Sue Perkins to present Top Gear?

kylith

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont think that combination is very common in men.

Hey, if you get to demand it of female presenters I get to demand it of males.

ohnonotgmail

kylith wrote: »

Hey, if you get to demand it of female presenters I get to demand it of males.

I think you are confusing me with Lt J.R. Bell madam.

kylith

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think you are confusing me with Lt J.R. Bell madam.

So I did, apologies.

Anyway, it's common enough in men. Neil Patrick Harris, for one.

'Scuse me, I need to take a personal moment... *fans self*

ohnonotgmail

kylith wrote: »

So I did, apologies.

Anyway, it's common enough in men. Neil Patrick Harris, for one.

'Scuse me, I need to take a personal moment... *fans self*

Oh he is just so super talented its ridiculous. there should be a law against it.

Pherekydes

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Its only 40 per cent.

If it's going to be a woman, they either better be funny and good looking or at least one men can relate too. This lady does neither

Only 40%? A fairly significant figure, don't you think.

And don't project your likes and dislikes onto all men. I can relate to her, mainly because of her intelligence.

Pherekydes

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont think that combination is very common in men.

Hey!

Tarzana2

Pherekydes wrote: »

Only 40%? A fairly significant figure, don't you think.

They don't think, that's the problem!

Bench Press

Top Gear is finished, no matter who they get to present it, its over. Jeremy Clarkson is TopGear.

Lt J.R. Bell

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what does her looks have to do with anything? is it not enough for her to be funny?

It can work, funny girls are relatable. But she ain't funny.

Seriously, how many Sky Sports dolls were picked because of their intellect or sports knowledge?

(Gabby Logan knows her stuff and is good looking,but she is a class of her own, Claire Balding is not good looking but, she knows her stuff and is respected(ish),another exception)

No, FHM girls are want we want, grrrrr

Nah, that show is definitely over

They tried the smart intelligent mode before Clarkson. It failed and still fails with Fifth gear

Lt J.R. Bell

Hey

Pherekydes wrote: »

Only 40%? A fairly significant figure, don't you think.

And don't project your likes and dislikes onto all men. I can relate to her, mainly because of her intelligence.

I speak for myself.you do likewise

But let's face it, what will the top three criteria points normally be for Tv producers in hiring women? Looks will be high on the agenda and you know It

ohnonotgmail

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It can work, funny girls are relatable. But she ain't funny.

...

Well you obviously dont think she is. but there are many that do.

Lt J.R. Bell

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well you obviously dont think she is. but there are many that do.

Who are these "many"?

This thread seems to be full of dissenters. You might not want to read other blogs and threads

If she was funny, she would have had little problem hosting other shows in her career other than (surprisingly popular) grannies bakery show.

ohnonotgmail

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Who are these "many"?

This thread seems to be full of dissenters. You might not want to read other blogs and threads

If she was funny, she would have had little problem hosting other shows in her career other than (surprisingly popular) grannies bakery show.

you dont like her. we get it. Her list of credits shows her to be continually busy. and that doesnt even count her radio work. Somebody must like her.

Tarzana2

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It can work, funny girls are relatable. But she ain't funny.

She isn't funny to you.

Tarzana2

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

If she was funny, she would have had little problem hosting other shows in her career other than (surprisingly popular) grannies bakery show.

She's had lots of shows down the years, many of them popular. She wouldn't keep getting work if they weren't.

How self-absorbed: "I don't like her so nobody else does, ddurrrrr"

Quazzie

Tarzana2 wrote: »

She isn't funny to you the vast majority of people.

FYP

Tarzana2

Quazzie wrote: »

FYP

Meh, like said, she's popular enough to keep getting lots of work so if that's what you want to think, go ahead, but it wouldn't seem to be the case.

wretcheddomain

AnonoBoy wrote: »

declaring that only fat ugly people eat seatbelts.

FYP

JerCotter7

Why did the OP mention her sexual preferences? What does that have to do with anything.

OT I don't think she would be suited to the job. But she could prove me wrong.

Tarzana2

JerCotter7 wrote: »

Why did the OP mention her sexual preferences? What does that have to do with anything.

OT I don't think she would be suited to the job. But she could prove me wrong.

