• Top Gear producer Andy Wilman quits
    49 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32437814[/url] [quote]Top Gear executive producer Andy Wilman has quit the BBC show in the wake of Jeremy Clarkson's departure, the BBC has confirmed. Former presenter Clarkson was dropped from the show last month after he verbally and physically assaulted a producer. Wilman, who was an old school friend of Clarkson, helped reinvent the programme and oversaw its growth in to a globally successful programme.[/quote]
From what I know of the Clarkson situation if it wasn't for this guy then the whole thing wouldn't have gotten as out of hand. Shame he didn't quit before all that.
[QUOTE=aaro1450;47583236]From what I know of the Clarkson situation if it wasn't for this guy then the whole thing wouldn't have gotten as out of hand. Shame he didn't quit before all that.[/QUOTE] Clarkson would've snapped eventually. His mum died, he got divorced and then had a cancer scare. If it hadn't been a bad day's filming that pushed him over something else probably would have.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;47583297]Clarkson would've snapped eventually. His mum died, he got divorced and then had a cancer scare. If it hadn't been a bad day's filming that pushed him over something else probably would have.[/QUOTE] Yeah with all that I think BBC should have taken that into consideration more and given him some leeway. Maybe suspended him without pay at most.
Top Gear was like a thoroughbred horse in it's prime, and then all of the sudden the Stable decided it deserved to be glue than win the triple crown because it bit another horses ear. This is also one of the smallest articles I've ever read, it's literally 4 sentences.
Hopefully the rest of the crew will leave and they can make their own show. I miss Top Gear and the American version just isn't as funny.
[QUOTE=aaro1450;47583236]From what I know of the Clarkson situation if it wasn't for this guy then the whole thing wouldn't have gotten as out of hand. Shame he didn't quit before all that.[/QUOTE] Not true. Andy Wilman is like one of Clarkson's closest friends. This wasn't the producer involved in the fracas. Wilman and Clarkson were the creative forces behind the show. Now they'll just go make something else, [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11558337/Andy-Wilman-resigns-as-Top-Gear-team-reconvene-to-plot-next-move.html]together.[/url]
This whole saga keeps getting more depressing the longer it goes on, was hoping with him initially staying on he saw some glimmer of hope in it continuing and doing well. Looks like this + James May going have killed off any hope of it happening.
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;47583434]This whole saga keeps getting more depressing the longer it goes on, was hoping with him initially staying on he saw some glimmer of hope in it continuing and doing well. Looks like this + James May going have killed off any hope of it happening.[/QUOTE] To be honest, Wilman leaving is probably a good thing. It means he can contribute his efforts along with the three presenters into a new show. Having them split up between "new new" Top Gear and whatever the three end up doing would have produced a slightly better shitty show and a could-be-better great show. Honestly, the show could be about anything and those four would nail it.
[QUOTE=aaro1450;47583236]From what I know of the Clarkson situation if it wasn't for this guy then the whole thing wouldn't have gotten as out of hand. Shame he didn't quit before all that.[/QUOTE] Andy Wilman was basically the creative mind behind Top Gear as we knew it
My bad. I didn't follow the fracas that closely, and there were way too many news sites making things up.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;47583341]Top Gear was like a thoroughbred horse in it's prime, and then all of the sudden the Stable decided it deserved to be glue than win the triple crown because it bit another horses ear. This is also one of the smallest articles I've ever read, it's literally 4 sentences.[/QUOTE] No it's like if the horses heart suddenly failed. Nothing can really be done to keep it in the race after that, despite everything else being healthy. A transplant wouldn't work so it's best just to put it down.
[QUOTE=shozamar;47583662]No it's like if the horses heart suddenly failed. Nothing can really be done to keep it in the race after that, despite everything else being healthy. A transplant wouldn't work so it's best just to put it down.[/QUOTE] Do you not actually know what happened? Top Gear was an enormous success at the time, arguably more successful than ever. There was no reason it would have died on its own.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47583681]Do you not actually know what happened? Top Gear was an enormous success at the time, arguably more successful than ever. There was no reason it would have died on its own.[/QUOTE] Of course I know what happened. It had more than enough coverage. It died because Jeremy was a key part of it and he was justly sacked. There was no way the producers could've not sacked him and maintained any credibility or sense of fairness. The fact that his life was really shitty at the time explains his actions but doesn't really justify them.
This shows dead. game over
[QUOTE=shozamar;47583662]No it's like if the horses heart suddenly failed. Nothing can really be done to keep it in the race after that, despite everything else being healthy. A transplant wouldn't work so it's best just to put it down.[/QUOTE] No, it's more like a race car screaming along the back straight at 205 when it hits a deer running across the track.
[QUOTE=shozamar;47583746]Of course I know what happened. It had more than enough coverage. It died because Jeremy was a key part of it and he was justly sacked. There was no way the producers could've not sacked him and maintained any credibility or sense of fairness. The fact that his life was really shitty at the time explains his actions but doesn't justify them.[/QUOTE] Doesn't justify them but BBC went way too far with killing his contract.
Last month this was posted [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-32128321[/url] "Not quitting the show.." :V:
[QUOTE=redBadger;47583752]This shows dead. game over[/QUOTE] It'll come back on Netflix or Hulu or something.
