It is a monopoly, not accountable to those who fund it.

A bubble? How many years did the UK property bubble keep going before it eventually burst?

It took the Russian people 70 years to decide a command economy was not fit for purpose. "Every country gets the government it deserves," said one philosopher. Every country gets the broadcaster it deserves?

Have you worked with the entertainment department within the BBC that makes SCD, because what you've described sounds very much like the opinion I have formed because it sums up why the entire department is such a weak link at the BBC and why all the shows they get their hands on either fail to take off or shows that were once popular getting run in to the ground. Here we are years down the line since things started to go wrong in that department but nothing has been done about it.

The only major changes, this year and last year, that needed to be made was freshening up the actual production of the show (eg. lighting, set design, graphics, camera work etc.) Here is what I think should be done:

01. Fewer couples
02. High profile, controversial celebrities who actually have personalities
02. Simpler format. They should go back to how it was originally.
03. Move the entire show to the Blackpool Tower Ballroom
04. Better production standards. The BBC should co-produce it with an events engineering company (eg. PRG)
05. Make the interval act a major part of the show. They should book better interval act guests.
06. Ditch the non-celeb VIP's in the audience and replace them with audience members who actually look as if they're having a good time.
07. Have seperate performance and results shows

The show lives or dies by the standard of celebrities they choose to take part. 2009 had the most boring line-up since the show started and therefore people just lost interest.

I don't think the show is on some sort of downward spiral, far from it, but last year showed us how easy it is for a great show to turn stale very quickly.

Who knows, the producers might actually shock us all by making some good decisions for the upcoming SCD.

While I dont agree with all the changes, like others have said glad they have made some.

I have been giving the changes a lot of thought over the last week and I can actually see why the Beeb decided to change the dancers it did. Perhaps they think its a chance to give someone else a chance to win. The only one Im particularly sad about is Ian (but he has done 6 series and perhaps they thought he had had his chance).

I hoped the changes would not just reserved for the pro dancers though. It would be only right that there are some changes in the judges or presenting bit .... If they saved the 600k for Bruce just think what they could do with the difference if they got someone else to host who was less expensive....

By the same token, Im staggered that Anton, Erin and Brendan are still there (although of those 3, I would choose to keep Erin because she is good for a laugh) as particularly the Latin from A&E is so crap.

The programme needed a change so I will reserve judgement for the moment although I do think that the 21 yr old (although cute(?)) is likely to be out of his depth.

To coin a phrase from some of the fans...

FLAVIA DOMINATION 2010!

Nah, we're still after BENNETT DOMINATION 2010, only now they will be dominating the show through the excellence and quantity of their pro dances

what are they doing to strictly?

Nothing much except making things worse by losing some pros who can do well and keeping some who are the kiss of death to any celebrity they get.

The show has three fundamental problems.

The first is that well know successful celebrities are in work. They don't have time to take 6 months off for the show and now the tour. The pool of who is left has now been trawled comprehensively by SCD and DOI leaving few big fish left.

The second is that the show and the viewers are undecided whether they want really good dancers. Fit young people with some experience or even fit older people with some experience are what you need for a high standard modern looking show like DWTS or the other BBC dancing shows or the dancing side of BGT.

Third the voters regularly destroy any hope of a decent competition by keeping in the hopeless, voting anti-judge and overrewarding the journey from poor to mediocre. Meanwhile the people who should be competing for the top 4 often never make it there as some hunk or clown or catch phrase does.The result of that is to reduce the potential of anyone any good bothering signing up further and to increase the risk of doing the show. As the voters don't vote for the fit and the able, putting in the effort to win or bothering to find people who could do really well is nugatory so the contestants end up trying for no reward and the producers bother less in casting too. Trying to solve this problem, by trying to shape or marginalise the bizarre voting, has taken up much of the last four series, but they are still no nearer to a solution and their finals have become less and less competitive.

The bottom line is its perfectly possible to draw up a cast list for a brilliant very high standard show. The problem is that most people on the list are employed, or would be seen in the UK (but not the US) as too qualified. Its then practically inevitable that with the current voting you would never see the standard of competition you had built in as the weakest or most attractive males sent the better people home. Its also inevitable that the next year you wouldn't get capable big names for love or money.

A good post. With the same host, not surprising that Strictly has retained aspects of its antecedent show The Generation Game including poking fun at civilians specifically chosen to fail, not to succeed. In its choice of judges Strictly makes a mockery of the audience now.

WOW! that's the answer. simple, innit!

the BBC can produce Strictly any way it likes -
all it has to do is renew the whole audience! Pension off any one who's viewed the 7 series to date and advertise that the show is for brand new viewers only with fresh unadulterated minds.

like jelly sponges really.

wet ones.

