Am i wrong in thinking its about people learning how to dance and improving the way arelne went at kate last night it was if she was expecting her to be fantastic.
I mean i watch and like the people who progress over the weeks not who are good all the way

I think the whole competition seems to have changed from the original series where it was mainly non dancing celebs being taught how to dance and to watch their progression over the weeks.

Now it seems that the standard is quite high and the contestants are more competitive, a lot of them having some sort of dance experience. It kind of spoils it when contestants are getting 8's in the first week, in a couple of weeks they will be getting 9's and 10's not leaving any room for improvement and we will be expecting 10's every week.

During the first series it was a big thing to get a 9 or a 10, I've a feeling this series that a few contestants will be disappointed if they don't get them, and almost expect them (*cough* Gabby ..lol)

I think it started off like that in the first series but now the judges seem to be like judging as if it was a professional competition

It is about time the judges realised it IS about people learning to dance and their improvement - and surely it actually counts as to how much of an effort the celeb is putting in. To rage and rant at Kate was very unfair the poor girl isn't "doing a Fiona" as Arlene intimated - she simply couldn't dance with the tendonitis - as least her dance was a passable attempt unlike Fiona who simply made no effort.

A lot of things have changed since series 1. It used to be about getting money for charity, but now that the phone lines are only open for a couple of hours, they won't make nearly as much. Still, at least the judges get their little ego trips each week.

Der Chef says

All reality TV as it gets go on becomes less reality and more polished. Until the format gets tired

Ohhh Yeah

Exactly - Arlene was incredibly rude and hurtful towards Kate. Then again, there is a school of thought that reckons it was a set-up to get Kate sympathy votes and therefore keep her in....

* cough* 40s only please *cough*

*cough*I am the best no one should beat me* Gabby* cough

That's why I want to see Willie & Kenny last a bit longer...... the over-achieving women with all their pose, poise and training are just one big :yawn::yawn::yawn:

Why bother watching when you know they're already good and will only get better ?

I agree that it should be about people learning and improving over the weeks, and the judges should be constructive in their criticism. They seem to be trying too hard to compete with the X Factor.
That said, somebody does have to go out first and Arlene was right - Kate was the worst female . Her injury may have been the reason, or she may just be a poor dancer. Either way, she wasn't pleasant to watch and she shouldn't still be in it. It's a great pity she didn't pull out ages ago and give someone else a chance.

I don't think Kate was 'doing a Fiona'...but the link that they were both GMTV presenters was simply too much for Arlene who saw the opportunity WEEKS ahead, wrote down her little quip and then had it ready on Saturday, regardless of what happened in front of her. Oh how proffessional Arlene...wonderful!

Well, except that she was right - Kate was genuinely very very bad, and so was Fiona Philips. I was thinking almost the same thing myself, in fact.

Generally, Arlene's comments towards Kate were much less critical than Craig's, and her mark (4) was higher than his (2) also. So was it just the "GMTV" comment that got people upset?

Surely judges should primarily be judged on the marks they award, rather than their comments?

Totally agree ~ the girls are (almost) all fantastic, and I enjoyed watching them but I can't say I was excited in any way by it. :yawn:

Im really hoping some of the 'lower ranked' couples steadily improve and surprise us all. Mind you, the dance off practically gives certain couples a sure route to the final.

Its going to get dull if we are having great marks and totally polished performances from the top 4 girls every week. Mind you, I doubt they are going to be great at ALL dances. I do like to see good, enjoyable routines but a sense of improvement is needed

And this is why I believe SCD should return to the format of the original series - where no-one is voted out in the first two weeks. This gave the celebs a chance to improve before the judges were unleashed and let the public see that improvement.

It's the best thing they could've done, no-one deserves to be voted off after one dance. All couples should dance a Ballroom and Latin routine, then assess them and vote one off, it's only fair.

Fair?

It wouldn't work, it's not good telly. You'd get a couple of weeks' worth of poor ratings, basically. The voting is the thing that makes the programme popular.

It's actually quite brave of the BBC to give the judges some more power, given that this approach is quite risky, ratings-wise.

Yes the girls look fantastic but remember they had 5 weeks to learn and polish this dance. I know they will have started on next weeks a while ago but I doubt dance two, or three....or four will have the amount of time dedicated to it that this one did.

I suspect the girls will be all change each week as different dances bring different strengths to the fore. I have a question mark over Kelly with the faster dances, for example, Penny with the Jive, Alesha with the Tango and Gabby in the latin. I do see the programme as two distinct competitions (top girls - who wins and the rest - who stays in the longest) but I do think it's better having four good 'uns than it was when we had only one or two and almost knew from week one who would win.

Yes, fair! What's about it? That's why most of us watch the show. And other shows don't vote people off in the first week, they normally have pre-amble, getting to know you, rehearsal type shows, and only begin voting people off a couple of weeks in. How does that format not work? And no, it wouldn't get poor ratings IMO.

DWTS also didn't used to vote a couple off after one dance either. SCD didn't in the first series, but they have so many couples now. They should get back some of the spirit of the original show.

I posted this the other day on the Natasha/Brendan thread......

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...3&postcount=14

The BBC would do well to reconsider what made the show such a flying success in the beginning. Its just gotten worse every year since, imo

I agree that they should return to the spirit of the earlier series. Who wants to see a load of characterless young bimbo-clones who have obviously danced a lot before? The first few series had so much variety, like old breeds of rare pigs, compared to the standardised versions we have now. At the least the men have variety and character, I bet they stay in longer than expected as they will appeal to the audience more on a likeability basis.

Not me....

I hope you're right about the guys. It's much more entertaining to watch them suffer and then hopefully shine as they progress.

This thread made me look up the first and second series. I had no idea we had some of the professionals mentioned such as Kylie Jones, John Byrnes, Hanna Karttunen, Paul Killeck. Paul is the only one I remember. There were only 8 couples in the first and second series.

I think there are too many couples now and it isnt so much fun watching them learn and progress.