|
I agree: I've wondered for some time what the point of a TV car programme is. Either it's pure entertainment (Top Gear) or it's going to be dull like Unthrottled's example.
Does one get anything from a TV programme that one can't get from reading a detailed road test in a magazine plus taking a test drive? OK, I might have difficulty getting to test-drive, say, a Bugatti Veyron, but I don't get any particular thrills from watching someone drive it on TV (particularly not the less-than-glamorous Mr. Clarkson).
Edited by Avant on 08/08/2011 at 21:53
|
|
In spite of the puerile antics on Top Gear, they often make some decent points. Clarkson rightly pointed out that AMG's horsepower war had reached saturation and that they had ruined a car (I forget which model!) by ramping up the power to the point where it was a liability rather than an asset.
When they did the electric car stunt, the use of a diesel generator to recharge the battery was intentional. They were illustrating a serious point that a lot of 'serious' motoring pundits miss: where does the electricity come from?
Even someone as negative and wantonly critical as me can tune into Top Gear and smile. It's a very lucrative export for the Beeb-and in the current climate, that's not to be dismissed lightly!
|
|
Is a programme where motoring journos do silly things with cars, often on public highways, ridcule almost every type of road user at one time or another, and generally clown about, really a programme that shows the subject of cars and motoring in a good light or is it one that plays straight into the hands of tree-huggers?
As for the humour, I'd get more laughs watching re-runs of Open University programmes from the 1970's!
|
|
I agree-up to a point! The clowning around can be excruciating, but when they get it right, they get it very right. Take Clarkson's review of the Citroen C5 for example (available on the ubiquitius youtube). I think the irrelevant commentary describes the car very eloquently.
An autoexpress review would be full of 'facts' like the width of the wheel base and the bore to stroke ratio and the compression ratio of the engine etc. that give the reader an illusion of understanding. But it is an illusion. All of the these 'facts' are meaningless without a fairly rigorous understanding of frameworks and fluid dynamics that the reader simply won't have.
Top Gear neatly avoids the 'middle brow' knowledge trap and, IMO, is the better for it.
|
really a programme that shows the subject of cars and motoring in a good light or is it one that plays straight into the hands of tree-huggers?
The only type of motoring show which wouldnt get tree-huggers backs up will be the motoring show which discourages motoring, or rather the motoring show which doesnt get made at all.
Ill say the same thing to you that i do to anybody else who doesnt like Top Gear. If you dont like it, dont watch it. The amount of complaints it gets from people who clearly only tune in to find something to complain about is quite pathetic at times. But in answer to your question of why they dont have something more soley-motoring focused is because nobody would watch it. They tried that before in the 70s with a little program called 'Top Gear' and although it had a good niche audience, it ended up in the situation where the BBC virtually carried it due to nobody else wanting it, and eventually it got the axe as it had narrow appeal. The modern day Top Gear is watched not just by car nuts, but by people who wouldnt even know which end of a 911 the engine is in. It has a much wider appeal and that is due to alot of the stuff the hardcore motoring enthusiasts frequently bemoan about the show but when something gets 300million+ viewers worldwide, you keep doing whats made you successful. Changing a successful formula is always dangerous. Especially as its now at a level where everybody has an opinion on it. Even people who dont watch it have a reason of why they hate it and why they dont watch it. Nobody is indifferent to it. That is quite a feat for any TV Show.
Top Gear pulls off a great trick by being huge fun and not taking itself too seriously. Yes it may go a bit far from time to time with some comments and i think alot of people take the show too seriously, although it does occasionally bring up a very interesting factual point. Personally i think them three guys have the best job in the World, they get to drive the cars they love for free, go all round the world on all sorts of adventures etc, if someone went in and said 'sorry lads you cant be fun anymore you need to appeal to the 6 engineering enthusiasts in Leicestershire instead' they probably wouldnt make it, and if they did nobody would watch it.
But the other point is that with motoring being fiercly politically incorrect these days, with every council keen to stop you parking anywhere, or tax you a million quid if you do and bombarded with misinformation about how our cars are killing the world, with the greenies more than happy to get onboard and do the Govt's hectoring for them i have this deep dark nagging feeling that when Top Gear finally ends the BBC wont replace it with anything motoring related. So we should be grateful that we've got it.
Edited by jamie745 on 09/08/2011 at 00:39
|
|
I watch TG. I've watched it from the 70s. But recently it has gone downhill. I don't like certain aspects of it. And I think as licence payers we have a right to comment on it whether we enjoy it or not. Agree with the OP. In past few series it has lost its way, same old format. Cars only 1% of this island can afford. 3 overpaid idiots who stumble from the 745 stable who think they are the best drivers, know more than anyone about motoring and think they are a cut above the rest. Poor attempts at schoolboy humour add to the general malaise. The programme is sailing in the doldrums.
