|
||||||||
It is NOT a "DANCE" competition |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 19,242
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,391
|
I disagree with the thread title as it stands it should read that it's not JUST a dance competition.
If it wasn't why have 4 people with dance expertise to judge and critique the dancers? |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Under the sparkly pink tree.
Posts: 695
|
The show's whatever you want to take out of it, whether you lean more towards loving the dance aspect, the entertainment aspect or a mixture of both..
I just wish people would stop pouting and throwing themselves about or acting like they are superior when other people enjoy the contestants who entertain them the most, even when those contestants might not be technically that good. If the public vote a contestant back for another week then they entertained a larger number of people than the person who was voted off and deserve to be there, end of story. I also wish people would stop shouting 'ringer' at every contestant who ever took a few dance classes in their life. As others have pointed out, there have been contestants with prior dance training appearing since the very first series. The mix of prior ability and also the mix of fitness levels (because the sports stars could also be said to have an advantage with their core fitness, stamina, being used to hard training etc) means there's something for everyone to enjoy. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 23,347
|
Good post OP. I really enjoy watching the great performances from the stronger participants, but I always find myself getting behind the contestants who struggle a bit, make their dances memorable, and go on that 'journey'.
It's why I've been voting for Ed, Judge Rinder and Greg each week (and also Lesley before she went out) . They are beginners who are really loving their Strictly experience, and who are really trying hard to improve and giving us some entertaining and memorable performances along the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,111
|
Quote:
I do wish people would Really understand that this is NOT a dance competition if it were then we the Great British public would NOT get our say as the majority of us probably are not dance experts or trained to judge.
This is a prime time Saturday evening family entertainment show, the original format was to take "celebrities" and teach them to dance, alas because more and more "able to dance in the first place" celebs are invited to take part it somehow clouds those with no experience whatsoever who are genuinely trying their best. Alas as people have got used to the "better abled" celebs those who are REALLY trying their very best are constantly slammed on here - so unfair.. I enjoyed the show much more when it wasn't so blooming predictable - the judges too need to get a grip and stop having obvious favourites. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,792
|
Quote:
I do wish people would Really understand that this is NOT a dance competition if it were then we the Great British public would NOT get our say as the majority of us probably are not dance experts or trained to judge.
This is a prime time Saturday evening family entertainment show, the original format was to take "celebrities" and teach them to dance, alas because more and more "able to dance in the first place" celebs are invited to take part it somehow clouds those with no experience whatsoever who are genuinely trying their best. Alas as people have got used to the "better abled" celebs those who are REALLY trying their very best are constantly slammed on here - so unfair.. I enjoyed the show much more when it wasn't so blooming predictable - the judges too need to get a grip and stop having obvious favourites. The judges are allowed to have favourites - that little thing called opinion again. The whole show is subjective, people are entitled to like or dislike whoever and whatever they want. If people want to judge it on the dancing, and treat it as a dancing show, then that's up to them, their prerogative, not wrong. The format has always been celebs learning to dance ballroom and Latin dancing. There has never been and never will be a criterion that the celeb has to never have done any sort of dancing before, because that would probably rule out about 80% of celebs in general. There have always been good and bad dancers - that's how the show works, not how you describe it. It's always been a mixture and it can't be any other way. What's so hard to understand about that I will never know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,021
|
If it isn't a dance competition but an entertainment show lets rename it Strictly Come Entertaining
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 8,256
|
Quote:
It used to be a dance competition for beginners and the public to enjoy their journey, but now it's a platform for trained dancers to get some exposure and get some good breaks. BBC might as well show the British and World dance championships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 399
|
Part of the charm for me is the mix of abilities. It'd be excruciating for me to see 12 Greg and Eds and maybe pretty boring to see 12 Louise and Dannys. Ultimately who I want to win is the couple I look forward to and keep rewatching.
Usually that turns out to be one of the better dancers, but not always. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,398
|
Quote:
Part of the charm for me is the mix of abilities. It'd be excruciating for me to see 12 Greg and Eds and maybe pretty boring to see 12 Louise and Dannys. Ultimately who I want to win is the couple I look forward to and keep rewatching.
