S28.E08: Dance-Off Week

[vdw84]

3 hours ago, spanana said:

I don't know if it was all for show on Karamo's part or if he feels like he just can't win so he keeps telling different stories in different situations.  The part that bothered me with Karamo is around the time he was eliminated he was going to extremes to talk about all the head to heads he had with Sean in his trailer and how he's a great guy and etc.  I'm not saying anyone on set should be mean to Sean's face for no reason but there is a difference between just co-existing with the guy and having sit down head to heads with him in his trailer, like Karamo was claiming he did.

I think karamo was being friendly with Sean but I never felt it was a genuine friendship built between them, now I know it was said Sean was crying when karamo was let  go but that didnt stop Sean from going on his sm accounts encouraging his fans to powervote for him. I just think at this point people just dont want show their true feelings on national tv but I dont think anyone on show cast nor pros r here for Sean personally,

[spanana]

50 minutes ago, vdw84 said:

I think karamo was being friendly with Sean but I never felt it was a genuine friendship built between them, now I know it was said Sean was crying when karamo was let  go but that didnt stop Sean from going on his sm accounts encouraging his fans to powervote for him. I just think at this point people just dont want show their true feelings on national tv but I dont think anyone on show cast nor pros r here for Sean personally,

I think you are severely overestimating some of our pros.  Many of them are apolitical at best and/or are conservative or come from conservative families (see the Utah folks).  They might not like the attention being around Sean brings them, but I'd be surprised if most had an actual issue with Sean.  Which is why the whole owning the libs crap makes no sense in this particular context.  

Cheryl wrote a whole blog and how great Sean is and how he's a different person and blah blah.  I'm fairly certain most of the Utah girls come from families that support Trump.  Alan too. I don't know if they do, but their families do.  These are not people that ever speak out about anything political ever.  

In our current crop of pros, Peta is the only one I can think of who is vocally anti Trump.  Val is questionable as he's a "both sides" guy more than anything and Pasha/Daniella are too new for me to know.

The celebs, yes, I think some of them may be putting on a front to get through this.  Off the top of my head, I know Hannah, Sailor, Karamo and Kate are politically at the opposite end of the spectrum from Sean's former boss.  Probably others too, but those are the ones who have posted things that make it pretty clear.

[boyznkatz]

40 minutes ago, spanana said:

 Val is questionable as he's a "both sides" guy more than anything and Pasha/Daniella are too new for me to know.

I think Val is one of those people who likes to give lip service about equality and social justice, but he's just another privileged white guy who would probably wear feathers or blackface on Halloween and think nothing was wrong with it. He hasn't actually done that, but it's just a feeling I get with him. He mocked an overweight disabled girl and thought he was being smart. I think he's one of those "concern" trolls. Yuck. 

Edited November 7, 2019 by boyznkatz

[limecoke]

My point still stands and it's simple.  If the producers cast someone they know is going to be super-controversial, they can't whine and moan when the inevitable happens.  That includes the judges and hosts.  They didn't cast these people but they are part of the production so the audience scolding or virtue-signaling, or whatever, is annoying. Of course Spicer shouldn't still be there and I'm guessing he knows that too, the point is that this was predictable.  Very, very predictable.  When I heard he was going to be on this was my first thought and it's played out exactly as I expected.  BTW, I watch the show on Hulu and never participate in the voting so I have no dog in the hunt.

Quote

I don't think they should necessarily ban all politicians, just the unethical ones

Who, exactly, is the judge of who is "unethical" and who isn't????  

[boyznkatz]

13 minutes ago, limecoke said:

Who, exactly, is the judge of who is "unethical" and who isn't????  

I think it's pretty safe to say that someone who got kicked out of figure skating like Tonya Harding for trying to maim a competitor is pretty unethical. Or someone like Ryan Lochte who trashed the host city in the Olympics. It's not exactly "judging" when someone has a public history of sorry behavior. TPTB knows all their history, but doesn't care, anyway.

I wouldn't put people like Bristol Palin in that category, though. Maybe people don't like her, but she isn't a criminal that we know of.

