Just thought of something and I'm wondering if the psychologists who appear on BBBOTS like Judy james, dr pam spurr and all of that lot will be asked by ITT producers to read through the psychology of the couples and that? I know I don't agree with the psychologists always, however they do have a point and a lot what they say is quite near to the truth.

What would the point of that be?

Why?! Big Brother is all about mind games, SCD is about dance. The 2 programmes have nothing in common.

However you can vote on both shows.

A psychologist already has been on ITT. Pamela Stephenson.

Would love to see her on again, Judy james and Dr pam spurr interest me even if I don't always agree. Depends really if their busy with other commitments, however it's an idea. Whether the chefs at BBC towers agree with me on this or not is up to them.

You can also vote in general elections. Doesn't mean you need psychologists to analyse their every move though. It'd be completely against the point of Strictly.

Judy James was on ITT during series 2 talking about the pyscological effect of different pro's training methods.

She concluded that Erin was the best teacher because of the way she treated Julian Clary. Monkseal will remember the details.

Thanks for the info.

Another pointless thread, this is the BBC, it's not going to happen, and why would we want it.

I really wouldn't expect me to listen to anything that halfwit says at the time, let alone remember it 11 years later.

Any attempt to morph the show into anything resembling Big Brother will see the core audience switch off in droves.

That's very true. I replied to another thread, asking why Strictly's producers would want to copy what is done on Big Brother. They are NOT the same show and thank goodness for it.

Haha

I'm talking about the spin off show. By the way I'm being jumped on this thread when I've done nothing wrong at all.

Ooooh now I think you might be onto something there Stig. We could have a bunch of pop psychs doing sound bites of cod psychology to make the next general election more ....urrrmmm ,,,, entertaining or something.

It would be a waste of time. It's not remotely authentic. The psychologists on BB didn't sit through hours of footage in order to construct a considered assessment of a particular individual/event. They were given a few clips chosen by the production team, with it being obvious that the clips had been selected to steer the assessment in a particular direction (e.g. Person a is aggressive, persons b & c fancy each other, etc.) I knew one of the psychologists who worked on it, and was taught by a friend of another psychologist who appeared on their spin-off shows, which is how I know a bit about how they spin it. This was back in its earliest years, so I couldn't say for certain that they still do it that way, and I've never watched it so I don't know what 'insights' they come up with.

This just reminded me of the 'expert' training commentary Craig used to do on ITT, and how funny it was when someone on here revealed that he was actually given the clips and the comments to go with them by a former SCD pro (might have been Paul Killick, I can't remember now).

Nobody has jumped on you, merely said they don't see the point of psychological assessment on Strictly. Failing to agree with you is not the same as jumping on you.

I personally can't stand Big Brother, and would hate to see Strictly turned INTO a BB clone

I hate cod psychology and wouldn't want to see any move in that direction from Strictly.

In the first few weeks I wouldn't mind seeing some workshop sections where celebs who are having difficulty remembering basic steps or getting them right are 'helped' to break them down and find out what is getting in the way and then it could progress to combinations of steps, developing a strong core etc.

There's nothing more frustrating than knowing what you should be doing and your body doing something different

That is exactly what I was thinking.

I enjoy watching the Big Brother spin off show 'Bit on the side' more than the main show at times Paul, It Takes Two could learn a thing or two.

I wish they would visit this forum!!

Hmmm, psychologists talking nonsense or Vicky Gill talking about the shiny costumes....i'll stick with Vicky.

The psychologists would have a field day, there is enough material here for a whole series of conventions.