|
Post by jasonward on Mar 17, 2017 11:08:13 GMT
2.3m watched from a population of 64.1m and charlesuirdhein is in the minority for being part of the remaining 61.8m? Ah c'mon Jason, he quite clearly said " any other Amazon Prime show" ... and 64.1m people in the UK do not subscribe to Amazon Prime. I know sometimes discussions with DalekBuster can be like having teeth pulled, but it's obvious what he meant. Well, no, I disagree. Yes, it was apparently the most watched Amazon Prime show ever, but we were not talking about that (or if we are I didn't notice the switch), DalekBuster has repeatedly said that Top Gear should be cancelled as it's not a successful or widely watched program any more, yet in the UK context not only is Top Gear BBC2 top rated program it is watched by more people than watch The Grand Tour, Amazons top rated program.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
TOP GEAR
Mar 17, 2017 11:20:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 11:20:20 GMT
Im not disagreeing about any of that. I am disagreeing about whether a woman could be presenter on a TV show about cars aimed at middle aged men. Speaking as a member of said target audience Id rather have a woman who knew her stuff and was good at presenting than Matt le Blanc, who i find quite wooden. Especially if it was Suzi Perry. Sigh. I'm not saying a woman can't present a car show though. A man can present a topical discussion show - but not Loose Women, because he's not representative of who the executives are trying to aim for. A woman can present a motoring show - but not Top Gear, because she's not representative of the audience they are aiming for. A woman can absolutely present Fifth Gear though or any other motoring show that's not Top Gear or The Grand Tour. You could easily have had Suzi Perry present ITV' s Drive instead of Vernon Kay - it may have even been better for it, given that you'd have actually had someone who has experience in the motoring world rather than your typical ITV presenter. So i dont understand what makes Top Gear different and seem to have lost track of your stance. On the one hand you think they should have rested it completely. On the other hand you think it should be exactly what it is now, three blokes talking about cars and mucking about a bit. You think the current format is so sacrosanct that diversity should be put aside (would you be equally averse to a disabled presenter I wonder) but your only argument appears to be that thats what appeals to the target market, without amy evidence to back you up. So is it fair to summarise that you just adored the old trio and think trying to copy what they did is doomed to failure and trying to change what they did is sacrilege? Finally, let us not forget Angela Rippon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
TOP GEAR
Mar 17, 2017 11:24:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 11:24:52 GMT
That's relative though. I have Amazon Prime and I couldn't be arsed watching those racist homophobes. Eating a Magnum is gay? Even Clarkson was shocked by that. . You're in the minority. The Grand Tour has got more views than any other Amazon Prime show. Well, based on a survey by GfK, we think it is. Amazon dont release viewing figures so we're guessing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 11:33:30 GMT
Finally, let us not forget Angela Rippon. I'm sure that is something that everyone can agree on!
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 17, 2017 15:58:16 GMT
I'm not saying a woman can't present a car show though. A man can present a topical discussion show - but not Loose Women, because he's not representative of who the executives are trying to aim for. A woman can present a motoring show - but not Top Gear, because she's not representative of the audience they are aiming for. A woman can absolutely present Fifth Gear though or any other motoring show that's not Top Gear or The Grand Tour. You could easily have had Suzi Perry present ITV' s Drive instead of Vernon Kay - it may have even been better for it, given that you'd have actually had someone who has experience in the motoring world rather than your typical ITV presenter. So i dont understand what makes Top Gear different and seem to have lost track of your stance. On the one hand you think they should have rested it completely. On the other hand you think it should be exactly what it is now, three blokes talking about cars and mucking about a bit. You think the current format is so sacrosanct that diversity should be put aside (would you be equally averse to a disabled presenter I wonder) but your only argument appears to be that thats what appeals to the target market, without amy evidence to back you up. So is it fair to summarise that you just adored the old trio and think trying to copy what they did is doomed to failure and trying to change what they did is sacrilege? Finally, let us not forget Angela Rippon. I think they should have rested it for five years, then tried to bring Clarkson, Hammond and May back. If they refused, then audition for three male motoring journalists with a politically incorrect sense of humour, who have a blokey charm and seem like the kind of people you would hang out in a pub with and discuss cars, politics