NG
I suspect both Red Bee and the BBC did, but they may not have agreed with the decision, or the BBC commissioning team decided to allow it but may not been massively convinced of it's suitability.
They will then have taken the decision to treat it like any other programme anyway. To take the converse decision is to decide to treat it as something special or something due extra reverence. Given that the show was taken off-air because a member of staff was physically assaulted I'm not sure I agree with that tone.
The show was axed because Jeremy couldn't control his temper and thumped a producer, not because of some terrible tragedy...
To be honest the final Top Gear was probably only broadcast to avoid accusations of waste, as they had shot many of the pre-filmed sections already, and not through a wish to give the show a send off, particularly since Hammond and May have also walked from the project.
noggin
Founding member
They need to treat their programmes and commissions with a bit more respect. Didn't anybody at the Beeb or Red Bee ask themselves why Top Gear chose to have silent credits ?
I suspect both Red Bee and the BBC did, but they may not have agreed with the decision, or the BBC commissioning team decided to allow it but may not been massively convinced of it's suitability.
They will then have taken the decision to treat it like any other programme anyway. To take the converse decision is to decide to treat it as something special or something due extra reverence. Given that the show was taken off-air because a member of staff was physically assaulted I'm not sure I agree with that tone.
The show was axed because Jeremy couldn't control his temper and thumped a producer, not because of some terrible tragedy...
To be honest the final Top Gear was probably only broadcast to avoid accusations of waste, as they had shot many of the pre-filmed sections already, and not through a wish to give the show a send off, particularly since Hammond and May have also walked from the project.
DO
And they're completely right
No they're not.
Yes, they are. No programme or it's production team is as important as the broadcaster that commissions that programme. Without the broadcaster the programme wouldn't be made. And especially with something as big as Top Gear, the production team must never lose track that everything they do is as a representative of the broadcaster.
That's the problem though, the BBC
does
think it's bigger than the programmes it broadcasts.
And they're completely right
No they're not.
Yes, they are. No programme or it's production team is as important as the broadcaster that commissions that programme. Without the broadcaster the programme wouldn't be made. And especially with something as big as Top Gear, the production team must never lose track that everything they do is as a representative of the broadcaster.
NG
And they're completely right
Totally agree.
The BBC commissions shows, and as such HAS to be the senior partner with the greater authority in a commissioning relationship.
Otherwise you end up with producers thinking they are more important than the broadcaster who commissions and funds their work, and in the case of BBC represents the interests of the audience who pay for it.
The BBC as a whole is definitely bigger than the sum of its parts.
noggin
Founding member
That's the problem though, the BBC
does
think it's bigger than the programmes it broadcasts.
And they're completely right
Totally agree.
The BBC commissions shows, and as such HAS to be the senior partner with the greater authority in a commissioning relationship.
Otherwise you end up with producers thinking they are more important than the broadcaster who commissions and funds their work, and in the case of BBC represents the interests of the audience who pay for it.
The BBC as a whole is definitely bigger than the sum of its parts.
MA
The show did have a cobbled together feeling about it, and actually already, in the light of the last three months' events, it felt like a dinosaur giving its last gasp.
The silence may well have been an ironic piss take, in which case the announcer just wrecked a comedy moment.
However, rather like the Quartet incident a few weeks ago, the local radio style yacking over the credits, don't really match the image of the world's principal public broadcaster.
The silence may well have been an ironic piss take, in which case the announcer just wrecked a comedy moment.
However, rather like the Quartet incident a few weeks ago, the local radio style yacking over the credits, don't really match the image of the world's principal public broadcaster.
NG
However, rather like the Quartet incident a few weeks ago, the local radio style yacking over the credits, don't really match the image of the world's principal public broadcaster.
Disagree. The BBC has to move with the times and not be a dinosaur. ECPs (End Credit Promos) work and retain audiences. If you don't do them people surf during the credits. Ditching credits is the other option. There's a reason they are used pretty much everywhere internationally - even on PSBs in relatively conservative territories.
noggin
Founding member
However, rather like the Quartet incident a few weeks ago, the local radio style yacking over the credits, don't really match the image of the world's principal public broadcaster.
Disagree. The BBC has to move with the times and not be a dinosaur. ECPs (End Credit Promos) work and retain audiences. If you don't do them people surf during the credits. Ditching credits is the other option. There's a reason they are used pretty much everywhere internationally - even on PSBs in relatively conservative territories.
BL
I
And they're completely right
Totally agree.
The BBC commissions shows, and as such HAS to be the senior partner with the greater authority in a commissioning relationship.
Otherwise you end up with producers thinking they are more important than the broadcaster who commissions and funds their work, and in the case of BBC represents the interests of the audience who pay for it.
The BBC as a whole is definitely bigger than the sum of its parts.
I agree with you, and of course he who pays the piper calls the tune.
That's the problem though, the BBC
does
think it's bigger than the programmes it broadcasts.
And they're completely right
Totally agree.
The BBC commissions shows, and as such HAS to be the senior partner with the greater authority in a commissioning relationship.
Otherwise you end up with producers thinking they are more important than the broadcaster who commissions and funds their work, and in the case of BBC represents the interests of the audience who pay for it.
The BBC as a whole is definitely bigger than the sum of its parts.
I agree with you, and of course he who pays the piper calls the tune.
MA
Had this chain of events taken place with a programme on a commercial channel, I doubt that the final films would have seen the light of day. As noggin alludes to, I suspect that the two films were shown because they were paid for by the licence fee payer, and the BBC would not have wanted to sat on the footage that they had already funded. It is a very pragmatic decision - and I think that the BBC made a number of them during this saga (even though it seems to be the trendy view to think that the BBC acted poorly throughout it). Allowing Clarkson to come back in to provide voiceover work for the films (something that is such a natural part of the films, many would not realise that it was not done at the same time as the raw footage filmed) is different to him providing links in the studio - and thus the BBC made the best use of the footage they had. A similarly good decision was made with the live tour - the rebranding meant that it was clearly not endorsed by the BBC or by Top Gear any more, but those who paid tickets to see the show still got to see the show, and BBC Worldwide continued to make money from it.
I do wonder whether the low-key ending (e.g. no highlights reel) was owing to a BBC edict or if Andy Wilman et al decided '**** it, we're doing the bare minimum for this', hence the silent credits at the end.
I do wonder whether the low-key ending (e.g. no highlights reel) was owing to a BBC edict or if Andy Wilman et al decided '**** it, we're doing the bare minimum for this', hence the silent credits at the end.
MF
It seemed a sensible episode, my only complaint was the silent credits.
It did seem like the simple goodbye was a sad one (obviously without going too far, they could have done more than just goodbye), but the credits was too far in the sense the producers mourned "the end of a era", and looked like somebody had time (Clarkson) when they were actually fired.
What would have been better if they had just played the closing credits with the normal music, that would have been sensible.
It did seem like the simple goodbye was a sad one (obviously without going too far, they could have done more than just goodbye), but the credits was too far in the sense the producers mourned "the end of a era", and looked like somebody had time (Clarkson) when they were actually fired.
What would have been better if they had just played the closing credits with the normal music, that would have been sensible.
MA
However, rather like the Quartet incident a few weeks ago, the local radio style yacking over the credits, don't really match the image of the world's principal public broadcaster.
Disagree. The BBC has to move with the times and not be a dinosaur. ECPs (End Credit Promos) work and retain audiences. If you don't do them people surf during the credits. Ditching credits is the other option. There's a reason they are used pretty much everywhere internationally - even on PSBs in relatively conservative territories.
I take on board everything you say, however much of the BBC's output is distinctive, and unique, but
it's important (not least for the pea brained and knee jerk politicians that decide its fate) that
it has the look and feel of something that is distinctive and a cut above the commercial sector (Which it is !)
Image is everything these days (regrettably)
Making their output during the programme junctions and end credits, look like the junctions
on every other channel is not doing the programmes and therefore the BBC any credit.
However, rather like the Quartet incident a few weeks ago, the local radio style yacking over the credits, don't really match the image of the world's principal public broadcaster.
Disagree. The BBC has to move with the times and not be a dinosaur. ECPs (End Credit Promos) work and retain audiences. If you don't do them people surf during the credits. Ditching credits is the other option. There's a reason they are used pretty much everywhere internationally - even on PSBs in relatively conservative territories.
I take on board everything you say, however much of the BBC's output is distinctive, and unique, but
it's important (not least for the pea brained and knee jerk politicians that decide its fate) that
it has the look and feel of something that is distinctive and a cut above the commercial sector (Which it is !)
Image is everything these days (regrettably)
Making their output during the programme junctions and end credits, look like the junctions
on every other channel is not doing the programmes and therefore the BBC any credit.