Author Topic: Strictly Dancing  (Read 9783 times)

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #25 on: 18 November, 2008, 12:43:14 pm »
It is cheap TV. And the masses watch it. Double hit!
It is simpler than it looks.

Eccentrica Gallumbits

  • Rock 'n' roll and brew, rock 'n' roll and brew...
Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #26 on: 18 November, 2008, 12:57:07 pm »

And it's getting trounced in the ratings by X Factor. So the brouhaha over John Sargeant is doing the show no harm at all.


X Factor's quite goodish this year. All the women are great singers, the blokes are a bit ropey, and Daniel who just left was chickeninabaskettastic. Rachel's my favourite - she's got a great voice, she'd really appreciate the opportunity, and she doesn't get on with Dannii Minogue.  :D
My feminist marxist dialectic brings all the boys to the yard.


Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #27 on: 18 November, 2008, 01:04:12 pm »
Can I ask if anyone cares?

Thank goodness! I was starting to despair...

Quote
...nobody wants to abandon this enormously lucrative cash machine format by admitting what crap it is.
Frenchie - Train à Grande Vitesse

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #28 on: 18 November, 2008, 01:05:37 pm »
Johns going to win ! The public love him.

No they don't, Facebook groups want to annoy the judges. They couldn't give a shit about John Sergeant. It's his partner I feel sorry for, stuck in the middle.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Tiger

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #29 on: 18 November, 2008, 01:51:42 pm »
I have never bothered at all with reality TV although I regret my wife and daughers are total suckers for it. However I am actually voting for JS in the hope that this will bring ridicule on the genre and indeed the BBC. It is my own little way of getting my own back on this tosh which has forced me to relinquish the remote to the philistines.
While they are all watching I am in the kitchen phoning votes in for JS on their mobiles. Revenge!

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #30 on: 18 November, 2008, 02:14:37 pm »
The purpose of these programmes is ....  to maximise phone income for the programme makers
It is cheap to make 'entertaining' screen fodder - a soap - but with the enormous bonus of a monster phoine income.

Not correct in this case, I'm afraid (the bit about the cash - not the quality of the programme!)

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #31 on: 19 November, 2008, 12:02:57 pm »
It is simpler than it looks.

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #32 on: 19 November, 2008, 12:20:19 pm »
Bah!  A blow for fat, aging men everywhere...
Getting there...

Si

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #33 on: 19 November, 2008, 12:29:15 pm »
Question is....do they just let him go and no one else, or do they still have the phone vote: how much will it cost the beeb in one week's worth of phone voting gone missing?


Hummers

  • It is all about the taste.
Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #34 on: 19 November, 2008, 02:46:07 pm »
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Sergeant to pull out of Strictly

It's all over.


Not yet it ain't.

Good for him though. A week too late IMHO but a noble act.

H

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #35 on: 19 November, 2008, 02:51:18 pm »
Only the British would pull out 'because there is a real possibility that [he] might win'!
Getting there...

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #36 on: 19 November, 2008, 03:19:36 pm »
What a joke.


I hope next time they run the show they have a full audition process beforehand and so only allow people who are professional dancers to take part.

To put people in, then complain they stand a chance of willing, is completely pointless.

Rapples

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #37 on: 19 November, 2008, 03:27:14 pm »
And Ballroom dancing isn't pointless?

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #38 on: 19 November, 2008, 03:27:59 pm »
Question is....do they just let him go and no one else, or do they still have the phone vote: how much will it cost the beeb in one week's worth of phone voting gone missing?


As I've suggested earlier, the programme is not the major revenue generator that some people think it is.  There'll be very little financial difference if a week of voting goes.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #39 on: 19 November, 2008, 03:32:48 pm »
It is less about revenue and more about audience share. This will damage their audience share.
It is simpler than it looks.

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #40 on: 19 November, 2008, 03:35:01 pm »
And Ballroom dancing isn't pointless?

Having John in was the only non-pointless thing about the show.

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #41 on: 19 November, 2008, 03:56:07 pm »
And Ballroom dancing isn't pointless?

Having John in was the only non-pointless thing about the show.

Miserable bugger indeed! I have to say, having read the comments on the BBC News site about JS stepping down, I have never felt so out of step with general opinion (which overwhelmingly echo Nuttys).  And many people feel they've been ripped off, as their paid-for vote no longer counts.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #42 on: 19 November, 2008, 04:14:48 pm »
A bad day for entertainment.   Having watched some clips on the BBC website JS has obviously worked hard.  I know, I dance.  It is an awful lot of blood, sweat and tears.   

I think that the judges are responsible for ruining this.  If the public want him why should they have the right to be critical and heap on the pressure, which in my view is what they have done.

Change the show next series - have a vote by the dancers and the public on the judges.

Oh, and where do I send my application to replace him  ;D


bikenerd

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #43 on: 19 November, 2008, 04:18:05 pm »
I've considered becoming a celebrity just so I can dance with Lilia Kopylova.

Ahem  :-[

Hummers

  • It is all about the taste.
Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #44 on: 19 November, 2008, 06:39:00 pm »
I've followed the show pretty much from the first series, really enjoy the dancing and am unreservedly a fan of the show.

John had a good innings and up to the Paso, was arguably better than most of the people that went before.

I fully understood why he was saved by the public after the Paso Ghastly as it was first class entertainment. However since then, his dancing has not been good and his performance has not been entertaining - just worse than the people that actually went.

I can't help feeling that his bacon has been saved for the last two weeks by 'Contrary Marys' who are just voting to spite the judges.

Not that any of this matters much as he has probably come to this conclusion himself and done the honourable thing.

H

legioneer

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #45 on: 19 November, 2008, 06:48:28 pm »
Can't belive John has quit - what a big girl's blouse.
He should have stayed for all the people who voted for him or rather his partner.

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #46 on: 19 November, 2008, 06:59:38 pm »
I feel cheated, all the money I have spent on telephone calls to vote for John over recent weeks, and now he quits.
It's a scandal, the Beeb ought to be refunding my call fees, who do I contact to complain about this?  :demon:

Hummers

  • It is all about the taste.
Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #47 on: 19 November, 2008, 07:03:31 pm »
Well if you voted for him to stay in then your money and vote went to good use, didn't it?

He stayed in right up until the point he resigned.

As for his partner, I doubt seh will miss all the unwelcome attention this has created, let alone dancing with Mr Seargent

H

Si

Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #48 on: 19 November, 2008, 07:47:16 pm »
I think that I'm with Paxman on this one.

Hummers

  • It is all about the taste.
Re: Strictly Dancing
« Reply #49 on: 19 November, 2008, 09:05:58 pm »
John Seargent resigns. Thatcher waits outide with microphone

 ;D

Courtesy of NewsBuscuit.

H