The Grand Tour - PH ratings
Poll: The Grand Tour - PH ratings
Total Members Polled: 280
Discussion
Possibly a little unfair of my vote to count as I only managed to get through the first two episodes before calling it a day.
Tried to like it (thought the Ep1 opening sequence with Clarkson's two fingered salute to the BBC as he left a miserable looking London was quite good) but thereafter just found it tired, predictable, way too over-indulgent (spending a bucket load more money does not necessarily make things better) and just not very entertaining.
Reading some of the posts on here, it seems it might have improved as the series went on - just can't see myself ever sitting down to find out.
Tried to like it (thought the Ep1 opening sequence with Clarkson's two fingered salute to the BBC as he left a miserable looking London was quite good) but thereafter just found it tired, predictable, way too over-indulgent (spending a bucket load more money does not necessarily make things better) and just not very entertaining.
Reading some of the posts on here, it seems it might have improved as the series went on - just can't see myself ever sitting down to find out.
silent ninja said:
I can honestly say New Top Gear was more enjoyable than Grand Tour. I found the latter an exercise of tolerance, trying constantly to "give them a chance." I gave up after 5 episodes. It's just not entertaining, unfunny and there are a million better things to watch.
The New Top Gear had fresh faces. Chris Harris, Rory Reed and Matt Le Blanc were entertaining. They may not have the chemistry just yet, but I enjoyed them over the tired scripted three in TGT.
I agree entirely with this. I thought the Grand Tour was really quite excruciating at times and there were large segments (1/2 to 1/3) of each show that I skipped or ignored. The New Top Gear had fresh faces. Chris Harris, Rory Reed and Matt Le Blanc were entertaining. They may not have the chemistry just yet, but I enjoyed them over the tired scripted three in TGT.
New top gear on the whole I liked and it had some really fantastic pieces in it (Chris Harris with the Vulcan was as good asanything TG has ever done). Sure Evans grated a bit and MLB was a bit odd (though better than expected) but all in I found it far less tryhard than the Grand Tour and easier and more enjoyable to watch.
4/10 for me.
Zoobeef said:
It seems to be going the same was as most of the majority voting over the past few years.
The constant drival being spouted isn't actually what the majority feel.
This is just a scores and reviews thread, save your criticism of other posters for the other grand tour thread please, The constant drival being spouted isn't actually what the majority feel.
Zoobeef said:
It seems to be going the same was as most of the majority voting over the past few years.
The constant drival being spouted isn't actually what the majority feel.
Over half the votes so far are a 6 or lower. I'd personally say that 6/10 is a very average program and anything below that is majorly flawed to dire. The constant drival being spouted isn't actually what the majority feel.
There were always people who enjoyed it and were going to vote higher but it seems a significant amount of people genuinely thought it wasn't very good.
Japveesix said:
Over half the votes so far are a 6 or lower. I'd personally say that 6/10 is a very average program and anything below that is majorly flawed to dire.
There were always people who enjoyed it and were going to vote higher but it seems a significant amount of people genuinely thought it wasn't very good.
Well, right now, 60% say 6 or higher. Sounds like the quiet majority think it's actually quite good.There were always people who enjoyed it and were going to vote higher but it seems a significant amount of people genuinely thought it wasn't very good.
speech said:
Japveesix said:
Over half the votes so far are a 6 or lower. I'd personally say that 6/10 is a very average program and anything below that is majorly flawed to dire.
There were always people who enjoyed it and were going to vote higher but it seems a significant amount of people genuinely thought it wasn't very good.
Well, right now, 60% say 6 or higher. Sounds like the quiet majority think it's actually quite good.There were always people who enjoyed it and were going to vote higher but it seems a significant amount of people genuinely thought it wasn't very good.
Isn't 6.5 considered to be in the average part of a 1 to 10 scale?
The score is much lower than the 9.2 rating on the IMDB.
