|
|
Post by jasonward on Nov 18, 2016 16:43:19 GMT
So I watched it last night, and I've read several reviewers opinions today.
My reaction, I was somewhat disappointed, the reviewers said it was epic in scale and cinematic in presentation. And yep, I guess, but for me the script writing was poor and camera work wooden.
I always thought the appeal of The Clarkson et al Top Gear was Clarkson et al. What watching the new Top Gear and now Grand Tour has shown me is that was/is only part of the equation. After watching Grand Tour I was left wondering why it didn't work as well as I thought it would, and at first it was easy to identify that GT wasn't (at least not yet) telling stories, they had the ingredients, they had a great start in the opening sequence, but the main part of the show (hybrid super cars) lacked what TG normally brought to otherwise self same sequences, which is a story. If the same segment had been in TG we would have probably started with May and Hammond turning up at Clarksons house with demolition machines and then some tom foolery involving knocking down Clarksons garage or sun room and then leading into the main segment explaining why. There would also have been a lot more bickering between the presenters.
But GT missed all that, there was no story, and the presenters hardly interacted except in the way presenters on a breakfast show would.
Clarkson himself very nice pointed out as the show started, it's on the internet now, not subject to the rules that network shows are, it could have been even edgier than TG, pushed at the boundaries beyond where the BBC would be willing and able to go, but it pushed nothing, there was no edge at all.
Then we have the camera work, and again, except the opening sequence, which was great and promised so much, it just became wooden, the camera work in the tent/studio was 90% fixed camera, and then only perhaps 3 different angles, there was no fluidity to it all, which just help make the gags not work so well.
The celebrity section.... huh, yeah.... no, it didn't work really, it just pointed out that they appeared to have no idea how to replicate (without duplicating) the success of "celebrity in a reasonably priced car" which for a show that promised so much and had so much potential and money thrown at it, is just... yeah... bad.
Now, that's my take on what didn't work, what fell short of my hopes and expectations, but putting that all aside, the show was OK, fun and I will watch again for sure. But what I expected was something compelling, and it was a long way short of that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 9:30:43 GMT
Whatever anyone says about the gang, well specifically, Clarkson - the three leads' success and appeal can't be denied. I watched this to see how this show could possibly cost nearly as much as Game Of Thrones (and about 4 times as much as Doctor Who) to make. Well, it's there on the screen for all to see - stunning 4K visuals, sweeping vast sets and locations and a really epic feel. Yet the show is still essentially about the three leads and their banter. It makes the Chris Evans/Matt LeBlanc Top Gear obsolete (if it wasn't already) and shows that the concept of Top Gear wasn't the draw, it was the chemistry. You can't buy that no matter how many cast members of FRIENDS you buy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 11:19:30 GMT
I loved it anyway, and for me The Grand Tour pi**es all over the current Top Gear show. It looks absolutely brilliant and the gang are natural together. You can see they are enjoying every minute of it; it doesn't look like a job to them. Very enjoyable.
The boys are back!
|
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Nov 20, 2016 14:51:13 GMT
I totally disagree with Jason Ward - the first episode of The Grand Tour (or Top Gear Two) was amazing. The chemistry between the presenters was present as you would expect, there was certainly plenty of bickering to me and the main segment with the supercars definitely had a beginning, middle and end to me. You had the hero (Clarkson) on a quest (to prove his supercar was better than Richard Hammond's), having to overcome an obstacle (James May's sudden arrival with the Ferrari LaFerrari, the drag races, car journey James couldn't join) to beat the antagonist (Richard Hammond). I don't think a Top Gear segment would have started with the demolition of Clarkson's house either - that would have revealed the ending. The house demolition would have come at the end, with the winner revealed in the item rather than through a score board. Not seeing Clarkson's house demolished was the only thing that disappointed me. I thought the celebrity death sketch was hilarious and very topical considering the number of depressing celeb deaths this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Nov 27, 2016 11:37:47 GMT
I don't know why so many people don't like the second episode. I thought it was hilarious and couldn't care less that the army training camp VT had very little to do with cars. Most of Clarkson, Hammond and May Top Gear was very loosely about cars too and they still tried to link the item into motoring.
