11/03 Results Show Discussion **Spoilers**

[Peacheater]

Originally Posted by MsFroggy

Carrie Ann's fixation with illegal lifts is funny and annoying at the same time but she's not out of place on the show. Nor is Bruno. They both provide flavor and offer something for people to yap about. Len is the perfect counterpart to these two clowns.

If nobody is talking about the show, if nobody is mocking it, if nobody is endlessly complaining and analyzing everything from the pros to the judges to the ringers to the no talent non-celebs, this show is dead. And they don't want a dead show because a dead show means no money. It's really simple. If they replaced Carrie Ann and Bruno with some upstanding, polite, knowledgeable ballroom experts - read boring!! - they might as well pack it in and move the whole smelly block of cheese to the Lifetime Network or public access ratings graveyard.

As a member of the ballroom community, my immediate instinct is to be insulted by the part above now in bold typeface; but, you would be correct if such a course of action would be the one taken by producers. Boring, in any stripe, is disaster. Hypothetically, the show would likely similarly suffer if Tom were to be replaced by, say, anyone...

In reality, however, I know many ballroom experts who are anything but boring and defy being identified as either upstanding or polite. Maks come immediately to mind as an "anything but boring" replacement for Bruno, but I can immediately name 15 ballroom experts who would be as entertaining as either Bruno or Carrie Ann. None of them would find it necessary to say the outrageous things for which the two present judges are frequently castigated, and they would all be very vocal in any disagreements with Len. If Mark Ballas were to leave the show, then Shirley Ballas, for example, would be a great replacement for Carrie Anne.

[Google]

 

[sdl]

Originally Posted by MsFroggy

But she's a fool judging celebs playing around for money. We all know this is not a serious competition, not when the judges play favorites, the voting is probably more rigged than the sails on a tall ship and everybody is getting paid no matter how badly they do. She's "judging" to the extent that the celebs are "ballroom dancing".

*************
You are missing what it is that I find objectionable about CA.
It's not that's she has no business being a ballroom judge - that's a given.
It's that she is the single most annoying person in my world right now - loud, stupid, awkward, highly impressed with herself, a complete poser, unattractive in every form and mannerism - and I'm stuck seeing her twice a week if I want to watch my otherwise favorite show.
I think it is cruel for ABC to subject me to her unique brand of idiocy just so I can see people who used to be/want to be/have no chance at ever being...stars dance with people from the former Soviet Union.

[sdl]

Originally Posted by Peacheater

As a member of the ballroom community, my immediate instinct is to be insulted by the part above now in bold typeface; but, you would be correct if such a course of action would be the one taken by producers. Boring, in any stripe, is disaster. Hypothetically, the show would likely similarly suffer if Tom were to be replaced by, say, anyone...

In reality, however, I know many ballroom experts who are anything but boring and defy being identified as either upstanding or polite. Maks come immediately to mind as an "anything but boring" replacement for Bruno, but I can immediately name 15 ballroom experts who would be as entertaining as either Bruno or Carrie Ann. None of them would find it necessary to say the outrageous things for which the two present judges are frequently castigated, and they would all be very vocal in any disagreements with Len. If Mark Ballas were to leave the show, then Shirley Ballas, for example, would be a great replacement for Carrie Anne.

***********
Maks is very outspoken, and has a wicked sense of humor.
He would be much more interesting to listen to than Bruno, who is simply a buffoon. I think Maks could be DWTS' version of Simon Cowell - very tough but the one everybody wants to hear from.
And this one won't be popular, but I would replace CA with Paula Abdul - not a ballroom expert but at least a serious choreographer and infinitely more likable.....but then, when the competition is CA, who wouldn't be an improvement?

[MsFroggy]

Originally Posted by Peacheater

In reality, however, I know many ballroom experts who are anything but boring and defy being identified as either upstanding or polite. Maks come immediately to mind as an "anything but boring" replacement for Bruno, but I can immediately name 15 ballroom experts who would be as entertaining as either Bruno or Carrie Ann. None of them would find it necessary to say the outrageous things for which the two present judges are frequently castigated, and they would all be very vocal in any disagreements with Len. If Mark Ballas were to leave the show, then Shirley Ballas, for example, would be a great replacement for Carrie Anne.

That's precisely why they'd never be hired to work on a highly rated, strictly for entertainment TV show, nor does DWTS need them. Serious and professional is all fine for PBS or the World Championship of Ballroom Dancing, or something, but for low-brow, fluffy entertainment like DWTS, serious judging would be overkill. What's to take seriously when they stunt cast people like Marie Osmond, Cloris Leachman or Tom DeLay or any number of other horror contestants they've had in the past?

It's always the same, year in year out on some of these lightweight shows where prizes are just for show and nobody really wins anything in the end: People get all bent out of shape that the judging is horrid and unfair and the judges are blind, deaf or dumb if they can't see how good *insertnameoffavoritehere* is etc. etc. etc. I whine about them endlessly too... but it's all in good fun. I don't mean that I actually want Carrie Ann replaced. First because I don't care that much, second because she's part of the dynamic of DWTS just like Len or Bruno are. They work as a whole and they do fine for the very basic purposes of the show.

[karalott]

It's why I prefer Len on that panel. He's a nicer, and more bias, version of Simon Cowell. When he wants to be, he's blunt, to the point, doesn't like the gimmicks or OTT antics, and just the straight out dance with no cheating and decent choreography.

Bruno I can take, even though I wish he'd keep it parked in his seat. CA is the one I could do without. To me, she adds nothing on the panel. She isn't entertaining, or even annoying or controversial enough to even care about. Her lift issue is annoying, and it's obvious is all she can ever complain about when she wants to say something remotely technical, but it's an old issue. I'd vote for Aaron to win if he went up, gave her a big old kiss, and passed his flu bug on to her that made her sit out for the rest of the season (don't forget Samantha, either )

[sdl]

Originally Posted by MsFroggy

I don't mean that I actually want Carrie Ann replaced. First because I don't care that much, second because she's part of the dynamic of DWTS just like Len or Bruno are. They work as a whole and they do fine for the very basic purposes of the show.

***********
Ok, we have identified the issue. You think Carrie Ann and Bruno bring something of value to the "dynamic of the show" and "they do fine."
I respectfully disagree.
If I was running a business that generates over $250 million per season in ad revenue, I would try to make it the best it can be and prolong it's success. No such thing as, "who cares anyway, they're good enough."
This franchise is flopping right now, and I think everything should be on the table for discussion. If they don't take notice that 2 of the 3 judges make most people's skin crawl, then that is simply bad business.
The tolerance for what is at best mediocrity, ignorance of negative public reaction, and the complete lack of creativity, when the stakes are this high, are inexcusable.

[sdl]

I'm going to make one more comment and then drop the subject because I'm becoming a broken record.
I'm in a business where we focus group everything. Nobody who has any sense tries a lawsuit involving more than a million dollars anymore without doing at least one and sometimes 4-5 focus group exercises to test people's reactions to the lawyers, the witnesses, the exhibits, and the themes. By the time the case gets to court, you know exactly what is effective, what to do away with, and what the outcome will be. Everything, the clothes that we wear, any jewelry, the jokes that we make, the order of things, everything is tested in advance. It is an amazingly accurate process.
I asked someone at ABC one time what kind of testing they did to measure the product and I was told that they follow the ratings. If people are not tuning in, they guess at why, and ultimately cancel the ones that aren't performing.
So in that sense, the TV industry hasn't evolved much from the 1960's.
If they simply tracked their own message boards, they would know to improve the band, dump Carrie Ann, replace Samantha, and other things we already know. But they are too set in their ways, too arrogant, to investigate the source of their problems. They just guess, complain about the ratings, and run a $250 million per season franchise into the ground.
A well run, professionally administered focus group costs about 25 thousand dollars, or about 10% of the cost one 30 second commercial. They don't do them with established programs, and it shows.

[Peacheater]

Originally Posted by MsFroggy

That's precisely why they'd never be hired to work on a highly rated, strictly for entertainment TV show, nor does DWTS need them.

My sources tell me otherwise...

Perhaps people should read Maks' blog as an audition and CA's as a defense of her position.

Change is afoot.

***

sdl, my brother is a partner in a Hollywood production company. He completely agrees with you regarding the importance of focus groups. He is constantly pushing for focus groups before casting decision are made, but says reality and quasi-reality shows have a rep at the networks as not needing them. Thus, there is no budget for them. His company has their own database of TV viewers, which it consults on a consistent basis each season. They recruit for their survey group database from Internet message boards, including FORT. He was the one who recommended this site to me after tiring of hearing me bitch about DWTS for a couple of years.

[Rattus]

I honestly know nothing of the value of focus groups, but since the audience for this show has been phenomenal for every year prior to this one, I would have to think that the judges, Samantha and the band don't add or detract much from the total. And I have to say that I don't give a rat's behind about any of them myself. The band, for example - I can't believe that anyone is watching this show for the music itself. If you truly love music, you're listening to CD or at a club or listening to the radio or playing in a band. A cover band doing top-forty covers doesn't really qualify.

The real problem with this season is the "stars". There is no one of any real interest, and that includes Donny. Sorry Donny fans, but he is mighty dull interrupted by moments of irritating.

[cousin_oliver]

Peacheater, I am interested in what changes are on the horizon.

The show should pay attention to boards but they probably also know boards are such a small group of a larger viewing public. On here, most hate Carrie Ann but I know others who think she is fine.