You can see a lot of Clarkson's fans gearing themselves up for a MASSIVE flounce if it comes back with someone else. It would be nice, yes, to think that people will give it a chance and judge it on its merits, but you can see that a lot of people will do no such thing. As you say, they are stomping about saying how they will 'hark back to an earlier iteration of the show' etc.
It's probably not wise to judge everybody else by your own lack of tolerance.
It's probably not wise to judge everybody else by your own lack of tolerance.
What on earth is that supposed to be about? I was broadly agreeing with you. We should judge a programme on its merits, and not always be comparing it with different manifestations in the past.
You can see a lot of Clarkson's fans gearing themselves up for a MASSIVE flounce if it comes back with someone else. It would be nice, yes, to think that people will give it a chance and judge it on its merits, but you can see that a lot of people will do no such thing. As you say, they are stomping about saying how they will 'hark back to an earlier iteration of the show' etc.
Clarkson's fans aren't, because a rebooted Top Gear for 2016 hasn't even happened yet, it's away somewhere in the future.
My point was that people look at the current iteration, and bemoan it because it isn't a serious magazine type program about motoring. That's because this version never really was, and has moved even further away as it has evolved.
At the risk of being thrown off this forum by a baying mass, dare I say that the peeing-up-a-wall analogy is pretty accurate for men.
Please hear me out!!
There is something about many guys where they just don't grow up and bodily functions remain as hilarious as they were when the guys were very young. I teach teens and have done for 40 years. When someone breaks wind in a lesson, 11 year olds plus, the boys think it the funniest thing while the girls just roll their eyes and look bored. Why is it guys don't just grow up?
That's why there was such an outpouring of grief last year for Rik Mayall. Lots of guys find this type of humour hillarious me included.
What on earth is that supposed to be about? I was broadly agreeing with you. We should judge a programme on its merits, and not always be comparing it with different manifestations in the past.
I'd suggest you refrain from speculation about what "Clarkson fans" will or won't do.
Hard as it might be for you to accept, they're probably not all as narrow-minded as those who seem to delight in being critical of TG are.
That's why there was such an outpouring of grief last year for Rik Mayall. Lots of guys find this type of humour hillarious me included.
One of the reasons I laugh at Clarkson is because, for my sins, I do like that kind of hit-and-run humour where a quip or comment or gag which is potentially wince-inducing or borderline offensive or ambiguous is thrown in for a "WTF? Did he just...?" moment. That's my sense of humour all over. Too often, the topic that the joke hangs on is what gets focused on rather than the mechanism of the joke itself.
You are just dividing programmes into things you like and things you don't like. You like Game of Thrones and dislike X-Factor? What is that supposed to prove? Some people live and breathe X-factor. It's just a difference of taste, and it is not for you to dismiss their taste as 'just watching out of habit' while you watch out of good taste and judgement. Top Gear was not in the least 'a rare BBC show that was genuinely loved by the people watching', don't be silly. Apart from the News, perhaps, which people might watch out of a sense of duty, people watch programmes because they like and appreciate them, sometimes passionately. You really think Top Gear attracted more passionate fans than Dr Who? Because I don't. It didn't even attract more passionate fans than The Archers.
Clarkson got around a million signituares demanding his reinstatement, all in the space of a few days. Top Gear was generally considered a pretty good show. I've even seen passionate Jeremy haters admit that he was a highly talented individual.
I'm not denying that these shows have geniune fans, or even that they can't be entertaining at times - however it just seems pretty damn clear that a lot UK shows are tired and a lot of people are watching for the wrong reasons. Game of Thrones is generally considered much higher quality than X-Factor. How is that even arguable?
[QUOTE=computermaster;77467262]Clarkson got around a million signituares demanding his reinstatement, all in the space of a few days. Top Gear was generally considered a pretty good show. I've even seen passionate Jeremy haters admit that he was a highly talented individual.
I'm not denying that these shows have geniune fans, or even that they can't be entertaining at times - however it just seems pretty damn clear that a lot UK shows are tired and a lot of people are watching for the wrong reasons. Game of Thrones is generally considered much higher quality than X-Factor. How is that even arguable?[/QUOTE]
BIB 1 ...and it made no difference to the eventual outcome.
Not mine. I posted when this kicked off that we had two guys rolling around in the car park a while back because one rented a flat from the other, and they had a disagreement about the rent. They were split up and sent home, but both came back to work the next day.
So they were rolling around a CAR PARK about a non work related incident. In what way, shape or form do you imagine that is relevant?
I'd suggest you refrain from speculation about what "Clarkson fans" will or won't do.
Hard as it might be for you to accept, they're probably not all as narrow-minded as those who seem to delight in being critical of TG are.
Are you trying to order me not to refer to things that Clarkson fans have said? Apart from the posts on here saying that any replacements will be rubbish, you might like to have a mooch around #boycotttopgear and #boycotttheBBC, and various other hashtags representing those of his fans who WON'T think any replacement is any good, they WON'T and no one can MAKE THEM.
CGame of Thrones is generally considered much higher quality than X-Factor. How is that even arguable?
How is it arguable, indeed? Who can possibly draw up a method of measuring the quality of a talent show against the quality of a drama? I'm pretty sure you preferred Game of Thrones. Other people preferred X Factor. Should it be decided by single combat? I'm pretty sure Game of Thrones never got the same viewing figures as X Factor, even when X Factor was up against Strictly.
Some of the programmes that fit at least one of these catergories are The Jeremy Kyle show, X-Factor, Eastenders, Big Brother, all the daytime trash, etc. Compare this to US shows, where they have/had stuff like Game Of Thrones, Walking Dead, Dexter, Breaking bad. Shows that are geniunely respected, talked about and loved by the people watching.
Where's the BBC's version of Game of Thrones? Why aren't we making stuff like this? Why is the same tired show being shown 4 days a week on BBC 1 at 7:30 or 8 that is only watched mostly for the reasons I mentioned above. Top Gear was a rare BBC show that was geniunely loved by the people watching, and now it's gone.
I can't decide whether you were being facetious, or genuinely didn't realise the BBC don't have that kind of money or that BBC and HBO/AMC/Showtime have different structures and purposes.
HBO --- a premium cable and satellite network.
Showtime --- a premium cable and satellite network.
AMC --- a basic-package cable and satellite network.
BBC --- a public service broadcaster.
Game of Thrones (HBO) = £3.4 million per episode
Breaking Bad (AMC) = £2 million per episode
Dexter (Showtime) = £2.3 million per episode
Mad Men (AMC) = £2 million per episode
Production budgets rely on HBO/AMC/Showtime's revenues from cable subscriptions, advertising, commercial licensing and sponsorship.
Eastenders (BBC One) = £250,000 per episode
Top Gear (BBC Two) = £500,000 per episode (not counting specials, which each had a budget between £1.3M and £3M, which were--as I understand--mostly funded by BBC Worldwide)
Production budgets rely on an annual budget (per department, e.g. by genre: light entertainment, factual, drama, etc. or by channel: BBC One, BBC Two, etc.). Those departmental budgets rely on BBC's revenues from TV licence fees and a percentage from BBC Worldwide and the like.
BBC's American comparative peers are PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) and APT (American Public Television). Can you name any from either of those channels? I bet you can't. So here's a list from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/programs/ and here's one from APT and see if there's anything that can rival BBC's output. I bet you can't do that either because now and then, BBC will dig deep in its pockets to produce interesting stuff including Peaky Blinders, The Shadow Line, Sherlock, Top of the Lake, etc. PBS and APT never bothered to do that for theirs as they can't afford to do so.
Anyhow, you want BBC to make an equivalent of Game of Thrones? Bearing in mind:
For an annual HBO, Showtime or AMC premium package, it's around £20 per month, which means approx. £240 (£20 x 12 months). However, HBO, Showtime and AMC couldn't survive on cable subscriptions alone. Hence, advertising, sponsorship and the like to cover the increase from £240 to £640 per subscriber.
A TV licence in the UK is £145 per year, which makes it roughly £12 per month. This means £96 (£8 x 12 months) for BBC television. (£12 per month = £8 to television, £2.50 to radio, the rest to other services (iPlayer, etc).)
So for the BBC to make the equivalent of Games of Thrones on level of HBO / Show time / AMC without advertising and sponsorship, it'll need to increase the TV licence fee from £96 to £640. That's extra £544, yo.
Is a typical TV licence payee willing to pay that difference? I doubt it. There would be riots in the streets if the government increased the TV licence fee by £20.
It's in BBC's interests to keep the fee as low as possible and just do its best to meet its only goals: inform, educate and entertain. Meanwhile, you'd be better off as a cable subscriber to get the kind you like. In other words, you get what you pay for.
HBO --- a premium cable and satellite network.
Showtime --- a premium cable and satellite network.
AMC --- a basic-package cable and satellite network.
Game of Thrones (HBO) = £3.4 million per episode
Breaking Bad (AMC) = £2 million per episode
Dexter (Showtime) = £2.3 million per episode
Mad Men (AMC) = £2 million per episode
Blimey...:o:o
Are those television 'soaps' or something....weekly series? I don't watch that sort of thing so not heard of them, but those figures sound pretty mad to me!
He'll be back next year along with Hammond and Clarkson, on BBC at that too, it won't be Top Gear though.
(my insider is never wrong)
It'd have to be the BBC since as I understand it Ch 4, Sky, Netflix and ITV all seem to have ruled out taking them (or Clarkson at least) on. Sky say they're too much of a family broadcaster to consider hiring him.
It'd have to be the BBC since as I understand it Ch 4, Sky, Netflix and ITV all seem to have ruled out taking them (or Clarkson at least) on. Sky say they're too much of a family broadcaster to consider Clarkson.
It'd have to be the BBC since as I understand it Ch 4, Sky, Netflix and ITV all seem to have ruled out taking them (or Clarkson at least) on. Sky say they're too much of a family broadcaster to consider hiring him.
Why put yourself in the immediate firing line. Allow a break, create and agree a format and then make the announcement.
If they came up with something thought to make money I'd bet my house on one or all of those broadcasters bidding for it.
I can't decide whether you were being facetious, or.......SNIP
.......cable subscriber to get the kind you like. In other words, you get what you pay for.
Another interesting post Takae, particularly the ones that have a 'behind the curtain' feel to them. I know a couple of people at the BBC but in the Engineering dept, nothing to do with program making. What they have in common is a genuine love of the BBC as an institution. Something I share and whatever side of the Clarkson fence you sit on the real loser here is the BBC as WHATEVER they did there will have been a queue of other media outlets ready to criticise them and put more pressure on the incoming government to slash the licence fee.
It'd have to be the BBC since as I understand it Ch 4, Sky, Netflix and ITV all seem to have ruled out taking them (or Clarkson at least) on. Sky say they're too much of a family broadcaster to consider hiring him.
They also have a record of sacking presenters for far less serious than Clarksons episode so even if he was lucky enough to get a job with Sky, he wouldn't last five minutes.
Are those television 'soaps' or something....weekly series? I don't watch that sort of thing so not heard of them, but those figures sound pretty mad to me!
Game of thrones, series total is therefore about 25 million, once a year. 10 episodes per season. Eastenders, I haven't ever seen any more than 2 minutes of any one, is that daily? Even at 4 times a week, the budget for Eastenders is a million a week, 52 million a year! Waste of money as far as I'm concerned, but clearly a lot of other people like it.
Comments
It's probably not wise to judge everybody else by your own lack of tolerance.
What on earth is that supposed to be about? I was broadly agreeing with you. We should judge a programme on its merits, and not always be comparing it with different manifestations in the past.
Clarkson's fans aren't, because a rebooted Top Gear for 2016 hasn't even happened yet, it's away somewhere in the future.
My point was that people look at the current iteration, and bemoan it because it isn't a serious magazine type program about motoring. That's because this version never really was, and has moved even further away as it has evolved.
That's why there was such an outpouring of grief last year for Rik Mayall. Lots of guys find this type of humour hillarious me included.
I'd suggest you refrain from speculation about what "Clarkson fans" will or won't do.
Hard as it might be for you to accept, they're probably not all as narrow-minded as those who seem to delight in being critical of TG are.
One of the reasons I laugh at Clarkson is because, for my sins, I do like that kind of hit-and-run humour where a quip or comment or gag which is potentially wince-inducing or borderline offensive or ambiguous is thrown in for a "WTF? Did he just...?" moment. That's my sense of humour all over. Too often, the topic that the joke hangs on is what gets focused on rather than the mechanism of the joke itself.
Clarkson got around a million signituares demanding his reinstatement, all in the space of a few days. Top Gear was generally considered a pretty good show. I've even seen passionate Jeremy haters admit that he was a highly talented individual.
I'm not denying that these shows have geniune fans, or even that they can't be entertaining at times - however it just seems pretty damn clear that a lot UK shows are tired and a lot of people are watching for the wrong reasons. Game of Thrones is generally considered much higher quality than X-Factor. How is that even arguable?
I'm not denying that these shows have geniune fans, or even that they can't be entertaining at times - however it just seems pretty damn clear that a lot UK shows are tired and a lot of people are watching for the wrong reasons. Game of Thrones is generally considered much higher quality than X-Factor. How is that even arguable?[/QUOTE]
BIB 1 ...and it made no difference to the eventual outcome.
BIB 2
So they were rolling around a CAR PARK about a non work related incident. In what way, shape or form do you imagine that is relevant?
I don't. I just post random things because of my condition. Don't judge me.
