http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-review...e-even-8079005

Rose tinted glasses springs to mind. I'm pretty sure the last series of CHM got their fair share of criticism for being contrived, tired etc.. even on here, and in realty they've walked off by far the winners. They have the key assets i.e. the chemistry and legion of ready made fans, and a show that will probably go the other way with reception where all faults are forgiven. They're free of the constraints of the format, which was probably one of the biggest things dragging them down. They also have years of experience knowing what works and what doesn't, and so have a massive head start in producing something good.

I don't quite understand the hate the BBC gets. You punch someone in any line of work, and how many warnings etc.. doesn't matter. Top Gear was one of their biggest money spinners so of course they're going to try and salvage something. What I don't understand is why they seem to have relied so heavily on Evans. I think someone mentioned he has a three year contract (?), which is crazy for a show finding it's feet, and it feels very much like Evan's Top Gear, whereas Clarkson managed to a show which didn't feel as controlled. Had they been conservative and kept some distant between the brand and Evans, they might managed to avoid a lot of the press criticism.

End of the day, this show is like a bonus. Great if it works, but not a massive loss if it doesn't, and at least it didn't die the slow death it was heading towards. The real show is the Grand Tour.

My god aren't Reliants just funny?!

Actually no, they were (are) rather good, inexpensive cars. A real 'people's' car. Makes you wonder why, in such a much-anticipated reboot after axing Clarkson, they would just revive the same sort of cheap-shot rubbish that was the bread-and-butter of the last trio of idiots.

Bad first episode. It's time Top Gear started reviewing and testing cars again, alongside one or two set pieces. This is not a reboot, it's a rehash.

Danny Baker is credited as scriptwriter, so firm hand on the writing tiller at least.

I thought giving the production team time to settle in might be a helpful suggestion, but I hadn't fully appreciated the level of utter misery this programme is obviously causing you. But you're right, you don't need to subject yourself to it any more.

I don't need to read the old discussions (which are only opinion, not evidence) I watched the shows and have my own opinion, thanks. All long running shows get stale, though I thought the last series was fresher. It getting stale isn't the same as you saying Clarkson killed the format.


Of course some people talked about how he couldn't be replaced, etc. But that is nothing to do with the reaction to the new show. Why assume all negative reaction is related to closed minded prejudice?

It's as if people who like the show can't accept others have genuinely held opposite opinions. As for Sue Perkins getting threatened, what have a few mindless trolls got to do with comment on the show here?

I'll simply end by saying that if you check back, I used the word 'many'. And on that bombshell...

As the whole thing is already filmed and edited, apart from the studio links, it's a bit late for the production team to start settling in.

Did you really see any creative spark in the show? Nothing made sense to me, it all seemed aimless to me with no narrative. Old Top Gear always had a narrative to hang the films on.

Did it? I don't recall that. It was the same haphazard collection of 'challenges' with studio links.

That's not a 'narrative'. Seems they kept the lack of narrative.

I don't think Clarkson was solely responsible for controversy given the show was tightly scripted, ie the bridge thing, Mexicans, Falklands and the ryhme all got through editorial reviews. But the controversy got media attention and the fans loved it.. But like you say, the show was running on retreads.

So now there's the new, improved TG with 115% more Chris Evans. Ok, so he likes cars, but he also alienates people with his presenting style. But with 2 TV celebs checking out their $1m+ motors, presenters don't seem to do too badly. But the new show also seems to have re-hashed old jokes & stunts, so probably isn't the reboot the Bbc was probably hoping for.. But such is Cohen's legacy.

And soon we'll get to find out if the Amazon version is any better. At least that gets to rely on the existing trio.

You expect me to go over the old thread and count opinions? I'll ask you again, what has what was written by people in this thread a year ago got to do with criticism of the new show now it has been aired? What went before was just speculation.

You are entitled to express your opinion liking the new show, but you aren't entitled to try to devalue negative opinions by saying they are from people who already decided in advance they wouldn't like it.

There would usually be a theme, however tenuous, sometimes running through a whole show. The challenges in any film usually had a link relating them. The races usually had an aim of some kind. The nearest thing to that on Sunday was LeBlanc trying to avoid being photographed. Nothing else had an aim or a reason.

You're right, they should have dumped this travesty of a programme when they had the chance.

I've read this post with interest. It's true to say that the program lacked something. Maybe a sense of continuity. Maybe there was no substantive review of the cars performance (especially the Robins ). Maybe too many scripted jokes.

Maybe it needs to focus on the cars and the expertise of the presenters and not the gimmickry.

Matt Le Blanc proved he can drive, has a passion and knows his stuff. The lady driver was becoming interesting with her comments but it was cut short. Chris seemed to be trying too hard to be funny (which is what I disliked about Hammond), but when Chris turned to the cars he came across.

They're all talented in their own way. Its going to need them to play to their strengths then I think they've got something. Its all too early doors.

I wish Clarkson and Co the very best as I felt when they got their specials right it was compelling viewing.

There were essentially two kinds of challenges in old top gear.

The first was the 'spend x on car type y and see who can buy the best car' of which they did a lot. Their objective was obvious - to see who had spent the money most wisely.

