What an incredible load of horseshit.
Clarkson gets drunk and punches a guy he has worked closely with for ten years and your response is a shit load of victim blaming. Even Jeremy Clarkson knows that he was the one who fucked up, why not try taking his lead.
Ah, I see your mistake. It was his job to arrange a hot meal at the end of filming and communicate to Clarkson the time frame in which he could take advantage of it. That time frame is limited, because although ‘BBC producer’ is a prestigious position which dazzles and influences the peasantry, it doesn’t actually carry sufficient weight to ride roughshod over labour laws designed to protect employees (including Clarkson, who might easily have found himself on the receiving end of a punch from some other egocentric arse), nor sufficient power to enable the producer to swan into someone else’s kitchen and whip up a steak himself.
<insert “you’ve been called on your wilful misinterpretation of events” meme here>
Are you in a position to not offer him a job? Luckily, most of the people who could offer him a job, including his current employers who continue to support him in his current job, have more realistic and reasonable standards than you.
Also, this.
For the record do you know what the “A” in AFTRA stands for?
The article said that Clarkson and the others sat in a pub from 8-10pm. So why didn’t they just eat in the pub?
Do you have any evidence that it was the producer’s job to have meals available whenever the stars want it? Because it sounds like a hot meal was available and Clarkson chose not to take advantage of it. Unless the job description is babysitter I’m having a hard time blaming the producer for any of this.
Clarkson caused the problem, there’s no need to push the blame on his victim. Whether the BBC’s response was appropriate is another story (I think it was) but unless I see something that says that the producer’s job is to keep the star happy at all costs I can’t see this as his problem.
OK – I’ll give you a little on the first but I’ll defend the second to my last breath. Both Captain Slow and the Hamster have tried to introduce the Stig and they both totally sucked at it. 
As for the first, think Stooges with no Moe or trying to replace Moe. It was tough enough with the whole Curly/Shemp thing but at least Shemp had been there from the beginning. Move on to Joe Besser and then Joe DeRita? Top Gear without Clarkson isn’t going to be nearly that good. There just isn’t anyone else around, a spare part for the tripod, and its going to show.
yep, American. The British Actors Guild is Equity,
FWIW I’m still a member of IATSE. I had to join because I work with a lighting crew at several regional theatres in my area. Mostly music concerts and a few plays.
The concept is simple. The writing is good but really not exceptional. The success of the show is the interaction of the three hosts. I guess it is possible that they will be able to find hosts that compliment each other just as well but I doubt it. There were episodes without Clarkson. They weren’t very good.
<stuff that will only make sense to brits>
It reminds me a little of when Angus Deayton got fired; lots of people said Have I Got News for You couldn’t go on without him, because the dynamic between him, Hislop and Merton made the show.
Instead the show improved a lot IMO, and is still going strong 13 years later.
I actually quite like Daeyton, but the show had become tired, and having guest presenters on revitalized it (it’s still heavily scripted, but different presenters have different levels of adhering to the script…)
Obviously you can’t compare the scale of the two shows. But I do think TG is another show milking a very static format for too long, and though losing clarkson is a huge blow, it could be more than made up for by tweaking the format.
On the other hand, my very favourite Stig into was:
[QUOTE=Richard Hammond]
“Some say that one of his legs gets longer when he sees a pretty lady, and that I haven’t done one of these for some time and I’ve forgotten to make up a second thing. All we know is he’s called the Stig.”
[/QUOTE]
Just a random point.
No doubt JC can be an asshole. But IS he one? There is a difference.
The BBC’s total income for the year 2013/4 was £5,066m.
Top Gear pulls in an estimated £42m per year.
I’m sure they’d rather have not lost that income, but I don’t think anyone at Broadcasting House is going to be shitting themselves.
As much as I enjoyed some of the elements of the show (even as a life-long non-driver, I enjoyed the dynamic of the three presenters), even Clarkson mostly sucked at introducing the Stig. His attempts at surreal humour (or, indeed, just humour) were often limp if not lame - he’s not Vic, nor is he even Bob.
One of the good points of the BBC is that they don’t have to worry about the bottom line.
I was thinking they could pull a HIGNFY on TG by getting their “star in a reasonably priced car” to also host the show. I know it’s not as “live” as HIGNFY but it’s doable. Can you imagine Angela Rippon or Ted Nugent or Vic & Bob each hosting a show, with May and Hammond in support each time? It’d certainly keep them on their toes.
I’m not comparing the actions at all.
I’m saying that after Saville the focus is on the BBC never to ignore things because of the fame or money making capabilities of a member of BBC staff.
Clarkson is actually scheduled to host HIGNFY sometime next month.
For me, the standard studio shows have become more and more a stop gap for the “specials”. They are the ones I like the most.
No reason at all why those three couldn’t do such “travelogue” style adventures elsewhere. There wouldn’t be the advertising issues with them slagging new cars and regardless of whatever else they may say, they are always gushing with praise for the countries they visit.
We just need a title…“cocking all over the world”? “Too many cocks”? “The Prof, the pikey and the prat”?..“monkey tennis”?
Isn’t that also a BBC show? I’d be surprised if they didn’t find another host.