The Grand Tour

[exitwound]

patmahe said:

p1stonhead said:

KTF said:

p1stonhead said:

The BBC version looks ste.

I bet you will still watch it

Will see how good it is. I don't watch any other motoring tv show. Fifth Gear is painful

I like aspects of fifth gear but it clearly lacks the budget of Top Gear etc....

What ever happened to that car show with Quentin Wilson and Jodie Kidd, the studio stuff was painful but the features I thought were quite good.

TG's last format was always only about the presenters, not the vehicles, so you have to be a fan of those three to get any enjoyment, which to me, is a bit perverse.

I did watch it a few times though, but as a CAR show I just didn't get it.. However, I did enjoy, and win a few bets with the consultants (..Audi/BMW/MB/Porsche etc, loads of cash, but no imagination) in here on the Corvette tanning the R8 a few years ago! I'm STILL dining out on that one!!

Personally, I like the slick knowledge of Quentin Wilson and the pleasant enthusiasm of Jodie Kidd. I hope we see more of them. Good team and unsually these days, its all about the cars!!

[k-ink]

I can't believe they didn't call it something daft like Gear Knobs or similar.

Anyway, they should drop the "The" for a cleaner look. Then we could all refer to it as simply "GT". Unfortunately "TGT" is stupid and has nothing to do with car badges. It sounds like a train.

[ambuletz]

k-ink said:

I can't believe they didn't call it something daft like Gear Knobs or similar.

not allowed anything with 'top' or 'gear' in the title.

[walm]

DonkeyApple said:

Let's face reality, it doesn't even need to be good. It can be quite ste and it will still be preferable viewing to most of the monumental tat and repeats that are broadcast.

TV is generally so abysmal that people even watch 5th Gear and that iritating squealing, bush pig, miniature Schwarzenegger lookalike that some of the PH 'specialist sex people' like to spaff over.

I strongly disagree.
TV has entered some sort of incredibly rich period of very high quality.

1. The level of investment is empirically higher than say, the 80s and 90s, and that strongly evident in the production quality. Top Gear itself is a good example but I am really thinking about shows such as House of Cards, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, even bloody Downton!
2. The star quality is off the charts. Oscar winners are in TV all the time now: Spacey, Close, Paquin, Hoffman, Irons, Smith etc...
3. It's not the same old telly. Sky and Netflix let the swearing, violence and nudity run free!

And finally - we are now in the phenomenal position with on demand, PVRs, SVOD etc... that we can watch what we want when we want and mostly ad-free.
This is the golden age of TV.

[p1stonhead]

walm said:

DonkeyApple said:

Let's face reality, it doesn't even need to be good. It can be quite ste and it will still be preferable viewing to most of the monumental tat and repeats that are broadcast.

TV is generally so abysmal that people even watch 5th Gear and that iritating squealing, bush pig, miniature Schwarzenegger lookalike that some of the PH 'specialist sex people' like to spaff over.

I strongly disagree.
TV has entered some sort of incredibly rich period of very high quality.

1. The level of investment is empirically higher than say, the 80s and 90s, and that strongly evident in the production quality. Top Gear itself is a good example but I am really thinking about shows such as House of Cards, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, even bloody Downton!
2. The star quality is off the charts. Oscar winners are in TV all the time now: Spacey, Close, Paquin, Hoffman, Irons, Smith etc...
3. It's not the same old telly. Sky and Netflix let the swearing, violence and nudity run free!

And finally - we are now in the phenomenal position with on demand, PVRs, SVOD etc... that we can watch what we want when we want and mostly ad-free.
This is the golden age of TV.

100% agree.

The internet has changed everything. Some of the Netflix Originals are brilliant. No adverts or watching stty channels.

I cancelled my tv packages about 2 years ago.

[DonkeyApple]

walm said:

DonkeyApple said:

Let's face reality, it doesn't even need to be good. It can be quite ste and it will still be preferable viewing to most of the monumental tat and repeats that are broadcast.

TV is generally so abysmal that people even watch 5th Gear and that iritating squealing, bush pig, miniature Schwarzenegger lookalike that some of the PH 'specialist sex people' like to spaff over.

I strongly disagree.
TV has entered some sort of incredibly rich period of very high quality.

1. The level of investment is empirically higher than say, the 80s and 90s, and that strongly evident in the production quality. Top Gear itself is a good example but I am really thinking about shows such as House of Cards, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, even bloody Downton!
2. The star quality is off the charts. Oscar winners are in TV all the time now: Spacey, Close, Paquin, Hoffman, Irons, Smith etc...
3. It's not the same old telly. Sky and Netflix let the swearing, violence and nudity run free!

And finally - we are now in the phenomenal position with on demand, PVRs, SVOD etc... that we can watch what we want when we want and mostly ad-free.
This is the golden age of TV.

But that is only if you pay for it in reality.

If you look at the freeviee channels then you can go for evenings at a time without anything truly watchable being on. Most channels seem to just be repeating programs. You can also see by all the gambling advertising and other dominant product marketing that conventional television is being targeted these days at a very different audience.

I agree that it is a golden age of programming but not TV.