Usually that turns out to be one of the better dancers, but not always. The only couple that I have rewatched loads have been Danny and Oti. I rewatched a couple of Ed's dances to see if I could enjoy them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: DANNYWUZROBBED
Posts: 3,464
|
Quote:
There's a little word called opinion in the dictionary - go and look it up. People are entitled to like the better dancers and dislike the weaker ones if they want to. And to say that the better dancers aren't trying their best is just ridiculous.
The judges are allowed to have favourites - that little thing called opinion again. The whole show is subjective, people are entitled to like or dislike whoever and whatever they want. If people want to judge it on the dancing, and treat it as a dancing show, then that's up to them, their prerogative, not wrong. The format has always been celebs learning to dance ballroom and Latin dancing. There has never been and never will be a criterion that the celeb has to never have done any sort of dancing before, because that would probably rule out about 80% of celebs in general. There have always been good and bad dancers - that's how the show works, not how you describe it. It's always been a mixture and it can't be any other way. What's so hard to understand about that I will never know. ![]() The only fact is that the BBC perceived and conceived Strictly as an entertainment show first and foremost. If you're entertained by Ed doing Gangnam Style salsa or mad scientist Cha Cha Cha more than you are by Louise's AT or Danny's Charleston and vote accordingly, that's just as valid as someone being entertained by and voting for the latter. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Knaresborough, North Yorks
Posts: 23,889
|
Quote:
I do wish people would Really understand that this is NOT a dance competition..
Quote:
This is a prime time Saturday evening family entertainment show, the original format was to take "celebrities" and teach them to dance,
But you just said it wasn't dance competition. So which is it? ![]() Quote:
alas because more and more "able to dance in the first place" celebs are invited to take part it somehow clouds those with no experience whatsoever who are genuinely trying their best.
None of the entrants in this, or any other year's competition have any ballroom or latin dance experience. And no, 'stage school' many years ago and 'pop star dancing' is not the same thing.Quote:
Alas as people have got used to the "better abled" celebs those who are REALLY trying their very best are constantly slammed on here - so unfair.. I enjoyed the show much more when it wasn't so blooming predictable - the judges too need to get a grip and stop having obvious favourites.
They're only 'favouring' the ones who can actually dance. How many times in this season have we heard one or more of them say "I really don't know why you're in the dance-off".Quote:
To try to improve. That's part of the entertainment.
Quote:
No ... it's never been that ... even the first series had ringers in it ...
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,792
|
Quote:
There is a difference though between saying "I prefer seeing the best dancers get further / I choose to vote for the celebs I think are the best dancers" or similar (opinion - fine) and "this is a DANCING competition, people who vote for the weakest dancers are ruining the show" (paraphrasing but I've seen that sort of post every year as soon as a so-called weaker dancer stays in when a "better" dancer goes home) as though it were a fact.
It's not fact any more than people saying a dance by a less able dancer is more entertaining. They might find it more entertaining, but that's their opinion, and not everyone will agree with that, so that's no more right than anyone else's view. People who say it's an entertainment show need to respect that people view entertainment in different ways, and for some people dancing is entertainment and they're entitled to judge the show accordingly if they wish to do so. It's not a rule that one has to agree with how the BBC defines the show! |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,354
|
What's the point of spending hours to train if you don't need to be a good dancer?
This is actually an insulting thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,398
|
Quote:
What's the point of spending hours to train if you don't need to be a good dancing?
This is actually an insulting thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: DANNYWUZROBBED
Posts: 3,464
|
Quote:
If that's their opinion then I don't see the problem with saying it at all - I'm perfectly happy to say that the weaker dancers staying in over the good ones ruins the show for me and I can't fathom why anyone would vote for Ed Balls, because for me the dancing is paramount. I hate the gimmicks, I hate the props, I hate the lack of content in some of the routines. That's my opinion, my perspective on what does and doesn't make the show enjoyable for me. For me it is and should be more a dancing competition than anything else, and so whenever a weaker dancers gets much further in the competition than they should, then I'm not happy about it.
It's not fact any more than people saying a dance by a less able dancer is more entertaining. They might find it more entertaining, but that's their opinion, and not everyone will agree with that, so that's no more right than anyone else's view. People who say it's an entertainment show need to respect that people view entertainment in different ways, and for some people dancing is entertainment and they're entitled to judge the show accordingly if they wish to do so. It's not a rule that one has to agree with how the BBC defines the show! To completely disregard what the show sets out to be because you (generic you) think it should be something else is like watching Eastenders every week and complaining that yet again it failed to make you laugh and why don't those actors leave so they can get some better comedians on. You might still watch it, you might get the odd scene that fulfils your personal brief but you're never going to be satisfied because your expectations for what you want the show to be are at odds to what it actually is. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 3,525
|
Its not a dance competition, its a light entertainment show based on dancing. You are asked to vote for your favourite and not actually the best dancer. If it was a dance competition, the public would not be voting, the judges would decide the winner.
