|
Post by jasonward on Mar 15, 2017 13:43:26 GMT
It's a TV show, they kind of need that experience. Besides no-one ever really watched Top Gear for the facts about cars. Many journalists come from newspapers to TV. Even actors come from theatre to TV. Pearl Mackie has very little experience on camera! And some people go direct to TV. I don't see what your point is, sherlock was saying they the presenters needed TV experience, I'm not myself sure that's true, although new TV presenters are often very wooden at first so it's nice if they got that worked out of them before they present a show I want to watch, but how someone makes there way to be a TV presenter seems irrelevant to me, they are either good presenters or they not, and being a journalist or an actor is no guarantee of that.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 15, 2017 13:46:11 GMT
Many journalists come from newspapers to TV. Even actors come from theatre to TV. Pearl Mackie has very little experience on camera! And some people go direct to TV. I don't see what your point is, sherlock was saying they the presenters needed TV experience, I'm not myself sure that's true, although new TV presenters are often very wooden at first so it's nice if they got that worked out of them before they present a show I want to watch, but how someone makes there way to be a TV presenter seems irrelevant to me, they are either good presenters or they not, and being a journalist or an actor is no guarantee of that. True. That's why you go for a journalist like Jeremy Clarkson, who has a strong personality and won't be camera shy. Screen testing with presenters without TV experience is also something TV executives do anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Mar 15, 2017 13:57:40 GMT
And some people go direct to TV. I don't see what your point is, sherlock was saying they the presenters needed TV experience, I'm not myself sure that's true, although new TV presenters are often very wooden at first so it's nice if they got that worked out of them before they present a show I want to watch, but how someone makes there way to be a TV presenter seems irrelevant to me, they are either good presenters or they not, and being a journalist or an actor is no guarantee of that. True. That's why you go for a journalist like Jeremy Clarkson, who has a strong personality and won't be camera shy. Screen testing with presenters without TV experience is also something TV executives do anyway. I still don't see why you think only a journalist can fulfil the roll properly?
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 15, 2017 14:33:36 GMT
True. That's why you go for a journalist like Jeremy Clarkson, who has a strong personality and won't be camera shy. Screen testing with presenters without TV experience is also something TV executives do anyway. I still don't see why you think only a journalist can fulfil the roll properly? I don't, I just think it needs to be someone with car expertise first and foremost, rather than just going for some guy who used to be in Friends.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Mar 15, 2017 14:42:08 GMT
And some people go direct to TV. I don't see what your point is, sherlock was saying they the presenters needed TV experience, I'm not myself sure that's true, although new TV presenters are often very wooden at first so it's nice if they got that worked out of them before they present a show I want to watch, but how someone makes there way to be a TV presenter seems irrelevant to me, they are either good presenters or they not, and being a journalist or an actor is no guarantee of that. True. That's why you go for a journalist like Jeremy Clarkson, who has a strong personality and won't be camera shy. Screen testing with presenters without TV experience is also something TV executives do anyway. Top Gear is still a huge brand for the BBC. I don't blame them for choosing someone who's known for his TV personality rather than taking a punt on a complete newbie to tv. Plus LeBlanc isn't the only presenter.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 15, 2017 15:02:03 GMT
True. That's why you go for a journalist like Jeremy Clarkson, who has a strong personality and won't be camera shy. Screen testing with presenters without TV experience is also something TV executives do anyway. Top Gear is still a huge brand for the BBC. I don't blame them for choosing someone who's known for his TV personality rather than taking a punt on a complete newbie to tv. Plus LeBlanc isn't the only presenter. It used to be huge, but not anymore. The show has lost most of its viewers.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Mar 15, 2017 15:15:48 GMT
Top Gear is still a huge brand for the BBC. I don't blame them for choosing someone who's known for his TV personality rather than taking a punt on a complete newbie to tv. Plus LeBlanc isn't the only presenter. It used to be huge, but not anymore. The show has lost most of its viewers. You misunderstand what is meant by brand. The TV show indeed has lost viewers, but with 3.77m viewers last week it was by far the most watched show on BBC2. It's clear that you have a real anti-passion to Top Gear without Clarkson etc, but it is not the failure you wish it was, nor should the BBC have just abandoned it post Clarkson et al.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 15, 2017 15:18:17 GMT
It used to be huge, but not anymore. The show has lost most of its viewers. You misunderstand what is meant by brand. The TV show indeed has lost viewers, but with 3.77m viewers last week it was by far the most watched show on BBC2. It's clear that you have a real anti-passion to Top Gear without Clarkson etc, but it is not the failure you wish it was, nor should the BBC have just abandoned it post Clarkson et al. That's nothing compared to the successful revival of Robot Wars, which has managed to gain its audience not lose it.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Mar 15, 2017 15:19:13 GMT
I still don't see why you think only a journalist can fulfil the roll properly? I don't, I just think it needs to be someone with car expertise first and foremost, rather than just going for some guy who used to be in Friends. Presenters who are amateurs with a passion for what they are presenting are often far more entertaining than experts, You only need to look at sports presenting, whilst pretty much all sports shows will have ex-particpants of the sport as part of the team, most of the time the lead presenter is just someone who has the skills to present and a passion for the sport.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Mar 15, 2017 15:20:06 GMT
You misunderstand what is meant by brand. The TV show indeed has lost viewers, but with 3.77m viewers last week it was by far the most watched show on BBC2. It's clear that you have a real anti-passion to Top Gear without Clarkson etc, but it is not the failure you wish it was, nor should the BBC have just abandoned it post Clarkson et al. That's nothing compared to the successful revival of Robot Wars, which has managed to gain its audience not lose it. So what? Does that mean that all shows that don't get as many viewers as Robot Wars does should be scrapped?