[crowceilidh]

Re: Bristol - not being American, I may have the timelines confused.  But I find it unethical to lecture/promote/shame people into celibacy as birth control and good moral behaviour whilst clearly doing the opposite myself.

[Toonces464]

4 hours ago, spanana said:

In our current crop of pros, Peta is the only one I can think of who is vocally anti Trump.  Val is questionable as he's a "both sides" guy more than anything and Pasha/Daniella are too new for me to know.

I believe Peta is only anti Trump because Maks is. Otherwise, I'm not sure which way she'd lean.

4 hours ago, spanana said:

The celebs, yes, I think some of them may be putting on a front to get through this.  Off the top of my head, I know Hannah, Sailor, Karamo and Kate are politically at the opposite end of the spectrum from Sean's former boss.  Probably others too, but those are the ones who have posted things that make it pretty clear.

Christie Brinkley is definitely a huge Democrat. She and Billy Joel both do a lot of stuff for the party out in the Hamptons, though Billy is more quiet about it.

[vdw84]

4 hours ago, boyznkatz said:

I think Val is one of those people who likes to give lip service about equality and social justice, but he's just another privileged white guy who would probably wear feathers or blackface on Halloween and think nothing was wrong with it. He hasn't actually done that, but it's just a feeling I get with him. He mocked an overweight disabled girl and thought he was being smart. I think he's one of those "concern" trolls. Yuck. 

I hear u about Val, Val truly rubbed me the wrong way when he thought it was cool for him to jump in on topic on twitter concerning Jussie Smollet and then decided to delete the post when things got heated and folks dragged his ass for being ignorant. Val has kinda been quiet since then on sm because folks read him good.

He use always have tendency jumping in on things he has no place or idea on what is going on. He crosses lines and can be very judgemental and im glad someone called him out on it.

[ramble]

12 hours ago, JenLily said:

I'm pretty sure this was a typo but speaking as a former Catholic school student who was taught by nuns, that made me burst out laughing. 😂

I’m glad you got a laugh out of it! 😊 It was actually intentional. The original typo for “fire of a thousand nuns“ comes from the old TWoP (Television Without Pity) boards that shut down five years ago. (Holy crap has it been five?!) It’s one of those things that’s stuck with me and almost automatic when I am on this board.
 

Topic? Have we had a most memorable year a/k/a sob fest dance yet? We could’ve and I could’ve totally blocked it out. I have a love/hate relationship with that week. I feel manipulated yet somehow still become emotional. 

[vdw84]

Just now, ramble said:

I’m glad you got a laugh out of it! 😊 It was actually intentional. The original typo for “fire of a thousand nuns“ comes from the old TWoP (Television Without Pity) boards that shut down five years ago. (Holy crap has it been five?!) It’s one of those things that’s stuck with me and almost automatic when I am on this board.
 

Topic? Have we had a most memorable year a/k/a sob fest dance yet? We could’ve and I could’ve totally blocked it out. I have a love/hate relationship with that week. I feel manipulated yet somehow still become emotional. 

I feel every week has been the most memorable week. It seems like every week someone has a story about something pertaining something to their life or family, so at this point in the competition why even bother.

[ramble]

14 hours ago, spanana said:

So TPTB are going to make their employees act like robots?  

I don’t want robots but I see a difference in disgust bordering on revulsion, and bewilderment or disappointment. I realize this is a YMMV situation. I am a conservative person but I don’t particularly care for Spicer. I don’t think he’s a good dancer although I do think he’s shown some growth. However, I would prefer to see the judges show a little more restraint in their revulsion. I just find it unfortunate. Yet again, as I said, a YMMV situation. Also I acknowledge I’m old and miss when differing opinions on political, social, and religious topics were less divisive and people were a bit more willing to accept other’s opinions. But that’s an entirely different topic. So to recap: Old. YMMV. 

[watcherwoman]

14 hours ago, crowceilidh said:

Re: Bristol - not being American, I may have the timelines confused.  But I find it unethical to lecture/promote/shame people into celibacy as birth control and good moral behaviour whilst clearly doing the opposite myself.

That applies to everyone of every party.  The celebs like Lori Loughlin, Felicity Huffman, Jussie Smolett, Harvey Weinstein, Dustin Huffman, Keven Space, James Franco, Mel Gibson,  and on and on and on, love to lecture and show how much they care.  Truth is, no one really knows someone else's heart.   It has absolutely nothing to do with a political affiliation.   The best we can do is be the best person we can be and not believe every thing that comes out of anyone's mouth.  BTW, the judging on DWTS has been a joke forever, it's always been a popularity contest, and although I do admire the pros on the show,  I never thought it was anything more than a fluff show, with really interesting costumes.

[spanana]

11 hours ago, ramble said:

I don’t want robots but I see a difference in disgust bordering on revulsion, and bewilderment or disappointment. I realize this is a YMMV situation. I am a conservative person but I don’t particularly care for Spicer. I don’t think he’s a good dancer although I do think he’s shown some growth. However, I would prefer to see the judges show a little more restraint in their revulsion. I just find it unfortunate. Yet again, as I said, a YMMV situation. Also I acknowledge I’m old and miss when differing opinions on political, social, and religious topics were less divisive and people were a bit more willing to accept other’s opinions. But that’s an entirely different topic. So to recap: Old. YMMV. 

Personally I don't think people expressing shock that a horrible dancer with next to no skills not being in the B2 based on skill equals revulsion.  Maybe it's shock that good dancers who are growing and can dance to some degree keep going home while a person who barely moves their feet moves on.  I know that is part of the game, but I haven't seen anything from the judges or etc. where they are acting like they revile Sean as a human being.  Even though I would.

I do think a Spicer win is going to kill the show in some way.  It might be renewed and come back revamped, but they are sure going to have a harder and harder time getting celebs to sign up for fear they will be competing against Spicers.  Especially when they look at the winner before that too.  No celeb unless they are absolutely desperate is going to sign up for a popularity contest that they can't win they are uber conservative.

Edited November 8, 2019 by spanana

[boyznkatz]

14 hours ago, crowceilidh said:

Re: Bristol - not being American, I may have the timelines confused.  But I find it unethical to lecture/promote/shame people into celibacy as birth control and good moral behaviour whilst clearly doing the opposite myself.

Did she do that while she was on the show or afterwards? She certainly extended her fifteen minutes several times after dwts, but on the show I thought she was just getting a lot of heat for being a nobody who got her place on the show because of her mother, or just being Sarah Palin's daughter in general. But then again, there have been a lot of no-name offspring of celebrities on the show (Sailor, Chaz Bono, the Osbournes come to mind).

Well anyway, being a hypocrite is hardly the same thing as being a criminal or someone who tweets hateful stuff. People like that just shouldn't even be asked to do dwts.

Edited November 8, 2019 by boyznkatz

[ShellsandCheese]

On 11/6/2019 at 7:23 PM, Kira53 said:

It's against the law.  Besides, when it would leak out that they cheated that would be the end of people watching.  This has people talking and maybe some Trumpers are watching when they don't usually watch.

The ratings continue to go down. People are voting for Spicey out of spite but not actually watching. And those who regularly watched the show have stopped watching because, well, reasons. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by ShellsandCheese

[sd dude]

2 hours ago, spanana said:

No celeb unless they are absolutely desperate is going to sign up for a popularity contest that they can't win

Do you believe that most of the celebrities who have appeared on this show over the past 15 years expected to win? I would think the opposite. I'm sure there are numerous reasons that the stars sign on, and they may all want to win, but for most I doubt that is their expectation, thus there are other more important reasons for most who appear on the show, even if from day 1 they dont expect to last until the end. You could  characterize those reasons as "desperation", but i think that could be too broad a definition of the term. 

[spanana]

5 hours ago, sd dude said:

Do you believe that most of the celebrities who have appeared on this show over the past 15 years expected to win? I would think the opposite. I'm sure there are numerous reasons that the stars sign on, and they may all want to win, but for most I doubt that is their expectation, thus there are other more important reasons for most who appear on the show, even if from day 1 they dont expect to last until the end. You could  characterize those reasons as "desperation", but i think that could be too broad a definition of the term. 

