BBC Top Gear 2018 Thread
Discussion
t..Clockwork Cupcake said:
ReaperCushions said:
Yep, and it didn't work as he was a bit 'yoof'.
I just don't get this accusation. He's not even that young (late 30's).I suspect that it's more a case that he was a bit 'black'.
(Not aimed at you, ReaperCushions. It was a general observation)
Zoon said:
About the same as Richard Hammond. None
Apart from the years that Hammond reviewed cars on TV for men and motors...https://youtu.be/av8qkhFersc
RJG46 said:
soxboy said:
Ha ha, very closely indeed. This TG news is probably the best publicity they can get for the new series of TGT.
Why? Has it improved massively over the first 2 Series?
I won't be renewing our Prime Membership.
Prawo Jazdy said:
This is the latest in the BBC’s strategy of “We’ll make you beg for stuff you previously slated as rubbish.”
Paddy McGuinness?! I felt better when I found out Trump was a head of state. At least he is entertaining in some fashion.
Trump speaks better English, well not English exactly, it's a pidgin version even by American standards but more understandable than McGuinness.Paddy McGuinness?! I felt better when I found out Trump was a head of state. At least he is entertaining in some fashion.
Norfolkit said:
Prawo Jazdy said:
This is the latest in the BBC’s strategy of “We’ll make you beg for stuff you previously slated as rubbish.”
Paddy McGuinness?! I felt better when I found out Trump was a head of state. At least he is entertaining in some fashion.
Trump speaks better English, well not English exactly, it's a pidgin version even by American standards but more understandable than McGuinness.Paddy McGuinness?! I felt better when I found out Trump was a head of state. At least he is entertaining in some fashion.
E65Ross said:
RJG46 said:
soxboy said:
Ha ha, very closely indeed. This TG news is probably the best publicity they can get for the new series of TGT.
Why? Has it improved massively over the first 2 Series?
I won't be renewing our Prime Membership.
It had some good moments, but too much of it was still below par. Same as series one. Not many of the episodes were memorable enough for me to conclude if series 1 or 2 was better. The ratings on IMDB suggest series 1 was better.
Isn't the next series of TGT the last with their deal coming to an end? Amazon appear to have stopped promoting TGT.
Edited by Driver101 on Wednesday 24th October 08:05
Fermit and Sarah said:
It's not impossible, but I'd say Clarkson is far too self-satisfied to ever agree to that.
Hasn't he said he would come back to work for the BBC in the past? Obviously not on Top Gear, Amazon wouldn't have taken very kindly to him saying that. But I think it was about Pointless or some other show...But there is no chance he will do Top Gear again, not until Amazon drop The Grand Tour.
Alex said:
Mafffew said:
But there is no chance he will do Top Gear again, not until Amazon drop The Grand Tour.
I thought Amazon had not renewed The Grand Tour after Series 3?https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/22/grand-tours-richard...
Edit: Actually, having read the article a little more closely, I think he said no such thing.
Judging by the reaction on the internet, it rather seems that most people are unhappy with this choice.
There seems to be quite a specific requirement that online forum and Facebook commentators have for who should be the presenters in the wake of Clarkson, Hammond and May's departure and what credentials they need to have.
Being a "car nut" is not good enough for some. Lots of people are "car nuts" and would, given an extensive pile of money, go ahead and buy a dealership full of super cars, sports cars, luxury cars, hot hatches and a Focus for the wife. However these people might be a bit wooden in front of the camera, and not bond with their fellow presenters or be good at delivering lines about their cars. They also might not be able to drive very well, to be given the appropriate respect for their judgement when they deliver a verdict on how "good" a particular car is on its own merit, or compared to other of its stablemates.
Instead, it seems that what people think they want to make them happy, would be that any prospective new candidate for the role first of all completes a 3 hour examination which tests their knowledge of the entire history of the automobile, the industry, all different types of gearbox, and every different race series. Pass mark on the exam will be 98%
Next, they must go ahead and completely strip down and restore a 2003 BMW 325i, body, interior, chassis and drivetrain, replacing all worn components and all fluids. The car is to presented to the BMW Owners Club annual Concours d'Elegance for assessment. Anything below a 3rd place finish will result in disqualification.
This is followed by a comprehensive presentation to the interview panel from The Apprentice which comprises a 45 minute presentation about any car of their choosing, followed by 30 minutes Q&A session about the car, to prove they know what they are talking about.
Only upon passing this will they be permitted to take the driving assessment. This will see them put to the test as to whether or not they can actually judge cars properly for how they drive.
The first test will see them given a Ford Focus and they must drive it to Norwich. They will not be aware that the car will have been set up to handle incorrectly - weights may have been added to put the car off balance under certain circumstances, the engine map may have been amended from standard, and it might not have the correct tyres. All of these issues must be raised by the driver and the correct remedial action listed. Any comments along the lines of "Its clear to see why the Focus remains the best-handling car in this segment" will result in disqualification.
The second test is to be given a second-generation Mazda MX5 which they must take around the Nurburgring in under 9 minutes. In the rain.
Third test will be to choose a car of about £100,000 and point out every single flaw with it that mean it is unsuitable for a car of that type worth £100,000. Absolutely no references to its "impracticality as a tip-run car" if you've chosen a 911, or "it won't get over a ploughed field" if you've chosen a 911, or how "it isn't as quick as a 911" if you've chosen a Range Rover. Failures must be related specifically to the car you have chosen within whatever the parameters for that car are stated to be.
After all this, eventually, you can go on a screen test.
You must be funny. But not "trying to be funny" funny. Just funny. Witty, but not smug. Understand your place in the line up without knowing who the others are in the line up, refuse to be pigeon-holed as "the funny one" or "the one that's good as driving" or "the comic relief" or "the geek" because you must be all of those things without being any of them. Make sure you read the script without reading from a script, don't miss the unwritten cues from other presenters, don't track the autocue with your eyes. Make sure that you can be spontaneous on demand.
You must also be able to weather the comments that you are not Clarkson, you're trying to hard to be Clarkson, but also, make sure you are very similar to Clarkson in order to make sure you are accepted as a presenter by those who actually tune in to watch the show.
There seems to be quite a specific requirement that online forum and Facebook commentators have for who should be the presenters in the wake of Clarkson, Hammond and May's departure and what credentials they need to have.
Being a "car nut" is not good enough for some. Lots of people are "car nuts" and would, given an extensive pile of money, go ahead and buy a dealership full of super cars, sports cars, luxury cars, hot hatches and a Focus for the wife. However these people might be a bit wooden in front of the camera, and not bond with their fellow presenters or be good at delivering lines about their cars. They also might not be able to drive very well, to be given the appropriate respect for their judgement when they deliver a verdict on how "good" a particular car is on its own merit, or compared to other of its stablemates.
Instead, it seems that what people think they want to make them happy, would be that any prospective new candidate for the role first of all completes a 3 hour examination which tests their knowledge of the entire history of the automobile, the industry, all different types of gearbox, and every different race series. Pass mark on the exam will be 98%
Next, they must go ahead and completely strip down and restore a 2003 BMW 325i, body, interior, chassis and drivetrain, replacing all worn components and all fluids. The car is to presented to the BMW Owners Club annual Concours d'Elegance for assessment. Anything below a 3rd place finish will result in disqualification.
This is followed by a comprehensive presentation to the interview panel from The Apprentice which comprises a 45 minute presentation about any car of their choosing, followed by 30 minutes Q&A session about the car, to prove they know what they are talking about.
Only upon passing this will they be permitted to take the driving assessment. This will see them put to the test as to whether or not they can actually judge cars properly for how they drive.
The first test will see them given a Ford Focus and they must drive it to Norwich. They will not be aware that the car will have been set up to handle incorrectly - weights may have been added to put the car off balance under certain circumstances, the engine map may have been amended from standard, and it might not have the correct tyres. All of these issues must be raised by the driver and the correct remedial action listed. Any comments along the lines of "Its clear to see why the Focus remains the best-handling car in this segment" will result in disqualification.
The second test is to be given a second-generation Mazda MX5 which they must take around the Nurburgring in under 9 minutes. In the rain.
Third test will be to choose a car of about £100,000 and point out every single flaw with it that mean it is unsuitable for a car of that type worth £100,000. Absolutely no references to its "impracticality as a tip-run car" if you've chosen a 911, or "it won't get over a ploughed field" if you've chosen a 911, or how "it isn't as quick as a 911" if you've chosen a Range Rover. Failures must be related specifically to the car you have chosen within whatever the parameters for that car are stated to be.
After all this, eventually, you can go on a screen test.
You must be funny. But not "trying to be funny" funny. Just funny. Witty, but not smug. Understand your place in the line up without knowing who the others are in the line up, refuse to be pigeon-holed as "the funny one" or "the one that's good as driving" or "the comic relief" or "the geek" because you must be all of those things without being any of them. Make sure you read the script without reading from a script, don't miss the unwritten cues from other presenters, don't track the autocue with your eyes. Make sure that you can be spontaneous on demand.
You must also be able to weather the comments that you are not Clarkson, you're trying to hard to be Clarkson, but also, make sure you are very similar to Clarkson in order to make sure you are accepted as a presenter by those who actually tune in to watch the show.
RJG46 said:
What are you going on about? Really can't be bothered to read that.
Do you think an ex-cricketer and a failed comedian will make great TG presenters or not?
TL;DR - Shakermaker proposes a lengthy and exhaustive selection process that a potential presenter must score highly on. It is almost impossible to pass. Do you think an ex-cricketer and a failed comedian will make great TG presenters or not?
Corollary: some internet commentards will never be happy.
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Friday 26th October 11:55
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff