Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Top Gear - Clarkson contract won't be renewed by BBC. Should there be one rule for talent, one rule for "the rest"?

Recommended Posts

I think Clarkson will gain from this and make far more money than he'd ever make working for the BBC while the BBC is going to lose a ton of money. As far as them firing him, doesn't bother me and he probably deserved it. Never watched the show and never even heard of this guy until Andrew posted about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Weird.  Not a single word about Clarkson's behaviour or responsibility ? 
It's everyone else's fault according to you ?  Never mind him being drunk while at work and hitting a superior, right ? 

I only see 1 person doing any moral posturing here.  Defending alcohol abuse in the workplace and physical violence.

And if you're going to get upset with every person disagreeing with you, maybe you simply shouldn't allow comments.  That'll save you the trouble of responding.

I don't have a problem with your opinion.

But calling this a threat to democracy and free speech is ludicrous. 
A soccer player getting sacked can still find another team to play for.  A recording artist dropped by their label, can still sign somewhere else. 
If he's really that special and unique he'll find another sponsor and you'll continue to enjoy him.

You've now posted 3 times about the same thing.  And plenty of people have disagreed. 
Are you going to keep posting until we all agree ?  Or all leave ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​You do realise don't you that this kind of thinking would exclude a lot of talent from the film and TV industries!!

​Does that mean it's only the "talentless" people who dig holes in the road and are up to their elbows in shit unblocking sewers who have to abide by the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​sorry andrew, but now you`re really loosing it....

NOBODY needs that kind of "talent" on screen or in the industry.

this is clearly a case where fame went to somebody`s head and made him think that he can get away with everything.

now the bbc told him that this is not the case, bravo!

best,

wondo

​Again, not condoning the behaviour in any way.

But if you sacked stars for bad behaviour, it would be to the detriment of the industry in the end.

Christian Bale and O. Russell would have long gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Does that mean it's only the "talentless" people who dig holes in the road and are up to their elbows in shit unblocking sewers who have to abide by the rules.

​No, that's where you are misunderstanding it and putting really very abhorrent political views in my mouth, which I don't appreciate for a second Rog.

I'm saying there are plenty of assholes in the film and TV industry who get away with bad behaviour because they believe their fame gives them some immunity. And I say, as long as they don't serially abuse people and as long as the indents stay relatively rare and isolated (Clarkson only hit a producer once, he's not a serial killer) then let them get on and be rock stars... there's a method to the madness.

No...Doesn't mean it's right.

But it doesn't make sense to simply go around sacking all the hell-raisers or difficult personalities either.

Plenty of legendary musicians and film stars have been involved in punch ups.

And I dare say Jack Nicholson threw some unhinged parties in his time.

Should we all wrap them up in cotton wool or just let them get on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must understand this...

It's not rocket science...

 

"Witness how seamlessly all the “Sack Clarkson” commentary moved between saying “You can’t punch your work colleagues" (which is true) to slamming Clarkson for his “xenophobic remarks" (that is, his off-colour jokes) and for "pushing the boundaries of… political correctness”. 

They pose as caring protectors of BBC staff from physical abuse, but in truth the Clarkson-bashers are pursuing a culture war, a moral crusade, against the presenter they love to hate and against the words and ideas he projects from the TV into the little people’s heads. 

Their glee with Clarkson’s sacking is deeply dishonest. Under the cover of supporting the stamping-out of workplace harassment, they've actually instituted a media kangaroo court trying Clarkson for joke crimes. 

Their main interest is not in protecting a BBC producer’s face from Clarkson’s fists — it’s in protecting the public’s ears, and our allegedly putty-like brains, from Clarkson’s words, from his consensus-pricking, fast-car loving, two-fingered salute to modern liberal orthodoxies."

​thanks for removing all doubts. EOS HD is run by a man obsessed and dismayed by a changing worldview, who series rising social status as a zero-sum game thus seeking out others to blame for his own loss of stature, who is afraid of the other, who wishes for a time when "men could be men" and conveniently omits that those times were marked by severe inequality and social acceptance of "casual" racism/classism/sexism/whatever. so you're a lad, in other words. go for a nice long drive in your Audi and shout "cunt" at pedestrians. then come back when you're ready to talk about cameras and film technique.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird.  Not a single word about Clarkson's behaviour or responsibility ?

