Clarkson’s Farm

[romft123]

KTF said:

98elise said:

Agreed. The hovercraft skit was also way too Top Gear. It really doesn’t need it.

The 'accidental' dumping the grain (or whatever it was) over the side of the trailer was also added for comedy value. I guess they just sweep it up and put it back in the pile again to be loaded properly?

A lot is for comedy value and that goes str8 over the heads of some here

[98elise]

BikeBikeBIke said:

p1stonhead said:

Pretty sure it’s not scripted. Clarkson has said as much. There is no script editor or anything listed like there was for Top Gear.

Maybe not a written script but when there's a camera crew and a verbal plot point needs to be made they're clearly gonna think about what needs to be said and have two or three goes if they fluff it.

For instance, there is no way Clarkson happened to be in a tractor with a camera crew doing external shots at the exact moment the call about Gerald came through. That was staged (because it needed to be.)

I'm not grumbling, even my holiday photos aren't a genuine complete record of my holiday.

It's quite possible they were. The camera crew follow him around like most fly on the wall type programs. The tractors have gopros in them so not as if you need a film crew for that.

They literally film months of footage and end up with what amounts to half a days broadcast material. If not why bother following him around? You could just as well just shoot it scene by scene.

Obviously some bits are staged. For example Charlie turning up at the right time, like at the Dam. They decide to mess about doing something wrong, and give him a call to pop by and tell them off.

[Pincher]

DodgyGeezer said:

It did amuse me, however, that on the day when they had to ensure that the shop had only local produce there were still the Diddly Squat tee-shirts on display

I think I'm correct in saying that there was a sign (Post-It note) on the t-shirts that said something like "All merch online only".

[48k]

KTF said:

I still dont know why they make the local council out to be the 'baddies'

Because every pantomime needs a villain. "Bloke opens farm shop and does everything by the book" isn't half as entertaining.

KTF said:

Am still surprised that Charlie went along with the restaurant in the field plan given his background. The fact that they had to lay the water pipes during the night (staged for TV or otherwise) suggested they knew full well they were sailing close to the wind.

Absolutely. Clarkson even says he's in a grey area when he's doing it. There is antagonism on both sides. You only have to read the planning applications and look at some of the "debacles" that have been televised. The colour of the farm shop roof for one. Planning application says one thing, Clarkson does another, then the council are the baddies when they ask him to comply with what he said he was going to do and what is agreed in the plans. Then Clarkson applied to turn the lambing barn (that had - someone more cynical than I would say - been conveniently built attached to the shop but only used for one year before he gave up on sheep) in to a cafe. Council refused permission for the cafe. So Clarkson escalated in to a "grey area" as he termed it in series 2, and converted the lowland barn in to a popup restaurant. Laying pipework and a track at night time. So the council escalated back and issued an enforcement notice that went much wider than simply returning the lowland barn to how it was. It's tit for tat. It makes for great entertainment.

[KTF]

TV aspect aside, if the council said the roof should be covered in X and you cover it in Y, what do you gain other than a load of arse ache and end up pissing off the people you need on your side when you want to make further 'improvements'.

Like the selling of local produce aspect. Even after they had been told multiple times, they were still selling products outside of the defined range. Did they not think the council would check and use that against them?

Do they have that much time on their hands that they want to annoy the planners, spend money on appeals, etc. rather than getting on with other stuff?

Maybe they just have a legal team that deals with that sort of thing in the background... Just seems a lot of wasted time and effort to me.

But then it would not make good TV as you say...

[romft123]

KTF said:

TV aspect aside, if the council said the roof should be covered in X and you cover it in Y, what do you gain other than a load of arse ache and end up pissing off the people you need on your side when you want to make further 'improvements'.

Like the selling of local produce aspect. Even after they had been told multiple times, they were still selling products outside of the defined range. Did they not think the council would check and use that against them?

Do they have that much time on their hands that they want to annoy the planners, spend money on appeals, etc. rather than getting on with other stuff?

Maybe they just have a legal team that deals with that sort of thing in the background... Just seems a lot of wasted time and effort to me.

But then it would not make good TV as you say...

Your last line says it all. Its for TV. Not putting posts in a line....doing it in the rain, not at the same height, etc etc........all for TV.

