... especially seeing as all the next couples up from Peter were having-bad-weeks-but-otherwise-good.

I apologse if this is not the correct thread for this but you seem to be able to have a sensible debate. The thread title of other appropriate places have just completely put me off. But I needed to say this.

To keep OT, as a member of the public I want to try and explain why I cannot vote for Emma and Darren (but never say never). I thought it was the best samba, possibly the best dance. It was a lovely routine and deserved the high marks it got from the judges.

Normally I would leave it there but Arlene made it an issue for me by her comments after the dance, something like - the public, competitors and celebrities should note that she didn’t really dance previously and now we are seeing her dance. Of course, we are seeing her dance and improve but I want to explain why I am unable to vote for Emma.

If you take a look at her solo music videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG3bJbzKwvw
she makes a lot of beautiful poses with a few simple steps. These are not skills that she learnt for her private enjoyment, they are intricately bound-up with her professional recording career and very important to her recording company.

When I watch Emma and Darren’s dance, I exclude these poses which show great extension and connection with the audience as I believe they are the bit that has been professional taught prior to SCD. So I’m only left with the steps where she is moving around the floor and they don’t show the same quality at all. In my opinion they are a little slow and sometimes leaden. Within the context of this programme I really enjoy her dancing, I think she’s absolutely lovely to look at and up until Arlene’s comment I was happy to keep my opinion to myself.

I accept that for me she can’t win my vote at the moment, because these poses are intricately part of the female latin dance. But I’m more than happy that my one vote makes no difference to her progression and look forward to seeing her dance each week.

I hope people can accept its how I feel but I am interested in different opinions or views on this post.
Last edited by gritty : 12-11-2006 at 23:05

I did notice on the downtown video some of her little bits, even though they were very simple, were beautifully done - to be precise, the moment 43-44 seconds into the video, her arm movements, was very elegantly done IMO.

I don't think it would stop me voting for her, her having that background, but we're all different

If your view is extended though, many of the competitors would be disadvantaged perhaps clouding our impressions of their true ability. For instance, Louisa and Jill from SCD2 are actors, so should we therefore ignore the emotion/performace side because they've had training? Should we put to one side the athletic movements that Mark is able to make? Although I can understand that it is not fair to have someone with any dance training on the show, I really don't think Emma's poses equate to that much. If all she did was pose, she would never be still in the competition. There may be all sorts of factors that help each celebrity in their dancing.

I liked the quote Matt made about being a sportsman the other day - "It's not the edge. It's AN edge."

I think the same can be said of dance training except if someone was actually trained in ballroom.

That quotation sums it up nicely

Its not that easy. You are applying a logic that looks logical if you want to reward something else other than just doing something well but actually isn't logical at all.

The first problem is that you don't have the data. If you penalised Emma for dancing experience you would have to penalise everyone else and you can't do that because you don't know what anyone did at school, night classes, drama school, university, in a previous job or for a hobby.You could penalise Emma for plodding through a video or five whilst Carol studied ballet as a kid and Louisa topped her dancing class for all we know. You also would have to decide what counted - being fit, running, or even going to a fitness class would be an enormous benefit on SCD - are you going to vote for the fat slob as they have no advantages?

The second is that the experience you cite may not be real and if it is may not be transferable. Pop videos can be recorded and re-recorded ad infinitum with someone shouting out what foot to move next and the bits spliced (and spiced) up. Arlene's point is that what you see looking good may look vastly different if you watched it being put together on the day. Len would probably add that he doesn't want people dancing like Spice Girls on his show anyway. he might add that a music video would be choreographed to include what the singers could doand not, like a set dance, test them on what they couldn't do. The most dramatic moves in Spice videos from what I recall anyway are done by Mel C who is a trained dancer - its not as if its a major part of Emma's contribution - her star roles are walking seductively whilst singing her leads and most women can manage that.

