I really don't think they should have changed the judging system.

I knew they only did it because they didn't want Emma voted out last year.... Surely that is the whole point of the show, it's not just about dancing, but showmanship, performance, skill, personality, etc...

The best dancer wins in the end, or at least has so far.

In theory, I have no problem with it.

In practice, I know these judges and I don't trust them not to show favouritism...and, furthermore, I don't trust them not to be influenced by the producers of the show.

It's also clear that they don't even agree on what they should base their decision. I had understood it should be simply on the dance-off performance.

So...this new system is on probation for me. Week 1 was OK but we shall see what happens as the series progresses.

I have a major problem with it if Arlene is going to use such completely idiotic reasoning to come to her decision. Brian has never been a professional sportsman and Kenny has... so Kenny should stay in? I'm pretty sure the show isn't called "Professional Sportspeople go Strictly Come Dancing." What's the point in allowing people from other professions to enter if that's going to be her attitude? Nobody from any other profession is ever going to do well if that's how she's going to view things. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Maybe there was more to her decision, but she really should have given those other reasons. You can't just put sportspeople through because in the past there have been sportspeople who've done well...

I agree that it's a dance show, but ultimately the public tend to make the right decision when it gets towards the end of the show. Where's the fun in a final with a bunch of people the public don't really care about even if they are reasonably good dancers? They keep mentioning Matt, but the fact is... he wouldn't have made it past week 1 with the new system. Let alone Darren. I know I'm fed up of the "J" word, but this system means that we're a hell of a lot less likely to actually see a genuine journey from not very good to competent dancer.

Should the judges have final say?


YES they should, it worked very well for Marie and Joseph, why not for SCD. This way we will be more likely to get some real good dancing after the first few weeks, we will be spoilt for choice as to who we vote for,

It would help if the Judges actually had a clue and agreed amongst themselves and the BBC what the criteria for the final decision to keep a couple is?

The Judges seemed to disagree quite openly on ITT this evening, notably Craig & Arlene with Len.
Perhaps the BBC Producers should give them all a seminar on which criteria they should use - ie who has given the best dance performance in the dance-off? Seems fairly straightforward enough!

I see Clauda told Len he was "revealing too much information" when he said he left for America on the Sunday morning after spending the night at Heathrow. How much longer are they going to keep up the stupid pretence that the show is not pre-recorded?

Where's all the new BBC transparency? This present series is not showing the BBC in a good light. Frankly they need one less, and a change of Judges. I think only Len should stay as at least he marks on the actual dance and takes note of Ballroom technique - strangely the only one in a Ballroom competition.

I think it's definitely a better system, as it ensures the show is all about the dancing, other than just personalities.

Though i'm not too happy with their decision on saturday night...

That is completely different though. SCD is a self-contained show. If the public fall in love with a particular celebrity and vote for them to win despite them maybe not being the best dancer... well it doesn't really matter. The show will have ended for the year and it'll all start over again 9 months later.

With Joseph or Maria... an entire West End production is on the line. Millions of pounds could be lost if an amusing character who just can't sing all that great ends up winning. They're allowing ALW to get rid of the people that he really cannot see starring in a successful show so that whoever the public choose out of the final few... the show will still be successful and the critics won't jump on them too badly. There are no such issues with SCD. It should be about the dancing, but if the public happen to really like someone who has shown a brilliant attitute, sense of humour, etc, etc, etc throughout... then let them keep who they want to keep.

I for one don't think this show is all about the dancing. Nor should it be. Clearly it's a huge part of it all, but this is about entertainment. It's not about crowning the next world champion. If it was all about the dancing, why not just allow the judges to determine the winner in the final show while we're at it? Not to mention that just about every professional dancer on the show knows more about Latin dance than any of the judges (barring possibly Len but even then it's not his speciality). So who are they to decide anyway?

With Maria and Joseph the point was that whoever won would be performing and I can see Andrew Lloyd Webber had the right to the final decision - he had to finance the show. There is no point to SCD except entertainment. If I trusted the judges not to have favourites it would be different, but I bet I can already tell who Bruno and Arlene will vote for before the women have even danced properly. This makes the show more like the X Factor, the last thing it needs to be.

(I took so long to write this small post, lhme65 said it better!)

Last year was really only time I had a problem with judges and it was over the Emma/Louisa thing. That aside, they don't appear to be starstruck by anyone this year (espec. not from the guys).
They did make the correct decision on Saturday (no matter how unpopular that decision was) and as long as they stay fair and judge ONLY on that final dance I don't have a problem. Where they may come a cropper is if there is a dance off between 2 that there is a big difference between and the "good" couple screw up the dance off. We'll have to watch this space!

