It's a very average series thus far.

Pixie has her critics, but for me the only WOW FACTOR contestant.

Jake's ok, Caroline on par with him. Frankie, lacks any personality although competent dancer. The rest are all, "time to make a cup of tea" contestants.

Judy, is deffo, time to turn over to see what's on other channels. I just return to the show to hear the same judges' remarks about her being wooden and stiff.

Tess, is out of her depth with her juvenile and cringe-like presenting. The jokes written for her are designed for 10 year old's. So, the presentation aspect has declined. Bruce gave the show balance although in recent years he did struggle.

TV is currently so poor per se. Dumbing down tv, Flooded with cooking shows and quiz shows.

I look at classic comedy from ten years ago, like THE OFFICE, EXTRA'S. Now, we have dreadful lowest common denominator tv like, NOT GOING OUT, MRS BROWNS BOYS. A Ten year old could write the scripts for these shows. Yet these shows are lauded as top entertainment. You have the tedious Russell Howard. Trying and failing to emulate the brilliance of Harry Hill, with his critique of current tv.

The BBC used to be far more discerning with their content. Now, they play the numbers games with commercial tv. It's now become a race to the bottom.

At least, Mackenzie Crook's, The Detectorists, offers some respite from this dreadful era of television. It doth beg the questions as to why it's on BBC 4 and not 1?

So, to return to Strictly, i'd say it's so far, one of the worst series?
Last edited by sportgal9 : 02-11-2014 at 10:27

Christ almighty... Like a sleep deprived Richard Littlejohn

I did think last night's show was fairly mediocre, but I'm hoping that's down to it being the Halloween edition.
I thought this series started well, the overall standard appeared to be above average. So much so that many were complaining about "ringers". You don't hear so many complaints now, the front runners just don't appear to be improving that much. All the "big four" in the competition were probably as good in week one as they are now. In Jake's case, he was better.
I've no problem with Tess and Claudia, people appear to be forgetting how cringeworthy Brucie could be with his Christmas cracker jokes. He got away with that for years bacause we appreciated that it was appealing to young kids watching the show with their parents. Perhaps we should cut Tess and Claudia the same slack. The show goes out at 6.30pm on a Saturday, we can hardly expect sophisticated, adult humour.

It's better this year with Tess replacing Bruce - but no real big name celebs, I have a job really caring who wins.

I really struggle to understand why anyone watches SCD when they get so annoyed with all the "faults" in it.

When X-Factor irritated me to the point of annoyance, I just packed it in.
Maybe that's just a tad too obvious though.

I don't think Strictly was ever held in the same contempt as X-Factor. It had massive viewing figures but even many popular music fans loathed the programme with a vengeance. Strictly is less of a "Marmite" show, nobody I know actually hates it. But nearly everyone who watches it has an opinion about how it could be improved.

For me Strictly stands or falls on getting the right celebs in. You can see that the BBC try to get a cross section of celebs so that there's something for everyone....a couple of soap "stars", a couple of young singers, a DJ or two, a TV presenter or two, a sportsman or two and one or two there for the comedy element.

But if you don't like soaps, don't care much for today's music and don't watch TV-AM you struggle to actually connect with most of the contestants. Sure, it can't be easy to find people who are prepared to give up several weeks of their lives (despite the obvious benefits of being well paid, getting some decent TV coverage....and getting fit!) but I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that the BBC seem to have ditched the A, B and C lists this time.

That's what these shows are all about....seeing celebs doing something they would never ordinarily do. But if you don't know who three quarters of them are in the first place....

Thanks for reply.

I totally understand opinions but relentless negativity is another thing altogether and I'll use the first post in this thread as an example.

Just don't 'get' it.

Which generally contradict each other
One persons improvement is another persons worst idea ever!
Ploughing the middle furrow is not as easy at it sounds

I'm enjoying this series in terms of contestants. I like the fact that we have no clear winner and there are about 5 contenders for the top of the leaderboard compared to past series when it was usually a choice between 2. I haven't warmed to Pixie that much, though shes a good dancer - otherwise I really like all of the celebs and I think there is a nice mix of really good dancers and reasonably good dancers who have a chance to improve.

I hate the gimmicks though....producers always feel they have to add more drama/sparkle to make it more interesting, whereas the reality is that most viewers invest in the people and the dancing therefore I'm sure they would much rather see good professional dance routines rather than some farce where the celebs/judges get involved, clips from the training room showing them actually learning to dance, rather than have them act out some meaningless and childish improvised scene (such a waste of the couples valuable training time too). And have the pros work out a decent routine suited to the dance and music without having to be hampered with the halloween theme. Frankie and Kevins were good, but too often the make-up and theme cancan take away from the dance.

The ratings disagree with this thread. I don't mind the gimmicks. Earlier shows look very vanilla if you check them out on youtube.

And every ballroom dance had become the same, blokes wearing black top-tail and talking about Ginger Rodgers with accompanied Frank Sinatra music Zzzzzz. I much prefer the themed dances so long as the main dance is in place I don't mind the faffing at the start and at the end.

One thing I hope they never import from DWTS though is 3rd party dancers on the floor with the couple, I really hate this!

Agree that this year doesn't seem to have a sparkle. I felt this way around series 6, and it certainly needed a shake up (although I don't agree with a lot of what actually changed, I can't deny that it gave the show new life temporarily). I think this series has the same air, and needs a different direction next series.

C
www.frankieandcloverstrictly.blogspot.co.uk

DANGER .. DANGER.. HIGH VOLTAGE.. WHEN WE TOUCH.. WHEN WE TOUCH!!!

I do have to admit, Pixie & Trent rate as one of my all time fave SCD couples.

The chemistry between them fantastic. Without them this series would be mega pantz

Up there with Mark Ramprakash & Karen.

Every routine, has been worth regular re-views. I can't say that about any of the other contestants to be honest. Prior years, there's be three or four couples i'd like to watch again.

Just my opinion. I think my point is, SCD has been a super show for so many years. I hate seeing it slip. I just feel the producers are trying to be all things. Appealing to kids and adults. The original format, sought to appeal to a more mature audience i felt. Classic music to go with the routines. Now, as many have stated, the music just doesn't sit comfortably with the dance routines.

Go back to basics i say and SCD will last for years

Really?
The original format as a one off money spinner for Sports Relief cobbling together the fad for celebs to learn a new skill and a popular film and featured Chris Parker in the final basically just running round waving some material over his head to the Batman theme was more mature?

Well said!

I get the feeling the producers are control freaks and don't want anything to go wrong.
The show would be better if they hired the right people and celebs and provided the right setting for a good show to develop. Their jobs depend on it being a success though so its understandable that they want to control their own destiny.

Aiming for things not to go wrong is not very ambitious and leads to a restricted version of what could develop if you set things up to let a bunch of talented people show what they can do.