Jeremy Clarkson’s Top Gear contract will not be renewed

[Tamas]

I think that was just the final drop. Clarkson's been on probation for years. He suffers from chronic foot-in-mouth disease.

And look at him. How hard could it be (to use a phrase he perfected) to defend yourself against him?

So I'm allowed to be abusive and physically confrontational as I want as long as I'm in lousy shape?

Basically everyone I have read or heard defending him ended up being saying that ts kind of ok under certain annoying circumstances to have a go at some other guy's face with your fist.

[Warspite]

Indeed, subject to their respective contracts, there is nothing to stop Clarkson, May and Hammond simply going to a new channel and starting a new show, with a different format and branding.

This is an interesting point. I do wonder to what extent any company that takes on these three - if they stay together - could actually reconstitute the format. It is very expensive to put on and there is a large logistical train involved, but the BBC can do it because it already has the rich stream of licencing revenue. If Sky, for example, were to pick it up, would they have the same income to set against the production expenses without the Top Gear brand?

[alfred russel]

So I'm allowed to be abusive and physically confrontational as I want as long as I'm in lousy shape?

Of course not. You have neither fame nor any remarkable skills.

[grumbler]

Basically everyone I have read or heard defending him ended up being saying that ts kind of ok under certain annoying circumstances to have a go at some other guy's face with your fist.

I still have yet to encounter anyone defending him.   Lots of people sorry he got himself canned, but nobody saying he didn't deserve it.

[grumbler]

Indeed, subject to their respective contracts, there is nothing to stop Clarkson, May and Hammond simply going to a new channel and starting a new show, with a different format and branding.

This is an interesting point. I do wonder to what extent any company that takes on these three - if they stay together - could actually reconstitute the format. It is very expensive to put on and there is a large logistical train involved, but the BBC can do it because it already has the rich stream of licencing revenue. If Sky, for example, were to pick it up, would they have the same income to set against the production expenses without the Top Gear brand?

I think that, if Top Gear is very expensive for BBC to put on, it is more to do with BBC and not the format of the show, which is pretty inexpensive on the face of it.  It involves travel and paying "star salaries" but not sets, costumes, special effects, dialogue writing, and the other things that make for an expensive TV show.  I don't think that a new network, especially one already used to practicing fiscal self-discipline in making shows, would have any trouble making the show for a reasonable cost.  I also think that it is the personalities and not the brands that make the show popular, so if you had those, you'd gain a substantial amount of the current show's viewers and thus revenue.

[frunk]

Of course not. You have neither fame nor any remarkable skills.

I can juggle.

[celedhring]

Indeed, subject to their respective contracts, there is nothing to stop Clarkson, May and Hammond simply going to a new channel and starting a new show, with a different format and branding.

This is an interesting point. I do wonder to what extent any company that takes on these three - if they stay together - could actually reconstitute the format. It is very expensive to put on and there is a large logistical train involved, but the BBC can do it because it already has the rich stream of licencing revenue. If Sky, for example, were to pick it up, would they have the same income to set against the production expenses without the Top Gear brand?

I think that, if Top Gear is very expensive for BBC to put on, it is more to do with BBC and not the format of the show, which is pretty inexpensive on the face of it.  It involves travel and paying "star salaries" but not sets, costumes, special effects, dialogue writing, and the other things that make for an expensive TV show.  I don't think that a new network, especially one already used to practicing fiscal self-discipline in making shows, would have any trouble making the show for a reasonable cost.  I also think that it is the personalities and not the brands that make the show popular, so if you had those, you'd gain a substantial amount of the current show's viewers and thus revenue.

All the stunts are probably quite expensive to put on, though. Plus they travel around a lot, and they need to drag a lot of equipment and crew when they do.

[DGuller]

If they remake Top Gear, I hope they'll reboot to where they were 5-10 years ago.  They took the reality show part from being one of many necessary components, to pretty much the sole ingredient.

