Indeed.

a. DOI actually announces it iirc, who did receive the lowest votes overall before the skate-off.

b. It's quite appalling that they can find nothing kind to say sometimes - apart from Len - the other 3 just seem to see it as a cruel sport, it's disgusting, and particularly noticeable after watching DWTS. They wouldn't put up with it there. IMO everyone deserves constructive criticism and points to work on and improve, not derision and humiliation!

Remember season1 fiasco with Chris Parker? Although, they can only save 1 of bottom 2 & with the subjective voting from public, sooner or later they will have to choose between 2 good ones.

Well said La R- couldn't agree more- thought that they were truly nasty this week to everyone and if it continues then I will lose interest particularly now I am not voting til we have the final say- they are getting bigger egos all the time the judges.

To all who say it is a dancing competition then I would say- it is only partly- they don't take exams they are judged by the viewers and the viewers shoudl therefore have the final say- the pros supporters make a huge difference also so maybe they should all change partners part way through to shake it up a bit!

I don't think DOI do (although I could be wrong) I know Any Dream Will Do did though.

I didn't think the judges were that harsh I thought most criticisms were fair. I thought Craig especially was less harsh than in previous years.

Spot on Swampster!

That's just it though... that's not necessarily what a lot of people do want. If the public haven't warmed to a celebrity due to their personality, relationship with their partner or even their dancing ability enough to actually vote for them... then I would argue that they simply don't want to see that person in the final... even if they are the best dancer. I want people there who have made me laugh, people who have entertained me, people who have formed a genuine bond with their partner etc, etc, etc. I don't think any of us want to see simply the 3 best dancers in the final if they've simply gotten there as a result of being saved by the judges each week and not because they've built up a genuine following of fans. If people don't care enough to vote for those who are supposedly the best dancers, then they probably don't care enough to tune in for a final involving the people that are supposedly 'the best'.

I agree that the current set up might be fairer in the early weeks when there are obviously some better known celebs and some lesser known ones. But once we get to about midway, the public know who they want to see move forward and should be listened to IMO.

I know Spooney and Ola plus Ray and Camilla were good dancers but for me I like seeing a strong partnership to go with the good dancing, and these two couples just didn't cut it for me in their partnerships IMHO.

Also I don't agree with it being a 'fair' system, 4 judges decide the fate of the couples (only 1 of these judges are a proper dancer/judge) and not 9 million viewers (and I'm sure a few thousand of the voters are actually dancers/dance teachers/dance judges themselves).

Why doesn't the BBC put Robin Hood on a sunday evening to make space for the SCD result show to be on a saturday? Coincidentally, Robin Hood is also repeated on a sunday afternoon from the saturday show so there is no excuse BBC.

NO

Point taken. I do agree with your last paragraph though.

Bottom line is the income from the votes.

Will they keep in a couple who are obviously not inspiring the viewers to phone in week on week, even though they think they are the better pairing?

good point.

I disagree completely with the judges having the final say.

I like voting for celebrities the judges dislike, it makes me vote more and I'm raising money for a good cause

I find it odd that people have mentioned Chris Parker and Matt Dawson in this thread when IIRC neither ever finished in the bottom two anyway, so wouldn't have been in these dance offs

I hate it! i think i'd probably prefer it if the viewers voted for their faves and the bottom 2 from that went to the judges. Why should the judges get to affect results twice?

Whilst I thought that Jan/ Anton, Georgina/ James and Claire/ Brendan outstayed their welcome last year whilst we lost Spoony (who he?) and Ray (and who he too?) who were quite clearly better dancers but a lot of the public had NO idea who they were!

What I objected to was the cynical manipulation of the leaderboard by the judges to ensure that Emma was at the top, with the highest judges mark which ensured HER survival past her sell by date. Its only in the latter stages of the competition that the public vote (or lack of it!) can really pull the judges pet down into the bottom 2.

I really don't like the fact that Craig & Bruno in particular, who clearly have their favourites from very early on, now get the chance to save their pets if they ever slip down into the bottom 2

Obviously it's all a matter of opinion, but those partnerships cut it a lot better than the other two I mentioned (IMO, obviously). I would rather watch a promising dancer be given a chance to progress than see the likeable Anton performing a taxi service with a plank of wood.


They are, however, diluted by the millions who say: "I'm gonna to vote for that woman who was in The Colbys." The judges' expertise is more concentrated.


You'd get no arguments from me. However, 75 per cent of my household is male, and the atmosphere would be very sour indeed!

