I like watching Strictly for the dancing and seeing people improve or impress each week!

I don't want it made younger and snazzier - There are enough loud clones out there to fulfil that invisible potential audience.

I don't want it to be similar to Dancing with the Stars - This is Britain, that American razzmatazz is OK out there, but here we are down to earth and a tad more real!

I WANT Brucie to stay - He is a legend, nuff said!

I want Tess to stay - She is the best partner for Brucie. If they do feel the need to replace her, then it should be then be Claudia or even Alesha, NOT Christine Blakely!!

Please please please leave it alone! So what if it gets beaten by X Factor! There are a core group of fans who watch it religiously who will continue to watch it if you leave well alone!
If you change it, you will lose viewers and voting revenue!

P.S. LEAVE IT!!

I disagree. It was extremely boring towards the end last year as it went on for far too long, Bruce was just an embarrassment and they lost viewers last year and need to revamp it to bring viewers back.

I agree it doesn't need to compete against the X Factor but it does need jazzing up a bit (IMHO).

I think you're right about it not needing to compete with the X Factor - it will never win, and it shouldn't have to.


However there was a lot that was wrong about last series. Your argument about it losing voters if it changes doesn't stand up, as it will lose voters as well inevitably if it doesn't change. But that's not to say that dramatic change is required.

It shouldn't be as gimmicky as DWTS - that style isn't suited to the format I think, but I've never been a fan of DWTS.

But there were too many contestants, Bruce has been past it for about 5 years and last year was simply an embarassment to the show - not a single funny joke, and when you're asking the audience to laugh it's a sign that your time is up...

Tess I can stick - she's not brilliant, she stll pronounces people's names wrong and says some terribly cringworthy stuff, but she's not terrible in the way Bruce is. Christine has confirmed she will not be presenting Strictly, and I wold love it if Claudia took Tess' role, but not at the expense of her genius on ITT! I think it's the end of the Strictly journey for a few of the professionals too, but I definitely don't want the sweeping cull of pros that has been rumoured! There are 11 I would keep for definite, out of the 16 from last year.

I think the Tower Ballroom episode was a great idea, but it would be nice if they returned there for the final - that's partly why Jill's win (and that jive) was so special. The show definitely needs jazzed up a bit, which at least the BBC have recognised, but large-scale changes will not necessarily produce a better result. A few tweaks here and there will definitely improve the show though.

Competing with The X Factor is pointless. That show's budget and media profile way exceeds SCD and thinking that Strictly has to rival the Simon Cowell juggernaut is like handing it a deathwish. It just ain't gonna happen.

Beyond that, I do think Strictly needs a re-think. But I don't think hiring big name celebs will help at all. That isn't the problem. The problem is the way the show has been managed.

Granted much of the media have a anti-BBC agenda - but the BBC itself has managed to shoot itself, and Strictly in the foot more times than should be possible. Sergeant-gate, Arlene-gate, Alesha-gate, Skippy-gate, P***-gate ... how many PR disasters can you let happen?

And these were only part of the bad management. Jon Beazley and Sam Donnelly very obviously indulged the judges and empowered them to the extent that Arlene Phillips felt she was justified in going on other shows and slagging off contestants. And the public didn't like it. The judges made it blatantly obvious who their favourites were and over-scored them so as to protect them, with the public's favourites shown the exit door. The public, of course, didn't like it. Then the judges even told the public how they should be voting. And, yes, the public didn't like it.

Sergeant-gate opened up a huge gulf between the judges and the audience at home and it is astonishing and appalling that neither Beazley nor Donnelly addressed this. The people replacing them have a huge clean-up job to do and it doesn't involve hiring Victoria Beckham as a contestant. It's about letting us, the public, feel that Strictly is OUR show, not the judges', and taking any steps necessary to ensure viewers know that (for instance by disempowering the judges).

That is the main change that needs to take place. Whether or not it will happen is another thing altogether, of course ...

All Strictly needs to do is...

1) cut the number of couples from 16 to 12.
2) live Saturday night results show, seperate from the main dancing show.
3) bring in an adequate judge. I like Alesha, but she should not be a judge. If you want someone younger than Arlene, then what's wrong with Karen or Camilla, for example?
4) stop clashing with The X Factor, which will ALWAYS (sadly) beat Strictly.

It worked for series 4, which pulled in the best ever ratings. Why did they feel the need to change things?

The previous series has made it clear that Sergeant-gate is in the past, so I don't see why it is the issue here. The judges quite clearly did not want Chris to win (and basically admitted that on the Christmas special), yet he did, so how is that the judges telling the public how to vote? The judges loved Zoe, yet she was voted off early - how is that the judges telling the public how to vote? The judges' job is to score people differently so the public have an indicator of who danced well and who didn't, but the public can (and do, as has always been clear) choose to ignore this and judge for themselves. That's why it's both votes added together which counts, not just the judges, not just the public - stops it from being either a completely dancing-focused competition or a complete popularity contest. The public has always had the upper hand though, as shown by their voting for John, for Tom, for Chris - all contestants the judges didn't rate in comparison to their competitors, and in the latter 2 cases it was absolutely the public's show as they chose a winner the judges would not have done - on judges' scores alone we would have had different winners the past 2 series.

