...so it avoids clashing with X Factor.

The results show should finish at 9pm at the latest.

They aren't going to beat the X Factor in ratings so need to live with it.

Personally I don't want SCD on any earlier - it's not a tea time show - and couldn't care less if it is on at the same time as X-Factor. There's plenty of options for watching both shows - you just have to decide which one you want to watch live.

There have been lots of threads discussing the changes we would like to see and if I had to choose just one change, it would be to go back to less couples - sounds like that might happen.

I think DWTS has made the best changes to the SCD format to keep the show fresh - SCD could take a BIG leaf out of the DWTS book.

I agree with BuddyBontheNet, DWTS's format is much fresher than SCD. The current season is pulling in very high ratings figures. The BBC can learn from this. I would like to see less couples, a new format that is brisk and exciting, a new set (the current set looks drab) and the removal of Bruce.

I agree with all those things. It's good to read this morning that the execs are thinking about moving to a bigger studio or even using the Blackpool Tower and other non-studio venues. Great idea.

Also, the interval act guests need to be improved greatly, there were some real naff guests last year.

I think the grand final should be a big event from the Royal Albert Hall for example. They should invite special dance and acrobatic acts from around the world to perform through out the final.

The changes I would make are:

1) No sports or former sprts stars.
They already have the fitness and/or are used to living a life where training is incorportaed. It gives them an unfair advantage.

2) Taking away the judges saving votes.
It should be the one with the least number of votes gets axed. It should either be the judges decide the winnerss and who get booted or the public. It's wrong that so many hundreds or thousands of people spend their money to "save" their favourite then a judge says sorry you've wasted your money because I want him/her to stay. When the numbers are freephone numbers then that is slightly different as it hasn't cost the callers anything.

And the most important change

3) Make a final decision on whether this is an "serious" dance competition or if it's a bit of "light entertainment fun."

I will know which one it is before the first show. Every series they dig up some older celeb. Ester Rantzen, Jimmy Tarbuck, Gloria Hunniford, Dennis Taylor, John Sergeant etc. It's reality checktime. They are not and never will be able to do a jive, lindyhop etc to the same level of someone who is 23. They're old as well as often overweight and out of shape.
In August or whenever it is when they reveal the line-up for the show I'll know if it's a "serious" dance contest or if it isn't. If I see someone old and/or overweight then I know they are in it as cannon fodder for the judges. I know they are in it to bring a giggle and amusement to the show in the early stages. It's not a serious contest to find the best dancer.

The biggest change this show needs to make is to make a final decision. Is it a proper serious dance contest using celebs or is it a bit of light-hearted fun.

I understand what you mean but it's the audience who ends up deciding what they want it to be by voting for a naff dancer who entertains them or if the 'best' dancer wins - I don't think it has ever been a serious dance competition and it's only the judges who get uppity about this usually and the pro dancers when it suits them (think James when partnered with Cherie who claimed it was a dance competition and then changed his mind when it looked like his wife Ola could win but more for entertainment value than dancing).

I dissagree with miaviv on the first point. Yes sport celebs probably will be fitter and feel comfortable being coached but learning to dance is much more than that. As long as all celebs have little or no dance experience then I think that is a good level playing field.

I do agree with miaviv last point. The BBC have to decide whether SCD is a dance/entertainment competition (with dance being the major) or the reverse.

I think it'd be a disaster to explicitly state that the show is mainly about dance or mainly about entertainment when most people watching want a mixture of both. People look at the final last year as a neat dichotomy, but ask most Chris fans and they'd say he was a good dancer and ask most Ricky fans and they'd say they find him entertaining. The best way to "define" a show is to introduce a parcel of changes that push it in a particular direction without overtipping the balance - the Series 5 changes pushed it more in a pure dance direction, the Series 7 changes pushed it back towards entertainment.

The show works best with a variety of contestants : young, old, talented, untalented, vaudeville entertaining, and sexy entertaining and showmance entertaining and flashy entertaining and endearing entertaining and judge-baiting entertaining. All one type and it'd unbalance and alienate people.

The big DWTS ratings for this season have got very little to do with format tinkering - they've spent the last few series constantly tinkering with the format with dreadful results and ratings disappearing down the plughole. It's because they've got a big name, controversial cast which is bringing them press attention. Casting for these shows, once they reach a certain age and the novelty of the idea wears off, is everything.