My main issue is that I don't have any desire to pay subscriptions for content and not do I have any desire to spend my evenings pretending I'm a high powered program executive building my own bespoke channel. I've always liked just turning on the TV, seeing what is on and if there is nothing there and then to watch, turning it off again. I just happen to have noticed that I'm spending more evenings in a row with the TV turned off as the content quality has plummeted to being just a handful of new and quality shows to watch.

[walm]

DonkeyApple said:

But that is only if you pay for it in reality.

If you look at the freeviee channels then you can go for evenings at a time without anything truly watchable being on. Most channels seem to just be repeating programs. You can also see by all the gambling advertising and other dominant product marketing that conventional television is being targeted these days at a very different audience.

I agree that it is a golden age of programming but not TV.

My main issue is that I don't have any desire to pay subscriptions for content and not do I have any desire to spend my evenings pretending I'm a high powered program executive building my own bespoke channel. I've always liked just turning on the TV, seeing what is on and if there is nothing there and then to watch, turning it off again. I just happen to have noticed that I'm spending more evenings in a row with the TV turned off as the content quality has plummeted to being just a handful of new and quality shows to watch.

Ah. Forgive me.
I would not have guessed in a month of Sundays that you didn't have some sort of subscription telly.
Sorry!
(Freeview is mostly ste - yes.)

[ClockworkCupcake]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Thanks for letting us all know.

Following your lead, I might pop over to The Coronation Street thread and tell everyone that I don't watch soap operas.

[otolith]

DonkeyApple said:

I just happen to have noticed that I'm spending more evenings in a row with the TV turned off as the content quality has plummeted to being just a handful of new and quality shows to watch.

Thirteen channels of st...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZkERB6dU_Y

[mcflurry]

IMHO they should call both of them, "Schrödingers Gear" as until it airs we don't know if it's dead or alive

[DonkeyApple]

walm said:

Ah. Forgive me.
I would not have guessed in a month of Sundays that you didn't have some sort of subscription telly.
Sorry!
(Freeview is mostly ste - yes.)

A natural aversion to monthly fees. I only have electricity and gas because the wife insists.

[Derek Smith]

Amazon Prime means a very limited audience. TG was free to air and that is a massive difference.

[walm]

Derek Smith said:

Amazon Prime means a very limited audience. TG was free to air and that is a massive difference.

It's a global product. I suspect a few of the 54m Prime customers in the US will watch!

[MarshPhantom]

I think they're in it for the money, not the viewing figures. Can't say I blame them, and who'd want watch Top Gear with ads.

[djdest]

I'll make a drink while the ads are on, no different from doing it when SIARPC bit was on!

[ClockworkCupcake]

Derek Smith said:

Amazon Prime means a very limited audience. TG was free to air and that is a massive difference.

I think you underestimate how many people are on Amazon Prime worldwide.

Amazon Prime isn't just a video streaming service like Netflix, it is a whole ecostructure which, if you buy into the whole Amazon thing, is amazing value for money even at £79pa. Included in that price you get next day delivery on a huge number of purchases, free returns on said purchases, early access to special offers and time-limited "Lightning Deal" discounts on selected items for sale, photo storage, music, and loads of films and TV series, some of them inclusive.

For people who this benefits (and there are loads) then Prime makes a lot of sense. I've been on it for years and the savings on postage alone pay for it (although I have been grandfathered on the old £49pa price - I think I will be paying the full price for the first time this year as that expires now).

Anyway, I digress. Point is that it is a less limited audience than you think.

walm said:

It's a global product. I suspect a few of the 54m Prime customers in the US will watch!

Exactly so.

[Derek Smith]

walm said:

Derek Smith said:

Amazon Prime means a very limited audience. TG was free to air and that is a massive difference.

It's a global product. I suspect a few of the 54m Prime customers in the US will watch!

And the BBC isn't?

I can't see any way this new programme will hit the heights of TG.

One problem with such things as Prime is that it is competing in a market where there are lots of competitors.

I'm not suggesting it won't get an audience, just not the one they had.

[The Hypno-Toad]

The Grand Tour?

TGT

Top Gear Two?

[MiggyA]

DonkeyApple said:

But that is only if you pay for it in reality.

If you look at the freeviee channels then you can go for evenings at a time without anything truly watchable being on. Most channels seem to just be repeating programs. You can also see by all the gambling advertising and other dominant product marketing that conventional television is being targeted these days at a very different audience.

I agree that it is a golden age of programming but not TV.

My main issue is that I don't have any desire to pay subscriptions for content and not do I have any desire to spend my evenings pretending I'm a high powered program executive building my own bespoke channel. I've always liked just turning on the TV, seeing what is on and if there is nothing there and then to watch, turning it off again. I just happen to have noticed that I'm spending more evenings in a row with the TV turned off as the content quality has plummeted to being just a handful of new and quality shows to watch.

Netflix + Prime = about the same as the cost of a license fee, plus free delivery for a year. Far superior programming, whenever you want to watch it, what's not to like? Liking being made a vegetable of by condescending and outdated tv channels is not something to be proud of, and making actual decisions over what to watch does not make you a wannabe 'program executive', either.

[MarshPhantom]

Prime is currently £59 for the year if you go Amazon, offer on until the 17th. That's 20 quid off.