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Mar 15, 2017 15:21:02 GMT
Top Gear is still a huge brand for the BBC. I don't blame them for choosing someone who's known for his TV personality rather than taking a punt on a complete newbie to tv. Plus LeBlanc isn't the only presenter. It used to be huge, but not anymore. The show has lost most of its viewers. It's still got around 3 million views, huge for a BBC 2 show. And to be honest that's all it needs. The BBC know they're never gonna win round the Clarkson fans, especially with that Amazon show competing. Yes the show's less successful than it was, but it's not failing.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 15, 2017 15:22:26 GMT
It used to be huge, but not anymore. The show has lost most of its viewers. It's still got around 3 million views, huge for a BBC 2 show. And to be honest that's all it needs. The BBC know they're never gonna win round the Clarkson fans, especially with that Amazon show competing. Yes the show's less successful than it was, but it's not failing. In my eyes it is. If I were the current BBC2 controller, I'd axe Top Gear and replace it with two series of Robot Wars a year. That's proper entertainment, not a waste of the license fee money.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Mar 15, 2017 15:22:32 GMT
You misunderstand what is meant by brand. The TV show indeed has lost viewers, but with 3.77m viewers last week it was by far the most watched show on BBC2. It's clear that you have a real anti-passion to Top Gear without Clarkson etc, but it is not the failure you wish it was, nor should the BBC have just abandoned it post Clarkson et al. That's nothing compared to the successful revival of Robot Wars, which has managed to gain its audience not lose it. Erm, actually, I just did some research, Robot Wars got 2 miliion viewers, out performing the final show of last seasons Top Gear, but no where near what this seasons Top Gear is so far attracting.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Mar 15, 2017 15:24:03 GMT
It's still got around 3 million views, huge for a BBC 2 show. And to be honest that's all it needs. The BBC know they're never gonna win round the Clarkson fans, especially with that Amazon show competing. Yes the show's less successful than it was, but it's not failing. In my eyes it is. If I were the current BBC2 controller, I'd axe Top Gear and replace it with two series of Robot Wars a year. That's proper entertainment, not a waste of the license fee money. The world does not conform to how you wish it, however much you wish it.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Mar 15, 2017 15:27:42 GMT
It's still got around 3 million views, huge for a BBC 2 show. And to be honest that's all it needs. The BBC know they're never gonna win round the Clarkson fans, especially with that Amazon show competing. Yes the show's less successful than it was, but it's not failing. In my eyes it is. If I were the current BBC2 controller, I'd axe Top Gear and replace it with two series of Robot Wars a year. That's proper entertainment, not a waste of the license fee money. Robot Wars got around 2 million viewers-less than Top Gear! Good as Robot Wars is, it's success shouldn't render another shows a failure. They're different shows. So it's not getting as many views as it used, the views it's getting are still really good by BBC 2 standards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
TOP GEAR
Mar 15, 2017 17:14:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 17:14:06 GMT
And some people go direct to TV. I don't see what your point is, sherlock was saying they the presenters needed TV experience, I'm not myself sure that's true, although new TV presenters are often very wooden at first so it's nice if they got that worked out of them before they present a show I want to watch, but how someone makes there way to be a TV presenter seems irrelevant to me, they are either good presenters or they not, and being a journalist or an actor is no guarantee of that. True. That's why you go for a journalist like Jeremy Clarkson, who has a strong personality and won't be camera shy. Screen testing with presenters without TV experience is also something TV executives do anyway. You're miximg up two careers. Journalists by and large work in written media and are no more likely than anyone else to be good presenters. Its like saying all meteorologists will make excellent weather presenters. I do agree that Matt isnt great in studio, but give him time.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 15, 2017 17:30:35 GMT
True. That's why you go for a journalist like Jeremy Clarkson, who has a strong personality and won't be camera shy. Screen testing with presenters without TV experience is also something TV executives do anyway. You're miximg up two careers. Journalists by and large work in written media and are no more likely than anyone else to be good presenters. Its like saying all meteorologists will make excellent weather presenters. I do agree that Matt isnt great in studio, but give him time. I'm not saying all journalists make good TV presenters, but many do come from journalism.
|
|
|
Post by doomlord on Mar 15, 2017 23:29:39 GMT
My point is why are you making a big deal out of it. This isn't a big deal. Wouldn't care if they did or didn't. I'm not a woman, but it is always great to see women get recognised more both on and offscreen. Same with black people. In the Top Gear thread you said that it should only be hosted by male presenters.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Mar 15, 2017 23:32:01 GMT
I'm not a woman, but it is always great to see women get recognised more both on and offscreen. Same with black people. In the Top Gear thread you said that it should only be hosted by male presenters. Top Gear is the exception. It's a very blokey show, so if you add a woman it doesn't work. Same if Loose Women added a male presenter.
|
|
|
Post by doomlord on Mar 15, 2017 23:45:44 GMT
In the Top Gear thread you said that it should only be hosted by male presenters. Top Gear is the exception. It's a very blokey show, so if you add a woman it doesn't work. Same if Loose Women added a male presenter. That's because Loose Women targets a specific audience and demographic, plus the fact the word 'Women' is featured in that programme's title. Whereas Top Gear is not gender specific and never has been. Just under half of the TG viewing audience are female because guess what.... women like cars too.
|
|