The overall proposition is also questionable - particularly this series. You are in effect saying that you won't vote for the better performers because they are better but are assuming someone will vote for them so the people who can actually dance end up in the final. The basic problem is that if enough people do this we would have Georgina, Peter and Jan in the final. The more specific point is that in this series the public are regularly moving people 5 places up and down the order between the judges and the final order - we know this by who gets into the bottom two and who doesn't and what this tells us about who had what public vote. The result of that is that no one - except possibly the people coming first - is safe, and people in the good middleground like Spoony and Ray are going. Thats because voting to save Georgina or to reward Peter for trying has consequences - someone else goes and, if people save the weakest performers its as certain as night follows day that someone stronger will go.
Last edited by thenetworkbabe : 13-11-2006 at 02:32

Is there anything that says we're supposed to vote for the dance, though?

Indeed, doesn't the programme in effect say the opposite? If someone gets a low score from the judges, Tess tells us they really need our votes.

Not only that: if it's all supposed to be about the best dances, why have the public vote at all? The answer might be: to correct the standings when the judges get it wrong.

Note that both ways of thinking (the previous two paragraphs) in effect say: vote against the judges.

Vote against the judges either to "save your faavourite" or (if you're voting for the dancing) because you think the judges undermarked or overmarked one or more of the couples.

People who agree with the judges have much less to motivate voting at all.
Last edited by Veri : 13-11-2006 at 02:51

The basic proposition isn't right from what we know of the voting. People are not voting on personality - at least not decisively for most of the contestants who have featurd in eth bottom two . Whats happening is that the same people move up the overall order with big public votes one week but fall into the bottom two another. If its the same same people with the same story , usually dancing better when they go, people can't be voting on personality or story or effort or performance. Its not even fans voting more to save their favourite when they are at risk - or if they are the same fans are deserting them as soon as they appear in the unsafe middle of the judges order . Its happened to Georgina, Jan, Claire and Peter - all of whom were taken out of the bottom two by the public placing them at least 4 or 5 places higher in the public vote. We know its happening on a large scale, because people near the top of the judges order are ending in the bottom two whilst people right at bottom with the judges are safe because they must have got in the top half or even top 3 or 4 of the public vote. Its not a fantasy - its what simple addition tells us.

The only common denominator is that people at the bottom of the judges order move up dramatically thanks to the public vote and leapfrog better people above them, Once might be a special case - every week is a pattern. Who goes isn't being decided on performance or personality - who doesn't go and who goes instead is being decided by people voting to save whoever the judges like least.

Re Emma Bunton - if her previous training didn't make a significant difference, isn't it a bit surprising that she's so good? She's a random member of a largely talentless manufactured group.

But realising the middle is unsafe is perhaps not so easy to do?

Can I just make a point in that Ray wasn't straight ' in the middle' last night - he was second last.
Last edited by Cami_27 : 13-11-2006 at 07:33

But if you say 'you should vote for the best' was Ray the best? He was one of the better dancers generally, but can any of us afford to vote for 5 or 6 contestants so the worst goes?

The point is, What makes you pick up the phone? There are the people who are going to vote for their favourite however they dance. Some people ring for who they thought was the best - and the trouble is that Ray wasn't the best last night. Some ring because they are angry at the way someone was treated - I bet Carol got a huge vote - or because they feel for someone having the guts to go out and embarrass themselves - massive vote for Peter. With big votes for the last and third from last, Ray and Clare, second and fourth to last, were left in the bottom two. Nobody actively voted Ray off.

I feel they go into the show knowing that Spencer got into the final and that Julian got into final over Aled and that Darren last year won over Colin and Zoe - that it isn't all about dance technique. I completely sympathise with all the frustration - I'm so sad Ray is out, but then I didn't vote for him, so how can I be?

There's a lot of pity-votes, when people are voting for somebody they are afraid could go and don't vote for somebody who's good, expecting they'd get enough votes from somebody else. Which paradoxically leads to a situation, when favourites have to leave.