Then there were the second type, loosely under the heading 'reach the objective first'. For example the 'clarkson in a car vs may & hammond on other transport' ones, or the 'cross the channel in a car' one. They had a set final objective which was laid out at the start. If it was ambitious but rubbish, at least everyone knew what the ambition was.

The new show's challenge didn't seem to have an overall purpose in that way. If it was 'UK s US' why was the first stage carried out in two UK produced cars? if it was 'test jeep vs land rover' why not use them from the beginning? It didn't have that overarching objective and thus felt rather disjointed and, well, pointless.

Now TG Challenges have actually always been pointless, in any real terms. No one else is every going to try driving a 4X4 to the North Pole. But they made a very good job of faking having a point, of generating even very light dramatic pace. At no stage did the 'new TG' challenge bother doing that. As a result there was no drama to it, no progression. It was just a series stunts, not a story.

Even that review lists about as many negative points as positive ones. It seems to be running the logic that 'it wasn't absolutely terrible, so you all should shut up and enjoy it'. Which isn't exactly the most glowing review I ever heard.

Thousands and thousands of posts about a car show, is it really that important?

I thought it was fine, curiosity got the better of me and I checked it despite not really watching it in the CHM era for a few years- It's not something I would go out of my way to watch, but it was an entertaining piece of tv and I really didn'the think Chris did too badly and Matt was a revelation- I'd tune in again

Yeah. And on and almost sadly reluctant level, it really is. Top Gear is the most pirated show in history so even if the love of cars is fairly ludicrous it puts it on the level as all those figure that float across the stock exchange tickers. It has social 'ooomph'.

Agree with everything people are saying so far. Contrived - yes, but we always knew that, and artificially tweaking the outcome of a race to add drama is done to make a budget fit the means, and skits fit the minutes. We know that.

And the first episode is almost like getting a friend to watch a show you love that is reliant on the characteristics of the actors. You'll watch an episode and laugh because you know the motives that drive people, your friend and first time watcher might not find it fun because they're missing the subtext. And now with this first episode we're all missing the subtext - and of course it might end up that there isn't one and they're all the facades that they're presenting.

Leblanc will hopefully relax to the level where someone can take the piss out of him and there's no one upmanship just to satisfy the US audience. And of course that's why he's there. The show is massive over there and they needed a way in. Finding three scone-scoffing, whippet-racing Morris dancers that would attract an international audience from day one is near impossible. And it would be impossible even with CMH (Clarkson, May, Hammond!).

If it finds its way then I'm glad because it means there's two shows about things that mean absolutely nothing that we can love. Though like our children we'll always love that one.

The thing I'm wary of with the new Top Gear is when they try to emulate Clarkson doing the 'soulfull' introspective bits in car reviews which I really like because they limited them so it never turned mawkish.

And I loved it when they did "And on that bom...."

Extra Gear was miles (sorry!) better than the main show, mainly because it sort of found its own presenting style rather than just try to carbon copy the trio presenting, and crammed a hell of a lot into just 24 minutes!

One of the bigger problems I felt was with the challenge, the staging and humour simply doesn't live up to previously, example from one of the older episodes for comparison :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx0S...ature=youtu.be

"James has bought an AA truck!"

It seemed like they physically tried to shove moments like that in on the Blackpool film but nobody really cared so it fell flat.

Interestingly the US audience don't seem to care for the studio stuff based on their version :

"Producers of the History version have noted a greater interest in car customization by American car enthusiasts than in Britain. As of season 3, this element has been incorporated as the main focus of the show and the hosts no longer interview guests, review cars or produce Power Laps."

Important enough for you to add a post......

I do think they missed a trick by not paying tribute to Clarkson, Hammond and May in sone fashion ar the beginning of the programme. Whatever your view about Clarkson's departure, he did create, along with the rest of the team, a very successful and entertaining show. Would it have killed someone to acknowledge that?

Most people, and not just people on DS had made up their minds that they wouldn't like it as soon as Chris had been announced as the new presenter.

Personally I can't think you can judge by a single episode. For me it was like the old Top Gear with different presenters, nothing changed too much.

Yes Chris was 'shouty' and there is little chemistry but presenters need time to settle in, I can't see the BBC giving up on them after 6 episodes.

Looking forward to seeing more of the other presenters in coming weeks.

Well, I managed to watch the first 20 mins or so on iPlayer last night before switching off. CE was way too shouty, frantic and manic. MLB was much better in the studio links (although his autocue reading needs to be much more relaxed). The Top Gun piece seemed pointless, and the Robin Rialto film (or what I saw of it) lacked any real purpose or humour.

I started to think that the script had been written for Clarkson, but delivered (badly) by CE.

And the studio sequence- the audience was too loud, cheering etc not needed at that level of intensity. Along with the extra audience participation, it reduced the programme to the level of a Big Brother spin-off programme (or similar). Maybe that's what they were aiming for, but for me it did not work and felt out of place.

And as others have said, the Stig intro should have been left with Clarkson - it felt way out of place. At the very least they should have changed the intro, but it felt as if the "Some say" and "he's called the Stig" pieces were trademarked as part of TG.CE's lap commentary felt detached and at the same time, forced.


Without significant changes or improvements, I will be unlikely to return.

It reminded me a bit of the first series of Top Gear with Jason Dawe. That didn't set the world of fire. It took the arrival of James May and a bit of a time to find it's feet.