[Norgy]

Car shows aren't fun. There's a limit to how entertained I am by someone racing a car I never can afford around a track.

You need the reality show part. It's where Top Gear shone. Mini Morris down a ski jump? Sure.

The unfortunate part is that it's usually in those settings Clarkson is a buffoon. What was it, slope?
And that was not the first or last time.

I like Clarkson, because he offers strong opinion. Most of which I vehemently disagree with. Taking him off screen will just make him a marthyr for the junk right.

[Admiral Yi]

I got a hoot out of the segment where he kept tipping over in the three wheeler.

[grumbler]

All the stunts are probably quite expensive to put on, though. Plus they travel around a lot, and they need to drag a lot of equipment and crew when they do.

I can't think of an expensive stunt I've seen on the show.  The stunts are funny and often very original, but used cars (and caravans) are dirt cheap.  Travel and salaries are about it for costs.

[grumbler]

I like Clarkson, because he offers strong opinion. Most of which I vehemently disagree with. Taking him off screen will just make him a marthyr for the junk right.

Taking him off the air also makes it possible to afford your insurance.  Allow a known criminal (yes, assault is criminal, even i charges are not pursued) to escape sacking after he attcks one of your own employees, and you've lost any claim for compensation the next time he loses control and really hurts someone.  Sacking him was, i think, unavoidable.

I agree that it is contrary nature that makes him so appealing as a presenter.  You're never quite sure what he will say, ad he is brilliant (mostly) with his little ad libs.  I never felt that they were ever truly mean-spirited.

[DGuller]

Car shows aren't fun. There's a limit to how entertained I am by someone racing a car I never can afford around a track.

I agree about cars you can never afford.  That to me is problem #2 with that show.  All those super-duper-cars with carbon fiber everything that are made in batches of 10 are utterly boring.  They don't become any less boring if you burn down a set of tires doing stupid stunts on the test track.  It's a lot more interesting when they focus on cars like Golf GTI, which are both fun and affordable to most.

[celedhring]

I like Clarkson, because he offers strong opinion. Most of which I vehemently disagree with. Taking him off screen will just make him a marthyr for the junk right.

Taking him off the air also makes it possible to afford your insurance.  Allow a known criminal (yes, assault is criminal, even i charges are not pursued) to escape sacking after he attcks one of your own employees, and you've lost any claim for compensation the next time he loses control and really hurts someone.  Sacking him was, i think, unavoidable.

I agree that it is contrary nature that makes him so appealing as a presenter.  You're never quite sure what he will say, ad he is brilliant (mostly) with his little ad libs.  I never felt that they were ever truly mean-spirited.

Yeah, I just can't see how this can be possibly construed as him being sacked for the sake of PC-ness. He attacked a fellow coworker, he couldn't have possibly kept his job after that without generating a vicious working environment and lots of trouble for the BBC if there ever was another incident.

[DontSayBanana]

All the stunts are probably quite expensive to put on, though. Plus they travel around a lot, and they need to drag a lot of equipment and crew when they do.

I can't think of an expensive stunt I've seen on the show.  The stunts are funny and often very original, but used cars (and caravans) are dirt cheap.  Travel and salaries are about it for costs.

Travel, salaries, insurance (I don't know any exact figures, but I'd assume insuring those stunts is going to cost a pretty penny); also, quite a few of those stunts have involved "collector" cars that were probably more expensive to obtain than a typical street beater.

The Robin Reliant stunt, for example, while hilarious, probably cost a pretty hefty amount to insure due to the age of the car and its known reliability problems.

Not to mention location filming often involves more than just plane tickets; municipalities and states generally tack on conditions to the filming- one of the ways they used to cut down on expenses was to claim credit for Top Gear being "educational," which at least one jurisdiction later watched the show and revoked their "educational" filming status, making it more expensive to do the same kinds of location shooting (I want to say this was Australia, but it's been a couple years now, so I don't remember 100%).