Is a public vote necessary?

2 of 2

thenetworkbabe

21-12-2009

Originally Posted by -Sid-:
“I beg to differ. Going into the final, Ricky was favourite to win at the bookies. But his odds changed during the course of the show.

It wasn't a foregone conclusion by any means.

Also, when I talk about drama and suspense, I don't just mean during the final. I'm talking about throughout the series. It would all be so predictable if only the judges had a say. And why would older and less able celebs even bother taking part? They'd just be there to make up the numbers.

I think what's so appealing about the current format is that the public feel like they have a voice. They want to participate in the outcome of the show.”

The bookies tell you nothing until they get a leak of the vote. Ricky beat Ali with Len telling everyone to vote for him and sacrifice her so there was an argument that the "dancing" vote was reasserting itself and Len was being listened to. That fitted the theory that more people vote and vote on the dancing in the final. There's no reason to think Chris wasn't miles ahead and just stayed there.

You are right about the dangers of being ridiculed by the judges but the other side of the equation is that there's no point turning up at all as a celebrity if you are white, southern, middleclass and female, usually no point if you are black and very little point learning the dancing stuff if it just gets in the way of being entertaining.

Don't know what the answer is. People don't trust the judges - partly because they are not trustworthy and partly because some of the public want something else other than whats being marked. The public vote is destroying any competition, pushing through something other than dancing and producing a single sex show. Letting the studio audience or the other contestants decide has worked on some shows but on later ones the contestants voted by sex. The pro dancers could decide but are too involved with each other and could vote tactically and the studio audience could be packed by someone's fans.

SCD-Observer

21-12-2009

Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe:
“But do you want randomness? There would be suspense
who went even with no minority of people voting because it would depend how everyone did and you could have a dance off too. The dancing would become more important. There wasn't much suspense either for much of this series once we got to the dance off most weeks. The one week there was a close result and Zoe going then proved to be a calamity for the show later on.

The only other suspense is that anyone could go however good they are - but its far from clear that thats something anyone should want or that the show can survive the biases in the voting . You might as well have a random number generator, add that to the marks and drop one contestant through a trap door as they stand there every week. Some people would find that very entertaining.

You could of course let the public continue to have a vote if you think the old desire to decide who gets hung in the weekly execution is that strong. You just make sure they can't ruin the show by voting all the best dancers off by having a vote to save one of the three worst performers each week.”

I can't understand the notion that 'best' dancer seems to equate the 'most technically skilled' ones. Surely, in an entertainment programme such as Strictly, we MUST take that element into consideration?

Now I understand what is 'entertaining' might not be so with others, but that's the whole point of Strictly, to get 'celebrities' from various backgrounds and situations and put them together in a show to appeal to the broadest demographic.

This is going on again and again EVERY year, about how the voting should be scrapped, how the 'best' dancers might be saved etc. Didn't the judges have that power already with the dance-off that was introduced in series 5 because of the Spoony 'fiasco'?

This is an entertainment programme with the dancing element (i.e. competition) thrown in for excitement. But surely if the judges are supposed to score on technicality (and dare I say what they constitute entertainment), the public should also have their say on whether they agree with the scores the celebs are getting for their efforts?

Yes, the public has the tendency to vote for the underdogs, and sometimes that resulted in a Darren Gough situation, but Chris wasn't that bad a dancer, and he really did entertain many, many people (unlike John Sargant who just sat their reading newspaper as it appeared)? Even Tom Chambers weren't bad either, just not as technically accomplished as Rachel Stevens.

I for one would not want to have the likes of Lisa Snowdan reach the final AND WIN IT because the judges deigned her to be the best dancer for whatever reasons. The public definitely didn't warm to her for whatever reasons and boy was I glad they didn't reach the second half of the final with THAT showdance based solely on judges' decisions (she scored perfect 80 for crying out loud)! Now THAT would be a farce!

zankoku87

21-12-2009

Originally Posted by SCD-Observer:
“I can't understand the notion that 'best' dancer seems to equate the 'most technically skilled' ones. Surely, in an entertainment programme such as Strictly, we MUST take that element into consideration?