As we have seen many times, the person that wins is just the most popular and not necessarily the best dancer. No celeb is actually taught to dance, they are taught choreographed steps to a set piece of music. The Pro will teach them some technique which will improve the LOOK of the dance, but that falls way short of learning to dance. Without the set choreography in place, without the "song" that they are familiar with, the celeb would be lost if any other track was played in its place |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,120
|
Quote:
Funny, I thought it was called Strictly Come Dancing, not Strictly Come Entertaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 3,525
|
Quote:
Me too!
Authentic music is played at comps in strict tempo, not any old random song ( hate vocals to dance to) made to fit, comps do not have props, dancers wear authentic costuming rather than something to fit a theme, there are no themes in competitions. What they do at Strictly is to entertain us on a Saturday night, loosely based around dancing. Put ANY of these celebs on a proper comp floor, when the music starts, they would not have a clue. |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
It is not a dance competition for many reasons. Public would not be voting it is was. Competitions have competitors dancing against each other, same dance, same music on the floor at the same time so you can compare.
Authentic music is played at comps in strict tempo, not any old random song ( hate vocals to dance to) made to fit, comps do not have props, dancers wear authentic costuming rather than something to fit a theme, there are no themes in competitions. What they do at Strictly is to entertain us on a Saturday night, loosely based around dancing. Put ANY of these celebs on a proper comp floor, when the music starts, they would not have a clue. |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 477
|
Absolutely. People get so anal on here and the show is listed as light entertainment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,556
|
SCD is getting to be a bit of a Farce, you can't take it seriously while you have a comic presenter, a comic judge and comic choreography created for dad dancers. Imho it shouldn't be called SCD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: little england
Posts: 13,867
|
If it's just a bit of fluff on a Saturday evening to entertain us why do some people get so angry about 'ringers'? Why take it so seriously if it's just prime time telly and definitely NOT a dance competition?
When I watch Strictly I want to see great dancing. I want to see performances that look like the dance they're meant to be. Watching people like Balls/ Sargeant / Widdicombe grates on me and I don't find it entertaining. Watching fantastic dancing does entertain me. Why is there this insistence that good dancing and entertainment are separate things? |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,792
|
Quote:
If it's just a bit of fluff on a Saturday evening to entertain us why do some people get so angry about 'ringers'? Why take it so seriously if it's just prime time telly and definitely NOT a dance competition?
When I watch Strictly I want to see great dancing. I want to see performances that look like the dance they're meant to be. Watching people like Balls/ Sargeant / Widdicombe grates on me and I don't find it entertaining. Watching fantastic dancing does entertain me. Why is there this insistence that good dancing and entertainment are separate things? But that doesn't mean it isn't or can't be a dance competition - the celebrities are competing to get the best scores from the judges and the most support from the public. They're doing so by spending a lot of time learning dance routines and performing them on a Saturday night. For the vast majority of them the actual dancing and getting the steps right with as much correct technique as possible is a huge part of that, so to that extent it absolutely is a dance competition and I don't see how anyone can say otherwise. No-one said it was solely a dance competition, or a professional standard dance competition, but that doesn't mean it's not a competition! |
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: DANNYWUZROBBED
Posts: 3,464
|
Quote:
If it's just a bit of fluff on a Saturday evening to entertain us why do some people get so angry about 'ringers'? Why take it so seriously if it's just prime time telly and definitely NOT a dance competition?
When I watch Strictly I want to see great dancing. I want to see performances that look like the dance they're meant to be. Watching people like Balls/ Sargeant / Widdicombe grates on me and I don't find it entertaining. Watching fantastic dancing does entertain me. Why is there this insistence that good dancing and entertainment are separate things? I'm not sure anyone has said good dancing can't be entertaining. The point being made is that it's not the only thing that people can find entertaining about the show. Which is exactly how the Beeb have always wanted it. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:42.




