DS Forums

 
 

The SCD final - what was the reason for that mysterious quick step?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-01-2012, 20:21
Vivacious Lady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,879
Still waiting for an answer to my question.

Why on earth would anyone want to conspire to effect a Harry win?

In fact, in any series, why would judges have a preference for any particular celeb to win? How does it benefit them or the BBC? I've never understood this attribution of mysterious motives to the judges or BBC, but if we wanted to assume they were there, then surely it would be easier to contract with Chelsee for future work?
Vivacious Lady is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-01-2012, 20:40
tawny
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,770
Has this been consuming you all through Christmas and New Year! How sad!!!!

It's all over for 2011 and the winner is who the public voted for and wanted to win, and a very worthy winner as far as I'm concerned.
definitely not
tawny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 20:53
apenny4them
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 488
Both Kara's highest scoring dances (39 each for Rumba and VW) were in the SF.

Prior to the SF, her highest scoring dance which also topped the leaderboard in its week was her rather poor CCC with 36.
(She had scored some 38s/37 but they didn't top the leaderboard).

That's why Kara was allowed to do her SF Rumba in the final.

You seem to be confirming the point I had intended to make. Chelsee's highest-scoring dance which topped the leaderboard in its week was her semi-final Paso.

And I have no argument with those here who have implied that the rules are changed at the drop of a hat to suit certain objectives. I would merely like to see some PROOF that the 'rule' in question ever existed in the first place.
apenny4them is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 20:57
apenny4them
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 488
[quote=Vivacious Lady;55624619]Why on earth would anyone want to conspire to effect a Harry win?

I was rather hoping that somebody else would chime in on that issue. For me there are two obvious potential reasons for the charade which was foisted upon us. Both involve business considerations.
apenny4them is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 21:03
Mystical123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,792
Chelsee's highest-scoring dance which topped the leaderboard in its week was her semi-final Paso.
She didn't top the leaderboard that week, Harry & Aliona did.

I would merely like to see some PROOF that the 'rule' in question ever existed in the first place.
You've been given plenty of proof: Kristina's tweet; Darren's interview statement that he wanted to re-dance his SF waltz but wasn't allowed to and the fact that Matt Di Angelo's highest scoring ballroom (waltz) was excluded because he danced it in the semi. What more proof do you require exactly?

For me there are two obvious potential reasons for the charade which was foisted upon us. Both involve business considerations.
Please elaborate, as I can see no clear reasons at all and have no idea what business considerations you might be thinking of. The obvious business consideration to me would be that Chelsee is a BBC employee - she didn't win, though.
Mystical123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 21:04
Selena
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South Wales
Posts: 25,396
I was rather hoping that somebody else would chime in on that issue. For me there are two obvious potential reasons for the charade which was foisted upon us. Both involve business considerations.
Maybe more people just thought that Harry was better than Chelsee on the night. I honestly don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of this.
Selena is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 21:18
SaraV1308
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Strictly Central
Posts: 9,589
I love talking about Strictly but this thread and the other one started by the OP are becoming tiresome.

And as regards "business considerations" I would think that shoe was Chelsee's. She's more of a BBC employee than either of the other 2 finalists. I'm sure the BBC want to be seen to be ensuring that the forthcoming McFly tour is more of a success than it would have been if Harry hadn't won SCD - yeah right.

I think it will be interesting to see who wins the majority of the shows on the SCD Tour. Unlike previous years when the runner up wins more shows - have a feeling Harry will be extremely popular!
SaraV1308 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 21:29
apenny4them
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 488
Maybe more people just thought that Harry was better than Chelsee on the night. I honestly don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of this.
With all due respect I didn't think I was making a big deal out of it - although quite a few responses would seem to indicate that my theory is a big deal to the Harry fan club.

I didn't ever before recall an instance of just a single judge offering a verdict on a performance. A possible reason presented itself, so I offered it because I believed that it could be of interest to other users of this forum.

I believe my argument is sound. From Craig's criticism of Alex we know precisely what he was looking for from Harry in that Charleston - "extreme".

The videos are freely available on the internet. Compare Harry's facial expressions and movements to those of Jason in his dance. Would you consider them to be "extreme"?

Compare Harry's characterisation to that of Alex. Does Harry look any more "extreme" in his delivery?

Each observer is free to form his/her own opinion on whether or not Harry's delivery would have been considered "extreme" by Craig.

It makes perfect sense to me that they would not have wanted Harry's performance to be exposed in the manner in which the performance of Alex was.

It's unfortunate for Harry that he had to tackle that particular dance at that stage - it's one of a few were bags of character is an absolutely essential element for a high-quality performance. Harry's personality is simply ill-suited to delivering the sort of expression of face and body which comes so naturally to Jason and Chelsee. For me that is a massive weakness in a dancer.

But it doesn't prevent him from doing most of the other fast dances well. I've watched his Quickstep several times now, because I thought it absolutely superb.
apenny4them is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 22:01
Force Ten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Posts: 7,922
To me it was quite obvious that the reason they only had time to get one judge's opinion was that Bruce waffled on for far too long and the show was over-running. Rather than cut Bruce's lines later in the show (God forbid!) they decided to cut the other three judges comments for that particular dance. Shame but I totally blame that idiot Forsyth.
Force Ten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 22:03
dancemadgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 25
The only thing we know about Craig's reaction to Harry's charleston is that it was worthy of a 9!
dancemadgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 22:25
Quizmike
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,876
Yeah, the blooming BBC conspiring yet again to get one of their 'employees' to win.

Oh...hang on.

People who think the BBC care in the least about who wins are quite frankly deluded
Quizmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 23:13
apenny4them
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 488
OK - try this for size. Protecting the annual revenue streams from programs such as SCD which involve tens of millions of phone calls from the public is a very high priority for the BBC.

The potential spanner in the works - to be avoided at all costs - is the possibility of the public crowning a celebrity who is widely acknowledged not to be the best dancer.

If that happens it makes a mockery of the concept of letting the public decide, and asks the question if the BBC doesn't give a fig about the dancing, and is doing it that way only as an excuse to benefit at the expense of the phone bills of the millions of dance lovers out there. That wouldn't be good PR.

But if there is a danger of that happening, and the BBC can arrange it so that the celebrity the public crowns APPEARS to be the best dancer - problem solved.

I have an alternative theory which my gut feeling is telling me is more consistent with what we actually saw there, but I'm not in a position to support it with a reasoned explanation.
apenny4them is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 23:23
leftfeet2
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 511
OK - try this for size. Protecting the annual revenue streams from programs such as SCD which involve tens of millions of phone calls from the public is a very high priority for the BBC.

The potential spanner in the works - to be avoided at all costs - is the possibility of the public crowning a celebrity who is widely acknowledged not to be the best dancer.

If that happens it makes a mockery of the concept of letting the public decide, and asks the question if the BBC doesn't give a fig about the dancing, and is doing it that way only as an excuse to benefit at the expense of the phone bills of the millions of dance lovers out there. That wouldn't be good PR.

But if there is a danger of that happening, and the BBC can arrange it so that the celebrity the public crowns APPEARS to be the best dancer - problem solved.

I have an alternative theory which my gut feeling is telling me is more consistent with what we actually saw there, but I'm not in a position to support it with a reasoned explanation.
I am very sorry but i would like to try and bring a touch of humour into this thread

I can see that you have spent time on this and it is not my intention to belittle the effort you have put in, but maybe some of the wieght of this can be lightened for you

If we just call in Moulder and Scully

The truth is out there
leftfeet2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 23:28
perdiedumpling
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,394
OK - try this for size. Protecting the annual revenue streams from programs such as SCD which involve tens of millions of phone calls from the public is a very high priority for the BBC.

The potential spanner in the works - to be avoided at all costs - is the possibility of the public crowning a celebrity who is widely acknowledged not to be the best dancer.

If that happens it makes a mockery of the concept of letting the public decide, and asks the question if the BBC doesn't give a fig about the dancing, and is doing it that way only as an excuse to benefit at the expense of the phone bills of the millions of dance lovers out there. That wouldn't be good PR.

But if there is a danger of that happening, and the BBC can arrange it so that the celebrity the public crowns APPEARS to be the best dancer - problem solved.

I have an alternative theory which my gut feeling is telling me is more consistent with what we actually saw there, but I'm not in a position to support it with a reasoned explanation.
Chris Hollins. No one could possibly claim he was the best dancer that year. And for all the journey crap, Darren Gough was in no way a better dancer than Colin Jackson or Zoe Ball. Rachel Stevens was a much better dancer than Tom Chambers. All 3 won, the integrity of the show (such as it exists) did not suffer.
perdiedumpling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 23:28
Smokeychan1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,286
penny, I am not sure what you are getting at in your last post (it's a little difficult to interpret), but just so you know, the BBC do not make any profit from telephone calls made to any of their phone-in programmes. They aren't allowed to, which is why calls to the Beeb are charged at the base rate of 15 pence (landline - mobile calls may be higher ) and not the extortionate rates charged by commercial channels.
Smokeychan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 23:32
Stockingfiller
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,792
Does anyone remember how Matt Dawson was praised up a lot ? It seemed very odd at the time but it al became clear when it was clear that he'd been contracted to work for the BBC. It's quite fun spotting the little 'adjustments' in each series. People do, notice ! I have no problem with Harry having won, though.
Stockingfiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 23:49
apenny4them
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 488
penny, I am not sure what you are getting at in your last post (it's a little difficult to interpret), but just so you know, the BBC do not make any profit from telephone calls made to any of their phone-in programmes. They aren't allowed to, which is why calls to the Beeb are charged at the base rate of 15 pence (landline - mobile calls may be higher ) and not the extortionate rates charged by commercial channels.
Wow! You have opened my eyes.

