IMO SCD is becoming more scripted by the year just like most other reality type shows and like it or not it is the way things are going.
The conspiracy theories start already!
2 of 2
Originally Posted by Ellie_:
“I genuinely thought Daisy's waltz was absolutely delightful. Very classical and romantic. I thought she acted it really well and danced exceptionally well for only three weeks of training. She was streets ahead of Naga so did deserve better marks. No conspiracy theory there.
”
“I genuinely thought Daisy's waltz was absolutely delightful. Very classical and romantic. I thought she acted it really well and danced exceptionally well for only three weeks of training. She was streets ahead of Naga so did deserve better marks. No conspiracy theory there.
”
Absolutely agree with you Ellie!! It was exceptional for a first week dance, no comparison with Naga's, pleasant enough though that was!!
Hello everyone
I don't necessarily think there is a conspiracy in favour of Daisy but did believe a 9 was way too high for her Waltz though it was a nice dance and as a couple she an Aljaz looked lovely together.
Like many have said already the scoring on Saturday was a lot more lenient than on Friday night. I thought J Rinder showed great movement and was very entertaining and his score was fair....but I did find it a bit strange to see Anastacia score higher for example especially when there were obvious mistakes in her routine. I did see Neils comment on Louises Jive - she was certainly good - memorable in terms of Strictly Jives..NO.
I truly hope TPTB will not engage in favouritism or fudging like last year - I certainly would not like to see a repeat of the fiasco of Jameliagate
All the above is purely IMO, I'm not claiming to be a dance expert so only judge routines on what I see and enjoy as a viewer of all SCD series since it started.
So my top 4 from week-end in terms of dance and entertainment are:
1. Danny & Oti
2. J Rinder & Oskana
3. Louise & Kevin
4. Greg & Natalie
I don't necessarily think there is a conspiracy in favour of Daisy but did believe a 9 was way too high for her Waltz though it was a nice dance and as a couple she an Aljaz looked lovely together.
Like many have said already the scoring on Saturday was a lot more lenient than on Friday night. I thought J Rinder showed great movement and was very entertaining and his score was fair....but I did find it a bit strange to see Anastacia score higher for example especially when there were obvious mistakes in her routine. I did see Neils comment on Louises Jive - she was certainly good - memorable in terms of Strictly Jives..NO.
I truly hope TPTB will not engage in favouritism or fudging like last year - I certainly would not like to see a repeat of the fiasco of Jameliagate
All the above is purely IMO, I'm not claiming to be a dance expert so only judge routines on what I see and enjoy as a viewer of all SCD series since it started.
So my top 4 from week-end in terms of dance and entertainment are:
1. Danny & Oti
2. J Rinder & Oskana
3. Louise & Kevin
4. Greg & Natalie
Originally Posted by PCRose:
“I think two or three of the Friday night people suffered from under marking when you look at the range of marks. And on Strictly entertainment value isn't always recognised in the scores.”
“I think two or three of the Friday night people suffered from under marking when you look at the range of marks. And on Strictly entertainment value isn't always recognised in the scores.”
That's what the audience vote is for.
The problem is that the judges seem to want to rank 15 couples only using half the range of marks available. Then assume that the top Mark is out of bounds as well, and you have 3 judges ranking 15 people with a range of only 4 marks - and the 4th only manages to make it out of 5 - which is why there are currently 10 couples who have the same score as someone else and only 5 with a total all of their very own.
I also don't think the judges pay much attention to score progression through the series - the criteria seems to be that the first dance out on the night is the benchmark and everything else is graded around being better or worse than that
Originally Posted by Monkseal:
“Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is giving it too much credit. People put effort into coming up with conspiracy theories. This is two Hollyoaks fans having a bitch on twitter that their wobbie didn't get high enough scores that has somehow been inflated into an entire newspaper story.”
“Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is giving it too much credit. People put effort into coming up with conspiracy theories. This is two Hollyoaks fans having a bitch on twitter that their wobbie didn't get high enough scores that has somehow been inflated into an entire newspaper story.”
I started this thread on conspiracy theories based entirely on the Daily Star's headline of how it's been FIXED for Daisy. The fixing conspiracy is theirs, that's all I meant. I'm certainly not saying I agree with them.
Originally Posted by Collins1965:
“The producers were sitting on a grassy knoll when they matched up the couples.”
“The producers were sitting on a grassy knoll when they matched up the couples.”
You have no idea how much I LOVE this post! Top effort!
Originally Posted by aggs:
“That's what the audience vote is for.
The problem is that the judges seem to want to rank 15 couples only using half the range of marks available. Then assume that the top Mark is out of bounds as well, and you have 3 judges ranking 15 people with a range of only 4 marks - and the 4th only manages to make it out of 5 - which is why there are currently 10 couples who have the same score as someone else and only 5 with a total all of their very own.
