BBC Top Gear Thread 2021/2022
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Working class and lower class aren't or rather weren't necessarily synonymous though. He didn't come a deprived background then, lets put it like that, unless you define deprived as no foreign holidays and not owned a five bedroom family home. I say this as I come from a broadly similar background.Pro Bono said:
It's quite ironic how the BBC, which is always banging on about challenging stereotypes, has made one of their flagship shows into possibly the most stereotypical programme on the whole channel.
McGuinness and Flintoff are the dopey, northern, working class oiks and Harris is the southern, privately educated, middle class prat. If they had black / Indian / woman presenters that were stereotyped to this degree there'd be a Twitterstorm of biblical proportions.
This is why the `banter' doesn't work - because in real life Harris would never voluntarily mix with the other two and vice versa.
It could be credible if all three of them were genuine car enthusiasts, as such enthusiasm easily crosses class barriers, but McGuinness and Flintoff really aren't. They like driving fast, powerful cars in the same way that they'd enjoy driving a jet ski or a powerful motorbike - because they're noisy and self-indulgent, pretty much a reflection of themselves. In fact, McGuinness is exactly the sort of gobbin I'd expect to own a jet ski, and to have it towed by a Urus. They just see cars as big toys, and seem to have little interest in cars / driving as such.
Of course there's no reason why they should. As many others have said, TG is only nominally a motoring programme now, and no doubt many or most of the viewers are as uninterested in cars as they are. It's probably only the poor geeks of PH who really care any more.
But there's an uncomfortable undercurrent about their relationship with Harris. I suspect that despite their gobby manner they actually feel inferior to him in many ways, hence the mockery of his perceived middle-class traits - banking at Coutts, holidaying in the Caribbean and knowing how to water-ski. It just sounds like everyday envy and chippiness, thinly disguised as banter.
It also feels to me as though Harris really can't stand the other two, but puts up with it because of the money. Sometimes, when he's forgotten to do one of his disconcertingly forced and manic laughs at their `laddish antics' the mask slips, and real irritation shows through.
It's a shame, as I don't actively dislike any of them individually, but they're just the wrong people for the job. Or perhaps (more likely) it's my perception of the job that's wrong!
I'll say this again, for the benefit of the hard-of-hearing...McGuinness and Flintoff are the dopey, northern, working class oiks and Harris is the southern, privately educated, middle class prat. If they had black / Indian / woman presenters that were stereotyped to this degree there'd be a Twitterstorm of biblical proportions.
This is why the `banter' doesn't work - because in real life Harris would never voluntarily mix with the other two and vice versa.
It could be credible if all three of them were genuine car enthusiasts, as such enthusiasm easily crosses class barriers, but McGuinness and Flintoff really aren't. They like driving fast, powerful cars in the same way that they'd enjoy driving a jet ski or a powerful motorbike - because they're noisy and self-indulgent, pretty much a reflection of themselves. In fact, McGuinness is exactly the sort of gobbin I'd expect to own a jet ski, and to have it towed by a Urus. They just see cars as big toys, and seem to have little interest in cars / driving as such.
Of course there's no reason why they should. As many others have said, TG is only nominally a motoring programme now, and no doubt many or most of the viewers are as uninterested in cars as they are. It's probably only the poor geeks of PH who really care any more.
But there's an uncomfortable undercurrent about their relationship with Harris. I suspect that despite their gobby manner they actually feel inferior to him in many ways, hence the mockery of his perceived middle-class traits - banking at Coutts, holidaying in the Caribbean and knowing how to water-ski. It just sounds like everyday envy and chippiness, thinly disguised as banter.
It also feels to me as though Harris really can't stand the other two, but puts up with it because of the money. Sometimes, when he's forgotten to do one of his disconcertingly forced and manic laughs at their `laddish antics' the mask slips, and real irritation shows through.
It's a shame, as I don't actively dislike any of them individually, but they're just the wrong people for the job. Or perhaps (more likely) it's my perception of the job that's wrong!
You're aware that all of this is meticulously, painstakingly scripted, right?
And that none of the presenters are involved in writing that script, right?
Paddy and Flintoff aren't mocking Harris. They are reading from a script, where the writers thought it would be funny to mock Harris, because it's an easy and obvious gag that Average Joe will associate with. A bit like when CH&M made inferences about May's sexuality or gags about Hammond's height.