and women. A female Top Gear presenter in my view would not only be against the target audience the TV executives are trying to achieve but would also spoil the blokey humour. A disabled presenter would do nothing of the sort, except that if you kept the challenges it is very unlikely depending on the disability that it would be appropriate for someone who isn't able bodied or able minded. A lot of the challenges Clarkson, Hammond and May did were more like stunts IMO. There's no evidence to say that's who the TV executives are aiming for except the style and approach the show goes for. For example, with Loose Women you can tell they're aiming for a female audience because the use of colour tends to be in the more softer, pink/light green range. That doesn't mean men can't watch it, just that they're not the target audience. The difference with Angela Rippon is that she presented it when Top Gear was a drastically different show. It also didn't get the same high ratings as Clarkson, Hammond and May Top Gear. Old Top Gear was more conservative and aimed at a more middle-class, gender neutral audience in their 40s-50s.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Mar 17, 2017 16:17:07 GMT
So i dont understand what makes Top Gear different and seem to have lost track of your stance. On the one hand you think they should have rested it completely. On the other hand you think it should be exactly what it is now, three blokes talking about cars and mucking about a bit. You think the current format is so sacrosanct that diversity should be put aside (would you be equally averse to a disabled presenter I wonder) but your only argument appears to be that thats what appeals to the target market, without amy evidence to back you up. So is it fair to summarise that you just adored the old trio and think trying to copy what they did is doomed to failure and trying to change what they did is sacrilege? Finally, let us not forget Angela Rippon. I think they should have rested it for five years, then tried to bring Clarkson, Hammond and May back. Why should they go back grovelling to Clarkson? He punched a man. Anyone else, any other job-that's it, you're out for good. No matter how popular he is, that should be the end of his time on the BBC. Besides Clarkson's ego is big enough as it is.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 17, 2017 16:26:00 GMT
I think they should have rested it for five years, then tried to bring Clarkson, Hammond and May back. Why should they go back grovelling to Clarkson? He punched a man. Anyone else, any other job-that's it, you're out for good. No matter how popular he is, that should be the end of his time on the BBC. Besides Clarkson's ego is big enough as it is. I think if they had rested it for five years it would have allowed the Clarkson fracas to die down. They couldn't very well get him doing another series of Top Gear straight away without facing a lot of criticism but in five years everybody would have forgotten about it.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Mar 17, 2017 16:33:36 GMT
Why should they go back grovelling to Clarkson? He punched a man. Anyone else, any other job-that's it, you're out for good. No matter how popular he is, that should be the end of his time on the BBC. Besides Clarkson's ego is big enough as it is. I think if they had rested it for five years it would have allowed the Clarkson fracas to die down. They couldn't very well get him doing another series of Top Gear straight away without facing a lot of criticism but in five years everybody would have forgotten about it. Again any other job, any other person, you punch someone-you're out for good. Five years doesn't change that. Why should Clarkson get special treatment? He crossed the line and should pay the price-and that's his job on Top Gear. Why should he get it back?
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 17, 2017 16:38:42 GMT
I think if they had rested it for five years it would have allowed the Clarkson fracas to die down. They couldn't very well get him doing another series of Top Gear straight away without facing a lot of criticism but in five years everybody would have forgotten about it. Again any other job, any other person, you punch someone-you're out for good. Five years doesn't change that. Why should Clarkson get special treatment? He crossed the line and should pay the price-and that's his job on Top Gear. Why should he get it back? Clarkson did apologise to be fair: www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35648682He made a mistake. He's only human.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Mar 17, 2017 16:48:57 GMT
Again any other job, any other person, you punch someone-you're out for good. Five years doesn't change that. Why should Clarkson get special treatment? He crossed the line and should pay the price-and that's his job on Top Gear. Why should he get it back? Clarkson did apologise to be fair: www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35648682He made a mistake. He's only human. Yes we all make mistakes, but it's the same principle. If I were to punch a co-worker, regardless of circumstance, I would expect to be removed and certainly be unable to get that job back a few years later. At the end of the day Clarkson had been on 'final warning' for some time before the incident. The BBC had already been criticised for not reining him in more, so for them to offer him his job back would look monumentally weak. Top Gear under Clarkson was entertaining-but it's over. Current Top Gear was always going to be different, and it's still getting decent views.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