To be honest, I don't even watch the trio to learn about cars. I watch them because they're three very funny people who are great at providing comedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Nov 27, 2016 12:24:28 GMT
I don't know why so many people don't like the second episode. I thought it was hilarious and couldn't care less that the army training camp VT had very little to do with cars. Most of Clarkson, Hammond and May Top Gear was very loosely about cars too and they still tried to link the item into motoring. To be honest, I don't even watch the trio to learn about cars. I watch them because they're three very funny people who are great at providing comedy. I haven't seen episode 2 yet, but I can I think say what the issue is, the hype and expectation, everyone expected this to be Top Gear on steroids, and it's not, I like it, I'm certain a lot of people like it, but so far it's no better than Top Gear was, but the hype promised so much more. It is peoples disappointment that I suspect has led to the negative criticism of episode 2. But I will post my own thoughts about episode 2 when I've watched it. |
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Nov 27, 2016 12:30:33 GMT
I don't know why so many people don't like the second episode. I thought it was hilarious and couldn't care less that the army training camp VT had very little to do with cars. Most of Clarkson, Hammond and May Top Gear was very loosely about cars too and they still tried to link the item into motoring. To be honest, I don't even watch the trio to learn about cars. I watch them because they're three very funny people who are great at providing comedy. I haven't seen episode 2 yet, but I can I think say what the issue is, the hype and expectation, everyone expected this to be Top Gear on steroids, and it's not, I like it, I'm certain a lot of people like it, but so far it's no better than Top Gear was, but the hype promised so much more. It is peoples disappointment that I suspect has led to the negative criticism of episode 2. But I will post my own thoughts about episode 2 when I've watched it. Personally, I'm glad it's not the rude, vulgar Top Gear full of swearing most people expected. I think swearing would have diminished the comedy somewhat: in my opinion, swear words are just a lazy way out for presenters and comedians who can't find anything funny to say. Clarkson, Hammond and May have proven themselves to be better than that. So far, I actually prefer it to Top Gear in fact. You don't have the boring celebrity interview for a start - killing off celebrities is far more interesting - and the change of setting each time allows the show to stay fresh. The only weak element is The American; I'd rather they'd just copied the idea of The Stig and in true Clarkson fashion made it deliberately obvious for comedy effect that it's basically the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Nov 27, 2016 12:37:55 GMT
I haven't seen episode 2 yet, but I can I think say what the issue is, the hype and expectation, everyone expected this to be Top Gear on steroids, and it's not, I like it, I'm certain a lot of people like it, but so far it's no better than Top Gear was, but the hype promised so much more. It is peoples disappointment that I suspect has led to the negative criticism of episode 2. But I will post my own thoughts about episode 2 when I've watched it. Personally, I'm glad it's not the rude, vulgar Top Gear full of swearing most people expected. I think swearing would have diminished the comedy somewhat: in my opinion, swear words are just a lazy way out for presenters and comedians who can't find anything funny to say. Clarkson, Hammond and May have proven themselves to be better than that. So far, I actually prefer it to Top Gear in fact. You don't have the boring celebrity interview for a start - killing off celebrities is far more interesting - and the change of setting each time allows the show to stay fresh. The only weak element is The American; I'd rather they'd just copied the idea of The Stig and in true Clarkson fashion made it deliberately obvious for comedy effect that it's basically the same thing. I'm not sure people expected lots of swearing, certainly that was not my expectation, I wouldn't call swearing the last resort of the lazy, but if all Grand Tour was going to offer us was Top Gear with more swearing it would have been very odd. We will have to agree to disagree about about the celebrity thing, I found the joke about killing them off unfunny first time round, if I have to watch several episodes of it, I will just hate it. I always found the interviews asking celebs about their cars interesting for 3 minutes and watching their reactions to the reasonably priced car was great TV. As for copying The Stig, sure that would have worked better, but it would also have opened them up to being sued by the BBC. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 12:54:34 GMT
Clarkson has admitted there were lots of things the lawyers wouldn't let them do for fear of lawsuits. They weren't even allowed to have the audience stood around them, so copying the Stig was definitely out.
|
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Nov 27, 2016 12:58:20 GMT
Personally, I'm glad it's not the rude, vulgar Top Gear full of swearing most people expected. I think swearing would have diminished the comedy somewhat: in my opinion, swear words are just a lazy way out for presenters and comedians who can't find anything funny to say. Clarkson, Hammond and May have proven themselves to be better than that. So far, I actually prefer it to Top Gear in fact. You don't have the boring celebrity interview for a start - killing off celebrities is far more interesting - and the change of setting each time allows the show to stay fresh. The only weak element is The American; I'd rather they'd just copied the idea of The Stig and in true Clarkson fashion made it deliberately obvious for comedy effect that it's basically the same thing. I'm not sure people expected lots of swearing, certainly that was not my expectation, I wouldn't call swearing the last resort of the lazy, but if all Grand Tour was going to offer us was Top Gear with more swearing it would have been very odd. We will have to agree to disagree about about the celebrity thing, I found the joke about killing them off unfunny first time round, if I have to watch several episodes of it, I will just hate it. I always found the interviews asking celebs about their cars interesting for 3 minutes and watching their reactions to the reasonably priced car was great TV. As for copying The Stig, sure that would have worked better, but it would also have opened them up to being sued by the BBC. If he did it cleverly though he could just claim it was his own invention. Original enough not to be a direct copy but lazy enough to be seen as one. I'm sure Clarkson can afford a good lawyer. It's a shame he didn't keep his rights to Top Gear actually. He shouldn't have sold them back to the BBC. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Nov 27, 2016 13:22:01 GMT
BBC Worldwide has owned more than 50% of Bedder 6 since when they paid £100 for it in 2007, whilst Bedder 6 owned the format to Top Gear, they didn't own the commercial rights and as such wasn't worth that much, however BBC Worldwide then transferred many of the commercial rights to Bedder 6. After the dust had settled on the deal Clarkson owned around 30% of Bedder 6.
