Top Gear 2016 Official TV show thread *contains spoilers*
Discussion
durbster said:
James May, Richard Hammond, Rory Reid, Chris Harris.
All unknown to the wider public before TG, and all worked perfectly fine on the show.
Why is it assumed the TG has to be presented by somebody who is already famous?
I suspect that part of it does come down to the way the BBC perceive things. They will always err towards retaining a gaggle of BBC superstars on massive contracts which they then realise to be able to justify to the public who do not understand the commercials of tv personality retention they have to shoe horn them into as many programmes as possible. Even TG had the mega star and the two underlings. All unknown to the wider public before TG, and all worked perfectly fine on the show.
Why is it assumed the TG has to be presented by somebody who is already famous?
Maybe the best thing they could do is to license it to an external production company in order to escape that internal BBC dynamic?
But fundamentally, it just needs three blokes that the majority of people like enough to watch them arsing about. Three is about the right number it offers the broadest chance of appeal and not too many that the audience never commit to any of them. They would probably do better to utilise their other default frontmen setting which is the common Northerner and the posh Southerner. We saw hints of that with the bringing in of the American and it actually seemed to work well between MlB and CH. if those two are remaining then clear out the others and let them chose a mate to be the third man. Forcing an outsider into a dynamic stands little chance of working.
DonkeyApple said:
Maybe the best thing they could do is to license it to an external production company in order to escape that internal BBC dynamic?
If they want the program to be commercially successful then absolutely yes. If they want it to fit with 'the wider aims of the BBC' (whatever they are) then the internal politics will kick-in.For a long time TG was being run exactly the way you say ie. by an external production company Bedder 6 (co-incidentally owned by Clarkson and Wilman) and it was that period when it hit the heights of its success.
Wilman's recent interview at the Edinburgh Festival gives a real insight into that period of TG and what came afterwards. The BBC were delighted with the money-making aspect of the show but weren't comfortable with the antics, so brought production back in-house in an attempt to regain control.
The rest is history.
r11co said:
If they want the program to be commercially successful then absolutely yes. If they want it to fit with 'the wider aims of the BBC' (whatever they are) then the internal politics will kick-in.
For a long time TG was being run exactly the way you say ie. by an external production company Bedder 6 (co-incidentally owned by Clarkson and Wilman) and it was that period when it hit the heights of its success.
Wilman's recent interview at the Edinburgh Festival gives a real insight into that period of TG and what came afterwards. The BBC were delighted with the money-making aspect of the show but weren't comfortable with the antics, so brought production back in-house in an attempt to regain control.
The rest is history.
This, pretty much. The proof, though, will be how well it does with Amazon.For a long time TG was being run exactly the way you say ie. by an external production company Bedder 6 (co-incidentally owned by Clarkson and Wilman) and it was that period when it hit the heights of its success.
Wilman's recent interview at the Edinburgh Festival gives a real insight into that period of TG and what came afterwards. The BBC were delighted with the money-making aspect of the show but weren't comfortable with the antics, so brought production back in-house in an attempt to regain control.
The rest is history.
durbster said:
James May, Richard Hammond, Rory Reid, Chris Harris.
All unknown to the wider public before TG, and all worked perfectly fine on the show.
Why is it assumed the TG has to be presented by somebody who is already famous?
Top gear was a big money spinner for the bbc, the subject matter was however an anathema. The idea that its rebirth is something fit for nuturering goes against the understanding of the islington socialistsAll unknown to the wider public before TG, and all worked perfectly fine on the show.
Why is it assumed the TG has to be presented by somebody who is already famous?
They should not look for a name to replace Evans. They should look to have Reid, LeBlanc, Harris and Schmitt bouncing off each other. Eddie to bulk it up so that the can make more films - using just two of the five per film and make more episodes. Six was pathetic. SIARPC needs to go the way of Cool Wall, and it needs something new. maybe an iRace between a guest and viewers.
simonrockman said:
They should not look for a name to replace Evans. They should look to have Reid, LeBlanc, Harris and Schmitt bouncing off each other. Eddie to bulk it up so that the can make more films - using just two of the five per film and make more episodes. Six was pathetic. SIARPC needs to go the way of Cool Wall, and it needs something new. maybe an iRace between a guest and viewers.
