Thankfully it is down to the judges to have the final say, and I think thats a very good thing. The public vote for their favourite personality, or if the person is in their favourite show etc., a lot of the public don't care whether they can dance or not. That's why Chris Parkes went as far as he did, because some crazy members of the public were continuing to vote for him, which was a complete joke. So, the public this time can go so far, but its a great relief that its down to the judges to make that final decision.

However, as always, we're getting that element of fans who are accusing the judges of bias etc. Its such a joke to hear some fans on here blame the judges for all sorts of things, just because they dare criticise their favourite dancer, or worse still - evict them. I love the judges. Only Len I find a little predictable. I mean, he likes every one doesn't he and always scores higher than the others. At least Craig and Arlene tell it as it is - and most of the British public agree with everything they say.

Well done the BBC for changing this format. Though god knows why they changed the results to a Sunday night. Crazy thing to do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7035334.stm

This is an official BBC news web link regarding the BBC defending the sunday result show being taped.

I like what they said in reference about the judges calling them 'The four celebrity judges'. Not even their employers recognise them as professional dance judges anymore!

If the audience vote alone decided the last two and then the judges could save one, like Maria or Joseph, that might feel fairer. The judges' votes on the main show could be just for interest.

Moonglow, I really envy you - if you tend to agree with judges, you must find this programme a hell of a lot less frustrating than I do. I hardly ever agree with them! I certainly didn't on Satuday night.

I don't mind it too much although I don't like it and definitely feel that they have been given too much power. If they have the final say they shouldn't be allowed to score - that would be acceptable. As it is I see a sitaution arising whereby an unpopular couple with GBP is in the bottom 2 every week and saved by the judges every week (a la Emma or Zoe). There should be some mechanism to prevent this and if it is clear that the GBP doesn't like a couple they should go. As for it being hard for Fiona philips' of this world to dance every week knowing they're not good - of course it was but the reward is knowing that the GBP likes you. I seriously think this move (added to the pre-recorded results) is going lose the beeb viewers. Not only is the suspense gone but the public have lost their power...

Isn't that how it works on Dancing on Ice - or do the public get all of the initial vote? I have to say - on DOI the public still managed to keep some pretty bad skating in last year (Emily from Emmerdale ) even with the judges taking their pick from the bottom two!

be careful there's a troll about!!!

I have no problem with the judges having the final say.

I agree, I like your idea! The judges should give their comments/opinions but shouldn't be able to score it. The leaderboard should be based on viewer votes only and then the judges pick who they want to leave from the bottom two. This sounds much fairer, as at the moment the judges have I would say around 75%+ of the overall say. It's hardly worth voting in the show now.

Are you talking about me??

I really don't have a problem with them getting the poorer dancers out in the early weeks of the competition. I would have probably saved sppony and Ray as better dancers aginst Georgina or Jan

But if they show the same degree of favouritism or antipathy to contestants as they have done on previous series, I am worried about their objectivity with the power to save one of their favourites over someone the public considers more worthy of moving forward!

Once the numbers remaining in the competition fall, the judges's darlings sometimes unmerited place high up the judges leaderboard, isn't enough to save them from the bottom two, if they come bottom with the public. It was clear to everyone that Emma wasn't getting the public vote once she started appearing in the bottom 2 despite being at or very close to the top.

Is anyone seriously going to try and say that had they been faced with an Emma and Mark (as if!) or Matt in the bottom 2 that they would have saved Mark or Matt over the candidate that they had over marked time and time again?

I don't think so somehow

No my swampy friend not you! - someone else is stirring it- again!!

I also dislike the fact that Len's choice will almost always go through unless all 3 others disagree with him. I think they should have left the system as it was but having failed to do so they should have found a 5th judge or set up a rotation whereby each judge has a turn to be head judge as they did with Just the two of us.

is it me? - what's a troll?

But that's the point - Mark and Matt never were right at the bottom, and on the whole the very best dancers do quite well with the public and the judges. However sometimes some real turkeys turn up again and again just because they're partnered with the 'housewives' choice', and personally I find that a bit dull.
Also, my point about Dancing on Ice is that the public has shown that they can keep a real dud in for ages if they want to enough, even with the judges choosing who of the bottom two goes. I think the judges 'favoured' Emma because she was actually very good and put in some excellent performances; as did Zoe.