I don't think she is either, but yeah, WTF do does her sexual orientation have to do with it? A lot, apparently. Her looks too seemingly, which are perfectly pleasant, IMO.

newmug

They should get Quentin, Mike brewer and Ed China. That would seem like a common sense progression to me.

kylith

newmug wrote: »

They should get Quentin, Mike brewer and Ed China. That would seem like a common sense progression to me.

I don't know Quentin, but Mike Brewer's painful to watch and while I would personally love to see Edd China and Fuzz Wossisname I don't think they'd be right for the format.

Tim Shaw, Sabine Schmidt, and Jodie Kidd.

ScumLord

Vicki Butler-Henderson, Tiff Needell and Chris Harris.

The_Captain

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It can work, funny girls are relatable. But she ain't funny.

Seriously, how many Sky Sports dolls were picked because of their intellect or sports knowledge?

(Gabby Logan knows her stuff and is good looking,but she is a class of her own, Claire Balding is not good looking but, she knows her stuff and is respected(ish),another exception)

No, FHM girls are want we want, grrrrr

Nah, that show is definitely over

They tried the smart intelligent mode before Clarkson. It failed and still fails with Fifth gear

Rachel Wyse got the job from her television work on TV3, her work with Leinster and the fact that she's a professional sportsperson
Kirsty Gallagher got the job from working behind the cameras at Sky for years before becoming a presenter.
Charlotte Jackson wrote football articles for years and worked at Setanta before going to Sky.
Claire Tomlinson worked in communications for Arsenal before working for Sky Sports
Natalie Sawyer worked behind the scenes in Sky, has a degree in media
Hayley McQueen had years of TV work under her belt before getting a job at Sky Sports.


Don't let facts stop you from being stupid though. The girls are attractive therefore they're thick and know nothing about their jobs :rolleyes:

Lt J.R. Bell

The_Captain wrote: »

Rachel Wyse got the job from her television work on TV3, her work with Leinster and the fact that she's a professional sportsperson
Kirsty Gallagher got the job from working behind the cameras at Sky for years before becoming a presenter.
Charlotte Jackson wrote football articles for years and worked at Setanta before going to Sky.
Claire Tomlinson worked in communications for Arsenal before working for Sky Sports
Natalie Sawyer worked behind the scenes in Sky, has a degree in media
Hayley McQueen had years of TV work under her belt before getting a job at Sky Sports.


Don't let facts stop you from being stupid though. The girls are attractive therefore they're thick and know nothing about their jobs :rolleyes:

Every one of those girls are eye candy!! All have appeared in lads magazines.

If they were pugg ugly they would be no where near a camera.

But yes, they are more than just pretty faces

wretcheddomain

Piers Morgan, Simon Cowell and Amanda Holden.

The_Captain

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Every one of those girls are eye candy!! All have appeared in lads magazines.

If they were pugg ugly they would be no where near a camera.

But yes, they are more than just pretty faces

There's no presenter on Sky Sports News without TV/presenting experience, a qualification in media/journalism or some sort of background in professional sports.

There's no 19 year old FHM girls on the channel, there never has been.
So yeah, the girls are actually picked for their intellect and sports knowledge, bizarre as that may seem.

FloatingVoter

The drunk pair from Gogglebox should present. Combining casual racism with drunk driving the show would only last a few weeks before the PC brigade shut it down. But it would be literally car crash TV at its best.

Lt J.R. Bell

The_Captain wrote: »

There's no presenter on Sky Sports News without TV/presenting experience, a qualification in media/journalism or some sort of background in professional sports.

There's no 19 year old FHM girls on the channel, there never has been.
So yeah, the girls are actually picked for their intellect and sports knowledge, bizarre as that may seem.

No one is disputing their experience or qualification. If you can't make an argument without putting words into the mouths of others, don't bother . I named a number of women who were exceptions to what I said and acknowledged their expertise , but none of them work with Sky

If they were pugg ugly, they would not be in front of a camera .That is all that was said

I made no comment about being air heads or not. Their qualifications etc would mean jack ****e if they were mingers , for a career in front of the camera

Each one of the girls that you mentioned appeared on magazines like FHM (many after starting their presenting careers)

No, they are put in front of the camera because of their looks. They could easily have gotten jobs behind the camera based on their intellect etc

Name one of those presenters who would be considered ordinary looking or pugg ugly

kylith

What exactly is your point though? That their attractive? That they got their jobs because their attractive? Are you alleging that more qualified but less attractive women were overlooked? Do you believe that it is a shame that less attractive women wouldn't have gotten those jobs even if they were more qualified? That you wouldn't watch a show simply because it was hosted by a woman you found unattractive? That men shouldn't be so shallow as to only want a female presenter if she's attractive? That Sky shouldn't assume that men will only watch a show with a female presenter if she's attractive? That the same standards should apply to male presenters?

