Compared to dancing with the stars the standard is just so different, full marks over here is alot more achievable then over there! Look at someone like Sabrina Bryan in Week 1 compared to Natalie Gumede makes our best look average?!
Why is the strictly standard so low?
1 of 3
DWTS in all show or as an old dance teacher I know used to say all frock and no knickers the actual technique in most cases is normally better on SCD - personally cant bear the changes on DWTS with Contemporary and etc added to the show - no wonder ratings are down
Not just Contemporary. They've reduced the amount of dancing time, too, and ditched the results show.
You are just taking the marks into account - the DWTS marks are hugely inflated. They have to equivalent to Craig. Also, it's because they go for really sexy young casts that appeal to young people - there aren't many contestants over 50 in DWTS.
Originally Posted by Rob200696:
“Compared to dancing with the stars the standard is just so different, full marks over here is alot more achievable then over there! Look at someone like Sabrina Bryan in Week 1 compared to Natalie Gumede makes our best look average?!”
“Compared to dancing with the stars the standard is just so different, full marks over here is alot more achievable then over there! Look at someone like Sabrina Bryan in Week 1 compared to Natalie Gumede makes our best look average?!”
BIB Huh? Dwts was raining 10s this week and they rarely mark under a 6.
Originally Posted by Doktor Dances:
“Not just Contemporary. They've reduced the amount of dancing time, too, and ditched the results show.”
“Not just Contemporary. They've reduced the amount of dancing time, too, and ditched the results show.”
The dances are back to normal length now.
10's are pretty meaningless in America now- they're handed out like sweets. It's Series 6 all the time in the US.
Spoiler
DWTS is like Hollywood Theme Week every week. It's all glitz, glamour and razz-ma-tazz.
The technique of ballroom dancing, which is the most difficult part of any routine to learn, is far higher on Strictly, and for the large part, virtually non-existent in DWTS.
I like dwts for its entertainment, but prefer scd for its dancing.
Having said all that, the standard of the pro dances on dwts is higher than Strictly, with far more imaginative choreography, though this years' strictly pro dances are a definite improvement on what they have been in the past, which might be down to Jason Gilkonson being named on the credits as director of choreography.
The technique of ballroom dancing, which is the most difficult part of any routine to learn, is far higher on Strictly, and for the large part, virtually non-existent in DWTS.
I like dwts for its entertainment, but prefer scd for its dancing.
Having said all that, the standard of the pro dances on dwts is higher than Strictly, with far more imaginative choreography, though this years' strictly pro dances are a definite improvement on what they have been in the past, which might be down to Jason Gilkonson being named on the credits as director of choreography.
It seems to me DWTS goes for entertainment far more than learning. They have semi pro dancers like Sabrina Bryant and Nicole Scherzinger that really are dirty ringahs.
If people thinks SCD is tacky, wait till they watch 10 minutes of DWTS.
But I prefer their male host than ours.
But I prefer their male host than ours.
Originally Posted by SCD-Observer:
“If people thinks SCD is tacky, wait till they watch 10 minutes of DWTS.
But I prefer their male host than ours.”
“If people thinks SCD is tacky, wait till they watch 10 minutes of DWTS.
But I prefer their male host than ours.
”
Absolutely agree 100%. Why can't Strictly have someone like him?
Originally Posted by kaycee:
“Absolutely agree 100%. Why can't Strictly have someone like him?”
“Absolutely agree 100%. Why can't Strictly have someone like him?”
I think Tom whatshislastname is probably paid less than Brucie too.
The main difference with DWTS is that it's aimed at an 8-9 o' clock monday evening, and therefore adult audience whereas SCD is a satrday evening family show so they will have different feels to them. I do enjoy DWTS & I wish that we could have their host and their pro dancer Tristan, but I prefer SCD as a whole.
Talking of score inflation, a ten was given in week one and 40/40 was awarded in week three(!) on this year's Australian series.
Originally Posted by Rob200696:
“Compared to dancing with the stars the standard is just so different, full marks over here is alot more achievable then over there! Look at someone like Sabrina Bryan in Week 1 compared to Natalie Gumede makes our best look average?!”
“Compared to dancing with the stars the standard is just so different, full marks over here is alot more achievable then over there! Look at someone like Sabrina Bryan in Week 1 compared to Natalie Gumede makes our best look average?!”
The constant striving for perfection is always a boring quest.
Originally Posted by StigOfTheKrump:
“Talking of score inflation, a ten was given in week one and 40/40 was awarded in week three(!) on this year's Australian series.”
“Talking of score inflation, a ten was given in week one and 40/40 was awarded in week three(!) on this year's Australian series.”
How daft!
Originally Posted by Rob200696:
“Compared to dancing with the stars the standard is just so different, full marks over here is alot more achievable then over there! Look at someone like Sabrina Bryan in Week 1 compared to Natalie Gumede makes our best look average?!”
“Compared to dancing with the stars the standard is just so different, full marks over here is alot more achievable then over there! Look at someone like Sabrina Bryan in Week 1 compared to Natalie Gumede makes our best look average?!”
Sabrina's dance was more hip-hop than Cha CHa. People like Sabrina and Nicole were professional dancers - they are/were paid to dance to a high standard on a regular basis. The Pussycat Dolls were more of a dance troupe than a girl band.
I agree with what everyone else has said about technique vs glitz. Christina was given a very high mark for a dodgy Cha Cha this week. The solo choreography
at the beginning was really naff.
The standard on both shows is quite low in general, even at the end if a series. Marks are very inflated on both shows, but particularly on DWTS.
Bigger "talent" pool (i.e. more ringers) = better dancing. Also the pro's are streets ahead. DWTS is just a much better show all around. A 30 on DWTS is worth a lot more than a 40 on SCD.
Every ballroom dance looks the same on our show :yawn: (Fred Astaire, Ginger Rodgers, :yawn
The BBC know this though and have stolen quite a few elements from DWTS noticeably prop usage and "funny" VT's. The VT's on the American show are actually funny though whereas our are just cringey.
I can count the amount of great dances on one hand that have been on SCD...DWTS there would be at least 50 or so dances that would be an SCD "40" score standard.
Take Derek and Nicole's 50's Paso for example, our show just never reaches those peaks.
Ringers are part of both shows and it would be pretty dull without them. DWTS usually fills the show with at least 3 or so though, as opposed to just one making it more of a competition.
They've had some remarkably exciting finals, again that our show just can't compete with.
To say DWTS is all show and no technique whereas SCD is more technique based would be wrong, or should I say it would be wrong to say technique on SCD is better, because it's not.
Every ballroom dance looks the same on our show :yawn: (Fred Astaire, Ginger Rodgers, :yawn
The BBC know this though and have stolen quite a few elements from DWTS noticeably prop usage and "funny" VT's. The VT's on the American show are actually funny though whereas our are just cringey.
I can count the amount of great dances on one hand that have been on SCD...DWTS there would be at least 50 or so dances that would be an SCD "40" score standard.
Take Derek and Nicole's 50's Paso for example, our show just never reaches those peaks.
Ringers are part of both shows and it would be pretty dull without them. DWTS usually fills the show with at least 3 or so though, as opposed to just one making it more of a competition.
They've had some remarkably exciting finals, again that our show just can't compete with.
To say DWTS is all show and no technique whereas SCD is more technique based would be wrong, or should I say it would be wrong to say technique on SCD is better, because it's not.
Originally Posted by StigOfTheKrump:
“Talking of score inflation, a ten was given in week one and 40/40 was awarded in week three(!) on this year's Australian series.”
“Talking of score inflation, a ten was given in week one and 40/40 was awarded in week three(!) on this year's Australian series.”
If it's worthy of a 10 or a 40 then why should they wait until later down the line to give it??
DWTS works on the basis if it's a 10 or a 30 that's the score it gets, regardless of how far gone the show has gone. I've seen quite a few score high in early stage then drop a bit later down the line.
We've just seen a 9999 36 in the 3rd week which would have been unheard of in previous series.
Originally Posted by TheWireRules:
“If it's worthy of a 10 or a 40 then why should they wait until later down the line to give it??
DWTS works on the basis if it's a 10 or a 30 that's the score it gets, regardless of how far gone the show has gone. I've seen quite a few score high in early stage then drop a bit later down the line.
We've just seen a 9999 36 in the 3rd week which would have been unheard of in previous series.”
“If it's worthy of a 10 or a 40 then why should they wait until later down the line to give it??
DWTS works on the basis if it's a 10 or a 30 that's the score it gets, regardless of how far gone the show has gone. I've seen quite a few score high in early stage then drop a bit later down the line.
We've just seen a 9999 36 in the 3rd week which would have been unheard of in previous series.”
It actually wouldn't.
