Clarkson's Farm - Amazon Prime series about the most inept farmer... in the world

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Following Amazon's decision to cut ties with Jeremy Clarkson
Did anyone ever provide any evidence for this, other than the spec in varsity? The story ran around the media for a day, but Amazon never confirmed it and Clarkson outright denied it. He has never addressed it since.

I wouldn't be surprised if the most recent Grand Tour was their last, though. The lads are definitely showing their age.
 
Bit of a click bait title but looking promising.

Jeremy Clarkson has agreed to sign a megabucks new deal with Amazon for three more series of Clarkson’s Farm, according to reports.

Nothing is signed yet "however, the expectation is that a deal — likely to be worth at least $250 million, like the previous one — will be announced when the third series starts streaming in March or April next year," said the Daily Mail.
Ultimately I believe he's filmed stuff. I suspect Amazon might be able to choose to cut ties but I would put money someone would buy it.
 
Ultimately I believe he's filmed stuff. I suspect Amazon might be able to choose to cut ties but I would put money someone would buy it.
There's still never been any proof that they were cutting ties, or even that Amazon were remotely upset with Clarkson in any way whatsoever. The claims always lead back to that one Varsity article.
 
There's still never been any proof that they were cutting ties, or even that Amazon were remotely upset with Clarkson in any way whatsoever. The claims always lead back to that one Varsity article.
They do, but there's another factor to consider.

After shitting the bed that hard on so many series does Amazon have the money to burn (yes they do, look at the Washington Post, but still)? I doubt Clarkson is asking for as much as most but if he's dumping his legal expenses on Amazon there's a real possibility they will opt to cut ties in a season or two and pretend it's totally because of Megs to try to get some cheap publicity from it.
 
They do, but there's another factor to consider.

After shitting the bed that hard on so many series does Amazon have the money to burn (yes they do, look at the Washington Post, but still)? I doubt Clarkson is asking for as much as most but if he's dumping his legal expenses on Amazon there's a real possibility they will opt to cut ties in a season or two and pretend it's totally because of Megs to try to get some cheap publicity from it.
Grand Tour and Clarkson's Farm are the only shows on Prime that actually bring viewers to the service, they're the tentpole holding everything else up. I think it was The Boys in the number three spot, but it was a long way behind. Everything else they've tried to put in that position, i.e. The Rings of Power, has flopped massively, so until they manage to come up with something even half as successful as Grand Tour they won't be cutting ties with Clarkson.
 
Honestly, I don't see how the show has legs. By the time season 3 airs he'll have been farming for a decade. You can't actually be learning to farm for that long, eventually you just are a farmer and start doing normally. If he actually has kept his farm up he's probably there already.
 
Honestly, I don't see how the show has legs. By the time season 3 airs he'll have been farming for a decade.
He only started farming in 2019. That's four years of farming total, which we've been getting on about a two year delay.

It has legs because farming is a never-ending series of challenges and trials. There is always something new coming along; he's doing pigs this season. There will be no end of the bullshit that farmers have to deal with, which he claimed to want to show people right at the start, and he will also likely be covering his ongoing conflict with the planning system.
 
Yeah, but that (the piggus) gets at the point of my problem with the show. Farms don't change their animal type every damn year. Its too unrealistic for me, makes it all feel fake. I can accept that he doesn't really have consequences for failure because of his TV paycheck but he should at least be honestly trying to make a profit, which would mean sticking to the same shit.
 
Yeah, but that (the piggus) gets at the point of my problem with the show. Farms don't change their animal type every damn year. Its too unrealistic for me, makes it all feel fake. I can accept that he doesn't really have consequences for failure because of his TV paycheck but he should at least be honestly trying to make a profit, which would mean sticking to the same shit.
Gotta give team Clarkson credit for that restaurant venture at least. He was playing farming and restaurant simulator there for a hot moment and that felt like a very Clarkson thing to happen.
 