I think that the person who ends up winning will deserve to win. They will have put upwards of 3 months' worth of hard work into the show and connected with the public on some level which has encouraged people to vote for them.

If Peter wins (shouldn't think so for a minute but you never know) he will deserve it just as much as someone like Emma or Louisa. It isn't like he is just faffing around - he is genuinely trying and putting in the work. OK, so he isn't as naturally talented as some of the others but he is probably ahead on things like work ethic and dedication.

Again people vote for different things - Darren won because he was the most improved dancer. From where he started to where he finished was amazing. Should Peter be voted off purely because in the lottery of natural talent he was somewhere towards the back?

No you're right I agree.

I watched the highlights again last night and can completely see why people voted for Peter.

Ok it wasn't technically the best but has to be marked amongst the top for the most entertaining.

He is not the worst every week, when they have ballroom they reguarly receive good comments and scores he just has a weakness with the Latin.

The problem is that people can vote throughout the week and so it's never going to be just about the dance! Of course (as per X Factor) having votes only after all the performances does not stop voting for favourites, but it doesn't help. This week even though Peter was bottom, and the standard was so high that I felt he should go, I knew there was no way he would.

... of course, it's not so with all SCD fans but the RFBs have the edge in voting power I fear. If people voted a) purely on the CELEBRITY and then b) even 75% on performance/ability and 25% on personality/populariity, then I think we'd have a different group of celebs left in at the moment. I feel really sorry for Ray and Spooney - both of whom showed more ability & application than some of the ones left in and fear for those like Louisa (who regularly gets a pasting on this forum for no good reason that I can see). The popularity vote swung it last year for sure (Darren Gough - lovely bloke that he is - wasn't a patch on poor Colin Jackson) and I'd bet it will this year. It's a shame but I guess that's the nature of "reality" shows. If it didn't stick in my craw so much, I'd be tempted to have a wager on jolly Peter or smug Claire to carry off the crown.

I almost think it is unfair to vote according to the dance. I think everybody should vote for their favourite personality, the person who appears to work the hardest, the most determined and the biggest character.

I'm a huge Peter supporter and I shall continue to vote for him regardless of how he dances. He has got such a major disadvantage compared to some of the other celebs, due to his huge-ness, and he is never going to be a great dancer, but he is trying so hard and seems so willing to perform well, and for me he is one of the biggest characters in the show.

I know he can't win, but I want to cringe when watching him dance every week, at least it is so much more entertaining than most of the other boring celebs, which seem to share the same dance abaility, ie just great. The standard is very high this time, and it will be hard to pick a winner, so why not keep voting for Peter for a bit of fun and let him bring something a bit different to an otherwise very samey show.

Besides Emma will probably win regardless, I don't want to whisper "fix", but she is obviously the judges favourite and has recorded the Children in Need single.

It strikes me that a large number of the voting public won't know enough about the technicalities of dance to vote specifically for whether or not the dance was good - that's what the judges are for.
Therefore it must be a popularity contest. Anyone who votes has their own reasons for voting for whoever it is that they vote for.
Whether that's
"OMG, I luv emma lol!" or
"Phoooaaaaar, I fancy Mark"
or "Go on Peter, you're a trier and I loved that save you made in...."
or "Brendan is lush"
or "Awww, she's only 17, you know"
or "Lilia is my hero" or
"Carol and Matthew look so elegant and hasn't she got gorgeous legs?"

The number of people who vote who actually know enough about dancing to make an informed decision on the performance on the night is pretty small, I'd think. So how can the public vote be anything else apart from a popularity contest?
I don't think there's anything wrong with that either - it's an entertainment show and if people are being entertained by it, surely that's the main thing. People would ring up regardless of whther the money was going to children in need or not, so while it's nice that theBBC do give money to Chilrden in Need, I doubt very much that that's the reason anyone actually votes.
Last edited by Espresso : 13-11-2006 at 12:16

Firstly, I agree that Peter is a likeable chap and is "working very hard" - but likeability aside, don't you think they ALL are (working hard) ? In the personality stakes, he is so up there - along with Mark, Louisa and Carol for me. For reasons inexplicable to me, I just cannot warm to either Emma or Claire at all - yet I can live with the fact that Emma is getting consistently top or near top marks because she's performed so well. Just think, as I said before, that the show suffers if voting is purely based on popularity. As someone else on another thread said - if skill and ability is going to be disregarded why not just have "Strictly Chop Vegetables" ?