WRONG

"Let’s be clear about the ethics first. Clarkson is deep in the wrong; the BBC inquiry suggests the incident involved a 20 minute verbal tirade followed by a 30 second physical fracas."

"And if Clarkson feels he can get away with hitting a producer, perhaps the fact his employees pandered to him like a rock god for a decade could have something to do with it."

It's everyone else's fault according to you ?  Never mind him being drunk while at work and hitting a superior, right?

WRONG

He didn't hit a superior.

Clarkson IS the superior on the show which you've clearly never watched, alongside the main producer Andy Wilman.

I only see 1 person doing any moral posturing here.  Defending alcohol abuse in the workplace and physical violence.

WRONG

"Clarkson is deep in the wrong" I seemed to remember saying.

But if you want to believe that I am defending 'alcohol abuse' along with presumably thinking that small mice eat cheese on the moon then be my guest. I'm not your psychologist.

I don't have a problem with your opinion.

WRONG! You do.

But calling this a threat to democracy and free speech is ludicrous. 
A soccer player getting sacked can still find another team to play for.  A recording artist dropped by their label, can still sign somewhere else. 
If he's really that special and unique he'll find another sponsor and you'll continue to enjoy him.

You've now posted 3 times about the same thing.  And plenty of people have disagreed. 
Are you going to keep posting until we all agree ?  Or all leave ?

​Well Pascal you sent me a nasty email last week asking for me to delete your account.

So hardly a loss if you do go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​thanks for removing all doubts. EOS HD is run by a man obsessed and dismayed by a changing worldview, who series rising social status as a zero-sum game thus seeking out others to blame for his own loss of stature, who is afraid of the other, who wishes for a time when "men could be men" and conveniently omits that those times were marked by severe inequality and social acceptance of "casual" racism/classism/sexism/whatever. so you're a lad, in other words. go for a nice long drive in your Audi and shout "cunt" at pedestrians. then come back when you're ready to talk about cameras and film technique.

​See what kind of abuse you get for defending Clarkson?

None of what you're accusing me of - the casual racism, classism, sexism, applies to him anyway!

It's a myth.

He's only joking.

How about you get a sense of humour to go with that tin hat of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised President Obama hasn't intervened yet....

Because every other fucker seems to want a piece of this one...

North Yorkshire Police is liaising with the BBC regarding the alleged incident in North Yorkshire involving Jeremy Clarkson. We have asked the BBC for the report which details the findings of their internal investigation into the matter. 

The information will be assessed appropriately and action will be taken by North Yorkshire Police where necessary. It would not be appropriate for North Yorkshire Police to comment further at this time.

What is it about a scrap at work that so offends us?

Is it that it's seen as a long pattern of abuse and bullying, rather than an isolated incident?

The BBC said this incident was one of "sustained and prolonged verbal abuse"

In fact the whole thing was over in half an hour.

What people always seem to forget is the broader picture. There was no bullying over the 10 years this producer worked with Clarkson, they had an absolutely fantastic time working together. Oisin Tymon - 

I’ve worked on Top Gear for almost a decade, a programme I love. 

Over that time Jeremy and I had a positive and successful working relationship, making some landmark projects together.

This was an isolated incident and not indicative of Clarkson's character long-term.

And if that sounds to you like I am defending physical abuse, murder, rape and terrorism just be forewarned... I'm not.

And if you suggest I am, you will no longer be welcome to use the forum. simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but in any profession if you physically assault a fellow co-worker you risk looking your employment and the decision to do so is entirely in the hands of the employer. If this altercation had happened in private away from the show that is one thing but that is not the case. Are you suggesting that he should get special treatment because of his "rock star" status? I believe that he made that show and that it will suffer greatly without him, but that was the BBC's call to make. 

