"A BBC spokesman told the Mirror: "Following Peter's performance in the dance off, for which he received a standing ovation from the audience, continuity shots were taken during a break in filming to reset the dance floor."

Absolute tosh!!

They would have been better off saying nothung

It makes no sense at all .

Sorry, but this is exactly what my friends said happened and they were there.

But Peter did not receive a standing ovation, so they had to film one. Check with your friend

Oh dear.. It seems that the curse of opening your mouth and letting it run away with you has spread from Jay to another at the BBC.

Sometimes saying less, or in this case nothing, is better.

Tosh. When you have a production team who can competently manage a live show, why would you mess up something so relatively simple.

They didn't explain the audience booing the judges decision being edited out then??

I still want to know why Craig and Bruno thought Peter was better than Jamelia in the DO, and what "improvement" Darcey saw. That's the biggest niggle I have about all this.

Unless it wasn't actually their decision?...

Yes, well, that's the elephant (or Blackpool donkey) in the (ball)room and no ones going to explain or answer questions on that. They're probably all just hoping and praying that Peter messes up enough next time to conveniently send him home.

I feel sorry for the judges, they are the fall guys in all this, and I don't believe it was their decision for one minute.

I didn't realise that happened too!

Well what do you expect them to say? We were planning to save Peter but he didn't score well, so we had to film the audience reaction again to look like people liked him...

That's the most credible thing they can go away with.

They may have really good reasons to why wanting Peter to continue and not Jamelia, but it's against the apparent rules that they've set themselves.
Not a nice situation to be right now.

On another thought they never show the public vote in terms of votes. So how do we know it wasn't Helen and Peter and not Jamelia and Peter?

It would be interesting to know who the spokesman was. The Director General? One of the cleaners, perhaps?

People on facebook said it was in the Telegraph, and I think a Blackpool paper, I think that's why Darcy had her head in her hands.

Jamelia on It Takes Two:
"I definitely thought there was hope, I thought we did a great last dance, I think it was until they re-recorded Pete's [mimics quotation marks] standing ovation. I'd say I realised that was the moment we were going home."
You have it there, Pete's 'standing ovation' was contrived by the producers to support a decision they had already taken.
Jamelia displayed shrewdness in delivering these remarks with a smile on her face so it did not look as if she was trying to deal a blow to the BBC, but the text speaks for itself.

Could he see the whole audience from where he was sitting? Often on the live show you will see one part standing up whilst other areas do not I doubt whether people in the audience can see the rest of the audience area completely especially with balconies.

Hmm.

To misquote Mandy Rice-Davies,

"Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"

If they were only going to dig themselves in deeper, surely it would have been better to have kept quiet on this occasion, but surely someone from the BBC could have come up with a more plausible explanation than that one? They really must believe that a lot of the viewers are that gullible, even with those who watched at Blackpool knowing what went on that evening during the results show. They know nothing can change what happened, so probably thought let's try and placate viewers with a load of twaddle and hope they fall for it.

did they have a birds eye view from the big one ,???

It makes absolute sense to me. If you have ever worked with a film crew it is quite common for them to film continuity or actuality or what they call textural material as a separate task to the main event. They then use these clips interwoven with the main material during editing.

Often the main material is coming in from more than one source (camera) and it is quite normal to splice together footage from serveral sources to create the rushes which are then evaluated for the final film. Its quite normal and all film makers do it.

In my experience film makers have a huge integrity about their art. Having commissioned film and sat in the editing suite choosing footage that I though showed us to best advantage I was often told quite categorically that I couldn't make a cut where I wanted. The reasons were both practical and ethical.

The separate shooting of textural or actuality is mostly practical. Your cameras are busy during the main action. You want to follow that in case you miss something. So images that tend not to change, like audience scense, shots of the scenery, buildings et al can be shot during quieter moments. Sometimes reshooting is done because somethig happened during the first take such as a tchnical fault, a physical barrier or the camera man just didn't get the best footage he could.

The fact that a scene was shot twice is not sufficent evidence of a conspiracy in my mind. It might be but I doubt it.

It's not what Jamelia said is it? ... and she was on the spot and had been in that position FOUR times before so it definitely wasn't a usual occurrence.

Re shooting might be common practice and I am sure it is . But they seemed to have also added in a standing ovation which is the questionable part .
According to people who were there they asked the audience to stand , they hadnt been standing in the first shot ?

Jamelia has just said on Loose Women that Peter did not receive a SO.

To broadcast a shot of a fake SO is a step too far in the production of a show - especially when the result looks so questionable.

It might have been Tess, she always withdraw to the audience before each dance, she was on her way back, gave it a few claps and voila standing ovation right there