This is what annoys me the most about today's announcement.

Quite often someone has won that wasnt the best dancer, so why is this pathetic attempt to claim it is a dance contest being accepted. It has never been one, otherwise how did darren Gough beat 2 clearly better dancers on finals night a couple of years ago. Simple people prefer his personality. No one seemed to complain then. So why has this been allowed to happen.

Although Sergeant claims it isnt a forced decision, but the fact that he mentions that he doesnt want to get people upset, etc, shows just what was going on. The sour interviews given by the lousy losers have put pressure on him. They cant honestly expect a 64 year old to be as good as some 20-somethings with dance backgrounds and therefore why bother having older people in it. Its just age discrimination

If a serious dance competition is what viewers want, then by all means turn Strictly into one.

But as it stands at the moment, it does not befit such an event.

The celebrities are of different starting abilities, the non-expert public have a say and more to the point, they are asked to vote for their "favourites."

Until the format is rectified, I refuse to treat the show as anything other than light entertainment.

It will be a sports competition on finals night with the winner having the stamina to deal with 5 dances. I so want 3 in the final as it adds to the final show. 2 finalists, I might as well watch some boxing

Never.

It's an RTV show which incorporates a dancing competition combined with a popularity contest....for want of a better description.

It all adds up to a celebrealitytalentoperamime.

I don't think anything that John says 'shows just what was going on'....any more than what anyone else says. What I do know is that he doesn't strike me as a very believable 'victim'. It will be interesting to see what more comes out in due course.

Yes it has

"Strictly Come Dancing" is a hybrid of two show:

"Strictly Ballroom" & "Come Dancing", both of which were purely dancing competitions

veiwers dwindled until both were phased out

hence "Strictly Come Dancing" + addition of popularity contest aswell as dancing

.

Thanks for the history lesson...but it doesn't make your point any stronger.

Strictly incorporates a dancing competition but ultimately the winner is determined not strictly ( ) by that method.

If Strictly was a proper dance contest then it should have the following changes:
[LIST][*]Proper qualified dance judges not chorographers and dance teachers[*]No viewer vote[*]Not broadcast on a Saturday evening[/LIST]
The reason I say it shouldn't be on a Saturday evening is because, IMO, Saturday TV shouldn't be 'serious' TV, it should be about having fun, and having a laugh.

The title of the show is irrelevant.

The winner is still determined by us, the viewers, and we aren't qualified to judge dancing.

Kind of agree with you their Soulmate. My take is this

1. If the judges had not been so consistently unpleasant to John then the public (those who did not care whether he was in the comp or not) would not have got behind him in such a big way. Despite Fiona and Kate, they have not learned that the nastier they are with their comments then the more the public feel the "bad dancing" celeb is being treated poorly and then they (the public) are motivated to "save" them. Hopefully they will learn this lesson next year.

2. In my opinion SCD is many different things to many different people. For some it is a dance comp; for others it is an inspiration; some align themselves to their favourite pro; others are motivated by a celeb (or pro) they like/feel a connection with.

3. For me personally all these RTV shows are essentially popularity contests - whether the vehicle is dancing; haircutting; eating bugs or sittting in a house for 15 weeks it all boils down to popularity (however you define it and I am defining it in John's case as he who garners the most votes to get people spending their cash on voting)

I am not voting this year (voted loads for Mattesha last year) and that is only because none of the money is going to charity (and the judges clearly have their favourites).

That's it in my humble opinion.

In the end its supposed to be an entertainment show to raise money for children in need. Its also in reality about offering some desperate ex celebs a chance to rekindle their dwindling career (Rachel Stevens etc) - John being effectively retired was just in it for a laugh as he didn't have a career needing to be revived.

It is not a serious dance contest but a bit of fun and it doesn't really matter who wins in the end as that's not the point at all.

In that sense its very different from the X factor which is about giving an unknown the chance of a musical career.

Yes it does


no it isn't

my point being that (in answer to the thread "Since when has SCD been a dancing competition?") Strictly was a purely dance competition but now it isn't - and the fact/history/titlebear that out

.

Not with the phone votes this year I'm afraid, that's why I don't vote (that and there is no Alesha spark this year for me in any of the celebs, all very "nice", but I do "nice" at work lol!)

title has nothing to do with it. It has always been a popularity contest. Remember the first series runner up? He was worse than John is, but no one moaned, like now.

Fenia Vardanis, the founding mother of SCD in 2003 when at the BBC, said today she started it as a light entertainment show, embracing persons from many walks of life.

It was not a talent show to discover new blood and launch them on a dancing career. That was for Come Dancing - which died from viewer apathy.

It also didn't have the ratings, huge global franchise and media following it does now.

I only remember Strictly Ballroom as a Baz Luhrman film, from the original musical. Was it a dance competition on TV sometime?

true, but it hasnt been the only case where the better dancers have gone out and the winner is rarely the best dancer in all the years

thats what I thought, but I didnt want to say just in case I looked an idiot.

Surely it is whatever people make of it.

I have been perfectly happy treating it as a competition in which novices are taught to dance and "generally" the people that have embraced this the most (that is, the best dancers or the most improved) end up in the final (via both the public and the judges).

Doing this has made me watch it and look forward to it every year since the first series. I have learnt a little about dancing and I like getting passionate about it and discussing heel leads in the office with the other Strictly geeks.

I apologise for watching it incorrectly all these years...

Strictly has never been a true dancing competition,celebs learning to dance,which makes it light entertainment and always has been.
The judges and James Jordan have overstepped the mark this series,the judges now think it's about them,and only they are right,and as for James arrogance and ignorance,the size of these people's egos ...but hey what would I know I'm just a viewer paying my TV licence.

Ellie

You dont remember "Come Dancing"?

Well do you remember the song "Everybody 'Come Dancing' " which was derived from the series

.

The TITLE has everything to do with it



No it has not

When it was 'titled' "Strictly Ballroom" and "Come Dancing" it was purely a dance competition


but it has - see above

found the song anyhow

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GJe57FQykAQ

Here it is - presented by none other than Michael Aspel

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0294034/

I'm afraid some of the judges & professionals need to be put back in their boxes. I say some as I haven't heard Bruno sounding off like the other judges - but might be wrong. Also it has also given a real insight into the professionals - some have come out of it well - others appallingly. Brucie tonight on ITT came across as the wise old man. Give some of them a bit of fame & it has gone to their heads.

It can't be a dancing competition as 99% of public have no idea how to judge dancing. In fact on tv you can't see the feet a lot of the time. You see the dance & decide if you like it or not - coupled with your feelings about the couple built up over the weeks of the show. I know what I think looks good & often my views about the dance do agree with the judges - sometimes not. The contrast has never been more stark as this year. The technically correct but charisma bypassed Rachel alongside John. I've not been a John fan but do love Jodie as her attitude has been splendid. She has put her heart into this but she doesn't reek of desperation. I suppose it is wrong to love her as she isn;t the best dancer.