Now I understand what is 'entertaining' might not be so with others, but that's the whole point of Strictly, to get 'celebrities' from various backgrounds and situations and put them together in a show to appeal to the broadest demographic.

This is going on again and again EVERY year, about how the voting should be scrapped, how the 'best' dancers might be saved etc. Didn't the judges have that power already with the dance-off that was introduced in series 5 because of the Spoony 'fiasco'?

This is an entertainment programme with the dancing element (i.e. competition) thrown in for excitement. But surely if the judges are supposed to score on technicality (and dare I say what they constitute entertainment), the public should also have their say on whether they agree with the scores the celebs are getting for their efforts?

Yes, the public has the tendency to vote for the underdogs, and sometimes that resulted in a Darren Gough situation, but Chris wasn't that bad a dancer, and he really did entertain many, many people (unlike John Sargant who just sat their reading newspaper as it appeared)? Even Tom Chambers weren't bad either, just not as technically accomplished as Rachel Stevens.

I for one would not want to have the likes of Lisa Snowdan teach the final AND WIN IT because the judges deigned her to be the best dancer for whatever reasons. The public definitely didn't warm to her for whatever reasons and boy was I glad their didn't reached the second half of the final with THAT showdance based solely on judges' decisions (she scored perfect 80 for crying out loud)! Now THAT would be a farce!”

Quite.

People have always voted for who they are most entertained by, and I think you could probably make a case saying that a better dancer could have won most of the previous series than whoever did. I don't think it will ever change, either.

Personally, I've disagreed with far more years than I've agreed with (in fact, I don't think the person I wanted to win has ever won) - but that's par for the course with me and public votes!

The only major complaint I have regarding Chris' victory is that it took any kind of suspense out of the final 'cause we knew it weeks ago - his support was unstoppable. Because of this, I'm surprised at some of the more negative threads about it - I don't understand how any of the people who weren't backing Cola hadn't already made their peace with the win before Ali left!

maxiewaxie

21-12-2009

As other posters have said and I agree it would be better in my opinion to have a limited public vote which would maybe keep everybody happy. Of course that won't happen becasue the BBC loves the JS and Chris Hollins situations and all the hype that goes with it. It just worries me that the tone is now set for future series and I thought it was a bit sad to see Ricky and Nathalie going on in the last couple of weeks about how much fun they were having, Rathalie etc. They obviously read the forums, discovered that for many their dances were boring (incredible I think, some people must be very easily bored), they read that people are not engaging with them and countless other bits of newspeak twaddle and decided they should be more like Cola to win.
Maybe I'm just a bit miserable but I generally hate all the dumbing down and relentless pursuit of "fun" including catchphrases, printed T-Shirts that seems to pervade most areas of life these days and SCD to me is fast going down that route. Every programme these days looks more like children's entertainment but then like most things we get what we deserve.

mindyann

21-12-2009

Originally Posted by zankoku87:
“To be honest, I would prefer a system which I've read before on the boards where the top however many couples with the judges are safe and the bottom however many battle it out for the public vote for the first... half, maybe of the series.

I think getting rid of the public vote in its entirity would alienate some viewers (not me personally - I don't vote unless I see very good reason to). Also, the judges themselves are not infallible, so I'm not sure we'd have many happy viewers at all...”

To be honest, that's almost what happens now any way, particularly in the early weeks of the contest. There is little or no way that the board toppers can fail to get a high enough combined total to be safe.

When a percieved 'better' dancer has a duff week then they are vunerable or a percieved 'worse' dancer has a good week they are safer - which is how it should be and what adds to the unpredictablity of the show - as Tess would say, 'no one is safe - and gets those bums on the seats ... but if a really good dancer has a bad week then there is always the dance off to keep them safe.

All a rigidly defined 'safe area' would lead to, to me, is more of the kerfuffle we have seen in the semi-finals the last 2 years - and more arguements over why 'so-and-so' was kept safe over 'thingummybob' who was obviously so much better and it was all a fix because thingummy is obviously much more popular with the public the judges had to take the chance to get rid of them ...