What's your point?

smoking_kills

kylith wrote: »

What exactly is your point though? That their attractive? That they got their jobs because their attractive? Are you alleging that more qualified but less attractive women were overlooked? Do you believe that it is a shame that less attractive women wouldn't have gotten those jobs even if they were more qualified? That you wouldn't watch a show simply because it was hosted by a woman you found unattractive? That men shouldn't be so shallow as to only want a female presenter if she's attractive? That Sky shouldn't assume that men will only watch a show with a female presenter if she's attractive? That the same standards should apply to male presenters?

What's your point?

I somehow doubt Sky is assuming that!

kylith

smoking_kills wrote: »

I somehow doubt Sky is assuming that!

Really? Something cynical in me says that they would. When Angela Merkle was elected the internet lit up with guys saying that they wouldn't ride her into battle, implying that her looks are more important than her qualifications. We see it on this thread too - calling Sue Perkins 'manly' like it somehow disqualifies her from knowing about cars. We all know that for any woman in the media, particularly in a male-dominated section, attractiveness is a factor in it. Jo Brand could make a hobby out of single handedly rebuilding vintage Bentlys but if she was tipped to present Top Gear all a lot of people would care about is that she's fat.

Sky shouldn't assume that, certainly, but whether or not their target demographic is unlikely to watch because the host is a plain woman will definitely influence them.

ScumLord

I don't think a dolly bird would work in top gear. It's a show about banter so whoever would fill the role would need to be able to chat, and as we've seen up to now, looks just aren't important with this show.

smoking_kills

kylith wrote: »

Really? Something cynical in me says that they would. When Angela Merkle was elected the internet lit up with guys saying that they wouldn't ride her into battle, implying that her looks are more important than her qualifications. We see it on this thread too - calling Sue Perkins 'manly' like it somehow disqualifies her from knowing about cars. We all know that for any woman in the media, particularly in a male-dominated section, attractiveness is a factor in it. Jo Brand could make a hobby out of single handedly rebuilding vintage Bentlys but if she was tipped to present Top Gear all a lot of people would care about is that she's fat.

Sky shouldn't assume that, certainly, but whether or not their target demographic is unlikely to watch because the host is a plain woman will definitely influence them.

Not sure what that rant was about, but I was pointing out that any TV channel will know exactly who's watching their shows and what they want to see. TV is a reflection of the audience. So Sky is assuming nothing.

If SSN viewers like smart attractive women, guess who will be presenting the show!

kylith

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think a dolly bird would work in top gear. It's a show about banter so whoever would fill the role would need to be able to chat, and as we've seen up to now, looks just aren't important with this show.

I agree that a dolly bird wouldn't work because whoever it was would need to know a bit about cars, but between someone 95% qualified and good looking or 100% qualified and unattractive who do you think would win? And do you think it'd be the same for male presenters even though almost half the audience is female?

kylith

smoking_kills wrote: »

Not sure what that rant was about, but I was pointing out that any TV channel will know exactly who's watching their shows and what they want to see. TV is a reflection of the audience. So Sky is assuming nothing.

If SSN viewers like smart attractive women, guess who will be presenting the show!

I misunderstood. When you said "I doubt Sky is assuming that", along with what you had bolded, it seemed to mean that you were saying that you doubt Sky assumes that men will only watch a show presented by an attractive woman when it seems that what you actually meant was more "I doubt that's an assumption".

smoking_kills

kylith wrote: »

I misunderstood. When you said "I doubt Sky is assuming that", along with what you had bolded, it seemed to mean that you were saying that you doubt Sky assumes that men will only watch a show presented by an attractive woman when it seems that what you actually meant was more "I doubt that's an assumption".

Ah ok.

Just Be Yourself

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Every one of those girls are eye candy!! All have appeared in lads magazines.

If they were pugg ugly they would be no where near a camera.

