Canned laughter? they've got a live audience lol. Amazing how people have to try make things up to try and prove their point.
It's still entertaining to me that's why I still watch it. If there's a time I get bored of it, like other shows, I will just simply give up on it and not waste my time commenting or watching it any more.
Shows with a live audience can still use 'canned laughter'. It can be because of multiple takes, edit points, or simply if the audience didn't laugh at the right time or at all.
Good luck then. Their staying power is certainly greater than mine. Anyway at 77, I may not be around to see just how far they can perpetuate their crass nonsense under the guise of entertainment.
So...WHY DO YOU WATCH IT?
If it's 'crass nonsense' then turn over or turn off. It's not compulsory to watch!
Shows with a live audience can still use 'canned laughter'. It can be because of multiple takes, edit points, or simply if the audience didn't laugh at the right time or at all.
I'm sure that happens, but the fact you can see the audience laughing behind the presenters shows it wasn't canned. Plus it was funny, so people would have laughed anyway.
I'm not defending the show, I know this race was all planned and probably edited to make the race look closer then it was and the stig was probably someone from the crew following the scripted etc, but it doesn't mean everything is all fake.
Here's the thing, and it's an important thing, so I want you all to pay attention. Take notes if you like.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS FAKE, IT'S ONLY TELLY.
The presenters themselves laugh at the notion that it's a 'factual' show. Anyone with two neurones to rub together realises that there is pretty much zero possibility of learning anything that is of any practical use in the show, unless you actually plan to pilot a hovercraft along the waterways of St Petersburg, in which case I hope what you'd learned was 'only a blithering idiot would do that'.
If you want factual telly with demonstrable facts that will teach you something, watch The Discovery Channel. If you want to watch three rather incapable blokes mucking about doing things we can't do but lot of us would probably actually quite like to try, even if we were told we had to do certain things at certain times, watch Top Gear.
It's telly. It's entertainment. Nothing more. Not every show has to fulfil every aspect of the Reithian principle.
Here's the thing, and it's an important thing, so I want you all to pay attention. Take notes if you like.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS FAKE, IT'S ONLY TELLY.
The presenters themselves laugh at the notion that it's a 'factual' show. Anyone with two neurones to rub together realises that there is pretty much zero possibility of learning anything that is of any practical use in the show, unless you actually plan to pilot a hovercraft along the waterways of St Petersburg, in which case I hope what you'd learned was 'only a blithering idiot would do that'.
If you want factual telly with demonstrable facts that will teach you something, watch The Discovery Channel. If you want to watch three rather incapable blokes mucking about doing things we can't do but lot of us would probably actually quite like to try, even if we were told we had to do certain things at certain times, watch Top Gear.
It's telly. It's entertainment. Nothing more. Not every show has to fulfil every aspect of the Reithian principle.
Why did you quote me in this? I don't care if it's fake or not, as I've said repeatedly I still find it highly entertaining and love the show for what it is and I know they joke how it's not factual. I'm simply stating that not all of it is fake.
Good luck then. Their staying power is certainly greater than mine. Anyway at 77, I may not be around to see just how far they can perpetuate their crass nonsense under the guise of entertainment.
Leave the rest of us to enjoy Top Gear, watch something else if you dislike it that much.
If i want facts with entertainment, i watch QI.
Oupss, even they make mistakes! Not often but still...
There's still some facts in TG; when they show the new Lambo Hurricane, they can't show another model, they have to show the real one !
Not much but a basis to put them in the factual category that they themselves laugh about.
If it's 'crass nonsense' then turn over or turn off. It's not compulsory to watch!
True, the sand in his timer is rapidly running out and he's wasting what's left of his time by watching something he doesn't like and then posting this POV to an internet forum?!?
True, the sand in his timer is rapidly running out and he's wasting what's left of his time by watching something he doesn't like and then posting this POV to an internet forum?!?
Well maybe he realises it could be a lot better. It's all a bit stale now, isn't it?
Why did you quote me in this? I don't care if it's fake or not, as I've said repeatedly I still find it highly entertaining and love the show for what it is and I know they joke how it's not factual. I'm simply stating that not all of it is fake.
Apologies, I wasn't replying to you specifically, but to the tiresome brigade who seem to feel the need to exclaim that because Top Gear doesn't conform to the standards of legal evidence in everything it does, it is therefore a fraud against the public and should be banned from our screen forthwith.
The bit about what you said that pushed me to reply generally was this : it doesn't actually make any difference that some of it isn't fake. Simply because it makes no claims to be of any real use. If all of the things that happened in an episode of Top Gear were entirely unscripted, would that actually make the show that we see on the screen any different? I don't see how it would, to be honest. You still wouldn't pilot a hovercraft round St Petersburg and you or I (I assume) still wouldn't be able to afford a garishly coloured Lamborghini.
There's no 'threshold of fakery' that Top Gear has to stay above to be credible, because it's credibility doesn't rely on accuracy or truth. At least to anyone living in the real world.
