Anton was just on The Wright Stuff and he talked about it and said it was a 'terrible idea'
New Rules for SCD 2009
2 of 3
I don't get this - how will it work in practice? 
If there's no way of knowing in advance whether a dance-off is needed, then what happens to the Sunday show? The whole point of that show is to have a dance-off; if there's none, then what's the rationale for it? And I can't see it being practical to decide on the Saturday night whether there'll be a dance-off show or not...
If you've got no dance-off (or no guaranteed dance-off), the show's whole dynamics change.
In practical terms, I can't see how this will work.
If there's no way of knowing in advance whether a dance-off is needed, then what happens to the Sunday show? The whole point of that show is to have a dance-off; if there's none, then what's the rationale for it? And I can't see it being practical to decide on the Saturday night whether there'll be a dance-off show or not...
If you've got no dance-off (or no guaranteed dance-off), the show's whole dynamics change.
In practical terms, I can't see how this will work.
I'd be quite happy if they didn't have the Sunday show and the dance off. It's a waste of 45 mins. I don't know why they can't do everything in one night like the good ol' days. Sorry, slightly going off topic 
Quote:
“Anton was just on The Wright Stuff and he talked about it and said it was a 'terrible idea'”
“Anton was just on The Wright Stuff and he talked about it and said it was a 'terrible idea'”
I think it's a brilliant idea!
And they should also bring the resultshow back on saturday instead of sunday. 
Originally Posted by DavidJames:
“I don't get this - how will it work in practice?
If there's no way of knowing in advance whether a dance-off is needed, then what happens to the Sunday show? The whole point of that show is to have a dance-off; if there's none, then what's the rationale for it? And I can't see it being practical to decide on the Saturday night whether there'll be a dance-off show or not...
If you've got no dance-off (or no guaranteed dance-off), the show's whole dynamics change.
In practical terms, I can't see how this will work.”
“I don't get this - how will it work in practice?
If there's no way of knowing in advance whether a dance-off is needed, then what happens to the Sunday show? The whole point of that show is to have a dance-off; if there's none, then what's the rationale for it? And I can't see it being practical to decide on the Saturday night whether there'll be a dance-off show or not...
If you've got no dance-off (or no guaranteed dance-off), the show's whole dynamics change.
In practical terms, I can't see how this will work.”
Well, you could loose 2 couples in one week - one for 3 strikes and out, one in the 'dance off'.
Which, given that in a 14 week run you could technically loose 4 couples to the 3 strikes rule - could make the final a bit of a ghostly event!
Unless the number of celebs is upped by 8 to cover all eventualities
- when it could be a wee be crowded!(Kate was actually bottom 3 x3 once, had a week off and then was bottom 3 another twice. Which could kinda have given the situation of loosing Kate at the first x3 bottom 3 and then 3 weeks later loosing Kenny to the same rule, if the judges felt so inclined).
I have a better idea let's go back to the original the one with the least votes goes.
That way those poor sensitive judges wouldn't have to make that heart breaking decision as to who goes.
That way those poor sensitive judges wouldn't have to make that heart breaking decision as to who goes.
Originally Posted by dome:
“I have a better idea let's go back to the original the one with the least votes goes.
That way those poor sensitive judges wouldn't have to make that heart breaking decision as to who goes.”
“I have a better idea let's go back to the original the one with the least votes goes.
That way those poor sensitive judges wouldn't have to make that heart breaking decision as to who goes.”
Good plan
And if they aren't having to have their hearts broken on a weekly basis, then their wages can be reduced to reflect the lack of cardiac turmoil.
Win/win
http://www.ianvictoria.co.uk/comedancing.htm
In SCD1 Chris Parker would have made the semi-final but not the Final. His marks starting from round 1 were:
2nd bottom
4th bottom
bottom
3rd bottom
bottom
bottom
bottom----------------------------------
bottom (Final)
In the semi-final with Chris expected to fall under the judges' axe, the other two contestants need not try hard. Once the judges' marks have been given, zero phone votes would be cast. Supportive voting for ALL candidates, fear and excitement would be gone, audience participation obliterated, 4 judges uber alles.
This idea is worthy of the intelligence of Craig and Arlene.
In SCD1 Chris Parker would have made the semi-final but not the Final. His marks starting from round 1 were:
2nd bottom
4th bottom
bottom
3rd bottom
bottom
bottom
bottom----------------------------------
bottom (Final)
In the semi-final with Chris expected to fall under the judges' axe, the other two contestants need not try hard. Once the judges' marks have been given, zero phone votes would be cast. Supportive voting for ALL candidates, fear and excitement would be gone, audience participation obliterated, 4 judges uber alles.
This idea is worthy of the intelligence of Craig and Arlene.
Originally Posted by claire2281:
“I don't see that as workable at all.
If that's the case then there would be no public vote that week. There'd also be absolutely no need for a results show - so what do they put in that pre-planned 45 minutes on Sunday?”
“I don't see that as workable at all.
If that's the case then there would be no public vote that week. There'd also be absolutely no need for a results show - so what do they put in that pre-planned 45 minutes on Sunday?”
Exactly
Originally Posted by mindyann:
“
Unless the number of celebs is upped by 8 to cover all eventualities - when it could be a wee be crowded!
”
“
Unless the number of celebs is upped by 8 to cover all eventualities
- when it could be a wee be crowded!”
Craig is this minute working on a plan for double-decker dancing.
Originally Posted by dome:
“I have a better idea let's go back to the original the one with the least votes goes.
That way those poor sensitive judges wouldn't have to make that heart breaking decision as to who goes.”
“I have a better idea let's go back to the original the one with the least votes goes.
That way those poor sensitive judges wouldn't have to make that heart breaking decision as to who goes.”
Exactly. And they should be grateful to have 10-12 weeks good money for doing little or nothing.
They are just getting more and more full of their own importance
and insulting the viewers without who the programme wouldn't last.
A fantastic idea, no idea how it would work, but bring it on .
People like JS would have no chance of spoiling SCD... like he has done this year. IMHO the show as it is at the minute is a complete farce.
People like JS would have no chance of spoiling SCD... like he has done this year. IMHO the show as it is at the minute is a complete farce.
Originally Posted by dome:
“I have a better idea let's go back to the original the one with the least votes goes.
That way those poor sensitive judges wouldn't have to make that heart breaking decision as to who goes.”
“I have a better idea let's go back to the original the one with the least votes goes.
That way those poor sensitive judges wouldn't have to make that heart breaking decision as to who goes.”
Couldn't agree more.
And my heart bleeds (as in not
)for Len each time he has to have the casting vote and starts burbling 'I don't like having to do this, you shouldn't be here, etc etc'.The little darlings wanted the change. They've got it. Now shut up.
Originally Posted by Endemoniada:
“Yes..but he may be very unpopular with the 'public' who aren't keeping him in...and they may far outnumber his supporters.....”
“Yes..but he may be very unpopular with the 'public' who aren't keeping him in...and they may far outnumber his supporters.....”
But John's "supporters" are very evidently picking up the phone to VOTE for him which is why he escapes the bottom two.
Those who complain about his continued presence in the show need to do the same for THEIR favourites rather than just moaning about the outcome.
Not a JS supporter BTW (I was a Cherie fan), I find him amusing and he isn't ruining the show for me. The judges reactions and those of some people on here are doing that
Surely it could halve the series time?! Or if when someone is at the bottom three weeks in a row then they'd have to cancel the public vote so as not to shorten the series, thus defeating some of the point of the series - to raise money for CiN!??
Originally Posted by CaroUK:
“But John's "supporters" are very evidently picking up the phone to VOTE for him which is why he escapes the bottom two.
Those who complain about his continued presence in the show need to do the same for THEIR favourites rather than just moaning about the outcome.
Not a JS supporter BTW (I was a Cherie fan), I find him amusing and he isn't ruining the show for me. The judges reactions and those of some people on here are doing that”
“But John's "supporters" are very evidently picking up the phone to VOTE for him which is why he escapes the bottom two.
Those who complain about his continued presence in the show need to do the same for THEIR favourites rather than just moaning about the outcome.
Not a JS supporter BTW (I was a Cherie fan), I find him amusing and he isn't ruining the show for me. The judges reactions and those of some people on here are doing that”
Nail hit firmly on the head there.
I think the new idea will only work IF the modify it to the couple with three consecutive weeks at the bottom of the leaderboard will automatically do the dance-off.
Then when it happens, the other couple with the lowest public vote will compete with the 'automatic' couple in a dance-off and the judges can pretend to be heartbroken having to let one couple go.
Then when it happens, the other couple with the lowest public vote will compete with the 'automatic' couple in a dance-off and the judges can pretend to be heartbroken having to let one couple go.
Not a John fan at all, but I really don't like this idea. As others have said, how do you cancel the dance-off and public vote at short notice? I disagree with giving the judges so much power too - they are not without bias themselves.
Originally Posted by mindyann:
“Well, you could loose 2 couples in one week - one for 3 strikes and out, one in the 'dance off'.
Which, given that in a 14 week run you could technically loose 4 couples to the 3 strikes rule - could make the final a bit of a ghostly event!”
“Well, you could loose 2 couples in one week - one for 3 strikes and out, one in the 'dance off'.
Which, given that in a 14 week run you could technically loose 4 couples to the 3 strikes rule - could make the final a bit of a ghostly event!”
In some ways that's even worse - you don't even know how many weeks the comp will last then, it'd play havoc with scheduling.
One suggestion from elsewhere was that you could have a "3 strikes and you're automatically in the dance-off" rule.
But it's starting to get a bit too complicated...
Originally Posted by DavidJames:
“In some ways that's even worse - you don't even know how many weeks the comp will last then, it'd play havoc with scheduling.
One suggestion from elsewhere was that you could have a "3 strikes and you're automatically in the dance-off" rule.
But it's starting to get a bit too complicated...”
“In some ways that's even worse - you don't even know how many weeks the comp will last then, it'd play havoc with scheduling.
One suggestion from elsewhere was that you could have a "3 strikes and you're automatically in the dance-off" rule.
But it's starting to get a bit too complicated...”
That way is a damp squib as well though because if you have been bottom of the leader board 3 weeks on the trot and automatically in the dance off - then the dance off is irrelevant - you're off!
I'd go if you find yourself in the dance off 3 times, then you are automatically out - the judges can only 'save' you twice (but as that takes power away from the judges, can't see that one flying)
Originally Posted by catslovelycats:
“don't like it. won't judges just manipulate their scores to secure who's in the bottom pair each week rather than judge dances more 'objectively'?”
“don't like it. won't judges just manipulate their scores to secure who's in the bottom pair each week rather than judge dances more 'objectively'?”
Agreed. Bruno and Emma Bunton's 10 immediately sprang to my mind. Our judges aren't exactly objective when it looks like their "favourite" is in danger.
Originally Posted by JamieHT:
“Surely it could halve the series time?! Or if when someone is at the bottom three weeks in a row then they'd have to cancel the public vote so as not to shorten the series, thus defeating some of the point of the series - to raise money for CiN!??”
“Surely it could halve the series time?! Or if when someone is at the bottom three weeks in a row then they'd have to cancel the public vote so as not to shorten the series, thus defeating some of the point of the series - to raise money for CiN!??”
The series no longer raises money for CIN
Originally Posted by CaroUK:
“But John's "supporters" are very evidently picking up the phone to VOTE for him which is why he escapes the bottom two.
Those who complain about his continued presence in the show need to do the same for THEIR favourites rather than just moaning about the outcome.
Not a JS supporter BTW (I was a Cherie fan), I find him amusing and he isn't ruining the show for me. The judges reactions and those of some people on here are doing that”
“But John's "supporters" are very evidently picking up the phone to VOTE for him which is why he escapes the bottom two.
Those who complain about his continued presence in the show need to do the same for THEIR favourites rather than just moaning about the outcome.
Not a JS supporter BTW (I was a Cherie fan), I find him amusing and he isn't ruining the show for me. The judges reactions and those of some people on here are doing that”
Oh, thank you! A sane voice, I totally agree.
And funnily enough, all this brouhaha has meant Arlene and Craig being invited onto any show with a pulse, thousands and thousands of column inches on John and increased viewing figures and phone revenue.
They're not going to change the rules to mean that a cash cow like this can't happen again!
Originally Posted by CaroUK:
“But John's "supporters" are very evidently picking up the phone to VOTE for him which is why he escapes the bottom two.
Those who complain about his continued presence in the show need to do the same for THEIR favourites rather than just moaning about the outcome.
Not a JS supporter BTW (I was a Cherie fan), I find him amusing and he isn't ruining the show for me. The judges reactions and those of some people on here are doing that”
“But John's "supporters" are very evidently picking up the phone to VOTE for him which is why he escapes the bottom two.
Those who complain about his continued presence in the show need to do the same for THEIR favourites rather than just moaning about the outcome.
Not a JS supporter BTW (I was a Cherie fan), I find him amusing and he isn't ruining the show for me. The judges reactions and those of some people on here are doing that”
Confirming my impression there are many good dancers, Alesha included, who are well-disposed, and not afraid to say so in a charming way.
2 of 3