Zoobeef said:
Driver101 said:
Without doing the maths the average will work out to be something like 6.5?
Isn't 6.5 considered to be in the average part of a 1 to 10 scale?
The score is much lower than the 9.2 rating on the IMDB.
On a forum of car enthusiasts. Its not aimed at us now.Isn't 6.5 considered to be in the average part of a 1 to 10 scale?
The score is much lower than the 9.2 rating on the IMDB.
It's still a car based show and I'm not reading of people turning over from Eastenders to watch TGT. The people watching TGT are the same people that watched TG as far as I can see.
Zoobeef said:
Driver101 said:
Without doing the maths the average will work out to be something like 6.5?
Isn't 6.5 considered to be in the average part of a 1 to 10 scale?
The score is much lower than the 9.2 rating on the IMDB.
On a forum of car enthusiasts. Its not aimed at us now.Isn't 6.5 considered to be in the average part of a 1 to 10 scale?
The score is much lower than the 9.2 rating on the IMDB.
ks. Or
Reviews on here are not good showing PHers aren't the target audience?
5/10 from me. I love these 3 guys but something felt a little off with this first series, like it was too heavily edited and remote (old TG used to be filmed and aired within days which gave it a sense of immediacy).
There was some good - what little car reviews there were, were pretty good and the car/brand history bits were very good, especially with James at the helm. But the scripting was poor, and I think that was a direct result of some of the turgid set ups they had (Ep2 'live-die-repeat' being the main offender). Celeb brain crash wasn't even funny the first time let alone the fact the flogged it like a dead horse.
Someone mentioned on the main thread that they thought the premise of the show would be they would go to a new location each week, and the content of the show would be based around that location/country which is what I was hoping for too. I guess that's too much to hope for.
So overall 'meh' for me but I still consider myself a fan; will see what the future episodes bring.
There was some good - what little car reviews there were, were pretty good and the car/brand history bits were very good, especially with James at the helm. But the scripting was poor, and I think that was a direct result of some of the turgid set ups they had (Ep2 'live-die-repeat' being the main offender). Celeb brain crash wasn't even funny the first time let alone the fact the flogged it like a dead horse.
Someone mentioned on the main thread that they thought the premise of the show would be they would go to a new location each week, and the content of the show would be based around that location/country which is what I was hoping for too. I guess that's too much to hope for.
So overall 'meh' for me but I still consider myself a fan; will see what the future episodes bring.
El stovey said:
Zoobeef said:
Driver101 said:
Without doing the maths the average will work out to be something like 6.5?
Isn't 6.5 considered to be in the average part of a 1 to 10 scale?
The score is much lower than the 9.2 rating on the IMDB.
On a forum of car enthusiasts. Its not aimed at us now.Isn't 6.5 considered to be in the average part of a 1 to 10 scale?
The score is much lower than the 9.2 rating on the IMDB.
ks. Or
Reviews on here are not good showing PHers aren't the target audience?
But my point was IMBD is higher because its done by a broader spectrum of people and more of the target audience.
Zoobeef said:
El stovey said:
Zoobeef said:
Driver101 said:
Without doing the maths the average will work out to be something like 6.5?
Isn't 6.5 considered to be in the average part of a 1 to 10 scale?
The score is much lower than the 9.2 rating on the IMDB.
On a forum of car enthusiasts. Its not aimed at us now.Isn't 6.5 considered to be in the average part of a 1 to 10 scale?
The score is much lower than the 9.2 rating on the IMDB.
ks. Or
Reviews on here are not good showing PHers aren't the target audience?
But my point was IMBD is higher because its done by a broader spectrum of people and more of the target audience.
As far as I can see Amazon have paid a lot of money for the TG team and tried to stick as close to the format as they could. I can't see how the target audience has changed when they've tried their best to keep everything the same.
Can you elaborate on the point you keep making?
Most people in TGT thread aren't saying it's completely rubbish. I see most people saying it's good in parts and it's poor in parts.
