Superstars of Dance

After two episodes I only saw two actual dances. The rest of the performances can be classified as modern theater or circus acts. The judging is very inadequate and inconsistent. In a show called "Superstars of Dance" the audience and the judges did not get impressed by a tango and a professional ballerina, but gave the highest scores to a kung-fu master, who balanced on the tips of several spears. Aside from contents, which is inconsistent with the topic and title of the show, this production also suffers from bad directing and camera work. Dancers, who are presenting intensive footwork are being filmed from the waist up. The show seems under-rehearsed. My suspicion is that NBC felt like they needed to capitalize on the reality-dance success of their competitors and they rushed this show. People who enjoyed "Dancing With the Stars" and "So you think you can dance" are disappointed with "Superstars of Dance"

Wow, I am about halfway through the second show and I can barely watch it, which is a shame because the dancing is rather good - at least what you can see of it. Where to begin? First, while there is plenty of good dancing, since when did Kung Fu become a form of dance? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching Shaolin monks perform some of the most complex and difficult martial arts moves on Earth, but on a show that features ballroom dancing?

Which brings me to my second point. What is with the rating system? How the Hell can you compare clogging/tap dancing to traditional South African dance? There is no rhyme or reason to the scoring system other than it being a 1 to 10 scale and the judges are atrocious. They seem to have no concept of multi-cultural dance and can't score anyone lower than a 7 or higher than a 9. The whole concept of this show being a contest to see what country has the best dancers in the World is laughable at best.

Let me indulge you a little further with my third point, the directing/cinematography. When the camera comes around front of the dancers the flood lights on the back of the stage at stage level wave around and shine directly into the camera making it impossible to see parts of the dance. Then they do a sweeping view from in the audience and you are so far from the stage while the camera is moving that you miss even more of the dances. One point that sticks out in my head is on the second show the duet from Australia was performing a lift where the girl was above the guy's head horizontally, or at least I think horizontally but I wasn't really sure because the camera angle was so horrific.

The only reason I rated this show a 5 out of 10 is because the main point of the show is to showcase dance from around the globe. The dancing (from what you can see) is intriguing and captivating, it is such a shame that the show is trivialized by some phony competition when it solely could be about dance. Also, I do have to give props to Michael Flatley as host, he is genuinely a gracious host.

To sum all of this up, good idea, poorly executed. I don't know what is more appalling, the format of the show or the fact that it doesn't surprise me that NBC would put such a show on TV. What is this country coming to?

Michael Flatley is a refreshing host. Direct, to the point, passionate but not arrogant. He is not a camera hog and he is not prone to Hollywood star diatribes as other TV hosts. He came off as genuine and sincere which, for me, equals easy to watch.

The other good thing is having a TV show showcasing dancing traditions from other countries. Something not seen much on network TV.

The biggest problem with SUPERSTARS OF DANCE is that it is a competition. The idea that a Punjabi bhangra can be measured against an Irish step dance -- what? -- is like asking what tastes better: a hot fudge sundae or southern fried chicken. Yes, some people will like one, and not like the other. But, for people who like both... how to measure if one is better than the other? OK, what is better: a dance of male strength, or a dance of female grace? Which is better: an orange cake, or a lemon cake? Even that is impossible!

Because a direct competition between wildly different international dance styles makes no sense, the scores given by the judges seem to be more personal or political rather than objective.

A smaller problem is having Miss USA as a co-host. She does not have the same credentials as Michael Flatley, and sad to say, does not add much to the show.

Last, I can't put my finger exactly on it, but somehow this show is not capturing the magic of these dances. Perhaps after seeing these dances in person, a lot seems missing when seen on TV. Still, I wish this show all the best.

I was so looking forward to seeing this show - but I have to agree with previous comments especially Kevin Smart's - It really should be called: Superstars of Circus.

Three of the judges need to be replaced - Argentina, Australia and South Africa. They are so prejudiced - it is shameful.

I don't want to repeat everything from the previous comment - because he said it so correctly.

The judging is awful as is everything about the show. It has really been a disappointment.

I would love to hear what goes on in the executive producers offices - Nigel Lythgoe and Simon Fuller - they can't be happy.

I agree with Pro Jury in that this show does not capture the magic of the dances and I think I know why - the absolutely atrocious camera-work. Even though I believe I would truly enjoy the show, I can't bear to watch it due to constant frustration with being unable to witness what I'm sure the dancers and choreographers want us to see. Additionally I agree that it seems difficult to judge such disparate dance styles. I'm no professional, but I couldn't understand most of the judge's opinions – they seemed completely arbitrary. One thing I can't agree with is that Michael Flatley is a good host – he is too rigid and everything he says seems forced and unnatural to me.