EPT![[image loading]](http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--nJzvXDn0--/peb9wgrgyacf34swwoan.jpg)
[TV] Top Gear - Page 48
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Check out their new show - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/entertainment/508970-tv-the-grand-tour | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
| ||
GTR
51476 Posts
| ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42906 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8111 Posts
On March 26 2015 10:29 KwarK wrote: Sucks but honestly the BBC's hands were tied, no matter how popular he was. Thats not true. Moviestars and tv hosts snap all the time, it comes with the pressure of the job, and they don't get fired over it. It doesn't mean they're bad people, proven by the fact that Clarkson himself was the one who reported the punching to the bbc. With the amount of support behind clarkson, only a very minor few would have been angry if they signed him a new contract. They could even have used the opportunity to get better terms. Instead they shut down the most popular factual show on earth mid season, when they could have reprimanded him in so many other ways. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On March 27 2015 06:45 Excludos wrote: Thats not true. Moviestars and tv hosts snap all the time, it comes with the pressure of the job, and they don't get fired over it. It doesn't mean they're bad people, proven by the fact that Clarkson himself was the one who reported the punching to the bbc. With the amount of support behind clarkson, only a very minor few would have been angry if they signed him a new contract. They could even have used the opportunity to get better terms. Instead they shut down the most popular factual show on earth mid season, when they could have reprimanded him in so many other ways. The BBC is a publicly funded entity though, which would mean it is likely subject to more strict regulations with regards to stuff like this. All the more so when you consider that this definitely isn't Clarkson's first run in with controversy. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8111 Posts
On March 27 2015 06:58 ThomasjServo wrote: The BBC is a publicly funded entity though, which would mean it is likely subject to more strict regulations with regards to stuff like this. All the more so when you consider that this definitely isn't Clarkson's first run in with controversy. The funny thing about this is that it might actually be a good thing if all 3 went on to make a another new show on a non-government funded channel. Only time will tell if they can keep the magic though. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On March 27 2015 07:00 Excludos wrote: The funny thing about this is that it might actually be a good thing if all 3 went on to make a another new show on a non-government funded channel. Only time will tell if they can keep the magic though. I think that the tricksy bit will be any non competition clauses that may be present in their contracts or potential intellectual property issues that would come up with the three starting a new program. I am keeping my fingers crossed though, I just hope we get to see what is left of what they shot for this series though I am not holding my breath. | ||
|
malcram
2752 Posts
hahahahha JM's Unemployment Tube | ||
|
Aristodemus
England1993 Posts
On March 27 2015 07:00 Excludos wrote: The funny thing about this is that it might actually be a good thing if all 3 went on to make a another new show on a non-government funded channel. Only time will tell if they can keep the magic though. The BBC isn't government funded. Anyone with a TV is required to obtain a TV licence, and all this money is used to fund them. It is around £150 pa, so they are well funded when you consider how many people in the UK have a TV. | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On March 29 2015 06:09 Aristodemus wrote: The BBC isn't government funded. Anyone with a TV is required to obtain a TV licence, and all this money is used to fund them. It is around £150 pa, so they are well funded when you consider how many people in the UK have a TV. They are only required to have a licence if they intend to watch live television on said TV otherwise you don't need one which is why my house of 3 TVs doesn't need a licence so the amount of people is not as big as people believe it is. | ||
|
Aristodemus
England1993 Posts
| ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On March 29 2015 06:42 Aristodemus wrote: Virtually every household has or should have a TV licence. With the rise of netflix / catch up sites like Iplayer its actually becoming more and more common for people to cancel their TV licenses. I agree most houses probably have one but that is generally because people don't know better when it comes to TV licence laws. | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On March 29 2015 07:01 Drazerk wrote: With the rise of netflix / catch up sites like Iplayer its actually becoming more and more common for people to cancel their TV licenses. I agree most houses probably have one but that is generally because people don't know better when it comes to TV licence laws. I'm sure those will eventually fall under some revision to the TV licensing laws. In the mean time, I continue being harassed by TV licensing (they've by now spent my license payment in sent letters, surely). As to the thread: not interested in Top Gear without Clarkson; not sure they had to *not* renew his contract, but obviously something had to be done. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
If you all didn't see it. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
Zvezda published an e-mailed response from Daniel Rix, who was identified as Clarkson's director. The e-mail said: “I can only imagine what an episode of Russian ["Top Gear"] would look like!” Um, I hope he didn't say that, because if you're Clarkson's director, you should be aware Top Gear Russia existed, although it failed due to low ratings. | ||
|
Kal_rA
United States2925 Posts
 | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
Andy Wilman has also left it seems. | ||
| ||
