The above question I ask in disappointment because I think this show matters enough to ask seriously whether it's on the right track and whether the ethos of it all is just getting too competitive for it's own good, and will result in little other than a lot of stressed people.

First, the format of the first two weeks, although a good idea to allow more time to see the girls and boys and to be critiqued without Bruce fretting about the running time, had it's drawbacks as it was piling on the pressure for each group on their first week. It should be a show for the celebs to 'bed in' on and for the judges to be relatively easy. They felt more like shows from the middle of last series.

What we have to accept is that three quarters of viewers do not watch ITT, read the forums, know little of the professionals, and only remember the last series vaguely as the one that the cricketer won. They simply look at SCD as a bit of harmless glitz to watch with the family. They may take exception to Bruno saying of the group dance 'you can't beat a good swingers party', -even if it's funny- and Craig telling Georgina to her face that she's useless and making her cry. The judges, no matter how entertaining they are, or like to think they are, are more and more like a private club from which the general public is excluded. It wouldn't have hurt Len either to have said to Louisa 'well, I'd like your posture to be better, work on that for next week', instead of brusquely saying 'I didn't like your top half through that'.

I did a send up of SCD set in the Roman Arena, but satire is becoming fact. I thought it was out of order to have the judges on the highlights show on Sunday to give opinions on who should be out the following Saturday. If I had been Georgina I might have dropped out, as how can you can feel motivated to do your best if you are told you should be out even before you have danced? As it was, I thought she was quite graceful, couldn't understand the level of criticism, and liked it even less.

The general public simply DO NOT CARE about the pernickety details that seem to give a couple of the judges seizures. Darren judged the whole thing perfectly. He went into it for 'a laff', to have fun, and to learn to dance. End of story. It's a light entertainment show. He did with his hands on the final as he'd done with them the whole series. And won. If Craig and Arlene really thought that 'spatula hands' for 3 seconds of a foxtrot mattered a damn to the public then they are idiots. As Darren said, why couldn't they comment on his footwork and on the whole dance? Len and Arlene made far too much fuss about Brendan's lift. Brendan is Brendan, we know he'll do it on the first show, and does it really matter? Couldn't it have just been laughed off, said 'you idiot' and docked a couple of points? No, Claire has to be given 2 unjustified 4s, only because of Brendan's choreography.

And we have the sad case of Jimmy Tarbuck, who according to an interview has been 'badgered' to do each series by the thoughtful production team. He probably agreed in the end not realising the effort required, which is too much for a man who by his own account is on a lot of medication. But the production should be more culpable as they do know. Age is not the issue. This show which seems to be demanding more and more with each series (I had Lilia backing me up on ITT tonight on that) should have all celebrities undertake a medical and fitness test. Average people as most are who are not sportsmen, are simply not able to train for 5 and 6 hours a day without a lot of preparation beforehand.

Only Bruce, the much maligned Bruce on and off DS, somehow keeps a grip on what the show is supposed to be about. Perhaps SCD has become a victim of its own success.

The short answer - no.

The more indepth one. I liked the format of the first couple of weeks. It gave each person more spotlight time than on previous years. I don't agree with this one week to bed in idea because they have a month to train beforehand so it is not as if they're rushed into it and I don't think it would help viewing figures to have a show you couldn't vote on - also it would perhaps mean less money for CiN. It's sad to to see someone go first but that's just the nature of the show.

The judges - I like them just the way they are (well, apart from Arlene but don't get me started on her!). Why shouldn't it be judged with similar standards to professional dancing in mind? Why should they go easy on them? Len and Arlene made a fuss about Brendan's lift because they're passionate about dance and want to see the rules and conventions upheld. Nothing wrong with that in my eyes - especially from Len. He was angry because of Brendan's arrogance and blatant disreguard for the rules.

The general public don't seem to mind Simon Cowell's brand of honesty so why should they mind these guys? I actually think they're comments are interesting because as a non-dancer I learn a lot from their criticisms. I know much more about these dances technically than I did 3/4 years ago and can now spot what they're talking about. I actually get more annoyed when they don't recognise the faults such as Emma's ballsed up ending on Saturday.