Sorry Jamie, I almost nodded off halfway through your post. I managed to get to the end. And on that bombshell....good night.
|
|
Top Gear never claim to be a consumer advice show so why does the comment of 'cars only 1% can afford' keep getting wheeled out? Yes as licence payers you have a right to comment on if you enjoy it or not, but you also have the right to turn it off and not watch shows you dont like. The BBC make plenty of rubbish which i dont like but i dont write in complaining about it. The fact entire shows can get axed due to 6 people not liking something is the sort of culture we need to get out of. Not everyone can like everything the BBC make, but enough make TG for them to keep funding it and thats all that matters. In fact the BBC probably make things alot of people dont like but nothing provokes a reaction quite like Top Gear and i think TG play on that.
I think you take the presenters too seriously, all three of them frequently joke about how they are quite useless and none of them has ever professed to 'know everything about motoring.' The BBC handle the program pretty well, they always back Top Gear even under the most immense flack, probably because they know its a global sensation. You dont get 300million viewers, umpteen DVD sales and book sales and an aircraft hangar literally full of people just happy to turn up and watch every week if people dont like the show. As i said earlier its the last motoring show television will ever make and when TG hangs up its boots it'll be deemed a victory for the tree hugging politically correct brigade and we shouldnt let that happen until neccessary. Its one of only five shows which makes the BBC worth paying for. If i had to make a criticism i think they're running out of cheap car challenge ideas and in the early series 02-04ish they did some more realistic car tests (i remember Hammond reviewing the new Focus for example) and James May had his inside-the-trade secrets and buying advice etc and it might be nice to see the odd bit of that shoehorn its way into 5 mins of the program from time to time.
You may view the format as stale, but its still getting results and until thats not the case it wont change and nor should it. The BBC typically underfund the summer run and the winter series is usually the best every year so we'll see what they come up with this year. But i think the shows still got alot of legs left, and the day when we purely have to rely on Dave for Top Gear is not a day i want to see soon.
|
|
Given the sort of programmes people in this country watch (soap operas, reality **** etc), do you really expect a "serious" motoring program to get a big enough audience? How many people want to sit in front of a TV watching some presenter extoll the virtues of a large boot, or really good fuel consumption, or comfortable seats with good visibility? How boring is that? You can get that from a copy of What Car magazine.
|
|
You could probably 'blame' the likes of HJ et al, for this.
As others have pointed out, plain vanilla road tests stuffed with facts have a niche appeal - ably filled by the above.
As for TG - I was once antagonistic, then became agnostic, but am now a believer (in the non-practising sense).
It's a bit of fun that does make some good 'broad brushstroke' points about cars & their place in culture/society. It's best to regard JC as a post-modern ironic commentator for most of his controversial stuff - and it's nice to see the buffoon-count a bit lower in the studio audience too (there appear to be more non-chavy attractive women recently).
TG is also an excellent earner for the BBC, so helps to cross-subsidise their more marginal, special interest & (and dare I say it..) more highbrow output.
|
|
If you read the technical Section here, it's full of people who buy cars - spending £1000s of their hard earned money - with zero research into relaibility.
Zero.
And you expect people to watch a serious motoring program? You are having a larf.
Most people regard a car as transport. Period. And many are so consumer ignorant and financially challenged they do not do any homework..
So to expect them to watch a TV program which will teach them something when they can watch meaningful programs which allow them to escape from their boring existence - Coronation Street, etc- just shows a lack of understanding of your fellow citizens.. And the evidence is obvious - see NOTW readers...
|
|
Hello All, this is great stuff. I have had a really good laugh at all the comments. You could get a comedy sketch out of this. My tuppence worth is this; I liked Top Gear years ago for the motoring and bike content, which was relevant to the vast majority with an odd treat of a car worth ten times your income thrown in. Maybe the audience has changed and it is difficult to identify the target audience for a more factual programme. Nonetheless I wish the BBC would at least attempt to do so and if there was sufficient interest we could get a motoring programme to suit.The current Top Gear is definitely more in the entertainment category, which obviously suits a lot of people. There is room for everyone in my book, so as long as it is popular it will remain and it does de-bunk a few car myths along the way, and is not afraid to tell the truth as they see it, something to be said for that. Anyway, fellow threaders keep it up, this is priceless comment and humour. Cheers. Concrete
|
|
The OP stated there are alot of motorists in this country, yes, indeed there are. But the mistake the OP has made is in assuming those motorists have an interest in motoring as most of them drive out of neccessity rather than having a genuine interest in cars or motoring and the vast majority of those motorists would have no interest in a dull boring car dominated show, they wouldnt watch it. They barely have an interest in their own car. But alot of those people who have a car but have limited interest in it do enjoy Top Gear, if anything its the hardcore car enthusiasts who have the most criticism of the show because its aimed at a 'general' audience rather than the niche it used to be.
