I can barely remember Come Dancing. But if I remember correctly the men dressed somewhat like the snooker players dress at the moment. Oh and there is no Whirling Dervish on Acid cameraman filming snooker, darts, cricket or rugby. I didn't see any sign of a cameraman running round and round the players at The Ryder Cup.

If there is room for snooker, darts and even poker, there is room for a proper dancing show. Or is dancing like squash? People who do don't watch.

No one on here has said they don't want entertainment. The consensus is that in a show purportedly about dancing, it would be nice to see all of the dance/dancers in a way that it can be followed and, to a certain extent, judged. That doesn't have to mean one steadicam shot the whole way through, either - there is a happy medium between a single fixed point and 24+ cutaways. 20-odd in a minute and a half! That's ridiculous for anyone trying to follow the "flow" of the dance.

Even when there are 15 couples that's only 23.5 minutes of actual dancing time in a 2-hour-plus show. That leaves plenty of time for entertainment elsewhere - presenter jokes, judges' banter, the Clauditorium chat, training or "comedy" VTs; not to mention the not-insignificant fact that a fair chunk of the viewing audience actually find - gasp! - watching the celebs and their partners dancing pretty entertaining in its own right without having to be jazzed up by Krazy Kamerawork.

Cameras were much bigger and there would only be a small number of them. So they were much more static, some might prefer that but I suspect that the majority prefer to get closer views.

If there were going to be big TV audiences for professional dance competitions then the TV channels would be bidding large sums to get the rights to them rather than being limited to obscure channels and YouTube.

Such is the nature of the game.

As a long time club team squash player many years ago, I can remember playing team matches when even few club members would even bother to watch!

Now it's all different, with "see-through" court walls an white balls, it's become much more a spectator sport, despite the fact that the play is up and down the side walls (as it should be) for most of the time. But there's no constantly changing camera angles. The sight on TV (where it is still rarely shown and then usually just the highlights) is from the back of the court, the best view, with replays from different angles.

If only Strictly could give us that, an uninterrupted full length view of the couples from one camera, saving the "arty stuff" for the "replays."

One of the problems with "Come Dancing," was for the BBC that it began to be considered "too middle class."
Yes it had a declining audience, but what finally killed it off was the BBC deliberately shifting it around the schedules.

Please fund your own single shot version of Strictly then, because you're the only person who wants it.

You do make me smile.

You attempt to tell people what to do, you're now saying what other people want and no one takes a blind bit of notice.

But dream on.

No one on here really expects the BBC to do anything other than what they want to do.

It's just a message board "for entertainment only" and you're unconsciously providing some of it with your "directives."

Try not to take this entertainment show too seriously. It's a bit pointless.

Yes. We are having a good laugh at the pomposity of Don the Whirling Dervish on Acid's coffee gopher. Make sure it isn't spilt it or Don will be cross.

Maybe Don should have a go at whirling round the snooker table or darts board?

I'm happy with multiple cameras as with football, golf, snooker, cricket or anything else - but 5 second minimum shots before switching and no Whirling Dervish on Acid please.

Why doesn't Don fly around the judges when they are giving their scores? Or whirl around Tess and Claudia when they are introducing the participants? I'd go along with that. That'll be Entertainment.

Yes it's usually the gofers, who like to tell us "they work in television." It's only they who have the time and interest to post on message boards at all times of the day.

Yes, because every job requires you to work every second of the day.

I'm actually off this week because we were due to supervise a shoot that's been pushed back to next week in Belgium.

What programme are you working on?

I love Belgian chocolates with my coffee.

Next week? Well we can look forward to that, can't we?

We're going over to supervise a shoot of a Belgian TV show that one of our clients is interested in remaking for an English audience. It's called ROX, I believe.

They still have internet access in Belgium.

So, really that means-

Watch a Belgian crew shoot an episode of one their programmes,

Hmm.

I wondered about the word "supervise."

I can imagine it, some British gofers turn up at a Belgium TV studio. "They're likely not to be able to speak Walloon" or whatever. The shoot starts and one of the British observers says to the director;
"Do you think that's wise? If I were you....." or something similar.
That'd go down a bundle wouldn't it?

Supervise, of course implies being in charge of.

As it's their programme, there is nothing to supervise.

I don't know what 'ROX' is- may be it's a reality show format- or maybe it's a detective series. Who knows.

But- if you're simply going along to find out how the Belgian company makes the programme you can't be 'supervising' them. It's their programme.

We're supervising the shooting of the pilot episode for an English version, which will film in the same studios as the Belgian version, which is being funded by our client. Since we're post-production, we're there to make sure the plates for VFX are being shot the way we need them to be, and we're also on hand to help with any translation issues there might be.

Oh, and it's a kids' show about superheroes.