Some of the general public may not have cared about Darren's spatula hands but why should Craig and Arlene therefore ignore it? How does it spoil their enjoyment? They are there to do a job after all and should be free to do it.

If I was Georgina and had heard those comments it only would have made me more determined to prove them wrong but I guess it's a personality issue. But the dance world is very tough and very mean and these celebs have to be able to take the criticism.

I do agree that there should have been some kind of medical. I can understand why the producers wanted Tarbuck on there (banter with Brucie and a big 'old style' entertainment name) but no one should be putting themselves at risk.

The way you've written it, you want the judges to basically dumb down because the general public will perhaps be offended or irritated by the terms used. Three series of success seems to say otherwise. I think it's that mix of fairly serious dance competition with traditions, mixed with the light entertainment format that works. Cut out all those little details and it becomes too mindless to really get in to for those who want to.

The celebs have had many weeks before the first show to 'bed in' and get used to the strains and stresses on their bodies. The pro's (well, any pro worth their salt) will have spoken to them and prepared them for the judging section.

Fair comment and they make up the majority of the public vote. But dancers watch the program too and if they saw the panel being soft on the couples and being anything less than honest, they would be up in arms. Why do you think Zoe came in for loads of stick last series? Yes, she did well but no, she was not "a dancer" as the rather excitable Bruno kept shrieking week after week. Being a dancer takes years of hard work, not hours.

They only have a short amount of time to get their points across and heckling from the audience does not help. but I do think that they try too much to come out with a glib soundbite, instead of saying what they mean.

This is new and I am unsure whether it should continue. I will say that if a judge told me that they thougth I would eb out the next week, I would work damn hard to prove them wrong. But that's my competitve streak coming out. It works as a motivational tool for some, but not others.

Sorry, but she was a cold fish on Saturday. No passion, no commitment to the story of the dance and no style.

Yes you are right on the money and that is why you have the Christopher Parkers of the competition getting through to the finals, when he should have been out in week two! It really makes no difference to the public vote and the public will get behind the underdog. So let the panel have their say, pernickety or not. Their scores are just spit in the ocean compared to the number of telephone votes made.

Oh come on, they know full well it doesn't matter to the public, but it does matter to the dancers who watch. The celebs sign up for this program knowing that they are about to enter the world of competitve dance. Why one arth shoudl anybody expect that it shoudl be watered down just so that no-ones sensibilities will be offended?

And as Darren said on Saturday, yes the judges sound a bit harsh but they know what they are talking about and they just want you to be a better dancer. He said that the celebs should "listen and learn"

The lifts were illegal and in a proper competition would have led to them being disqualified. The choreography is down to Brendan and he is responsible for Claire. Anyway, enought has been said on this particular topic. If you want my opinion on the lifts, I think that Brendan took a calculated risk becasue their Rumba was, in fact, quite weak.

Not sure I can agree with you. Tarby is an entertainer from the old school. He was on the bill with troupes of dancers probably before you were born. I'm sure that he knew the level of effort required, but assumed he would go after week one.

I think they should all have a psycholigical profile done, so as to avoid another Fiona/Brendan fiasco!

It seems that with each series the bar gets raised. This is no bad thing in my opinion.

Thanks Nancy1975, yours has been the most interesting post for ages and I have enjoyed arguing the toss with you. I may not agree with everything you say, but you made some good points

Sopt on. Do we really want SCD to be a program where they all trot out to do their bit and the judges say "oh very well done that was lovely" and give everyone ten out of ten?

No. The vital element of SCD is that it gives the celebs a taste of what it means to be a competitive dancer and the public a glimpse of celebs learning a new skill.

I like the fact that the judges tell it like it is what is the point of them saying to everyone that they are great its just pointless.

Precisely. And if they're going to say they were rubbish I want to know why they were rubbish and what the faults were. It is good that they explain these things.

Yes, the judges can be harsh but that's the point of them otherwise how is anyone going to improve?

I started dancing after watching SCD2 and listening to what the judges say help me to understand what I can do to improve too.

