Kev_Lewis Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 They'll, hopefully, have the sense not to even try and imitate the JC/RH/JM format so it's going to be a totally different show and will stand or fall in its own right. With stuff like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35793887, and this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/12166574/Matt-LeBlanc-breaks-down-in-car-park-while-filming-Top-Gear.html appearing it looks like they're just trying to go either further with the arsing about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Oh dear, so it does. Well, guess we'll soon have the opportunity to make our minds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyram Posted March 12, 2016 Author Share Posted March 12, 2016 Since the challenges and general arsing about were what made the previous incarnation of the show so good, it was likely they would try replicate that in some way. It is just a case of how they do it. If done well then it might go some way towards enhancing the new format. Let's not forget the challenges and special races sold a lot of DVD's at Christmas and Father's Day so it also makes financial sense for the BBC to continue them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanders Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 If you want to see what happens when you hinge the entire format on "challenges" and then do it with a group of presenters who don't have any chemistry, try watching Top Gear USA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev_Lewis Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 If you want to see what happens when you hinge the entire format on "challenges" and then do it with a group of presenters who don't have any chemistry, try watching Top Gear USA... Indeed, and that didn't last very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyram Posted March 13, 2016 Author Share Posted March 13, 2016 If you want to see what happens when you hinge the entire format on "challenges" and then do it with a group of presenters who don't have any chemistry, try watching Top Gear USA... Mind you the Americans are a strange bunch and like things a different way. I think the challenges may have lasted a bit too long for the attention span of some Americans! That said you are quite right about the chemistry aspect. Part of the success of the previous Top Gear was the chemistry of the three presenters, and the "characters" they represented. JC being the loud loutish member (could be Evans), May the slow and technical bore and Hammond the cheeky chappy with the opportunity for lots of height jokes. Without something similar he new version would definitely lose something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Part of the success of the previous Top Gear was the chemistry of the three presenters, and the "characters" they represented. JC being the loud loutish member (could be Evans), May the slow and technical bore and Hammond the cheeky chappy with the opportunity for lots of height jokes. Without something similar he new version would definitely lose something. And you have to remember that what you see on screen is an act. If anybody remembers the Parkinson interview years ago when Clarkson was waxing lyrical about Concorde and Deltics, that was the real him. Cheers David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyram Posted March 14, 2016 Author Share Posted March 14, 2016 And you have to remember that what you see on screen is an act. If anybody remembers the Parkinson interview years ago when Clarkson was waxing lyrical about Concorde and Deltics, that was the real him.CheersDavid Exactly, hence the use of the word "characters" in my previous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 ....the challenges and special races .... ...and, in a couple of cases, special racists.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted March 14, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 14, 2016 Looks like the new Top Gear is already on the naughty step. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35800187 Cheers, Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Looks like the new Top Gear is already on the naughty step. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35800187 Cheers, Mick Whilst not condoning what happened, it's somewhat interesting to note the papers that saw fit to put this on their front page were The Sun, the Daily Mail the Telegraph and the Times. None of whom have ever been friends of Broadcasting House. It was silly and shouldn't have happened but the furore over it reeks of agendas and scores being settled. Compared to some of the controversy the previous presenters courted, including physical violence let's not forget, and what other things are happening in the world I would hope those rising up in outrage and indignation might stop and think whether there are more important things to get worked up about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 ... there are more important things to get worked up about. The availability of MRJ for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Whilst not condoning what happened, it's somewhat interesting to note the papers that saw fit to put this on their front page were The Sun, the Daily Mail the Telegraph and the Times. None of whom have ever been friends of Broadcasting House. It was silly and shouldn't have happened but the furore over it reeks of agendas and scores being settled. Compared to some of the controversy the previous presenters courted, including physical violence let's not forget, and what other things are happening in the world I would hope those rising up in outrage and indignation might stop and think whether there are more important things to get worked up about. I'm not sure that it was even silly though some of the reaction to it clearly is. Looking at the clips taken by the crowds looking towards the BBC cameras (you can clearly see the camera crane) it seems clear that the stunt was being filmed looking up Whitehall with the Cenotaph out of shot behind the cameras*. The car drove up Whitehall past the Cenotaph (just like thousands of cars every day!) and only then did the stunts. If I'd been setting up that sequence I doubt if it would have occured to me either that shots taken of a car a hundred to two hundred metres away from a war memorial that wasn't even in shot would have offended anyone. The shots of the stunt driving with the Cenotaph a long way behind the car were taken by spectators looking in the opposite direction from the