• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Strictly Come Dancing
Will there be more new dances this season?
<<
<
5 of 5
>>
>
LauraD&L1
04-09-2008
Thank you
Muinimula
04-09-2008
Originally Posted by Cami_27:
“So, people voting for the crap dancers (or their favourite pro ) are provoking these format changes.”

Originally Posted by Cami_27:
“It's really not that hard to understand what I'm saying even if you don't agree with it....”

Yes...although I'm not sure what you're saying has anything to do with whether there will be any new dances this year, which is the topic in question.

I understand that the male/female weeks were introduced when there were too many celebs to perform in one night, and also because so many female celebs were voted out at the start of series 3. I also understand that the dance-off & judges' final decision were brought in to perhaps override any dubious audience voting.

Do these format changes have anything to do with what actual dances are performed? No. Hence why some people were confused by your post.
DavidJames
04-09-2008
Originally Posted by Cami_27:
“It's really not that hard to understand what I'm saying even if you don't agree with it....”

I'm trying to understand how you made the leap in logic by suggesting that viewer input had any input into the "more dancers each year" thing, which is what we're talking about.

We're not talking about male / female weeks, judge's decisions, or other format changes. We're talking about the series inflation. Clear?

If you want to discuss other factors, find / create another thread about those. We're talking about more dances here.

So, if you can explain how "we brought more dancers on ourselves", I'd appreciate you explaining that. Because, yes, it does seem hard for some of us to understand what you're saying.
Cami_27
05-09-2008
It was following on from what people were saying, complaining about the format changes, which were actually mentioned earlier in the thread, even if they weren't strictly to do with the title, such is the nature of discussion.
No need to be so over-sensitive/picky.
DavidJames
05-09-2008
Originally Posted by Cami_27:
“It was following on from what people were saying, complaining about the format changes, which were actually mentioned earlier in the thread, even if they weren't strictly to do with the title, such is the nature of discussion.”

OK, so you weren't referring to the more dancers thing, then.

Cool, thanks for clearing that one up.

Originally Posted by Cami_27:
“No need to be so over-sensitive/picky.”

Not picky, just confused. As were a few others.

So either we're all very stupid, or you weren't exactly clear.
<<
<
5 of 5
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map