fontgoddess While watching all of the dance shows available on television today, I have gotten excited about the many forms and styles of dance that they show, especially those with an international flavor. I've been hoping for a television show to highlight the diversity and excitement of the world's dance. Superstars of Dance tries to do that, but is hobbled by its concept and execution.The first problem is the theme of a global dance competition. Due to understandable resource limitations, only a handful of countries and dancers can participate. The selection of the countries and dancers is unexplained and seems very haphazard. Some dancers seem chosen for their professional accomplishments, and others for their entertainment value. Neither are bad qualifications, but the diversity borders on complete randomness. This is a big problem for an audience hoping to view this show as a serious international competition. The mystery behind the choices of judges, countries, and dancers makes the competition seem unfair at the very least.Because of the demands of modern network television, this show has a competition format. I don't think this is an inherent problem, but it is handled poorly. For starters, the judges seem to have no guidelines on how they give their scores, giving them without consistent reasons. This makes the scoring incredibly variable and makes it seem unfair, more so than can be attributed to the subjective nature of judging. The judges make comments talking about dance content, difficulty, and performance without applying those standards evenly to all the contestants. Also, the contestants were obviously given no clue as to what the judges were going to be looking at. I'm sure if several groups knew they were going to be judged so harshly for not having enough "dance content," they would have given different performances. I believe that the participants were given such a vague outline of what the show was going to be, they aimed to please the crowds and then were penalized by the judges for that. That strikes me as disingenuous.One last problem is the filming of the show itself. On So You Think You Can Dance, for example, it is obvious that the dancers have practiced with the cameras and the choreography takes the cameras into account. This improves both the dancing and the filming, making even a lackluster performance at least coherent. Superstars of Dance lacks that professional polish, and it shows glaringly. If the dance cannot be conveyed well to the television audience, then it doesn't make a very good TV show.Superstars of Dance has shown improvement between its first and second episodes. The judges have become more consistent, and the unscripted banter with the judges and the contestants is slightly better. Unfortunately, the deep flaws in the setup of the show will last the whole season, and I don't think this show will get another season for it to improve.I, for one, will keep watching. I find world dance interesting enough that I can grit my teeth through the flaws and enjoy seeing dances that are new to me. Sadly, I cannot whole- heartedly recommend this show to others, especially if they have access to other dance shows, either live or on television.

john_repede 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?

Travel_Gal This show comes up short...you cannot compare the dancing because it is all so different. I feel sorry for the judges, and I would not even call what the young American guy did "dancing"! (Popping??? What the heck was that???) Sorry, peeps, but give me Dancing With The Stars any day. I am watching it now and the first show is only 1 hour in and I won't likely waste my time watching more episodes. There are far better offerings, but I had to check it out. I rated this show a 1 because there is no Zero! By the way I am not a dancer, just a dance appreciator! It will be very interesting to see how the rest of the world rates this series...

Pro Jury 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.