BBC's cameras. If the BBC is now saying that they won't include any shots that show the Cenotaph that's fine because they probably didn't shoot any in the first place; if they drop the whole item, which I assume is a rather fun one of a load of stunt driving around London's best known landmarks (quite good for our tourist trade when it's shown worlwide!!) then that would be giving in to those who certainly don't have the best interests of public service broadcasting at heart. You can accuse Top Gear of many failings over the years but a lack of respect for Britain's armed forces certainly isn't one of them. *which seem, because the shot that's appeared in the press was taken using a very narrow lens angle, far closer to the Cenotaph than they really were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 I think that is what annoyed me about the crusade from the loonier wing of the press, the fact that they were going on about "lack of respect" but how respectful is it to keep the Nation's war memorial as a giant keep left bollard in the middle of a busy road? It should have been re-located to a new Memorial Square either outside the Houses of Parliament (all those it commemorates fought to maintain democratic freedoms and it wouldn't hurt those sitting in Parliament today to be reminded of that daily) or in the viscinity of Buck House, after all they all fought under the Monarch's colours. Then people could get close to the memorial or sit and contemplate the meaning of the structure without the fear of being mowed down by an irate cabbie or a Borismaster. It's current location is an accident of history, it probably couldn't be moved now because yet again some of the idiot press would have a hissy fit but really, we should be affording the structure proper reverence by making it the centrepiece of a new square dedicated to the memory of those who sacrificed all, if we as a nation had any common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 ...it's somewhat interesting to note the papers that saw fit to put this on their front page were The Sun, the Daily Mail the Telegraph and the Times. None of whom have ever been friends of Broadcasting House... Should they be? It's classic free enterprise vs Marxist tax impost funded behemoth. First the BBC, then North Korea can be dealt with. FREEDOM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Some of the press coverage gives the impression that some use was made of road closures. I find it difficult to believe that Top Gear had road closures in central London, although I see stories today in various papers that this was so, and not cheap either, so I suspect that as ever, the story-behind-the-story would be worth hearing. Richard Hammond has a pretty dire programme on various satellite channels called "Science of Stupid" which is probably good value if you've been in the pub, and makes the interesting point that doing stupid things can be genuinely dangerous and result in actual injuries, but mostly proves that being mocked by Jeremy Clarkson is his main talent on-camera. It's interesting to watch various second-tier presenters jockeying for position as Attenborough and Clarkson are eased from the stage. Julia Bradbury is good value in a "jolly hockey sticks" sort of way, and her recent "rough sleeping" programme (in which she mostly managed not to sleep rough at all, within the terms of the programme, by availing herself of various hostels and presuming shamelessly on a rather Tim-nice-but-dim character who recognised her). Davina McCall's Arctic efforts last night were quite interesting, with some very good field footage, although you could sense that the experienced field guide would be glad when this particular contract was over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 I think that is what annoyed me about the crusade from the loonier wing of the press, the fact that they were going on about "lack of respect" but how respectful is it to keep the Nation's war memorial as a giant keep left bollard in the middle of a busy road? It should have been re-located to a new Memorial Square either outside the Houses of Parliament (all those it commemorates fought to maintain democratic freedoms and it wouldn't hurt those sitting in Parliament today to be reminded of that daily) or in the viscinity of Buck House, after all they all fought under the Monarch's colours. Then people could get close to the memorial or sit and contemplate the meaning of the structure without the fear of being mowed down by an irate cabbie or a Borismaster. It's current location is an accident of history, it probably couldn't be moved now because yet again some of the idiot press would have a hissy fit but really, we should be affording the structure proper reverence by making it the centrepiece of a new square dedicated to the memory of those who sacrificed all, if we as a nation had any common sense. Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. The Cenotaph is where it is for the same reason that the Unknown Soldier is where he is, to be a permanent, universal presence. Just as everyone, up to and including royalty being crowned or married, must walk around the Unknown Soldier, so everyone in London must go around the Cenotaph. If you believe the current crop of Westminster careerists are capable of shame or guilt, good luck wth that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. The Cenotaph is where it is for the same reason that the Unknown Soldier is where he is, to be a permanent, universal presence. Just as everyone, up to and including royalty being crowned or married, must walk around the Unknown Soldier, so everyone in London must go around the Cenotaph. If you believe the current crop of Westminster careerists are capable of shame or guilt, good luck wth that. The problem is the current location is an accident of history. It wasn't erected there as a conscious decision for Londoners to pass daily, it was originally a temporary wood and plaster waymarker along the route of the 1919 "Peace Parade". It only became permanent in 1920 at a time when traffic was far less than today. The idea that the National memorial is in the heart of Government buildings I find quite inappropriate given that Governments have routinely mismanaged military campaigns over the years, and I don't believe isolating it in a busy traffic artery is actually right as it was popular demand that led to a permanent Cenotaph being erected after people began to lay their own flowers and wreaths at the temporary site. If any grieving widow or fellow comrade tried doing that