The Unspoken Horror of Halloween Week: A Budget Blunder?

For millions across the United Kingdom, the annual arrival of Strictly Come Dancing‘s Halloween Week is a sacred, unmissable event—a spectacular fusion of ballroom grace and ghoulish grandeur. It is the television moment where the show’s unparalleled creative team truly earns its reputation, transforming the familiar, glittering studio into a carnival of the macabre. Expectations are perpetually sky-high, driven by years of iconic, boundary-pushing costume design and production extravagance. Yet, this year’s spooky spectacular delivered an unexpected shock, one that had nothing to do with phantom movements or frightful scores: the sheer, stunning costuming of the judges sparked a wave of immediate, furious complaints from viewers who felt the show’s famed budget had been severely mismanaged.

The collective outrage erupted on social media almost instantaneously, the consensus being that the four judges—Shirley Ballas, Craig Revel Horwood, Anton Du Beke, and Motsi Mabuse—had cornered the market on the show’s entire wardrobe budget. While the judges undeniably looked magnificent, clad in “over the top wigs and outfits” and sporting “extravagant Halloween makeup,” the public perceived a distinct lack of matching ambition in the costumes of the celebrities themselves. This perceived disparity ignited a passionate budget battle online, with viewers taking to X to declare that the contestants’ outfits looked “poor” and that the show’s financial resources had been dramatically, and unfairly, lopsided.

The controversy cuts deeper than mere aesthetic preference. It strikes at the very heart of the show’s ethos. Strictly is, first and foremost, a celebrity dance competition. For many fans, the spectacle should be centered on the performers and their professional partners, with the costumes serving as a vibrant enhancement of their weekly artistic endeavor. When the judges, who are stationary figures providing critique, appear to be wearing the most costly and elaborate garments, the audience feels a fundamental principle of the show has been violated. The resulting furore became the most talked-about storyline of the night, a creative crisis woven into the fabric of the year’s most anticipated theme night.

A Glittering Tradition: The History of Strictly Halloween

To understand the intensity of the viewer backlash, one must appreciate the glittering, high-stakes tradition of Strictly Halloween. More than any other theme—Musicals, Movies, or Blackpool—Halloween Week is the creative crucible where the BBC’s costume and makeup departments traditionally unleash their full, magnificent power. It is the week the show allows itself to be unapologetically maximalist. Viewers don’t just expect costumes; they demand creative storytelling through fabric and prosthetics.

Over the years, the show has set a nearly impossible standard for itself. The visual memory of previous Halloween spectacles serves as the yardstick against which every subsequent year is measured. Who can forget the chilling brilliance of Anton Du Beke and Craig Revel Horwood dressing as the Grady twins from The Shining—a look that was so meticulously faithful and deeply unnerving that it instantly became Strictly folklore? This high bar creates a unique tension. Fans anticipate the kind of jaw-dropping transformation that only a major BBC production budget can achieve. They look forward to outfits that elevate the celebrities beyond their weekly celebrity status, turning them into fantastical beings.

When this expectation is seemingly only fulfilled for the judges, the disappointment transforms into public criticism. The judges’ robes and gowns, already a focus of weekly scrutiny, become even more magnified during Halloween. This year, Shirley Ballas, Craig, Anton, and Motsi Mabuse reportedly didn’t just participate; they dominated the visual landscape. The costumes were described as “over the top,” featuring wigs that must have cost a small fortune and makeup that required hours of meticulous, professional application. The judges, who are usually secondary to the dancers, suddenly became the main event, visually consuming the frame with their sartorial extravagance. For the audience, this was less a celebration of the contestants’ hard work and more a flamboyant, and expensive, theatrical display by the panel.

The Budget Bafflement: Where Did All the Money Go?

The heart of the controversy lies in the spectators’ perception of financial inequity. The complaints flooding social media platform X (formerly Twitter) all echoed the same sentiment: the budgetary scales were severely unbalanced.

One person’s reaction encapsulated the entire debate: “Judges had all the costume budget, the contestants look poor once again. Halloween used to be so good,” a statement laced not only with disappointment but with a nostalgic sense of creative loss.

Another viewer commented pointedly: “Looks like most of the budget has gone on the judges’ costumes thus year!” The use of exclamation marks and strong, definitive language like “all the budget” and “once again” demonstrates a deep-seated frustration that suggests this isn’t a new issue, but a perceived pattern of budget misallocation that finally boiled over on the night of the year when visual impact matters most.

The judges’ attire certainly lent credence to these claims. Craig Revel Horwood, known for his theatrical flair, often requires costumes that are akin to stage-wear from a West End show. Motsi Mabuse, famed for her voluminous gowns and vibrant hairpieces, clearly had an outfit that screamed bespoke design. Shirley Ballas and Anton Du Beke, embracing their respective ghoulish personas, were transformed by complex makeup and multi-layered garments. The sheer volume of the judges’ costumes suggested an exorbitant expense on materials, tailoring, and time.

Meanwhile, the viewer perception was that the contestants, who are required to execute complex choreographies—Tango, Quickstep, Waltz—were dressed in outfits that looked comparatively functional, less detailed, or even simplistic. While a dancer’s outfit is inherently limited by the need for mobility and safety, the audience felt that the visual creativity had been stifled, with less budget left for the essential sparkle and narrative necessary to elevate a Halloween performance. The debate became a clear accusation: that the BBC costume department had prioritized a fleeting visual gag for the judges over the enhancement of the competitive performances.

The Psychology of the Complaint: Costume Envy and Creative Expectations

To dismiss the complaints as mere social media noise would be to miss the deeper psychological and emotional investment Strictly viewers hold in the program. Strictly Come Dancing is a collective national experience, and viewers feel a genuine proprietary stake in its success and creative integrity. The complaints about the budget reflect not just anger over costuming, but a frustration with what they perceive as a failure to meet the program’s own self-imposed creative standards.

The core of the issue is focus. The show’s narrative arc follows the celebrities and their journey. The costumes are an integral part of that storytelling, helping to establish the character or mood of the dance. When the judges, who are merely there to deliver marks and critique, become the central visual focus, it creates a psychological imbalance. It’s an act of “costume envy” on behalf of the contestants—the viewers feeling protective of the performers who dedicate their lives to the grueling rehearsal process.

Furthermore, the critique of the budget points toward a deeper expectation of what the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, should be spending its money on. Strictly has one of the largest production budgets in British television, and fans expect that money to be deployed primarily to enhance the competition. If viewers feel the money is being spent on superfluous elements—like an over-the-top wig for a judge who spends the night sitting still—it triggers a powerful negative reaction. This is not just a fashion critique; it is a critique of creative expenditure and resource allocation in a high-stakes, competitive environment. The audience believes the show’s magic lies in the dance, and the costumes should serve that magic, not eclipse it.

The Dancers’ Dilemma: Wardrobe vs. Choreography

The complaints, while justifiable from an aesthetic viewpoint, fail to account for the crucial, technical constraints placed upon the contestants’ attire. This is the inherent, often frustrating, dilemma of costuming for dance: the outfit must, first and foremost, be functional. A dancer’s costume is a piece of technical equipment, not just a theatrical prop.

For a Halloween-themed performance, the judges can wear heavy fabrics, restrictive garments, and complex headpieces because they remain seated for the entire two hours. The celebrity contestants, however, are required to execute complex, high-energy ballroom and Latin routines. A quickstep requires unimpeded leg movement. A demanding Tango requires the freedom for sharp, rotational turns. A voluminous, heavy, or overly restrictive costume—the very kind that fans felt were missing—could genuinely endanger the dancer, impede their movements, and, most certainly, detract from the technical execution of the routine, leading to lower scores from those very judges.

The wardrobe department’s unseen battle is balancing the necessary theatrical flair of Halloween with the absolute necessity of mobility. The contestants’ costumes may have been perceived as “poor” or lacking budget, but in reality, they were likely the result of a necessary compromise: prioritizing the dance’s technical demands over purely visual extravagance. A professional dance costume is often far more complex and expensive to construct than a simple theatrical piece, requiring specialist fabrics, precise stitching, and rigorous safety checks to ensure no snagging or breakage occurs during a high-speed spin or a tricky lift. This is the unheralded reason why the dancers’ costumes may appear less visually “busy” than the judges’ seated attire—a pragmatic choice of performance integrity over visual shock value.

