Solid read:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...n-era-top-gear
Printable View
I liked the first episode but my thoughts on the second were pretty much that, that it's like they actively took the stuff that sent Top Gear off the boil and did more of it.
That's a bit shit then. I've yet to watch it but it sounds exactly why I gave up on Top Gear.
I like watching the odd clip on YouTube from about a decade ago when there was still a decent focus on the cars and the humour didn't feel so forced.
The thing is, that they do have very good chemistry together that does come across as humour. So there's no need for them to be scripting the shit out of it like they're doing now.
They've been scripting the shit out of it for over a decade now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Giggles
The new show is OK, but I was hoping they would make every show a "special" of some kind. No more studio shit. Just send em to some random country and get em to do stupid shit.
And it's been on the downhill since. The fresh start was as good a time as any to actually look at what was wrong. Instead it's same thing on a bigger budget, I don't think I've seen a clip on on these shows ever that was worse than that die/respawn thing in week 2.hQuote:
Originally Posted by Yevrah
What else are they going to do? It's the car show version of Last of the Summer Wine.
Ok, they could actually make it about cars, but then as we've been over many times before, nobody would actually watch it if they did.
And the accusation of the budget being bigger spoiling it is a lazy one as it doesn't look like it is to me. I'm guessing a shit load of it went on their salaries and providing the infrastructure to make such a show that the BBC already had.
They don't need to make it exclusively about cars, they just need to make it a bit more natural and less forced in an attempt to be 'wacky'. That bit with Hammond in the yankmobile in Italy was so forced it was like a cartoon. They've done it before in a natural way and it works so much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yevrah
Also, on the budget, what the fuck is the track about? Did they only realise last minute they needed one and had a hundred quid left?
I think it came across more naturally in the past as it was new to us and they had loads of ideas. To pull the same thing off for a decade plus is a tough ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by Giggles
You can pinpoint the moment in the original where it got so smug it started to consume itself. They got an award from someone for best unscripted show, and Clarkson made a joke about it, then when the laughter died down he mentioned how he knew it was a good joke when he wrote it into the script last night. All three of them just grinned straight into the camera and the descent began.
Thought the third and especially the fourth were perfectly watchable. Don't mind too much if it maintains a similar standard.
The second was probably the worst thing they've ever done.
I've just seen an advert for this for the first time, and one of the three review quotes they've picked to feature is 'Blockbuster opening sequence!' Right, you've sold three minutes of your eight hour, hundred and odd million quid series with that, good work.
I think this is pretty much right, and the ratings for the old series appear to reflect it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Giggles
I watched last week's episode last night, and that eco-car stuff was an obvious example of where they have gone wrong. In the past they would have had the challenge set, bought different cars, lolled at what each other chose, shown them making them more 'sustainable', and then done the challenge. That way you have the car stuff, the BANTER, and then the challenges where it all goes wrong and catches fire. In this they just turned up and lololol what are you like Captain Slow.
The first part of the Marrakesh bit was actually quite good (you know, talking about their cars and stuff). The rest (battleships, when the Morocco trip turned to animals, celebs dying (lol)) was crap.
So general consenus is shite?
I liked the Battleships part, mostly because I know it would be fucking amazing to actually do.
Yeah I enjoyed that episode a fair bit.
Much improved this week I think. Nice Cenotaph Top Gear jibe too.
Yep I really enjoyed that episode. Also weirdly saw a '66 plate Mustang today. Bit weird in my deprived, shithole city.
The last episode was sex. I enjoyed the little battleship thing but the last episode was honestly everything.
As someone who goes to the Daytona 24 every year and saw the new Ford GT debut last year it was really awesome to listen to that bit of history.
I want to like that new Ford GT, but they have done everything they can to make it lame, so President Trump should have a word.
It looks like some sort of weird McLaren copy attempt designed by a bloke in a shed in Hampshire. #Clarkson
It has that 'futuristic' look many cars are going for nowadays, but other than that (which is a matter of taste) what is lame about it? Mind you, it is the first time I hear of it but after five minutes looking at the website it looks good to me. The one from last decade was a stunner.
