Top Gear Series 21
Discussion
B.J.W said:
I wonder if the BBC has the same complaint issues when it screens Dam Busters?
No, they get even more complaints from people who know the historical accuracy of the film and detest seeing the dialogue clumsily edited by a media studies graduate so it sounds as though the dog is called "Digger"But never mind, all the self-righteous lefty PC idiots get to grin smugly and claim a moral victory whilst trampling all over the memory of the founding crews of 617 Sqn.
ETA: must type quicker.
Oh and now come the Clarkson N***** issue has taken two years to surface? No hidden agenda there then
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 2nd May 11:13
Crossflow Kid said:
B.J.W said:
I wonder if the BBC has the same complaint issues when it screens Dam Busters?
No, they get even more complaints from people who know the historical accuracy of the film and detest seeing the dialogue clumsily edited by a media studies graduate so it sounds as though the dog is called "Digger"But never mind, all the self-righteous lefty PC idiots get to grin smugly and claim a moral victory whilst trampling all over the memory of the founding crews of 617 Sqn.
Oh, but the dog's name was used as the call sign that the dams had been breached. Big f
king deal.Oh, but the dog died. Big f
king deal - 53 aircrew (out of 133) died.The original film is riddled with inaccuracies. Any remake will no doubt be the same, but we have to get the bloody dog's name right...
Halmyre said:
The original film is riddled with inaccuracies. Any remake will no doubt be the same, but we have to get the bloody dog's name right...
Point completely missed. That one of the factually accurate historical points is being altered to satisfy the political will of the future is pure George Orwell/1984.r11co said:
Halmyre said:
The original film is riddled with inaccuracies. Any remake will no doubt be the same, but we have to get the bloody dog's name right...
Point completely missed. That one of the factually accurate historical points is being altered to satisfy the political will of the future is pure George Orwell/1984.Inaccuracies due to limitations in filming, lack of original detail and so on is one thing.
Rewriting those details known to be correct for the sake of correctness is something else entirely.
Loving this.... (thanks to SniffPetrol for once again capturing the real mood)
Still think that the BBC have crapped in their own kennel pursuing Clarkson over this one. Either it was a sanctioned leak or the BBC are ignorantly going after the wrong guy - briefing against probably their biggest cash-cow instead of disciplining the footage-thief.
If there is any commercial fallout from this it will serve the Beeb right.
Still think that the BBC have crapped in their own kennel pursuing Clarkson over this one. Either it was a sanctioned leak or the BBC are ignorantly going after the wrong guy - briefing against probably their biggest cash-cow instead of disciplining the footage-thief.
If there is any commercial fallout from this it will serve the Beeb right.
Edited by r11co on Friday 2nd May 13:13
Crossflow Kid said:
Spot on.
Inaccuracies due to limitations in filming, lack of original detail and so on is one thing.
Rewriting those details known to be correct for the sake of correctness is something else entirely.
What about rewriting those details for the sake of the audience? That's why most films are historically innacurate after all.Inaccuracies due to limitations in filming, lack of original detail and so on is one thing.
Rewriting those details known to be correct for the sake of correctness is something else entirely.
If something doesn't fit the flow of the story or, even worse, distracts entirely from the story, they can't just carry on regardless. There's too much at stake to risk pissing off an unexpecting audience.
The problem with this example is they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, if you'll excuse the pun. If they use the real name of the dog they risk upsetting a far greater number of people than if they don't, and I would suggest that anyone putting a few £million into a film would rather upset the minority than the majority given the choice.
It's a bloody shame if this is the reason this film hasn't been made yet because it's a magnificent story crying out for a modern interpretation.
durbster said:
Crossflow Kid said:
Spot on.
Inaccuracies due to limitations in filming, lack of original detail and so on is one thing.
Rewriting those details known to be correct for the sake of correctness is something else entirely.
What about rewriting those details for the sake of the audience?Inaccuracies due to limitations in filming, lack of original detail and so on is one thing.
Rewriting those details known to be correct for the sake of correctness is something else entirely.
I know.....let's remake The Great Escape, and have The Fifty sent to a field and treated to a nice hog roast BBQ by Fritz instead of being shot. The audience would enjoy that far more, surely?