The rest of us will have to make do with videos or yet another viewing of 'Casablanca' or 'Shrek 5' or 'Blackadder'.
Last edited by Dorabella14 : 21-06-2010 at 23:56

I think the new producer has made some terrible mistakes. A lot of people loved Strictly, looked forward to the show starting and enjoyed seeing the professional dancers as well as the celebs. It seems now we are to be subjected to American dancers from the American TV show. Why? Isn't Strictly a British show and should we not encourage and help our own professional dancers? What spoilt the show for me last year was the fact the so-called celebs were unknown!!!! The professional dancers were more famous than the so called celeb contestants. The whole judge fiasco drove me crazy basically because Aleshia cannot speak English correctly and seemed to repeat what the other judges said or was downright nasty to some of the contestants. If Strictly is in meltdown due to all the changes made over the last year, nobody will want to risk appearing on the show. Also it sounds as though a lot of these celebs are incredible greedy demanding huge fees and they are now being offerred thirty thousand plus to appear on the show and some celebs feel that is not enough!!!!! If they end up with Fergie, Duchess of York I really will turn off!!!

What's wrong if Strictly's professional dancers are better known than their contestants?
People still vote for their "favourites" - and judging by this year's pro lineup, we are expected to vote for their ripped abs, hot bodies etc.

In future, chuck the celebrity contestants, get in drama students who can use the experience, and just vote for the pros.

Strictly has always been full of 'unknown' celebs. Alesha herself was hardly a household name when she did it - and the same can be said for most of the contestants. It wasn't the celeb status of the contestants that was the problem last year (IMHO) - it was the sheer lack of character on display from the vast majority of them. Whether you liked Chris or not, it's no wonder he and Ola were popular with the audience - they managed to bring some of their personality onto the dancefloor. That's what most people want - not technical precision ad infinitum (that's SYTYCD, not SCD).

The people who chose to do SCD aren't put off by any of the judges' comments (and Alesha's pale into insignificance next to Arlene's or Bruno's). They do it for the money and for the impact they think it might have on their profile - plus there is obviously an expectation that some full-time BBC employees will participate (Chris, Natasha, Bill, for instance).

And, from what I gather, Fergie wants to do DWTS. She's worried about her profile in the US, not here ...

Unknown celebs? Surely a contradiction in terms... perhaps the Beeb did not think the phrase "Nonentity partners" trips off the tongue so well... don't knock it till you've tried it I say

The thing that has basically been "killing" Strictly is the Dance off.

I really do think that if that one item was scrapped, the voting patterns would eventually to back to what it should be - the most popular celebrity/pro partnership winning. Because what the audience is looking for is individual (entertainment, dance prowess, hottness (!) etc), there would be the odd "shock" elimination but I really do think the main voting part of the audience would after a while stop the anti-judge vote and vote according to talent.

I liked Networkbabe's comments about what is fundamentally wrong - also Soulmate who said its because of the Generation Game's "failure" thing. So the answer is to change the host....

Also after 7 years of the show the basket of possible celebs is getting thinner and thinner as people are either too employed, too past it, too qualified etc.

Just as a one off, I really do think a Strictly of "non-celebs" would actually be a breath of fresh air, increase the viewing public and also make the producers realise what a quality show Strictly could be with the right make up. Strictly really only works if the "celebs/amateurs" WANT to learn to dance. If you think of the celebs over the past couple of years (series 6 and 7), I bet if you really asked them, you would only find about a quarter who actually WANTED to do it, to learn a skill. At least 50% did it purely for the exposure and what they could get out of it (moneywise in future career possibilities), some more did it as they had nothing else to do, but say about 10 possibly did it because they wanted to learn the dance skill.

For sure the programme needed new blood and revamping but it didnt need the changes the have made. How can a programme be refeshed when they keep the weakest Pro Dancers - Anton and Erin just don't cut the mustard anymore am so shocked the BBC chose to keep him over say Matthew.

Not impressed with the two USA dancers (look on YOUTUBE) where one of them is dancing on one neither have ballroom that impress me either - by all means re-vamp the show but throw money at it not re-vamp and tighten budget it just will not work.

I dont want to see the show taken over by 'lesser' DWTS dancers I will watch the real mccoy if I want DWTS - the BBC should have chosen European dancers, got rid of the band and get 'proper' dance band in, Save money on the presenters - surely no one thinks £600,000+ for Brucie and £250,000 + for Claudia and Tess are worth it ?? and spend that money on Good celebs and decent professionals - It seems the show will be same old celebs again this year BBC Holby and Eastenders rejects and the latest reject from Hollyoaks thrown in with a sports person and a lumpy MP

I cannot believe it - a fellow poster who concurs with my opinion of a celeb.

