I agree with most of the suggestions that have already been made. Cutting out the celebrity guests would be my favoured option, after all, don't we tune in to watch the dancing? I'm not sure if returning to the original format - results back on Saturday instead on Sunday - would make any difference to the budget, but I hate waiting till Sunday. And trying to create the illusion that it's the following day is quite insulting IMO.
Strictly faces 5% cut in budget
2 of 5
Originally Posted by pickledlily:
“Where woud you make the cuts?
.”
“Where woud you make the cuts?
.”
How much is Bruce Forsyth making again???? Well, they could always start with him.
Which paper was this in??
Considering the amount of money they must make from the Tour, not to mention selling the format worldwide, I'm surprised they need to cut the budget at all!
Considering the amount of money they must make from the Tour, not to mention selling the format worldwide, I'm surprised they need to cut the budget at all!
Wholeheartedly agree with all those who think ditching Brucie for a presenter who can actually read an autocue for less than £13K an hour would be a good place to start.
The BBC shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking any of the personalities are bigger than the show.
The BBC shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking any of the personalities are bigger than the show.
Last year the BBC stopped giving half the phone in money to Children in Need so it is hard to see why they need to cut back. Could it be that the number of phone votes has dropped? I started voting less when this happened.
Bruce Forsyth is past it. Get a new compere and pay him/her less.
Cut the bejewelled and more expensive women's costumes.
Charge the audience who watch the show in the studio.
Get the audience back by marking the contestants sensibly instead of giving ordinary performances tens
Bruce Forsyth is past it. Get a new compere and pay him/her less.
Cut the bejewelled and more expensive women's costumes.
Charge the audience who watch the show in the studio.
Get the audience back by marking the contestants sensibly instead of giving ordinary performances tens
The information came from an article in yesterdays Sunday Mirror, it was a general article about which shows have had their budgets reduced.
Strictly has got away with only 5%, I think that was the lowest percentage mentioned, but as we don't have a clue as to how much last years budget was, it could be bigger in £SD than a smaller budget show with a larger percentage cut.
Strictly has got away with only 5%, I think that was the lowest percentage mentioned, but as we don't have a clue as to how much last years budget was, it could be bigger in £SD than a smaller budget show with a larger percentage cut.
Cut the judges pay to around 30k and get rid of Arlene, Len and Bruno. Replace them with Karen, Camilla + A.N.Other 
I'd cheerfully lose Tess, and maybe Brucie too now...Replace them with Anton and Kate Thornton at a more sensible rate of pay
I'd like to revert to 12 couples only too...16 was certainly too many imo
I'd cheerfully lose Tess, and maybe Brucie too now...Replace them with Anton and Kate Thornton at a more sensible rate of pay
I'd like to revert to 12 couples only too...16 was certainly too many imo
Personally, I think that the last series of Strictly suffered from the same disease as Comic Relief the other night - over blown, over hyped, pompous, top heavy with smug slebs, and so far up it's own backside that it was painful to watch in places.
They could take a lesson from Let's Dance, which was put on for probably a fraction of what they'd expect to pay for 4 episodes of Strictly.
It was clearly a bit of a 'shot in the dark', lowish budget effort (for Saturday peak standards) with no huge stars involved, but it had a sparse-ish, spontaneous freshness about it that made it an absolute pleasure to watch.
In Strictly's case, the egos of the judges and presenters, and their demands for ever higher appearance fees, force it to justify an enormous budget and it becomes too full of it's own self importance to make watching it a fun and enjoyable experience.
They could take a lesson from Let's Dance, which was put on for probably a fraction of what they'd expect to pay for 4 episodes of Strictly.
It was clearly a bit of a 'shot in the dark', lowish budget effort (for Saturday peak standards) with no huge stars involved, but it had a sparse-ish, spontaneous freshness about it that made it an absolute pleasure to watch.
In Strictly's case, the egos of the judges and presenters, and their demands for ever higher appearance fees, force it to justify an enormous budget and it becomes too full of it's own self importance to make watching it a fun and enjoyable experience.
I liked SCD best when there were 12 couples and everyone danced on the first night - so I'd get rid of the other 4 couples - done deal! 
Originally Posted by quisling:
“Personally, I think that the last series of Strictly suffered from the same disease as Comic Relief the other night - over blown, over hyped, pompous, top heavy with smug slebs, and so far up it's own backside that it was painful to watch in places.