Yeah, but that (the piggus) gets at the point of my problem with the show. Farms don't change their animal type every damn year. Its too unrealistic for me, makes it all feel fake. I can accept that he doesn't really have consequences for failure because of his TV paycheck but he should at least be honestly trying to make a profit, which would mean sticking to the same shit.
He's not just changing for the sake of change; he's trying to diversify the farm's output, rather than relying on a single source of income. The cows are going to still be around and the wheat is still there every year.

If you took nothing else away from the show, you should have taken away this: Farming is not profitable. At the end of his first year, his profit was just barely a few hundred quid. Sticking to just the grain might have netted him a few hundred more, but the risk of that is that one lean year can leave you with insurmountable debt. It's the reason so many smaller farms have gone under in the last 20 years. It's the reason he's become such an advocate for farmers and farming and why he made the show to begin with.
 
Yeah, but that (the piggus) gets at the point of my problem with the show. Farms don't change their animal type every damn year. Its too unrealistic for me, makes it all feel fake. I can accept that he doesn't really have consequences for failure because of his TV paycheck but he should at least be honestly trying to make a profit, which would mean sticking to the same shit.
He's not just changing for the sake of change; he's trying to diversify the farm's output, rather than relying on a single source of income. The cows are going to still be around and the wheat is still there every year.

If you took nothing else away from the show, you should have taken away this: Farming is not profitable. At the end of his first year, his profit was just barely a few hundred quid. Sticking to just the grain might have netted him a few hundred more, but the risk of that is that one lean year can leave you with insurmountable debt. It's the reason so many smaller farms have gone under in the last 20 years. It's the reason he's become such an advocate for farmers and farming and why he made the show to begin with.
It's very obvious that Clarkson is taking on wildly different livestock every season for the sake of show content rather than anything to do with developing an efficient and successful farm unto itself. Which is perfectly fine because having this variety of content that demonstrates different aspects of farming/ranching makes the show more interesting/informative/entertaining to viewers while also bringing awareness to and advocacy for UK farmers broadly as Clarkson ultimately wants to do. I don't think there's really any way for him to truly develop a "realistic" farm anyway since it will always have the unique benefit of direct exposure on a television show and Clarkson's celebrity wealth and status.
 
Yeah, but that (the piggus) gets at the point of my problem with the show. Farms don't change their animal type every damn year. Its too unrealistic for me, makes it all feel fake. I can accept that he doesn't really have consequences for failure because of his TV paycheck but he should at least be honestly trying to make a profit, which would mean sticking to the same shit.
So, your complaint is that a Reality Show ie something manufactured for viewership, is in fact Not Real?
 
So, your complaint is that a Reality Show ie something manufactured for viewership, is in fact Not Real?
Yes, yes it is. This isn't comparing a pre-planned Top Gear roadtrip with super cars and direct site access to an actual road trip. Real farming more interesting than pretend farming.
 
If that was true, they would show real farming.
They show real farming when they want Clarkson to look like an ignorant oaf and gurn at the camera about how complicated it all is. He's pretty good at that bit.
 
Yes, yes it is. This isn't comparing a pre-planned Top Gear roadtrip with super cars and direct site access to an actual road trip. Real farming more interesting than pretend farming.
  • Unless you want like 16 hour livestreams of the lads out in the fields any product that can portray farming accessibly will likely have the following qualities:
    An ignorant protagonist - so the viewer can get explained at in a natural context but not by annoying smug bastards
  • Extensive editing - so it's watchable
  • A narrative line - a consequence of editing
  • New challenges and goals for the farm to help organize editing and the narrative
It's a tv show, I think you're being disingenuous about the appeal of the show and the nature of any televised portrayal of farming, it being real means it's not on TV.
 
It's very obvious that Clarkson is taking on wildly different livestock every season for the sake of show content rather than anything to do with developing an efficient and successful farm unto itself.
He should raise pigs and use them to dispose of that village council.
 
They show real farming when they want Clarkson to look like an ignorant oaf and gurn at the camera about how complicated it all is. He's pretty good at that bit.
No acting required.

It reminds me of James and Richard doing the Lego building while drinking alcohol on their Drivetribe channel. It was very easy to believe that if told to do that without the cameras on them the outcome would have been much the same.
 
Back
Top Bottom