TOP GEAR
Mar 17, 2017 17:00:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 17:00:24 GMT
So i dont understand what makes Top Gear different and seem to have lost track of your stance. On the one hand you think they should have rested it completely. On the other hand you think it should be exactly what it is now, three blokes talking about cars and mucking about a bit. You think the current format is so sacrosanct that diversity should be put aside (would you be equally averse to a disabled presenter I wonder) but your only argument appears to be that thats what appeals to the target market, without amy evidence to back you up. So is it fair to summarise that you just adored the old trio and think trying to copy what they did is doomed to failure and trying to change what they did is sacrilege? Finally, let us not forget Angela Rippon. I think they should have rested it for five years, then tried to bring Clarkson, Hammond and May back. If they refused, then audition for three male motoring journalists with a politically incorrect sense of humour, who have a blokey charm and seem like the kind of people you would hang out in a pub with and discuss cars, politics and women. A female Top Gear presenter in my view would not only be against the target audience the TV executives are trying to achieve but would also spoil the blokey humour. A disabled presenter would do nothing of the sort, except that if you kept the challenges it is very unlikely depending on the disability that it would be appropriate for someone who isn't able bodied or able minded. A lot of the challenges Clarkson, Hammond and May did were more like stunts IMO. There's no evidence to say that's who the TV executives are aiming for except the style and approach the show goes for. For example, with Loose Women you can tell they're aiming for a female audience because the use of colour tends to be in the more softer, pink/light green range. That doesn't mean men can't watch it, just that they're not the target audience. The difference with Angela Rippon is that she presented it when Top Gear was a drastically different show. It also didn't get the same high ratings as Clarkson, Hammond and May Top Gear. Old Top Gear was more conservative and aimed at a more middle-class, gender neutral audience in their 40s-50s. So you wanted them to wait five years then do exactly what they've done now. Only by then nobody would be interested any more.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 17, 2017 18:29:26 GMT
Yes we all make mistakes, but it's the same principle. If I were to punch a co-worker, regardless of circumstance, I would expect to be removed and certainly be unable to get that job back a few years later. At the end of the day Clarkson had been on 'final warning' for some time before the incident. The BBC had already been criticised for not reining him in more, so for them to offer him his job back would look monumentally weak. Top Gear under Clarkson was entertaining-but it's over. Current Top Gear was always going to be different, and it's still getting decent views. He was wrongly on final warning.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 17, 2017 18:30:16 GMT
I think they should have rested it for five years, then tried to bring Clarkson, Hammond and May back. If they refused, then audition for three male motoring journalists with a politically incorrect sense of humour, who have a blokey charm and seem like the kind of people you would hang out in a pub with and discuss cars, politics and women. A female Top Gear presenter in my view would not only be against the target audience the TV executives are trying to achieve but would also spoil the blokey humour. A disabled presenter would do nothing of the sort, except that if you kept the challenges it is very unlikely depending on the disability that it would be appropriate for someone who isn't able bodied or able minded. A lot of the challenges Clarkson, Hammond and May did were more like stunts IMO. There's no evidence to say that's who the TV executives are aiming for except the style and approach the show goes for. For example, with Loose Women you can tell they're aiming for a female audience because the use of colour tends to be in the more softer, pink/light green range. That doesn't mean men can't watch it, just that they're not the target audience. The difference with Angela Rippon is that she presented it when Top Gear was a drastically different show. It also didn't get the same high ratings as Clarkson, Hammond and May Top Gear. Old Top Gear was more conservative and aimed at a more middle-class, gender neutral audience in their 40s-50s. So you wanted them to wait five years then do exactly what they've done now. Only by then nobody would be interested any more. Less of a backlash if you had new presenters though, meaning stronger ratings.
