When I think about reality TV, I’m always struck by how it’s less about the actual content and more about the spectacle of watching people try to reinvent themselves under the spotlight. This fall, Dancing with the Stars is back with its 35th season, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned from watching this show over the years, it’s that the drama often starts before the first dance. The recent cast reveal was more than just a list of names—it was a masterclass in how reality TV thrives on reinvention, nostalgia, and the eternal hunger for attention.
Let’s start with the most obvious: Sharna Burgess returning after a five-year hiatus. To me, this isn’t just a reunion—it’s a statement. Burgess has always been a pro who balances grace with a certain edge, and her return feels like a calculated move by the show to tap into the nostalgia of fans who remember her early days. But here’s what intrigues me: why now? The entertainment industry loves a comeback story, but Burgess’s timing feels almost too perfect. Is this about her career trajectory, or is it about the show needing a fresh face to keep viewers engaged? Either way, her presence alone adds layers of expectation and pressure that will undoubtedly shape the season.
Then there’s Adele Zaikman, the winner of the spin-off Dancing with the Stars: The Next Pro. Her inclusion is a fascinating experiment. Spin-offs are often seen as disposable, but Zaikman’s victory suggests the show is trying to blur the lines between reality and competition. What makes this particularly fascinating is the potential clash between her raw, unpolished energy and the polished professionalism of the existing cast. Will she be a disruptor, or will she get swallowed up by the show’s established stars? I suspect the latter, but that’s the beauty of reality TV—it’s all about unpredictability.
Looking at the contestants, I can’t help but notice a pattern. Maura Higgins, fresh off her stint on The Traitors, is the kind of personality who thrives on chaos. Her quote about manifesting her dreams feels less like a humble statement and more like a calculated PR move. But here’s the thing: Higgins has a unique ability to command attention, and that’s exactly what Dancing with the Stars needs. However, I wonder if her previous role as a manipulator in The Traitors will translate well to the ballroom. Will her audience see her as a competitor or a continuation of her Traitors persona? It’s a risk, but one that could pay off if she leans into her theatrics.
Jackson Olson, the TikTok-savvy baseball player, represents a different kind of gamble. His admission that dancing on a ballroom floor is ‘tough’ compared to the baseball field is both endearing and telling. It’s a reminder that this show isn’t just about talent—it’s about transformation. But what I find interesting is the way Olson frames his journey. He talks about three-hour rehearsal blocks as if they’re a challenge he’s eager to conquer, which is the kind of mindset that can either make or break a contestant. Yet, I can’t shake the feeling that his success will hinge as much on his social media savvy as on his actual dancing skills.
And then there’s Guillermo Rodriguez, the Jimmy Kimmel sidekick, paired with Witney Carson. This pairing feels like a strategic move to blend humor with expertise. Carson, the defending champion, brings credibility, while Rodriguez’s comedic background adds a layer of unpredictability. But what this really suggests is that the show is trying to balance its traditional appeal with a modern sensibility. The question is whether this balance will work or if it’ll feel forced. After all, the show has spent decades cultivating a certain image, and deviating too far could alienate its core audience.
If you take a step back and think about it, the real story here isn’t just about the dancers—it’s about the audience. Reality TV has always been a mirror to our collective obsessions, and Dancing with the Stars is no different. The show’s ability to attract a diverse cast—from Traitors alumni to TikTok influencers—says a lot about where our entertainment priorities lie. But what I find most compelling is the way it reflects our desire to see people fail, succeed, and everything in between. It’s a voyeuristic thrill that’s hard to replicate elsewhere.
One thing that immediately stands out to me is how the show has become a launching pad for careers. Take Maura Higgins, for instance. Her time on The Traitors gave her a platform, and now Dancing with the Stars is giving her another chance to prove herself. But is this a sign of the times, or is it just another example of how reality TV is a revolving door for fame? I think it’s both. The entertainment industry is increasingly reliant on these quick-turnaround formats, and Dancing with the Stars has mastered the art of turning contestants into temporary celebrities.
What many people don’t realize is that the show’s success is built on a delicate balance of nostalgia and novelty. The return of familiar faces like Derek Hough and Julianne Hough is a nod to the show’s history, but the inclusion of fresh talent is a bet on the future. This duality is what keeps the show relevant, but it also creates tension. How do you honor the past without being stuck in it? The answer lies in the contestants themselves. If they can bring something new to the table, the show will survive. If not, it’ll be just another relic of the reality TV era.
In the end, Dancing with the Stars is more than just a competition. It’s a cultural barometer, a reflection of our changing tastes, and a reminder that even the most predictable formats can surprise us when the right people are involved. As for this season, I’m curious to see whether the show can find its footing between nostalgia and innovation. But one thing’s certain: the drama, the dancing, and the inevitable heartbreak will be worth the watch.