It's also interesting that over all the series the only person to take the overall win, who didn't finish in the top 4 couples on week one was actually Darren Gough - when he was 4th from bottom out of 12. After that he lept to 2nd place in week 2 and didn't fall lower than 4th. He never finished in the bottom 2 and no one who had scored more than him went out at his expense until the actual final.

CaroUK

21-12-2009

Has no-one else noticed that the comedy candidates have done better in SCD since they introduced the dance off???

Since the judges got a second bite of the cherry, those who do bother to vote on SCD seem to have taken a great delight in keeping those the judges dislike or are nasty to in the competition well past their sell by date. We had Kate and Kenny in the first dance off series who saw off far more talented dancers.. then last year JS and this year the likes of the Jo(e)s and Craig....

In the earlier series we had maybe one shock exit - but rarely more and the duffers did go a lot earlier than they do at the moment.

Maybe if they scrapped the dance off next series we'd get common sense prevailing again......

And as for the poster who insinuated that voters are sexist and racist... just look at the past winners and runners up positions

S1 Martin Offiah - 4th (won by white female)
S2 Denise Lewis - 2nd (won by white female)
S3 Colin Jackson - 2nd (won by white male)
S4 Mark Ramprakash - won
S5 Alesha Dixon - won
S6 Heather Small - got a fair way through and only lost out to judges pet Lisa in the D/O)
S7 Jade Johnson - could have gone a LOT further than she did due to her injury

So hardly bears out the sexist/ racist claims does it???

blueabu

21-12-2009

With the apprentice and masterchef the contestants have more of a level playing field from the start.

It would be hard for SCD to find celebrity dancers who were all of the same age/calibre that would make judging by judges only fair.

They have a hard job finding B list celebs now, and people would switch off in droves if it was obvious in week one who was going to be in the final which is what would happen if it was purely a dance comp.

blueabu

21-12-2009

Originally Posted by maxiewaxie:
“As other posters have said and I agree it would be better in my opinion to have a limited public vote which would maybe keep everybody happy. Of course that won't happen becasue the BBC loves the JS and Chris Hollins situations and all the hype that goes with it. It just worries me that the tone is now set for future series and I thought it was a bit sad to see Ricky and Nathalie going on in the last couple of weeks about how much fun they were having, Rathalie etc. They obviously read the forums, discovered that for many their dances were boring (incredible I think, some people must be very easily bored), they read that people are not engaging with them and countless other bits of newspeak twaddle and decided they should be more like Cola to win.
Maybe I'm just a bit miserable but I generally hate all the dumbing down and relentless pursuit of "fun" including catchphrases, printed T-Shirts that seems to pervade most areas of life these days and SCD to me is fast going down that route. Every programme these days looks more like children's entertainment but then like most things we get what we deserve.”

Ermmmmm that is what I watch TV for

Lurksalot

21-12-2009

Originally Posted by CaroUK:
“
And as for the poster who insinuated that voters are sexist and racist... just look at the past winners and runners up positions

S1 Martin Offiah - 4th (won by white female)
S2 Denise Lewis - 2nd (won by white female)
S3 Colin Jackson - 2nd (won by white male)
S4 Mark Ramprakash - won
S5 Alesha Dixon - won
S6 Heather Small - got a fair way through and only lost out to judges pet Lisa in the D/O)
S7 Jade Johnson - could have gone a LOT further than she did due to her injury

So hardly bears out the sexist/ racist claims does it???”

Not to mention Ricky Whittle. Fair enough he didn't win, but he did come second, which out of 16 couples isn't too bad.

CaroUK

21-12-2009

^^ Sorry - totally forgot about Ricky W when racking my brains for the earlier series!

trunkster

21-12-2009

Oh dear yet another thinly veiled 'my fav celeb/pro didn't win' thread

mindyann

21-12-2009

Originally Posted by CaroUK:
“Has no-one else noticed that the comedy candidates have done better in SCD since they introduced the dance off???

Since the judges got a second bite of the cherry, those who do bother to vote on SCD seem to have taken a great delight in keeping those the judges dislike or are nasty to in the competition well past their sell by date. We had Kate and Kenny in the first dance off series who saw off far more talented dancers.. then last year JS and this year the likes of the Jo(e)s and Craig....”

Have to say not sure about that

Chris Parker and Julian Clary made the final without the aid of the dance off, Fiona Phillips made it to week 4 (out of 10), and Peter Schmeichel while not probably technically comedy made it to week 7 (out of 12).

Evicted couple stats (

).
In the pre dance off days:
Series 1: 3 out of 8 weeks the couple bottom of the judges leader board left.
Series 2: 5 out of 8 weeks bottom couple left.
Series 3: 2 out of 10 weeks bottom couple left.
Series 4: 5 out of 12 weeks bottom couple left.

Post dance off:
Series 5: 6 out of 12 weeks bottom couple left.
Series 6: 5 out of 14 weeks bottom couple left.
Series 7: 5 out of 14 weeks bottom couple left.

Servalan

21-12-2009

Originally Posted by SCD-Observer:
“I can't understand the notion that 'best' dancer seems to equate the 'most technically skilled' ones. Surely, in an entertainment programme such as Strictly, we MUST take that element into consideration?

Now I understand what is 'entertaining' might not be so with others, but that's the whole point of Strictly, to get 'celebrities' from various backgrounds and situations and put them together in a show to appeal to the broadest demographic.

This is going on again and again EVERY year, about how the voting should be scrapped, how the 'best' dancers might be saved etc. Didn't the judges have that power already with the dance-off that was introduced in series 5 because of the Spoony 'fiasco'?

This is an entertainment programme with the dancing element (i.e. competition) thrown in for excitement. But surely if the judges are supposed to score on technicality (and dare I say what they constitute entertainment), the public should also have their say on whether they agree with the scores the celebs are getting for their efforts?

Yes, the public has the tendency to vote for the underdogs, and sometimes that resulted in a Darren Gough situation, but Chris wasn't that bad a dancer, and he really did entertain many, many people (unlike John Sargant who just sat their reading newspaper as it appeared)? Even Tom Chambers weren't bad either, just not as technically accomplished as Rachel Stevens.

I for one would not want to have the likes of Lisa Snowdan reach the final AND WIN IT because the judges deigned her to be the best dancer for whatever reasons. The public definitely didn't warm to her for whatever reasons and boy was I glad they didn't reach the second half of the final with THAT showdance based solely on judges' decisions (she scored perfect 80 for crying out loud)! Now THAT would be a farce!”

Completely agree with this post.

It is predictably ludicrous that some people who disagreed with the public vote are now campaigning to have it scrapped.

The public vote is inherent to the Strictly format. Without it, the show would not be Strictly.

It would be another show. Another show that would not survive on a Saturday night. The public do not trust the judges' ability to assess contestants fairly and Lisa Snowdon is the perfect example of this.

Abandon the public vote and the show dies.

CaroUK

21-12-2009

Originally Posted by mindyann:
“Have to say not sure about that
Chris Parker and Julian Clary made the final without the aid of the dance off, Fiona Phillips made it to week 4 (out of 10), and Peter Schmeichel while not probably technically comedy made it to week 7 (out of 12).

Evicted couple stats ().
In the pre dance off days:
Series 1: 3 out of 8 weeks the couple bottom of the judges leader board left.
Series 2: 5 out of 8 weeks bottom couple left.
Series 3: 2 out of 10 weeks bottom couple left.
Series 4: 5 out of 12 weeks bottom couple left.

Post dance off:
Series 5: 6 out of 12 weeks bottom couple left.
Series 6: 5 out of 14 weeks bottom couple left.
Series 7: 5 out of 14 weeks bottom couple left.”

Yes but post dance off the bottom couple were eliminated only once they dropped into the dance off zone where the judges could get their hands on them.... All the dance off did was get the voters calling to keep the duffers like Kate, Kenny and JS out of the judges clutches....

Previously the bottom ranked couple with the judges quite often appeared in the bottom 2 but outscored the higher ranked couple on the combined score...

I for one feel that a lot of the comedy candiadtes votes come from those who actually WANT to see the judges evict one of their favourites and listen to the panel bleating on about travesties and "neither deserve to be here" comments...... sort of - if you want the right to boot someone off boot off one of your favourites....

mindyann

21-12-2009

Originally Posted by CaroUK:
“Yes but post dance off the bottom couple were eliminated only once they dropped into the dance off zone where the judges could get their hands on them.... All the dance off did was get the voters calling to keep the duffers like Kate, Kenny and JS out of the judges clutches....

Previously the bottom ranked couple with the judges quite often appeared in the bottom 2 but outscored the higher ranked couple on the combined score...

I for one feel that a lot of the comedy candiadtes votes come from those who actually WANT to see the judges evict one of their favourites and listen to the panel bleating on about travesties and "neither deserve to be here" comments...... sort of - if you want the right to boot someone off boot off one of your favourites....”

Oh, for sure

I've said for ages that all the dance off did was bump up the 'danger zone' a couple of notches.
Now, rather than people voting to try and keep the bottom one or 2 safe, they are voting to keep the bottom one, 2 and three safe - which is when the less popular of the middle rankers cop it.

CaroUK

21-12-2009

I also think that Chris P got to the final due to a combination of reasons - firstly because the judges were so awful to him (just slated him week after week without offering him ANY constructive criticism, secondly because he was just so bad he was hilarious (especially compared to the likes of David Dickinson who was just cringingly awful without the hilarity!), and finally because he was a very popular character in a popular programme (most of the recent Eastenders do well in Strictly).

Julian was the "journey" contestant of his series - not only did he end up able to dance to a reasonable level - he added humour with his spats with Craig, rude comments to Natasha when standing in for Tess and his relationship with Erin was like Chris' this series. That was why he outscored the more proficient but less engaging/ funny/ took it too seriously Aled and reached the final. Hand on heart, Julian's gorgeous Officer and a Gentleman showdance is still probably my favourite from ALL the series!

Fiona/ Georgina etc I have no explanation for - but IIRC, both of them were bottom 2 at least once before they went.

mindyann

21-12-2009

Originally Posted by CaroUK:
“I also think that Chris P got to the final due to a combination of reasons - firstly because the judges were so awful to him (just slated him week after week without offering him ANY constructive criticism, secondly because he was just so bad he was hilarious (especially compared to the likes of David Dickinson who was just cringingly awful without the hilarity!), and finally because he was a very popular character in a popular programme (most of the recent Eastenders do well in Strictly).

Julian was the "journey" contestant of his series - not only did he end up able to dance to a reasonable level - he added humour with his spats with Craig, rude comments to Natasha when standing in for Tess and his relationship with Erin was like Chris' this series. That was why he outscored the more proficient but less engaging/ funny/ took it too seriously Aled and reached the final. Hand on heart, Julian's gorgeous Officer and a Gentleman showdance is still probably my favourite from ALL the series!

Fiona/ Georgina etc I have no explanation for - but IIRC, both of them were bottom 2 at least once before they went.”

Funny, isn't it really - looking back over the scores.

I'd have said Chris Parker was bottom of the leader board every week purely from memory - but he wasn't. Granted he was bottom 5 out of 8 weeks - but there were 3 weeks (incuding week one) when he wasn't and 2 weeks when he wasn't even bottom 2. Most strange!

Julian again, never bottom until week 7 out of 8, and only bottom 2 twice in that time as well (hang about contestant was Dairmund Gavin that year, bottom 3 times).

In her 4 week tenure, Fiona was bottom of the board 3 times and went week 4 - the week where she made second from bottom!

Series 4 didn't really have any hang abouters. Peter was bottom 3 times, but it seems to have been fairly well spread around otherwise. Georgina was bottom twice - weeks 2 and 3 (or her first and second dances) and went week 4 (her third dance) when she was about 4th from bottom.

Kate, in her 7 week/6 dance stay, was bottom 5 times - 3 on the trot, a break to come 4th from bottom, and then another 2 times the second of which saw her go.

Series 6 - John wasn't actually bottom until week 5 - his third dance. Then a week where he was bottom 2 and then another 3 weeks of being dead last.

2 of 2