[BikeBikeBIke]

romft123 said:

KTF said:

TV aspect aside, if the council said the roof should be covered in X and you cover it in Y, what do you gain other than a load of arse ache and end up pissing off the people you need on your side when you want to make further 'improvements'.

Like the selling of local produce aspect. Even after they had been told multiple times, they were still selling products outside of the defined range. Did they not think the council would check and use that against them?

Do they have that much time on their hands that they want to annoy the planners, spend money on appeals, etc. rather than getting on with other stuff?

Maybe they just have a legal team that deals with that sort of thing in the background... Just seems a lot of wasted time and effort to me.

But then it would not make good TV as you say...

Your last line says it all. Its for TV. Not putting posts in a line....doing it in the rain, not at the same height, etc etc........all for TV.

The livestock. Sending Kaleb to London. The Blackberries. The jam. It's all for TV.

...and all the better for it.

I am 99.9pc sure the Arson was real and unplanned. (Although, on reflection, I doubt there's any law against setting fire to your own hay, so....) Pretty sure the cut finger was real and unplanned too.

[a311]

Abbott said:

romft123 said:

what makes me laugh is that some on here think that all farming is like this.....

Without the comedy I would say more farming is closer to the agony and hardworking of this programme than the other usual "Ive made my millions in the city and have now bought a farm and everything is Alpaccas and prancing lambs"

I doubt it. It's clearly evident that Clarkson is a Millionaire so he doesn't need to turn a profit to support his family e.g. he made £140 was it in the first series after costs? Plus whatever costs Amazon picks up to make it good TV e.g. try sheep, cows, then pigs and different crops. I think it very much highlights the plight of farmers while there's not the same jepordy for him.

When he tried to form a co-op in series 2 it highlighted issues around TB in cows, issues farmers have with supermarkets setting the price for milk, meat, poultry and so called wonky veg (this is really in the consumer too) it costs the farmer the same amount to produce but is lucky if a supermarket will be 25% of that of normal veg.

[Dave Hedgehog]

KTF said:

98elise said:

Agreed. The hovercraft skit was also way too Top Gear. It really doesn’t need it.

The 'accidental' dumping the grain (or whatever it was) over the side of the trailer was also added for comedy value. I guess they just sweep it up and put it back in the pile again to be loaded properly?

agreed, far to much TG style fake crap, its very anoying

[BikeBikeBIke]

Dave Hedgehog said:

agreed, far to much TG style fake crap, its very anoying

Yeah, but the 8yos love it. That's the price of family viewing, it's has to appeal to a range and I reckon Clarkson's Farm gets the balance spot on.

[Chris Type R]

romft123 said:

Your last line says it all. Its for TV. Not putting posts in a line....doing it in the rain, not at the same height, etc etc........all for TV.

TBF, it was only a temporary enclosure.

[Abbott]

a311 said:

Abbott said:

romft123 said:

what makes me laugh is that some on here think that all farming is like this.....

Without the comedy I would say more farming is closer to the agony and hardworking of this programme than the other usual "Ive made my millions in the city and have now bought a farm and everything is Alpaccas and prancing lambs"

I doubt it. It's clearly evident that Clarkson is a Millionaire so he doesn't need to turn a profit to support his family e.g. he made £140 was it in the first series after costs? Plus whatever costs Amazon picks up to make it good TV e.g. try sheep, cows, then pigs and different crops. I think it very much highlights the plight of farmers while there's not the same jepordy for him.

When he tried to form a co-op in series 2 it highlighted issues around TB in cows, issues farmers have with supermarkets setting the price for milk, meat, poultry and so called wonky veg (this is really in the consumer too) it costs the farmer the same amount to produce but is lucky if a supermarket will be 25% of that of normal veg.

The point I was trying to make is that Clarkson does not make any secret out of the fact that he is loaded and if necessary he can just pop out and do another episode of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. Other programmes would have you believe that they are immersing in farming without any safety net

[C Lee Farquar]

Fermit said:

2 GKC said:

That was utterly insincere. If he wanted to keep Pepper he would have done. 5 minutes later he was talking about chopping pigs up. It’s entertaining viewing but is becoming increasingly contrived.