.....it becomes too full of it's own self importance to make watching it a fun and enjoyable experience.”
“Personally, I think that the last series of Strictly suffered from the same disease as Comic Relief the other night - over blown, over hyped, pompous, top heavy with smug slebs, and so far up it's own backside that it was painful to watch in places.
.....it becomes too full of it's own self importance to make watching it a fun and enjoyable experience.”
Then I suggest you don't bother watching it in future quisling! I assume you've got plenty of other channels to choose from?
Just in case you've wandered in here by mistake - this is the STRICTLY COME DANCING forum
Originally Posted by SCD Rebel:
“I like having 16 couples ... the longer the series the better as far as I'm concerned. I miss it
I think I would keep the salaries as they are for the pro dancers because this show really is their bread and butter and, to be honest, I'd keep the same amount for the judges. I like the idea of paying the celebrities for each show rather than for the whole series - I think that the majority of them are doing the show to raise their profiles rather than for the cash! I wouldn't replace Tess with anyone - I think the bit 'behind the scenes' is quite meaningless.”
“I like having 16 couples ... the longer the series the better as far as I'm concerned. I miss it
I think I would keep the salaries as they are for the pro dancers because this show really is their bread and butter and, to be honest, I'd keep the same amount for the judges. I like the idea of paying the celebrities for each show rather than for the whole series - I think that the majority of them are doing the show to raise their profiles rather than for the cash! I wouldn't replace Tess with anyone - I think the bit 'behind the scenes' is quite meaningless.”
actually i agree
16 couples
Originally Posted by Armchair-dancer:
“Just have Matthew Cutler dancing with all the female celebs, give him a bonus and cut down on his wardrobe.
Works for me
Seriously, completely agree that we could manage without Tess, can't see any added value there. The judges are definitely overpaid. I'm sure if they walked out there would plenty of people ready to replace them for a more realistic fee.
I'm not so sure about reducing the number of contestants, though. The longer it's on the better.”
“Just have Matthew Cutler dancing with all the female celebs, give him a bonus and cut down on his wardrobe.
Works for me
Seriously, completely agree that we could manage without Tess, can't see any added value there. The judges are definitely overpaid. I'm sure if they walked out there would plenty of people ready to replace them for a more realistic fee.
I'm not so sure about reducing the number of contestants, though. The longer it's on the better.”
love your thinking
Originally Posted by SideshowStu:
“Cut the judges pay to around 30k and get rid of Arlene, Len and Bruno. Replace them with Karen, Camilla + A.N.Other
”
“Cut the judges pay to around 30k and get rid of Arlene, Len and Bruno. Replace them with Karen, Camilla + A.N.Other
”
Please no!
Originally Posted by quisling:
“Personally, I think that the last series of Strictly suffered from the same disease as Comic Relief the other night - over blown, over hyped, pompous, top heavy with smug slebs, and so far up it's own backside that it was painful to watch in places.
In Strictly's case, the egos of the judges and presenters, and their demands for ever higher appearance fees, force it to justify an enormous budget and it becomes too full of it's own self importance to make watching it a fun and enjoyable experience.”
“Personally, I think that the last series of Strictly suffered from the same disease as Comic Relief the other night - over blown, over hyped, pompous, top heavy with smug slebs, and so far up it's own backside that it was painful to watch in places.
In Strictly's case, the egos of the judges and presenters, and their demands for ever higher appearance fees, force it to justify an enormous budget and it becomes too full of it's own self importance to make watching it a fun and enjoyable experience.”
I didn't find it at all painful to watch, and I still find it great fun, I think too much tinkering with the format or line up would be a shame and could spoil it - for me, anyway.
Well said Strictlyred, and I agree with you completely
I really don't understand what the people who clearly have no love of the programme are doing on this forum!!! Particularly as the last series ended almost 3 months ago. Maybe they've all migrated across from the showbiz forum with Jade Goody fatigue??
I really don't understand what the people who clearly have no love of the programme are doing on this forum!!! Particularly as the last series ended almost 3 months ago. Maybe they've all migrated across from the showbiz forum with Jade Goody fatigue??
Modern TV is budgeted at about £3000 per minute - so a whole series of Strictly, at 16 episodes of 55 mins each works out at £2 640 000.
Cut out Brucie and you have a 17% cut in costs!!!
Just my 2 million p!!!
JJ
Cut out Brucie and you have a 17% cut in costs!!!
Just my 2 million p!!!
JJ
Apologies to all those I've mortally offended by posting criticism of a programme I once wouldn't have missed.
I was mistakenly under the impression that this was a discussion forum, not an appreciation thread.
I won't trouble you any further.
I was mistakenly under the impression that this was a discussion forum, not an appreciation thread.
I won't trouble you any further.
Originally Posted by HeidiB:
“Last year the BBC stopped giving half the phone in money to Children in Need so it is hard to see why they need to cut back. Could it be that the number of phone votes has dropped? I started voting less when this happened.”
“Last year the BBC stopped giving half the phone in money to Children in Need so it is hard to see why they need to cut back. Could it be that the number of phone votes has dropped? I started voting less when this happened.”
But voting also costs half as much now... the BBC still don't make any money from it... any profit is that of the phone companies.
Originally Posted by SCD Rebel:
“Good idea. I would also 'lose' Tess I'm afraid she adds nothing to the show as far as I'm concerned.”
“Good idea. I would also 'lose' Tess
I'm afraid she adds nothing to the show as far as I'm concerned.”
I agree a lot of people could do her job as well as her. Kate Thornton was good on tour and Christine Bleakley is well liked and as a former contestant could emphasize with the current contestants.
Originally Posted by sheikyerbootie:
“I agree with most of the suggestions that have already been made. Cutting out the celebrity guests would be my favoured option, after all, don't we tune in to watch the dancing?”
“I agree with most of the suggestions that have already been made. Cutting out the celebrity guests would be my favoured option, after all, don't we tune in to watch the dancing?”
Yeah, I never liked the musical act either most of them are as dull as ditchwater and it's only the pros dancing to them which makes it tolerable.
Originally Posted by quisling:
“Apologies to all those I've mortally offended by posting criticism of a programme I once wouldn't have missed.
I was mistakenly under the impression that this was a discussion forum, not an appreciation thread.
I won't trouble you any further.
”
“Apologies to all those I've mortally offended by posting criticism of a programme I once wouldn't have missed.
I was mistakenly under the impression that this was a discussion forum, not an appreciation thread.
I won't trouble you any further.
”
I have been reading this thread with interest and enjoying all of your opinions whilst having my own.
I was going to post yesterday saying that I agreed in part with one of your posts Quisling, as I indeed agreed with many of the others on here.
I really did want to say that I feel that, no matter what your opinion, yours is just as valid as anyone else's.
Would be good if you did keep posting - and the same for everyone else too - a forum is for debate if liked, and I think its ok to say you don't like the subject matter being discussed, even if you have previously adored it. That's ok!
I speak from experience, being a very dedicated Matt Cutler fan, but being slammed by all kinds of people last year when I dared to say that I didn't enjoy his samba with Alesha lol!
I DIDN'T! I couldn't help that - was just my opinion.
And you have yours Quisling. Is fine.
Come back.
And this post isn't meant to side with anyone, just that I feel everyone's opinion should be listened to and treated with respect.
Originally Posted by strictlyfloss:
“Then I suggest you don't bother watching it in future quisling! I assume you've got plenty of other channels to choose from?
Just in case you've wandered in here by mistake - this is the STRICTLY COME DANCING forum”
“Then I suggest you don't bother watching it in future quisling! I assume you've got plenty of other channels to choose from?
Just in case you've wandered in here by mistake - this is the STRICTLY COME DANCING forum
”
That's a bit harsh! Quisling was giving her opinion, as we all have and as she is entitled to do. It is unfair to have a go at her for doing so just because you don't agree.
I agree with some of her points actually, although not all. This is a discussion board and quisling has brought up several points that we can now all discuss.
Your post came over as quite aggressive, although I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, and I hope quisling comes back for some more conversation and discussion as most of the posters on this forum are happy to chat and agree to disagree if necessary.
If the BBC charged for the tickets, say a tenner each, and stopped filling up half the seats with z listers I'm sure they'd rake in a fair bit of money.
How about charging fans to help with the wardrobe part of the show? I'd empty my kids' piggy banks to help Darren get ready for a show.
Originally Posted by katmobile:
“I agree a lot of people could do her job as well as her. Kate Thornton was good on tour and Christine Bleakley is well liked and as a former contestant could emphasize with the current contestants.”
“I agree a lot of people could do her job as well as her. Kate Thornton was good on tour and Christine Bleakley is well liked and as a former contestant could emphasize with the current contestants.”
i like both your ideas there
2 of 5
