They shouldn't in my opinion unless they have a drastic, and I mean a drastic and continual improvement.

Like the first cuckoo heralds the onset of Spring so the Is Strictly a Dance Competition of Entertainment Show thread ushers in the winter months

Agreed and having characters that are likeable but cannot dance for toffee taking part adds to the fun, John Sergeant springs to mind!

However when the series begins to approach the final it is not fair to keep the comedic contestants in over the more skilled dancers who are genuinely improving week upon week and giving their all.

It is a dancing competition at the end of the day, not a beauty or popularity contest. I would be annoyed if Jay or Georgia won based on good looks rather than merit but thankfully they are both terrific dancers so should be an interesting competition!

It's an entertainment show based around teaching "celebrities" how to perform a 90 second routine, hardly an actual dance competition. Very few of them are taught enough of the basics to be able to perform any of the actual dances if asked to.

No, that just wouldn't be fair and the contestants themselves wouldn't want to win knowing others were far superior to them and deserved it more.

The judges wouldn't tolerate the "comedy" element actually winning the show, they take the technicalities of the routines very seriously, as they should. It is a dance competition.

It's an entertainment programme based on an element of dance. Even the woman who came up with the programme idea herself said: “My vision was for an entertainment show first and foremost, with celebrities out of their comfort zone.”

which is why, since Series One, Show One, people have been asked to vote for their "favourite" dancer and not the "best" dancer because it is absolutely subjective when the people performing aren't all doing the same dance to the same piece of music.

Firstly I am not sure why you have the word celebrities in inverted comma's. They are figures known to the public...

Also I think you do those who take part a dis service. This is one reality show where the contestants are really made to earn their fee, they work and train hard and you can see how much it means to them. And they are certainly being taught how to dance, by the time the final comes some really excel.

Maybe so but if you have no natural rhythm then your improvement would never be as good as someone like Anita for instance.

It is a popularity contest masquerading as a dance competition.

I'm not doing anyone a disservice, they agree to take part in the show, get paid for it and, if they're lucky, get taught a new skill. It's not life and death and they're not taught to dance, they're taught to perform a 90 minute routine, there's a vast difference.

And celebrities is in inverted commas because the "cult of celebrity" means people are made famous for many and varied and, in a lot of cases, utterly vaccuous, reasons and they're not what I would class as a true celebrity. I suspect many of them are utterly unknown to huge swathes of the public.

There's no "fair" or "unfair" about it. As has already been quoted in the thread, it's an entertainment show which was created by the then-Entertainment Commissioner. Contestants progress or not depending on how much they entertain the viewers. That entertainment value could be pure dance ability, likeability, potential for a watch-through-the-fingers car crash of a dance...it will vary from viewer to viewer and even from week to week, but whatever impulse prompts people to pick up the phone or log-in online is equally valid. The "dahnce purists"' votes aren't counted double because they're voting on the basis of a well-executed heel lead, no matter how much they might wish it to be so.

its a crazy mash up of a dance show and the gladiatorial arena, the only thing missing is the lions.

Although you can learn rhythm. Don't assume because you don't have it now you can never get it. You can.

Some weeks that would be more entertaining

Even when there wasn't a dance off in series 1-4 and in 8-9, poor dancers didn't get to the end.

In the early weeks the public voted for their 'favourites' - for all sorts of reasons. Occasionally a not so bad celebrity would get voted out surprisingly early, but the best ones always survived to the last weeks with just the public vote.

Towards the last few weeks the public tended to vote for either the best dancer, or more often, the Celebrity who had made the most progress - the best journey (sorry)

So it's an entertainment show, but the public vote has given credit where it's due to good or improved dancers.

Even now the public vote has slightly more influence than the judges.

Oh yes they did, Christopher Parker was the other finalist in Series One Julian Clary in Series Two (although both were absolutely entertaining to watch and Clary did improve massively).

so lets just have pro dancers then we can do away with all the celebs who can't dance...oh they tried that before didn't they...anyway that'd do away with all the entertainment value ok.
Also ,brendan said that kirsty had 'no dance experience, no performing experience' tonight...so even the pros recognise that there has to be a purpose for tha absolute beginners being on there....I assume this thread has been started by someone who supports a trained dancer who they think is in danger..ie. not supported that much by the public.

I dunno if it would have been different if it had been a dance off series but Peter Schmeichel also got through after completely forgetting his samba routine!

It's an light entertainment show based around a dancing competition - well, it's meant to be that!

As far as the producers are concerned, it's primarily light entertainment.

As for the viewers, some are happy for it to be an entertainment show, while others would prefer it to be more about the dancing competition.

In recent years, Strictly seems to be skewed more in the favour of entertainment. Personally, I preferred the earlier years, as there was a better balance between the two elements. Hopefully, the producers will try to achieve s better balance in the future, because they're losing sight of what Strictly is all about.

Really? Because I'm sure you ticked me off for saying that people voted for their favourites in the final before the dancing even started. Yet, there are several people on here who have admitted they will vote for Jeremy every week regardless. Definitely not a dancing competition then, I think that's well established. From now on I'll vote for anyone who can do a half decent impression of Krusty the Clown.

I don't understand what you mean by this. No one is saying that the most skilled contestants become anywhere near as good as the pros but those with zero knowledge are, as you correctly state, taught a new skill. That skill would be dancing. Even if it is just the mere basics, they are taught to dance.

. True "celebrities" who are famous beyond i.e Angelina Jolie will never need nor want to participate in Strictly. I agree some taking part are vacuous i.e Peter Andre but not all contestants this year are of that ilk- Georgia and Kellie are famous soap actresses for example and would be known to the majority of viewers.

I was no fan of chris hollins but the public wanted him to win because they found him entertaining.

Ha ha 😂 😂, Forum Police!!!?! Ha ha
Irony sandwich for one please!!!

My post was entirely on topic.😉

Well I'd say Julian Clary wasn't a bad dancer, though not the best.

He did improve a great deal from someone who couldn't dance for toffee at the start - great credit to Erin. (Also people were so touched by their relationship I suspect.)

So Julian was a classic 'journey' contestant (sorry again). Chris Hollins was another. Suppose this makes it entertainment again.

I was in the process of editing my post to say 'except Christopher Parker running about with a cape' but you beat me to it. (Though he was really entertaining )

I agree, I preferred the earliest series' when there were just two different dances, one Latin, one Ballroom, danced each week and you could directly compare and contrast the contestants and they were actually taught the basics of each dance and then applied that to a 90 second routine danced to proper fitting music, no props.

I don't mind theme weeks and I like they've introduced the AT, Charleston and American Smooth, but I'd much prefer it if they were reserved for later on in the competition.