Basically, Strictly Come Dancing is a live show on Sats and Sundays that - if you exclude the fat slob Peter Kay - is safe family viewing.
It is watchable precisely because all the dancers refuse to accept the "Generation Game" perception of the show and the amateur contestants take a real pride in their improving prowess. Greg Rutherford's tears were genuine.

The life on the Forums is a strange jungly beast that prowls across the ether, swallowing, then spitting out, thousands of keyboard tappers every week.

This is a social phenomenon that escaped all science fiction writers in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and even the 1980s. They just didn't see it coming.

It's a Saturday night TV show whose primary aim is to get as many viewers as possible. To that end, it offers something for multiple demographics and tastes. It's not six of one and half a dozen of the other by accident. It's like it on purpose.


The end.

Good points. But to be honest, if I want to see good dancing, I wouldn't tune in to Strictly. However what I like to see, is the committment to dance, for the celebs wanting to be the best they can be in any given week, to see how they cope with the dance, the training, then the end result....all in a week. Kudos to them and the pro's.

The same mix of able/less able celeb dancers, great professional teachers, entertaining judges, fun presenters, glitz, glamour, etc has worked & pulled in millions of viewers for is it 14 series' now so I REALLY don't see the Beeb changing a winning formula anytime soon & I for one couldn't be more delighted!!

Whether you view it as dancing or entertainment is down to personal opinion I guess but personally I see no problem in viewing it as both!!

Every season has had "ringers" in it given the criterion for being a SCD "ringer" from Claire Sweeney through Jill Halfpenny and Jay McGuinness and now to Danny Mac - ringer in this instance being someone who has had stage school experience which includes an element of dance training.


Thanks Jennifer, I've said this many times over the years. The celebrities are taught a specific set of steps to a specific piece of music for a specific routine. They're not being taught to dance as most people would understand that terminology.

I could count on probably one hand the number of celebrities who might have been able to "freestyle" a routine and put the steps they'd used to a different piece of music.

Exactly, put a celeb on the dance floor and play any random track unknown to them, ballroom or latin, and I doubt that they would be able to distinguish whether it was a waltz or foxtrot for example, neither would they be able to then dance any recognisable steps, dancing ON TIME. A dancer learns to "hear" the timing so you know what dance it is, you also know how to start on time etc., starting at any point in the music.
We don' t expect this from the celebs of course, but they just learn steps to music. This is the reason why, if they get to the finals, they still dance to the same pieces of music they did first time around.

[quote=mimi dlc;84631741.
It's an entertainment programme based around dancing[/QUOTE]

Agree, just as Dancing on Ice is an entertainment programme based around moving on the ice.

I know it wasn't a "freestyle" but what you say here reminds me of Aliona and Jay's showdance last year which was absolutely magical for me. I know Aliona was criticised for her choreography but I loved seeing Jay dancing all the steps he had learned from the start of the show.

I understand trish,

Spot on. As ever.

I thought most people knew that? Surely? Seriously?

It was ever thus

I agree. Channels can always be switched if content is lacking or not entertaining enough. Why bother to watch?

I was going to ask the same question.

Now that gets my vote.

IMO yes the best dancer should win as the show is called Strictly Come DANCING

I loved their show dance to. It was original and artistic, not flashy.

It is at our house! We are the judges, so there.

If it's not a dancing show then why are pro dancers hired to teach celebs how to DANCE?

It is a dance competition. But not a dance competition based on the technically best dancer. Instead it's based on:
- charisma
- professional partnership
- entertainment
- choreography

In the year when the standard is apparently the highest it's ever been, all these things are going to count even more than dance technique.

Louise is still there.
Still want to push that theory?

Thought the show was called Strictly Come Dancing.

What have I been watching for the last 12 years?

A prime time Saturday entertainment show where the aim is, through judges' scores and public votes, to find the most popular celebrity that has achieved a pretty good standard of dancing and has hopefully improved from their starting point.

So it's an entertainment show that involves dancing but it's not a dancing competition?

Except it never was. Its had trained dancers in the mix since series 2 with Jill . Tom was a pre-run of Danny. Tom trained with the national youth musical theatre, and at Guildford, Danny did 3 years at arts ed. Both went to a top drama college, and must have been good at 18 to even get in - as they are very competitive. Of course they can learn and perform a dance routine - they spent 3 years learning how.

What Strictly hasn't had is a good journey story for some time -where someone did really improve to win . its also been short of really top, memorable, performances for some time.

Thats partly because its had some winners who just grabbed a female fanbase , some winners who were hyped up by the judges for gains they hadn't made, and some who were the most interesting of those left after a surprise departure. . Meanwhile, some people's journeys ended because they got too tired, or started up on other commitments, or got dud music and a difficult dance in a week where others got something they could shine in., or went, so the comedy act could stay.

Its also deteriorated as they have put in more good dancers to counter the possibility that the public vote will remove too many good performers , and because they have now seemingly stopped having such a big group of weak beginners. Thats meant the average is better, but they are not finding any surprises, or massive improvement stories. And some decent prospects who might develop, have to go earlier while the are still behind the pack. They also failed to pick up really big names this year - they are now down to Bronze medallists in an Olympic year., soap actors and forgotten ex singers. There's no Jackson, Pendelton or Lewis - partly because they don't pay enough ,and partly because most 2016 Olympians are going on to 2020. .And a side effect of having more good, but not outstandin, g dancers, or stories, is that there's little point picking one of a larger group of good prospects, because there's a smaller chance they will reach the final, or the judges will care about them.

It looks as if they now don't actually care about the content, They pick enough trained people to have a reliable final, spend some money on staging and supporting dancers to make it look a bit spectacular, select who they want to keep , for whatever reason, and pick one story to hype if they can be bothered.

Yes, it is.

Just because it's not a professional ballroom dance competition does not mean it's not a dancing competition.