW school doesn't care; the best dancer must win.

And there can be a whole bunch of other factors, good and bad, from the sublime to the ridiculous people consider. After all that someone the general audience and BDMW school agree on quite often will still end up winning the show. But they don't have to.

No, because different people vote for different reasons. They're not all voting for the best dancer.

"Best" may be ambiguous -- best technically, best performer, best all round, etc -- but that's different from being subjective.

BTW, many things are partly subjective and partly objective. Best dancer is probably in that category.


If they thought he was the best technically, they were simply wrong.

I notice she doesn't say it's a personality contest; and if she thought dancing was irrelevant, she should have kept it out of the title. Then she might have invented Britain's Got Talent or some such, years early. Instead, she created a show that's a dance contest whether she likes it or not.

No one's saying it is (or should be) a "pure dance contest", whatever that is.

Quotes from an interview do not set the starting criteria for contestants. If there are actual SCD rules that say it, where are they?


The same would apply to most entertaining or most other bests that people would pick.


Why bother to train for weeks if you're never going to match the entertainment value of a ham-acting gurner?


No one knows what the general audience asks itself.

If you think otherwise, point to a survey or something that shows it.

She doesn't say it's a personality contest, cos it's not. She doesn't say it's a dance contest, cos it's not. She says exactly what it is 'a celebrities learning to dance out of their comfort zone' show. Half of the voting on that is judged solely on dance techique/performance, the rest is judged by the audience on dance and some of the other factors I listed in my follow-up post.

No, she says those things because they're her views. (And she's talking about her "vision".) The show is whatever it is, regardless of what she thinks.

She isn't thinking logically in any case. It's entirely possible to have a pure dance contest "stuffed full of Cricketers, Comedians and Political Journalists."


We don't know what factors actually matter to the audience.

Well, yes. She has created a dance contest in that she's created a contest that is based around dancing rather than gymnastics/oil painting/car maintenance etc.

However, what she hasn't done is created a show that is a pure dance contest. There is a panel of judges who appraise the celebrities and theor pro partners and then throw their verdict out to the public to see whether they agree with them. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Often it's a bit of both; they go for someone the judges rate pretty highly but not right at the top.

What I'd say that most people aren't doing is disregarding the dancing completely. When posters bleat that X could just come on to the dance floor, flash his/her a*se at the camera and still get the votes, that is clearly total cr*p. Sure, there are a number of factors that influence people - what is seen off the dance floor can affect people's persepctive on it. There will be viewers who form an opinion about a couple early on which will tint their view of their performances; they'll be convinced that anything that couple does is charming/entertaining/elegant/dynamic/animated or whatever the consensus is. However, the couples still have to put the work in and pull out a performance on Saturday night.

Those saying that SCD might as well be I'm a Celeb or CBB aren't quite getting it. There may well be people who like someone's personality and vote accordingly. However, generally speaking they like their personality insofar as it relates to them learning to dance. Take the dance element out and you don't have a show; it's that aspect that makes it different and you just never know what might appeal to the majority. Look at this year. It's easy to say with hindsight that Chris is just the type to appeal to the voting demographic but I bet few people really gave him much chance at the start of the series. And even now we can't accurately predict what the verdict's going to be. A week ago it looked set fair for a Chris/Ali final and a Chris victory. Now Ricky has edged in front and who knows what the final result will be?

Oh dear.

The fact the line-up of the show every year includes the range of people it does ought to prove that the starting criteria is very much the same as it ever was. They have people who can already dance vs people with two left feet, people who are over 60 vs people who are in their twenties, people who are overweight against people who are fit as fiddle. If you think it's set up as a who is the best dancer, rather than a learning to dance show ... nothing's gonna change your mind, so am happy to leave you with your belief.



Only if the people who voted only voted on one basis alone, like the BDMW school. I doubt many are quite so absolutist. I've never heard many people who haven't listed a variety of reasons they like someone best.



Ditto, previous answer.



Er, you're on a forum ... which includes posts from members of the audience that over the years mention all those things as influencing how they feel about contestants.

Do you just forget the context or something?

You'd written:

But the show does not have starting criteria that exclude those who start as good dancers.


There is no BDMW school. And again you should look at the context, which was that someone might be unbeatable from day 1. That doesn't require that anyone vote on exactly one factor or that the "criteria for winning the show" be one thing rather than some mixture. If the criteria were, for example, journey + hamming + cute t-shirts + not completely laughable dancing, someone might be unbeatable from Day 1.


The forum is a tiny fraction of the audience and moreover one that has shown it is often out of sync with the larger audience.