The Grand Tour, Amazon Prime

[johndon]

Thought the Namibia special was the best of the series, back to 'proper' Top Gear.

 

John

[Edge]

The series does have its low points - Episode 2 and the Xmas special were both a bit naff - but overall its like they were never away. And when its good, its brilliant.

 

In particular, I laughed at Hammond slowing down past the Cenotaph in london show due respect nice dig there

[gordon s]

Still improving.  The Honda NSX test by James May was great.  The electric challenge had some fun moments and the last feature on weapon proof cars provided some chuckles.  Conversation St was even acceptable.  Loved the faces of Chelsea players looking at the SL/Land Rover hybrid.....

 

Get rid of the US driver.  Not the slightest bit funny.....

 

Overall improving bit by bit.

[DavidB-AU]

Richard Hammond 'injured in motorbike crash' while filming in Mozambique

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/richard-hammond-injured-motorbike-crash-filming-mozambique/

[edcayton]

OT, but isn't the new series of Top Gear Dire?

 

Ed

[Kris]

OT, but isn't the new series of Top Gear Dire?

 

Ed

 

It's not Top Gear of old but it is so much better than the last series. 

[MJI]

It's not Top Gear of old but it is so much better than the last series. 

 

I like it, much better now they do not pretend to be Clarkson.

[DavidB-AU]

[Kris]

Starts 8th December. 

[MJI]

Eeek that means my renewal is due soon

[DavidB-AU]

[DavidB-AU]

[andyram]

I watched the first episode of series 2 this evening. It was very enjoyable. The super cars feature was nothing new but was watchable. The new celeb feature is a variation on the Star in a Reasonably priced car but was nicely done and something that seemed to be a glaring, but enforced, absence from series 1.

 

I look forward to future episodes.

[DavidB-AU]

I watched it last night and found it very enjoyable. I'm glad they didn't overplay Hammond's crash.

 

Cheers
David

[JohnR]

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/12/a-forensic-debunking-of-the-grand-tours-trip-to-switzerland/

[SRman]

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/12/a-forensic-debunking-of-the-grand-tours-trip-to-switzerland/

I think James O'Malley has missed the point that The Grand Tour, and Top Gear, for that matter, are classed as "entertainment" shows, not "factual" shows. Very little in the shows can be taken seriously, with the presenters deliberately doing stupid things and making stupid choices, purely to create entertaining situations.

 

I agree that The Grand Tour has taken a little while to find its feet, but that was at least partly due to it deliberately not being a carbon copy of Top Gear. The first few episodes were a bit hit and miss, but it gradually got better (mostly, IMHO) as series 1 progressed. It may be a while before I get to watch series 2 on free to air TV, so I cannot add any useful comments on that series.

Edited December 13, 2017 by SRman

[Edge]

I think James O'Malley has missed the point that The Grand Tour, and Top Gear, for that matter, are classed as "entertainment" shows, not "factual" shows. Very little in the shows can be taken seriously, with the presenters deliberately doing stupid things and making stupid choices, purely to create entertaining situations.

 

I agree that The Grand Tour has taken a little while to find its feet, but that was at least partly due to it deliberately not being a carbon copy of Top Gear. The first few episodes were a bit hit and miss, but it gradually got better (mostly, IMHO) as series 1 progressed. It may be a while before I get to watch series 2 on free to air TV, so I cannot add any useful comments on that series.

 

To be honest, I don't think you will EVER get to see The Grand Tour on free-to-air TV - Amazon has something of a deathgrip around its distribution and has come down like a ton of bricks on those people who have been pirating it. So they're not letting go of it for a good while - they haven't even done any DVDs to my knowledge.

 

As for the standard of the new show, I'm glad that adjustments have been made to the format and I think theyre for the better. Episode 1 was fantastic and wonderfully entertaining - now lets see what they do with the other ten episodes.

[SRman]

To be honest, I don't think you will EVER get to see The Grand Tour on free-to-air TV - Amazon has something of a deathgrip around its distribution and has come down like a ton of bricks on those people who have been pirating it. So they're not letting go of it for a good while - they haven't even done any DVDs to my knowledge.

 

As for the standard of the new show, I'm glad that adjustments have been made to the format and I think theyre for the better. Episode 1 was fantastic and wonderfully entertaining - now lets see what they do with the other ten episodes.

 

Currently, series 1 is being played on our channel 7 / 70 / 71 free to air in Australia.

[JohnR]

I think James O'Malley has missed the point that The Grand Tour, and Top Gear, for that matter, are classed as "entertainment" shows, not "factual" shows. Very little in the shows can be taken seriously, with the presenters deliberately doing stupid things and making stupid choices, purely to create entertaining situations.

 

I agree that The Grand Tour has taken a little while to find its feet, but that was at least partly due to it deliberately not being a carbon copy of Top Gear. The first few episodes were a bit hit and miss, but it gradually got better (mostly, IMHO) as series 1 progressed. It may be a while before I get to watch series 2 on free to air TV, so I cannot add any useful comments on that series.