Of course they don't all expect to win, but the ones that are going in with talent have a hope of it and at the absolute very bottom line IMO, it's about ego.  Ego means not wanting to look super unpopular while standing next to whatever conservative man with no talent they put in the line up that season.  At the end of the day, the celebs have fragile egos and don't want to look like fools.  Also maybe I should have said, you will not get ringer types, which means a lot of mediocre dancing.  It's still a popularity contest and ones that celebs are not going to want to lose.

I'd also add it's also going to look like bad PR for most celebs to say yes to a show won by Spicer.  DWTS was always fairly low brow anyway, but PR people are going to be steering their clients away from it even more.  Especially with the reaction from the industry when Spicer was cast this season.  The rest of this seasons celebs could dodge most of the fallout because they of course signed on not knowing who else would be on this season, but everyone else will be willingly going onto a show where Spicer was invited and won despite no discernable talent.  

[friendperidot]

On 11/6/2019 at 9:59 AM, boyznkatz said:

I would like to see a charismatic Democrat like Beto O'Rourke who isn't doing anything right now.

I might actually enjoy watching him, he probably has some ability to move. But he's still too much on the political scene and wants to be taken seriously as a politician, he may have a shot at several political offices in the next several years. So, it's not in his best interests politically to do this silly show. 

[Bridget]

When Spicer was called as being safe, did anyone else notice the reactions among the rest of the dancers? James’ face. Lauren and Gleb’s faces. Hannah’s face. Kel AND Witney’s faces. As shitty as the outcome was, thank God the remaining contestants are reacting like the majority of the DWTS viewers. 

[vdw84]

2 hours ago, Bridget said:

When Spicer was called as being safe, did anyone else notice the reactions among the rest of the dancers? James’ face. Lauren and Gleb’s faces. Hannah’s face. Kel AND Witney’s faces. As shitty as the outcome was, thank God the remaining contestants are reacting like the majority of the DWTS viewers. 

I really dont understand why any of them r shocked at this point. They know Sean is getting the votes regardless of his bad dancing, I wouldnt even act surprise if anything I would be preparing myself to get voted out before him regardless of how great I dance. The pros esp. should know by now that the viewers dont always vote based on great dancing so I dont even get why they nor judges look shock anymore.

[ClareWalks]

3 hours ago, Bridget said:

When Spicer was called as being safe, did anyone else notice the reactions among the rest of the dancers? James’ face. Lauren and Gleb’s faces. Hannah’s face. Kel AND Witney’s faces.

Hell, JENNA looked like you could've knocked her over with a feather!

[ShellyD]

My complaint about Spicer is he is a horrible dancer and I don’t see him getting any better each week. Any score above a 6 is a gift, IMO.

I watch DWTS for enjoyment of the dancing. I don’t want politics involved, isn’t there any slice of America that is (still) politics free? 

And I don’t have an issue with people voting for SS if they watch DWTS and think he’s great. I do have an issue with people who don’t watch the show blind voting (or voting from multiple devices) simply because of DJT tweeting about it. 

I don’t particularly have a favorite this year... I think James is doing a great job and I enjoy country music so I was familiar with Lauren from before.

I will admit that I am voting for everyone left except SS. I do only vote from one device. When SS goes home (please please please), I will probably pick one from the dancers left.

[Quiet1]

I don't vote, I've never watched a full season. I only catch it sporadically and couldn't tell you the name of any of the winners, but does it really matter the order people are eliminated before the final. Like, if he goes tonight would that be ok with people?

Anyway, I was thinking for future seasons, they could let the judges "launch a grenade" and once a season take out ANYONE. It would have to be unanimous and be before a cutoff date to be used. 

[luvthepros]

3 hours ago, Quiet1 said:

............does it really matter the order people are eliminated before the final. Like, if he goes tonight would that be ok with people?

