Continuation of: Top Gear


That's exactly what I thought too. Much better than I expected and realise now that a lot of the criticism was people looking for things to criticise.

Well, I don't like Clarkson much so rarely watched the previous version of TG, I am also not really *into* cars either, so would just watch as an entertainment show.

I did view this one last night and I am really sorry but, I really enjoyed it. MLB was great and I don't mind Chris Evans, so nothing to offend me there either. It's not meant as a serious car show is it?? For people in general, it's surely meant as a slice of light hearted fun, with some cars involved. If so, it works. I am sure they will tweak it along the way it will only blossom. I'll be back next week for sure, I enjoyed it more than I did any of the Clarkson shows.

Really, I think it comes down to whether you like Evans or Clarkson!

Enjoyed it.
What a shame they missed the opportunity to refer to their genitals. Missed the bullying too.
Apart from that it was fun.

if you think the Clarkson version didn't look contrived then you're very easily taken in. His version jumped the shark about four series back.

I don't get people who think they should have tried something new and original. It's an established format now that has been sold into several countries. The French version is apparently pretty good, the Chinese version has an audience per series measured in the hundreds of millions. All versions feature the Stig, he is part of the brand.

No doubt they want to sell the format into a success in other countries, having shown it can be done and built up good knowledge in the process.

Good formats are like gold dust, so with all that in mind why on earth would the BBC undermine their own efforts to build up the brand by chucking it out and starting with something different? What message would that send to countries that bought the format (of are considering buying it)? That they can make it work, but that in the UK it is wholly dependent on 3 particular men and has no life after them?

I don't think that is what CHM were spending their time building up - a programme that couldn't live beyond them. If that were true I think they'd consider they had failed in their attempt to establish a resilient programme brand.

It was okay. Some of it made me laugh. Always like the guest slot and last night was good. Rating 2/3.

Clarkson & Co not make it look contrived! You are joking I presume? Every second of the previous version looked very contrived.

Not really the point I was making. Of course, constructive criticism is useful and of course, people can comment and and judge on a programme that they've seen (which is why I made the point of summarising my own criticisms of it). I'll happilly respect other people's views if they've actually watched the show. However, so much negativity was posted here and elsewhere either ahead of the broadcast or during its first few minutes that one can only assume that the people doing so were watching it with a closed mind, had already made their minds up, were trying to prove a point and were trying to influence other people's views. That doesn't help anyone. Constructive citicism having watched the show is one thing. Deciding it will be rubbish and then watching the first ten minutes and coming on here to slag it off is something else entirely.


Watching to check out some of the comments and opinions expressed earlier in this thread, I've just watched it again on BBC2 and I absolutely agree with you. It was an awful lot better the second time. Not perfect by any stretch but once you get past the juxtaposition of new people and old format, and concentrate on the actual films, it was more enjoyable and felt better produced than it seemed yesterday. Yesterday it jarred at every turn; second time around, not so much. It needs some work, of course it does, but people should be willing to give it that chance. It will keep improving and it will be fine. Okay it won't ever be CHM TG - it never could be - but it will find its own niche for sure.

I'm quite looking forward to the next one now!

Now that the dust has started to settle and the reactive comments have toned down I've noticed a lot more positive feedback emerging about the show. Personally I think it's still a work-in-progress that needs tweaking but it shows how aggressive initial reactions have become in the age of social media.

Where is that? it can only be on here I presume.

The format requires the right people to front it. Family Fortunes was a great format, but an utter dud when Bob Monkhouse left and they replaced him with Max Bygraves.

Apart from the main presenter, this format is nothing without good script writing. That was the biggest problem with the first show. Nothing really made any sense. In the Clarkson era there was a reason to do the various trials and races. In this version they randomly drive two Reliants to Blackpool for no reason and then do some unrelated trials in Jeeps. There was no storyline, just a series of episodes. The Top Gun laser contest brought contrivance to a new low point. Two muscle cars on a runway don't have anywhere to go to avoid each other. One driving a few yards behind the other would be able to "lock on" straight away. Old Top Gear was also contrived but at least inventive and credible in how it was done.

Every now and then in old Top Gear there was a jaw droppingly good visual or some surprising bit of philosophising. New Top Gear is just old Top Gear done by numbers. The creativity and artistry is gone.

Worst of all Chris Evans feels he needs to shout and run around to get the audience enthused. He was working too hard at it. Matt LeBlanc was more laid back and that worked much better. I don't dislike Evans but he doesn't suit this format well at all. He's a car nut, but he needs to be much more than that to get close to the entertainment level the old crew generated.

Repeated viewings of Chris Evans! Are you a masochist?

How can they tweak it when all the shows are filmed and edited apart from the studio links? Making CE less shouty and more relaxed would improve things but won't help the aimless filmed sequences. This show needs more than tweaking, it needs a new creative team. It seems the BBC concentrated on casting the new presenters without realising they also had to replace the people who had written and produced the old show.

People have always had strong opinions of TV, that's nothing to do with social media. In our house four of us watched this together, with an open mind. Two of us TG fans, two not fans but who didn't mind watching it with their partners. All four of us had strong opinions of it, none of us liked it. Not a single "it wasn't too bad" opinion.

It was ok.

I thought as many said Chris was shouty. Maybe this will calm down in time. But I am a fan of Matt anyway so quite enjoyed his role.

I do miss Jeremy, Richard and James and will watch their new show but I think in time this will work to. I think a lot of people slate it because they are used to seeing JRJ and it is change.

I think it will be fine and both will be a success

Yes it was obviously contrived, but there was always the logical thread of a story running through the films so the contrived events did make sense. There was some wit and humour in the script. The films in the new show had no proper plot so the contrivance is so much more painfully obvious and they weren't funny.

How about giving them a chance to settle in?

Exactly this. Many decided that any relaunch wouldn't work as soon as Clarkson was fired. It's more about Clarkson than about any fair critique of the new show. We live in a time when Twitter twonkery rules, so we have to wonder whether the new lineup will even get a chance before the BBC are forced to shelve it. That is the aim of the trolling though, enough shouting gets the sheep onside because it gives them a gang to tweet with, the anger grows, the critical voice gets louder, and the more patient among us are lost in the chaos. Oh well, I watch very little new telly anyway, so it wouldn't be a huge loss. Top Gear has been dead for a lot longer than most fans will acknowledge, so if this is forced off the air... it still won't be the fault of the current team, Clarkson killed it years ago.

I think you've misread my post. How are the filmed sequences going to "settle in".

However, I can't see Chris Evans settling in because he has never changed his style of presenting in all the years he's been on TV. He is what he is, and he doesn't suit the format. I didn't like the show at all. Why should I subject myself to week after week of misery to see if they settle in?

Why can't people who liked the show just accept that some people genuinely didn't? Why is criticism of it characterised as people deciding in advance they won't like it? I watched it with an open mind. I thought it was an aimless shambles.

Shows having to start well is nothing to do with Twitter FFS. It's always been the case with high profile stars and shows. Shows that had shaky starts and improved to become classics usually weren't expected to do much to begin with. This is a rejig of a very successful format so it has a lot to live up to. It has to start well. The BBC has invested heavily in it so won't drop it just because of what people say on Twitter. If you like it then it will survive, for this series at least. Those of us that didn't like it won't be watching, so we both are happy.

The idea that Clarkson killed the format years ago is just your opinion. I'd be interested in hearing why you think this is the case.

You really don't have to "subject yourself to week after week of misery" if you don't want to. No one is asking you to do that.

This is exactly how I feel, I hated his presenting style 20 years ago. It never changed which is why I will not watch this. If he leaves at the end of the series and we are left with MLB and others then I will watch it again.

On here, plus a lot of the delayed reviews have been a bit more balanced. Still critical but not in the 'it's not Clarkson, I instantly hate it' mould of yesterday

True, but it seemed someone else expected me to give the presenters time to settle in. The problem for me is not the presenters, it's the creative team behind it. There doesn't seem to be one.

I didn't read any proper TV reviews that said anything like that.

The show under Clarkson became the same rehashed scripts with a different background. The controversy he created was a detriment to the show. It was beyond stale, some mentioned this in the old thread, you are welcome to delve back into it.

As for people deciding long before launch, I also refer you to the old thread. There is more than enough evidence to support my view. People wanted it to fail. People knew it would fail. This was before Chris Evans was announced. This was before Sue Perkins was threatened. This was simply because Clarkson was fired. Anyay, it's all there in not so pretty black and white. Knock yourself out.