Even if you changed the format of Top Gear, it will still be very hard to replace the trio.
But a trio is part of the format - To change the format is to stop the show revolving around three 'mates' and their jolly japes. As I said in an earlier post, they could have Evans as the main presenter, who may like to be alongside a woman (like Suzy Perry) and then introduce a newbie who's more of a 'roving reporter' kind of character rather than a studio-based co-presenter.
Then have celebrity guests every week to do the challenges rather than the presenters. For example, Evans and Perry start the show talking about the latest motoring news. Then they introduce the first segment of Graham Norton's 'entertaining' video of his adventure driving the new Toyota Corolla from London to Ireland before going back to the studio to introduc this week's guest promoting their new movie. Then they play the next segment of Norton, do some kind of 'thing' in the studio with real cars or engines before playing the last part of Norton's video and wrapping up the show. Next week it's Greg Wallace on some pre-recorded adventure in three segments whilst the studio guests comes on to plug their new album.
Hardly Clarkson's Top Gear, but they have to change it once he's gone.
There are those who see TG as Clarkson's show with support from May & Hammond, and which can't work anywhere near as well wihout those three at the helm; those who see it as an entertainment show that could continue with a different premutation of presenters, and a small subset who believe TG should be a car programme and could be again now that Clarkson is [apparently] gone.
The third option is a non-starter. Enough people seem to believe that the first is true but it's no longer on the table, which leaves the middle one - TG carries on with different presenters. It's a racing cert that this is what the BBC will try to do and as only one group of those three will disagree with it, that's what will happen so brace yourselves for the 3rd Version of TG, on your screens this Autumn.
We can idly wonder if Dave will continue to show current TG as much as it does now if a new version is launched; there will be some resistance to whatever new format they come up with and a BBC offshoot like Dave continually running it might not be seen as a good idea so it wouldn't be a surprise to see the current incarnation disappear completely.
My prediction is that a new version will keep it alive for a couple of years then after a decent interval Classic Top Gear will make a triumphant return in about 2020, with the current three reunited.
Hardly surprising when they have compared someone punching someone and getting sacked with a child molester of some 40 years and hundreds of vitims.
They didn't.
They compared the behaviour of the BBC then to how it must be seen to be now. Whether it was a wise comparison or not is a different issue from what so many Clarkson fundamentalists are pretending the comparison actually was as they mindlessly defend a rich, well connected, land-owning public schoolboy's right to punch a thick Irishman.
It was Clarkson who informed the BBC and started all this.
But that is why the people who actually like the show tune in. They tune in exactly to watch these three 'mates' and their jolly japes.
Change any part of that and it's no longer the show that millions tune into.
Yes... but like I keep saying, if Clarkson is sacked then what you're saying is irrelevant. If he's gone, he's gone. Just as if he died rather than got sacked.
So something has to be done to the format for the very reasons you highlight. The current format cannot work without Clarkson. There is no other person who could simply be a drop-in replacement and continue the dynamics between the other two.
Ready-made team that have the banter and chemistry that TG fans keep citing as the reason the current incarnation is what it is. Vaughan already a bookies fave.
They compared the behaviour of the BBC then to how it must be seen to be now. Whether it was a wise comparison or not is a different issue from what so many Clarkson fundamentalists are pretending the comparison actually was as they mindlessly defend a rich, well connected, land-owning public schoolboy's right to punch a thick Irishman.
It was Clarkson who informed the BBC and started all this.
Although Plato was, in many ways, another forerunner of James May. Sort of.
So something has to be done to the format for the very reasons you highlight.
Not quite the same as dying as dying is final and unchangeable.
From what you said about, put simply that as they went easy of Savile they now have to be seen to dish out the hardest punishment to make themselves look good.
So Clarkson's decision is/was/could be anything they wanted but to be seen this time to protect themselves they have decided to sack him.
Yes... but the if Clarkson is going then what you're saying is irrelevant. If he's gone, he's gone. Just as if he died rather than got sacked.
But a trio is part of the format - To change the format is to stop the show revolving around three 'mates' and their jolly japes. As I said in an earlier post, they could have Evans as the main presenter, who may like to be alongside a woman (like Suzy Perry) and then introduce a newbie who's more of a 'roving reporter' kind of character rather than a studio-based co-presenter.