In 2012 BBC Worldwide bought the remainder of Bedder 6.
It seems to me that at no point did Clarkson control sufficient rights to be able to exploit the format commercially, except and unless in partnership with the BBC.
|
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Nov 27, 2016 14:57:20 GMT
BBC Worldwide has owned more than 50% of Bedder 6 since when they paid £100 for it in 2007, whilst Bedder 6 owned the format to Top Gear, they didn't own the commercial rights and as such wasn't worth that much, however BBC Worldwide then transferred many of the commercial rights to Bedder 6. After the dust had settled on the deal Clarkson owned around 30% of Bedder 6. In 2012 BBC Worldwide bought the remainder of Bedder 6. It seems to me that at no point did Clarkson control sufficient rights to be able to exploit the format commercially, except and unless in partnership with the BBC. Then if BBC Worldwide hadn't bought the rest of Bedder 6 off Clarkson, they'd have been forced to either keep the trio on Top Gear or sell their own rights. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Nov 27, 2016 15:09:05 GMT
BBC Worldwide has owned more than 50% of Bedder 6 since when they paid £100 for it in 2007, whilst Bedder 6 owned the format to Top Gear, they didn't own the commercial rights and as such wasn't worth that much, however BBC Worldwide then transferred many of the commercial rights to Bedder 6. After the dust had settled on the deal Clarkson owned around 30% of Bedder 6. In 2012 BBC Worldwide bought the remainder of Bedder 6. It seems to me that at no point did Clarkson control sufficient rights to be able to exploit the format commercially, except and unless in partnership with the BBC. Then if BBC Worldwide hadn't bought the rest of Bedder 6 off Clarkson, they'd have been forced to either keep the trio on Top Gear or sell their own rights. Sure Clarkson could have made life difficult for the BBC, but there was no way they could keep him on after he assaulted someone at work and I think there would have been zero chance BBC Worldwide would have sold the rights to Top Gear, not even sure they could given the ties the brand has to the licence fee. |
|
|
|
Post by TinDogPodcast on Nov 27, 2016 15:19:13 GMT
I'm just glad I can't see it
|
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Nov 27, 2016 15:38:07 GMT
Then if BBC Worldwide hadn't bought the rest of Bedder 6 off Clarkson, they'd have been forced to either keep the trio on Top Gear or sell their own rights. Sure Clarkson could have made life difficult for the BBC, but there was no way they could keep him on after he assaulted someone at work and I think there would have been zero chance BBC Worldwide would have sold the rights to Top Gear, not even sure they could given the ties the brand has to the licence fee. They would have no choice if Clarkson part-owned the rights, surely? |
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Nov 27, 2016 15:49:17 GMT
Sure Clarkson could have made life difficult for the BBC, but there was no way they could keep him on after he assaulted someone at work and I think there would have been zero chance BBC Worldwide would have sold the rights to Top Gear, not even sure they could given the ties the brand has to the licence fee. They would have no choice if Clarkson part-owned the rights, surely? I don't see how. BBC Worldwide owned the majority, he could like I say have made life difficult, but as BBC Worldwide would be able to carry the board (i.e. they would be able to appoint more directors than Clarkson could) so long as they didn't break the law in terms of financially disadvantaging minority shareholders they could ultimately I suspect have carried on whatever and regardless of what Clarkson did or wanted. Being co-owner of a company doesn't give you the ability to force the other co-owners to sell, quite apart from anything its a logical paradox. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Dec 2, 2016 17:41:47 GMT
OK, I've watched the 2nd show.
And I can fully understand the criticism it has come in for.
It was painfully contrived, or put another way, it was badly scripted, poorly acted by people who are not actors and totally lacked any sense of the real banter between the presenters that is so loved by the fans, there was hardly a moment in the main segment that wasn't so clearly scripted it was painful to watch.
I know a lot of what Top Gear does/did was/is scripted too, but scripted I feel more in terms of broad sweep and to ensure certain incidents arise, this was clearly word by word, step by step scripting and the segment (most of the show) was cringe worthy and couldn't even redeem itself by having a car centric theme.
I agree with DalekBuster thrust that the segment didn't really need to be about cars, much of Top Gear was only ever passingly about cars, but the reason I think people have criticised the lack of car focus was because the segment was pointless, poorly executed and frankly just plain bad, and people couldn't even say "yeah, but the cars were cool".
|
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 2, 2016 18:39:53 GMT
Just watched the third episode - yet again another brilliant episode from the Top Gear trio. Their comedy is spot-on and it was nice to see them back in the UK (especially somewhere as beautiful as Whitby, although can they please come to Scarborough next time?).
I do think the segment of Richard Hammond and James May demolishing his house would have made more sense as the start of episode two rather than the end of episode three though. It felt quite random where they placed it. Loved Simon Pegg's death - probably my favourite so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Dec 3, 2016 22:30:10 GMT
Episode 3, the best so far, a country mile better than Episode 2, enjoyed the show, although still way too tightly scripted for the shows good.
|
|