Originally Posted by TheWireRules:
“If it's worthy of a 10 or a 40 then why should they wait until later down the line to give it??
DWTS works on the basis if it's a 10 or a 30 that's the score it gets, regardless of how far gone the show has gone. I've seen quite a few score high in early stage then drop a bit later down the line.
We've just seen a 9999 36 in the 3rd week which would have been unheard of in previous series.”
“If it's worthy of a 10 or a 40 then why should they wait until later down the line to give it??
DWTS works on the basis if it's a 10 or a 30 that's the score it gets, regardless of how far gone the show has gone. I've seen quite a few score high in early stage then drop a bit later down the line.
We've just seen a 9999 36 in the 3rd week which would have been unheard of in previous series.”
I agree, why not.
Originally Posted by tabithakitten:
“It actually wouldn't.”
“It actually wouldn't.”
it was last year tbf. I absolutely hated it how they didn't reward 9s till week 4 when many dances had deserved it! It really slowed the show down!
I don't wath DWTS, so can't compare the two. But as for Strictly, a low standard can be a factor of things with an individual celeb (i.e. amount of natural ability, how previous dance experience factors, how job hrs and training hrs work ar worked around each other, couple partnerships (harmonious/destructive).....etc). A few things like these might determine how well the end dance is performed on the night.
If you're meaning why is there low standard of dancing (in relation to quantity of celebs that can't dance), well, isn't that just luck of the draw. Sometimes Strictly will be lucky and have 3 or 4 celebs a series that will be more than decent and be able to take on relatively difficult choreography and dance beautiful dances. Then some series there will be less celebs battling out and not much competition frm the others.
If you're meaning why is there low standard of dancing (in relation to quantity of celebs that can't dance), well, isn't that just luck of the draw. Sometimes Strictly will be lucky and have 3 or 4 celebs a series that will be more than decent and be able to take on relatively difficult choreography and dance beautiful dances. Then some series there will be less celebs battling out and not much competition frm the others.
Originally Posted by TheWireRules:
“Bigger "talent" pool (i.e. more ringers) = better dancing. Also the pro's are streets ahead. DWTS is just a much better show all around. A 30 on DWTS is worth a lot more than a 40 on SCD.
Every ballroom dance looks the same on our show :yawn: (Fred Astaire, Ginger Rodgers, :yawn
The BBC know this though and have stolen quite a few elements from DWTS noticeably prop usage and "funny" VT's. The VT's on the American show are actually funny though whereas our are just cringey.
I can count the amount of great dances on one hand that have been on SCD...DWTS there would be at least 50 or so dances that would be an SCD "40" score standard.
Take Derek and Nicole's 50's Paso for example, our show just never reaches those peaks.
Ringers are part of both shows and it would be pretty dull without them. DWTS usually fills the show with at least 3 or so though, as opposed to just one making it more of a competition.
They've had some remarkably exciting finals, again that our show just can't compete with.
To say DWTS is all show and no technique whereas SCD is more technique based would be wrong, or should I say it would be wrong to say technique on SCD is better, because it's not.”
“Bigger "talent" pool (i.e. more ringers) = better dancing. Also the pro's are streets ahead. DWTS is just a much better show all around. A 30 on DWTS is worth a lot more than a 40 on SCD.
Every ballroom dance looks the same on our show :yawn: (Fred Astaire, Ginger Rodgers, :yawn
The BBC know this though and have stolen quite a few elements from DWTS noticeably prop usage and "funny" VT's. The VT's on the American show are actually funny though whereas our are just cringey.
I can count the amount of great dances on one hand that have been on SCD...DWTS there would be at least 50 or so dances that would be an SCD "40" score standard.
Take Derek and Nicole's 50's Paso for example, our show just never reaches those peaks.
Ringers are part of both shows and it would be pretty dull without them. DWTS usually fills the show with at least 3 or so though, as opposed to just one making it more of a competition.
They've had some remarkably exciting finals, again that our show just can't compete with.
To say DWTS is all show and no technique whereas SCD is more technique based would be wrong, or should I say it would be wrong to say technique on SCD is better, because it's not.”
That's total rubbish - they give out perfect scores like sweeties in the final few weeks of DWTS, regardless of how crap or mediocre the dances are.
They're not dancing traditional ballroom and latin dances in America. They're more like stage dancers. It papers over a lot of cracks that ballroom tends to show up. I'm not saying it's easier... or actually, yeah I am lol.
1 of 3