Then have celebrity guests every week to do the challenges rather than the presenters. For example, Evans and Perry start the show talking about the latest motoring news. Then they introduce the first segment of Graham Norton's 'entertaining' video of his adventure driving the new Toyota Corolla from London to Ireland before going back to the studio to introduc this week's guest promoting their new movie. Then they play the next segment of Norton, do some kind of 'thing' in the studio with real cars or engines before playing the last part of Norton's video and wrapping up the show. Next week it's Greg Wallace on some pre-recorded adventure in three segments whilst the studio guests comes on to plug their new album.
Hardly Clarkson's Top Gear, but they have to change it once he's gone.
Yes but what you are suggesting there will drive away petrolheads, who are Top Gear's bread and butter. It will lose a lot of soul, because it will not make cars wouldn't be at the absolute centre.
And you're missing the point I made about car obsessives. Suzi Perry has an absolute devotion to motorbikes but she could not have the same for cars. Graham Norton knows bugger all about cars, and if he reviewed the Toyota Corolla he'd probably be nothing but praise worthy because of that. But the fact is that the Corolla is a car petrolheads hate because it's just a car. It's just not special at all, it's basically a machine, like a fridge. He just wouldn't get, and he even if he did, he wouldn't be able to go into the detail.
Ready-made team that have the banter and chemistry that TG fans keep citing as the reason the current incarnation is what it is. Vaughan already a bookies fave.
Yes they have banter, but do they have a love of cars. If you think Top Gear is just about banter, and the chemistry between the hosts you are misguided. A vital ingredient is the cars. It's a car show first and foremost. It's an underrated aspect of Top Gear, but if Jeremy, Richard and James hadn't a love and devotion to cars, it wouldn't have worked.
Nope. When investigating an allegation against a broadcaster/presenter/actor, it usually takes two weeks to conclude. One week at least and three weeks at most. Against anyone in a BBC senior position, though? Up to two years.
If Clarkson is sacked, he's only sacked from Top Gear itself. He'll probably find work with the BBC on different projects over next few years. I bet he'll find work with another network or broadcaster for a year, but return to the BBC with a new project. I'm almost willing to bet £50 on this. He's a BBC guy. In any case, Clarkson's personal life is not BBC's responsibility.
Events in someone's personal life can, and should, be taken into account in disciplinary hearings. For example many years ago the retailer I worked for had a manager go home one day and leave the entire store unlocked and unalarmed. For an electrical retailer, a high value target for theft and break ins, this would be instant dismissal. But the manager's wife had died the week before, a huge factor on his mental state. The company recognised this and too no action.
For Clarkson, he apparently is in constant pain needing two hip replacements. If so, and I assume the BBC would know his medical history for insurance purposes alone, that could be a factor that could cause anyone to snap.
At the moment only the BBC have the facts and it's their decision.
Yes they have banter, but do they have a love of cars. If you think Top Gear is just about banter, and the chemistry between the hosts you are misguided. A vital ingredient is the cars. It's a car show first and foremost. It's an underrated aspect of Top Gear, but if Jeremy, Richard and James hadn't a love and devotion to cars, it wouldn't have worked.
Huh? All I've heard from hardcore TG fans since this blew up is that "it's not a car show, it's a comedy programme about three mates with cars as the backdrop". As I've mentioned previously I know next to **** all about cars and I watch it weekly so it appears I'm in common with most of the audience - Couldn't give a toss about the cars.
Vaughan is a petrolhead apparently - No idea about the other two but they're funny as **** for two hours a week on radio.
For Clarkson, he apparently is in constant pain needing two hip replacements. If so, and I assume the BBC would know his medical history for insurance purposes alone, that could be a factor that could cause anyone to snap.
He sits down in heated luxury cars for a living and was pictured riding a bike yesterday. During none of this has he appeared to be racked with pain.
For Clarkson, he apparently is in constant pain needing two hip replacements. If so, and I assume the BBC would know his medical history for insurance purposes alone, that could be a factor that could cause anyone to snap.
.
I read that the other day, is there any indication if it's actually true, or just another rumour?
If it's true I'd imagine it could have a big affect on how people deal with things, especially if their job requires them to be alert and on the ball, which would effectively rule out taking many of the more effective pain killers (most of which seem to have warnings about "may make you drowsy", or "do not operate heavy machinery" - so would likely give the insurers fits if used on a show where you're driving around at high speed at times).
I know my temper tends to be shorter when I'm in pain, and that was certainly the case with my mother when she was waiting on one of her hip ops.
And that's before you even consider the worries about what is still a major operation.
It wouldn't be an excuse for anything he's done, but would certainly be something any employer might have to take into account as a mitigating circumstance.