I do think that they tend to pick their "favourites" and perhaps put their criticism of their dancing in a slightly nicer way that the ones they don't like and that there is possibly slightly biased marking at times by some. I also think they take into account the public vote sometimes with their marking. Good example was Chris Parker - they would mark him lowest, but the public would still pull him through.

Had they not been so biased towards Zoe when it looked like the public weren't voting for her as strongly as others she probably would have gone a lot sooner

Many thanks for all your feedback.

You all raised really good points, and this is a discussion, not a dispute, I just wanted to throw some stones in a pond as these aspects of the new series haven't been discussed. Not in depth anyway.

But I must add, what I forgot last night that there has in my view been a shocking down grade of the band and singers this series. They have barely been mentioned out front by anybody. Without them, there would be no show at all.

And also, in my opinion when the judges resort to personal abuse (as they do and have done in the past) of people who are not trained dancers it is still uncalled for, no matter how badly they have danced. It's nothing to do with 'dumbing down,' but it's everything to do with acceptable behaviour. It's interesting that when I see backstage footage of the pros while others are dancing they very often look honestly shocked at some of the comments dished out. And they are the toughest people around.

Judges can tell the truth as it is without being overly nasty. They can point out what needs to be improved in a funny way.

Lilia on ITT last night said 'there's a lot of pressure...a lot of pressure'...she's one tough cookie so if she feels it's all getting a bit OTT for what it is then perhaps we need to worry.
Last edited by nancy1975 : 18-10-2006 at 14:03

Just a quick note to say I've enjoyed this thread... would contribute if I had more time.. but off to pack and can't really say what I want to without explaining myself so will have to wait till next week.

Thanks for the posts!

When would you say they've resorted to personal abuse? They certainly say harsh things but it is all about the dancing. Remarks such as 'That had about as much passion as an autopsy' are tough but it was about the dancing and not her as a person. I can't remember a situation where someone has been insulted personally and I certainly don't think it's the norm.

They are generally more careful on the show itself but they are not averse to open their mouths off it as in Arlene on James and Camilla on ITT 'nobody likes them'.

She was talking personally, and not about the dancing.

Personally, I'd like Claudia and ITT to start a week earlier - that is a week before the first Saturday knock-out.

That way you'd be able to get a handle on the celebs and the newer pro dancers and be able to see the training etc so you'd have more of a feel for how they are doing, rather than judging them on the first, rather nervous, 'public' performance.

OK I know I'm probably late writing my reply but I'm bored so wanna put my views in too...

Firstly I don't actually like the format they had this year but to a point it did work... We got introduced to the dancers more then we would have got and the celebs got a little more feedback from the judges then they would have...

I agree that we are only a small minority of viewers on here, and that not everyone cares about what the judges have to say... But they do like the panto of booing the judges....

As for the judges they do what they are paid to do... They are there to judge the couples like they would IF they were professionals... And I think this is good for them because if the judges didn't give them critisim then they wouldn't get better...

I don't like it when the judges don't give constructed critism but I never think they get that personal... On ITT EVERYONE gets personal... And yeah maybe saying who they think should go isn't a good thing for the celeb's but they have to get over it and prove them wrong... It's their opinon and like us they have the right to give it...

As I take dancing lessons I like to know about the little things they pick up because I then take note of this and remember it myself... I know the public don't care but sometimes its good to get these little bits of critism because it will only make you better...

I know that it is tiring and all that but it is for charity... I don't know how many of the celebs would actually pass a fittness test... In Jimmy's case he is older and it might be wrong (defintly on the part of the BBC to bug him into doing it) but I think if you want to take part you should take part... Dancing is for everyone... And yes he is old and the pressure will be getting to him, but then you have the point where will the mark be??? If you stand the fittest mark too high younger people might not be able to reach it either but they would be able to do the work...

I also think its wrong that they haven't talked about the band much this series... They have just as hard a job, if they acciedently go off beat the dancers will too... I just don't believe that noone has mentioned them yet...

I also agree with Mindyann that ITT should start a week earlier... You have all these people complaining about us not talking enough about the new couples but we don't actually know that much about them yet... How they are coming across...

I have enjoyed this thread too.

I don't like the way the first two weeks of SCD were formatted. I think the first week nobody should be knocked out and that way all the couples can dance their best without being nervous of eviction in the first week.

