Saelune said:
DudeistBelieve said:
Silvanus said:
DudeistBelieve said:
Silvanus said:
DudeistBelieve said:
BBC really shot themselves in the foot letting them go.
Out of interest, what would you have suggested? He physically attacked somebody. Surely famous people should be held to the same standard as the rest of us plebs.
Either suspend him again or cancel the show flat out.
Top Gear was Clarkson/May/Hammond. What they're calling Top Gear now is just a hollowed husk of a corpse they're keeping on life support out of spite.
Out of
spite? Nonsense. They're hoping to salvage a fraction of the viewer base, the same way hundreds of shows continue after their stars' departure. There's no reasonable way to conclude spite was involved.
If any normal employee in almost any profession physically attacked their coworkers, without provocation or reason, they would not merely be suspended. Celebrities must be held to the same standard as the rest of us. Don't make arbitrary exceptions because you enjoy the content he produces, which is what people are doing.
I'm not going to argue with you over if he should've been fired. I think it was an objectively poor business decision to lose Clarkson, especially when that meant losing May and Hammond as well. Thats not me cutting them slack because I like their work, that's just common sense. Amazon got a huge score in getting not just 1 but all of them. They may not have the Top Gear IP, but they do now essentially own it's very soul, and the fanbase will follow them.
And Top Gear's continued existence is out of spite. Look how they closed out the last episode with May and Hammond. No fanfare, no look, no thank you. It was a fuck you to them and to the audience, and then they think they can just put a new cast on there and call it Top Gear? No. Top Gear wasn't just a car show, it's 3 idiot middle aged guys acting like morons with each other occasionally talking about cars. They wanted to be moralists? Fine. BBC should have some respect for it's audience, Cancel the show then, not drag it's hollowed out husk on to the stage out of some sick vindictive need to prove you don't need Clarkson, Hammond and May.
You say they should care about the business side, not the moral side (atleast thats how you come off) but criticize them for trying to salvage the business side.
Seems to me they wanted to keep trying to make money while not supporting a bad guy. Thats something to be commended from a corporation.
Indeed, I do want to get away from the morality of it, because I can't defend Clarkson on that front. What he did was wrong, and he's actually done several wrong things I can't defend.
There is no morality, no question in my mind however that the BBC should of ended Top Gear when Hammond and May wanted to stand by their friend. And theres no question to me that BBC wanted the new Top Gear to be a success not just because of the money. Look at the send off Hammond and May got, go watch that last episode how they ended it. No Goodbyes, no send off, no fanfare, nothing. No even acknowledgement that they were leaving.
And why? May and Hammond weren't the "bad guys", they didn't hurt anyone, but BBC told them to fuck off just the same. Top Gear could of survived without clarkson but losing all 3 of them was a death blow.
ya know, if you're going to do something... do it right. Make a new car show with Chris Evans and Joey from friends, that way it could be it's own thing and not have to be compared to the original, but calling it Top Gear is insulting to the audience and shows how little BBC understands it's brands.