DWTS pulled in 40 million veiwers because America is huge, not just because it is sooooooooooooo glamorous.

I agree with the OP, hate it clashing with X factor as I love both shows (I know, hang my head in shame).

Did find it a few too many couples last year though, but I loved the opening Fri and Sat shows.

Regardless to the size/scale of the US audience, DWTS improved on its ratings becuase the show is better. I have said this before, the BBC can learn a few things from its american counterpart.

As far as the celebs are concerned for me age isn't the be all and end all - fitness level is though.

Last season on DWTS Donny Osmond won at the age of 52 and even though he wasn't the best dancer, he could dance quite well and was entertaining. He worked his socks off throughout the series and was clearly a 'young' 52 when he started. On the other hand when Cloris Leachman was on, I couldn't wait for her to be voted off as an 80+ year old could/should never win a contest like this. A celeb should at least look like they have a chance - if they turn out to be duffers, then that's okay with me.

I have no problem with sports celebs and I'm happy with the light entertainment label, but it is still a dancing competition. I'm fine with it if the best dancer doesn't win, as long as the winner does show a good level of dancing ability. I was happy with Chris Hollins winning, but I would have been really upset if Chris Parker won.

Blurred lines about what the show is supposed to be is fine with me too, as it allows for change.

I look forward to seeing what the BBC do next.

I think the main changes is less couples, a seperate results show, bringing back Arlene and having 5 judges. And a new set.

Ummm I can do that now. It's a bit of light-hearted fun. anyone thinking that its a pure dance contest is in the wrong place.

I agree with a great deal of this post and the first sentence says it all for me.

SCD is about celebrities learning to dance. They have to engage us on and off the dancefloor. We are invited to invest in them as we watch clips from their training, then see them perform. Throughout this, their personality needs to be evident if they are going to get the public to vote for them. Technique alone just doesn't do it.

Strictly isn't, and was never conceived as, a dance competition. If that's what some people want, they'd be better of with SYTYCD. And look at the ratings that had compared to Strictly - they speak volumes ...

It can't have been because the show is better. Season 9 of Dancing With The Stars got the show's worst ratings ever from beginning in to end. Season 10 has had the best ever since the first second of episode 1. It's nothing to do with the actual quality of the show, because people didn't know how the quality of the show has changed from the season before. It can only be because of one of the three things that people knew before the first episode aired :

a) who the people in the cast were (the most controversial woman in America, a vapid big-name reality tv hunk, Pamela Anderson, the second man on the moon, an Olympic gold medallist, one of the most controversial and biggest names in pro-Football)
b) the fact that there are fewer couples (although the season is the same length)
c) the general promise of a revamp (which every reality show makes before every series, so it seems unlikely people would suddenly buy it now)

It'd be nice if a reality show's ratings increased or declined with quality. They don't. Series 6 of Strictly got the best ratings ever, by some distance, increasing with every episode bar two of them, despite not being many peoples favourite or particularly well run. What increases ratings is controversy, notoriety, and celebrity. It's why X Factor really took off and blitzed past Strictly when Leona became a global name, they got Cheryl Cole on the panel, Sharon Osbourne ran around the media being a bitter bitch about Danni Minogue and stoking up controversy, and Simon became the most famous man in the world.

I agree with everything you say Buddy. Donny is in good shape for his age. Let's take people for what they are based on their current fitness, rather than what we think they should be based on their age. I also agree about level of dancing and blurred lines.

Hope the 'convalescing at home' isn't too serious.

Again I totally agree with you - people watch for a whole variety of reasons and they should be allowed to with someone combining entertainment and talent to win.

That said I wish they'd ditch Brucie.

Ooops! Past that stage now - better change my location!

I agree with all of this

It depends on what you mean by that - if taking a leaf out of DWTS is making the dances go further away from the traditional ballroom and Latin, allowing multiple lifts, tricks etc. then I think SCD should stay as far away from that as possible - it's bordering on the ridiculous.

They do know how to pick decent contestants to fit the show's style though, regardless of age.



Why on earth would you need to waste taxpayers' money on dance acts from around the world when there are 16 fabulous professional dancers attached to the show already who are more than capable of providing entertainment for the final as they always do?