[QUOTE=shozamar;47583746]Of course I know what happened. It had more than enough coverage. It died because Jeremy was a key part of it and he was justly sacked. There was no way the producers could've not sacked him and maintained any credibility or sense of fairness. The fact that his life was really shitty at the time explains his actions but doesn't really justify them.[/QUOTE] So I guess if you stab a horse in the heart, technically it suffers a heart attack. Gotcha.
[QUOTE=cNova;47583842]Last month this was posted [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-32128321[/url] "Not quitting the show.." :V:[/QUOTE] It's funny how people can change their minds.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47584007]So I guess if you stab a horse in the heart, technically it suffers a heart attack. Gotcha.[/QUOTE] Throwing a 40 minute tantrum and punching a producer because there's no hot food is basically just a fancy way of quitting. The heart stabbed itself.
[QUOTE=shozamar;47583746]Of course I know what happened. It had more than enough coverage. It died because Jeremy was a key part of it and he was justly sacked. There was no way the producers could've not sacked him and maintained any credibility or sense of fairness. The fact that his life was really shitty at the time explains his actions but doesn't really justify them.[/QUOTE] its a difference of culture, but if he did that in hollywood he'd have just been labled an ass and that would have been the end of it. CNN and Fox have had bigger blow ups and haven't fired the people behind them [editline]23rd April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=shozamar;47584767]Throwing a 40 minute tantrum and punching a producer because there's no hot food is basically just a fancy way of quitting. The heart stabbed itself.[/QUOTE] dude how do you not get, his wife was divorcing him, taking half his fortune (though she is entitled to it), he was told he may have cancer, and his mother died. and ontop of that he was the one who reported the incident he should have been put on a leave of absence, maybe left out for the rest of the season giving him time to sort himself together
[QUOTE=Sableye;47584798]its a difference of culture, but if he did that in hollywood he'd have just been labled an ass and that would have been the end of it. CNN and Fox have had bigger blow ups and haven't fired the people behind them [/QUOTE] Then they should have fired them IMO. Imagine if you were one of their co-workers and they were kept on after assaulting you simply because they're popular. People shouldn't be allowed to get away with aggressive, diva-ish behaviour just because they're valuable as entertainers. [QUOTE]dude how do you not get, his wife was divorcing him, taking half his fortune (though she is entitled to it), he was told he may have cancer, and his mother died. and ontop of that he was the one who reported the incident he should have been put on a leave of absence[/QUOTE] I understand all of that. It was a shit situation for him and as such I judge him a bit less for what he did. However, there was no way the BBC could have justified keeping him on after that. It's just not an acceptable way to behave in any workplace (and he knows it). He should have been put on a leave of absence if all he did was rant for 40 minutes. But he punched the guy- that's what really puts it on another level.
[QUOTE=shozamar;47584914]I understand all of that. It was a shit situation for him and as such I judge him a bit less for what he did. However, there was no way the BBC could have justified keeping him on after that. It's just not an acceptable way to behave in any workplace (and he knows it). He should have been put on a leave of absence if all he did was rant for 40 minutes. But he punched the guy- that's what really puts it on another level.[/QUOTE] Clearly you have never watched Top Gear. A 40-minute rant is nowhere near a reason to suspend him...
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47586927]Clearly you have never watched Top Gear. A 40-minute rant is nowhere near a reason to suspend him...[/QUOTE] just because he's Jeremy Clarkson and he's been having a bad few months doesn't excuse him from fucking up, bad.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47586927]Clearly you have never watched Top Gear. A 40-minute rant is nowhere near a reason to suspend him...[/QUOTE] No but belting his producer is.
There really wasn't another option the BBC had to deal with it. Outright sacking him, effectively banning him from the BBC, would have been too damaging - letting him off with a forced leave would have caused riots, because he would have got away with ABH. Now that Wilman has quit, May has said he won't return without Clarkson - the writing is on the wall for a new spin off. Hammond is almost guaranteed to be on board at this point, it's just a question of other contracts (no compete clauses?) and which network will take the plunge. Personally, I'm hoping for Netflix. With re-runs a month later on Dave.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;47589278]just because he's Jeremy Clarkson and he's been having a bad few months doesn't excuse him from fucking up, bad.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=markg06;47589287]No but belting his producer is.[/QUOTE] That's not the point: [QUOTE=shozamar;47584914]He should have been put on a leave of absence if all he did was rant for 40 minutes.[/QUOTE] This isn't a bank or a law firm where this wouldn't be acceptable, it's an absolutely enormous television production based largely around getting the presenters riled up and having them argue with each other. If he ranted for 40 minutes alone, that shouldn't be a reason to put him on a leave of absence. Such a statement signals to me that they clearly have never watched the show because if they had, it would be obvious that such activity is commonplace. I'm saying nothing about the assault.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47589585]That's not the point: This isn't a bank or a law firm where this wouldn't be acceptable, it's an absolutely enormous television production based largely around getting the presenters riled up and having them argue with each other. If he ranted for 40 minutes alone, that shouldn't be a reason to put him on a leave of absence. Such a statement signals to me that they clearly have never watched the show because if they had, it would be obvious that such activity is commonplace. I'm saying nothing about the assault.[/QUOTE] No, it's a [B]professional[/B] TV production for a multi-million pound public TV company. There's an expectation set in any workplace, not just a bank, that you shouldn't verbally or physically assault your co-workers. I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to argue from. Beyond that if we ignore everything he did wrong, he wouldn't have been fired.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.