I agree with you that the management of the show are questionable in general, but the problems the show has are nothing to do with the voting system, but are to do with duration, personality quality (and I don't mean in measure of fame, I mean actual personality) and bad presenters and judges. The judes aren't bad because they have favourites - all the voting public have favourites, it's inevitable, they're bad because their comments are beyond ridiculous and they're too busy being theatrical to actually judge....

I would argue that Strictly had a kind of innocence before Sergeant-gate, and the bad feeling that episode generated has tainted the show ever since. That was very much about the judges telling the public how to vote - and that happened repeatedly afterwards. Arlene even lied about Rachel's 'previous dance history' (on BBC Breakfast) to try and win public support for her own personal favourite.

No, the judges did not want Chris to win and, in the semis, Len effectively told the audience that they should not be voting for him, but for Ricky (the implication being that Ali should go through to the final). Sorry, I don't have the exact wording but there was no mistaking what he meant.

When Zoe was voted off, the judges had less power - there was no dance-off. With the dance-off, the public only have the ultimate say in the semi-finals/finals - meaning that perennially unpopular contestants like Lisa Snowdon effectively get a free pass to the final.

I agree with you about the lack of personality among the majority of contestants last year - but that is another failing of the Beazley/Donnelly regime. It was their job to ensure contestants have personalities - and they failed.

I think you misunderstood my point about Zoe - I meant Zoe Lucker from series 7! No-one can dispute that the people held the upper hand that week, forcing that ridiculous dance-off. It's situations like that which show the necessity of the dance-off early on (and I'm no fan of Ali, but she was a far superior dancer on Strictly Come Dancing than the likes of Craig Kelly and Ricky Groves, who stayed out of the dance-off at her expense)

Do we have voting figures that prove Lisa Snowdon's unpopularity? I didn't like her myself, but there's no indication that most weeks she was so unpopular that only her judges' score kept her in - we can't assume that.

And how do you know Arlene lied about Rachel's dance history - maybe she genuinely didn't know? I didn't see the interview you're talking about, but I would hardly count S Club 7 as dance history, and if it's anything else you're referring to Arlene may well have legitimately not known....

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just fail to see that what your trying to argue has much proof from the last couple of series - last year especially. Yes, the judges have the danceoff up to a certain stage (personally I'd rather it wasn't used in the QF either), but it is a dance competition after all, and if the public keep all the worst dancers in then it just turns into an annoyance for those of us who don't care who th celebs are and watch it for the dancing, and the professional dancers doing their job. I don't dispute that the public are entitled to vote for whoever they wish, but that should not be a free licence to turn the show entirely into a popularity contest, which it could be if the dance-off didn't exist in the earlier stages.

Apologies for my Zoe misunderstanding!

No, we don't have specific voting figures re Lisa Snowdon's lack of public support. But there was a set of leaked figures during Series 6 (during Sergeant-gate, if I recall) which were never substantiated - because the BBC refuses to release this information - but spookily accurate in the weeks after they were published.

Yes, Arlene very obviously lied about Rachel's experience. Sorry, I don't have the exact words to hand. And yes, the type of dancing S Club 7 did is very different from what she did on SCD - but the point is that she had extensive experience of [1] working with choreographers and [2] maintaining the necessary stamina from her touring work to do Strictly.

And nor am I trying to be argumentative (), but Strictly most definitely is not just a 'dance competition'. It's a reality television series where we watch celebrities learn how to dance. The public are invited to invest in them as personalities as well as engage with their dancing abilities.

SYTYCD is a dance competition, pure and simple. Strictly is more than that.

I agree! Leave everything exactly the same ... except give Darren and Lilia good partners

Thanks for the information on that Arlene interview - I'd not heard that before

And I do agree that Strictly is not just a dance competition ( I was a diehard Chris and Ola fan last year, so I can never argue it's just a dance competition ) but at the end of the day the marking is for the dancing, and as that's what they're there to judge, they will develop some favourites, it's human nature, just like the viewers at home do. That's why i think the current voting system works - the judges have their favourites, we have ours, equal rating is placed on each up until the point where it really matters and then the power is vested solely in the people (and I do wish that was from QF onwards tbh) and thus each provides a check and balance on the other, ensuring a mix of dancers and personalities go through. There will inevitably be shock decisions as the weeks go on, but unless you leave the judging criteria so specific that the marks cannot be based solely on opinion (which would basically turn it into a complete dancing contest), the judges marks are always going to be criticised by one side or the other. Of course they get the marks wrong sometimes, I'll be the first to admit that Craig undermarks and Len and Alesha overmark a lot of the time, but again that's vis a vis my own opinion - someone else could say Craig is always right and Alesha invariably wrong, for example! Yes, the public should have their say, but there's nothing wrong with the judges doing so either, as long as the weighting isn't biased in favour of the judges, which it never is.