I'll be interesting to hear the official account, rather than just the shedload of rumours and speculation that is about all anyone outside of those who witnessed/were part of the incident, and those who are investigating it have at the moment.
I'm still slightly surprised that the Newspapers haven't actually managed to get anyone to talk on the record, or any mobile phone footage etc given how easily they normally seem to get that sort of thing.
He sits down in heated luxury cars for a living and was pictured riding a bike yesterday. During none of this has he appeared to be racked with pain.
How many excuses can people cite for this man?!?!
How exactly do you expect someone in pain to look?
Are they meant to sit there with tears in their eyes howling all the time, or constantly pulling a face?
Some people are very good at not showing how much they're in, and remember what you see is the edited footage, where they only need him to look good for a few minutes.
Actors dancers and athletes have all continued working to complete their current task after fairly serious injuries in the past without anyone watching realising something had happened
IIRC it wasn't long ago that a runner completed a race and it turned out he'd done the last third with a stress fracture, ballet dancers are often working with fairly nasty long term injuries that leave them in constant fairly severe pain, and actors have been known to keep going in very uncomfortable situations without anyone viewing the finished product ever knowing that from how they performed.
They're able to film entire series of TV without showing that one of the stars is actually 6-9 months pregnant, it's amazing what you can keep from being obvious if you're good with the editing, so hiding the fact a presenter is in pain probably wouldn't be hard, given they only need them to present a "good face" for a few minutes at a time.
Also car seats tend to be very very uncomfortable if you've got certain hip problems, it doesn't really matter if they're a luxury car or a bare bones Skoda, the position you have to sit in can make it much worse than sitting in a normal chair, just getting in and out of many cars (especially low slung sports cars) can be a literal pain in the hip as they tend tor require your hip joints to be working at quite sharp angles (sporty cars aren't usually well known for large doors, and you often have to bend a lot more to get in)..
There is a reason a lot of people with hip problems will chose a car with a higher riding position.
And these aren't excuses, they're observations and possible scenarios that any employer would have to take into account.
Especially if it turns out the employee has been putting off getting the issue sorted in order to meet contractual obligations and finish off doing their job (with some hip ops you can be up and about to a degree within days/weeks, with others it can take months - but you never know for certain which it will be).
I read that the other day, is there any indication if it's actually true, or just another rumour?
If it's true I'd imagine it could have a big affect on how people deal with things, especially if their job requires them to be alert and on the ball, which would effectively rule out taking many of the more effective pain killers (most of which seem to have warnings about "may make you drowsy", or "do not operate heavy machinery" - so would likely give the insurers fits if used on a show where you're driving around at high speed at times).
I know my temper tends to be shorter when I'm in pain, and that was certainly the case with my mother when she was waiting on one of her hip ops.
And that's before you even consider the worries about what is still a major operation.
It wouldn't be an excuse for anything he's done, but would certainly be something any employer might have to take into account as a mitigating circumstance.
I'll be interesting to hear the official account, rather than just the shedload of rumours and speculation that is about all anyone outside of those who witnessed/were part of the incident, and those who are investigating it have at the moment.
I'm still slightly surprised that the Newspapers haven't actually managed to get anyone to talk on the record, or any mobile phone footage etc given how easily they normally seem to get that sort of thing.
At the moment, as far as we're concerned, it's as true as the "fact" that he hit the producer. Or that he will be fired.
I snipped the rest your interminable essay (two sheets of foolscap?).
How do I expect them to look? Not like Paul Newman riding around on a bike in Butch Cassiday and The Sundance Kind?
If you read David Mitchell's autobiography you'll read that he has suffered considerable back pain for many years. But would you have ever thought so watching him on TV? And he used to walk miles around London, as it actually helped his back pain. It's possible Clarkson could be in agony when in bed but in no pain when riding a bike.
Again, just like all the other details, pro and anti Clarkson, this is pure rumour for us. If Jeremy has put this forward as a defence/excuse/mitigation then the BBC would either know about his back already or ask for evidence.
If this report turns out to be correct, then questions should be asked as to who within the BBC leaked this to the Telegraph. And I would hope that Clarkson had already been told of his fate by the BBC, if not then there should be more questions for the BBC to answer.
I'm thinking the BBC were ready to announce yesterday, perhaps briefed The Telegraph in advance, but then postponed to today once the plane-crash story broke not wanting to take focus from that.
Comments
But a trio is part of the format - To change the format is to stop the show revolving around three 'mates' and their jolly japes. As I said in an earlier post, they could have Evans as the main presenter, who may like to be alongside a woman (like Suzy Perry) and then introduce a newbie who's more of a 'roving reporter' kind of character rather than a studio-based co-presenter.
