Been reading at *********** that beeb bosses want to make the show sexier and younger - ditching the older dancer in favour of new ones (including cheryls mate from america), and there are stories about brucie not returning.

Should they make these changes? Personally, I think they SHOULD.

To be honest I think some discretion should be used but Brucie should go not because he's old but because he's past it and his ego is taking over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfXtM...ayer_embedded#!

Really hope strcitly doesnt turn into this!!

No. Strictly is what Strictly is and that's what made it popular in the first place. Strictly is never going to be the X Factor and by meddling with it they'll just end up ruining it completely.

If they want a younger and sexier show then they need to make another programme altogether and schedule it earlier in the year so it doesn't clash with X Factor.

What made Strictly succesful to a certain degree is people fancying the men on it, so this is hardly out of keeping with that I would argue.

Incidentally, whilst the dancing is gimmicky and silly on DWTS across the board, Strictly would be damned lucky to get a contestant as watchable and likable as Pamela Anderson has been.

No it should not....................

They were doing this last year weren't they?

Really worked didn't it!

They should stick to the older fanbase.

I suppose it depends on how you interpret 'sexier' If the routines started to include skimpier costumes and more overt displays of baps and gusset then imo the show would become cheaper rather than sexier, and would reduce the dancers to glorified pole dancers rather than professional ballroom/latin dancers.

I also think that if the contestants were all young it would reduce the overall appeal of the show, which is, after all, supposed to appeal to all ages and as such it should retain the participation of all ages - and all sizes too

I think in terms of getting rid of Bruce, then they definitely should, but not necessary the male pros - I don't think many people would say they're all 'past it' (and don't think for a moment that every woman would be happier with people like Derek Hough on the show.....)


Of course physical attractiveness is a big part of the show, but I don't think 'younger and sexier' is really necessary - they do it enough already with the costumes (Ola's catsuits etc) and the pro dancers aren't that old anyway. They may well go for a younger average age of contestant to make it more of a competition, which is perfectly fine (although they'll obviously get accused of ageism again....) but there's a loot to be said for experience taking preference over someone a couple of years younger when it comes to the professionals - they're all so good at what they do because they have that experience which a younger dancer may not have as much of.

In some ways yes, If it was made younger and sexier without it looking cheap and tacky then it could work but if it was done badly then it would be terrible IMO.
I think they should get rid of Bruce because he's a bit past it now (bless him ) Replace Anton with Derek Hough and add a more flashy pro dances here and there (not all of the pro dances because then it will turn into DWTS) Then I think it would be better.
But really, as long as the Beeb don't get rid of Darren and Lilia, I'm easily pleased

Only if I can be younger and sexier!

The ancient and crumbling JJ!

Interestingly the last two series have had both the oldest (42 in series 6) and the youngest (37 in series 7) average age of contestants, and I'd argue the former was actually more of a close contest come the crunch than the latter. So I don't know if younger contestants necessarily means a closer competition. Just for completeness sakes, the order is

Series 7 (men :38, women :37, overall : 37)
Series 1 (men : 40, women: 37, overall : 38)
Series 3 (men : 40, women : 38, overall : 39)
Series 5 (men : 40, women : 38, overall : 39)
Series 4 (men : 45, women : 36, overall : 40)
Series 2 (men : 41, women : 40, overall : 40)
Series 6 (men : 46, women : 39, overall : 42)

Nice argument in favour of BBC ageism against women there at any rate. Not a single series where the women were older than the men. Interestingly, young men tend to do better than young women, but older women tend to do better than older men. Food for thought.

I was meaning more a close contest in general - series 6 was certainly close at the end, but not really when the older contestants are included - Cherie was good, but would probably not have matched Rachel, for example, in the final weeks. John Sergeant obviously wouldn't have either.

It's the same every year though, and even if that's the reasoning behind going for younger contestants, it won't necessarily work - can't always rely on it being the older ones who can't dance!

Strictly is already about sex to a certain degree.......you only have to look at the Ali & Brian and Matt & Flavia appreciation threads to know that........you can wrap it up in romance as much as you like but its still down to sex appeal at the end of the day. Every series they have someone that the ladies will like and someone that the men will like and if not then there is always Ola in her catsuits. They dont need to go younger as such none of the eventual winners of Strictly have been on the young end of the spectrum except Alesha. However, and I say this as one of Strictly's biggest fans, I do think some of the pros need a bit of a shake up, and bringing in new blood might just do that.

The presenters really need to be changed......going younger isnt going to be a problem when they replace Bruce.

As far as I could see, the article was specifically about the pros, not the celebs or any other participants although it may have wider connotations.

As Jan2555 says, Strictly is already about sex to a certain degree. After all, a good latin dancer should be sexy by definition. However, hopefully the producers won't forget that the appeal of ballroom dancing is the romance, elegance and glamour.

I agree with Jan2555 that a shake up in the pros might not necessarily be a bad thing. However, I would like to see both latin and ballroom equally emphasised on strictly and it not just become a show which is a about hot latin routines.

I just don't get this sexier, younger equals better. SCD is a sexy show. All the Pro's on SCD are young in comparison to some of the celebs. Younger does not equal sexier or better but could equal crap dancer.

I thought the BBC went out of its way in the Arlene vs Alesha debate to make clear that they are not ageist.

Jill was actually only a few months older when she won than Alesha was when she won. I guess she's just an old soul. (Both were 29, and Tom (31) and Natasha (32) were only a little bit older).

On the general topic of Latin, I do think the Latin dances on the show need a hefty injection of sex and hip-action. They've been quite anemic for a fairly long time now, with the focus being on more of a "party atmosphere", "cheekiness" or bloody Disco-Latin. I'm not talking full-scale frotting, but a bit more raunch wouldn't go amiss.

Strictly celebrities have looked increasingly desperate in recent years, and now they will look more self-conscious as well...

I think they do need to get contestants who have a chance of improving. DWTS has an advantage that the USA seems to have hundreds of Olympic and world sports champions to call on, lots of Showbiz and Celeb groups and imports, and 4 times the size of population to pay for it.

Strictly could do with better celebs - if they could get them. They got Martina Hingis last year, and what did the public do? - dumped her out first chance. That may have been a bit Martina's fault, but it causes problems in justifying budgets, hence the ex-eastenders. I dont blame the judges, because it was a close call.

The Cha Cha Cha is for me, the sexiest dance they do, but rarely is there a celeb good enough for a really sexy CCC like Ola's dance with Spoony, because it was always the first dance they did. Series 6 & 7 were better in that respect.

The Pro's can do sexy - and have - but it has to have a bit of class, and I think that is where Strictly scores over DWTS.
Strictly also does the learning-to-dance much better, and that's an important part of the show for me. Sometimes its amazing how much a celeb improves and I admire anyone who takes the risk of being laughed at for trying, yet sometimes they discover a whole new talent.

I dont want the show dumbed down. The BBC used to be the channel that tried to raise standards.

Blimey I thought Alesha was younger than than and Natasha a good bit older. However I did mean that it people in their 30s that are winning not the very young end of the spectrum such as Louisa and Matt di Angelo.

Below is an excerpt from a Times article written before the first Strictly Tour in 2008. I think it makes some good points about the appeal of Strictly.

While the format is king – a collection of celebrities in faintly ludicrous costumes attempt weekly more complex dances, until a winner is declared – it is far less in danger of becoming an exhausted mechanical TV process as is I’m a Celebrity – Get Me Out of Here! or X Factor. This is because, in the main, Strictly Come Dancing harks back to a simpler, gentler, more gentlemanly era of broadcasting .
It’s all about the transformative pleasure of some nice celebrities learning a new skill, with a generous tot of camp razziness thrown in.

....But then, this is the joy of Strictly Come Dancing. This is the point of it. This is what we want. We want a show of celebrity aunts, uncles, dads and sexy cousins joyfully giving it a bit, in silly trousers. We would be unmoved by anything less . . . utterly British.

I think it will be sad if the BBC makes wholesale changes to a programme whose original appeal was being a Saturday evening entertainment programme that the family could watch together. Sex it up too much and that audience will disappear - and whatever the PTB think, they will not be replaced by XFactor viewers!

Freshen things up by all means, but stick to what made it popular in the first place, don't try to 'Americanise' something that we can do much better. Cut down the weeks the show runs, put more money into it and get a good mix of celebrities with some personality!

Agree if younger and sexier means getting some better dancers, with fresh and modern views on choreography and getting rid of some of the dancers who are clearly past it if they ever were up to much - like Anton du Beke. The guests however should still include a wide spectrum of people of different ages. However none of the guests should be hampered with an old dancer or one who clearly isn't as capable as the others. It's not really fair on them.

Younger and sexier - how ageist can you get! Strictly is a programme that covers a wide age spectrum from Granny to Toddlers. If Strictly is to get "sexier" then it would need to be aired after the 9 p.m. watershed.

Before last year the programme had a winning formula until "the younger and sexier" element showed its hand by sacking Arlene and replacing her with the obnoxious Alesha Dixon.

If it is true the BBC has axed some of its most popular dancers to be replaced by the "scantily clad fresh out of diapers" brigade - they will lose loyal viewers whilst the young and sexy will be strutting their stuff at the local clubs and bars and will not be sitting in on a Saturday night to enjoy family entertainment.

I don't think it should change. Strictly is a success because of what it is. They're hardly likely to gain viewers by changing the dancers but a lot of people watch the show for the pros so if they drop them they will lose a lot of viewers.
Strictly suffered last year because they replaced Arlene with Alesha not because the pros are too old. I think all of them are great and I would like them all to stay.

Strictly did not suffer last year because of Alesha , for me it improved dramatically when they got rid of Arlene, if it suffered from anything last year it was the lack of really talented or well known celebs.....