Sorry if you thought I was getting at you personally.
BTW BIB is the crux of your dislike by the looks of things. Three presenters at the top of their game, hugely popular, rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Mebbe that's what your beef with them is all about. I'd just live with it. As long as you aren't paying to see TG Live, it's not your money. The rest of us can choose whether or not to see the show.
"Mebbe" you've got it wrong. I don't care how much they make, particularly Clarkson. He deserves every penny for promoting right wing values week after week. As much as I dislike Hammond he nearly met his maker in the line of duty and still hasn't lost his brave edge so props to him for that.
You're wasting your time trying to convince the gullible in here who think the "races" aren't scripted!!.....
These "challenges/races" are just a bit of "fun" and people should take it or leave it for what it is, but for goodness sake, they should not seriously be thinking that its not very heavily scripted and "fixed"!!!
What "world" do some people live in these days?!!
A world where idiotic blanket statements which are not intellectually sound make me think the person saying them is thick.
Some of their skits are scripted, some of their news is scripted, maybe even some elements of the race are scripted...
...but this ranting about how everything is planned and scripted to the nth degree - even the races that have been shown again and again to be genuine races in order to be fun for both the presenters and the viewer.
It doesn't stack up - now people are claiming Hammond fell off his expensive bike deliberately (because people don't fall off bikes in real life) that Top Gear could control thousands of cars in order to justify some scripted road rage, that Clarkson can run to the finish line knowing full well that James is already there, that the producers are liars.
YES, some of it is scripted and a lot of it controlled (ALL TV shows are) in order to ensure usable material - but that doesn't meant that there are not real challenges, accidents and banter as well. Common sense, real life, logic.
Apologies, I wasn't replying to you specifically, but to the tiresome brigade who seem to feel the need to exclaim that because Top Gear doesn't conform to the standards of legal evidence in everything it does, it is therefore a fraud against the public and should be banned from our screen forthwith.
The bit about what you said that pushed me to reply generally was this : it doesn't actually make any difference that some of it isn't fake. Simply because it makes no claims to be of any real use. If all of the things that happened in an episode of Top Gear were entirely unscripted, would that actually make the show that we see on the screen any different? I don't see how it would, to be honest. You still wouldn't pilot a hovercraft round St Petersburg and you or I (I assume) still wouldn't be able to afford a garishly coloured Lamborghini.
There's no 'threshold of fakery' that Top Gear has to stay above to be credible, because it's credibility doesn't rely on accuracy or truth. At least to anyone living in the real world.
Sorry if you thought I was getting at you personally.
You "might" not "win" "the internet" with this but as a "minimum" it should warrant a "free ticket" to TG.
Extra "quotes" as that "seems" to be "flavour of the" "month" at the minute on here, doing the "fingers in air quotes" thing that was probably Post #3 in Trivial Things That "Annoy", over in "GD". ":)"
Although it's a shame that is another rehash of a past challenge it should be good. IIRC one of the US presenters is a pro driver.
Yes, one of the Top Gear USA presenters is Tanner Foust, a professional racing driver and stunt driver who holds a number of world records and is a championship winning Rally driver. I suspect it is him racing in the clip where Jeremy Clarkson said “don’t let Top Gear USA lap British Top Gear!!!”) I could be completely wrong, but it looked that way.
I think that’s maybe why I like Top Gear USA, the 3 presenters aren’t simply American versions of Clarkson, Hammond and May (none of which are anything close to professional racing drivers). But the 3 hosts still have the same chemistry as the original UK version, constantly mocking and insulting each other.
Apologies, I wasn't replying to you specifically, but to the tiresome brigade who seem to feel the need to exclaim that because Top Gear doesn't conform to the standards of legal evidence in everything it does, it is therefore a fraud against the public and should be banned from our screen forthwith.
The bit about what you said that pushed me to reply generally was this : it doesn't actually make any difference that some of it isn't fake. Simply because it makes no claims to be of any real use. If all of the things that happened in an episode of Top Gear were entirely unscripted, would that actually make the show that we see on the screen any different? I don't see how it would, to be honest. You still wouldn't pilot a hovercraft round St Petersburg and you or I (I assume) still wouldn't be able to afford a garishly coloured Lamborghini.
There's no 'threshold of fakery' that Top Gear has to stay above to be credible, because it's credibility doesn't rely on accuracy or truth. At least to anyone living in the real world.
Sorry if you thought I was getting at you personally.
No worries, probably just me who just misread it the wrong way. But I whole heartily agree with what you say.
I usually avoid this thread because it's always about the same old thing and it just goes round in circles. I know all the conspiracy theories and discussions of what's fake and what's not and how they're passed their best will drive me mad. There's no real discussion about the actual show, like the Lamborghini Huracan (which I actually liked) or the news about the speed cameras or the interview etc, and I just know after the next episode the same old people will complain about it being scripted again when it doesn't really matter.
I think season 6 is due later this year in the US.
It's a shame it doesn't have a UK broadcaster anymore, as i've said, it would fit in perfectly on Dave.
Comments
So...WHY DO YOU WATCH IT?
If it's 'crass nonsense' then turn over or turn off. It's not compulsory to watch!
I'm not defending the show, I know this race was all planned and probably edited to make the race look closer then it was and the stig was probably someone from the crew following the scripted etc, but it doesn't mean everything is all fake.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS FAKE, IT'S ONLY TELLY.
The presenters themselves laugh at the notion that it's a 'factual' show. Anyone with two neurones to rub together realises that there is pretty much zero possibility of learning anything that is of any practical use in the show, unless you actually plan to pilot a hovercraft along the waterways of St Petersburg, in which case I hope what you'd learned was 'only a blithering idiot would do that'.
If you want factual telly with demonstrable facts that will teach you something, watch The Discovery Channel. If you want to watch three rather incapable blokes mucking about doing things we can't do but lot of us would probably actually quite like to try, even if we were told we had to do certain things at certain times, watch Top Gear.
It's telly. It's entertainment. Nothing more. Not every show has to fulfil every aspect of the Reithian principle.
Oupss, even they make mistakes! Not often but still...
There's still some facts in TG; when they show the new Lambo Hurricane, they can't show another model, they have to show the real one !
Not much but a basis to put them in the factual category that they themselves laugh about.
True, the sand in his timer is rapidly running out and he's wasting what's left of his time by watching something he doesn't like and then posting this POV to an internet forum?!?
Well maybe he realises it could be a lot better. It's all a bit stale now, isn't it?
To help with the inauguration of BBC BRIT, Big Stig is on his way to Poland:.
The bit about what you said that pushed me to reply generally was this : it doesn't actually make any difference that some of it isn't fake. Simply because it makes no claims to be of any real use. If all of the things that happened in an episode of Top Gear were entirely unscripted, would that actually make the show that we see on the screen any different? I don't see how it would, to be honest. You still wouldn't pilot a hovercraft round St Petersburg and you or I (I assume) still wouldn't be able to afford a garishly coloured Lamborghini.
There's no 'threshold of fakery' that Top Gear has to stay above to be credible, because it's credibility doesn't rely on accuracy or truth. At least to anyone living in the real world.
Sorry if you thought I was getting at you personally.
Better, how?
Do you want an interesting yet informative review of the Nissan Qashqai?
"Mebbe" you've got it wrong. I don't care how much they make, particularly Clarkson. He deserves every penny for promoting right wing values week after week. As much as I dislike Hammond he nearly met his maker in the line of duty and still hasn't lost his brave edge so props to him for that.
A world where idiotic blanket statements which are not intellectually sound make me think the person saying them is thick.
Some of their skits are scripted, some of their news is scripted, maybe even some elements of the race are scripted...
...but this ranting about how everything is planned and scripted to the nth degree - even the races that have been shown again and again to be genuine races in order to be fun for both the presenters and the viewer.
It doesn't stack up - now people are claiming Hammond fell off his expensive bike deliberately (because people don't fall off bikes in real life) that Top Gear could control thousands of cars in order to justify some scripted road rage, that Clarkson can run to the finish line knowing full well that James is already there, that the producers are liars.
YES, some of it is scripted and a lot of it controlled (ALL TV shows are) in order to ensure usable material - but that doesn't meant that there are not real challenges, accidents and banter as well. Common sense, real life, logic.
Extra "quotes" as that "seems" to be "flavour of the" "month" at the minute on here, doing the "fingers in air quotes" thing that was probably Post #3 in Trivial Things That "Annoy", over in "GD". ":)"
But how can you judge something without experiencing it first?????
Yes, one of the Top Gear USA presenters is Tanner Foust, a professional racing driver and stunt driver who holds a number of world records and is a championship winning Rally driver. I suspect it is him racing in the clip where Jeremy Clarkson said “don’t let Top Gear USA lap British Top Gear!!!”) I could be completely wrong, but it looked that way.
I think that’s maybe why I like Top Gear USA, the 3 presenters aren’t simply American versions of Clarkson, Hammond and May (none of which are anything close to professional racing drivers). But the 3 hosts still have the same chemistry as the original UK version, constantly mocking and insulting each other.
But some of the girners in here seem to want to experience it every week. Maybe they've got short attention spans?
I usually avoid this thread because it's always about the same old thing and it just goes round in circles. I know all the conspiracy theories and discussions of what's fake and what's not and how they're passed their best will drive me mad. There's no real discussion about the actual show, like the Lamborghini Huracan (which I actually liked) or the news about the speed cameras or the interview etc, and I just know after the next episode the same old people will complain about it being scripted again when it doesn't really matter.
Last episode was october of 2014
http://epguides.com/TopGear_US/
Don't know for this year.
I think season 6 is due later this year in the US.
It's a shame it doesn't have a UK broadcaster anymore, as i've said, it would fit in perfectly on Dave.