I also don't think the judges pay much attention to score progression through the series - the criteria seems to be that the first dance out on the night is the benchmark and everything else is graded around being better or worse than that”
“That's what the audience vote is for.
The problem is that the judges seem to want to rank 15 couples only using half the range of marks available. Then assume that the top Mark is out of bounds as well, and you have 3 judges ranking 15 people with a range of only 4 marks - and the 4th only manages to make it out of 5 - which is why there are currently 10 couples who have the same score as someone else and only 5 with a total all of their very own.
I also don't think the judges pay much attention to score progression through the series - the criteria seems to be that the first dance out on the night is the benchmark and everything else is graded around being better or worse than that”
I think the level of scoring is about right on the whole - there was a very obvious attempt in the first week or two of Series 10 to bring the scoring levels down a bit, and use the full range of paddles a bit more, and it just made the whole show feel very sour, because after 9 years of a 7 paddle more or less being seen as "average" it was a shock to adjust to.The only mark that stood out to me over this weekend as being really out of sync with reality was Craig giving Anastacia an 8.
The very high average score overall I think was because there were fewer duffers, what duffers there were were given sympathetic dances (I think they were *trying* to be sympathetic with Melvin, it just didn't come off), and they gave some people who weren't technically great, like Greg and Rinder, bonus points for performance they wouldn't necessarily have given them in previous series. If you compare the scores with last series (which was pretty much bang on average in terms of wk 1 scores), only about 25-30% of the increase comes from the scores in the top half of the leaderboard. The upper ceiling hasn't moved much, it's the ground floor that was higher. And I think it's fair enough, because I can't think of anyone who deserved *much* lower, or who could have got harsher treatment down there, without causing a backlash.
If you step back and look at the situation objectively, there's absolutely no way the BBC would fix this show. Given the "fixing" of other stuff in the past, it's more than someone's job is worth. It would ruin the reputation of the best variety show on TV if it got out.
There's always a high percentage of BBC people in the show, which is only expected. They choose those that they think might do well, there's always a trade off if they can raise the profile of one of their people through their continued progress in the show, but I don't think they really care that much if one of theirs doesn't win, not enough to fix it anyway.
However, the progress of some individuals is not beyond some influence. This can be achieved by selective use of clips in training videos, to hopefully improve the public's perception of them, "in a good way."
I think Emma Bunton was given "every assistance." (She came across like Mother Theresa, always "sweetness and light" no momentary strops, in training clips) before her appearance in the Strictly element of Children in Need that year, even to the inclusion of a visit from French and Saunders to give her support during one of her training sessions. What was that all about?
I've no idea what are the motives behind the judges scores for some people on occasions, nor do I suspect do they have much idea either.
There's always a high percentage of BBC people in the show, which is only expected. They choose those that they think might do well, there's always a trade off if they can raise the profile of one of their people through their continued progress in the show, but I don't think they really care that much if one of theirs doesn't win, not enough to fix it anyway.
However, the progress of some individuals is not beyond some influence. This can be achieved by selective use of clips in training videos, to hopefully improve the public's perception of them, "in a good way."
I think Emma Bunton was given "every assistance." (She came across like Mother Theresa, always "sweetness and light" no momentary strops, in training clips) before her appearance in the Strictly element of Children in Need that year, even to the inclusion of a visit from French and Saunders to give her support during one of her training sessions. What was that all about?
I've no idea what are the motives behind the judges scores for some people on occasions, nor do I suspect do they have much idea either.
Originally Posted by aggs:
“That's what the audience vote is for.
The problem is that the judges seem to want to rank 15 couples only using half the range of marks available. Then assume that the top Mark is out of bounds as well, and you have 3 judges ranking 15 people with a range of only 4 marks - and the 4th only manages to make it out of 5 - which is why there are currently 10 couples who have the same score as someone else and only 5 with a total all of their very own.
I also don't think the judges pay much attention to score progression through the series - the criteria seems to be that the first dance out on the night is the benchmark and everything else is graded around being better or worse than that”
“That's what the audience vote is for.
The problem is that the judges seem to want to rank 15 couples only using half the range of marks available. Then assume that the top Mark is out of bounds as well, and you have 3 judges ranking 15 people with a range of only 4 marks - and the 4th only manages to make it out of 5 - which is why there are currently 10 couples who have the same score as someone else and only 5 with a total all of their very own.
I also don't think the judges pay much attention to score progression through the series - the criteria seems to be that the first dance out on the night is the benchmark and everything else is graded around being better or worse than that”
Great post . I'd love to ask all the judges what each of their marks represents , especially marks 1 to 5 .
Originally Posted by Lordsally:
“You have no idea how much I LOVE this post! Top effort!”