I think the judges could be a bit more professional in their behaviour to one another. It's so rude to shout each other down and belittle each others comments. Everyone has their own take on how the dancers perform, the judges should respect each other not yell their own thoughts when it's someone else's turn.

To add:

Old style showbiz as Jimmy is a veteran of, had pantos rehearsed in a matter of a week or two, and dance routines in an hour. It's not comparable to the intensive boot camp week after week that this show is.

Also, from the interview I referred to before (in the Daily Mail) he gave the impression to me that he had barely seen it, and was persuaded to do it along the lines that it was, in comparison to other reality shows 'a nice show.'

I do not think the judges should 'go easy' on the competitors at all. And celebrities do not need to 'be driven' they already are, that's why they are in the business that they are. I said only on the first week and the phrase 'bed in' I meant in terms of a first performance when you are in all senses still finding your feet. All first performances can be a little rough and ready, and all I'm saying is that the judges should be not so harsh on language. I picked out a few examples as in Len speaking to Louisa, which I thought to a 17 year old was brusque. A few weeks down the line, when you are expecting improvement then yes, indeed you can pick faults and be to the point while you do it.

Generally I think the judges ARE correct. But I cannot go along with the idea that they must always be listened to regardless. I could accept this idea more if they were not on occasions blatantly showing favouritism. When Emma and Darren danced (and I like Emma so this is not against her) I could see the words 'judges favourite' form in flashing neon lights above her. Despite the fact that the end was obviously fluffed it was not referred to, and given a 9. It was the same with Zoe in the final, when she had two feet off the floor in the Samba and got three 10s. If the judging is as vitally important as the judges want it to be, then they should see the faults in their favourites, as well as those that they don't like and want out.

On the very first ITT this series, Craig was on, mentioned Darren and said incredibly that he had been 'hopeless at Latin'. Here's a sample of Craig's scores for Darren's Latin dances: Jive: 7, Rumba: 8, Paso Doble: (on the final) 9.

So he gives those scores and says a year later that he was hopeless? Why do we have to take them as seriously as they seem to think they should be taken?
Last edited by nancy1975 : 19-10-2006 at 14:36

Actually I don't think the end of Emmas quickstep was obviously "fluffed " to be honest. I can see from the camera angle when I got home that it looked as if they weren't doing much at that point, but sideways on in the studio the facial expressions and body movement side on made it look good actually. So from the judges perspective there was nothing to comment on! From a footwork, techinical and choreographic point of view it certainly was the best quickstep of the night, so I have no problem with the marks. The choreography was difficult and demanding, and Emma was spot on in terms of timing and technique. If someone produces a performance like that, the judges have to mark it highly, there would be something drastically wrong if judges marked down just in case people thought it was favouritism.

As far as Louisa is concerned, she did well, but I don't think the judges should be easier on her because she is only 17. She entered the competition on the same basis as everyone else, and should be subject to the same criticisms regardless of age. All the contestants enter the show knowing they will be subject to criticism and rudeness and even quite offensive remarks from the judges, so they know what to expect.

Sometime it does look as if the judges are over marking, or indeed undermarking, but as long as that judge is consistent over all the couples, again I don't have a problem with that. Also, sometimes it depends on what they have awarded a previous couple in relation to the one they are marking at the time. If Bruno had given an 8 to Louisa for instance, and Emma was better, which she was, he had no option but to give a 9 in fairness.

That still doesn't excuse it.

In any case, from what I remember of the first 2 series, and yes, even the 3rd, it was a lot kinder.

Nobody should be chastised like a child. It's not good television to me. Full stop.

And Bruno gave a 7 to Louisa which was correct, and so he should have given an 8 to Emma. Because no matter how great the rest of it was, and it was, it's not worthy of a 9 because the more I see that ending, the worse it is.

Well, I was actually in the studio and no-one in the whole studio found anything wrong with the ending at all! That's all I can say really. Still, if you think it was bad, that's OK. Louisa had footwork problems and was dragged around a bit by Vincent, so Emma was worth two points more. Len was right, that the choreography covered some of the errors, and if anything she was overmarked by some of the judges.

