And the Stig is ....
(If you don't want to know then don't click on the link!)
So he's really The Stig? Big deal - Motoring - NZ Herald News
..and I'm glad he drives a Commodore
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?
America just kicked in yo
Yer he ran at sandown and bathurst last year i recall. Was watching with interest and was checking his blog ect. Its very likely he is the stig this rumor has been around a couple of years.
Make the stupid stop!
Supposedly Clarkson is furious he has revealed himself. Can't blame him though, the other 3 are making a fortune on their fame that up till now he couldn't.
Originally Posted by commodore1310
[QUOTE][One might conclude that the BBC's lawyerly missives are just another round of Top Gear marketing, designed to stoke up the "great debate" again.
/QUOTE]
...... & there in lies the truth.
No mention of stigs african cousin, or fatstig, the US cousin?
They are all wrong. I am the Stig! My T-shirt says so!
[QUOTE=coolngroovy;1633839]What about his truck driving cousin?[One might conclude that the BBC's lawyerly missives are just another round of Top Gear marketing, designed to stoke up the "great debate" again.
/QUOTE]
...... & there in lies the truth.
No mention of stigs african cousin, or fatstig, the US cousin?
They are all wrong. I am the Stig! My T-shirt says so!
I dont really care, its like unmasking Batman or someone like that, the whole mistique about not knowing who it is makes it fun.
Got Milk ???
What about girl stig??? He cant be her to??? Can he??? . Sum say..............
Donating Member
... the stig is lady gaga
kind of knew it was f1 driver, just hope they don't get rid of him, just because the world know who the stig is
Bam! and the dirt is gone
Get a new stig. I hate it how people ruin the fun, just because he's masked and the show makes it hard to figure out who it is, they make it their goal to find it out, i reckon it's bullshit.
its all a rating thing. how many people actually watch just to try & figure out who he(or whatever)is. dunno how though,ts not like you can say well it must be so & so because they take that corner a particular way or see how they down change gears only so & so does it that way.
personally i just watch it occasionally cause it has some good shite on it & some really funny/stupid shite as well
A pessimist is a man who thinks all woman are bad. An optimist is a man who hopes they are
Make the stupid stop!
From Jeremy Clarkson's Blog:
Doubtless you’ll have read that the BBC and the book publishing people, HarperCollins, are now in a big legal battle over HarperCollins’ wish to publish an autobiography of the person who wears the Stig suit to work. The BBC has responded with a polite statement, but I must say I feel the urge to add my ten penn’orth about how we see things down at the Top Gear office.
First off, I had to laugh when I read the bit of the HarperCollins statement where it says: “We are disappointed that the BBC has chosen to spend licence fee payers’ money to suppress this book…”. “Disappointed??!!” Give me strength.
“Disappointed” is the word viewers use when they think Top Gear has wasted licence payer money on something stupid or rubbish, and when viewers use it, they usually mean it from the heart. Big book publishing companies worth hundreds of millions do not sit in their boardrooms going: “We are so disappointed”. If I could apply my patented Reality Check (It’s like Spell Check but I haven’t quite invented it yet) to their statement, it should actually read: “We are deeply irritated that the BBC has chosen to spend licence fee payers’ money trying to protect something that belongs to them, as we were hoping to cash in on it in time for Christmas, even though in the eight years the Stig has existed, we’ve contributed absolutely bugger all to the character’s creation or development.”
The fact is, the “waste of licence payer’s money” argument gets trotted out many times as a way of attacking the BBC, but the reality is this: the BBC is a massive organisation. It’s naïve to think it can only ever spend money on cameras, tape for the cameras, Daleks or anything else that contributes directly to what ends up on screen. The BBC also has the right to spend money on protecting the intellectual property it created, because the truth is that all that stuff – the Stig, the Tardis, the Blue Peter dog – does belong to the licence payer, and not to some opportunists who think they can come along and take a slice when they feel like it.
As you can tell I’m quite cross at the moment, but there’s plenty to be cross about. Last week, instead of working on the next series, I had to go to court. If you go to court you have to look smart, which meant I had to dig my suit out of the back of the wardrobe, and the last time I wore that suit George Michael could still drive in a straight line. So on Monday there I was, dressed like somebody who works behind the till at NatWest, having to listen to people from HarperCollins telling me that they have the right to reveal who the Stig is. Well actually, that’s tosh. The whole point of the Stig is the mystique – the bizarre characteristics he has, the wonderment created about what he might think, feel, do or look like. Kids adore the conceit, and I believe adults, although they know it’s a man in a suit (or is it?), gladly buy into the whole conceit because they find it entertaining. Even the papers, who love to make mischief, have kept everyone guessing over the years because they acknowledge that viewers like the Stig secrecy thing.
