I wouldn't be surprised if he's told by producers to ensure his demeanour is sunnier over there. Doesn't he also get paid a hell of a lot more for DWTS? Plus the Californian weather probably helps. Much cheerier than Blackpool!

Anyway, Strictly is ok as it is in my opinion. DWTS has never been my cup of tea, but that's fine. I don't expect every TV show to cater to my own preferences.

Bigger budget does not always mean better show.

They'd only waste the money on more flying pianos and Eurostar fares!

Those who suggest that Strictly could survive on a smaller budget are ignorant of the realities. Strictly only survives as long as it can compete with, and surpass, X Factor, or whatever ITV chooses to show. If Strictly were to return to a simpler style, it would lose its mass appeal, and inevitably be axed.

The opening sequence to the present series (the rocket ship scene) was done on the cheap. There was no comparison with the opening scene of DWTS.

The OP is absolutely correct. The BBC does need to spend more on its flagship program, and cut back waste on less important programs.

The highest rated series of Strictly is still series 8, I believe, which had a few props but nothing like the level of huge props, theming, backing dancers and messy pro dances we have now. So why is it inevitable that it would lose appeal if the show was pared back a bit?

More contestants, more longer shows length wise, longer run.

Case of evolution not revolution.

Props still are modest, not huge.

£18 million a series, consider Drama is £1 million a show, C4 paid £25 million for a great British bake off, ( without key talent).

Now X Factor costs for more, most lost on the high pay to judges, Say 2/3 million each. So that's where our money is wasted. * - ITV paid for by adverts, we buy those goods, so we still pay!

There were 14 contestants in series 8 and there are 15 now - it's not a huge difference. I'm not complaining about the budget, I just think they spend it on things which make the show worse instead of better.

Stop trying to make DWTS happen. It was a decent competitor years back, but now it's just nonsense. This by far has been the worst season, and feels like the death of it.

I know, right? No matter what the budget, DWTS is a mess in which the dancing is secondary to the reality show personal drama shenanigans.

I think the worst part for me is the "Most memorable year" week - where they all do a sob-story contemporary full of constipated facial expressions.

I'd like them to have less budget so they could drop the elaborate props and the cheesy VTs and focus more on dancing.

It would be if they gave Sir Bruce a rise and brought him back.

Worse yet, those stories now get schlepped through the entire season--two of the finalists this series did the same sob-story as their show dance. I couldn't bear to watch the near-fatal-car-crash-lingering-in-limbo-between-life-and-death-saved-by-a guardian-angel dance.

didnt strictly used to have a bigger budget, but it got hived off to pay for The Voice?

I'd use a bigger budget to get better celebrities in

I'm sure it's meant to be moving and uplifting, but these things always seem so contrived and forced to me.

I felt moved by Daisy's week one dance - we knew the inspiration, and the storytelling within the actual performance was subtle. That makes a emotive performance for me.

If you put aside the "sponsored by Macy's" ad, I quite enjoyed it (except I was surprised by the close up of Artem's teeth at about 2.45,)

Something like this would look good in the Christmas special. Some of the routines on Strictly have been truly awful.

it's getting to the stage where you probably couldn't afford the fees of Dr. Frankenstein to animate Bruce. You can assume he's done with presenting.

I was thinking of a "brought back from the dead" joke, but thought it might be stooping a bit low. Thanks for going there!