I feel that this system has worked well for Dancing on Ice, but after Arlene's comments on ITT tonight it's hard to have the same confidence. They need to be paying attention to the dance in front of them, not how celebrity x might improve by December (Quentin Willson aside, how can you tell just from week one anyway?).

I`am happy for the judges to make the final decision.......as there is a far greater likely hood that the better dancer will survive.
Unfortunately, as viewers we have this annoying habit at times of voting with our hearts rather than our heads which if were honest with ourselves has resulted in the better dancer being voted off. As long as the judges are objective and vote with their heads I have no problem with the new system.This still won`t solve the problem when 2 good dancers are in the bottom 2 and the popular dancing Donkeys receive massive public support. We should`t be tooooo hard on the BBC as their only trying to ensure SCD is a dancing competition rather than a Big Brother style popularity contest.

I agree, I think it's fair if they all stick to the same script.

from the officialy press release
BBC Press Office - Strictly Come Sundays


Seems Len was right!

I'm delighted the judges are making the final decision. Too many awful plodders partnered with popular teachers went on too long last year (Jan Ravens and Anton du Beke; Claire King and Brendan Cole spring to mind). Likewise, less high-profile but talented pairings like Spoony and Ola Jordan, and Ray Fearon and Camilla Dallerup left too early. I like to see effort and talent rewarded, and while the judges aren't infallible, I think on the whole they're fairer than the viewers.

Deffo.

I hate it. But I think it will only have a prayer of working if the judges are completely consistent about why they pick the one they do. What do you mean by the 'better' dancer?

Just out of interest, if in five or six week's time, just hypothetically, there was in the dance off one contestant who has been good from the beginning (as a lot of the women clearly are) but hasn't improved at all and one contestant who started off terribly and has improved a lot, and say their dances are about even or the first is a bit better, who do you want them to save?

They argue about it............Then we argue about their decision for the next week. I agree it would be a tough call.

They should only use their vote if they are going to use it properly. They kept Kenny and Ola in for two underlying reasons:

1. They wanted to keep Ola in after last year's surprising early exit and her supposed attractions.

2. They want to keep the mega-Gorgonzola-cheesefest going with the husband and wife intrigue, about which only the producers seem to be interested in.

Total BS...... Brian cocked up and if CRH had followed the SCD rules, then the votes would have been 4 - 0

judges shouldn't have final say imho.

I hate it too if only that 3 of the judges seem to be relishing the fact that they can slap the viewers in the face!

If they behaved like judges - and judged the participants on what they actually do on the shows (and not on any previous frienships, obvious fondness, lack of silly comments about nice smiles making up for lousy dancing ....) I might just might think that the judges have a right to have a second bit at the cherry!

Lets get back to the realistic marking we had in series 1&2, less obvious favouritism and lets see the judges judging objectively!

Quite they got it right this week - but it would have been interesting to
a. know who DID end up with the lowest viewer vote (my fiver says it was Kenny!)
b. see what would have happened if Brian hadn't completely lost his confidence after his mauling by the judges in the main show

I like the new voting format because it gives celebs who might not have a high public following a chance. In the early stages of the competition particularly, a lot of people vote for a celeb because the are fans of the celeb or maybe the show they are in - Christopher Parker is a prime example.

This way the judges can save the better dancer rather than the most popular person - hope this makes sense!

In that case then the celebs should all be at the same starting level because someone like Willie is never going to be as good as someone like Gabby - even if he lasts to December. His overall improvement may be greater in the long run (which is what I thought the show was about ) but I guess even at his most improved he wont be as good as Gabby in week one.

It is a popularity contest - it's the way they have made it -and not just with the celebs but with the pro dancers too. It Takes Two focuses purely on the personality side of things - and if we are purely to vote on the dance 'on the night' rather than anything else then the phone lines should really only open when all the dances have taken place - and not open again immediately after the show as they have in the past. If you are voting purely for the dance on the Saturday, how can you vote for it on Sunday when you haven't even seen it in training yet?

It was`t really an issue this week as both dancers were poor.The viewing publics votes were spot on this week.The judges could have flicked a coin to eliminate one of the contestants this week and it wouldn`t have made much difference. However it will be very interesting when we have two good dancers in the bottom two.......... I think the forum will explode when we argue about that one.......I imagine this place will start to get nasty just like Big Brother forum........... moderators beware.

We all have our favourits.....and yes it is a popularity contest as well.....but we all want a final with either the best dancers or those that have improved the most.What we don`t want is the good dancers being eliminated at an early stage. I think the new format will help ensure the better or most improved dancers surviving.The likes of Fiona and Jan from previous series were almost embarresed to be saved by the public especially as a better dancer was eliminated.