For those of you lesser human beings that don't watch Top Gear (the proper version), Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended from the BBC for allegedly punching one of the producers. Link here: http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-31908080 NETTDATA EDIT: FOCUS: Top Gear... the future. ALT-FOCUS: Are some people "worth more" and therefore deserve special treatment/consideration? Or should everyone be treated the same?
So, they've officially canned him. I think they're nuts, and this "zero tolerance" policy of theirs will come back to bite them in the ass. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-32052736 James May minutes after hearing about it:
ALT-FOCUS: Yes. Some people are "special" and should be handled differently. For instance, I think they should have paid through the nose to the Producer that was assaulted, apologized profusely, and then carried on. If it was a sexual attack, I'd consider it differently, but a slight physical altercation between two grown men is not worth this kind of action, at least the way I see things. As of now, this result will for sure kill the show... how anyone can think otherwise I have no idea. Sure, there will be other Top Gears, but they will be relegated to the notoriety of Fifth Gear, and be local cable show quality at best. With that show being killed, a ton of people will lose work, and the BBC will take a serious financial hit. If they think they won't, they've got their heads up their asses. I wouldn't be surprised if some major head-rolling occurs at the BBC in the near future.
The BBC will regret this decision continuously for many years. Clarkson was a cash cow, the revenue he brought in, the viewers, by any metric of success he was a star. And not only that, he was a lightning rod for all those metrics. His presence on that show brought in a difficult to understand viewership and following. It is easy to see that despite the shows format and closely produced and edited episodes, and despite the charm of May the show was a success because of him. And there is no show without Clarkson. This is obvious, this will be discussed, but if they end up producing a show where May and Hammond are running around with some other person, it will be a titanic and embarrassing disaster. Clarksons verbal and physical abuse are an unfortunate moment and show a lack of control. No one should be intimidated in the work place, no one should feel physically threatened. I believe a suspension would've served a point, firing him just screws their own interest. Firing him seems a little bit childish. These are adults, they are not in school. If this was a playground fight, certainly Clarkson would not have been expelled. Not sure the logic behind this extreme action. Alt Focus When your presence makes people millions of dollars, yes, yes its ok to treat them differently. Unfair, sure, logical yes, but when they're making someone else a fortune and arguably floating a whole network, they get the kid gloves.
Focus: I love Top Gear and now have a hole in my soul. It sounds like May and Hammond have all but stated they won't do the show without Clarkson, which is awesome they will stand by each other. Rumors have already started about them doing a Netflix show but I believe the BBC owns all the rights to the bits used, ie. Stig, Star in a reasonably priced car, etc. Alt-Focus: Yes, some people are worth more than others. That's the way the world works, has always worked, and will always work. Reading the events of what actually happened Clarkson sounds like he was a complete drunken asshat but it still boggles my mind as to what the BBC thought would happen to Top Gear. Does the BBC think they are going to be able to continue on with this show or do they realize that it's probably over? I for one won't watch it without Clarkson, Hammond, and May.
It seems like some people took the bust up very personally. The crew had been filming god knows where well into the night and the guy just wanted to get fed. Granted, he wanted a steak instead of what was provided, but whatever. It's Clarkson. This is like telling 1992 Axl Rose there is no more Dom Perignon to pour over a naked model's tits. Hanger is a serious, real issue. BBC just lost a $70 million a year franchise. Put it this way, he's not a role model, but he is a hero. His alcohol intake is also prodigious even for a Brit. There are few men with the force of personality to carry something as big as Top Gear. So, if he's a drunken, belligerent sod, them's the breaks. Most of our heroes did far, far worse. However, since the hiatus James May has been documenting his boring life as an unemployed, middle aged man: https://twitter.com/mrjamesmay It is fucking hilarious.
I don't watch the show, so all I have to contribute is this article by Kissing Suzy Kolber, usually a football blog. They do a weekly column of wading through facebook comments after a team loses to see the reaction, and in the off season they just pick a random, anger-inducing situation. Today it was Jeremy Clarkson's firing. Jeremy Clarkson's fans react completely reasonably. I'll just say this (and again, I am not a viewer of the show and don't have a dog in this fight): I don't think some people deserve better treatment, but even if they did, at some point enough has to be enough. Sounds like Clarkson has had a lot of issues. Was he entertaining? Absolutely, if his rabid fanbase is any indication, but it doesn't excuse assault. If people really want to be mad at someone for Top Gear ending, they need to be mad at Clarkson for having zero impulse control (despite knowing, from what I understand, he was on thin ice).
So then the janitor or driver or gopher on the show should also have their own trailer and green room? Sure, that takes it to an extreme, but absolutely some people should deserve "better" treatment, and are, in fact, routinely treated better or differently. The mere fact that they are not all getting paid the same speaks to this. Absolutely he did have issues, and they were well enough known about that they were discussed about previously. And he did something incredibly stupid. That being said, the BBC have greatly overreacted to this by canning him, and in the process have shot them in the foot. If anything, it should have been handled in a civil courtroom (which it very well may), and there should have been some internal actions taken to sanction Clarkson, and reallocate the Producer. What is really interesting is the fact that the Producer in question didn't even want it brought up and didn't feel any need to have anything handled... it was found out by some big wigs well after the fact, indirectly, and the BBC chased it down on their own. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of all of this.... hopefully something better with the three of them, on Netflix maybe, if the rumours have any credence.
Watch the show, gain some perspective. I strongly believe in equal treatment in the work place. I strongly believe in professional courtesy. But lets be honest, how far is the work environment. If my boss tears me down in his office, really gets at me, critiques me can I in turn do the same to him without threat of being fired? I'm guessing no. The workplace is not fair, there are different standards for each position and everyones standing. To believe in a perfectly fair workplace is at best naive. Next time my boss takes an hour lunch while I am only allowed 30 mins I'll bring this up to him, surely in a fair workplace we'd all an equal amount of time allotted to us for lunch right? Once again, no one has condoned Clarkson's physically abusive actions. However, the BBC is appearing to display some ulterior motives here. The language being used to describe the situation is displaying that they are wanting to distance themselves from his public image. Clarkson has never been a bastion of tolerance or political correctness, this has always been fundamentally at odds with the BBC. I imagine the BBC higher up became annoyed and angered with the Clarkson defining the BBC. I imagine the reason for the higher ups developing this situation is to leverage him out of their network and get rid of him.
Netflix should be backing up the money truck for all three of them right now if they have any sense at all. The BBC owning the rights to some of the bits makes no difference, the chemistry between the three hosts is what made the show, nobody was tuning in to watch celebs drive a shit box.
Of course the producer didn't want it brought up, the dude is being blamed for this entire thing. Let me repeat: he is getting blamed for the show ending because he was punched in the face. Second, yes, the "talent" receive better treatment, but no where in that treatment is "allowed to break the law," or "allowed to assault coworkers," nor should it be. The star of Big Bang Theory should not be allowed to punch a producer in the face, no matter how profitable that show is. If your boss punched you in the face, and his company said "well, he is a great salesman and makes the company money, so we're not doing jack shit," you'd be justifiably pissed. Everyone seems to want to take BBC or the producer to task without even a second thought of blaming Clarkson for his actions. That is my only point. He did this. The producer didn't punch himself in the face. The BBC didn't have a history of shitty behavior. The blame lies squarely on Clarkson's shoulders, and to say otherwise because you are entertained by him is disingenuous. Just ask this: if this was someone you DIDN'T like, would you still be defending him? What if this was Kim Kardashian punching one of her producers and getting fired from her show on E. Would you be taking E to task and begging for someone else to pick them up?
I'm a huge fan of Top Gear, but I'm going to play the devil's advocate here. The biggest thing is that we don't know the whole story. We know what we've read on the internet. Do you think maybe the folks at the BBC know a bit more then the rest of us or do you think they just had a knee jerk reaction and killed off their biggest cash cow? I'm willing to bet it's the former. Yes, Clarkson is entertaining. He's an old guy who doesn't give a fuck. And sometimes when you're old and not giving a fuck, it's going to bite you in the ass. It wouldn't surprise me if it comes out there's been a fairly long history of mis-steps and social fracases by Clarkson that we've never heard about. Somewhere along the line BBC decided he's a greater liability then he is an asset. Do celebrities get away with things the rest of us couldn't? Without a doubt. Should they? No. If my boss punched me in the face because he wasn't happy with his food I don't think I'd be very happy about it, would you? What if your co-workers really liked him? Would that make it any less reprehensible? I'll miss the show, but I'll get over it.
No one is suggesting that "jack shit" be done... fine the shit out of him, punish him, do something that actually MEANS something to him, personall, but to can him and thereby sink the entire ship, that's just an overreaction on the BBC's part, in my opinion. Sure, they're perfectly within their rights to do so, and he was a dick for hitting the guy; I haven't seen ANYONE make a case otherwise. All I'm saying is that they fucked up with the punishment, and they will pay dearly for it, and I'm optimistic that something better will come out as a result. *cough* Netflix *cough*
Agreed. And to top it all off, it was Clarkson who went to them and told them that it happened... so it's not like he did something and just forgot about it as if it were nothing. If I were to put on a tinfoil hat, I'd say this was a very, very clever machination to get them canned from the BBC, and raise worldwide awareness of the show, and help entice others (again, Netflix?) to come to the table. Maybe they have bigger ideas/concepts they want to pursue, but the old farts at the BBC keep saying "no", so they want out? Still, I firmly believe that some things at some scale should slide. "All things being equal", sure... but they're not. I would love to know of a single show or person who commands a 350 million worldwide audience. Anyone? This is a case much like that judge's ruling on pornography; "I can't tell you what it is, but I'll know it when I see it". In that same light, I think some things would be forgivable (or be able to be worked out amicably), and some things can't. Murder? Rape? Nope. A fat lip? Yep.
If there's one thing I know for sure, its this, what we know from media is usually horribly inaccurate or incomplete. It would be interesting to see whats actually going on. I doubt Clarkson giving someone a fit lip in a fit of hanger is the reason to end such a successful and profitable show
Can't help but think the same... EVERY encounter I've had with the media has resulted in them totally fucking up the info, so I can only imagine what they've fucked up on this one. That being said, I can only comment on what has been portrayed in the media. I could accept that something more sinister or evil is the basis for the decision, but seeing as there have been no charges coming from the cops, I'm pretty comfortable accepting what's been put out there so far. I also tend to think that May and Hammond wouldn't stand by Clarkson if he had done something truly evil. I guess only time will tell.
Very true. But, once again, we don't know all the facts. The fat lip was the straw that broke the camels back. How many other incidents have been swept under the carpet or paid off to keep the cash cow alive? As far as I know, Top Gear is the most watched show in the entire world. No one would kill that off over a series of small incidents.
That, or never underestimate a butthurt producer. Aside from having all the money and all the stroke, producers are notorious for being impulsively temperamental crybabies and unlike people who appear on camera they don't apologize. Let's not pretend producers aren't the biggest assholes in show business, period. Harvey Weinstein throws telephones at his secretaries' faces, blatantly insults movies for having no art while he produced "She's All That", tries to kill people and is widely respected in Hollywood.