“You have no idea how much I LOVE this post! Top effort!
”
Thanks
I guess you have to be of a certain age group to get it
Originally Posted by Paace:
“Great post . I'd love to ask all the judges what each of their marks represents , especially marks 1 to 5 .”
“Great post . I'd love to ask all the judges what each of their marks represents , especially marks 1 to 5 .”
During the show or on ITT? Its a Saturday night entertainment show, why overthink it?
Originally Posted by jiroos:
“I just wanna see if one of the four "experts" behind the desk go one better this year and give their "10" paddle an airing in Week 2....”
“I just wanna see if one of the four "experts" behind the desk go one better this year and give their "10" paddle an airing in Week 2....
”
It's happened before. Bruno gave Louisa Lytton a 10 in week 2 during Series 5 (might have been 4)
Originally Posted by jiroos:
“I just wanna see if one of the four "experts" behind the desk go one better this year and give their "10" paddle an airing in Week 2....”
“I just wanna see if one of the four "experts" behind the desk go one better this year and give their "10" paddle an airing in Week 2....
”
Didn't Jays jive get a 10 or 2 or was that week 3?
And actually that is a good point that dance was a 10 dance no matter which week it was in.
Also Sophie peaked very early, that dance shouldn't have been penalised because it was early ( it wasn't a 10 dance though) .
Originally Posted by Monkseal:
“I think the level of scoring is about right on the whole - there was a very obvious attempt in the first week or two of Series 10 to bring the scoring levels down a bit, and use the full range of paddles a bit more, and it just made the whole show feel very sour, because after 9 years of a 7 paddle more or less being seen as "average" it was a shock to adjust to.The only mark that stood out to me over this weekend as being really out of sync with reality was Craig giving Anastacia an 8.
The very high average score overall I think was because there were fewer duffers, what duffers there were were given sympathetic dances (I think they were *trying* to be sympathetic with Melvin, it just didn't come off), and they gave some people who weren't technically great, like Greg and Rinder, bonus points for performance they wouldn't necessarily have given them in previous series. If you compare the scores with last series (which was pretty much bang on average in terms of wk 1 scores), only about 25-30% of the increase comes from the scores in the top half of the leaderboard. The upper ceiling hasn't moved much, it's the ground floor that was higher. And I think it's fair enough, because I can't think of anyone who deserved *much* lower, or who could have got harsher treatment down there, without causing a backlash.”
“I think the level of scoring is about right on the whole - there was a very obvious attempt in the first week or two of Series 10 to bring the scoring levels down a bit, and use the full range of paddles a bit more, and it just made the whole show feel very sour, because after 9 years of a 7 paddle more or less being seen as "average" it was a shock to adjust to.The only mark that stood out to me over this weekend as being really out of sync with reality was Craig giving Anastacia an 8.
The very high average score overall I think was because there were fewer duffers, what duffers there were were given sympathetic dances (I think they were *trying* to be sympathetic with Melvin, it just didn't come off), and they gave some people who weren't technically great, like Greg and Rinder, bonus points for performance they wouldn't necessarily have given them in previous series. If you compare the scores with last series (which was pretty much bang on average in terms of wk 1 scores), only about 25-30% of the increase comes from the scores in the top half of the leaderboard. The upper ceiling hasn't moved much, it's the ground floor that was higher. And I think it's fair enough, because I can't think of anyone who deserved *much* lower, or who could have got harsher treatment down there, without causing a backlash.”
True - it's just that tied leaderboards bring on my Series 6 flashbacks ... and I don't really think there is any reason to have 10 tied scores out of 15, and I'm not expecting it to be any better are dance 2.
I also wish they would drop the fallacy that there is a scoring arc for the celeb through the series when it's apparent each show is marked individually and the scores reflect the show rather than the dances. Which is why there is no point comparing scores across different series really ... or even in most cases across the same series ... heck, sometimes not even the same show!
Originally Posted by Paace:
“Great post . I'd love to ask all the judges what each of their marks represents , especially marks 1 to 5 .”
“Great post . I'd love to ask all the judges what each of their marks represents , especially marks 1 to 5 .”
Pretty certain Len has done that very thing though it might have been on DWTS. He did say that it would take a complete catastrophe for him to go lower than 5.
Originally Posted by Baz_James:
“Pretty certain Len has done that very thing though it might have been on DWTS. He did say that it would take a complete catastrophe for him to go lower than 5.”
“Pretty certain Len has done that very thing though it might have been on DWTS. He did say that it would take a complete catastrophe for him to go lower than 5.”
I remember that on ITT, not sure if he was being serious then . I remember him saying you get a 1 for turning up .
Seriously though it seems 6 or 7 are the most used marks, but what does 2 or 3 represent . The answer is they haven't got an answer .
2 of 2