But yes, they are more than just pretty faces

Harsh truth right there. Maybe those girls all have masters or whatever, but what about the plain Janes they were in college with? Where are they now? Probably working for the local paper. Let's face it, looks are the most important thing in the world, for men and women. If you win the genetic lottery life will be easier for you, fact!

ScumLord

kylith wrote: »

I agree that a dolly bird wouldn't work because whoever it was would need to know a bit about cars, but between someone 95% qualified and good looking or 100% qualified and unattractive who do you think would win? And do you think it'd be the same for male presenters even though almost half the audience is female?

For any other show I'd agree with you. But Top Gear is already established as a show that doesn't use the bland off the shelf presenters so common in the UK. I think it would be much more acceptable to the general public to see a personality in the role over someone good looking. It's in the realms of a comedy show and people don't expect funny people to be good looking, there is a tolerance for ugly mugs in comedy at least..

Just Be Yourself

Apparently Sue Perkins has had to leave twitter because of death threats. The fans have spoken!

DeclanRe

Sky will just pick up the three lads on a similar show and that will be the end of Top Gear as we know it on the BBC

Lt J.R. Bell

kylith wrote: »

What exactly is your point though? That their attractive? That they got their jobs because their attractive? Are you alleging that more qualified but less attractive women were overlooked? Do you believe that it is a shame that less attractive women wouldn't have gotten those jobs even if they were more qualified? That you wouldn't watch a show simply because it was hosted by a woman you found unattractive? That men shouldn't be so shallow as to only want a female presenter if she's attractive? That Sky shouldn't assume that men will only watch a show with a female presenter if she's attractive? That the same standards should apply to male presenters?

What's your point?

The question started with, why does looks matter.?

I replied that female presenters, no matter how talented they are would not get anywhere near in front of the camera if they were pugg ugly. Behind the camera sure. Not in front. SKY sports was an example.

Those who disputed that, were asked to name 3 unattractive female presenters (and not necessarily the conventional type of attractiveness) on our tvs at this time.

I specifically referred to being in front of the camera and not other areas of tv such as producing and research. But despite putting the specific qualification down, you go waffling about "jobs" which clearly include all fields in the tv industry

Would I think it's a shame? No I want eye candy,sure all they have to do is read off the teleprompter or cards (more to it than that of course) but hey its Sky Sports, not like one will get an in depth analysis anyway

Are you still denying that Sky don't go for looks? Don't blame me, I am just pointing it out.

No, the standards do not apply to male presenters and you know that.Plenty of grey haired middle aged men still getting work in front of the camera. How many women are? Sky does the mature man and the pretty young thing (who happens to have a brain) and a great pair of....

Lt J.R. Bell

Just Be Yourself wrote: »

Apparently Sue Perkins has had to leave twitter because of death threats. The fans have spoken!

Wow not cool.

I thought only Michael Jackson fans do that

Lets hope this does bring about the end of the pale, stale and male show.

Just Be Yourself

Deleted User wrote: »

Lets hope this does bring about the end of the pale, stale and male show.

What's more likely is the BBC will realise their cash cow needs Clarkson to survive and they'll beg him to come back.

Ash.J.Williams

Just Be Yourself wrote: »

What's more likely is the BBC will realise their cash cow needs Clarkson to survive and they'll beg him to come back.

that's a very sad situation

Lt J.R. Bell

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

that's a very sad situation

Not at all power and influence is glorious. You can't keep him down, no matter what. Go on Clarkson

Anything to annoy the sensitive souls and Pc brigade

Maguined

Deleted User wrote: »

Lets hope this does bring about the end of the pale, stale and male show.

Because nothing would be more original on tv than an overly tanned woman?

FouxDaFaFa

FFS, some people have really conducted themselves well over this. Tweet.
Tweet.

nelly17

Just Be Yourself wrote: »

What's more likely is the BBC will realise their cash cow needs Clarkson to survive and they'll beg him to come back.

I doubt it

This is from the BBC website

Income


Total licence fee income collected increased by £16million from £3,706million to £3,722million as a result of modest household growth.

Licence fee income is adjusted for the costs of the Digital Switchover (DSO) initiative to give net licence fee income. In the year, net licence fee income increased by £70million to £3,726million. 2012/13 was the final year of DSO, although there was some limited ongoing activity this year where none was originally scheduled. Savings against DSO funding are paid over to the Government, and deducted from our income. In 2012/13 the savings amounted to £50million with a £4million carry over of cost into 2013/14.