And anyone in James' shoes wouldn't have supported Ola? That's not him deciding it's more of an entertainment contest, it's him supporting his wife. He's said repeatedly in interviews since series 5 that he recognises that the public value entertainment as much as they do dance ability......


Anyway, that's beside the point. I agree with everything Monkseal says - it's not about deciding whether the show is dance or entertainment, it's about finding a format which works in terms of contestant profile, number of couples, airtime, dances, dance-off situations and division of the couples in the first week or 2....

Because it would be something nice and different, something special seeing as it is the final.

Also, I don't see how making a light entertainment the best it can possibly be as 'wasting tax payers money'.

Hi Mystic, I have posted a couple of times about the changes from DWTS I'd like to see on SCD (btw lifts are not allowed on DWTS until after week 7). I'd be happy to see any or all of these changes introduced on SCD -

1. 3 judges instead of 4/5.

2. Introduce new dances/tweaks on dances and a draw should be done for who does what dance. No weird stuff like the Texas/Country Two step, but I was happy with the Lindy Hop and the Charleston. Also last season on DWTS they had standard Latin/ballroom dances, but they did a 60s/70s/80s/futuristic theme - Derek Hough did an amazing futuristic Paso.

3. No dance off until there is a double elimination week - have 2 double elimination weeks in the middle of the series and that is the only time the dance off is used.

4. For the dance off above the couples perform a 30 second routine of their choice (normal rules apply).

5. Introduce relay dances where several couples all dance the same dance one after the other and then are each allocated points according to their individual placings.

6. Introduce team dances where several couples all dance the same dance together and then each are allocated points according to which team gets the higher marks.

7. Do the 'The Moment of Truth' reveal in stages - who is safe and who is in the bottom three and in still in jeopardy.

6. The best thing about DWTS imho - If a couple drops out then there is no elimination that week and the scores roll over to the next week. The 'Moment of Truth' is still done, so the weakest couple know they have to really pull their socks up to try to stay in the following week.

What I don't want is a drop in the standard of dancing we have on SCD, so the rules we have now would stay.

I like the relay dances idea, although not so much the team dances (one team could easily be pulled up by brilliant dancers, letting weaker ones off the hook). And you're absolutely right about the situation if a couple drops out.

But these ones above I don't like - maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist in this respect, but for the 'theme' idea and the 30-second routine of their choice it sounds to me like it would be SCD meets SYTYCD in a way - and it allows couples who are strong in Ballroom to use that continually to ensure their survival on Latin weeks, which isn't right if the aim of the competition is to find a winner who can learn both genres competently.

And number 7 sounds like American Idol elimination system, which is far too drawn out. There's no real need to know a bottom 3 when it always ends up as a bottom 2 anyway - I've never understood the logic (if there is any) behind that!

My list is far too much for SCD to take on, but having seen the changes over the seasons on DWTS (not all for the better), I have come around to thinking the SCD format does need to be freshened up a little. Last year's changes were a step in the right direction imho (if not very well executed).

That is how I see the show. this is no more a serious dance contest that The Eurovision Song Contest is a "serious" singing contest.

IMO it was Arlene going on various other TV shows having a pop at John Sergeant saying he shouldn't be on the show as it's a dance contest that got her the axe. She takes it all way too seriously. Craig would say it's a dance contest but at least he wasn't demanding someone should get booted off. He like Bruno and Len would always make a point that at the end of the day it's the viewers that vote and make the choice.
Arlene was never coy about showing her favouritism to certain contestants
Arlene took it all way too seriously and it cost her in the end.

It's not just her some viewers take these kind of things too seriously. I went on the thread for Popstar to Operastar or whatever it was called. It was ridiculous seeing what all these self believing "experts" were coming out with. I don't know if it was snobbery or they're just idiots that need to take a chill pill.
If you want to see or hear opera why are you watching a show with "celebs" and not watching Sky Arts or listening to a CD?

That show, X-Factor, BGT and this show and all the other similar ones are just the modern day versions of The Generation Game. You tune in to watch people "having a go" and trying to do something. Sometimes people are good, sometimes people are bad. It doesn't matter it's the getting up and having a go that's important.
This show as well as Celeb Big Brother and that jungle things aren't competitions to find the "best" or most popular. In reality they are just an attempt for celebs to try and revitalise their careers and/or boost their profiles.