Originally Posted by Nina_Blake:
“No, no, no!
I do love a lot of the pros on DWTS, but I think Strictly is far better in quality.
DWTS is more gimmicky, has shorter dances, completely bastardises almost every style, invites "social media celebs" on the show, includes live tweets (really?), has Squeaky Ann Inaba, shows on a Monday (?) and features ridiculously lenient judging.
ETA - I'd imagine if Strictly ran on advertising fees like DWTS, the US pros would defect in the blink of an eye!”
As two of the judges are identical with the Strictly panel and the marking is at least as consistent across the four of them (if not more so - I have much greater success in predicting the scores on DWTS!) I'm not sure that lenient judging is a fair accusation, especially as Ms Inaba ruthlessly imposes a one point penalty for illegal lifts which nobody on the Strictly panel ever does. The marks for the first dances of both series were certainly pretty equal this time round and I'm not sure that we've seen a 9 in DWTS yet after 3 dances.
I can't see anything wrong with having a range of 'celebrities' including social media stars. Whether you care to admit it or not many such people are considerably more famous than those from conventional media and sports backgrounds. And surely what matters is whether they can dance ultimately, not how they cam to fame? Nor should it be forgotten that DWTS is streets ahead in representing minorities, older people (without treating them as cheery old duffers expected to dance with Anton and preferably leave in the first couple of rounds) and the disabled. When Strictly can boast a double leg amputee or a profoundly deaf man, or indeed anyone with any kind of disability among not merely its competitors but its finalists, then I might consider it to have something to teach on contestant choice.