It's good that most people here think Len is the most competent to judge SCD, because it's pretty much always going to be down to him.

He's "head judge", so he gets the casting vote. So if it's 2-1 before he votes, he either makes it 3-1, or he makes it 2-2. If he makes it 2-2, his is the casting vote.

The only time Len alone will not decide the result is if all three other judges disagree with him.

With great power comes great responsibility!

I think on one hand its good but the other its bad...

Its good for the people who want it to be stripped down right to its roots and be treated like a dance contest... And (this isn't getting at anyone its just a point) the people who don't bother to vote and are unhappy when they think someone is voted out to early...

Its not so good because as many people have said it ISN'T just a dance competition... Most of the celebs on here are there to raise their publicity a bit more, most won't ever dance again after they are voted out... It isn't life and death if they don't go on, unlike the Maria and Joseph programmes which were going to decide someones future... ALW has a responsibility to make sure that the right person is put into the show so that it makes money and people watch it... We are going to watch SCD anyway whether our favs go home or stay in the comp... We're not deciding on the future of anyone...

Plus I personally think dancing should be entertaining, and its not always the case that the best technical dancer is the most entertaining... The people who don't watch it for every technical move will want to be entertained and that is what will bring in ratings...

Couldn't have said it better myself - but what happens on the final night - is that purely down to the public - It has to be doesn't it?

Hi Mindyann! The bottom line should be entertainment value, though: we all have to pay the licence fee and the Children In Need angle is just a way legitimising the audience participation phone vote, as the BBC could not justify money raised from calls going straight to directors' pay. I have no idea what percentage of the programme's viewers actually pick up the phone and vote, but the BBC must entertain all of them. While I'm glad that Children in Need are beneficiaries (my own son benefits directly), they're not the raison d'etre of any BBC programme (not even the main telethon entrely). Providing attractive and entertaining programming must always come first.

Personally I disagree with it, even though they made the right decision on Sunday. They can be very biased and mark up or down based on ridiculous reasons, like someone smiling a lot. Even Sunday night, although overall the right choice was made, worried me for future shows. Craig saving Brian based on dance potential, when the BBC have said it should be based on the dance-off, and Arlene coming up with that "we had a good rugby player last year, so Kenny might be too" ridiculous reason.

I'm glad this system wasn't in place last year, as it most certainly would have been a Mark vs. Emma final and I would have found that very boring. At least with Matt and Lilia you knew they had a very strong fanbase to be able to reach that final, and you just didn't know if their fans would make them winners (like Darren and Lilia in series 3). Emma and Darren was in the bottom 2 three times, so it was obvious that she wasn't going to win SCD.

I hope it's not going to be the equivalent of a Mark vs Emma final this series, as it is blatantly obvious that the couple who have got to the final by the judges always saving them will never win SCD.

I think the judging system is fairer, but whether this will be fixed as well, I wouldn't be surprised ?
You have to remember that the BBC are paying the judges wages. Therefore if the BBC want to keep a popular couple in the competition because they will get better TV ratings, they will have the final say.

Agree. Everyone keeps arguing the point that the judges will favour certain couples, but I honestly think in some cases the judges will be told who to save- regardless of their own opinion. The BBC are not going to risk losing some of the female celebs early on. They've got to get their moneys worth!

Going by this forum, people seem to have very different ideas on what SCD is all about. Some seem to almost equate it with a professional dance contest, some see it as pure entertainment where personality and popularity are most important, some see it as a school, where the contestant who has advanced the most should win.

In the meantime, the judges themselves have no common criteria for judging and have so far expressed very different reasons for casting their votes.

I therefore see the judges as just 3 ordinary members of the public and one professional judge, and cannot see why they should have the vote instead of the rest of the public! And if they must, should they not be mandated by Bruce to "vote for their favourite" in the same way the rest of us are??

How can you say that, that's absurd. Arlene isn't an ordinary member of the public as you say. She's a highly respected choreographer who's been in the business years and has been the choreographer for many top West End shows. Goodness me, what planet have you been living on?

I'm living on the same planet as you I think, even though I may have different opinions to you.

I'm saying that in my view being a highly respected choreographer doesn't qualify her to judge this competition any more than the rest of us, when the criteria for that judgement have never been set out, and we all have our own view of what those criteria are. The BBC has never stated, I think, what exactly it is looking for in a winner, but week after week they ask us to "vote for our favourite".

My apologies if my previous post sounded as though I was in some way denigrating Arlene's qualifications as a choreographer. That wasn't my intention.