Top Gear

1303304306308309426

Comments

  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,804
    Forum Member
    Here's Stewart Lee on why he hates Richard Hammond and wished he had been killed, Lee also has comments about Hammond's spiritual king Clarkson, but don't worry it's all a joke.
  • duckymallardduckymallard Posts: 13,936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Good post!

    Yes it is the hypocrisy of commenting about other's morals and conduct whilst calling people "complete d*ckheads" themselves.

    Oh do behave.

    I commented on the manner you treat other forum members who disagree with you.

    I did NOT call any other fm's a "complete d*ckhead"

    Two totally different matters. Still, if it makes you feel good to twist things round to defend your hero - knock yourself out.
  • jonbwfcjonbwfc Posts: 18,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I did NOT call any other fm's a "complete d*ckhead"
    No, you called Hammond and May complete d*ckheads. I don't quite understand why you think that's allowed while calling a random person on the internet the same thing isn't.
    Two totally different matters. Still, if it makes you feel good to twist things round to defend your hero - knock yourself out.
    Its no better or worse than twisting things to vilify the same person.
  • duckymallardduckymallard Posts: 13,936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jonbwfc wrote: »
    No, you called Hammond and May complete d*ckheads. I don't quite understand why you think that's allowed while calling a random person on the internet the same thing isn't.

    T & C's
  • Old EndeavourOld Endeavour Posts: 9,852
    Forum Member
    i can understand why folk are maybe saying it would be difficult if not impossible to re-launch TG as it is now (in terms of content and overall 'feel') but, whilst it might be far from easy, i don't see why TG can't be re-launched with a different approach to content and feel. it's been with us for many years with different presenters and changes to format. i'm wondering if some of the folk saying 'nothing else can work without JC and/or the other two' are perhaps slightly younger and only know TG from its most recent re-boot?

    whilst TG has maybe been around since the late 70's or whatever, i don't think anyone is saying the show should return to the format of 30-40 years ago. the point is, on and off, the TG brand has been around since then and from my perspective (here comes the BIG if) if bbc re-launch the show with a good mix of content and presenters and make sure they DON'T try to create a re-booted version of what's just been, i see no reason why the show can't be a success.

    it's as equally possible, given good content/presenters, TG can continue to be enjoyed by millions. for me the current show was becoming stale anyway so, as they say, a change is as good as a rest :)

    Ummm they changed to the 'current' format as the old one about cars wasn't and didn't work.

    So just maybe some are not saying that the new format of going back to a car show won't work because of their fandom of Clarkson, but because that has already been done and failed.

    So the BBC have two options with the new Top Gear show:

    1. Do a direct rip-off of the 'Clarkson format' with other people. (That would be so painful that it might be funny)
    2. Turn it back into a car show that flopped before.
  • Old EndeavourOld Endeavour Posts: 9,852
    Forum Member
    Oh do behave.

    I commented on the manner you treat other forum members who disagree with you.

    I did NOT call any other fm's a "complete d*ckhead"

    Two totally different matters. Still, if it makes you feel good to twist things round to defend your hero - knock yourself out.

    No what you have done is look down on TV presenters behaviour and found them to beneath your morals and yet your conduct is to go around calling people "complete d*ckheads".

    That is what is hypocritical. People claiming the moral high ground should not go around calling people "complete d*ckheads".

    So nothing to do with other FMs at all and everything to do with total hypocrisy.
  • Old EndeavourOld Endeavour Posts: 9,852
    Forum Member
    T & C's

    Ah so you are just playing silly games seeing what you can get away with and hiding behind the T&Cs?

    Moral high ground, yeah right!
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So the BBC have two options with the new Top Gear show:

    1. Do a direct rip-off of the 'Clarkson format' with other people. (That would be so painful that it might be funny)
    2. Turn it back into a car show that flopped before.
    Or

    3. Go through a box-ticking exercise,

    3a) whilst making it appeal to a younger demograph (perhaps by engaging someone who is supposedly popular with that demograph for example), or
    3b) by dumbing it down (both content and presentation).
  • duckymallardduckymallard Posts: 13,936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No what you have done is look down on TV presenters behaviour and found them to beneath your morals and yet your conduct is to go around calling people "complete d*ckheads".

    That is what is hypocritical. People claiming the moral high ground should not go around calling people "complete d*ckheads".

    So nothing to do with other FMs at all and everything to do with total hypocrisy.