It looks spot-on; but if you resurrect that name, and make a big deal of the 1966 anniversary like they are, then it needs to be an absolute beast in the true spirit of the original. The 2004 one was (although they built far too many of them), but in 2016 that means something that can compete with a McLaren P1. Until they find another three-hundred horsepower in that V6 (lol), what they have is basically a jumped-up Honda NSX.
Also, their original application process seemingly prioritised people who can brag about them on social media. They deserve praise from trying to stop people just shoving them in garages and never using them, but that doesn't mean letting a nineteen year old tit come up with an alternative.
Don't know anything about the application process and social media. The V6 did raise an eyebrow, but I think there is something nice about having a smaller engine in there, a bit 'F1' if anything. I guess it doesn't really live up to the original's fame and might not really be a 'supercar,' but it is what Americans do best: high performance car with cheap interiors for not so exorbitant prices (unless this one is stupidly expensive.)
There are reports of fifty per cent down payments of $225000, which means 'from' $450000, which means half a million once doors and paint and included. Give or take, that is two hundred grand above Ferrari F12/Lamborghini Aventador/McLaren 650s territory (albeit more comparable to limited edition versions like the F12 tdf, or the LP750-4 Superveloce), where as the 2004 GT was undercutting comparable Ferraris and Lamborghinis by at least fifty grand, and smoking them whilst doing so.
This is the lol application guff, by the way. Ian Huntley influenced public opinion, Ford. It isn't necessarily a good thing.
Yeah, really F1 isn't it. That also means the Ford Mondeo ST220 is a bit F1 too. :harold:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
The Mondeo is also a mid-engined, 600+ hp car, so yes.
They should have promised a bigger engine, taken down payments, and then switched to the V6 like Jaguar did with the XJ220. :cool:
I thought it was only 300bhp?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
Does the Viper still have a gazillion liter V10? Do they even make Vipers anymore?
I thought the 220 stood for 220hp, but I can't remember, they don't sell them in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic
8.4L V10. :harold:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
No the GT. If it's not what was Lewis on about it being an NSX for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
It was only an eight litre when they started (in 1932 or whatever), so you can see where all of their research and development goes.
The website says 600+, whatever that means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic
At least their interiors are now Camry level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
It's a 3.5 litre twin turbo engine. Lol at that. It just looks shit, like an attempt at a super car fighter (i.e Supra/Skyline) (note: NOT hypercar) from Japan.
I compared it to an NSX because it sounds like a similar level of output/performance (it may well be much faster and lighter), when, in my opinion, any worthy GT40 successor should be able to stomp whatever Ferrari are offering into the group. But then the original was British, so it had a few more brains behind it.
I'd wholeheartedly agree here. That was the whole fucking point of it, not so it could get blasted by a £60,000 Nissan GTR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Lol ok it turns out the new NSX is actually a fucking beast!
EDIT: NSX will be quicker than the GT off the line, top speed is only 191mph though.
Well at least the new Top Gear presenting trio is now sorted.
Me = Clarkson
Lewis = May
Pepe = Hammond
:drool:
Both the NSX and the GT will obviously quick in an objective sense, in which case there is nothing wrong with being a 'jumped up Honda NSX' in itself; but we're now at a point where Audi build 190mph estates, and supercharged F-Types are good for 200mph, so standing out at those levels requires some serious performance. If the million quid hypercars are a step too far, the Noble M600 would have been the ideal benchmark.
Did you know the new R8 V10+ does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds? That's ridiculous performance for a N/A car.
I read 3.2 seconds, and 205mph. Half the price of these Ford GTs as well (and more than likely better on every count), so this is what I mean about them sitting a bit awkwardly below where me and probably some other purist dorks think they should be.
200mph+ on road cars is some obsence shit. At least that is one part of the car's performance than its owners might be able to realize, because 99.9% of them sure as hell are not using their handling anywhere near its potential.
The first episode of that special was pretty good, if a little overly scripted and a bit stupid in points.
EDIT: Best bits were no celebrity brain crash, no fat stupid American and no Conversation Street.
Quite enjoyed the first episode of the special too, but these things are generally best watched as a whole so the day's wait is a bit of a pain.