I think actually many people like to watch the judges being rude to the contestants, for the same reason many people watch things like the X Factor (I am not one of them) to see contestants being ripped to shreds. I'm afraid that's now just the way it is. And if the judges were nice all the time, it would probably be quite boring television. I do agree with you about really cruel comments though, which can destroy any confidence people have left.
Last edited by bewest : 19-10-2006 at 15:20

In the studio, you are probably right, but 6 seconds is an awful long time on TV to watch....nothing happening. It was embarrassing.

The point of my thread, is that the production is changing the ethos of the show by a long way from when it started, from a dancing competition to what seems more like a gladiatorial contest. And now that they are giving the judges even more of a platform to air their prejudices on the Sunday highlights, and on the results show (on backstage footage) it's even more important that they should be fair.

But as I said before when you have Craig saying straightfaced of Darren that he was 'hopeless at Latin' and yet at the time giving him high scores, then I'm afraid I can't take them seriously.

Edit: You are right, and that's all I'm saying, is that some of the comments should be ditched. Leave them to more downmarket shows.
Last edited by nancy1975 : 19-10-2006 at 15:22

Maybe the judges are trying to outdo each other in the nasty comment stakes?? You do wonder if they are seeing the same thing as us sometimes!

I admire all the celebs for having a go in front of millions of people really. And it must be heartbreaking to be told you have no talent at all and are completely useless and hopeless. I do think Len usually tries to find something positive to say though.

Absolutely spot on.

I actually wonder (I've only seen clips of first series, and can only remember the last half of the 2nd) whether the judges really were given such prominence as they now have. I don't think they were. Only in this series indeed, are they being pushed out onto other footage as I mentioned above.

Trying to compete with X Factor I suppose in that department. Ho hum.

The marking is always a bone of contention. I always look on Len's as the mark for the dance, if you see what I mean. Craig usually marks under and Bruno over so then averages it out. Sometimes, if you look at the scores averaged between the 4 of them, the average score for each judge will be the same - so Craig will give a 3, Arelene 4, Len a 5 and Bruno a 7 but in actually fact it just means the couple has an average judge mark of 5 each, and I'm sure sometimes they work it out this way and the discrepancy in the marks is just window dressing to keep the interest in the judges - it wouldn't really be that interesting if they agreed on the scores! - and to give the audience someone/thing to boo!

Perhaps that is one way to solve the problem - have the average judge mark rather than the total judge mark decide the placing - or give the judges more room to manoeuvure with a seperate mark for technique and artistic merit - and also the choice of using decimals in the marking. As said earlier, if a judge gives a 9 and someone is better then there is no where elso to go other than a 10 - even if the 10 was not a perfect performance. Len has justified this by saying the 10 does not reflect perfection just the best performance on the night, but I am just a bit wary with Emma getting 8's and 9's on the first show they are backing themselves into a marking corner - and to me, that does devalue the 10 too.
Last edited by mindyann : 19-10-2006 at 16:09

As for the averaging you are absolutely correct -Bruno often overmarks (and arlene has been known to give the highest marks of the 4 if she sees 'the passion!' ) and Craig is often too harsh.
Len is usually the fairest so his mark is a fair indicator.

However, with regards to Emma on Sat they really could not have given her less than an 8 as it was the best dance of the night and others who werent as good got 7's and 8's.
Perhaps a 9 was a bit OTT but thats Bruno for you!

In regards to the original question: Does anyone else think the script for Bruce and Tess seems to have been dumbed down and ITVified this year?
As well as no mention of the band, when they were about to read out the names at the end of the results show there was a lot of over melodramatic language. Maybe Tess was told to fill as they got timings wrong but several times it didn't sound like the show used to to me. Any thoughts?

Think the whole feel of the show has been dumbed down .
Think they are cutting the training footage in avery odd way to try and bring out some sort of competitiveness that isnt really there .

Think they are trying to foster "personalities" before they have actually developed in front of the camera and are trying to manipulate us .

I actually feel they are doing an X factor on us

If I wanted SCD to be X factor I would watch X factor

I want something that doesnt insult my intelligence instead