Strictly 2016

[Vapin' Joe]

I'd love to have watched it, but my sock drawer urgently needed tidying.

 

[Roadrider48]

I'd love to have watched it, but my sock drawer urgently needed tidying.

You're better off tidying the drawer, it is cringeworthy shite!

 

[screenman]

You're better off tidying the drawer, it is cringeworthy shite!

Are you upset about something? The fact I like something you do not makes us different, something I am very happy about.

 

[screenman]

Newzoids is good.

 

[Speicher]

so who is going to win ?

who is going to be the pain in the ars@ ?

and who is going to gone first ?

i reckon Will Young has to be a good bet to win

Judge Rinder is going to be a pain

And Ed Balls will go first

what do you all reckon

Judge Rinder will be entertaining, rather than a pain.

The dj should have some rhythm, sorry, cannot remember his name.

It is supposed to be light entertainment, not a master class in dancing skills.

 

[Levo-Lon]

I think the gymnast will be exciting...Ed will probably go first..
the Black girl of eastenders will be a fun act..and give it a real good go..

hard to pick a possible winner until they get past the nerves and settle..

 

[John the Monkey]

Not for me, but Mrs M was a competitive ballroom/latin american dancer in her youth, and she really likes the programme, watching it with an experts eye

 

[DaveReading]

Not at all, I admire the skill and athleticism of the proffesional.

And the fact that some of them are pretty fit helps, too.

I was out (dancing, as it happens) so I missed the group dance and the first chance to see them perform. Unsurprisingly, Will and Claudia are the bookies' favourites, but I love the way that it's sometimes the unlikely ones that do well.

 

[coffeejo]

I don't watch it: the judges put me off. I'd ask why people can't just be nice and what's wrong with constructive criticism instead of snide comments, but I've read this thread and it seems that the problem is human nature.

 

[biggs682]

I don't watch it: the judges put me off. I'd ask why people can't just be nice and what's wrong with constructive criticism instead of snide comments, but I've read this thread and it seems that the problem is human nature.

I only watch and listen as doing a bit of Saturday night internet perusal. Whilst my partner and daughter watch it avidly.

Agree re the comments

 

[stephec]

I don't watch it: the judges put me off. I'd ask why people can't just be nice and what's wrong with constructive criticism instead of snide comments, but I've read this thread and it seems that the problem is human nature.

Add on to that Tess Daly screeching hysterically non stop and it's a winning combination.

 

[Mrs M]

Bring back Brucie

 

[swansonj]

I have said before: Strictly is an extraordinary serious gem smuggled into popular consciousness under the guise of light entertainment, in that the entire show, vanishingly rarely these days, is based on acquisition of a professional skill, and unashamed assessment of that skill. The contestants work hard to acquire an actual skill and to deliver something with substance. They are judged not on their celebrity status but on the hard facts of their performance. Winners win and losers loose. The judges, all four of them, are chosen for their knowledge of the skill in question, and only one of the judges is also chosen for their own celebrity value. The judges actually comment objectively on the performance in depth and beyond superficialities, both good and bad, and to do so they aren't afraid to dive into the language and concepts of the skill in question to a degree that leaves most of us lay people behind. (With Brexit in mind, one could say that the judges are experts... and respected as such...) There is manifest development on show as the series goes on.

Plus 100% of the presenting duo of a prime time ratings hit are female and 50% of the judges gay.

Those of you who dismiss it as superficial or celebrity driven are the ones being conned by our contemporary culture's embrace of the superficial. It is in fact a return to the core values of a previous, Reithian, generation, cleverly smuggled into the schedules under the disguise of a few sequins and flashes of knickers.

 

[Grant Fondo]

I have said before: Strictly is an extraordinary serious gem smuggled into popular consciousness under the guise of light entertainment, in that the entire show, vanishingly rarely these days, is based on acquisition of a professional skill, and unashamed assessment of that skill. The contestants work hard to acquire an actual skill and to deliver something with substance. They are judged not on their celebrity status but on the hard facts of their performance. Winners win and losers loose. The judges, all four of them, are chosen for their knowledge of the skill in question, and only one of the judges is also chosen for their own celebrity value. The judges actually comment objectively on the performance in depth and beyond superficialities, both good and bad, and to do so they aren't afraid to dive into the language and concepts of the skill in question to a degree that leaves most of us lay people behind. (With Brexit in mind, one could say that the judges are experts... and respected as such...) There is manifest development on show as the series goes on.

Plus 100% of the presenting duo of a prime time ratings hit are female and 50% of the judges gay.

Those of you who dismiss it as superficial or celebrity driven are the ones being conned by our contemporary culture's embrace of the superficial. It is in fact a return to the core values of a previous, Reithian, generation, cleverly smuggled into the schedules under the disguise of a few sequins and flashes of knickers.

are you being ironic?

 

[mikeymustard]

I have said before: Strictly is an extraordinary serious gem smuggled into popular consciousness under the guise of light entertainment, in that the entire show, vanishingly rarely these days, is based on acquisition of a professional skill, and unashamed assessment of that skill. The contestants work hard to acquire an actual skill and to deliver something with substance. They are judged not on their celebrity status but on the hard facts of their performance. Winners win and losers loose. The judges, all four of them, are chosen for their knowledge of the skill in question, and only one of the judges is also chosen for their own celebrity value. The judges actually comment objectively on the performance in depth and beyond superficialities, both good and bad, and to do so they aren't afraid to dive into the language and concepts of the skill in question to a degree that leaves most of us lay people behind. (With Brexit in mind, one could say that the judges are experts... and respected as such...) There is manifest development on show as the series goes on.

Plus 100% of the presenting duo of a prime time ratings hit are female and 50% of the judges gay.

Those of you who dismiss it as superficial or celebrity driven are the ones being conned by our contemporary culture's embrace of the superficial. It is in fact a return to the core values of a previous, Reithian, generation, cleverly smuggled into the schedules under the disguise of a few sequins and flashes of knickers.

are you being ironic?

Or just taking the piss?

Personally I like it.