LOL, never has a truer word been said.
How is it arguable, indeed? Who can possibly draw up a method of measuring the quality of a talent show against the quality of a drama? I'm pretty sure you preferred Game of Thrones. Other people preferred X Factor. Should it be decided by single combat? I'm pretty sure Game of Thrones never got the same viewing figures as X Factor, even when X Factor was up against Strictly.
I can't decide whether you were being facetious, or genuinely didn't realise the BBC don't have that kind of money or that BBC and HBO/AMC/Showtime have different structures and purposes.
HBO --- a premium cable and satellite network.
Showtime --- a premium cable and satellite network.
AMC --- a basic-package cable and satellite network.
BBC --- a public service broadcaster.
Game of Thrones (HBO) = £3.4 million per episode
Breaking Bad (AMC) = £2 million per episode
Dexter (Showtime) = £2.3 million per episode
Mad Men (AMC) = £2 million per episode
Production budgets rely on HBO/AMC/Showtime's revenues from cable subscriptions, advertising, commercial licensing and sponsorship.
Eastenders (BBC One) = £250,000 per episode
Top Gear (BBC Two) = £500,000 per episode (not counting specials, which each had a budget between £1.3M and £3M, which were--as I understand--mostly funded by BBC Worldwide)
Production budgets rely on an annual budget (per department, e.g. by genre: light entertainment, factual, drama, etc. or by channel: BBC One, BBC Two, etc.). Those departmental budgets rely on BBC's revenues from TV licence fees and a percentage from BBC Worldwide and the like.
BBC's American comparative peers are PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) and APT (American Public Television). Can you name any from either of those channels? I bet you can't. So here's a list from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/programs/ and here's one from APT and see if there's anything that can rival BBC's output. I bet you can't do that either because now and then, BBC will dig deep in its pockets to produce interesting stuff including Peaky Blinders, The Shadow Line, Sherlock, Top of the Lake, etc. PBS and APT never bothered to do that for theirs as they can't afford to do so.
Anyhow, you want BBC to make an equivalent of Game of Thrones? Bearing in mind:
For an annual HBO, Showtime or AMC premium package, it's around £20 per month, which means approx. £240 (£20 x 12 months). However, HBO, Showtime and AMC couldn't survive on cable subscriptions alone. Hence, advertising, sponsorship and the like to cover the increase from £240 to £640 per subscriber.
A TV licence in the UK is £145 per year, which makes it roughly £12 per month. This means £96 (£8 x 12 months) for BBC television. (£12 per month = £8 to television, £2.50 to radio, the rest to other services (iPlayer, etc).)
So for the BBC to make the equivalent of Games of Thrones on level of HBO / Show time / AMC without advertising and sponsorship, it'll need to increase the TV licence fee from £96 to £640. That's extra £544, yo.
Is a typical TV licence payee willing to pay that difference? I doubt it. There would be riots in the streets if the government increased the TV licence fee by £20.
It's in BBC's interests to keep the fee as low as possible and just do its best to meet its only goals: inform, educate and entertain. Meanwhile, you'd be better off as a cable subscriber to get the kind you like. In other words, you get what you pay for.
He'll be back next year along with Hammond and Clarkson, on BBC at that too, it won't be Top Gear though.
(my insider is never wrong)
Are those television 'soaps' or something..
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/jeremy-clarkson-sacked-channel-4-and-other-major-broadcasters-rule-out-hiring-him-10133750.html
Ah, 'well-placed sources at the company'.
They're certainly never wrong.
Why put yourself in the immediate firing line. Allow a break, create and agree a format and then make the announcement.
If they came up with something thought to make money I'd bet my house on one or all of those broadcasters bidding for it.
There's always a first time!! ;-)
Chip Cobb is going to be the next presenter of Top Gear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JD353rNvT4
(my insider is never right)
Another interesting post Takae, particularly the ones that have a 'behind the curtain' feel to them. I know a couple of people at the BBC but in the Engineering dept, nothing to do with program making. What they have in common is a genuine love of the BBC as an institution. Something I share and whatever side of the Clarkson fence you sit on the real loser here is the BBC as WHATEVER they did there will have been a queue of other media outlets ready to criticise them and put more pressure on the incoming government to slash the licence fee.
Also reported by Popbitch first. YMMV.
Game of thrones, series total is therefore about 25 million, once a year. 10 episodes per season. Eastenders, I haven't ever seen any more than 2 minutes of any one, is that daily? Even at 4 times a week, the budget for Eastenders is a million a week, 52 million a year! Waste of money as far as I'm concerned, but clearly a lot of other people like it.