I liked LeBlanc. He likes cars and he can act so can play to camera.I wouldn't tune in to see any of the rest, particularly and could envisage Harris getting airtime for the show he does for the US, as his approach is car geek, not entertainer.
Schmitt would be like VBH, a great reason to turn it off and Reid lacks any gravitas - he's more like a keen young man with an OK presenting style but possibly tries a bit too hard and he keep reminding me of the delivery style of Lenny Henry.
TG succeeded not because of cars but by being funny (it's a relative concept but lots of viewers found it so) with some cars thrown in.
It cannot succeed, to the same level, just by being an information show about cars - it would just be another Gadget Show to most people and there is a programme that underlines why humour, not information, is key.
simonrockman said:
They should not look for a name to replace Evans. They should look to have Reid, LeBlanc, Harris and Schmitt bouncing off each other. Eddie to bulk it up so that the can make more films - using just two of the five per film and make more episodes. Six was pathetic. SIARPC needs to go the way of Cool Wall, and it needs something new. maybe an iRace between a guest and viewers.
I never minded the original SIARPC but they f
ked it up last series. Way too long, dull guests, boring. The trouble is if they keep it they need someone on board who can do the interviews which kind of limits their options. May have been the reason Evans got the gig last time around.LuS1fer said:
Reid lacks any gravitas - he's more like a keen young man with an OK presenting style but possibly tries a bit too hard...
So just like Richard Hammond was initially thenLuS1fer said:
... and he keep reminding me of the delivery style of Lenny Henry.
What, because he's black?simonrockman said:
They should look to have Reid, LeBlanc, Harris and Schmitt bouncing off each other.
A German, a Yank, a bore and a guy nobody's heard of bouncing off each other?I'm sure everyone's looking forward to that.
They need to take a chance and reformat the whole thing imo.
LuS1fer said:
I liked LeBlanc. He likes cars and he can act so can play to camera.
It's highly unlikely at the moment that he will be back.simonrockman said:
They should look to have Reid, LeBlanc, Harris and Schmitt bouncing off each other.
Sabine was only there because Evans presumed that she was a good fit. She was for the most part superfluous and just detracted from the purpose of having The Stig.technodup said:
They need to take a chance and reformat the whole thing imo.
Circumstances are that this is the option they are most likely to be forced into so they might as well embrace it. If not a complete reformat then certainly a back-to-basics.
The BBC should take a leaf out of the book of one of their most successful long-running programs. When Peter Purves and John Noakes left Blue Peter there wasn't a desperate need to replace them with Mark Hamill and Big Bird from Sesame Street.
Edited by r11co on Thursday 8th September 18:57
Rich_W said:
You (and the other numpties who share pics like this) do realise it's JUST a TV show right?
I suggest, if you haven't already, that you watch former Top Gear executive producer Andy Wilman's interview from the Edinburgh TV Festival.From the first third of the interview it is very apparent that the BBC were prepared to kill-off something that was hugely popular worldwide and extremely lucrative for the sake of a point of principle. The cast and crew of the show were being put under immense pressure and something had to crack.
Everyone still cites the 'fracas' as what ended Top Gear as we knew it, but the incident that did it for me was the leaking of the out-take of the nursery rhyme. The footage should never have left the editing room under normal circumstances, meaning someone on the inside had to be responsible for the leak and the narrative that went with it. It was a message to the team that their 'coats were on a wobbly peg', but what a cack-handed way to manage a situation.
No big deal - it's just a TV show you say, until you consider that the stakeholders who stood to lose out because of BBC personal vendettas were the millions of people funding the BBC through their licence fee and the millions more worldwide.
Stupid things is the BBC knew what they didn't want, but now have no idea what they do want from Top Gear.
Edited by r11co on Friday 9th September 14:08
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff