Strictly Purism

[RosieH]

Keef, you're right - Tom's showdance was cool (I caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror smiling like an idiot in the middle of it).

I think the most important thing was that as well as being rather good, it showed a bit of personality and enthusiasm, which I think both Rachel and Lisa singularly failed to do (unless you count Lisa moaning every week that the public didn't like her).

[indiepanda]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> indiepanda - probably best not to read all of

> DulwichMum's posts at face value

To be honest, I didn't, I thought she was trying to be funny... but at that time I was very excited but what I'd seen and wanted to hear from someone else who had enjoyed it as much as me not someone using it as an excuse for a "joke".

Rosie & Keef, totally agree with your comments on Tom's dance, saw it again on BBC breakfast this morning and it still put a huge smile on my face.

I don't know if he can sing, but if he does I would love to see him in a musical, he had just got that star quality.

Camilla deserves a lot of praise for her choreography too. Not just in their show dance - the quickstep they did in the main series and the foxtrot in the final all had that Hollywood magic.

[Moos]

I thought DM's post was funny - surely there's room for the passionate fan as well as for some gentle fun-poking, IP?

(sorry if that's provoking - I meant it in a friendly way)

I think we should have an EDF spin-off with IP and Annaj leading the charge - now THAT I'd watch with great alacrity! :)

[buggie]

Think it is fair after the show dances that Tom won, Rachael and Vincent were very good, but did find them bit repetative and felt like they didn't show anything new or exciting in their dance.

Did think it was quite amusing that Brendan tried to give himself a hernia during his show dance with Lisa - thought for a sec that he wasn't going to manage to do that reverse roll-up thingie.

Course Mr Buggie and I have picked up a few tips and tricks for our first dance in a few mths!! :-S

[bignumber5]

Think it is fair after the show dances that Tom won

Well, except that he should have gone out last week... but for the latest "phone-votes don't count" scandal.

(here it comes, because we do watch, but only after about a month in, once the dancing gets good... And we've just got back from a weekend away and watched the recording)

Mrs.number5 (who should be getting ready for work but is hollering this at me as I type) points out that they've had the same rules for 6 years and then they changed them because the same rules would mean 1 person definitely would go out. So he stays in. And wins. Fix? Well, the "we suddenly realised that he'd definitely be in the dance-off" means a certain statistical slowness in the technical booth, because that was bleedin' obvious. Yes, he would. So he should, because those are YOUR rules. Yes? No, apparently not...

I think the it's-all-a-bit-of-fun-for-charity-so-doesn't-matter-who-wins arguement starts off well, but as the contest gets further on, people are training bastard-hard for 6-8hrs a day, 5 days a week, and it starts to matter to them that that's rewarded. Can you blame them?

Also, I think to label the 2 lady-finalists as bland or similar because they focus on, well, dancing, rather than on pissing about in order to progress... well that's not very nice, is it? Are you just getting your claws out because they're pretty ladies, or do you really think that in a show formatted around celebs learning to dance, we should damn those that are actually learning to dance and instead reward those that act the modern-fool? I think that if the John Sargeant set-up highlighted one thing, it's that there comes a point in the series where the people who are having a giggle accept dismissal with dignity, leaving those who are actually good dancers to take it to the finishing line.

If it's not at all about dancing, why the feck do they bother to dance?!

[buggie]

bignumber5 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> they've had the same rules for 6 years and

> then they changed them because the same rules

> would mean 1 person definitely would go out.

.... and then have everyone who voted for him (which must be alot - promise I only watched & voted for no one!) complain and want their money back (sure its a bit pointless as the effort put in to collect it back is surely more than they initally spent!).

> people are training

> bastard-hard for 6-8hrs a day, 5 days a week, and

> it starts to matter to them that that's rewarded.

> Can you blame them?

... did I do this or was it another poster??

> Also, I think to label the 2 lady-finalists as

> bland or similar because they focus on, well,

> dancing, rather than on pissing about in order to

> progress... well that's not very nice, is it? Are

> you just getting your claws out because they're

> pretty ladies, or do you really think that in a

> show formatted around celebs learning to dance

... def didn't see this in my original post.... if anything the only things I did say were regarding what I feel were poor choreographic choices by the professionals (I believe they were both partnered by MEN!!).

