Just picking up an idea mentioned by Bill Turnbull on Breakfast: we don't often consider the judges as an important part of the entertainment on the show, in their own right.

This is not just about the judges as individuals, but also the dynamics of the "chemistry" between them.

There's a thread on the forum about finding new judges, and that seems to centre on the idea that the ideal character for a judge is someone "respected by the professional dance community" (a phrase used in one post), and who makes rational and measured judgements.

But what makes for entertaining TV is not cool and measured judgments, but to have judges with strong personalities, and who are opinionated, and ideally, who hold different opinions.

If you compare SCD with DWTS, I think the choreography is much better on DWTS. But the judging is far more entertaining (and makes for more exciting TV) on SCD.

Carrie Ann Inaba (Arlene's equivalent on DWTS) is far too "professional" and "reasonable" and "nice". She's not like Arlene.

Recalling the week when there was the storm about lifts (on both SCD and DWTS). Carrie Ann was the one insisting that they needed to be "professional" and deduct a point, and she was so apologetic about it. "I'm really sorry I have to deduct a point...", etc. That was all so different (and wishy washy) compared to Len's storming "prawnhead", etc, on SCD.

And SCD has the additional benefit of Craig. IMO he was more exciting to watch when he was "mean", and dished out lots of really low scores. I hope Craig doesn't mellow too much. We haven't heard that much serious booing from the audience this season. A good thing, some may say, though it's a loss in other respects.

After each dance, I think a lot of viewers look forward to what the judges will say. Most viewers are probably not too interested in the finer points of dance technique, but want to hear some catchy and memorable phrases, comparisons of the celebs with unlikely animals, and Len's jokes, etc.

And I think Bruce relishes the opportunity to use his whistle.

Considering all things, we have a pretty good balance of characters within the judging panel.

My first attempt to reply to this has just disappeared *bangs head on table*. This is a second 'condensed' attempt

The main focus of the beeb is viewing figures. If the show creates controversy it gets people talking about it. The furore rambles on the forums, gets picked up by the press, thus generating more publicity for the show. The judges are just pawns playing a part in an entertainment show, the more protesters call for some or all of them to be replaced the less likely it will happen, same with any other aspect of the show.

I have to say I like the mix of judges we have ...I like the "harshness" of Arlene and Craig and I respect their opinions. What has been incredibly frustrating has been Len and Bruno shouting down any critiques offered.

As I've said elsewhere the whole backlash against the judges is in large part (imo of course!) as a result of the Dance Off .... it fundamentally changed the relationship between the voting public and the technical scoring by the judges.

The judges role has seemed at times less than objective (thanks to overmarking by Bruno at the start) just at the time when the judges score has become more influential.

SCD is both a dance competition and entertainment. It's a mix of both...The original format encapsulated this blend perfectly...... the judges provided critique and scoring based on dance ability. They provided the "head" score. Viewers vote on a combination of factors, so therefore provided the "heart" score. Whichever couple provided the best combination of these 2 scores would win.

This way of marking is much fairer because everyone knows were they stand. Contestants with less natural ability at the start can compete on a more level playing field as those with more obvious talent.....just as long as they are entertaining and start to improve.

The dance off has disturbed this balance between "heart" and "head" it's been a mistake I think and hasn't added drama in a useful or entertaining way.

Has anyone seen this Daily Mail article about the judges wanting a pay rise? Blimey... had no idea they earned as much as they did!

blimey!! when the celebs and the pro dancers earn around £15k for the series, they're the ones who should be demanding a pay rise

I agree with much of what you say in the part I didn't quote, but ... I don't think the judges seeming less than objective started with Bruno. Both Len and Bruno were overmarking, and though 10s tend to be the focus of complaints, it's not like there's a gap between the other marks and the 10s. The other marks were too high as well.

The other big problem is inconsistency, both in the marks they give and in their reasons. Someone can do a fairly poor dance, get suitably low marks from Craig and Arlene (to boos from the audience), then Len will pop up with an 8 or 9 and collect cheers. Then, sometimes technical faults are given as reasons, other times they're overlooked; sometimes they say they have to decide dance-offs based only on the dance-off dances, other times they give a different explanation. This feels wrong to viewers, and it must be confusing to the dancers as well.

I think it's very telling that respect for Craig has shot up this year, while that for Len has plummeted. Craig's marks have been low compared to the others, but they seem fair and have a pretty consistent relationship to the quality of the dance.

I'm not sure the dance-off has had so large a role in the backlash. There have been complaints about it, of course; but I think the turn against the judges would have happened without it.

I thought the celebs and pros got £25K for the series and were on the same pay. Nice work for those voted out early on - or is it pro rata?