I do think the phone voting would be slightly pointless if we were in fact voting for the best dances. Realistically, only about half the contestants would receive any votes. You might argue that Mark was better than Matt, Louisa better than Emma etc, but did anyone think Ray, Carol, or Peter were actually the best on Saturday? Effectively, if we only voted for the best dances, the judges would decide who left. Peter got the lowest judge score, so he would be gone.

I'm completely guilty of the fact that, having decided who my favourite celeb is, I will probably vote more when he gets a bad mark just because I want him to dance again. I'm not voting because I'm a fan of his career, I'm voting because I enjoy his performances. If he does a bad one, I vote anyway because I still want to see him next week. I actually think "vote for your favourite" is justified along this line.

I find it hard to understand sympathy voters though. The weirdest thing is how fickle they are! Georgina gets masses of votes when she dances terribly, yet the one week she gets a few marks, they all stop voting! Loads of people worried it was Holby City fans keeping her in, but the same thing has happened with others, eg. Fiona.

It's as if there are thousands of people out there, phones at the ready, thinking "hmm... she looks awful, she definitely deserves to stay"
Last edited by katie_p : 13-11-2006 at 12:30

You're right about the majority of the public not being au fait with the technicalities (myself included) and that IS why the judges are needed. BUT we can appreciate the way the dances are performed and while we might not know exactly why something looks jerky or out of time, we can spot something that is visually pleasing and entertaining.

How many of us actually understand the finer details of British Foreign Policy or the goings on of the G8 summit - it's terrifying to thing that we would elect our government on the basis of a jolly disposition or someone who appeared to be trying hard......but then again.....
(And before RFBs get on my case - yes, I know SCD isn't meant to be taken SO seriously as who we elect to run the country!)

And if they were going to discount personality then it would be a Saturday night show only featuring just the dancing and the scoring. There would be no VT clips saying how they are doing it for their family/children/parents/various deceased relatives, saying how hard they are finding it, how they now love dancing and want to carry on even though they are down a few toe nails. There would be no ITT with clips of training and and repeats of the above!
The BBC deliberately put the personalities into the show. If it were purely on the dancing there would be no voting through the week - that has to be personality based 'cos it sure as heck isn't based on a dance you haven't even seen in training yet! If you don't want the result to be influenced by personality - then don't add the personality to it.

But how many people would get so involved and feel compelled to vote in that case?

For the BBC the show could be about anything - they tried dancing once 4 years ago and it caught on and was popular and so they have stuck with it. If people would phone in and vote on the best veg chopper, then I'd hazzard a guess that that making a programme around it wouldn't be beneath them.

I think what happened on Saturday showed the problem with having the lines open all week. That is purely personality voting. Peter Schmichael may not be the greatest latin dancer, but he does have a huge fan base that knew he was in real danger of being kicked out this week. My little brothers don't even watch the show but they heard a clip of a judge attacking Schmichael and reached for the phone.

Ray and Camilla on the other hand, were a victim of their own success. No one would have predicted that they would get bad marks, not with a latin and not the week after they did so well with the V Waltz, so even die hard fans prob weren't too concerned about getting the votes in early. All week they were considered one of the safe couples just like Spoony. I think it was obvious when you saw them 2nd from bottom that it was them that were out, it just seemed to late to stop it. This week I'll be getting my vote for Mark in early just to be sure.

What surprised me was that Claire and Brendan were in the bottom two. I imagined that they were one of the popular couples with the public, so to come out bottom when they ranked so well with the judges was a bit of a shock.