Was that slander I heard directed at Queen Rachel Stevens?!?!?!??!

If you had started this topic this time last year I would have agreed with you, (except for Bruce) but after last series I have changed my mind completely, nothing stands still for ever and I think Strictly DOES need a change. I dont want to hit out at any particular pros as we all have a favs and can come up with reasons why they should stay but a couple are definately past their sell by date and need to be replaced which would add some oomph to those left. Strictly has lost its sense of fun and needs something to chage or it will just die.

Well said Force Ten. I totally agree with you.

I'm all for a revamp; last year wasn't it's best, and if it doesn't liven itself up, it will creep away and die.

Some of the pro dancers have admitted they feel the show needs new faces and livening up, even though they realize it could mean they don't get offered further contracts.

I'm somewhere in between. I prefer just to watch to 10 dances (salsa ok but charleston and rock n roll really don't do it for me), but think the show has got a bit stale and maybe some of the pros could change. But some really well known celebs would probably be just as much a boost.
Last edited by Vivacious Lady : 20-05-2010 at 21:03

Agreed. It's all about balance. Lisa and (to a lesser extent)Ali got derided for surviving week after week but just because they weren't the public's favourites, did they have any less right to be there on their dancing abilities? If it was all about the public's favourite, then why not just scrap the dancing and have a stand up comedian competition! There needs to be a space for the dancing element too. Ultimately the public has the final say anyway and usually (possibly Gethin apart) their favourite wins (and yes, I know it's hard to accept but according to the leaked voting figures Tom was more popular than Austin!).

Yes SCD needs a few changes, but not major ones. Most have been mentioned before. Less couples, clear rules, seperate Saturday results show and possibly a new judge.

For me, personally, to make it at least interesting and not a foregone conclusion from about week 4, they need to sign up several thirty something male contestants (extra bonus if they're a sportsman) who can dance 'a bit', will hopefully get on well with their partner and have a personality of some sort. This would at least make it a competition.

They improved the scoring system last year and ITT was better.

The lineup wasn't as good as most people would like, but the public did vote off Martina Hingis, who may have had potential. I suspect Laila had more potential in latin than we saw. Jade got injured. Ricky W was a very clear front runner from the start - dancewise. There were too many contestants, and they need to make sure there is a three-way final.

There are still things that can be improved.

The entertainment acts.

They need to devote more money and rehersal time to the professional show dances if they want them to produce at a higher level.

They could improve on Bruce, the judges, and to a lesser extent Tess.

It can be improved, and should be.

I agree with the OP, if they're trying to do an extreme makeover people aren't going to continue watching.

i wish that they would leave strictly alone!

Claudia has already put on record that she doesn't want to do Saturday live shows as well as her ITT - because she would only get one day off a week and never see her children awake on the other 6.

Ian Waite has put on record that Blackpool is OK for one show, 2 max, but can't host the whole series because not enough room backstage and location would involve horrendous commutes for some.

The number of people who really want Bruce back as host is diminishing to point where you need only one hand to count them.
If you want US-style glamour, you need US-sized budgets, and the BBC hasn't got this cash, so the threats are unlikely to materialise.

Tess has signed up bright and early and does not need a goof or presenter standing beside her. The days of double presenting are over, yes, over. The money saved by not paying Bruce can now be split up between new A list contestants and better money for the pro dancers - if any US pros come over, they'll want proper pay.

Several of the professional dancers seem confident they will be back - but hard for them to plan ahead when the contracts will only be put out in July.

So I'm quite confident that the revamp (dropping Bruce) will in the end be OK.

The core UK audiences will always watch, and the series will always be sold outside the UK - which is another reason why Bruce's departure has to be part of the revamp - he ruins the atmosphere of the show and makes it unintelligible for overseas viewers (who don't understand legends), and overseas sales is where the extra money for the BBC lies. It's all economics, in the end.

I never said Claudia should do it, I know she wouldn't, but she's better than Tess by far, so she's who I'd prefer as backstage host, even if it'll never happen. ITT needs her too much

And I think the show should only go to Blackpool for the final, not some random week mid-season - of course it wouldn't work doing it every week, and no-one should expect the dancers to commute all across the country when they already do so for the tour!

I don't see how 'the days of double presenting are over' though - Strictly by nature is a two-presenter show - one onstage, one backstage - it wouldn't work any other way.

What people would like to have changed aside, it may have some bearing on the BBC's thoughts that there will be fewer episodes of TXF than usual airing on ITV this year ... whether the BBC will try and capitalise on this is another matter altogether.

Why will there be less X factor this year

I think you misunderstand, the overseas sales of strictly is based on the format, not the actual recordings of the show, most countries Pay to use the format using local tv hosts, so Bruce is of no relevance. The BBC version is for UK only and may be available on satellite in some european countries, but the real revenue earner is the Format.i;e Dancing with the stars in the US and the 37 or other versions