The Grand Tour
Discussion
r11co said:
CS Garth said:
The irony of all of this is that about XX million people (insert GT viewing figures) have now heard of Bingo and, for a goodly percentage, Mozambique where previously they hadn't. In terms of raising awareness of issues that is pretty good.
For those complaining about "food wastage" you'd better not have a look in the skip behind your average supermarket in the UK. There is more thrown away daily in one of those than that whole film.
If you want to really open your eyes google Otter Trawl Discards and Bycatch. Or corruption in Africa. Or indeed look into any of the 'big' issues presented by a mediocre film. Including myopia.
Awareness of the above is EXACTLY the audience the special was pitched at, without getting all serious about it.For those complaining about "food wastage" you'd better not have a look in the skip behind your average supermarket in the UK. There is more thrown away daily in one of those than that whole film.
If you want to really open your eyes google Otter Trawl Discards and Bycatch. Or corruption in Africa. Or indeed look into any of the 'big' issues presented by a mediocre film. Including myopia.
The whole thing looks like it was done on a shoestring budget - about a 100th of the cost to send a load of 'aid workers' there (half of whom would be celebs helicoptering in and back out for their publicity shoot, and the rest being 'willing volunteers' taking advantage of the lack of law and order and scrutiny or their extra-curricular activities).
There's been a lot of knowing irony in this series of TGT. Had that show gone out on the BBC we would be putting up with Lily Allen (the true barometer of hypocritical political correctness) having something to say about it right now.
Edited by r11co on Sunday 18th February 10:03
Whilst this wouldn't have gone out on BBC, and if it had Then see comments in r11co's last paragraph, Clarkson in particular has a track record for doing or saying something superficially silly, yet if one thinks about it he is making a valid point hidden behind the 'comedy.' For example years ago he was reviewing some very large engined vehicle, can't recall which, let's say it was a Panamera. In the news at the time was the announcement from TFL regarding concessions for hybrids. JC made the joke that to avoid the congestion charge on the Panamera one could put a PP9 battery in the boot, presumably a Scalectrix motor too and save a fortune. Clearly a very silly and stupid suggestion, obviously so. Yet behind that is an unstated swipe at manufacturers who were rushing to gain tax advantages by increasing the cost and complexity of vehicles by installing hybrid systems that just about met the very low criteria set, there is even a term for them, compliance specials.
Even today some of these are still on sale despite things having moved on considerably, e.g. Auris can do up to 1.2 miles whoop de bloody do. Compliance special, many more like that imo. Then you get folks who frankly talk b
ks in support of these things. We had some old duffer on the radio the other day claiming that in his Lexus, similar system to Auris, except an older and inferior performance system, he could drive from Bewdley to Tenbury Wells, and back, 15 miles each way and up some fair old hills, "without using a drop of petrol." Just deluded or a bare faced liar, who knows.So with the silly comment, if the viewer thinks for a second, JC is having a swipe at the hypocrisy about. Just like this episode.
On that matter, it wasn't good, no argument, perhaps disappointing that they didn't predict the fury that would be unleashed, or maybe they did and don't really care. And do you know what, looking at the nature of some of the more superficial criticisms, I'm having difficulty caring too. The bit that I did find uncomfortable was the scene where they'd claimed to have caught these fish, clearly they hadn't, yet in the background were a few market stalls with very little on offer, thus the implication that they had bought up most of the catch in order to piss about with it. Problem is that so much of all TV is such a setup, all filmed out of order, then edited to buggery, who knows the reality.
FiF said:
...manufacturers who were rushing to gain tax advantages by increasing the cost and complexity of vehicles by installing hybrid systems that just about met the very low criteria set, there is even a term for them, compliance specials.
Are the rule makers not more to blame than the manufacturers? They have to make their vehicles to achieve certain targets just to get them out into the market and so are forced down these routes. And it's not quite a tax advantage - it's more just not paying fines for excess CO2 emissions as measured over a legislated drive cycle. FiF said:
...Good points...
...The bit that I did find uncomfortable was the scene where they'd claimed to have caught these fish, clearly they hadn't, yet in the background were a few market stalls with very little on offer, thus the implication that they had bought up most of the catch in order to piss about with it. Problem is that so much of all TV is such a setup, all filmed out of order, then edited to buggery, who knows the reality.
I can't see them doing that [taking the fish stock out of that particular market] - it was just a visual gag, they probably batch bought loads of stuff in the big market at a big price, everyone was happy and no one went hungry in reality....The bit that I did find uncomfortable was the scene where they'd claimed to have caught these fish, clearly they hadn't, yet in the background were a few market stalls with very little on offer, thus the implication that they had bought up most of the catch in order to piss about with it. Problem is that so much of all TV is such a setup, all filmed out of order, then edited to buggery, who knows the reality.
I didn't think it was their strongest episode, but when someone describes it as 'dross', 'awful' or some other hyperbole I can't imagine why they watched it - if you say 'wasn't their best' or 'didn't think it was so funny' then I understand, but 'crap, dross, s
te'....no, it isn't, otherwise you'd never watch it. I think people just do this for dramatic effect, bit like saying you're helping starving Africans when you're not really.Anyway, let's not get bogged down in who did what to who....
andy_s said:
FiF said:
...Good points...
