I don't understand why have the judges started saying it this year? I mean Russell bless him was entertaining but I don't remember them ever making cruel comments to him unlike Nancy. In the past they have said this is a dance show people should dance not entertain (if they cant dance). Whereas this year they have sent out mixed messages as to what they want. Len seems to keep saying what the bad things might be then says but it was entertaining!

Sorry sounds like a rant but I was just wondering if anyone else felt the same?

I think the judges knew that Russell had many more fans than Nancy so they were nicer to him.

IMO there was a lot of "proper" dance content in Russell and Flavia's routines and Russell did perform some of his choreography quite well - and at least make a good effort where he fell short.

Put that alongside all the efforts made to entertain/amuse and the judges do seem to tolerate, nay encourage, similar contestants - until and unless they reach a stage where they start to eliminate the more technically competent.

The audience are the new employers. Judges who go against what popular culture is prepared to pay for through a phone call, risk losing their contracts.

i agree with everything you have said

Personally I prefer it when they are kinder to the less able people and more demanding of the couples that are capable of doing really well. Otherwise it just gets nasty, because people are being attacked for things they can't fix, and you get pity voting, where people are voting for celebs to stick up for them against the judges not their performances. Rightly or wrongly, I think they thought Nancy could be better (I don't agree) and that Russell was doing the best he could. I think the kinder attitude of the judges has resulted in an arguably fairer order of people being voted out.

I get annoyed with the use of the word 'entertaining' though as if it means the opposite of 'good at dancing'. I was very cross when Craig said something on ITT on the lines that Russell was the first entertaining celeb that could put 2 feet in front of the other. Personally I think that dancing well is much more entertaining than flying out of a canon or any stunt. The entertainment and joy of Strictly is to see someone do something they couldn't have done a few weeks ago and to see them really let go and dance.

But I'm glad they are nice to the less good ones, as long as their scores put the leaderboard in a fair order.

OK, think of it like this.

As a celeb you sign up to it. You (like me) have 2 left foot but would love to be able to dance as well as you can. But you know you have no natural talent.

You try very hard and you feel embarrassed but you don't want to let people down so you do your best even if you have to incorporate some daft elements into your routine. To get some laughs.

I wouldn't want to be judged against an unattainable ideal. I'd like to think the judges wouldn't humiliate me because I'd be trying my best. (Promise!)

I think you do have to be flexible in what you expect as a judge. The 'wrong' person never/rarely wins because you have to win people over somehow. The public does what the public wants.

There is chalk and cheese in this competition. You can't pretend otherwise.

Hmm..

Sorry, but "are they 'eck!"

I think as long as the ratings keep up, the BBC won't be that interested what the public are prepared to pay for a phone call, or how many that make one to vote.

The fact that the number of calls for each contestant or the total number of calls is never disclosed (it's that "commercially sensitive information" nonsense they trot out).
is likely because the public might be shocked at how small it is as a percentage of the total viewers for the series.

I've watched every series and never voted for anyone, there must be many like me.

Who wins, or is eliminated even, is of not a lot of significance as long as people continue watch the programme. The present judges' jobs are very safe.

I think they might have become meaner to Russell if some of the good dancers had gone over him

Rubbish dancers either tend not to be entertaining, or their entertainment value is limited.

Adequate/good/excellent dancers can also be entertaining, but they can also be dull to watch.

So why is Craig still there then?

Because he is the best judge and most sensible people reaslise this.

Hmmm.

This year, for instance, there are McFly, Robbie Savage, Waterloo Road and possibly TOS fans watching SCD who've never watched the programme before (may well have accounted for SCD overtaking X Factor in the viewing stakes).

They're more likely to vote for their favourite (Tess often says "vote for xxxxx if he/she is your favourite") and the "entertainment" value, although some may recognise "good dancing" and vote for the dance quality.

However they are also quite likely to stop watching if/when their favourite goes out.

Some may watch next year because they've enjoyed the whole show this year.

Not denying any of that I've said as much elsewhere.
But none of that was my point, which was the BBC don't care how many vote or for which contestant.
They only are concerned about ratings.
The changes made to the show, were to chase ratings by giving what they considered, the show a wider appeal.
Expect further changes to be made if the ratings fall off,
Voting numbers have nothing to do with it. Nor will a few complaints about any of the judges. The BBC will always say that this means far more people like them than don't.

Quite. Strictly brings together a class of 14, with ages spread from 20 to 70, with bodies in all shapes and sizes. Dancing is athletic, and a genuine quickstep would have put Russel Grant and Paul Daniels in hospital. In SCD4 pensioner Jimmy Tarbuck found practice sessions were enough to threaten a heart attack, and wisely withdrew on doctors orders.

In SCD7 two couples made the final. Ricky Whittle could run 100 metres in under 11 seconds, turn a backflip, and lift Natalie above his head. Natalie raved about Ricky's dancing, as did four judges.

Chris Hollins could do none of the above, but instead he had an appealing partnership with Ola. He made progress within his limits culminating in the most festive charleston ever seen on Strictly.

With judges' marks irrelevant in the Final, the voting public overwhelmingly voted for Chris and Ola over Ricky and Natalie. It appears the public voted by a criterion not used by the judges: to reward achievement shown in the Final, relative to potential shown in week one. Controversy continues to this day, but who is to say the electorate in their millions were not ultimate custodians of the spirit of Strictly?

No Chris won over Ricky because Ricky was involved in that news story with the police so I think the public went off him a bit, Chris shouldn't have won. Also didn't Kelly Brook leave that year because if her dad? She was really good and could have beaten Chris. SCD1 was a case in point Spencer from Eastenders couldn't dance, the judges knew it but the public took him too the final for entertainment as two excellent dancers can be boring sometimes.

I don't agree with the Waterloo Road, McFly viewers turning off that makes them sound like plebs who have no idea of culture. I am A McFly and WR fan and have watched since the beginning and wouldn't stop even if Robbie and Alex were the final two.

There is no empirical evidence for that.

Kelly Brook was in series 5; Chris Hollins was in series 7. As was Jade Johnson who pulled out halfway through the series. I don't think Kelly or Jade could have won their respective series, but I suppose we'll never know.

Maybe not but that's probably what happened

As there has been no survey that I know of, you have no way of knowing, it is just a baseless and broad assumption.

Who knows, it could be the old story - the celeb who starts off well but then has nowhere to go improvement-wise, he just reaches a plateau early on (in other words, the public cannot invest in his journey).

Or it could be that the Ricky/Natalie partnership just did not gel as much with the public.

Or maybe the public found Chris/Ola more fun.

Or maybe it was because people didn't take too well to Natalie, preferring another pro.

Or maybe the public simply preferred another celeb/pro partnership based upon some or all of the reasons stated above.

I know that this is the perceived wisdom but am I the only one that really doesn't get it? I watch Corrie avidly, but just because an actor in Corrie goes onto some reality programme, I have absolutely no compunction to watch them in it. It is Corrie I enjoy, not the actor. Similarly for the bands I enjoy listening to and the football team I support.
I watch Strictly (and DOI) because of the dancing (and skating); whoever is on them is initially inconsequential and I will get to know them through the series. My greatest hero could go into the jungle or into the BB house and it wouldn't tempt me across.
Am I really that unusual?

No, just normal, darhling!

Yes you are normal, I like to get to know new celebrities especially ones I may have had a certain option of. I had no idea what Harry and Chelsee were like before the show even though I watch WR and listen to McFly but I now quite like them same with DOI I may not have seen her on Emmerdale but I really liked the girl who won it a few years ago because she was a good skater.