|
|
|
Post by doomlord on Mar 17, 2017 19:15:47 GMT
Why should they go back grovelling to Clarkson? He punched a man. Anyone else, any other job-that's it, you're out for good. No matter how popular he is, that should be the end of his time on the BBC. Besides Clarkson's ego is big enough as it is. I think if they had rested it for five years it would have allowed the Clarkson fracas to die down. They couldn't very well get him doing another series of Top Gear straight away without facing a lot of criticism but in five years everybody would have forgotten about it. By your skewed logic, are you saying that if I punched your mother for the same reason Clarkson did over a meal, then you'd be fine with me five years later because you'd have forgotten all about it? Having a degree myself in the same field as you, also having taught the subject as an assistant teacher, I'm now inclined to think you're not as informed as you think you are with regards to how television really works when it comes to target audience awareness, demographics and production.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 17, 2017 19:20:27 GMT
I think if they had rested it for five years it would have allowed the Clarkson fracas to die down. They couldn't very well get him doing another series of Top Gear straight away without facing a lot of criticism but in five years everybody would have forgotten about it. By your skewed logic, are you saying that if I punched your mother for the same reason Clarkson did over a meal, then you'd be fine with me five years later because you'd have forgotten all about it? I would try to move on. I wouldn't have a constant grudge against you for five years.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Mar 17, 2017 19:20:58 GMT
Yes we all make mistakes, but it's the same principle. If I were to punch a co-worker, regardless of circumstance, I would expect to be removed and certainly be unable to get that job back a few years later. At the end of the day Clarkson had been on 'final warning' for some time before the incident. The BBC had already been criticised for not reining him in more, so for them to offer him his job back would look monumentally weak. Top Gear under Clarkson was entertaining-but it's over. Current Top Gear was always going to be different, and it's still getting decent views. He was wrongly on final warning. What on earth qualifies you to say that? It's clear you love Clarkson et al, but don't let that love blind you.
|
|
|
Post by doomlord on Mar 17, 2017 20:25:17 GMT
By your skewed logic, are you saying that if I punched your mother for the same reason Clarkson did over a meal, then you'd be fine with me five years later because you'd have forgotten all about it? I would try to move on. I wouldn't have a constant grudge against you for five years. I think we all know here, including yourself, you are kidding yourself with that one. I mean reading that above only goes to show you're not as well informed as you think you are around the topic. As others have mentioned, you don't back any of your claims up. You say Matt Le Blanc is just a guy from 'Friends'? You do not know him personally so how on earth do you know that he isn't a car enthusiast? He has a life outside of 'Friends'. Here's a guy that was earning a million dollars an episode back in the late 90s! He surrounded himself in luxury cars and the people who made them. 'Friends' ended fourteen years ago(!), he still would have had the lifestyle many could only dream of, he's a human with hobbies and interests not just 'Joey' that, when off-screen, gets put in a cupboard. James May studied music at university and then worked as a records officer at a hospital until he saw an advert requiring a writer for a monthly car magazine, he then hopped on to other car publications from there and began to get a name for himself. He wasn't a journalist, he was an article writer who began to learn the ropes, ending up being a sub-editor on one of them. He was a car enthusiast plain and simple and, just like MattB, it was obviously a past-time for him as he too had a life outside of car magazines. I gather from reading your posts you wish to work in television, right? Then what on earth is someone in your position wishing a programme (I presume you don't even watch?) staffed by many people that have bills to pay from one week to the next, to crash and burn and become the failure you want it to be? That just strikes me as very odd, very odd indeed.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 17, 2017 20:48:27 GMT
I would try to move on. I wouldn't have a constant grudge against you for five years. I think we all know here, including yourself, you are kidding yourself with that one. I mean reading that above only goes to show you're not as well informed as you think you are around the topic. Why? How you would react towards something is subjective. This is not a forum, not a university assessment or paid work. Being a car enthusiast or having a hobby is not the same as having prior experience/expertise. To me there is no difference between an car article writer or car journalist. He still wrote about cars, so he still had prior experience in the area. Matt LeBlanc is an actor and has no experience that counts towards him being a presenter of a motoring show. If Top Gear was axed, I'm sure those same people would go on to work on something else. Their experience working on the show would help considerably.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 17, 2017 21:00:00 GMT
He was wrongly on final warning. What on earth qualifies you to say that? It's clear you love Clarkson et al, but don't let that love blind you. All the so-called 'offensive' comments were nothing of the sort. Just people spouting nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 17, 2017 21:13:56 GMT
What on earth qualifies you to say that? It's clear you love Clarkson et al, but don't let that love blind you. All the so-called 'offensive' comments were nothing of the sort. Just people spouting nonsense. Which offensive comments were these?
|
|