    If it makes you happy.

    As I have told you before - it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I think Clarkson is a Prima Donna and the other two are d*ckheads for following him out the TG door.

    It's like kids in a park "Ooohhhhh if Jeremy can't play, we're not playing anymore either"
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,804
    Forum Member
    So the BBC have two options with the new Top Gear show:

    1. Do a direct rip-off of the 'Clarkson format' with other people. (That would be so painful that it might be funny)
    2. Turn it back into a car show that flopped before.

    Only in your opinion.....please remind us how many successful television programmes you have created?
  • jonbwfcjonbwfc Posts: 18,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's like kids in a park "Ooohhhhh if Jeremy can't play, we're not playing anymore either"
    No, they're adults. They've made a considered decision not to be involved in a show when two important things are absent.

    a) the two major creative brains behind the revamp and it's great commercial success
    b) A close personal friend who seems to be having something approaching a breakdown and may have needed their emotional support.

    Neither of them made their position clear on the day the scandal broke, nor on the day when the BBC made it's decision public. They've both taken their time to see where things were going, then made statements once it was clear that what we must call 'former Top Gear' wasn't going to continue (which, without Clarkson and Wilman, it certainly wasn't).

    What you are saying is that even though the ship is patently holed below the water and sinking fast, they should have clung to the mast for.. well, I have absolutely no idea why you think it would have been a good idea to do that actually, there's no logic to it at all.

    You can characterise it in as childish and puerile a way as you like but all that does is suggest you're both pretty puerile yourself and have no great understanding of the situation at hand.

    Simple question - there is no indication the BBC were planning to continue with Top Gear as it was, and the two joint creators and major script contributors to it were going to have no more to do with it. Hammond and May are both wealthy enough to pick and chose what they work on. They can happily turn work down if they think it won't benefit their career long term. Why on earth do you think they should have decided to carry on?
  • Sick BulletSick Bullet Posts: 20,770
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Someone following where their mate goes is a complete ****head? How did you work that one out, and has anyone noticed how the antis have the need to highlight certain words in bold.

    This isn't your average day job where a work colleague leaves or is sacked they are not just work mates but mates away from the job, they have traveled around the world together filming for days and months every year everyday is a laugh.
  • CELT1987CELT1987 Posts: 12,347
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If it makes you happy.

    As I have told you before - it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I think Clarkson is a Prima Donna and the other two are d*ckheads for following him out the TG door.

    It's like kids in a park "Ooohhhhh if Jeremy can't play, we're not playing anymore either"
    Both will still be financially stable regardless. Hardly d*ckheads.
  • gomezzgomezz Posts: 44,505
    Forum Member
    Someone following where their mate goes is a complete ****head
    Must admit I was not happy with Gordon McQueen when he followed his mate Joe Jordan over the Pennines. :(
  • computermastercomputermaster Posts: 4,016
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    One thing I will say about Jeremy is that he knew how to talk to Americans. When I watch Jonathan Ross or Graham Norton, some of their American guests seem confused, uncomfortable and awkward. They seem right at home on Top Gear. They get Jeremy's humor.

    Now that the smoke has cleared a little, I think the BBC will be able to continue and revamp the show. It's not like Jeremy is the only talented presenter out there.
  • saralundsaralund Posts: 3,377
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm not sure May's declining to take part in TG is so much an act of matey solidarity than it is a shrewd business decision. The USP of nu-TG is the the chemistry of those three men. May will still have a career fronting low-key hobbyist programs on his own, Hammond will still have a career presenting and doing voiceovers, Clarkson will still have a career being opinionated to camera in an entertaining way. But it's the three of them together that people want to watch and you can't swap out any of them without losing the precise comedy they've honed to perfection over the years. And once they've lost the glamour of being one of the TG Three, their stars may fade in other arenas.

    I'm sure May has done all the calculations.
  • jonbwfcjonbwfc Posts: 18,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    saralund wrote: »
    I'm sure May has done all the calculations.
    If not him his agent will have.

    Your analysis is astute. The long term future of the three individuals I think depends largely on how much of a 'personal brand' they have away from Top Gear. In that case, I think Hammond is the one with problems. Clarkson still has the 'opinionated bloke' business to fall back on although that's a bit crowded and May definitely has the sort of 'Tinkerer/engineer' character to be getting on with. There will always be shows that need someone to represent the common but educated man when dealing with engineering and what have you, and frankly that's either May or Guy Martin.

    Hammond? Hammond's a bit.. bland. He's got no real discernable attributes beyond being the short one on TG. I think that's why most of his other shows (apart from Brainiac and that kid's show he did) have been quite short lived - there's not enough to him to hang on to. Even Brainiac wasn't really his show as such. Of the three, Hammond is the one who is competing for the 'straight presenter with no twist' jobs, and there are a hell of a lot of people around who can do those.
  • boksboxboksbox Posts: 4,572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    saralund wrote: »
    I'm not sure May's declining to take part in TG is so much an act of matey solidarity than it is a shrewd business decision. The USP of nu-TG is the the chemistry of those three men. May will still have a career fronting low-key hobbyist programs on his own, Hammond will still have a career presenting and doing voiceovers, Clarkson will still have a career being opinionated to camera in an entertaining way. But it's the three of them together that people want to watch and you can't swap out any of them without losing the precise comedy they've honed to perfection over the years. And once they've lost the glamour of being one of the TG Three, their stars may fade in other arenas.

    I'm sure May has done all the calculations.

    You seem to be forgetting that when we see the specials and challenges there's a huge team involved, not easy to recreate elsewhere.
  • boksboxboksbox Posts: 4,572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    One thing I will say about Jeremy is that he knew how to talk to Americans. When I watch Jonathan Ross or Graham Norton, some of their American guests seem confused, uncomfortable and awkward. They seem right at home on Top Gear. They get Jeremy's humor.

    Now that the smoke has cleared a little, I think the BBC will be able to continue and revamp the show. It's not like Jeremy is the only talented presenter out there.

    Probably one of the daftest arguments I've seen on DS, abosultely no evidence for your argument. Graham Norton gets top notch US guest who enjoy repeat visits. The star is a reasonably priced car segment changed when Jonathan Ross was taken of air, TG was used by publicists to get their stars on the BBC, not only that but TG started showing promos for their new films, this carried on even when Graham Nortons's new show started, to the detriment on the reasonably priced car slot in my opinion.
  • _ben_ben Posts: 5,758
    Forum Member
    Haha, just seen a repeat on BBC3 where the Chinese Stig is punching someone and Clarkson is protesting "No, no, that's the producer!" :D
  • alan29alan29 Posts: 34,612
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tell you what.
    Countryfile could do with a re-boot.
    Lamborghini make tractors too.
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    James May in The Sunday Times
    There we were, all three of us, on the brink of a new three-year contract to make Top Gear, after which we would definitely chuck it in with dignity and hand the reins to a new generation, assuming we were still alive. There were a few details to resolve about time frames and other mundane stuff, but the groaning draft version of this document was actually sitting on my desk.

    Nobody yet knows what is going to happen in the future of Top Gear or its three former presenters. That is the honest truth, despite what you may have read elsewhere. No-one has even arrived at a definitive pronunciation of 'fracas' yet, so what chance is there that we'd have rescued our careers? Whatever we do, it will be scrutinised ruthlessly.

    Our fans feel betrayed and believe a spell has been broken. Our foes are rejoicing at the banality of our demise. If there's a hint of mediocrity in any future endeavour, both parties will feel vindicated. Even if Top Gear is revived in a new format with new hosts and isn't as successful as it once was, that'll be our fault. And if it's better, then we were overdue for retirement anyway.

    I accept that this is a bit of a hashtag firstworldproblem, but I'm finding it quite difficult to handle. Humility is the key, I think, to coming out of this well.
  • njpnjp Posts: 27,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    boksbox wrote: »
    The star is a reasonably priced car...
    Is that your pitch for a replacement car show?
  • scoobiesnacksscoobiesnacks Posts: 3,055
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Head of BBC 2 was interviewed about this saga on R4 media show today. I thought she implied she was still trying to keep Hammond and May on the show, and most definately on the channel. She also used at least one terrible media cliche phrase that was straight out of W1A (apols I can't remember it).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05s36cj#auto
  • linkinpark875linkinpark875 Posts: 29,686
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Head of BBC 2 was interviewed about this saga on R4 media show today. I thought she implied she was still trying to keep Hammond and May on the show, and most definately on the channel. She also used at least one terrible media cliche phrase that was straight out of W1A (apols I can't remember it).

    Contradicts that they want to "reinvent the show" with a new line up.
This discussion has been closed.