I'm not so sure. He's not renowned for welling up, I certainly couldn't do so on command. And yeah, it may be 5 minutes on TV, but the pig chat could be another day, week or month. What's he supposed to do, never speak about meat production again, because Pepper?

It seemed strange that he sold his suckler herd because he no longer had a restaurant, but then most beef farmers manage perfectly well without a restaurant, so why sell them? The only reason I can think was that he no longer needs them for the TV series, as with the first lot of sheep.

[gregs656]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Yeah, but the 8yos love it. That's the price of family viewing, it's has to appeal to a range and I reckon Clarkson's Farm gets the balance spot on.

I'm not sure. I think Clarkson tends towards doing more manufactured elements but is best when he resists that urge.

[Evanivitch]

C Lee Farquar said:

It seemed strange that he sold his suckler herd because he no longer had a restaurant, but then most beef farmers manage perfectly well without a restaurant, so why sell them? The only reason I can think was that he no longer needs them for the TV series, as with the first lot of sheep.

Exactly. And the chickens before. And I'm sure the pigs will be gone too as he settles just for arable farming.

The problem I have is the storyline's "learning curve" for each of these animal ventures ultimately results in their stress or harm. IMO, completely avoidable and unnecessary.

[C Lee Farquar]

On reflection both the sheep and cattle achieved planning for new barns...

[BikeBikeBIke]

C Lee Farquar said:

Fermit said:

2 GKC said:

That was utterly insincere. If he wanted to keep Pepper he would have done. 5 minutes later he was talking about chopping pigs up. It’s entertaining viewing but is becoming increasingly contrived.

I'm not so sure. He's not renowned for welling up, I certainly couldn't do so on command. And yeah, it may be 5 minutes on TV, but the pig chat could be another day, week or month. What's he supposed to do, never speak about meat production again, because Pepper?

It seemed strange that he sold his suckler herd because he no longer had a restaurant, but then most beef farmers manage perfectly well without a restaurant, so why sell them? The only reason I can think was that he no longer needs them for the TV series, as with the first lot of sheep.

Yeah, the livestock is all purely for the TV. The numbers don't stack up at all. But it's some of the most entertaining TV. Just suspend disbelief and enjoy.

I think the sadness at destroying the livestock is real, I've known farmers (and a butcher!) who are broken hearted every time so I'm sure Clarkson would have been gutted. But so what? The whole situation is contrived.

There was no need to destroy Pepper, Pepper was a pet she didn't need to pay her way. (Having said that we have no idea want really happened. Maybe the lorry stopped around the corner and she was taken off to a cow sanctuary.) But again, the show isn't a documentary. Clarkson's entirely allowed to pretend a cow is a pet in one series and then send it off in the next.

None of this really matters. At the moment it's not a farm, it's the vehicle for a family TV show, and its bloody brilliant. If it was a serious documentary on farming in the Cotswolds I'd be watching it alone. As it is it's an awesome family show and my daughter can cry at the slaughtered livestock and coo over the lambs and my son can laugh at Kaleb's trip to London and the Blackberry sub plot. It's got something for everyone.

[StevieBee]

2 GKC said:

KTF said:

It might not be scripted but I would suggest that some scenes are 'made for TV'.

It’s all made for TV.

Everything on TV is made for TV.

I'm not sure why anything with Clarkson in it get's singled-out for criticism on this.

[FiF]

A significant amount of the argument completely ignores that Jeremy, and by the way let's not forget Andy Wilman's hand in all this, has made a programme that is liked by the people who are actually involved in the activity on which the programme is mainly focused and who recognise and approve of the issues raised. Yet it's also liked by people who don't know diddley squat about farming but it gets them thinking about some of the issues and difficulties of getting food on the table.

A programme which is by far the most watched Amazon Prime show in the UK, by far. Yes a lot of it is contrived, Jeremy continues to play his persona and it's not typical of many / most farms. Harry's farm and his position isn't typical of many farms either but he's trying to do a similar thing but not contrived and very much low key.

In the same breath there is the BBC's major farming / country show, CountryFile which frankly is doing a disservice.

[ashleyman]

Just finished the first 4 episodes.

we cried like babies at the piglets