This seems to be one of those cases where the individual decisions are reasonable but the collective result is "perverse".

There's nothing wrong with people voting for their favourite or to save someone they like who is in danger of going, but the result can be that dancing better makes it more likely that you'll go. (That's the "perverse" part.) Apart from the hihg scorers, where obviously it does help to dance better, dancing better can just get you out of the "in danger" category so that you lose the "save" vote (and much of the "judges got it wrong" vote as well).

Also, the best dancers are in a way protected, because the middle-ranking dancers who might become good enough to challenge them are eliminated. The result is a less interesting competion.
Last edited by Veri : 13-11-2006 at 12:50

I've done my own thread on this (I was bloodyminded and voted for entertainment). Sorry folks, but you shouldn't underestimate the public. I never have. By and large the right person wins in the end. But I thought Peter was more deserving of a vote on Saturday than Ray and I explain why on thread.

After reading this, it took me a few moments to drag up my jaw from the floor! How can voting according to the dance almost be an unfair way of voting? This is after all a dance competition. I agree that personality comes into it; indeed, it will often help to improve the performace. However it should not the overriding factor. If the vote is solely on personality, hard-work and who is the biggest character, then a mockery is made of the whole competition. Under the suggested way of voting above, we might as well just have a bunch of celebs come onto the floor and just wiggle about a bit (if that!), and then just vote on "personality".

I'd also like to say that whilst most of the public don't have an idea of the technicalities of dance, you'd have to be complete donkey not to be able to tell the difference between,say, Peter's samba and Emma's, and I think we are all exposed enough to dancing (from shows like this, dancers in music videos, and just from family weddings!) to be able to know whether a dance was better than another. Therefore, we shouldn't just say "I'm not a dance expert, so I'll just go on personality instead".
Last edited by mr.bojangles : 13-11-2006 at 15:27

quite right it's a DANCING competition not a f*****g catwalk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But if the programme were just about watching good dancing, then they'd have the real professionals doing it (which I would love, by the way - I wish we saw more TV of people who really know how to do something doing it wonderfully).

But it's not, it is about 'celebrities' having a go, in order to raise money for Children in Need, improve their own public image and give at least some room for the professional dancers to get well known. Which is enough for me. I hated Julian staying in and Aled going out - still makes me sad - but Aled's done brilliantly out of it, just as well as he would have done anyway. Ray is a loss to the show, but he has shown himself to be gorgeous, a gentleman and a very good dancer, and he's much better known, as himself, than he was before.

But bottom line is - the BBC don't care!
They don't have people at the telephone exchange (or whatever!) saying ooohhhh, no we can't count that vote - they didn't appreciate the finer points and are just voting because Craig said it was horrendous/Mark wore a white shirt/they liked the tune - quick pull the plug!
The BBC have brought personality into the equation and so can't be upset when people use it as a criteria to decide who they want to vote for.
Whoever wins will deserve it - they will have over the 3 months' or so of the competition have polled enough votes between the judges and the voters to keep them in.
They will have put in the work - even the lesser lights have put hours of work in - and who can say that their training and time is worth less because they have to work at it than someone who is more talented. Conversely it could be said that their effort is worth more, because they have to try twice as hard to be less than half as good.

I'm not saying the programme should just be about "good dancing" but that it should be about the dancing. It's about people (albeit celebs) trying to become better dancers not better personalities. There's going to be bad dancing - that's part and parcel of the whole thing, and it's entertaining (at times). But what I'm saying is that the bad dancers should be filtered out both by the judges and the public. So it's not the case that they could just have professionals doing it instead. I still enjoy watching the various standards, but the public should in my opinion vote on those standards accordingly.

Also, I'm not saying that the hours people put in are worthless. But if you're going on effort alone, you'd have ended up with Jan as the winner. I like Jan but she shouldn't be a winner. Indeed, thinking about SCD1, overally Chris Parker had the biggest obstacles to overcome and thus had to put in the most effort, but it is unthinkable that he should have won.
Last edited by mr.bojangles : 13-11-2006 at 15:47

That is not what Champagne suggested

"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."

Do we commend celebrities who are naturally gifted, spend 20 hrs perfecting a routine through moans and `I can`ts` or someone who spends 120 hrs training, working their butt off yet thoroughly enjoying the experience ending up with only a slight improvement?

Until the time SCD starts with a level playing field we are always going to get the entertainment, personality and dance arguement

However the dance element usually wins in the end <bar last year>

Drat, you explained it much better than me !