Put another way if i, and the majority of people, were to hit someone else that I work with I would most likely get fired, why should he be any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember listening to a radio interview of Pete Townshend.  He said if he was happy for even 10 minutes during a day it was a good day.  I thought about that for a while.  If one of the greatest rock musicians EVER found every day difficult what does that mean to me, or the rest of us?  Most people look at a guy with a camera as somewhere between pervert and pedophile.  Alcoholics have it WAY better than us :D I can sympathize that you know so much about cameras, Andrew, that you leave it "all on the court" every day.  I can understand your frustration when people, like Canon, don't take your hard-earned knowledge and put it to use.  I doubt most kids these days know much about The Who.  

Whenever you feel like "fixing" society Andrew you should watch "Sullivans Travels"  If you haven't seen it PLEASE put in on your list.  

We're all artists here.  We all have a pulse.  We're all ready to get "into it."  I can only say, for me, thing stuff brings out the worst in me.  Reading your camera stuff brings out the best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that he should get special treatment because of his "rock star" status?

​Yes.

Because for 1 unfortunate incident in 10 years, 350m have been entertained and that's more important.

Here's how the BBC should have handled it...

The show should have gone out as planned at the height of the storm and Tymon should have been on the live segment with Clarkson. Public apology from Clarkson and a handshake.

The message should have gone out that workplace fights are wrong, because apparently some people think that people need condescendingly obvious messages like that from 'role models' and nannying public broadcasters. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. The important point is that such an 'ethics statement' would at least have the benefit of pacifying the baying hoards of sanctimonious politicians and journalists.

Then they should have gone back to work.

Quite simple really!

If it was a long term pattern of bad behaviour and bullying, obviously that would be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​thanks for removing all doubts. EOS HD is run by a man obsessed and dismayed by a changing worldview, who series rising social status as a zero-sum game thus seeking out others to blame for his own loss of stature, who is afraid of the other, who wishes for a time when "men could be men" and conveniently omits that those times were marked by severe inequality and social acceptance of "casual" racism/classism/sexism/whatever. so you're a lad, in other words. go for a nice long drive in your Audi and shout "cunt" at pedestrians. then come back when you're ready to talk about cameras and film technique.

 

​Ha Ha, be sure to lick the boots of your lesbian dominatrix master as she drags you along on a dog chain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, but I have to agree with Andrew Reid on this. This got blown way out of proportion and the BBC is acting stupidly in a very real sense. It will end up hurting the BBC more than they can imagine. Clarkson was the show, period. It was his irreverent behavior and sense of humor that made it what it was. If I were Clarkson, I would screw the BBC, take Hammond and May with me, use my own production company, change the name to "Next Gear", cut a deal with Netflix,  and stream pay per view worldwide. 

People thought Glenn Beck was done when he and Fox parted company. He is doing better than ever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course physical assault shouldn't go unpunished and It seems perfectly reasonable for an employer to sack an employee who assaults someone.  But the stupid thing is that other channels will not hesitate to hire clarkson.  And you can almost bet that If it was ITV he was being fired from the BBC would be probably first in line to hire him.

They should have severely cut his pay for the next season.  That would have appeased everyone who wanted him punished, probably even better because of the whole jealousy thing.  Clarkson would have accepted out of humility and the fact that he is already rich anyway, and the show could have continued.  Now the BBC have the rights to top gear but it is worthless because no-one they could get as replacement presenters will be accepted.  They have thrown away millions but at least they can be happy that they did the right thing.  Ok they let jimmy saville get away with all his stuff for decades but at least they got rid of the real bad man.

At least now it will be interesting to see what happens.   Very likely that May and Hamond will go with him.  They will have course have to come up with a new name and have to drop obvious top gear formats like "the news" (maybe), "star in a reasonably priced car" "the stig".   Apart from that they can do pretty much the same thing. They will have to find another track though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still a bit puzzled about what the deeper point(s) is/are of this article.
Is it that you fear that talented people will be excluded from state media or media in general? Or is it more about a cultural shift(s) that you see and fear? Or is it more about JC and TG as we know it is ending?

I'm intrigued why you care so much about this event, and I mean it in the most positive sense. Please help me to understand. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because for 1 unfortunate incident in 10 years, 350m have been entertained and that's more important.

