Dark Cloud over the Idyllic World of 'Top Gear'

As much as I like Guy Martin I don't think he'd be any good as a replacement Clarkson, or a host on the current format of TG. As a presenter of a general motoring show, maybe. This is a man who's preferred method of transport is an old van which he can sleep in the back of...
 
Punx0r said:
As much as I like Guy Martin I don't think he'd be any good as a replacement Clarkson, or a host on the current format of TG. As a presenter of a general motoring show, maybe. This is a man who's preferred method of transport is an old van which he can sleep in the back of...
Click to expand...

I'd completely build the programme around him if I were the BBC. They can tailor it to suit Martin. It needs to be reformatted anyway with the three muppets gone.
 
A significant change to the format and line up is a huge risk to a well established viewer base.
Martin is more of a bike guy than car, so wouldn't have the credibility with the TG fan club .
It would almost certainly see Hamster and Cptn Slow disappear also, which would seriously impact the fans.
The only thing that matters to the Beeb is audience viewer numbers, and their best shot of keeping that would have been to pay off the producer and keep Clarkson.....but that isn't an option now it seems, so next best....???
...maybe just keep rolling the same format with just the 2 old hands and bring on more "guest presenters" weekly until they find one that perks up the ratings.
 
Let's not get hysterical about about what the television show earns. Top Gear brings in an annual revenue out of £150 million. In real terms that just three per cent out of an annual revenue of £5 billion. That's peanuts in the grand scheme of things and the three amigos were probably taking a nice cut of that as well.

It honestly doesn't matter if they get rid of the programme or not. The viewers don't matter either as they will just plug the hole with something else.

They should start off a new programme with a new presenter and different format but if they scrap the series it won't make a difference. Television presenters are as interchangeable as underwear. Let's be realistic if people offering as little as Clarkson and May can make it anyone can. The most accurate portrayal of the average television presenter is Alan Partridge. That's the level of ability for the most part we are talking about here in TV land.

Guy Martin is a very rare breed. He basically ticks every box you could ask for. He is a highly talented racer - one of the best street circuit racers in the world, he is deeply knowledgeable about cars, bikes and lorries, he is natural on camera and people naturally warm to him. What's more he is likeable and he is very good looking.

If the BBC were to continue with Top Gear they would be fools not to give him some sort of role.

In short, Martin is the antithesis of what Top Gear has become - a series about priggish bluffers doing the same stupid things, over and over and over and over and over again.

Edit: Forgot to say that the guy is so charismatic that he was the de facto star of the film Closer To The Edge just by being himself.
 
Joseph C. said:
Let's not get hysterical about about what the television show earns. Top Gear brings in an annual revenue out of £150 million. In real terms that just three per cent out of an annual revenue of £5 billion. That's peanuts in the grand scheme of things and the three amigos were probably taking a nice cut of that as well.
Click to expand...

That's the profit. Nearly all the annual revenue is eaten up by the operating costs. Take one profitable revenue stream from a big company and profitability takes a big hit. Most of the revenue is from selling shows internationally. More than a quarter of that is 'TOP GEAR,' 'Dr. Who,' 'Dancing with the Stars,' plus some history and nature programming. I suspect 'Top Gear' and 'Dr. Who' outweigh the rest.

Whether or not the erstwhile host has any hope of finding his way back in will depend on whether the show continuous to do well without him. I don't see where the BBC seriously had to fire him. I think there's management that saw the OPPORTUNITY. But I don't think they'll take that to the point of allowing the show to founder.
 
No, revenue is the same as sales. It doesn't account for expenses. Top Gear's profit would be a few tens of millions. Being extremely generous you could say at most Top Gear gives a maximum of £50 million in profit to the BBC. In reality it is probably half that.

Here is a breakdown below of the BBC's financial statement in 2013 that goes into detail about Top Gear and Clarkson. As far as I can see he was eating a large portion of the profits.

Sales of shows such as Doctor Who and Top Gear grew with revenues rising 7% year on year to £312.3m and profits growing almost 10% to £79.3m.

The division that runs BBC Worldwide's 34 branded international channels saw revenues grow by 7% to £369m and profits rise by 13% to £47.8m.
Click to expand...
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/16/jeremy-clarkson-top-gear-bbc-worldwidebe

Remember that £79 million includes the sales of a lot more shows than just Top Gear.

It's the same with the cinema. Take a film like Interstellar for example. Wikipedia states that it had a budget of $165 million and it had sales of $672 million. In reality from memory it made a profit of about $47 million for the studio after all the expenses are paid. A nine per cent profit return.
 
A good sacking couldn't of happened to soon.
The guy was a pompous buffoon, one reason things never change for the better are idiots like him and the cults of cluless morons.
One story was he jetted out of Argentina in a hurry, leaving a crew to deal with the problem, he was part of, what a man.
What was worth watching was when Hammond & May, who are both handy would be making or fixing something and the idiot was left in a corner.
The show where they built an electric car, I heard that they installed the brushed motor, driving it in reverse, for forward, without changes, the two supposed hopeless motors, were picked up for a song by a very happy chappy, who passed on his findings.
 
You bring up feature films. More than half lose money. Remove the top 10% and the other 90% cannot make releasing break even. You have your few grand slam home runs making the whole operation profitable. Revenue has to cover costs first. You spend 10 and have sales/revenues of only 9, you're losing. 'Top Gear' and 'Dr. Who' have the revenues well over costs. Those are the profits for the BBC, keeping them on the air.

Meanwhile, it ain't Clarkson taking the heat for this. But then nobody watches BBC programs for the bosses to have jobs. Funny how the bosses kid themselves about that. If it is all over for Clarkson, he went out on top. He's recognized as the BBC's biggest star. The consensus is that people want him back. Nobody watches the BBC so the big shot executives can have jobs.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2015/03/29/BBC-boss-receives-death-threats-after-firing-Top-Gear-star/4661427635926/
 
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2015/03/29/ ... 427635926/
His fascist fanboi following are upset.
Just shows the types of thugs they are.
 
Top Gear, the BBC version, allowed many gear heads the opportunity to see the extreme high end sports cars put through their paces. Getting to watch a Bugatti, a McLaren, the Ferraris, Lambos, etc., which are beyond the pocket books of the average man go around the track at the hands of any of the presenters and the Stig is/was a unique experience not available elsewhere and one, I, will miss. Less the claims of only the most expensive cars were demonstrated don't forget the "star in the average priced car" or the challenges when the presenters had very limited budgets for purchasing their autos.
As to the personal life of the presenters, I really don't care. It's my decision to watch or not watch any show on TV when my personal philosophy disagrees with those of the cast. An large segment of an entire generation of people won't watch a show with Jane Fonda in it and being married to her did not help Ted Turners public perception. I'm sure a lot of liberals don't like the Tim Allen show "Last Man Standing".
Some of the newspaper articles I've read indicate James May and Richard Hammond will not continue the show without Clarkson, to me that's a shame as I will miss it but I do appreciate their loyalty. For one, they know the behind the scenes story.
The American version of Top Gear is substantially different and less about demonstrating the latest models of exotics and more about their version of the challenges. I like both.
Mike
 
Eskimo said:
I prefer Jay Leno. Much more interesting cars.
Click to expand...
Got a Baker electric in his collection and the guy can use a tool, rather than just being one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top