Who is to Blame for Favoured Dancers Going Out Before More Popular Celebrities but Poorer Dancers?

The press (as usual) is constantly panning the show for the better celebrity dancers (Ellie S etc) exiting before the less talented (Tony Adams) but who is to blame?

The judges always put the blame on the voting public stating that those in the dance-off don't deserve to be there. But they must shoulder some blame for clearly having their favourites whilst dissing others. As a result the voting public see this and support those being unfairly scored or critiqued which invariably means less votes going to dancers the judges want us to vote for.

The fact that Strictly has always been more a popularity contest with the voting public then you will get weaker dancers remaining beyond more talented celebs. However, once we get down to the closing stages I feel the stronger dancer does end up winning.

The producers and execs of the show must take a lot of the blame too. They clearly have no qualms signing up celebrities that are clearly ringers who have trained at dance academies, schooled in ballet or appeared in musical stage shows. The genuine learners such as Tony Adams have to sink or swim and they are left open to criticism in the media for staying in the show ahead of the 'better' celebrity dancers. The media needs to take on board that the celebrities are competing on unlevel ground from the get-go. There are celebs who obviously have danced before or been schooled in the art of dance and there are those that have not.

I do not see anything changing and have come to accept the fact that it is more a popularity than a dance contest and that the producers will forever select handy celebrity dancers for the show when more emphasis should be put on finding celebs with no dance experience.

The show is a master class in manipulation. From the age and backgrounds of the contestants that are approached, the music allocated, the costumes, an outrageous scoring system not based on performance or technical skills but personal opinion, blatant favouritism of some of the judges, who create a public whiplash to produce a bounce-back vote, to the continual use of sob stories (personal and work commitments). The press as always are only interested in stirring the pot to create sensational stories.

The class favourites usually have the best music and outfits. The 'also rans' have to try to learn to dance using music that is totally inappropriate for the dance, whilst having to wear cast-offs from the lost property box.

The whole system needs revamping starting with the scoring system. The show is trying to appeal to all age groups and interests and getting lost in the mayhem. Signing on certain types of contestants to act as the class joker should be dropped. It's humiliating and voyeuristic. I'd like to see a more even spread of latin and ballroom dances each week. The show has become latin and freestyle orientated. For me, it's now become a theme-fest. I'd rather see the theme supporting the dance, not at the expense of it. Rather than the free-for-all Couple's Choice, which usually ends up as 'Street', why not have the couple choose another dance style like swing, folk, mambo, flamenco etc?

B4p wrote:why not have the couple choose another dance style like swing, folk, mambo, flamenco etc?

You're singing my song B4p, but the "penny for the guy" days have become "Sign me up, I need a new car" ones in almost all T.V icons. The producers use all and any means to get viewing He is. And we obey him.; kids, sob-story videos, families  and consistent tales of how "hard" life is for the contestants, (Do seven 12 hour shifts as a security guard as I once did before talking hard-work). The days of Dance Halls are a fond memory and Tie and Tails disappeared about the same time as Gus Demmy suits, kipper ties and Gilbert O Sullivan pullovers. Can you imagine what "Take your partners" would be greeted with today. Ha, rap-on, sick innit...

I don’t see it as either a popularity contest or a dance competition.  In essence it is a good old fashioned Saturday night entertainment programme. We used to have opportunity knocks, the generation game, stars in their eyes.  Strictly is a mix of people of all ages and abilities entertaining us with dance, warmth and personality. Throw in Dave Arch and the singers (musical entertainment) and Tess and Claud (comedy) and it’s a good old fashioned variety show.  It’s what the beeb thinks the public wants (and they’re probably not wrong).  They dress it up as a dance competition and allow (encourage) the Press to make heroes and villains which increases the viewing figures.  Job done.

And whether Tony stays in beyond Ellie is a question of fact.  Whether he should stay in is a question of interpretation.  Personally, I think he’s been on a much further j.ourney than, eg, Tyler and worked equally as hard so why should there be any backlash against him?

fiftynotout wrote:I don’t see it as either a popularity contest or a dance competition.  In essence it is a good old fashioned Saturday night entertainment programme. We used to have opportunity knocks, the generation game, stars in their eyes.  Strictly is a mix of people of all ages and abilities entertaining us with dance, warmth and personality. Throw in Dave Arch and the singers (musical entertainment) and Tess and Claud (comedy) and it’s a good old fashioned variety show.  It’s what the beeb thinks the public wants (and they’re probably not wrong).  They dress it up as a dance competition and allow (encourage) the Press to make heroes and villains which increases the viewing figures.  Job done.

Much as I wanted it to be a serious dance show, I have to agree with all that fifty. If a programme about dancing pigs got the viewers in the Beeb would float "One man and his Hog" as the Saturday night flagship. Mind you, Tess and Claud prancing about in sequinned donkey jackets and wellies, maybe not.