Edit: Sorry, just seen your 'troll note', so sorry if tone sounds sniffy - but felt happy with these points anyway!
Last edited by The Swampster : 09-10-2007 at 15:33

Yeah. I don't even like him that much but what about that Philip Jackson (I think) who does the expert commentary. Surely he could have the tie-breaking vote (if there was a tie), meaning that Len's vote was only worth as much as the other three judges. That wouldn't even mean that the BBC needed to pay anyone else, he's already there!
Last edited by quackaquacka : 09-10-2007 at 15:55

No Mark and Matt never were at the bottom - the voters recognised the talent and sheer hard work.

BUT - had one of them had a really off week (and Mark came close with his Jive!) and HAD been up against Emma - the judges (apart from Arlene) had all shown a lot of favouritism towards Emma, and I'll bet they'd have taken the chance to get rid of her best competition.

Fortunately it didn't happen, but it could well happen that an as yet unidentified "pet" goes up against a public favourite who had a bad dance (when normal performances were excellent) and was clobbered by the panel.

Id bee happier if they did the marking voting Joseph style where they can make comments on the dancers, but leave the public to decide the bottom two - I think it would focus their minds on the comments they make as they can't protect their favourites. In fact - the public would probably vote for the best dancer rather than make anti judge or underdog votes!

Lets face it - the public gave ALW two stunning new west end stars - so we can't be that bad judges ourselves

Someone who just tries to be deliberately disruptive.

Overall , I have relatively few problems with the judges deciding which of the bottom 2 leaves . It would have made little difference last year , Georgina and Jan would have gone sooner and maybe Claire .
If it came to it , they would have saved Emma over anyone , even Louisa . They are going to have to choose this year soon enough between good dancers .

I do dislike the dance off and would want rid of that , and I do think the potential to progress should be considered .
As to favouritism that has always been true and will no doubt continue . All the judges are talking up the women already and have already named the ones they are keeping their eye on .

I also do not really believe that the public voting for the pros not the celebrities is an issue . Quite obviously this week , it was the celebrities that got the votes , and as with Julian Clary , a large fan base can make a difference for SOME celebrities . Others of course are not well known enough to the general public for that to matter , and so their votes come because the GBP sees something it likes .
I think that happened with Mark last year . Well known to cricket fans but not really outside that circle , Now he is though !


ETA Caro , I agree about the anti judge /underdog point , sometimes teh GBP will deliberately vote to keep in someone the judges continuously slate . Notice last year , Carol went the very week they started being nice to her !

Yes! It is a dance competetion, not a popularity contest. The judges, rather than the public should decide who stays and who goes.

I like that idea - I'd not even twigged about the judges having 2 bites of the marking cherry (I must be slipping ).

It's true about the comments as well - how many times has the critique not matched the marks - Willie being a good example on Saturday, great comments from all the judges and then scored a 5 from Craig and Arlene.

Yes...

Couple of names totally justify why the judges should have the final say. Chris Parker and Spoony.

One staying in and one leaving too soon are reasons enough to stop the 'Great' British Public from deciding anything in SCD.

I am sure if anyone wanted too we could come up with at least two decisions each year for the GBP to be told where to get off and let the experts decide who is and isn't good at ballroom dancing.

I think if it stops people like Ray and Spoony being voted out prematurely then it could be a good system.

BUT agree with others that Arlene shouldn't have saved Kenny because of the possibility that he may turn it round like Matt Dawson did. It should be like Dancing on Ice, whoever dances best in the skate off/dance off.

I know!

My policy this year is to ignore and alert if it gets out of hand. No doubt that person will deliberately go into support threads and make spiteful comments.

Ah - but whilst the judges HATED Chris - the public LOVED him - and voted for him BECAUSE the judges hated him, and were so horrible to him!

Spoony - well I didn't vote for him - but mainly because I'd never heard of him (a lady of a certain age!), and I'd imagine that neither had a lot of the typical target audience for SCD. But again - he was up against someone the judges had been nasty to!

If the judges judged more like Len & Bruno do on DWTS - there wouldn't be the need to do underdog or anti judge votes! Its the nasty personal and destructive comments that get votes not the nice ones...

Think I know who/what you mean - but weren't they barred?


OT - No one has yet answered what happens on the final show - do any of you girls know? Will it be purely down to the public?