The voting public, yes. But that may not be the same demographic as the viewing public.


I agree - Cherie's a classic example of this, and we've seen it before in other series.

The middle-aged dancers simply don't seem to have the same amount of appeal.

John was the exception to the rule - but I strongly suspect he'd have been voted-out anyway, as the remainder of the votes consolidated around a few couples.

ARRGHHH!!!

the only things i'd change would be:
- less couples - 14 is great I think.
- live result show on saturday again.

goes to show what they know then doesnt it

I think everyone can confidently say this has been one of the best ever. you can normally predict whos going to win but aside from lisa who worked damn hard and surprised us all by getting to the final, you had the other fabulous 3.

Its the judges that get boring for me but sadly it wouldnt be the same without any of them so i hope their all back next year.

Sorry, I think it's been one of the worst. A complete cock up from start to finish! It definitely needs a major shake up next year.

It's mis-guided too - the most undeniably popular contestant this was a bloke in his 60's. The public want characters on SCD and good though her dancing was good Rachel proved that young folk aren't necessarily interesting although the youngest three the show's seen had plenty of personality too - even if one of them couldn't dance to save his life and the other one annoyed a lot of people. I like the age mixture on Strictly - the fact that you've had a 17 year old alongside people old enough to be drawing pensions and every age in between - it reflects the audience which seems to include every age range going.

1. Offer the judges to return on half-pay and ban them from It Takes Two. That would concentrate their minds, egos and manners.
2. Put the emphasis on entertainment and fun, and stop the judges from malicious comments which go beyond the amusing.
3. No boy/girl weeks.
4. Maximum of two dance types per week.
5. No Sunday show.
6. No dance-offs.
7. Keep five couples for the semi-final in case someone drops out, thus guaranteeing three for the final.

I think the Beeb have got it all wrong and this changes will actually make viewing figures drop even more.

John Sergeant was Strictly's most popular contestant of all time. I believe he consistently received the highest vote, millions of extra viewers were tuning in to watch and vote for him. When he left, viewing figures plummetted. I think this goes to show that viewers wanted to see him. By getting rid of older contestants, the BBC are removing exactly what the forgotten Licence Fee payers expect and deserve to see.

Lets face it, this country does not have 10 million hardcore ball dancing fanatics. The majority of viewers tune in to see either a bit of controversy or spectacularly bad dancing. I thought the only thing that made this year's final interesting was the voting controversy. None of the remaining three excited me very much - they were all too smooth and predictable

If I were in charge, I would change the show and select people according to their personalities and try and ensure a range of categories of celebrity are represented, but I would really go after comedians - get Peter Mandelson, Ian Hislop and Sharon Osbourne involved and there would be fireworks!!

As the series progresses it's true the younger dancers win through, as is probably to be expected. But the middle-aged dancers do function to draw a wider demographic into the show at the start of each series. Many older viewers will not necessarily have heard of the 20- or 30-somethings at the beginning, and a line-up that consisted solely of a younger age group from the start could be quite alienating. At least with a mix of ages there's usually a handful of well known faces for a wider range of people. By the time the series is well underway it doesn't matter that the older contestants have dropped out because the younger ones have become familiar faces too by that stage.

1. The BBC tried to milk the franchise with too many episodes and putting the results on a different day as if they could get 2.5x the ratings points out of it and this is likely to shorten the show's life. Does their game with ratings really benefit us as the viewers instead of the BBC?
Strictly is more of an event / variety night with the results on the same day. The only thing I like better about the Sunday show is the 3 showdances- two and another one accompanying a guest singer.

They puting it in the time slot that traditionally only had daft things for kids/ "family" programming. If you have to work on Saturday it's probably too early.
So 6:45, results the same night and 12 shows as a limit.

2. Rethink the judging / elimination format. It was almost cruel to have Heather for 4(?) times in the danceoff and also nonsensical since it was because the viewers couldn't or wouldn't connect to her.

3. The series was actually quite predictable, and what wasn't predictable, the judges turned out not to like and it caused ill-feeling. Either the BBC brief and control the judges better or don't include a wide spread of abilities.

4. It Takes Two is on very often yet achieves little apart from presumably picking up a steady 2-3 million viewers every night. It would be to the BBC's advantage to cultivate more appreciation of dancing for those that want to know. Instead we get Claudia giggling at Len saying chesticles in dance classes, silly questions about toothpaste, and most vapid, interviews with the celebrities' relatives / hangers on / admiring internet fans. It's a program chasing its own tail if ever there was one, planned only as something vacuous to dip into. Let It Takes Two grow up.

I've always felt the voting system is nonsensical in SCD, and in this series this has been more problematic than ever.
I would like the judges scores to leave viewers with a bottom 2 to choose from, that way there would be no surprise bottom-twos comprising strong dancers from the middle of the leader board. I think it's unecessarily cruel for the competitors to find themselves in the dance off simply because they appeared so safe viewers didn't feel compelled to save them.

We also need to refine the judges' voting system, perhaps with a score for technique and a score for artistic interpretation from each, that way ties might be less likely.

Whatever the changes, something definitely needs an overhaul before the next series. (Can we start with Len please? )

In view of yet another tied leader board, would like to add to my previous post that the judges voting system needs a revamp to prevent the next series turning into a complete draw as the increasingly competitive celebs battle it out for 10 confetti!