You can head over to tvlinks etc and watch even the older episodes of the new Top Gear from about 2003ish, still virtually unknown on BBC2 and the show was made up of several very short segments and some of them interesting to those of us interested in cars. But as the shows got more popular and the show more dominated by 'big films' and i hate to sound cynical but the publicity from Hammond's crash increased interest in the show and since the US, Polar Challenge, Vietnam etc the show is now so big and popular enough for the BBC to throw money at it which they didnt do in the early series.
|
|
I adhere to the old principle of : 'no alternative, no complaint'. So what is being proposed? I've looked at footage of the old Top Gear, and it is definitely weightier stuff, but in the age of internet, completely obsolete.
Perhaps a more educational approach could be worthwhile (obviously not hosted by May, Hammond and Clarkson)?
But I'm not watching a road test of a 1.5s Hyundai Pony for the tea in China.
|
|
Well you say that unthrottled but Top Gear in its present guise does still come up with the odd good point and its all Lambo's and setting fire to caravans. You pointed out the AMG segment and the use of the diesel generator when making an electric car. They did have an episode where Clarkson and May road tested several cheap horrible Korean cars. I thought the recent feature on EV's was pretty interesting. Many other examples im sure i could find also of something vaguely educational being levered into the show but a motoring show made for educational purposes would get an educational shows viewing figures = very few.
Clarkson is a buffoon but the other two have pilots licences and they dont give those out to any idiot so they're obviously not completely thick or talentless. But the show is a laugh, people say 'they only test expensive cars' so what? They turn up and make the show they want to make and drive what they want to drive, and we're invited along. Things like them doing roadworks in 24 hours, the long road trips abroad, turning a 'serious film' into a road test of a Fiesta in a beach assault with marines etc, cars for 17 year olds, crashing lorries into brick walls and setting fire to them etc and the frankly hilarious BMW X6 review where instead of being 'cheap and simple' Clarkson purposely made the most expensive video ever made. Just going to Hong Kong for a metaphor made me fall off my chair, but that same episode had an interview with one of the people who made the road signs we all use today so its not all totally one sided stuff.
The shows great, but this series hasnt been its best.
Edited by jamie745 on 09/08/2011 at 16:09
|
|
"Clarkson is a buffoon "
No.. Clarkson ACTS like a buffoon. You don't run a show like that as an idiot nor become a multi millionaire all through your own efforts.
Mr Clarkson is a very clever man and a great front man for the other two..
|
|
This would be a separate show. I'm not knocking Clarkson et al-they are very good at what they do. It looks easy, but it isn't.
If you had a different show, say, Final Drive, you would pick presenters who were automotive experts. As amusing as Hammond is, watching him read off the autocue as he explained the merits of a multilink suspension would be tedious. That is my biggest bugbear-getting a sleb presenter to narrate a documentary on something they know nothing about!
|
|
Ok Clarkson probably does play up to his buffoonish image, but what i like about the show is they just say what they think and to hell with what people think. In this modern age thats quite something. Sometimes they even go too far purely to provoke a reaction (what was that Mexicans thing all about?!?). Im sure when the camera's off Clarkson is probably much more toned down but his persona of 'dont listen to me im just a buffoon' does let him get away with saying alot of things which he otherwise probably wouldnt.
As i said earlier these guys have the best jobs on the world, they get to turn up and essentially be kids. You dont have your own race track to test a Fiesta on it, you get something fast and outrageous. I just get frustrated when it gets endless complaints from the sort of people who just love to be offended and take it too seriously.
|
If you had a different show, say, Final Drive, you would pick presenters who were automotive experts.
Agreed, but there lies the problem. If you had presenters who were experts in their field it wouldn't necessarily mean they were good or interesting at presenting. They'd just be droning anoraks talking about what they know. And that might be interesting to 27 people in the whole country.
The difficulty would be to find presenters who know something, who are watchable, and who would not cause viwers to fall asleep or switch off.
As an aside, we know Clarkson and May are motoring journos, but what is Hammond's background? I genuinely don't know
|
|
Hammond was educated at Art college and used to be on the Radio, Cleveland, Cumbria etc so he is someone with a media presenting background. Yes he's into cars, specifically Land Rovers and i believe his grandfather worked in the car manufacturering trade in the midlands many years ago. But that reinforces your point of being an interesting presenter, Hammond's backround is in media.
Edited by jamie745 on 09/08/2011 at 16:38
|
They'd just be droning anoraks talking about what they know.
If I recall the Bible's buried secret's presenter Francesca Stavrakopoulou was a bona fide archeologist and was 'interesting' to about...ooh...50% of ther population!
|
|