The Hosts’ Swansong: Tess and Claudia’s Final Halloween

Amidst the costuming storm, another emotional current ran through the show: the knowledge that this was Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman’s final Strictly Halloween special. Their recent, seismic announcement that they would be leaving the program after the 2025 series added a layer of poignant reflection to the usually frantic evening.

Tess and Claudia, perhaps wisely, eschewed the chaotic maximalism of the judges. They opted for a look that was chic, coordinated, and powerfully elegant. Tess wore a stunning strapless black mini dress, accessorized with a matching collar—a look that was both stylishly modern and perfectly appropriate for the Halloween theme without being overtly costume-like. Claudia, meanwhile, wore a long-sleeved, high-neck black mini dress, maintaining her signature aesthetic of edgy, dark glamour.

This choice of sophisticated black velvet was praised by many viewers, who noted the perfect combination of winter chic and Halloween mood. “Tess and Claudia’s black velvet is perfect too. Very winter, very Halloween,” one fan commented, while another gushed simply: “Claudia and Tess look fab.”

Their decision to stand apart from the costumed frenzy of the judges highlights their role as the stable, elegant anchors of the show. Their final Halloween special was a moment of quiet professionalism, their outfits serving as a testament to their enduring, stylish partnership. As viewers reflected on their approaching departure—Claudia had used a previous live show to thank the audience for their “beautiful messages”—the memory of their final, elegant Halloween looks will undoubtedly become a cherished part of the show’s history, a contrasting image of class amidst the chaos of the costume budget debate.

The Social Media Storm: Dividing the Fans

The controversy surrounding the costumes provided a textbook example of the polarized nature of modern social media engagement. While a vocal contingent of viewers focused intensely on the perceived budget mismanagement, an equally passionate segment of the fanbase expressed nothing but adoration for the looks.

The positive comments poured in to counter the negativity, demonstrating that for many, the judges’ looks were exactly what they tune in for. “The judges look incredible. I love Halloween week!” one viewer exclaimed, embracing the visual feast. Another fan simply gushed that the judges’ costumes were “fabulous.”

This duality of opinion underscores the creative difficulty of producing a show of Strictly’s magnitude. It is impossible to please an entire audience. For some, the visual spectacle is the appeal, and they want the show to commit fully to the theatricality, even if it means the judges get the most outrageous costumes. For others, the integrity of the competition and the visual enhancement of the dances is paramount. The complaints, therefore, served to divide the fans into two clear camps: those who prioritize the show’s creative spectacle, and those who prioritize its competitive integrity. This vibrant, sometimes fractious, debate on social media is, paradoxically, what keeps the show relevant and perpetually buzzing in the national conversation.

Conclusion: Beyond the Budget—The True Spirit of Strictly

The controversy over the Strictly Come Dancing Halloween Week costumes, while centering on the issue of budget allocation, ultimately tells a far more compelling story about the immense power and cultural significance of the program. The passionate backlash against the judges’ extravagant attire—and the corresponding perceived simplicity of the contestants’ outfits—is not just a superficial complaint. It is a loud declaration that the British public cares deeply about the creative choices, the competitive fairness, and the visual execution of their beloved show.

The source quotes, like the pointed accusation that the judges “had all the costume budget,” are not to be dismissed lightly. They are a reflection of the high creative bar Strictly has set for itself over two decades. The show is expected to deliver magic, and when that magic feels unevenly distributed, the viewers hold the creators to account.

Ultimately, the spectacle of Strictly Halloween, even with its underlying controversy, remains essential viewing. The clash between the over-the-top glamour of the judges, the technical necessities of the dancers’ costumes, and the elegant final appearance of the departing hosts Tess and Claudia, all contributed to a night that will be debated and remembered. The budget may have been scrutinized, the costumes may have been criticized, but the show delivered what it always promises: drama, discussion, and a captivating slice of Saturday night theatre. The budget battles may rage on, but the dancing, and the devotion of the audience, will always endure.