I agree with much of this.

I don't think the show should only recruit complete novices and people without acting experience, it would be boring and they would struggle to find celebrities.

Yes, Nat seems to have a little too much experience, in itself that's fine but fans shouldn't get upset when that's pointed out. And, for me, I think that's why I'm indifferent to her dancing, I know she will be technically proficient and there is the lack of obvious improvement.

Now Kara and DVO had experience but not too much. There were improvements in performance and delivery, much more exciting.

Also I don't understand the few that get angry when it's pointed out that some have no prior experience. The fact they are newbies to professional dance is relevant too.

Although I love watching Natalie and Artem dance I don't think I would like to see a situation like this occur again where there is such a gap in dancing ability between one contestant and all the others. It might be fun to have a series in which all the contestants had prior training but then it wouldn't be Strictly which is all about the duffers, sporty types, biddies, comedy turns, camp men, presenters, soap stars and a few contestants who are able to produce a watchable dance for all the right reasons

I think the stage school types have always been a part of Strictly (Jill, Rachel Stevens, Tom, Kara etc) but the thing that is making Strictly less entertaining for me is the increasing sense of orchestration from the producers. It has always been there but it becoming more and more blatant. I preferred Strictly when the dance-off was scrapped as it made the show less predictable and allowed 'journey' contestants to progress. The tactical scoring combined with the dance-off hands all the power to the producers and it feels that if you are a fan of a Deborah, or a Mark, or a Ben then there is little point in voting. A celeb such as Ramps probably wouldn't make the final these days because, even if he was popular with the public, the programme is now weighted in favour of the slicker, performance-trained contestants. I like Natalie, Abbey, Sophie and Patrick, but I was a fan of Ben and am a fan of Mark and it feels as if he is surely doomed, no matter how many supporters he has. If Strictly becomes completely predictable and loses it ability to throw us a few shocks and surprises then I may become too bored to watch it.

Oh dear! Are you really that gutted that Ben has gone? Comparing Ben to Ramps is a bit off the mark IMO - Ramps always had rhythm - Ben lovely guy but not so much.

This happens with all reality shows, both X-Factor and Big Brother have more influence from higher up than the older days.

I think SCD changed around series 7 as it wanted to complete with the american show as the new producer thought our show was stuffy in comparison. Personally, I liked the old format of two different dances each week so it was nice to compare different celebs doing the same thing and using less props.

I guess the ratings are higher means that this has worked but maybe that because its aiming at the younger audience now as it gains over X-Factor.

I think Ramps definitely would have won in the "modern era" not so much because he would have adapted as much as I'm fairly sure Karen would have been able to. Besides, the last two series were won by celebs who were very much not slick or "performance trained".

I do agree that they should axe the dance-off though, even though it almost certainly would mean that my favo Mark would have gone weeks ago. (I'm so selfless like that)

No I was not a particular Ben fan though I did think the judges made the wrong decision - to be honest I am finding it hard to warm to any of the couples.

Except for Mark the remaining couples were too good from week 1 and have not progressed that much apart from adding a bit of finesse.

I know people disagree with me but I have found this series a bit flat, despite the high standard of dancing.

Once Mark goes (and he will), although I like loads of the other celebs, there is no-one I am particularly excited about. For me it will be like the Harry/Chelsee/Jason year, where there was no-one I felt partisan about so it was all a bit ho-hum in the latter weeks. As long as Susanna doesn't win I don't really mind who else wins so I don't feel that invested in this series.

Sounds like a Village People line up.

It's happened since Series One, Claire Sweeney had stage school training at the Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts. Besides which, the "whole ethos" of SCD wasn't to take an untrained dancer and turn them into one, it was take celebrities out of their comfort zone to see if they could become ballroom (and latin) dancers. I still have the original press release from the show's beginning and it actually says:



Claire Sweeney went to Italia Conti as well

That's true, ive said that all along, even the non dancers will have had some introduction to dance in stage school. How ever I do think over the last few years the show has been pushed further away from where it was reborn shall we say.

still love it though, that isn't changing for now.

Amen to this! It worked great to have just two different dances each week as you could directly compare each celebrity and see who'd picked up the right technique over who was able to "sell it" performance wise.

Natalie made it very clear in her first VT that she had hoped to become a professional dancer, up until injury prevented that at age 19. She didn't hide her previous dance experience at all.

I hunted around to find what Stage School Rachel Stevens was supposed to have gone to and found no evidence.
There is a mention of her going to drama school at the age of 5, but she seems to have attended a Jewish primary school Osidge JMI School and then Ashmole School. I did read that she studied acting and singing. There was also mention of her liking netball, ice skating and dancing.

