Will Starmer Have To Replace Lammy?
News1 min ago
Why Are The Bbc So Obsessed With Top Gear?
33 Answers
Why are they spending so much money on one person. The BBC , rightly or wrongly sacked Clarkson and thus destroyed the show so why continue to through good money after bad (Tax payers money - the licence is a tax)
Why dont they let it go and invest in something else?
http://
Why dont they let it go and invest in something else?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Because TV producers stubbornly refuse to learn simple lessons, even when they are hammered home by the simple evidence of viewers stopping viewing.
In this case, the BBC has tunnel vision where Top Gear is concerned - Top Gear is a fantastically successful format which can and must live on after Clarkson and co have left it.
Here on Planet Earth, even someone like me who doesn't watch the programme can tell you that Top Gear was successful because of Clarkson and Co, not because it is a format with interchangeable presenters.
I can see that the BBC would love their scenario to be the reality, and they have a vested interest in pretending that it is, because otherwise they have to admit that their cash cow is dead.
But the reality is, this show is doomed, and as you say, they should let it go and move on.
They won't - but they should.
In this case, the BBC has tunnel vision where Top Gear is concerned - Top Gear is a fantastically successful format which can and must live on after Clarkson and co have left it.
Here on Planet Earth, even someone like me who doesn't watch the programme can tell you that Top Gear was successful because of Clarkson and Co, not because it is a format with interchangeable presenters.
I can see that the BBC would love their scenario to be the reality, and they have a vested interest in pretending that it is, because otherwise they have to admit that their cash cow is dead.
But the reality is, this show is doomed, and as you say, they should let it go and move on.
They won't - but they should.
The BBC is obsessed with it's pc agenda, they hated Clarkeson with a vengeance and delighted in his "sacking". Then they had an oops moment and have since tried to resurrect the dead parrot with our money. The have sacrificed one of our money making franchises on their altar of leftie luvvieness and now squander our money to try and justify their peevish behaviour.
Everhelpful - //Have a look at a programme on tonight called "Retreat",Nick Knowles being de-toxed on a Thai Island,what could possibly be interesting in that? //
That depends on whether the BBC's belief that Nick Knowles is an interesting and attractive personality, and masses of viewers will be interested in seeing him 'de-tox' is borne out in reality.
This has been the BBC's problem for a long time - they decide that 'A.N. Individual' is wonderful and the public can't get enough of them.
Sometimes this works - Terry Wogan, until even he got sick of himself and back-pedalled on his TV appearances.
More often it doesn't - Patrick Kielty, whom even the BBC had to admit was largely unlikeable, and despite its saturation of his appearances, the public refused to be force-fed and he had to be taken off.
This is the attitude that prevails - in tandem with the stubborn notion that 'formats' are what win viewers, when it is actually a combination of formats and presenters.
They are heading for another massive lesson when they try and replicate Bake-Off, which will fail for the reasons above.
If I know this free of charge, why are they using licence-payers' money to pay seven-figure salaries to people who can't seem to see what is going on?
That depends on whether the BBC's belief that Nick Knowles is an interesting and attractive personality, and masses of viewers will be interested in seeing him 'de-tox' is borne out in reality.
This has been the BBC's problem for a long time - they decide that 'A.N. Individual' is wonderful and the public can't get enough of them.
Sometimes this works - Terry Wogan, until even he got sick of himself and back-pedalled on his TV appearances.
More often it doesn't - Patrick Kielty, whom even the BBC had to admit was largely unlikeable, and despite its saturation of his appearances, the public refused to be force-fed and he had to be taken off.
This is the attitude that prevails - in tandem with the stubborn notion that 'formats' are what win viewers, when it is actually a combination of formats and presenters.
They are heading for another massive lesson when they try and replicate Bake-Off, which will fail for the reasons above.
If I know this free of charge, why are they using licence-payers' money to pay seven-figure salaries to people who can't seem to see what is going on?
jno - //Because the format is a proven success - with the right people. So they search for the right people. //
Then their search is always doomed to failure.
It's obvious to anyone what presenters and a format grow together and become a complete unit.
Take away the format - the presenters may adapt, and quite probably will.
Take away the presenters, and the format dies on its bottom.
It's really not difficult - lord knows there is enough evidence out there!
Then their search is always doomed to failure.
It's obvious to anyone what presenters and a format grow together and become a complete unit.
Take away the format - the presenters may adapt, and quite probably will.
Take away the presenters, and the format dies on its bottom.
It's really not difficult - lord knows there is enough evidence out there!
1. Top Gear is a net earner for the BBC, so they don't want to let go of a cash cow.
2. The wage bill for Le Blanc is far less than they were paying Clarkson/May/Hammond
3. Even if it is not AS successful as before, it will still make the BBC plenty of money.
4. There were many people who did not watch because of Clarkson - it can win a new audience.
2. The wage bill for Le Blanc is far less than they were paying Clarkson/May/Hammond
3. Even if it is not AS successful as before, it will still make the BBC plenty of money.
4. There were many people who did not watch because of Clarkson - it can win a new audience.
Well thats usually the case with any 'show' BBC or not. Change the presenters and it is highly unlikely you will ever keep the original figures.
Top Gear was getting tired anyway (and yes I generally liked it) so I just cant see why they dont let it go and do something entirely different.
But I guess you are right on ths one Andy
Top Gear was getting tired anyway (and yes I generally liked it) so I just cant see why they dont let it go and do something entirely different.
But I guess you are right on ths one Andy
YMB,
The figure often quoted is that Top Gear makes the BBC £50million.
https:/
So that is a very big reason NOT to kill it off.
The figure often quoted is that Top Gear makes the BBC £50million.
https:/
So that is a very big reason NOT to kill it off.
yeah, I think AH has it, TG with the original presenters was the format. The format alone demonstrably doesn't cut it. Managers of film and TV all suffer from the same delusion that something worked once must also work again when re made, hence endless remakes of classic movies that flop. The suits cannot see it and never will because they are the wrong people. if they want TG to work again they have to get Jezza and co back, end of.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.