The BBC funds fifteen weeks worth of salaries for all of those professional dancers, celebrity expenses, sets, props, utilities, broadcasts, telephone operators, web site operators, vote counters, independent poll overseers etc. and doesn't benefit from the millions of pounds of revenue generated by the voting?

I now see the BBC in a completely new light.
apenny4them is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 00:37
MontyD
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,541
Wow! You have opened my eyes.

The BBC funds fifteen weeks worth of salaries for all of those professional dancers, celebrity expenses, sets, props, utilities, broadcasts, telephone operators, web site operators, vote counters, independent poll overseers etc. and doesn't benefit from the millions of pounds of revenue generated by the voting?

I now see the BBC in a completely new light.
They get the money from the tv license fee.
MontyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 01:14
Quizmike
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,876
Wow! You have opened my eyes.

The BBC funds fifteen weeks worth of salaries for all of those professional dancers, celebrity expenses, sets, props, utilities, broadcasts, telephone operators, web site operators, vote counters, independent poll overseers etc. and doesn't benefit from the millions of pounds of revenue generated by the voting?

I now see the BBC in a completely new light.
Hi,

The BBC cannot make any money from phone ins. It is against the BBC charter.

Any money charged for phone votes is purely to cover the charge of the external company that runs and administers the phone vote.

This is not the case for commercial channels.

I hope this helps (although it probably doesn't in this case)

(BTW I have been typing this at various points for six years to answer the same point so yes I do know what I am talking about)
Quizmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 03:30
tabithakitten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,240
"Cynical and arrogant exercise in deception"?

Pffttttttt...

Was Harry the best overall dancer on the show?

Almost certainly not - his fast Latin was not great and, despite the marks, I wasn't totally convinced by his rumba.

Was he the best ballroom dancer on the show?

Almost certainly yes if a little unexpressive.

Does the implication that he may not have been the best overall dancer on the show or the fact that he managed to convey a shining impression in the final despite barely coming within spitting distance of a Latin step matter?

Not in the least

because

Was he the most popular celeb on the show?

Yep and probably by a country mile.
tabithakitten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 09:25
katie_p
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 10,715
Does anyone remember how Matt Dawson was praised up a lot ? It seemed very odd at the time but it al became clear when it was clear that he'd been contracted to work for the BBC. It's quite fun spotting the little 'adjustments' in each series. People do, notice ! I have no problem with Harry having won, though.
He was a BBC employee long before he started Strictly, and that didn't stop them slating four of his first five dances! And they clearly didn't want him in the final or the semi- it was the public that put him there.
katie_p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 10:23
Muggsy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,980
I have an alternative theory which my gut feeling is telling me is more consistent with what we actually saw there, but I'm not in a position to support it with a reasoned explanation.
I think this sentence encapsulates your entire problem.
Muggsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 11:34
Force Ten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Posts: 7,922
Hi,

The BBC cannot make any money from phone ins. It is against the BBC charter.

Any money charged for phone votes is purely to cover the charge of the external company that runs and administers the phone vote.

This is not the case for commercial channels.

I hope this helps (although it probably doesn't in this case)

(BTW I have been typing this at various points for six years to answer the same point so yes I do know what I am talking about)
I suspect you'll still be typing this for another six years Mike, assuming Strictly continues that long! I'd love to know just how people imagine the BBC make millions from the phone votes when they only cost 15p compared to the vast amounts the XFactor, etc. charge for their phone votes. And the Strictly phone lines are only open for about 35 minutes instead of 24 hours!
Force Ten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 12:08
katie_p
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 10,715
I suspect you'll still be typing this for another six years Mike, assuming Strictly continues that long! I'd love to know just how people imagine the BBC make millions from the phone votes when they only cost 15p compared to the vast amounts the XFactor, etc. charge for their phone votes. And the Strictly phone lines are only open for about 35 minutes instead of 24 hours!
Likewise the 'conspiracy' about lines for one celeb being jammed so you can't vote for them! Sometimes I think we could do with an FAQ thread... although some, like the endless 'Where's Nicole?' threads we had a few years ago, have died down, others seem to be annual runners!
katie_p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2012, 12:18
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
I was rather hoping that somebody else would chime in on that issue
Great, so now we have a conspiracy theory that is seemingly crying out for motives.

For me there are two obvious potential reasons for the charade which was foisted upon us. Both involve business considerations.
By "foisted", I presume you mean "voted for by the general public, with no marking from the judges".

Care to expand upon these "business considerations"?
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:26.