Top Gear 2016 Official TV show thread *contains spoilers*
Discussion
Gary C said:
Just get rid of mr blank. Big improvement. Can't understand why anyone found him watchable.
Would give the next series a chance what ever the line-up, but agree Le Blanc should go (I would have been quite happy for him to go rather than Chris Evans but accept I'm a minority). He is a one trick pony, I went from thinking he was better than I feared initially to, he is improving but as engaging as the "tub of lard" that often appeared on "have I got news for you" Will be interesting to see how GT goes, really do hope they have upped their game!
Johnspex said:
How about Mark Evans, MLB and Jenson Button. Get rid of everyone else except perhaps Sabine for the feminine touch . Pension off the Stig, drop RR and get rid of Mr he can drive but can't stand still Chris Harris.
How about people stop trying to replicate the formula by picking 'like for like' other candidates? The medicine didn't work, so another dose is not the answer.IMO RR, CH and AN Other (unknown), a forced budget cut to concentrate the minds of the production team so they don't rely on replicating the superficial 'look' of the old show as meaning they've done a job, and an emphasis on finding good writers is the only chance for BBC Top Gear to continue.
Otherwise cut, run and license the brand back to W. Chump and Sons.
r11co said:
How about people stop trying to replicate the formula by picking 'like for like' other candidates? The medicine didn't work, so another dose is not the answer.
IMO RR, CH and AN Other (unknown), a forced budget cut to concentrate the minds of the production team so they don't rely on replicating the superficial 'look' of the old show as meaning they've done a job, and an emphasis on finding good writers is the only chance for BBC Top Gear to continue.
Otherwise cut, run and license the brand back to W. Chump and Sons.
Not sure why people are so stuck on keeping the old £ presenter set-up, yes it worked for Clarkson but it doesn't mean you have to stick with it - embrace change I far preferred the extra presenters it should in time give more depth! IMO RR, CH and AN Other (unknown), a forced budget cut to concentrate the minds of the production team so they don't rely on replicating the superficial 'look' of the old show as meaning they've done a job, and an emphasis on finding good writers is the only chance for BBC Top Gear to continue.
Otherwise cut, run and license the brand back to W. Chump and Sons.
LDM said:
Not sure why people are so stuck on keeping the old £ presenter set-up, yes it worked for Clarkson but it doesn't mean you have to stick with it - embrace change I far preferred the extra presenters it should in time give more depth!
I'm kind of with you that they shouldn't try again to replicate the CHM dynamic by replacing them like-for-like, but the multi-presenter thing of the last series was mainly down to Evans (I know - trolls will be roused) not being able/willing to commit the time to produce a third or more of the filmed segments.IMO the 3+Stig format is a kind of trademark of Top Gear (as seen in the French/US/Australian versions). The three don't have to be Clarkson, Hammond and May clones though.
r11co said:
I'm kind of with you that they shouldn't try again to replicate the CHM dynamic by replacing them like-for-like, but the multi-presenter thing of the last series was mainly down to Evans (I know - trolls will be roused) not being able/willing to commit the time to produce a third or more of the filmed segments.
IMO the 3+Stig format is a kind of trademark of Top Gear (as seen in the French/US/Australian versions). The three don't have to be Clarkson, Hammond and May clones though.
What ever the reasons for having increased presenters, I thought it was a good move, there was not a single presenter that I would have wanted to see more of, meaning even as one feature or presenter started to annoy there would soon be a swap. IMO the 3+Stig format is a kind of trademark of Top Gear (as seen in the French/US/Australian versions). The three don't have to be Clarkson, Hammond and May clones though.
The format also means that fresh presenters could be introduced and others lost without it having too big an impact to the show while it developed its own personality. Over time as and when chemistry developed maybe things would change but until that happens I don't think manufacturing something really works.
Maybe it's my age but I just see the Clarkson era as exactly that an era, I enjoyed it for the most part but overall, no more or less than any other (probably Woollard era my fav - maybe a bit boring for most) but do accept that it was commercially the most successful, whether that means it was the best or that it should follow that format forever is an argument you are unlikely to ever get agreement on.
The trolls comment? The sad truth is that some people over react, I am happy to admit I didn't mind the way show was going during the last series, but we are all entitled our opinions although some of us can be a little blinkered - that's not a personal attack on anyone, purely a comment.
r11co said:
I suggest, if you haven't already, that you watch former Top Gear executive producer Andy Wilman's interview from the Edinburgh TV Festival.
Lordy - cracking legs!LDM said:
What ever the reasons for having increased presenters, I thought it was a good move, there was not a single presenter that I would have wanted to see more of
That is kind of damning them with feint praise. LDM said:
The format also means that fresh presenters could be introduced and others lost without it having too big an impact to the show while it developed its own personality.
What you are describing sounds awfully like the evolution Fifth Gear went through, and that ended well...r11co said:
That is kind of damning them with feint praise.quote]
Maybe it is, not totally sure that's the case though, if I am honest I don't think any of the current line-up as they stand are totally right but they may develop, that being said I was happy to watch it all the way through.
All these things are subjective, all I can say is that I always try to watch things with an open mind but what I like may not appeal to everyone.
Maybe it is, not totally sure that's the case though, if I am honest I don't think any of the current line-up as they stand are totally right but they may develop, that being said I was happy to watch it all the way through.
r11co said:
What you are describing sounds awfully like the evolution Fifth Gear went through, and that ended well...
Maybe you have a point but it did run from 2002 and had a decent run, equally Clarkson's Top gear came to an end, sadly these things happen. I quite enjoyed them both to varying degrees.All these things are subjective, all I can say is that I always try to watch things with an open mind but what I like may not appeal to everyone.
r11co said:
LDM said:
What ever the reasons for having increased presenters, I thought it was a good move, there was not a single presenter that I would have wanted to see more of
That is kind of damning them with feint praise. LDM said:
The format also means that fresh presenters could be introduced and others lost without it having too big an impact to the show while it developed its own personality.
What you are describing sounds awfully like the evolution Fifth Gear went through, and that ended well...Jay Lenos Garage is an excellent example of how you can do another entertaining car show and yet be different to TG. Again its down to the presenting, and not being too geeky.
Blib said:
I've just read in today's Times that MLB earned £500,000 for his TG stint.
Absolutely bats
t mental.That latest Top Gear chewed so much money for such a poor abject failure that someone within the BBC should be held accountable, we know they won't though.
Proof, if ever it was needed, that throwing money at something is no guarantee it will be a success.
Bluedot said:
Blib said:
I've just read in today's Times that MLB earned £500,000 for his TG stint.
Absolutely batst mental.That latest Top Gear chewed so much money for such a poor abject failure that someone within the BBC should be held accountable, we know they won't though.
Proof, if ever it was needed, that throwing money at something is no guarantee it will be a success.
Which (going off topic) is why the NHS is total s
t street the whole time, (all that money and nobody knows how to spend it efficiently) and lets be honest if major "things" like the railways and the airports were put back into the Governments hands it'd be the same problem of wasting money on everything.Sooner the licence fee is scrapped the better!
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff