Over the last few years, I have grown to realize that viewers of a reality show love to watch a contestant successfully dealing with a difficult obstacle. Successful reality shows are edited to show these type of situations. I would have thought that a live show would have difficulty in creating this type of situation. However, Dancing with Stars has that in its first season. Kelly's dancing talents were badly trashed during the first few episodes. You had to feel sorry for her. And here she is pulling herself up by her bootstraps, telling her partner to give her difficult things to do and actually winning the last week's episode. The episode was a reality producer's dream come true
LAST EDITED ON 06-28-05 AT 11:15 PM (EST)LAST EDITED ON 06-28-05 AT 11:11 PM (EST)
Actually, I think the plot line of the show is to;
first, make money for the network through good ratings;
second, to further promote the careers of network executives who may well already be over-promoted;
third, promote a possibly struggling sector of the entertainment industry (ie: ballroom dancing) by encouraging consumers to consider consuming ballroom dancing lessons at the various dancing studios; and
fourth, entice us, the viewers, into spending our limited funds on yet another distraction....
As an afterthought, with only six couples, how come they aren't all judged on the same dance, on the same evening, for all of the 5 or 6 weeks of the shows' "run" for direct comparison, with the winner being the highest total score of all the couples performing all the different dances ?
And, how come the "judges" aren't out on the floor showing us viewers exactly how "it" should be done, and what kind of (style ?) is ("better" ?) to them, and why ? (ie: if they're good enough to be judges, why aren't they good enough to demonstrate they deserve it ? If it were true, their scores should agree a lot more closely, shouldn't they ?)