now they would end up in casualty, so the Cenotaph has become divorced from the public and is now only actually used by a select few. Completely the opposite of how it came about in 1920. In my experience over many years I have found many of the inhabitants of Parliament are decent and well intentioned. Just because a few rotten apples have got publicity shouldn't condemn all, plus thanks to the sacrifice of those in the past, at least we can do something about those who do shame the Palace if the fat, apathetic British public got off their behinds and voted, which is something a large number of people across the world cannot do. If those who do enter Parliament for self seeking reasons had to walk through a square dedicated to the memory of those who gave all, some at least might just change their attitude or at least think twice about the real reason why they are there. I've got more reason than most on these forums to be cynical about politicians but my experience of all levels of Government is that the majority of politicians are fundamentally decent and they are as appalled by the behaviour of some as the rest of us. In any case, every workplace has it's freeloaders, game players, careerists and chancers so it's not surprising that politics contains a few as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Don't forget that traffic flows through Central London were rather different when Piccadilly was still a roundabout, Trafalgar Square a gyratory and so forth. It was once largely true that if you stood on Piccadilly Circus, the whole world would pass by, much less so now. True enough about the original being temporary, but it was made permanent because it was so successful in capturing public sentiment. Don't forget that every town and village has one or more memorials; many on busy junctions (such as the one in Southwark, or the Cambridge one which has been in various positions around the very busy junction of Station Road and Hills Road). People rarely lay wreaths etc at such memorials except on Rememberance Day when it us surely right that traffic is stopped for the purpose, as it originally was during the Two Minutes Silence. It's interesting to see this latter making something of a comeback in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 15, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 15, 2016 Whitehall is by no means the busiest London highway and I see no problem with the siting of the Cenotaph there. Might help to remind Govt not to start wars quite so haphazardly. It may well be that this incident has been blown up a bit by the anti-BBC faction. But if you are in the BBC, you know that faction exists and you are brain dead if you give them the ammunition to shoot you down with. Whoever set this up should be handed their P45. And as for the feeble excuse that "we had permission from Westminster City Council". That just proves that some Councils will do anything for money these days, not that it was a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted March 15, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 15, 2016 Don't forget that traffic flows through Central London were rather different when Piccadilly was still a roundabout, Trafalgar Square a gyratory and so forth. It was once largely true that if you stood on Piccadilly Circus, the whole world would pass by, much less so now. True enough about the original being temporary, but it was made permanent because it was so successful in capturing public sentiment. Don't forget that every town and village has one or more memorials; many on busy junctions (such as the one in Southwark, or the Cambridge one which has been in various positions around the very busy junction of Station Road and Hills Road). People rarely lay wreaths etc at such memorials except on Rememberance Day when it us surely right that traffic is stopped for the purpose, as it originally was during the Two Minutes Silence. It's interesting to see this latter making something of a comeback in recent years. Many local memorials have been moved to make way for new road schemes or even because heavy passing traffic simply made it too dangerous to hold a ceremony of remembrance. The only problem with moving the Cenotaph would be its size and whether it could be moved without risk of damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted March 15, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 15, 2016 Call me a cynic but no publicity is bad publicity, I think the whole episode is a bit of a silly season story with both sides being happy with the outcome. TG get publicity and the papers do a bit of beeb bashing and they're both happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Many local memorials have been moved to make way for new road schemes or even because heavy passing traffic simply made it too dangerous to hold a ceremony of remembrance. The only problem with moving the Cenotaph would be its size and whether it could be moved without risk of damage. I know I banged on about moving the Cenotaph but in reality as a Grade 1 listed structure it's highly unlikely to move. In fact I'd venture to suggest there's more chance of Whitehall being pedestrianised than the Cenotaph being relocated. Mind you if you want to have a Remembrance Day service with a frisson of fear, the Arthog and Fairbourne War Memorial is located on a bank on a blind bend directly opposite the exit from Morfa Mawddach. They close the road temporarily for the service but if you want to visit outside the Remembrance Day wreath laying ceremony you do rather take your life into your own hands, although there are steps with handrails in front of the main memorial cross which afford some protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Call me a cynic but no publicity is bad publicity, I think the whole episode is a bit of a silly season story with both sides being happy with the outcome. TG get publicity and the papers do a bit of beeb bashing and they're both happy. Nail on head. Four days before the first episode is due to air, they'll no doubt do something equally "stupid" that will outrage the easily outraged and then the ratings will go stratospheric. I still think Chris Evans is an idiot but he's not an idiot, if you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold grandadbob Posted March 16, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 16, 2016 Agreed Pete. Anyone who can persuade someone to pay him the amount of money he gets for what he actually does must be a very clever idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.