Don't see how Tom put any less effort into learning/training - if the hours trained counted towards the score too then any celeb who was trying to do their proper job at the same time (as Lisa was the whole way through) would be completely disadvantaged.... Oooo isn't it good to discuss the important issues of the day!!!

[indiepanda]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought DM's post was funny - surely there's

> room for the passionate fan as well as for some

> gentle fun-poking, IP?

>

> (sorry if that's provoking - I meant it in a

> friendly way)

>

> I think we should have an EDF spin-off with IP and

> Annaj leading the charge - now THAT I'd watch with

> great alacrity! :)

No, not provoking, I did say "at the time" not in general.

Maybe it's something to do with living on my own, but when I'm all bubbling up with excitement I like to share it with someone and I don't always have that instant gratification of someone in the room to share it with. Sometimes the internet provides that outlet, and sometimes it doesn't. I know I can't expect anyone to pander to my interests, but it's fun when they do! I'm usually the first to laugh at myself.

Still, my family are every much fans as I am (my parents even met at a ballroom dancing class, though I don't think they have danced together for many years now) so I can indulge myself when I go home for Christmas.

[bignumber5]

... did I do this or was it another poster??

I fink you've got a bit muddled - first line of my post was responding to you, the rest was just me going off on one ;-)

[buggie]

bignumber5 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... did I do this or was it another poster??

>

> I fink you've got a bit muddled - first line of my

> post was responding to you, the rest was just me

> going off on one ;-)

Ahhhh ok!!! :)

I've remembered there has been a rule change in the last 6yrs... the dance off - always use to be the lowest combination score each week, but (guess to bumph out the hr long results show) they introduced that - and reckon its ended up skewing voting patterns.

[SimonM]

....and I used to think the Doctor Who/Star Trek nerds were obsessive... :))

[buggie]

... obsessed?? Who's obsessed??!!! :-S realises she's said too much!!!

[SeanMacGabhann]

so none of John Sergeant's defenders are still sticking up for him and still condemning the judges for being pompous? No? Anyone?

[annaj]

*before reading this post, please understand that I realise Strictly is not life and death, but I do love it and get involved in watching it and care about the results, because I believe that if something is worth doing it's worth doing well. So, if people taking it too seriously is annoying you, please don't bother reading the rest and leave me to have my rant*

Thank you.

Buggie, I'm not sure I undersatnd your post about there being a change in the way the dance off is decided.

As I understand it the system has always been the same, the judges scores are converted into a numerical ranking (using the example of the semi final Rachel and Lisa were joint 1st so got 3 each and Tom was last so got 1) the phone votes are then converted in the same way (Tom was most popular so got 3, Rachel came second and got 2 and Lisa came third and got 1)

So, their overall score should have been both scores added together Tom 4, Rachel 5, Lisa 4 therefore Lisa and Tom in the dance-off (but even if Tom got all the phone votes and Rachel and Lisa got none he could still only have equalled them)

The presenters claim that they had not anticiapted that situation (seems unlikely, it's hardly advanced statistics) and when it came up they felt it wasn't fair that Tom would inevitably be in the dance off. However, given that that is the advertised and established voting system, there doesn't seem to me to be anything unfair about it. It seems more likely to me that they realised Tom was the favourite and they would loose viewers for the final if he went out and that, after all the various phone-vote scandals, they're terrified of being accused of conning the public.

Tom would have been in the dance off, because the judges marked him so much lower then both other dancers, because there was an obvious difference in the standard. But instead he was put through to the final and ultimately won, over Lisa who got a perfect score for both her first dances, because, in effect, the public's opinion was favoured over the judges instead of a combined score.

It's not the first time the show have bent the rules for a favourite, does anyone remember Mark Ramprakash and Karen being allowed to start over because her costume got caught up? But it's disappointing none the less.

Everyone knows by now that I'm a huge Rachel fan, watching her dance lifted me out of everyday life and gave me the thrill that only something really beautiful can, but I was actually more upset for Lisa by the result. Ok, her show dance was really naff and Tom's was perky and fun, but she got a perfect score for her first two dances and that counted for nothing, because the public don't like attractive women. As for Tom's "personality" all I saw was a smug, egotistical actor of the Joey Tribiani school, pulling faces while he dragged Camilla (a fantastic dancer and choreographer who made the very best of him and his pre-existing talents)around the floor.

There, I feel better now, I'll go back to real life and stop caring about television competitions.

Thanks for listening.

:-$

[david_carnell]

...because the public don't like attractive women...

Did Jill Halfpenny and Aleisha Dixon not win two of the five series?

Mingers, the pair of 'em.

;-)

p.s. Anna, I don't watch this so my opinion doesn't count.

[RosieH]

The public don't like attractive women???? You saying Alisha Dixon's a moose? (or Natasha Kaplinsky or Jill Halfpenny?) I think she's way more attractive than Lisa Snowdon.

Lisa "I went out with George Clooney me" Snowdon got little public support because she demonstrated no humour and no humility - she complained about being in the bottom two rather than accepting that this is a public entertainment show and that she needed to do something to get the public on side if she wanted their votes. John Sargent on the other hand understood this completely, and playing to the audience kept him in week after week, when his dancing skills should have seen him off weeks earlier.

I'm not convinced that Tom would have won if it wasn't for his showdance. He might have done, but I think Rachel's superior skills would have garnered more votes if her showdance wasn't so meh (brilliant but meh) and his so funny and quirky.

I can't believe that I'm writing earnestly about this either!

[annaj]

David, of course they are both extremely attractive women.

I didn't watch the series with Jill Halfpenny, so I don't know what her appeal was exactly.

Aleisha, who was a complete joy to watch and a completely justified winner, was appealing to all voters, because despite being extremely attractive she came across as a bit vulnerable and an underdog. There was one memorable week whe the judges told her that if she started learning to dance early enough she could have been a professional. Aleisha said that she'd always wanted dancing lessons, but her family had been too poor. Hearts broke all around the country (I cried. No, really)and people voted. Now, I'm not for a moment suggesting Aleisha was manipulating us, she seemed sincere and genuine (and was a divine dancer)but she definitely had that bit of extra back story that wins votes.

In my opinion, and it is just an opinion I have no real evidence, an attractive women will only be popular if she has a "thing". Some extra element that makes her more appealing and less threatening to the female voting public, because women are surprisingly mean spirited and jealous when it comes to other women, something that I always find disappointing.

[RosieH]

I don't think it's that women have to have a "thing" - I think it's that Lisa Snowdon's clearly a man's woman rather than a woman's woman, and women don't respond well to that.

I would imagine that the majority of voters are women. Showing a little empathy works wonders.

[LuvPeckham]

I missed the final - Did John win in the end or what ?

[bignumber5]

Riiiight...

RosieH, you are rather proving Annaj's point - a man's woman? I can only assume that to be a euphamism for really obviously good looking. What else could you possibly be basing that on?

[RosieH]

Yeah I know, even as I wrote it I thought it faintly ridiculous, but couldn't be arsed to change it. That said, i think everyone knows what a man's woman and woman's woman is.

What I'm basing it on is entirely my perception, which is of course entirely subjective, but that's kind of my point - the viewers get to vote, so if the image you portray to the audience isn't a sympathetic one, then you're not going to get any votes.

I have no problem with women being attractive - that doesn't make them unappealing to other women. I think Rachel's gorgeous, and Alesha Dixon is absolutely stunning. BUT other people seemed to show facets of their personality, and Lisa didn't seem to have one apart from pouting at the camera and tossing her hair about like she thought she was the most gorgeous thing ever (and let's face it, she's really not bad), then crying when the public didn't vote for her. What was irritating about it was her clear expectation that people would vote for her, based on what, sheer good looks alone?

[annaj]

A man's woman?

What is that exactly RosieH?

I have genuinely no idea what people mean when they say that.

What has she said or done that leads you to that conclusion?

Not surprisingly, perhaps, it's something I've been labelled since sixth form when I chose to hang out with a group of boys who watched films and went out and talked about things they like doing instead of a group of girls who did nothing but criticise what everyone ate and wore and said and did.

These days, thankfully, most people have grown up and respect the fact that, although my closest friends are female, many of the friends I really connect with are male, but that doesn't necessarily make me a slut or a bitch.

[bignumber5]

some cross-posting above, methinks

[Keef]

brilliant but meh

Spot on!

Anna, you've said what a fan of Rachel you were, could that not have just slightly turned you against Tom? I think you're a bit harsh, he seemed nice enough to me.

Anyway, Rachel better dancer than Tom, Camilla more interesting choreographer than Vincent (Argentine tango meant to be his speciality, but found theirs dull, in Rosie's words, brilliant but meh) Tom better entertainer than Rachel, Tom won the prime time Saturday night entertainment telly.

Sorted.

[indiepanda]

I gather the bookies had Tom as slight favourite over Rachel before the final even started, and to get through to the final two he had to score top with the public based on his ballroom and latin, so I suspect he might have won even if his showdance was no better than Rachel's. Let's not forget, he hadn't been in a dance off where both of the others had.

I do think his showdance was streets ahead of the others though - and it was evident the audience in the studio from the long standing ovation and the judges from their comments all agreed. So perhaps the right person did win - I always think the showdance is the one point where they have a real chance to put their personality across and show us what they can do when they aren't forced to do say a latin if they are better at ballroom.

I am not sure it's as simple as women not voting for attractive women if they don't have a "thing" - Jill Halfpenny was a pretty, down to earth northern girl who had a good acting career, I don't recall her attracting the sympathy vote. And Natasha Kaplinsky - beautiful and intelligent, (although dumb enough to have a fling with the engaged Brendan Cole...) usually the kind that would attract jealousy if anyone would.

I think you get a number of factors coming into play on top of how good a dancer the celeb is relative to the other competitors:-

- how popular their professional partner is - let's face it Camilla is pretty attractive.

- how good a teacher & choreographer their professional partner is - I think Lilia does very well with her dance partners for example.

- whether they get the wrong dance the wrong week - e.g. Austin Healy or Cherie Lunghi this series

- how well known they were before the series started - GMTV stars seem to do way better than their skills warrant and East Enders stars sometimes do too

- how much they play up to the audience - John Sargeant for example

- how ambitious they seem - I do think the more ambitious girls get more punished than the guys - I think there is a lot of prejudice against ambition in women - seen as less feminine

- attractiveness of celeb - I am sure it helps the guys a bit.. girls, harder to say - but Christine Bleakley is very attractive - I would say more so than Lisa to be honest, and yet Lisa ended up in dance off when Christine should have on points.

- how positive the celeb is - whinging gets you nowhere.

I do know my dad was just as keen on Tom as I was going into the final and I know quite a few other guys who rated him - one claimed to have voted 200 times for him - and he was straight! I think Camilla was a big asset to him - my dad really liked her choreography... he didn't comment on her looks, but she's hardly ugly!

For me, Lisa lacked star quality, I found most of her dances a little forgettable - unlike Alesha last year. And the show dance was awful in my eyes, dreadful choice of music, trashy outfit, and looked more like an acrobatic stunt than a dance. And being paired with the incredible sulk can't have helped her cause - Brendan's stroppiness is very unattractive.

I felt Rachel got some pointed comments earlier on the series about not using her eyes enough and letting her personality shine through which she got much better at, but personally I felt Lisa had the same issue and they never picked her up on it. I never felt emotionally engaged with her dances in the same way as I did Rachel or Tom's, even if I did think Tom overacted his Paso and Tango.

I do think Rachel was the best dancer overall. But as someone with no dance training to appreciate the finer points of her skill, I simply found Tom that bit more entertaining - his quickstep especially. Though I think Rachel's rhumba and her Argentine Tango were otherwise the standout dances of the series - the rhumba because it is so hard for people to score well in and she made it look easy, and the Argentine because even I could tell Vincent had come up with exceptionally challenging choreography which Rachel tackled exceptionally well.

Anyway, I expect all of the top scorers will get a bit of a career boost out of it, and for all they say about loving the dance, I am sure that is part of the reason they take part!

Roll on the Christmas special - I gather they pre-recorded that and have had scoring problems again!!!