Anyway, HarperCollins have decided none of that is as important as their profits, so if you get your Christmas ruined by one of the best and most harmless TV secrets being outed, you can rest easy in the knowledge that by contrast, HarperCollins’ executives will be enjoying a fantastic Christmas.
So why are we fighting in court? Well, obviously we want to protect the Stig’s anonymity for the reasons I’ve just outlined. Also, it’s an issue of trust. Everyone who’s ever worked on Top Gear has kept the Stig thing a secret, and the person who wears the suit has signed confidentiality agreements to do the same. So talk about what you like in your own life, but not the bit you agreed not to. Your word is supposed to mean something.
Some of you will say we’re also trying to protect a brand the BBC makes money out of. You’re right there too. The Stig does make money for BBC Worldwide, which is a business, and some of it is invested back into the business, some of it is paid out in dividends, and crucially, some of it goes back into funding the TV show. And the show needs that money, ‘cos this ain’t a cheap piece of telly. And actually, while I’m on the money point, BBC Worldwide are also picking up half the tab for this case, so it’s by no means just licence fee payers’ money being spent.
Inevitably, Fleet St has endless opinions on what BBC Worldwide should do with its money. Only yesterday morning Stephen Glover wrote a very robust piece in the Daily Mail about Top Gear’s commercial affairs. But since he can’t actually count up how many shows we make a year (it’s 14, not 8 Mr Glover), I’m not sure I’d trust the rest of his maths. Besides that, like every outsider he doesn’t know the details of any confidentiality clauses we have going, he doesn’t know about Top Gear internal relationships, and he doesn’t know who the Stig is, and sadly I can’t help put him right because we’re in the middle of a load of legal tussles, and I wouldn’t want to anyway, because it’s a secret.
Speaking of which, I’ll be back in court sometime soon, looking once more like an office junior at Foxtons, and we’ll be fighting our corner. If we lose at this stage, it won’t be over but the book will be published and the papers will have a field day with a barrage of headlines about “Humiliating Climbdowns” etc. But so be it. Bring it on. Do you want a BBC that runs away from a snidey headline, or one that fights to protect its belongings? What’s the saying? “It’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees”. A bit dramatic I know, but the fact is, the ramshackle, dysfunctional family that is the Top Gear team, from the newest runner right up to Jeremy, Richard and James, has worked bloody hard for many years to make the Stig something worth caring about, and that includes protecting it from a bunch of chancers.
... and the stig is ...
... sacked.
The Stig 'sacked' from Top Gear, says Clarkson - Motoring - NZ Herald News
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?
Exhaust Guru
What a way to guarantee your sacking though, the last Stig was sacked for doing the exact same thing. What a moron. Before people knew it was him, there was an air of mystery and people were guessing and speculating as to who it was, it added to the success of the show, now it's just a bloke in a white racing suit.
Banned
Personally, I'd be pretty pissed of if I was the Stig. One of the key parts of the show and absolutely NOTHING from it.
Think about it. How much international fame and exceedingly high fortune have Jeremy, Richard and James made from making Top Gear? Hundreds of Millions EACH. That sort of opportunity isn't available to someone who's identity is never known. So what did he do? Wrote a book, announced he was the Stig and tried to make a bit of money from his Top Gear fame - exactly as the other three have done for years!
Banned
He signed a confidentiality agreement.
He was paid to do a job.
If he was worried about other people earning more money then him he should never have taken on the role.
Also, I'd like to see where you got the information stating that the three presenters have earned hundreds of millions of dollars.
Exhaust Guru
It was Clarkson's concept, he invented the Stig. The Stig's success depended on anonymity, without it, he's just a washed up driver in a racing suit. Top Gear did not make this guy famous. It made The Stig famous. It doesn't matter who wore the suit really, the gimick was the suit, not the person wearing it.
Tells it like it is.
Anybody ever considered he wanted to move on and do other things??? Maybe this is an opportunity to squeeze as much money out of the old gig as possible
Reaper
Banned
There is the right way to do it though.
He could have resigned from the position. Then he would have been free to say he was the stig from X date to Y date. Instead he's caused a whole heap of grief for no good reason.
Definition of a douche IMO.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