​One incident that we know about. I have a feeling that the "star complex" doesn't just appear one day, it's a process that worsens every passing day.

If the altercation had been in private or on set, I would consider conceivable handling it in private, with a simple apology and reprimand. But it took place in public, so a cover up was not possible.

What's really perverse about it and sets it apart from Bale's and O. Russell's incidents is that it was not a fight between equals. O. Russell is a major producer and Clooney a star actor. Bale is a star actor and Hurlbut a reknown DP. Clarkson is a TV star and the producer is, well "a nobody" really. What was he supposed to do? fight back? That would've ended his career instantly. I wonder if Clarkson would have thrown the punch against Tony Hall or anyone else with the power to fire him on the spot. His behaviour is not abou being creative or being a star. It's about someone with power treating those under his command like his "bitches", making them wait (and work) two extra hours after a long day so that he can have his beers, insulting them so that he can have his steak, etc.

Clarkson is not going out for his controversial on-screen persona, but because his attitude towards coworkers is unacceptable. And yes, stars should be (and usually are) submitted to the same workplace rules. Robert Downey Jr. has been fired many times for his addictions and many other bigger stars have been kicked out of a big budget shooting for being abusive and/or showing no respect. That is called unprofessionalism. And Maxotics is right, anyone who's ever been working in shootings with a realtively large crew (20+) knows that one rotten apple -especially the big one- is a cancer on set, a disruptive force that does a lot of harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still a bit puzzled about what the deeper point(s) is/are of this article.
Is it that you fear that talented people will be excluded from state media or media in general? Or is it more about a cultural shift(s) that you see and fear? Or is it more about JC and TG as we know it is ending?

I'm intrigued why you care so much about this event, and I mean it in the most positive sense. Please help me to understand. Thanks!

​In a nutshell it's about Clarkson having a joke and fighting with a producer in a hotel. Then it is blown out of all proportion because it becomes a political and ethical problem for his employer.

Clarkson's jokes you can find in every episode of the show and to anyone with a sense of humour they are very funny. But these were often a simmering problem under the surface, because they were against the grain of the big ethics statements of big companies - which have made certain jokes taboo when they shouldn't be. For example - banter based on national stereotypes, jokes about green campaigners and eco-friendly feminists being dull, etc. etc. It was only a joke. But it sent out the wrong message to those who didn't appreciate the humour.

The presenters on Top Gear had a bit of a 'boys own adventure' thing going on, where they go out and enjoy life and drive cars, which obviously upset some people. Jealousy?

The BBC then overreacted to the falling out with his producer, because of several negative recent events. So they had to be seen to take it on in a big way and take tough action. These have seen them come under severe criticism and rightfully so in some cases but not in others. One thing they have been rightly criticised for is that a number of generations of management at some British intuitions including the BBC turned a blind eye to criminal behaviour by certain 'star talents'. This was a very small minority of talents involved, but it tarnished the organisation. Look up "Jimmy Saville". Horrible man.

So now the political climate at the BBC is that if they carry on turning a blind eye to bad behaviour, they will be seen as an ethically questionable organisation and will risk losing the support of the public, who are forced to pay a mandatory license fee whether or not you watch the BBC. If you have a TV in the UK, you pay up.

So that makes them very exposed and accountable to the public.

The other problem is that the internet and the press like to be sanctimonious and to plaster ethics statements everywhere, whether they are justified or not. What Clarkson did to his producer was absolutely wrong. There's no question about that. But it was only a petty assault and an isolated one off 'meltdown'. It shouldn't be compared with what some previous star talents at the BBC did were very very serious, including sexual abuse.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how the Bale vs Hurlbut conflict has came up repeatedly, when if you research just a little bit, you'll find that many on that set sided with Bale, and had little respect for Hurlbut at the time.

Furthermore Hurlbut was called an inexperienced DP at the time, he was in no way equal in clout to Christian Bale (and still isn't). He also didn't shoot another feature (indy) until 3 years later. People just assume Hurlbut is an amazing DP because they know his name from online tuts.

 

 

 

Meanwhile Bill O'Rielly still has a show over here in the U.S. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...