But it's a reality show, too. People have to be motivated enough to pick up their phones and vote. It always will be voting for a personal favourite, which entails much more than just dancing. Should the best dancers win, the public could not be involved, because we just don't have enough qualification to decide. And it would not be fun either, but it is supposed to be entertaining.

But, in that case then, you have to have the celebs all at the same point from the start - or in 2 seperate leagues graded on ability.

Someone like Peter is never going to be as good - even when he goes out or when the show has finishd, whichever is the sooner - as say Emma or Lousia was at the week one of the show. However, his dancing will probably have improved more than theirs has and he will have learnt more. Just to have the 'bad' dancers there as makeweights to leave in the first weeks doesn't seem right to me. Surely, there is a case for voting for improvement too and comparing the performances of each celeb against their own past dances to chart their improvement rather than comparing Peter against Emma - when he is always going to come a distant second.

Why would you need everyone from the same starting point? Point is that everyone's different and some people are just naturally gifted.

I think improvement should be a consideration; that is in many ways the point of my argument. Improvement looks to voting on the ability of the dancers, not on personality. However, improvement should not be the overriding factor. It is after all a competition and if Peter will always come a distant second to Emma, Louisa etc. (which I'm not so certain of anyway: look at Louisa's foxtrot marks compared to ones Peter has received), and being a competition, people will lose out. It might not be fair that such a range of ability is in the competition, competition isn't really about what's fair. If it was, Ray wouldn't have gone out.

Of course it isn't about what is fair - it is about what pulls in the most viewers for the BBC and the most phone votes. They don't care why people watch or vote, just so long as they do.

But if you are saying that each week the worst dancer should go bar none - then they have to start from more or less the same point on the scale. If some people take off and improve and others lag behind then you can make the comparision based on the collective starting point. I'd suppose they do some form of basic audition for the show - all they have to do is pick celebs who are round about the same ability, that's all.

Comparing Peter to Emma is always going to leave Peter in second place - but that doesn't mean to say that his personal improvement hasn't been greater.
Last edited by mindyann : 13-11-2006 at 16:14

But that isn't the position taken by this and similar shows.

When someone gets low marks from the judges (which usually goes with poorer dancing), we're told that they really need our votes. It's clear they expect people to vote to save contestants who weren't saved by their dancing.

Do the naturally gifted ones actually spend less time?

To be fair though, they are all starting from the same position in that everyone is inexperienced when it comes to actual ballroom and latin dances. Peter's build might be a disadvantage but then Ian Waite is taller, and Darren did pretty good last year and he didn't have a dancer's type build. Also, yes Peter's, Georgina's, Matt's etc. improvememt will be more noticeable than Emma's, Mark's etc. Nevertheless, the fine tuning that these "better" dancers undergo is arguably more difficult and takes more effort to perfect. That extra step up can be more difficult. So you could say that on improvement, the better dancers at the start face a steeper hill to climb and therefore should be rewarded. Even if this is true, I'm still a "vote for the best dancer" voter I'm afraid.

Well, they say that with everyone. According to Tess everyone needs our vote, so why vote at all?! The shows are going to say this for the revenue (which is good for CIN of course) but that doesn't mean we have to oblige them. We can still vote for the better ones.

If improvement is one of the criteria for voting, isn't that a little unfair on the celebrity that gets voted out in week one?

Yes I suppose. But then if you're talking about improvement from a complete beginner to a person who's danced for four/six weelks before the first show, then you can still measure improvement on that basis.

Which is why I said that the celebs all need to start from the same ability point, before the 4-6 week training started.

1. Jan and Anton - 166 hours
2. Peter and Erin - 153 hours
3. Mark and Karen - 148 hours
4.Ray snd Camilla - 133 hours
5.Matt and Lillia - 128 hours
6.Claire and Brendan - 111 hours
7.Emma and Darren - 109 hours
=7. Carol and Matthew - 109 hours
9. Louisa and Vincent - 82 hours

This was detailed on ITT about 10 days ago.

Carol I would assume is so low because of her family and location.


Would be interesting to see an update

But I would say they are starting from the same point in terms of ballroom and latin dancing. There may be other factors that help each one, but you can't stamp these out to ensure equality.

Don't forget that Louisa only had two weeks pre training instead of everyone else's four, and lost Vincent for three days in week 3.

Anyway, talking of starting from the same point, how about a handicap system, as in golf. Someone like Peter could start with plus 2 from each judge.

Why did Louisa only get two weeks? I was wondering if Georgina had less time too being a replacement for Gabby Logan.