...The bit that I did find uncomfortable was the scene where they'd claimed to have caught these fish, clearly they hadn't, yet in the background were a few market stalls with very little on offer, thus the implication that they had bought up most of the catch in order to piss about with it. Problem is that so much of all TV is such a setup, all filmed out of order, then edited to buggery, who knows the reality.
I can't see them doing that [taking the fish stock out of that particular market] - it was just a visual gag, they probably batch bought loads of stuff in the big market at a big price, everyone was happy and no one went hungry in reality....The bit that I did find uncomfortable was the scene where they'd claimed to have caught these fish, clearly they hadn't, yet in the background were a few market stalls with very little on offer, thus the implication that they had bought up most of the catch in order to piss about with it. Problem is that so much of all TV is such a setup, all filmed out of order, then edited to buggery, who knows the reality.
I didn't think it was their strongest episode, but when someone describes it as 'dross', 'awful' or some other hyperbole I can't imagine why they watched it - if you say 'wasn't their best' or 'didn't think it was so funny' then I understand, but 'crap, dross, s
te'....no, it isn't, otherwise you'd never watch it. I think people just do this for dramatic effect, bit like saying you're helping starving Africans when you're not really.Anyway, let's not get bogged down in who did what to who....
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
I watched it because I've enjoyed most of both series's, and I had hope it would be OK-good. But it wasn't. I contemplated turning it off a few times, but was hoping it may pick up.
Sure, but you can't go from 'enjoyed' to 'dross' unless there's a massive change though. I get you didn't enjoy, or even 'standards are slipping', but it seems to be a bit of a stretch to go from enjoyment to 'dross/ste/crap' - you see it all the time nowadays, perhaps why things are getting more polarised, there's little nuance left and everything seems to be either fab or crap. There have been great episodes and then ones that weren't to my taste or were disappointing or repetitive, but it didn't suddenly get to dross as it's been the same show in essence for many years.
The arguments then start as you only have a choice of 'crap' on one side and 'great' on the other, with each side getting more entrenched so as not to lose the argument. Not only about TG/TGT, life in general.
Sorry - not picking up on you in particular - just generally answering one of the points further above.
The second series has been variable for me, some good (the Jag episode in particular), some not so good but the Mozambique special was utter turd.
I do like what CHM do, but in terms of TGT CHM vs TG CHM - there's no comparison. Maybe they have 5x the budget on Prime, but they don't seem to have any of the BBC's production skills. Watching old TG episodes on Prime (even the last CHM series of TG) back to back with TGT makes this massively apparent.
I do like what CHM do, but in terms of TGT CHM vs TG CHM - there's no comparison. Maybe they have 5x the budget on Prime, but they don't seem to have any of the BBC's production skills. Watching old TG episodes on Prime (even the last CHM series of TG) back to back with TGT makes this massively apparent.
andy_s said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
I watched it because I've enjoyed most of both series's, and I had hope it would be OK-good. But it wasn't. I contemplated turning it off a few times, but was hoping it may pick up.
Sure, but you can't go from 'enjoyed' to 'dross' unless there's a massive change though. I get you didn't enjoy, or even 'standards are slipping', but it seems to be a bit of a stretch to go from enjoyment to 'dross/ste/crap'.As I've said repeatedly, I'm a big TGT fan, and have enjoyed probably 80-90% of ther output, especially in this second series, but I cannot shake off the bad feeling I had for this final episode.
I really think was poor to the point of almost feeling embarrassed for CHM.
It felt like they had run out of ideas, been shafted by the script writers, couldn't be arsed to try anything new, and just cobbled something cheap together over a couple of days of uncinematic filming.
If that has always been their standard for a Special episode, then I wouldn't be complaining.
But watch something like the Burma, Africa or Vietnam specials of a few years ago and they verge on the spectacular. Filmed over nearly 2 weeks each, with stunning cinematography and a genuinely fascinating insight into those countries.
I think that's the problem. I'm trying to compare this 'Special' to the old specials, and there really is no comparison.
Thing is, I have no idea why these should be worse than the old ones. They certainly have a bigger budget now.
Lord Marylebone said:
andy_s said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
I watched it because I've enjoyed most of both series's, and I had hope it would be OK-good. But it wasn't. I contemplated turning it off a few times, but was hoping it may pick up.
Sure, but you can't go from 'enjoyed' to 'dross' unless there's a massive change though. I get you didn't enjoy, or even 'standards are slipping', but it seems to be a bit of a stretch to go from enjoyment to 'dross/ste/crap'.As I've said repeatedly, I'm a big TGT fan, and have enjoyed probably 80-90% of ther output, especially in this second series, but I cannot shake off the bad feeling I had for this final episode.
I really think was poor to the point of almost feeling embarrassed for CHM.
It felt like they had run out of ideas, been shafted by the script writers, couldn't be arsed to try anything new, and just cobbled something cheap together over a couple of days of uncinematic filming.
If that has always been their standard for a Special episode, then I wouldn't be complaining.