Then have celebrity guests every week to do the challenges rather than the presenters. For example, Evans and Perry start the show talking about the latest motoring news. Then they introduce the first segment of Graham Norton's 'entertaining' video of his adventure driving the new Toyota Corolla from London to Ireland before going back to the studio to introduc this week's guest promoting their new movie. Then they play the next segment of Norton, do some kind of 'thing' in the studio with real cars or engines before playing the last part of Norton's video and wrapping up the show. Next week it's Greg Wallace on some pre-recorded adventure in three segments whilst the studio guests comes on to plug their new album.
Hardly Clarkson's Top Gear, but they have to change it once he's gone.
Hardly surprising when they have compared someone punching someone and getting sacked with a child molester of some 40 years and hundreds of vitims.
The third option is a non-starter. Enough people seem to believe that the first is true but it's no longer on the table, which leaves the middle one - TG carries on with different presenters. It's a racing cert that this is what the BBC will try to do and as only one group of those three will disagree with it, that's what will happen so brace yourselves for the 3rd Version of TG, on your screens this Autumn.
We can idly wonder if Dave will continue to show current TG as much as it does now if a new version is launched; there will be some resistance to whatever new format they come up with and a BBC offshoot like Dave continually running it might not be seen as a good idea so it wouldn't be a surprise to see the current incarnation disappear completely.
My prediction is that a new version will keep it alive for a couple of years then after a decent interval Classic Top Gear will make a triumphant return in about 2020, with the current three reunited.
Chris Evans
Sabine Schmitz
Jodie Kidd
But that is why the people who actually like the show tune in. They tune in exactly to watch these three 'mates' and their jolly japes.
Change any part of that and it's no longer the show that millions tune into.
They didn't.
They compared the behaviour of the BBC then to how it must be seen to be now. Whether it was a wise comparison or not is a different issue from what so many Clarkson fundamentalists are pretending the comparison actually was as they mindlessly defend a rich, well connected, land-owning public schoolboy's right to punch a thick Irishman.
It was Clarkson who informed the BBC and started all this.
Although Plato was, in many ways, another forerunner of James May. Except endeavours based on his sums led him to proclaim "Oh, cock!" far less often.
Yes... but like I keep saying, if Clarkson is sacked then what you're saying is irrelevant. If he's gone, he's gone. Just as if he died rather than got sacked.
So something has to be done to the format for the very reasons you highlight. The current format cannot work without Clarkson. There is no other person who could simply be a drop-in replacement and continue the dynamics between the other two.
Gavin Woods
James Brown
Ready-made team that have the banter and chemistry that TG fans keep citing as the reason the current incarnation is what it is. Vaughan already a bookies fave.
Not quite the same as dying as dying is final and unchangeable.
From what you said about, put simply that as they went easy of Savile they now have to be seen to dish out the hardest punishment to make themselves look good.
So Clarkson's decision is/was/could be anything they wanted but to be seen this time to protect themselves they have decided to sack him.
Yes... but the if Clarkson is going then what you're saying is irrelevant. If he's gone, he's gone. Just as if he died rather than got sacked.
Yes but what you are suggesting there will drive away petrolheads, who are Top Gear's bread and butter. It will lose a lot of soul, because it will not make cars wouldn't be at the absolute centre.
And you're missing the point I made about car obsessives. Suzi Perry has an absolute devotion to motorbikes but she could not have the same for cars. Graham Norton knows bugger all about cars, and if he reviewed the Toyota Corolla he'd probably be nothing but praise worthy because of that. But the fact is that the Corolla is a car petrolheads hate because it's just a car. It's just not special at all, it's basically a machine, like a fridge. He just wouldn't get, and he even if he did, he wouldn't be able to go into the detail.
He's not a bad host.
What about Quentin Willson to replace Clarkson, Dawe or Tiff Needell to replace May and Chris Evans to replace Hammond?
In the meantime the other pair mover over to ITV. Win win for everybody only if Top Gear doesn't go the way of Fifth Gear.
Events in someone's personal life can, and should, be taken into account in disciplinary hearings. For example many years ago the retailer I worked for had a manager go home one day and leave the entire store unlocked and unalarmed. For an electrical retailer, a high value target for theft and break ins, this would be instant dismissal. But the manager's wife had died the week before, a huge factor on his mental state. The company recognised this and too no action.
For Clarkson, he apparently is in constant pain needing two hip replacements. If so, and I assume the BBC would know his medical history for insurance purposes alone, that could be a factor that could cause anyone to snap.
At the moment only the BBC have the facts and it's their decision.
Huh? All I've heard from hardcore TG fans since this blew up is that "it's not a car show, it's a comedy programme about three mates with cars as the backdrop". As I've mentioned previously I know next to **** all about cars and I watch it weekly so it appears I'm in common with most of the audience - Couldn't give a toss about the cars.
Vaughan is a petrolhead apparently - No idea about the other two but they're funny as **** for two hours a week on radio.
I bet he's been pestering his agent for the last two weeks.....
He sits down in heated luxury cars for a living and was pictured riding a bike yesterday. During none of this has he appeared to be racked with pain.
How many excuses can people cite for this man?!?!
I read that the other day, is there any indication if it's actually true, or just another rumour?
If it's true I'd imagine it could have a big affect on how people deal with things, especially if their job requires them to be alert and on the ball, which would effectively rule out taking many of the more effective pain killers (most of which seem to have warnings about "may make you drowsy", or "do not operate heavy machinery" - so would likely give the insurers fits if used on a show where you're driving around at high speed at times).
I know my temper tends to be shorter when I'm in pain, and that was certainly the case with my mother when she was waiting on one of her hip ops.
And that's before you even consider the worries about what is still a major operation.
It wouldn't be an excuse for anything he's done, but would certainly be something any employer might have to take into account as a mitigating circumstance.
I'll be interesting to hear the official account, rather than just the shedload of rumours and speculation that is about all anyone outside of those who witnessed/were part of the incident, and those who are investigating it have at the moment.
I'm still slightly surprised that the Newspapers haven't actually managed to get anyone to talk on the record, or any mobile phone footage etc given how easily they normally seem to get that sort of thing.
How exactly do you expect someone in pain to look?
Are they meant to sit there with tears in their eyes howling all the time, or constantly pulling a face?
Some people are very good at not showing how much they're in, and remember what you see is the edited footage, where they only need him to look good for a few minutes.
Actors dancers and athletes have all continued working to complete their current task after fairly serious injuries in the past without anyone watching realising something had happened
IIRC it wasn't long ago that a runner completed a race and it turned out he'd done the last third with a stress fracture, ballet dancers are often working with fairly nasty long term injuries that leave them in constant fairly severe pain, and actors have been known to keep going in very uncomfortable situations without anyone viewing the finished product ever knowing that from how they performed.
They're able to film entire series of TV without showing that one of the stars is actually 6-9 months pregnant, it's amazing what you can keep from being obvious if you're good with the editing, so hiding the fact a presenter is in pain probably wouldn't be hard, given they only need them to present a "good face" for a few minutes at a time.
Also car seats tend to be very very uncomfortable if you've got certain hip problems, it doesn't really matter if they're a luxury car or a bare bones Skoda, the position you have to sit in can make it much worse than sitting in a normal chair, just getting in and out of many cars (especially low slung sports cars) can be a literal pain in the hip as they tend tor require your hip joints to be working at quite sharp angles (sporty cars aren't usually well known for large doors, and you often have to bend a lot more to get in)..
There is a reason a lot of people with hip problems will chose a car with a higher riding position.
And these aren't excuses, they're observations and possible scenarios that any employer would have to take into account.
Especially if it turns out the employee has been putting off getting the issue sorted in order to meet contractual obligations and finish off doing their job (with some hip ops you can be up and about to a degree within days/weeks, with others it can take months - but you never know for certain which it will be).
At the moment, as far as we're concerned, it's as true as the "fact" that he hit the producer. Or that he will be fired.
I snipped the rest your essay (two sheets of foolscap?) for the purposes of this quote.
How do I expect them to look? Not like Paul Newman riding around on a bike in Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid?
If you read David Mitchell's autobiography you'll read that he has suffered considerable back pain for many years. But would you have ever thought so watching him on TV? And he used to walk miles around London, as it actually helped his back pain. It's possible Clarkson could be in agony when in bed but in no pain when riding a bike.
Again, just like all the other details, pro and anti Clarkson, this is pure rumour for us. If Jeremy has put this forward as a defence/excuse/mitigation then the BBC would either know about his back already or ask for evidence.
And yet he's managed not to **** anybody during that time using his bad back as an excuse. Amazing! How did he manage it?
How many excuses have found their way into the media since it looked like Clarkson was bang to rights for this ? I've lost count...