It worked better for CH&M because they'd known each other for years, so it felt inherently more believable and 'natural'. But it was still 100% scripted.
For what it's worth, I agree with most of your other points about the two celebs (let's be honest, both could have been guests on SIARPC) not being car enthusiasts in the way that CH&M were. It's quite clear from their casting that the producers have given up on the old format of people who love cars talking passionately about them, and moved deliberately towards something more light-entertainment based.
The only other thing I disagree with is looking down your nose at jetskis. They are excellent fun, albeit with a challenging ownership profile.
Edited by C70R on Wednesday 21st October 11:25
durbster said:
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
durbster said:
Every time I open this thread, I hope the posters who appear to be both baffled and furious about people on TV having an accent have finally moved on.
And yet...
Then don't read it And yet...
C70R said:
I'll say this again, for the benefit of the hard-of-hearing...
You're aware that all of this is meticulously, painstakingly scripted, right?
And that none of the presenters are involved in writing that script, right?
Paddy and Flintoff aren't mocking Harris. They are reading from a script, where the writers thought it would be funny to mock Harris, because it's an easy and obvious gag that Average Joe will associate with. A bit like when CH&M made inferences about May's sexuality or gags about Hammond's height.
Don't think for a minute we don't get that, but good writing along with good production values leads not so much to believe-ability but suspension of disbelief - you know as an audience member that you are watching a staged production but can immerse yourself in it.You're aware that all of this is meticulously, painstakingly scripted, right?
And that none of the presenters are involved in writing that script, right?
Paddy and Flintoff aren't mocking Harris. They are reading from a script, where the writers thought it would be funny to mock Harris, because it's an easy and obvious gag that Average Joe will associate with. A bit like when CH&M made inferences about May's sexuality or gags about Hammond's height.
It is the reason why people can watch films and not notice the Goofs that IMDB like to produce long lists of. It is the reason why people can sit in a theatre in London and look at wooden backdrops and still believe for a moment they are in Paris, or the middle-ages.
I agree with Pro Bono entirely though, and if issues become so noticeable that someone can express them in that level of detail then it means there is something wrong with the writing and production.
Scripting is not the issue. What has been scripted, filmed and presented is.
Edited by Evercross on Wednesday 21st October 12:29
Evercross said:
Don't think for a minute we don't get that, but good writing along with good production values leads not so much to believe-ability but suspension of disbelief - you know as an audience member that you ar watching a production but can immerse yourself in it.
It is the reason why people can watch films and not notice the Goofs that IMDB like to produce long lists of.
I agree with Pro Bono entirely though, and if issues become so noticeable that someone can express them in that level of detail then it means there is something wrong with the writing and production.
Scripting is not the issue. What has been scripted, filmed and presented is.
All of which is true, but it's an important distinction.It is the reason why people can watch films and not notice the Goofs that IMDB like to produce long lists of.
I agree with Pro Bono entirely though, and if issues become so noticeable that someone can express them in that level of detail then it means there is something wrong with the writing and production.
Scripting is not the issue. What has been scripted, filmed and presented is.
Edited by Evercross on Wednesday 21st October 12:27
The Northern lads aren't bullying/mocking Harris - they are simply reading from a script with a gag that bullies/mocks Harris.
C70R said:
The Northern lads aren't bullying/mocking Harris - they are simply reading from a script with a gag that bullies/mocks Harris.
Which isn't a good look.Plus I associate McGuiness with puerile, crude humour and prostituting himself to any game show that would take him in his early career, so his unpalatable laddish behaviour is entirely "believable", even if he is following a script.
Evercross said:
C70R said:
The Northern lads aren't bullying/mocking Harris - they are simply reading from a script with a gag that bullies/mocks Harris.
Which isn't a good look.Plus I associate McGuiness with puerile, crude humour and prostituting himself to any game show that would take him in his early career, so his unpalatable laddish behaviour is entirely "believable", even if he is following a script.
For the same reason that I don't get annoyed at the character/actor who keeps looking over the wrong shoulder at the pantomime.
It's not real.
Evercross said:
C70R said:
The Northern lads aren't bullying/mocking Harris - they are simply reading from a script with a gag that bullies/mocks Harris.
Which isn't a good look.Plus I associate McGuiness with puerile, crude humour and prostituting himself to any game show that would take him in his early career, so his unpalatable laddish behaviour is entirely "believable", even if he is following a script.
