Dancing with the Stars - Week 1

Who Is Your Week 1 Favorite?

  • Jonathan Roberts and Rachel Hunter - Amer Waltz

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Evander Holyfield and Edyta Sliwinska - Cha Cha

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • John O'Hurley and Charlotte Jorgensen - Cha Cha

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Alec Mazo and Kelly Monaco - Amer Waltz

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Louis van Amstel and Trista Sutter - Amer Waltz

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    236
Status
Not open for further replies.

tsb

Well-Known Member
#21
callen said:
I thought Charlotte did well in keeping the routine simple and letting John O'Hurley be charismatic. He looked like he was having fun. I didn't vote with ABC, but I'm marking them here.

Porfirio Landeros said:
tsb said:
i was also surprised to see how short miss april 1997 actually is.
Jonathan was wearing Cuban heels to dance with her, so that she didn't look [too much] taller than him in her heels, so she really wasn't all that short.
Porfirio, you're mixing up the women. A little google-searching reveals that Kelly Monaco (who did look really short) was Miss April.

Christopher
and according to the abc website, she's actually only 5'1" - not 5'3" but still looked a lot shorter than the bachelorette who is listed at 5'2".
 
#22
I just watched the replay of the show (and managed to record it on DVD this time) and I stand by my vote for John and Charlotte. They had the basic character of the dance, some hints of developing technique, the perfect level of choreography, and GREAT charisma. I also still believe that Jonathan and Rachael are in it for the LONG run.
 

tsb

Well-Known Member
#23
Porfirio Landeros said:
I just watched the replay of the show (and managed to record it on DVD this time) and I stand by my vote for John and Charlotte. They had the basic character of the dance, some hints of developing technique, the perfect level of choreography, and GREAT charisma. I also still believe that Jonathan and Rachael are in it for the LONG run.
they're my two favorites as well. and rachel hunter is 5'10".
 

Gumby

New Member
#28
I could barely watch it. I think I must have been channeling Chris cause I would have given my life for one decent box or any basic pattern done with a minimal level of competance. God help me but all I could think was this looks like every objection I've ever heard about Pro/Am mutliplied by ten. Having said all that I though John and Charlotta were the bright point of the evening. He looked more like a begining dancer at a studio exihibition that knows he doesn't know what he's doing but is out to have all the fun he can anyway. The rest of the them were taking themselves waay to seriously.
 

mamboqueen

Well-Known Member
#29
People doing Pro/Am don't go to open routines in 5 weeks, though. You're right, they would have been better off doing some basic stuff that looked good, but then the audience would probably be bored to tears.
 

dTas

New Member
#30
and since its on national TV the audience is quite large. they have to make the dancing interesting enough to pull the ratings.

any opinions on whether or not this show is promoting or hurting dancing in the US?
 

Gumby

New Member
#31
I think what I object to the most is that it's like the Bob Rosse method. Yes you too can learn to create art in ten minutes. AAARRRGH. It's art not popcorn. You can't learn to make a really good cup of tea in ten minutes.

You know that dance studio's are going to be invaded by the "I want to dance like Kelly." crowd and when they find out they have to actually work years to attain competancy a big chunk of them are going to get snapped by the franchise studio from hell - who will promise them the moon and a designer dress - the will spend a ton of money on nothing for about a year and them spend the next ten years bad mouthing the entire industry.

I think I had too much coffee this morning.
 

Laura

New Member
#32
I think it's too early to tell. Right now the only opinions on this topic I've read anywhere are from people who think it might help or think it might hurt, but there's no hard data yet.
 
#33
Gumby said:
Having said all that I though John and Charlotta were the bright point of the evening. He looked more like a begining dancer at a studio exihibition that knows he doesn't know what he's doing but is out to have all the fun he can anyway. The rest of the them were taking themselves waay to seriously.
I think that's the key point of this show that both the contestants and ourselves are forgetting.

Who cares if these people aren't that good. How does that effect us? It doesn't change dance for us or how it's done. We're not expecting these celebrities to be the next big rising star dancers.

As already stated, the quality of dancing is something we as dancers notice...not something non-dancers notice. If the celebrities don't look like they are having fun, yes it could keep people from giving it a try. If they look like they are having a really good time and a lot of fun, it can only enhance the interest in the dance.

But it will never hurt ballroom. People who want to do it are still going to do it. Chances are, with a bad show or without the show at all, fence sitters would never make it to a studio anyway, so it's not like the numbers of new dancers is going to go down just because of a mediocre tv show.
 
#34
Gumby said:
You know that dance studio's are going to be invaded by the "I want to dance like Kelly." crowd and when they find out they have to actually work years to attain competancy a big chunk of them are going to get snapped by the franchise studio from hell - who will promise them the moon and a designer dress - the will spend a ton of money on nothing for about a year and them spend the next ten years bad mouthing the entire industry.
How is that different from any other popular movie/television show where dancing is featured? My guess is that a large number of people (maybe 25% or more?) get the "final push" to enter a dance studio based on witnessing a singular great dance, whether in person or through the media. I'm not a dance instructor, though, so maybe someone who does some instructing can shed some light on the comments he/she hears from new students.
 
#35
While I have no solid data, all anecdotal evidence here in the UK suggests that the shows have greatly increased interest in dancing. Beginners classes are much more popular than they were, despite a woeful lack of advertising by the dance-studios...

What this particular TV programme shows in my opinion is that:
- dancing is great fun
- dance training is even more fun but also hard work
- anyone (however un-coordinated) can learn to dance, and have fun
- dancing makes for a good performance and good entertainment

In the UK too, I've heard some "serious" dancers say that they don't like it, that people should be doing basics rather than "flashy steps", that they should show some "real" dancing on TV instead, that people will go into dance studios wanting to do something "fun" as though that was a crime...

In my opinion, this programme is the best thing that happened to dancing in the last 30 years. It has brought it back to "the masses". It's popular with kids, teenagers, young adults and the older generation. It gets rid of the stuffy image and dispels the myth that dancing is something that has to be boring for the first 5 years before one is allowed to have fun...

And even for us "purists" it must be a good thing that 10s of millions of people learn the difference between a Foxtrot and a Paso-Doble... that people realise ballroom is not only for the over 60s, that the professional dancers are fantastic athletes, etc. etc.

Of course it won't create a huge number of top competitors by itself, but it will spark interest. It's up to the dancing community whether and how to use this interest. Local dancesport chapters should have an open day, set up a course for newcomers etc. etc. I think this is yet another great opportunity, probably much bigger than "Shall we dance" or "Dirty dancing 2", and I hope the various clubs/chapters/studios are going to make the most of it, because they're never going to get that much free publicity again!

Besides all that, I thought the UK show was one of the most enjoyable TV formats of the past few years. It was fun, you got to see a whole new side of the celebreties, it was not about humliating someone, nor about violence and disputes like all other reality shows seem to be. It was simply good entertainment, and I can't wait for the next series here!
 

Laura

New Member
#37
robin said:
Local dancesport chapters should have an open day, set up a course for newcomers etc. etc. I think this is yet another great opportunity, probably much bigger than "Shall we dance" or "Dirty dancing 2", and I hope the various clubs/chapters/studios are going to make the most of it, because they're never going to get that much free publicity again!
Here's the unfortunate thing about that. Since Arthur Murray International is a sponsor of "Dancing with the Stars," there's probably only so much non-AM organizations can do invoking the name of the show. When the English-language version of "Shall We Dance?" came out, some USA Dance clubs wanted to do something to capitalize on it, but a memo went around saying that the only clubs who could do anything were those that were in "markets" that didn't "compete" with Arthur Murray since Arthur Murray International had locked up some kind of exclusive advertising and promotional agreement. In California, for instance, the only city on that list was Fresno.

I don't know if something like that is in force now, though.

Of course, there are ways around it, too.
 
#38
Why would you have to invoke the name of the show?? There is no way anyone can prohibit you from promoting ballroom or latin american dancing.

If you think people can't make the connection (which I'm sure they can) you can always try "Dance like a star" or "Learn to be a dancing star" or whatever....

I just think that now is a time when many people would react to seeing an advertisement for a dance school/studio/club/chapter/... and there is no reason to just let the big franchises cash in on it...
 
#39
robin said:
... and there is no reason to just let the big franchises cash in on it...
In the case of Shall We Dance, the non-Arthur Murray International (AMI) dance world was not able to do things we would normally do, like dance at the premier. We actually have a great rapport with the theaters in town, and they said that they had received a bulletin from Arthur Murray and the theater home office that they could ONLY use Arthur Murray dancers to promote the event. In this town, there weren't any Arthur Murray performers anyway, so it was a lose-lose situation. AMI bought out the chance for anyone to give the public a live performance... great job :p

I don't know what, if any, promo deal AMI has with this show, other than the banner ads on the Dancing With The Stars website, which in fine print say "no celebrity endorsement implied", yet, the banner ad says something like "Learn to Dance Where the Stars Go" or something like that... sounds implied to me ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dance Ads