But watch something like the Burma, Africa or Vietnam specials of a few years ago and they verge on the spectacular. Filmed over nearly 2 weeks each, with stunning cinematography and a genuinely fascinating insight into those countries.
I think that's the problem. I'm trying to compare this 'Special' to the old specials, and there really is no comparison.
Thing is, I have no idea why these should be worse than the old ones. They certainly have a bigger budget now.
I bet the gag of jumping into the helicopter at the end looked great on paper at the planning stage, but the whole program was an unsubtle setup for it.
10 years ago it would have worked.
If they are going to try make a swipe at lovies and their charity work, something involving smuggling "Afghan orphan children" (neither Afghan, orphans, or children) into Lilly Allens country house would hit the mark.
Lord Marylebone said:
I think that's the problem. I'm trying to compare this 'Special' to the old specials, and there really is no comparison.
It was pretty rubbish but it was better than the India special.They've had a poor hit/miss record for the best part of a decade now. This series as a whole has been ok, particularly compared to last series. It'd be nice if they could do something truly great like the polar special before they jack it in for good.
skinny said:
FiF said:
...manufacturers who were rushing to gain tax advantages by increasing the cost and complexity of vehicles by installing hybrid systems that just about met the very low criteria set, there is even a term for them, compliance specials.
Are the rule makers not more to blame than the manufacturers? They have to make their vehicles to achieve certain targets just to get them out into the market and so are forced down these routes. And it's not quite a tax advantage - it's more just not paying fines for excess CO2 emissions as measured over a legislated drive cycle. Mr Happy said:
The second series has been variable for me, some good (the Jag episode in particular), some not so good but the Mozambique special was utter turd.
I do like what CHM do, but in terms of TGT CHM vs TG CHM - there's no comparison. Maybe they have 5x the budget on Prime, but they don't seem to have any of the BBC's production skills. Watching old TG episodes on Prime (even the last CHM series of TG) back to back with TGT makes this massively apparent.
Maybe that's it, maybe they need to be spending more of the budget on putting together the best production team they can find.I do like what CHM do, but in terms of TGT CHM vs TG CHM - there's no comparison. Maybe they have 5x the budget on Prime, but they don't seem to have any of the BBC's production skills. Watching old TG episodes on Prime (even the last CHM series of TG) back to back with TGT makes this massively apparent.
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Maybe that's it, maybe they need to be spending more of the budget on putting together the best production team they can find.
Considering almost the entire production team (exclusing one or two notable individuals) came over with them to Amazon (as employees of CHM's own production company) I don't think that's an issue.Incidentally, Top Gear on the BBC has gone through two almost entire production staff changes since CH&M left (one half-way through production of the first series).
Thought the ep was a bit dull, never really liked the road trips on TG, the north pole one was one of the few exceptions.
That said the Top Gear US programme on the History Channel with Tanner Foust n co was great, they seemed to actually like each other too. I hope Netflix or similar is able to resurrect that one.
Road Kill is IMO still the strongest car themed programme around, has been consistently strong for years, seems to understand why people like cars.
That said the Top Gear US programme on the History Channel with Tanner Foust n co was great, they seemed to actually like each other too. I hope Netflix or similar is able to resurrect that one.
Road Kill is IMO still the strongest car themed programme around, has been consistently strong for years, seems to understand why people like cars.
qube_TA said:
Thought the ep was a bit dull, never really liked the road trips on TG, the north pole one was one of the few exceptions.
That said the Top Gear US programme on the History Channel with Tanner Foust n co was great, they seemed to actually like each other too. I hope Netflix or similar is able to resurrect that one.
Road Kill is IMO still the strongest car themed programme around, has been consistently strong for years, seems to understand why people like cars.
Roadkill is brilliant I agree, but it doesn’t have the mass market appeal that TGT does it ever will. It’s too much about cars That said the Top Gear US programme on the History Channel with Tanner Foust n co was great, they seemed to actually like each other too. I hope Netflix or similar is able to resurrect that one.
Road Kill is IMO still the strongest car themed programme around, has been consistently strong for years, seems to understand why people like cars.
r11co said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Maybe that's it, maybe they need to be spending more of the budget on putting together the best production team they can find.
Considering almost the entire production team (exclusing one or two notable individuals) came over with them to Amazon (as employees of CHM's own production company) I don't think that's an issue.Incidentally, Top Gear on the BBC has gone through two almost entire production staff changes since CH&M left (one half-way through production of the first series).
On TG you'd occasionally have a bad segment, but by and large the show itself would be pretty good, on TGT you can have entire shows that look like they've been hastily knocked together on the back of a fag packet, but have the odd occasionally brilliant segment.
I hope they're not just going through the motions for the sake of seeing out the Amazon contract, kinda like bands that sign up for multi album deals to a record company, which see them start off great but by album five, they're referred to as "who? oh them"
I'd personally love to see Clarkson doing more WW2 documentaries, he has a way of delivering the subject matter in a way that brings it to life, May can stick to the assembler - he's good at that, if sometimes a little too boring and adenoidal, as for Hammond... I dunno.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff