Not in my case as my favourites are Kara and Scott and I think both were over-marked and in Scott's case he was placed in the wrong position on the leaderboard.

Moreover, I'm not mad about Matt but I felt he should have been top, but because he's probably doing very well in the public vote I feel like the judges/producers thought he could be risked in the mid-table position, whereas someone like Pamela couldn't so she needed help.

Just my gut feeling of course.


Yes that was Series 5 - also the year the dance-off was introduced. I wish they'd left well alone.

I adore kara - her dance was worth a 7
I usually like matt - probably an 8
scott completely forgot half the dance - 4
ann - 1
pamela - don't like her, hated the dance, 6
patsy - not a bad attempt but meh - 5
gavbot - truly awful - 3

Wasn't Matt Di Angelo saved by the public, not the judges?

No the judges saved him agaisnt Gethin. Tbh I wanted Matt through, I could never warm to Gethin, and I quite like Matts Waltz

see ANN is through again..

the "death" of these shows is down to the idiots that keep voting for Widdicombe & Wagner.

But really it is down to the program makers who insist in keep putting the John Sargeants, Todd Carty's & Widdecombe in it in the first place.

And Louie Walshes' fault for bringing back Wagner

Totally agree Dollystandford.
What were the judges up to last night? Ridiculous marking for Scott.

I just feel some of the newer pro's aren't as good at choreography as previous dancers, ie Karen, Lilia, Matthew and Ian. Coupled with all the silly changes to the format this series is pretty awful. Not the celeb's fault but instead of enjoyment the show is now causing me severe irritation.

I also agree that 'outside' influences are affecting the public voting figures. Whether its due to betting odd's or media outlets requiring 'stories' there is definately some dogy votes.

Well I can only speak for myself but I still think the show is flippin' fantastic!

I don't think she'll win. I sincerely hope not.

Fair enough Sid. I have to say I can see where the judges are coming from with Matt, his face was awful, so the dance was a bit ruined for me. I prefered Kara's dance.

I don't know if the judges are really trying to be cunning, at the end of the day, either they know the voting pattern (in which case you are right) or they don't (and then they would be stupid to put a good dancer lower down - maybe Matt just didn't convince them tonight?).

well i'm sorry everyone, but scd has, i believe, got excellent ratings this year. If people like Ann (and Chris Parker) aren't "allowed" to win, why put them in?? Every year there are "under dogs" that get thru. At Least A&A entertain, Chris Parker was plain rubbish, but the voters voted.

As for changes on the show, everything changes. Stop prenetedning you won't watch as you either will or enough other people will for SCD to live on.

As some have said, its entertainment not sport - otherwise Ann wouldn't have been in from the start.

At the beginning of the series, I was disappointed to see that some of my favourite pro dancers were not involved - such as Ian, Darren and Lilia. At the time I thought "well, lets give the newbies a chance". If the changing of the guard was the only problem, it wouldn't be so bad, but some of the new pros are not as good at choreography as the experts such as Lilia and Ian (both of whom I loved and I miss very much).

It is and still can be a great show, if they will stop changing a formula that used to work. I know that ratings are everything but I thought SCD was always popular anyway.

How I disagree with you! Just because something has 'excellent ratings' doesn't mean it's any good. Look at X Factor and the Sun newspaper, for example. Agreed, everything changes but not all change is for the better - just look at our current government. It's lazy thinking to condemn anyone who opposes certain changes for good reason by saying that change is inevitable. And it's equally lazy to say that because it's 'entertainment' anything goes. Sorry to be blunt but I feel pretty strongly about this

I agree with you (again). Change is not inevitable and we have TV shows that have stayed pretty much the same for decades (eg. University Challenge), and I feel sad that some people think that everything should be dumbed down.
As in politics, changing things just because you can doesn't necessarily make it better.

I feel that as regards SCD we need a campaign - write to the BBC or something. There is a Points of View Messageboard (with a lively discussion for SCD) but who knows whether the producers read it?

I agree. We were just commenting how Antiques Roadshow has remained such a fabulous programme down the years even though it has had different presenters.

There is, was no need to change an excellent formula with SCD.

I think they have been helped this year by a good selection of celebs and mostly good pairings.

I dont bother watching the results show most weeks now, so I'd have to say they have screwed it up.

The changes to the set are OK.

I had hoped that we would get more and better pro dances and that hasn't happened.

The standard of dancing from my point of view has suffered from all the changes to the rules, gimmicks, comedy in dances that dont need comedy, and props.
I liked Aliona's and Artem's AS. I think Aliona's was within the rules. My preference would be to have kept the old rules and each dance to adhere to the rules and style of dance ie. no Disco substituting for any Latin dance.

Its not dead, it's just got a bit ill, but there are a few plus points this year too.

Chris Parker was competing in the very first series,(just 8 couples) done for Children in Need and not all of it was taken very seriously; The finals was a shambles and the presentation of the trophy a huge non-event.

If the show were purely about entertainment, as you insist, then no need for any of the dance couples to train hard. No need for them to do any more than show up, wear some costumes, and 'give it a try'.

So why do the professionals try so hard then to push their untalented celebs to do harder and harder things each week?

Because if they didn't, guess who would complain? Yep, got it in one - the voters. The GBP.

So if the dancers try hard but get ousted by a comic turn, they feel hard done by.
If the dancers don't try hard - their voting support falls away.
But to stay in, all they have to do is some slapstick.

You call that Morton's Fork "entertainment"? More like "panem et circenses" to me.

Interesting that Wagner has gone out of the X Factor tonight so stories of the Great British Public trying to sabotage shows are a little premature.

I think after the last series many people thought it was starting to look jaded and needed new ideas. For my part, the standing ovation thing imported form the USA was something I could do with out. On the other hand, the fact that the BBC are paying celebs on the basis of how far they go in the competition has I believe avoided contestants dropping out for non health related reasons.

OTT much! Some of your points are also a bit thinly based. Every results show this series has had a pro dance or two, I don't understand how props can ruin an entire programme, the dances are still recognisable (yes there maybe more lifts involved and there needs to be clearer cut stuff about that, but apart from that, all the dances seem the same as years gone by). And there have always been those kind of costumes on strictly from day 1.

Im sorry that's how you feel, but it seems rather outlandish compared to what your complaining about.

Also to make the point, this year's strictly has done amazingly in the ratings so I doubt the BBC will take much notice of an petitons or complaints when they're doing so well (they even beat the X factor when the two shows overlap).

Ye of short memory. There was always a joke element, ie John Seargent, Fiona Phillips, etc; the only difference is that this year the voting public have been well and truly brainwashed into keeping that arrogant old woman in. Seems to me also, its becoming a showcase for Anton's 'comedic value'.

I didn't know this . Where did you read this as I would like to check it out?
Do you know if all the celebs are getting paid the same rate?

It was reported before the show, they are all on the same rate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...ntestants.html

Funny that my 'thinly-based ' points have met a lot of agreement from other posters. As to the dances seeming the same as in the past: all I can say is that you can't have been paying very close attention. And could you please clarify the meaning of the term 'outlandish' and indeed the sense of the whole of your last sentence?

You must have drunk more than me before watching.

From where I sat, it was witless and excruciatingly, embarrassingly awful.