Hallelujah.

I cannot agree with this estimation... it was in fact the earnestness of nearly everybody from series 6 that was doing my head in. Fewer do it for a little sojourn, to wave their hands about like David Dickinson... the poster child for earnestness was not the charismotomised Ricky Whittle but Craig Kelly who tried ever so hard but only ended up with the dancing skills of the Teddy bear from A.I.
I wouldn't advise on taking on the uncommitted, only real celebrities we've actually heard of...

I hate to say this, but the treatment of Strictly reminds me of the treatment of Big Brother in the lead to it's axe:
[LIST][*]Popularity leading to unnecessary extension in weeks [*]Over-confidence leading to trying to compete with programmes aimed at a different audience[*]Scandal rocking the series, and a rethink between series[*]Trying to brand the series 'younger' and 'sexier' with the potential for more ructions, and getting more than they bargain for[*]Instead of going back to basics, an attempt to evolve the show further down the 'developed' route[*]Moves isolate many hardcore fans, who may be in the minority but are the most passionate about the show[*]For Big Brother ratings started to plummet - this hasn't quite happened to Strictly yet but it could come[/LIST]
Strictly is not in dire straits by anyone's imagination yet but the same problems are surfacing IMO, and I think the programme may only have a couple of years left unless the production team remember why the programme was so loved in the first place, instead of attempting to make it something it's not.

I don't agree with the 'if it ain't broke...' line.

I've watch from the very beginning and even though SCD is one of my favourite shows, it is obvious to me that the show needed refreshing.

I was as shocked as anyone at the choice of the 5 pros relegated to the dance group, but I am quite happy to wait and see what other changes are planned and then see how things go when the series starts again.

Strictly still pulls in millions of viewers. The BBC isn't trying to slowly kill Strictly, it's trying to save it.

Buddy, maybe you don't think it was broke but you do seem to think it was run down and needed some maintenance. To some extent I agree. It did need refreshing and I also see no good reason for SCD producers trying to kill the show off. Everything is being done with the best of intentions. I'm just not convinced about the nature of the refresh. It seems a bit like trying to put furry dice and pink sparkly upholstery in a Rolls Royce. Fine for a different show, but not quite in tune with its original character.

Happy to wait and see. I will reserve judgement, but my early warning antennae are going "brrr brrr" (or whatever noise warning antennae make).

LOL! I do know what you mean about those antennae and I love your analogy! I'm hoping for a Rolls Royce with a new engine, but with its interior still beautifully preserved!

Come Dancing moved to BBC2 at 11:45 pm, hosted by Angela Rippon and Rosemary Ford. A long-drawnout extinction fading out with a whimper.

If Strictly expires it would less likely be due to indifference, more likely from an overdose of mocking self-abasement, Bruce's stock-in-trade from The Generation Game.

Yep, that's what I was trying to say but you said it better (love the analogy ).

Changes are required but the wrong changes are being made, and I can see similarities to the approach to Big Brother after it faltered. I just hope the result isn't the same.

I think it is far too early to say if the changes are right or wrong, only time will tell. we dont know the full story yet

Big Brother had scandal problems though, so imho that's a bit different.

I always viewed the problem with Big Brother was that it DIDN'T branch out to new demographics - it chased the same sensation seekers it picked up in Series 5 quite safely with tame shocks (oh no! A fight! Oh no! some kissing!)for 3 years with steady results down the same rabbit hole over and over again until they crashed into the serious race scandals of CBB & BB8 and couldn't recover the more educated middle-class viewer again when it needed them.

The show never really branded younger and sexier. In fact the real ratings crash was accompanied by the advent of housemates like Carole, Lisa, Suzie, Belinda, Jonathan, and Mario, all of whom were much older than anyone who would have appeared in series 1.

Compared to most reality shows, Strictly's format has been pretty stable, and a "back to basics" dictat probably wouldn't result in anything more than a removal of the dance-off (especially we're now back down to 14 couples again). The major changes that are causing people to be upset are something which Big Brother never had to deal with beyond Davina - on-screen personnel. People become popular over series, and then either move on of their own accord, or get booted rather unceremoniously. The show's real problem in this field is that it has never established the same culture as the US show, where pros would always disappear for a series or two and then come back for another round, keeping their hand in with the occasional pro dance, so people could always look forward to their favourite returning one day.

It appears with this dance troupe they might be trying to create that sort of ethos from scratch now - unfortunately thanks to the way previous pros (Nicole, Hayley, any number of early season pros) were fired off into the heart of the sun never to be seen or mentioned again, it looks disingenuous.