C70R said:
Evercross said:
C70R said:
The Northern lads aren't bullying/mocking Harris - they are simply reading from a script with a gag that bullies/mocks Harris.
Which isn't a good look.Plus I associate McGuiness with puerile, crude humour and prostituting himself to any game show that would take him in his early career, so his unpalatable laddish behaviour is entirely "believable", even if he is following a script.
For the same reason that I don't get annoyed at the character/actor who keeps looking over the wrong shoulder at the pantomime.
It's not real.
C70R said:
Evercross said:
Don't think for a minute we don't get that, but good writing along with good production values leads not so much to believe-ability but suspension of disbelief - you know as an audience member that you ar watching a production but can immerse yourself in it.
It is the reason why people can watch films and not notice the Goofs that IMDB like to produce long lists of.
I agree with Pro Bono entirely though, and if issues become so noticeable that someone can express them in that level of detail then it means there is something wrong with the writing and production.
Scripting is not the issue. What has been scripted, filmed and presented is.
All of which is true, but it's an important distinction.It is the reason why people can watch films and not notice the Goofs that IMDB like to produce long lists of.
I agree with Pro Bono entirely though, and if issues become so noticeable that someone can express them in that level of detail then it means there is something wrong with the writing and production.
Scripting is not the issue. What has been scripted, filmed and presented is.
Edited by Evercross on Wednesday 21st October 12:27
The Northern lads aren't bullying/mocking Harris - they are simply reading from a script with a gag that bullies/mocks Harris.
You have a hell of a lot to say on the subject so I'm assuming some actual inside knowledge or experience working within the new topgear set up?
C70R said:
I'll say this again, for the benefit of the hard-of-hearing...
You're aware that all of this is meticulously, painstakingly scripted, right?
And that none of the presenters are involved in writing that script, right?
Paddy and Flintoff aren't mocking Harris. They are reading from a script, where the writers thought it would be funny to mock Harris, because it's an easy and obvious gag that Average Joe will associate with.
You can repeat it as often as you like but that's not how programmes like this are made. You're aware that all of this is meticulously, painstakingly scripted, right?
And that none of the presenters are involved in writing that script, right?
Paddy and Flintoff aren't mocking Harris. They are reading from a script, where the writers thought it would be funny to mock Harris, because it's an easy and obvious gag that Average Joe will associate with.
It sounds like you think it's made like an American studio sitcom for some reason.
It is depressing for people to hear but outside of live broadcasts, most filming is done using several takes. My director recently did an interview regarding a hillfort for a tv show, they did 9 takes of him repeating the same thing, which kind of removed any kind of spontaneity out of the whole experience. This is one of the reasons why I avoid doing tv interviews at work, the other main one is that people who work in television are usually horribly self important.
'How We Made Top Gear' by a former script editor: https://jalopnik.com/how-we-made-top-gear-17138822...
Some parts were tightly scripted (car reviews), others weren't (most of the 'in the field' stuff it seems):
"A three header item out in the field would be much looser. Sometimes so loose a director would read the script and slowly sigh the words, Is that it? Ideally, there’d be a studio introduction that set out the logic of the story, some attempt to structure the start, maybe a few choice gags for each presenter to attack his colleagues’ choice of cars (though they preferred to keep the really good ones to themselves and unleash them like Indiana Jones’s whip when least expected) and then a broad attempt to order the item’s activities. Even so, one of the most common words on a Top Gear script was a vague, director-baiting place holder that simply said, ‘whatever’."
Some parts were tightly scripted (car reviews), others weren't (most of the 'in the field' stuff it seems):
"A three header item out in the field would be much looser. Sometimes so loose a director would read the script and slowly sigh the words, Is that it? Ideally, there’d be a studio introduction that set out the logic of the story, some attempt to structure the start, maybe a few choice gags for each presenter to attack his colleagues’ choice of cars (though they preferred to keep the really good ones to themselves and unleash them like Indiana Jones’s whip when least expected) and then a broad attempt to order the item’s activities. Even so, one of the most common words on a Top Gear script was a vague, director-baiting place holder that simply said, ‘whatever’."
I enjoyed it again and I had quite a few laugh out loud moments watching it. I like the three of them though so that obviously helps. There isn't anything new about it(why would there be because it has been going for donkeys years), but I also appreciate not having to fast forward past the star in the car bit.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff