I like that

and Bruce decides who goes home of the two?



I like that too - this week should be 'roll-over' week - nobody goes and their back on schedule for Chribo final

.

because he can't dance?

= mucho controvercy

= the very reason he has quit

= the sheer weight of public opinion has caused the problem

I feel quite confident that if you asked John himself - that's the way he would have liked to go out

.

And the ratings plummeted.

Which is what will happen to Strictly if you don't invite less able but nonetheless charismatic and entertaining folk like John onto the show. And if you do, their progress needs to be accepted and respected like the other couples.

I think it should be worked out percentage-wise.
Judges Score Marks out of 40 as a % (or marks x 2.5)

Public vote Votes for each couple as percentage of total votes cast

Add the two answers together and divide by 2.

This would take into account how much better/worse the judges thought couples were than one another, rather than using placement points.

You're right - both "Come dancing" and "Strictly Ballroom" flopped out as purely dancing competitions

hence "Strictly Come Dancing" & hence Strictly needs public involvement to suceed

.

In your opinion.

Not mine. I felt his American Smooth was glorious.

And what he lacked in technical ability, he more than made up for in performance (which is just as important an aspect of dance).

I could forgive John for having a less than perfect frame because I was too busy being charmed by his routines.

Someone like Cheri, on the other hand, might have been more able, but she couldn't connect with me, and no amount of heel leads and perfect lines could make up for that.

Strictly can never be a true dancing competition in its present format.
If it's going to be a competition consisting of ballroom and latin dances, then it has to be judged by people who know all the ins and outs of those dances. Not like three of the current muppets who though they have some dance background, it's mainly in connection with the 'theatrical' side of dance. ('Theatrical' in this case covering a variety of sins such as Bruno's prancing around in the Elton John video. )
It also has to be judged fairly with no favouritism. And if a critique is given then that critique should be based purely on the dance and not on whether the judge wants 'more/raw sex'. Or whether a judge is so overwhelmed by a dance that they stand to applaud it. (That eliminates the other current muppet. )
If the public are invited to vote, they should be told that they are voting for the best dance. Though in order for the public to be able to take a subjective view they must be given a proper view of the dancing and not just random shots of feet, arms, heads, audience, armpits, etc.
Until all that happens, Strictly is a light entertainment show in which people learn to dance, and the least popular person is voted off each week.

Agreed.

This series more so than any other the judges have been behaving like they were the stars and their word was law. Hopefully, if any good is to come of this they'll be a little more honest in their comments and marking. Thus, keeping the present system as it is and everyone's vote being treated fairly and without contempt!

If you weight the results in the favour of the judges, people will just stop voting - why bother if you can be so easily overruled?

Exactly. It's bad enough now, with the judges criticising the public's voting decisions.

I think that this episode has damaged the show. Who are they going to get next year? Just celebrities that can dance already because if you can't then you'll just get bullied.

The show will certainly put less able movers off from participating.

Only the dancing elite will join and bore us to tears with their overly competitive and overly serious ways.

I said the same thing to my husband after watching ITT tonight. If you were a celebrity with no previous dancing experience who had previously thought taking part in SCD would be fun, this saga could make you think again. Who would willingly step into the lion's den after what happened? You'd have to be fairly desperate to revive a flagging career!

I agree. I would personally prefer the final stages of Strictly to be between couples who have a fair to good amount of dance talent. However, reducing the public's voting power simply because a certain element decide that the public aren't voting correctly is not the way to go. It is tantamount to saying -
"You are naughty children. You're not doing what you're supposed to do. However, we don't want to take away your vote completely because we fear you'll lose interest and stop watching. So we'll give you a smaller vote to try and get what we want and hope you won't notice."

The producers changed the rules to incorporate the dance off and that hasn't worked. Sid is absolutely right. If the public need to have their power reduced then they shouldn't have any at all. I see what the OP is getting at but reducing the public vote would be a patronising insult.

Exactly.

And, as someone further up said, by having non dancers sweating it out at training then impressing us with their efforts, the show has inspired many to take up dancing without feeling like a prat. In fact - DING! - the government should subsidise dance schools under a new Health Initiative...."Five (quicksteps) a Day"

I'm perfectly happy with the way it is now. The only bit i dislike is the dance off with the judges choosing who to save. I wish that they never brought that in.

The judges mark on what they see (as do we) They are just 4 opinions. We can choose to agree with them or we can disagree.
I often disagree with them and think come on?!
I vote for what i enjoy on the night. What moved me and made me think Wow! (for whatever reason)
If it went in more favour of the judges i would not watch!

In all honesty since it went to the dance off - i've not enjoyed it as much

not at all

the public would carry on voting (be involved) just the same

the public can be fickle, and it's like giving a child a car

but with only 35% of control they just wont be in a position to cause so much damage

you dont have a public vote to see which tooth to pull out

and whilst it is entertainment - some of it has to bolted down (operating professionally albeit loosely) if it's to survive

.

.

That's kind of what I meant by patronising. Either the public can be trusted with a vote or they can't. If they can only be trusted with a bit of a vote then why give them a vote at all. Maybe some of them wouldn't realise the implication (we don't really want you to have a say but we need your revenue) but many would. I wouldn't vote under those circumstances.

the show needs them and their votes - and the public need to feel involved

there would be little or no difference in the voting

the people who vote are the people who just tend to vote for 'stuff', and they'll keep voting just the same


they only have 1/2 the vote now - so i'm not sure why you think cutting it to 1/3 will make any difference what so ever

.

Because, as it stands right now, the public can (fairly easily) overturn the judges' rankings if they don't agree with them. Cutting it to a third would make it much more difficult to do that - which is surely the reason you suggested it in the first place? If I thought my vote was going to have minimal effect on the initial positions, I wouldn't vote. Having said that, I'm prepared to concede that a fair proportion of the public don't think like that. For me, it's a matter of principle (and the implication therein) rather than practicality.

indeed - and i stil dont think that will make any difference

people just vote for people they like and that's about as deep as it gets



i figured it was a principle thing

so you'd react the same if the vote was cut from 40% to 38% - just because its been cut

but i'd still maintain that people who vote for stuff will keep voting

and if it was allowed to bounce along without the debarcles then it would attract more viewers = more voters

so i think the end justifies the means

.

Can we have a Christine, Tom, Austin and Rachel semi then please

No. Because that wouldn't be a radical enough cut to cut viewer influence. What I'm objecting to here is that a cut of the size you're suggesting is an obvious attempt to cut (or rather mainly disable) the amount of viewer control there is at the minute. If the producers want to (mainly) eradicate viewer control then they should simply eradicate the viewer vote. That's the principle. Don't patronise us by pretending we've still got a significant say when, in actual fact, we haven't. Really. Say it like it is.

I do agree that most viewers won't be bothered though. It's just me. And I've only ever voted for three contestants anyway. When I thought it might make a difference...

How about 100% public vote - after all that would boost the phone votes and raise more for charity. The judges could still score but it wouldn't count.

Then the bottom two in the public vote would do the dance off and the judges would save their preferred couple.

Seems to work for the X factor.............

I agree with the 100% public vote. The judges can, of course, comment, give advice etc, but not have the say until the dance off.