 

Regardless of their status as "entertainment", the point he was making was that they deliberately set out to create a false impression. They could have made an equally entertaining show, but without misrepresenting the distance from the Hotel to the museum, or the need to go through a twisty street. 

[Edge]

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/12/a-forensic-debunking-of-the-grand-tours-trip-to-switzerland/

 

Yeah, kind of like criticising Thomas the Tank for an inaccurate illustration of cylinder layouts - perhaps factually correct but somewhat missing the point methinks.

[SRman]

While maybe taking us a little off-topic, there are a good many movies that misrepresent distances or even the juxtaposition of places, purely for the entertainment value they get by including famous landmarks. Some even use completely different places to represent the places in the movie: I have been witness to at least three such cases.

 

1. Mission Impossible from the 1980s, filmed in and a round Brisbane but purporting to be in London. They closed off the street just up the road from my office at the time.

2. Ghost Rider (Nicholas Cage), filmed in and around Melbourne. I was working in a building in Lonsdale Street, backing onto Little Lonsdale Street. the latter was closed off at night for filming and the building of movie sets on two car parks. These represented American locations, and had left-hand drive cars and a garage, plus some shops.

3. The school I work in now became an Elementary School in Boston for two weeks while another Nicholas Cage movie was made - Knowing. I almost walked into a 1958 scene at one stage carrying a computer! We had the American flag flying over the school for those two weeks.

In each case, I can point out locations in the movies that I know very well are not where the movies say they are. Is that a reason to criticise the movies? Well, IMHO, the Nicholas Cage movies were a bit B grade, but the wrong locations really don't affect the narrative flow of the movies - they are there for a part in the entertainment.

I think that TGT and Top Gear exaggerated or distorted a good many 'facts'. I still enjoyed the shows for their entertainment value. Let's face it, nobody could become as rich and popular as the three leads have done by being as stupid in real life as they are in the shows. They are paid to be silly, dogmatic, stupid, ... and funny.

[Guest]

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/12/a-forensic-debunking-of-the-grand-tours-trip-to-switzerland/

 

I rather stupidly read through the linked article before watching the episode. Consequently, I spent a good deal of time during the episode wondering why the person that wrote it bothered? Was it just for a moan? Was it to say "Hey - I'm clever!"???

I don't care how many charging points there are within 100 miles of somewhere I've never been. I don't care if you can or cannot get a steak at the hotel. As for pencil museums, does anybody care?

If random inaccuracies and engineering scenes for a laugh, rather than pure fact bother you, The Grand Tour and, indeed, the old Top Gear are probably best avoided.

I thoroughly enjoyed it - welcome back.

 

Edit: Did anyone else think James May looked different? Not just the haircut...

Edited December 14, 2017 by Pete 75C

[JohnR]

While maybe taking us a little off-topic, there are a good many movies that misrepresent distances or even the juxtaposition of places, purely for the entertainment value they get by including famous landmarks. Some even use completely different places to represent the places in the movie: I have been witness to at least three such cases.

 

1. Mission Impossible from the 1980s, filmed in and a round Brisbane but purporting to be in London. They closed off the street just up the road from my office at the time.

 

2. Ghost Rider (Nicholas Cage), filmed in and around Melbourne. I was working in a building in Lonsdale Street, backing onto Little Lonsdale Street. the latter was closed off at night for filming and the building of movie sets on two car parks. These represented American locations, and had left-hand drive cars and a garage, plus some shops.

 

3. The school I work in now became an Elementary School in Boston for two weeks while another Nicholas Cage movie was made - Knowing. I almost walked into a 1958 scene at one stage carrying a computer! We had the American flag flying over the school for those two weeks.

 

In each case, I can point out locations in the movies that I know very well are not where the movies say they are. Is that a reason to criticise the movies? Well, IMHO, the Nicholas Cage movies were a bit B grade, but the wrong locations really don't affect the narrative flow of the movies - they are there for a part in the entertainment.

 

I think that TGT and Top Gear exaggerated or distorted a good many 'facts'. I still enjoyed the shows for their entertainment value. Let's face it, nobody could become as rich and popular as the three leads have done by being as stupid in real life as they are in the shows. They are paid to be silly, dogmatic, stupid, ... and funny.

 

I think theres a difference between a movie - that everyone knows is fictional at the start - and something like this or the old Top Gear. 

[chris p bacon]

I think theres a difference between a movie - that everyone knows is fictional at the start - and something like this or the old Top Gear. 

 

I don't think I know anyone that thinks TG or TGT is factual, it's always been about entertainment based around cars.  Why else would you put a pick up on top of a soon to be demolished tower block, it's never been recognised as a consistent means of vehicle testing.

 

I read the article and thought    "look at me and how smart I am, my knowledge of Lucerne means I can see how false this is and I need to educate all the plebs that don't" 

[Zomboid]

I read the article and thought "look at me and how smart I am, my knowledge of Lucerne means I can see how false this is and I need to educate all the plebs that don't"

Much like how some of us here get a bit worked up over inaccurate portrayals of railway scenes.