The end result here is we've got a verdict of somewhere around average. I think average is fair. The issue is people did expect a lot more than an average TV show. Maybe that is why they seem so negative.
Driver101 said:
You keep going on about not being the target audience. What is the target audience? I asked the same question of you in the other thread, but you didn't answer there either.
As far as I can see Amazon have paid a lot of money for the TG team and tried to stick as close to the format as they could. I can't see how the target audience has changed when they've tried their best to keep everything the same.
Can you elaborate on the point you keep making?
Most people in TGT thread aren't saying it's completely rubbish. I see most people saying it's good in parts and it's poor in parts.
The end result here is we've got a verdict of somewhere around average. I think average is fair. The issue is people did expect a lot more than an average TV show. Maybe that is why they seem so negative.
I didn't see you ask before.As far as I can see Amazon have paid a lot of money for the TG team and tried to stick as close to the format as they could. I can't see how the target audience has changed when they've tried their best to keep everything the same.
Can you elaborate on the point you keep making?
Most people in TGT thread aren't saying it's completely rubbish. I see most people saying it's good in parts and it's poor in parts.
The end result here is we've got a verdict of somewhere around average. I think average is fair. The issue is people did expect a lot more than an average TV show. Maybe that is why they seem so negative.
Its not aimed at hardcore petrol heads. Hence the amount of whinging on this forum. Its "funny entertainment based around cars" as there are more people that will watch that.
My parents watch it and like it.
The guys at work watch and like it.
None of them are very interested in cars. You want a car show for petrol heads then it'll end up on the history channel with 5th gear as there just isn't enough of us to keep it on mainstream TV.
Zoobeef said:
Driver101 said:
You keep going on about not being the target audience. What is the target audience? I asked the same question of you in the other thread, but you didn't answer there either.
As far as I can see Amazon have paid a lot of money for the TG team and tried to stick as close to the format as they could. I can't see how the target audience has changed when they've tried their best to keep everything the same.
Can you elaborate on the point you keep making?
Most people in TGT thread aren't saying it's completely rubbish. I see most people saying it's good in parts and it's poor in parts.
The end result here is we've got a verdict of somewhere around average. I think average is fair. The issue is people did expect a lot more than an average TV show. Maybe that is why they seem so negative.
I didn't see you ask before.As far as I can see Amazon have paid a lot of money for the TG team and tried to stick as close to the format as they could. I can't see how the target audience has changed when they've tried their best to keep everything the same.
Can you elaborate on the point you keep making?
Most people in TGT thread aren't saying it's completely rubbish. I see most people saying it's good in parts and it's poor in parts.
The end result here is we've got a verdict of somewhere around average. I think average is fair. The issue is people did expect a lot more than an average TV show. Maybe that is why they seem so negative.
Its not aimed at hardcore petrol heads. Hence the amount of whinging on this forum. Its "funny entertainment based around cars" as there are more people that will watch that.
My parents watch it and like it.
The guys at work watch and like it.
None of them are very interested in cars. You want a car show for petrol heads then it'll end up on the history channel with 5th gear as there just isn't enough of us to keep it on mainstream TV.
TG is the exact same as you've just described. That's what people know and want to see more of. It was never a show for hardcore petrol heads. TG is also loosely based around cars and some of the best shows, like Vietnam, didn't even have cars.
Most of the popular complaints is they have travelled to exotic parts of the world and then not even featured them in the show. It's the quality of the heavily scripted performances that annoy people. It's the American and not the job he's doing. It's the track as it's crap. The majority of the complaints aren't that it's not a focused petrol head show, it's just the quality and lack of content.
It is nearly the same format with the exception of parts they aren't allowed to copy too closely, some offensive language and dildos. The parts they've added to differentiate between themselves and TG are the parts that have made it poorer.I don't think they've changed their approach much and I don't think they are aiming for a different audience. All they've done is make an inferior product.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff