Originally Posted by Vincy82:
“Can we have a Christine, Tom, Austin and Rachel semi then please
”
“Can we have a Christine, Tom, Austin and Rachel semi then please
”
Actually I could be open to persuasion on that.
65% Judges 35% public - sorted!!!
3 of 3
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“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.............
”
“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.............
”
- it wouldn't work for Strictly
1/ It's not the X Factor (which i dont think is as successful as Strictly)
2/ Wouldn't prevent what we're all debating right now (animousity towards poorer dancers)
= don't think the show would survive
strictly is successful because
A/ Public like being 'involved' in stuff
B/ Some people just enjoy watching "ballroom dancing"
take away the dance/judging element and celebs will be practicing their jokes/juggling and not their dancing and you'll lose much of the dance following (incl me) and you'll end up with yet another X factor/I'm a celebrity getme.../Britain got talent show
of course if you got rid of the public vote altogether you'd end up with a very boring dance competition that would die the way "come dancing" did
i think the support for the show is about dance/personality (65/35) and if this was reflected in the scoring it will be more successful
.
Easiest way would be to double the "points" that the dancers get from the judges' votes, i.e. bottom gets 2 instead of 1, top (if say 8 couples) gets 16 instead of 8. Then it's a factor of one for the public vote. Whether it would make much difference I'm not sure (as we never get to see the standings after the public votes have been added in) but I suppose it's an option.
What people are suggesting would be stupid because half the couples would be safe even before voting began. Why bother opening phonelines for them?
Originally Posted by Saturn:
“What people are suggesting would be stupid because half the couples would be safe even before voting began. Why bother opening phonelines for them?”
“What people are suggesting would be stupid because half the couples would be safe even before voting began. Why bother opening phonelines for them?”
Well maybe you've hit on another angle
Maybe let the dance judges decide which half of the field (4 of 8 couples) go through (are safe) - then just ask the public to vote who goes thro from the remaining (presumably poorer) dancers
it would still involve the public, but still remain a dance competition
.
I don't agree...50/50 split is the best way. Its fair, people understand it and the current voting system has always resulted in a good dancer winning!
Originally Posted by JethroUK:
“It's not got the same following and the winner might be a dancin border collie
”
“It's not got the same following and the winner might be a dancin border collie
”
Hey, that dog danced really well! He could give JS a run for his money.
Originally Posted by PrincessNidor:
“I don't agree...50/50 split is the best way. Its fair, people understand it and the current voting system has always resulted in a good dancer winning!”
“I don't agree...50/50 split is the best way. Its fair, people understand it and the current voting system has always resulted in a good dancer winning!”
but it's not working right now - hence the post
depends whether you think John events are good/bad for the show - it think it's bad
.
3 of 3