Anyone under the age of, let's say 40 (that's possibly a conservative estimate) who went to drama school or class will have studied triple threat, singing, acting and dancing. All performers are expected to have some experience across the board (speaking as the mum of a singer/dancer, who also had to take acting). Yes I know it's not to the level of a 'trained' dancer, but they will have learnt some basic technique, and also, possibly more relevant, they will have learned to learn, one of my daughters dance teachers favorite expressions.

Thanks for that info.

I knew Rachel had danced before but she didn't even seem to be the best dancer in S Club 7, so I thought grouping her with Jill, Tom and Kara was overstating her dance level when she started on Strictly.

Good point about learning to learn. Its a thing I notice on Strictly that it takes a while for complete novices to learn how to learn, which is another reason why I wrote that the extra weeks training before Strictly starts was fairer to the novices.

Bottom line is that we want to see good dancing. I think the show does a good job on casting - we love the John sergeants, ann widdecombes and hairy bikers for the first half of the show, but by the time we get to the last half dozen we really want to see fantastic dancers and to be sure of that, we need to have people who have a bit of aptitude for it in the first place. The worst year ever was when the little guy off BBC breakfast won it -the best of a poor lot. The producers learned from that and have come up with great, varied casts since.

I think you may be suffering from selective memory syndrome here ...

Dave Hairy Biker is in no way comparable to JS or AW - he exited significantly before they did. Indeed, if the public voting figures leaked to the press during SCD6 were as accurate as they appeared to be, there's every chance JS could have made the final and even won.

And let's not forget Chris Parker from Series 1 who reached the final ...

Chris Hollins won SCD7 because he and Ola had great chemistry, he improved enough as a dancer and he was able to bring his personality onto the dancefloor. Even though his rival was technically streets ahead of him ... because Strictly is as much about character (if not more) than it is about dancing. However technically excellent a contestant may be, they have to be able to connect with the audience. If they don't, they're on a hiding to nothing. Ask Emma Bunton or DVO. So I don't think it's a given that the audience want to see fantastic dancers in the last half dozen. It's more important for them to have contestants they like.

I don't think Strictly is dead quite yet, but who ever put together that abomination of a pro dance on Sunday needs to put against the wall and shot. It was an insult to everyone involved and everyone watching.

Who is giving the producers the belief that no one will watch unless every single aspect of the show is a cartoonish exercise in horribly contrived 'FUN!!!!!'? It's not like the show was only pulling in a handful of viewers until they came up with the wonderful idea of Halloween spaceman pasos and old ladies popping out of cakes.

I can't imagine one of the pros coming up with the concept of a dance to promote one of the BBC's cooking shows.
You're right - one of the worst ideas for a dance ever!

I think most (or all?) these types of reality/celeb game shows are rigged or manipulated to a greater or lesser extent. I reckon the producers pick their favourites before the first episode is broadcast.

If all of this is true, it's rather naughty of the BBC to let Natalie compete:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...advantage.html


How is that fair on all the other celebs with no formal dance training? And if she wins it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it is rigged and who knows how many other winners had previous dance experience or got training months and months before the first week! Look at John Sergeant - the guy was born to dance and he was robbed of the title.

:yawn: They knew what her abilities were when they signed her up. She also came straight out and said this at her first interview. What else can she do? Nothing sneaky, nothing hidden.

Daily Fail in trolling the internet for a none story shocker. Anyone who watched the intro show is aware that Natalie intended to be a professional dancer until an injury aged 19 put a stop to it. The producers who asked her to take part were aware of it, it's hardly just "come out".
This type of journalism makes me so angry, in fact, it's not even journalism, there's absolutely no skill or training involved in trolling Twitter or Facebook or Tumblr or forums like Digital Spy and pulling quotes from anonymous posters to use.

No, I think there is a lot of life left in the format. The producers just need to resist tinkering too much and stick to the core entertainment, which is watching people learn how to dance.

Perhaps they should revise the format by getting rid of the increasingly amateurish and pointless VT inserts and, above all stop trying to fill all the gaps, especially on the 'Sunday' show with crass attempts at big production numbers.

And, of course, (can't resit adding this), get a competent presenter who realises that the show is about the competitors, right from the first show in the series and never, never, about the presenter.


At the moment the entertainment from the competitors is spoiled completely by the buffoonish and crass attempts at 'entertainment' by the current presenter. Someone who never realises that he is past it, long past it. Now what was his name? Forsooth? Wasn't he once a 'comedian and dancer'?