JonRB said:
Sounds like a typical Clarkson weasel 'apology'. First he denied completely use of the word. now that video evidence is out he says he deliberately mumbled it as he didn't want to actually say it out loud. Uh huh. Of course, he could just have substituted 'tigger'.Clarkson definitely has form with racist slurs - there was the whole 'slope' thing with Hammond which was broadcast on air. Then before that there was the 'lazy, stupid Mexican' stereotype slur routine he did, also with Hammond.
Lucas Ayde said:
JonRB said:
Sounds like a typical Clarkson weasel 'apology'. First he denied completely use of the word. now that video evidence is out he says he deliberately mumbled it as he didn't want to actually say it out loud. Uh huh. Of course, he could just have substituted 'tigger'.Clarkson definitely has form with racist slurs - there was the whole 'slope' thing with Hammond which was broadcast on air. Then before that there was the 'lazy, stupid Mexican' stereotype slur routine he did, also with Hammond.
durbster said:
Crossflow Kid said:
Spot on.
Inaccuracies due to limitations in filming, lack of original detail and so on is one thing.
Rewriting those details known to be correct for the sake of correctness is something else entirely.
What about rewriting those details for the sake of the audience? That's why most films are historically innacurate after all.Inaccuracies due to limitations in filming, lack of original detail and so on is one thing.
Rewriting those details known to be correct for the sake of correctness is something else entirely.
If something doesn't fit the flow of the story or, even worse, distracts entirely from the story, they can't just carry on regardless. There's too much at stake to risk pissing off an unexpecting audience.
The problem with this example is they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, if you'll excuse the pun. If they use the real name of the dog they risk upsetting a far greater number of people than if they don't, and I would suggest that anyone putting a few £million into a film would rather upset the minority than the majority given the choice.
It's a bloody shame if this is the reason this film hasn't been made yet because it's a magnificent story crying out for a modern interpretation.
Lucas Ayde said:
Sounds like a typical Clarkson weasel 'apology'. First he denied completely use of the word. now that video evidence is out he says he deliberately mumbled it as he didn't want to actually say it out loud. Uh huh. Of course, he could just have substituted 'tigger'.
Clarkson definitely has form with racist slurs - there was the whole 'slope' thing with Hammond which was broadcast on air. Then before that there was the 'lazy, stupid Mexican' stereotype slur routine he did, also with Hammond.
He still denies using the word. He is now saying that his mumble (which sounds like 'noonoo' to me) might have sounded like it which is why a different take was used in which he substituted 'teacher'.Clarkson definitely has form with racist slurs - there was the whole 'slope' thing with Hammond which was broadcast on air. Then before that there was the 'lazy, stupid Mexican' stereotype slur routine he did, also with Hammond.
The Mexican thing was Hammond rather than Clarkson.
If you are of a certain age then that particular rhyme went a certain way. I haven't used it since I was 7 or 8 but I imagine that, that word would be in your head as you mulled it over, thinking how odd it was. In those days as a kid it seemed perfectly normal with no connotations, as did many other things of their time.
It's all about context, if I was a gangsta rappa then it would be perfectly acceptable, if I as a white man use it , then it is offensive. But you would have to be awfully straight to not have a slightly childish giggle when you come across these words in certain places, such as that rhyme or the Dambusters. You could clearly imagine a bunch of blokes clowning around and it "coming" up and being funny. Doesn't mean they are racist or would use it in anyway.
How many times do you see old programs like Dads army, Steptoe and son, Alf Garnet etc and wince (but snigger) and realise what a long way we have come. In this instance that is probably what happened, it never got put in a program, someone found it and thought they would cause trouble. All needless and we should stop trying to see offence in everything, we have gone way to gar with this.
It's all about context, if I was a gangsta rappa then it would be perfectly acceptable, if I as a white man use it , then it is offensive. But you would have to be awfully straight to not have a slightly childish giggle when you come across these words in certain places, such as that rhyme or the Dambusters. You could clearly imagine a bunch of blokes clowning around and it "coming" up and being funny. Doesn't mean they are racist or would use it in anyway.
How many times do you see old programs like Dads army, Steptoe and son, Alf Garnet etc and wince (but snigger) and realise what a long way we have come. In this instance that is probably what happened, it never got put in a program, someone found it and thought they would cause trouble. All needless and we should stop trying to see offence in everything, we have gone way to gar with this.
Edited by supersport on Friday 2nd May 14:33
Crossflow Kid said:
It isn't for the sake of the audience though is it? It's for the sake of those who might be offended were they to learn of the so called "offence".
I know.....let's remake The Great Escape, and have The Fifty sent to a field and treated to a nice hog roast BBQ by Fritz instead of being shot. The audience would enjoy that far more, surely?
I disagree. The vast majority of moviegoers won't have had this discussion beforehand, won't know about the original name and therefore won't notice the change.I know.....let's remake The Great Escape, and have The Fifty sent to a field and treated to a nice hog roast BBQ by Fritz instead of being shot. The audience would enjoy that far more, surely?
So potentially 80-90% of the audience will be sitting in the cinema, enjoying the film and then suddenly be confronted with a word that's culturally unacceptable and bizarrely out of known context. That's going to be a distraction from the story at best.
yonex said:
Madness, yes, madness that a vastly wealthy and well known personality who fronts one of the corporations most profitable shows would be so utterly stupid as to put himself in this position.
I like Clarkson but he needs to clean up is act. It's just not funny any more. I don't know if anyone else saw it but Andi Peters seemed to mock the comment on breakfast TV, using the same rhyme. All it takes in this age of media is for something to start trending and the pressure will build.
Or how about:I like Clarkson but he needs to clean up is act. It's just not funny any more. I don't know if anyone else saw it but Andi Peters seemed to mock the comment on breakfast TV, using the same rhyme. All it takes in this age of media is for something to start trending and the pressure will build.
Clever, yes, very clever that a commerically astute and intelligent personality who is in partnership with the corporation to produce one of the most profitable shows via an iron clad contract requiring the two key creative minds to be locked in for the life of the programme finds that his creative juices have run dry and the programme is going off then boil and wants out but has no viable exit clause to allow termination on their part, then would be so utterly intelligent as to as to put himself in this position where the BBC have to sack him for non PCness, thus letting him off the hook in his fans eyes as it was then not his fault that their favourite programme ended?
Never underestimate how media savvy he is. Read the full transcript (here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15993558 of the "strikers should be shot" comments, he knew exactly what the One Show wanted in return for the publicity he wanted and he gave it to them, although as the last lines says "Alex Jones: Only Jeremy's views. Jeremy Clarkson: They're not. I've just given two views for you"
I suspect that as I suggested above, he knows exactly what he is doing.
Edited by Collectingbrass on Friday 2nd May 18:26
Collectingbrass said:
Or how about:
Clever, yes, very clever that a commerically astute and intelligent personality who is in partnership with the corporation to produce one of the most profitable shows via an iron clad contract requiring the two key creative minds to be locked in for the life of the programme finds that his creative juices have run dry and the programme is going off then boil and wants out but has no viable exit clause to allow termination on their part, then would be so utterly intelligent as to as to put himself in this position where the BBC have to sack him for non PCness, thus letting him off the hook in his fans eyes as it was then not his fault that their favourite programme ended?
Never underestimate how media savvy he is. Read the full transcript (here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15993558 of the "strikers should be shot" comments, he knew exactly what the One Show wanted in return for the publicity he wanted and he gave it to them, although as the last lines says "Alex Jones: Only Jeremy's views. Jeremy Clarkson: They're not. I've just given two views for you"
I suspect that as I suggested above, he knows exactly what he is doing.
The team is only contracted to the end of 2015 in any case. So it makes no sense for him to try to exit with only a year left.Clever, yes, very clever that a commerically astute and intelligent personality who is in partnership with the corporation to produce one of the most profitable shows via an iron clad contract requiring the two key creative minds to be locked in for the life of the programme finds that his creative juices have run dry and the programme is going off then boil and wants out but has no viable exit clause to allow termination on their part, then would be so utterly intelligent as to as to put himself in this position where the BBC have to sack him for non PCness, thus letting him off the hook in his fans eyes as it was then not his fault that their favourite programme ended?
Never underestimate how media savvy he is. Read the full transcript (here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15993558 of the "strikers should be shot" comments, he knew exactly what the One Show wanted in return for the publicity he wanted and he gave it to them, although as the last lines says "Alex Jones: Only Jeremy's views. Jeremy Clarkson: They're not. I've just given two views for you"
I suspect that as I suggested above, he knows exactly what he is doing.
Edited by Collectingbrass on Friday 2nd May 18:26
yonex said:
I like Clarkson but he needs to clean up is act. It's just not funny any more. I don't know if anyone else saw it but Andi Peters seemed to mock the comment on breakfast TV, using the same rhyme. All it takes in this age of media is for something to start trending and the pressure will build.
What did he say?Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff