Discussion in 'General' started by samkiller42, 13 Dec 2010.
A few others have commented too:
Thing is, he's potentially toxic. Yes, he can bring in viewers if allied to a well planned motoring show (ie: Top Gear by another name), but he also brings in his absolute clangers, borderline racism which sometimes flips to outright racism and generally somebody who courts controversy. With a now-history of punching producers, you'd have to be willing to accept some real risk to take him on board.
Plus, it's likely you'd need to hire all three of them. That's quite a big cash investment, especially as you can't literally duplicate Top Gear and hence run the risk of the replacement show not actually being popular.
I reckon he has already signed for another network.
His company sold its final shares to the TG name last year to the BBC (after the sale of a majority in 2012), another company started up last year as well (him as a Director), only to find out that this happened, near the end of his contract?
Something tells me this is all planned, maybe he wanted more money and the BBC wouldn't agree, only thing left was too get out.
I like Jezza, though he is an arse, but you have to give him credit, most people nowadays are 'too' politically correct, if something is said in jest, shouldn't it be taken that way?
I suspect either an American or Australian network will take up the option for all 3, weather a motoring show or not.
He deserves to be sacked. This is just the behaviour of a Diva. I understand being an arse or even threatening someone with sacking, but screaming or hitting at a colleague is pretty much crossing the line. I don't think that even the prime minister would get away with that.
Oh yeah, currently looking at becoming license free now, TG ruined F1 gone, all the BBC do is produce crap TV.
Better off streaming across the Internet, saves me a few quid as well.
Thinking the same to be honest. I watch very little on TV as it is these days, say something along the lines of 4 - 6 hours a week with the Mrs. If I can get her to agree that'll save £12 a month and put that towards something useful, like a holiday.
You'll still need a licence if you're watching anything "live" i.e. as its broadcast, regardless of the viewing/transmission medium...
Only thing I ever watched was TG, didn't watch any live tv other than that.
Usually just sit at my PC whilst the woman and kids watch crap.
Anyway, a nice bottle if Single Malt will be a nice replacement.
Streaming as in non-live TV I know the score don't worry.
Just checking. I couldn't be sure as it is possible to stream live TV...
Not sure that Clarkson "planned" this as such, tbh (who plans to hit a colleague in order to get out of a contract that was ending anyway?). I think what he's done instead is to attempt to manipulate the situation once it arose. We'll see how that works out for him, but he'll inevitably end up in another presenting gig in short order.
As for the BBC producing crap TV... I find that they do indeed produce a whole load of TV that I'd never want to watch, but equally they produce some exceptional documentaries and drama series, still show a decent amount of sport (even if much reduced from the golden days), have some great music programming, and have an unrivalled amount of incredible archive material. If you can't find something worth watching on the BBC, fair enough, but for me their output is far superior to pretty much any other broadcaster. And that's before even considering their radio or internet output.
I also find that a lot of people who whine about paying £150 a year for the TV licence are the same people who think nothing of dropping £30, £40, £50+ a month for Sky/BT/Virgin TV packages, but that's another story...
Their documentaries are partially funded by NatGeo, Discovery etc. and not BBC any more.
Gone are the days when the BBC made real doc's Horizon & Tomorrows World used to be an award winning doc series, until the production company was bought out by Discovery.
To be honest I think you'll find that a majority of BBC programming is produced with money from the USA.
Also the BBC is so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to unique programming, this is what paved the way for Ch4 programming (as in sponsoring films, TV and doc's).
The BBC should change the way it is funded, the old saying of 'if you have a TV you need a license' died a few years back, all BBC should be subscription based similar to Sky (that's how they made money). Still being a criminal offence to not have a TV license? that's so yesterday, but its the only way they can be sure of funding, in the digital era!
All I can say is RIP Top Gear, it may come back but it will not be Top Gear.
IIRC it got demoted to a civil offence a few years ago...
EDIT: nvm, from what i gather the govt wanted to, but the Beeb threw its toys out of the pram...
This. I've thought this for a while. Its basically what it is anyway, and would close the loophole of if you don't watch it live you don't need to pay. I mean, why does that even matter? and how can you prove it/disprove it?
Sky themselves might not does not mean tv producers who show on sky could not buy them and still show it on Sky. I don't expect to see them back on free to air tv.
The loyalty they have shown for each other is commendable though and is a powerful message in itself.
BBCs problem they won't find 3 people like them again as such friendships are difficult to find. It's the end of Top Gear as we know it and bbc have lost a Sunday show that brought in millions of viewers. There problem will be filling the gap.
Hope they refund everyone that has paid for top gear live as well as the show can't continue without Jeremy.
I think your post is a little unclear - you seem to be saying that these programmes aren't BBC programmes because some of them are partially funding by other networks?
Just wondering if you've got any figures to back these statements up? I'd be surprised if the majority of BBC programming was funded by US companies (or that the majority of funding came from the US), but if you can provide a source then I'd be interested to read it. Equally, if you've got anything to support the statement that "the BBC is so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to unique programming", I'd be interested.
I want a motoring show. I'm sure there are plenty of people who want a motoring show. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who don't have BBC or British television and still want a motoring show.
Such a shame
He got what he deserved, and that's all a rational person can say.
Clarkson/May/Hammond will continue on another show I'm almost sure. Their contracts were all up for renewal, May has all but said he's out, and I doubt Hammond wouldn't want to get in on whatever the other two do.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Hammond continue on the BBC for a while (Since we all know he's a bit of a whore when it comes to selling out), but yeah.
Another channel will pick the three up somewhere.
There's *plenty* of Motoring shows on the net. None as entertaining as TG, but still, start off with /Drive and /MotorTrend channels (with all the associated sub-shows on them), and the magic of YT's "recommended " sidebar should do the rest. Roadkill is sort-of amusing in a "cluster****" kiind of way.
It's a pity. Much as he was probably an ornery old git, he said it as he saw it, and that's a refreshing change in today's climate. I would be surprised if Captain slow and the Hamster stayed on without him, I suspect they will be there on whatever automotive themed show he pops up in next.
Separate names with a comma.