It matters to me. I could be watching Kate tonight rather than Sean. The longer the stilted one stays, that is that much less the viewers get to see a better dancer perform.

[RomanKat]

On 11/9/2019 at 5:01 PM, vdw84 said:

The pros esp. should know by now that the viewers dont always vote based on great dancing so I dont even get why they nor judges look shock anymore.

Because they're not mathematicians? Because they want to trust that their employers have changed the system enough to prevent voting blocs from dominating the results?

As an analyst, I'm going to assume that they have changed the system enough to have hypothetically altered last seasons' results. Problem is, there are only so many unexpected factors that a system can absorb. If the numbers folks' job was to suggest changes to last seasons' system that could prevent last seasons' results, then suggesting ways to increase the total votes cast from non-bloc voters makes sense.

However...were they informed of all the systematic changes this season? Did they know that all voting would be live? Could they anticipate that non-bloc voters might resist blind voting? As for the production team, did they understand that the new system works by allowing fewer voters to generate more votes? Or did they think the suggested changes would somehow inherently counter voting blocs? (I wonder, because they still aren't emphasizing that splitting votes is no longer necessary.)

It was asked upthread whether the voting percentage for a contestant could be so high that no scores could place that contestant in the bottom two.  I did a bit of math, which I'll put in a spoiler for anyone interested in numbers.

Spoiler

With 6 contestants remaining and two dances scheduled per couple, consider the extreme scenario of five couples scoring all 10's and one couple scoring all 1's. Assuming three judges, five couples would total 60 (or 19.6%) and one couple would total 6 (or 2%) of the judges' points. Assuming that the five top couples receive even shares of the vote, the target voting percentage for the low scoring team to force at minimum a 6-way tie for first place would be 31.4%. More than 31.4% of the vote total ensures that a low scoring team escapes the bottom 2 in this scenario.

In reality, current scores range from 6 to 10, so the target percentage is lower. (e.g. Giving the low team 6's in the above scenario would lower their target percentage to 22.6%.) Furthermore, it's unlikely that 5 teams would each get perfect scores or equal votes. Those that score lower and/or have less voter support become vulnerable targets, given that the low scoring team only needs to pass two teams to avoid elimination.

Based on results so far, it appears that three (maybe four) teams have voting blocs large enough to overcome large scoring deficits. Mathematically, an opportune time to low-ball a couple for elimination might be in a double elimination from 5 couples to 3 couples, presuming the highest scoring teams have comparably strong voter support. But that's assuming TPTB aren't courting controversy.

Note: Isolating two teams with low scores in the above scenario would yield greater separation between top teams and bottom 2, but that may be counter-intuitive to viewer perception.

Edited November 11, 2019 by RomanKat

[Quiet1]

3 hours ago, luvthepros said:

It matters to me. I could be watching Kate tonight rather than Sean. The longer the stilted one stays, that is that much less the viewers get to see a better dancer perform.

I meant besides viewers preferences. Obviously everyone has different views on who they want to see dance every week. Is it winner take all or do they get prizes along the way depending on how long they stay? 

There are most likely some people who like to vote for the worst dancers as well. It is entertainment for some to see those who can't dance. Like on American Idol it was entertaining in the beginning of every season to see people who couldn't sing, try out. 

[Toonces464]

30 minutes ago, Quiet1 said:

There are most likely some people who like to vote for the worst dancers as well. It is entertainment for some to see those who can't dance. Like on American Idol it was entertaining in the beginning of every season to see people who couldn't sing, try out. 

Remember the  old Vote for the Worst website?

[realdancemom]

34 minutes ago, Toonces464 said:

Remember the  old Vote for the Worst website?

Since I like to watch good dancers and singers, I can't relate to the fun of that.  Somebody pointed out that you can vote for each contestant as many times as you want this season.  I didn't know that since I haven't voted this season because of living in Utah.  Previously, we had to split our votes and I like to watch the show before voting.  Since that is not the case, I'm going to vote for everyone except Sean.  To me, that's fair even if I don't watch the show tonight.  I know that all the remaining couples are better dancers than Sean.