
Top Gear Ranters
#31
Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:25 PM
It was far funnier unstaged
#32
Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:38 PM
I still watch it, its better than most of the crappola on tv. But I liked it when the road trips WERE road trips and they broke down/messed up/got lost blah blah blah
It was far funnier unstaged
The thing is though, think it from the producers point of view.
There needs to be some drama and breakdowns on the way to make it entertaining and break it up abit. If they all drove through X with no problems at all, it'd be a bit boring. Top Gear isn't a show for petrolheads, it's a show for everybody, so it needs to make general people laugh as well as cater to those who care about cars.
I think the people that get angry about Top Gear are a bit idiotic. I hate shows like X Factor with a passion, but I never waste my time ranting about them because I never waste my time watching them! People complain about TG like they're forced to watch it, it's a TV show, if you don't like it, flick over! (This wasn't directed at you M&P!)
#33
Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:49 PM

But its strayed down the too daft path for me (ironic I know)

Miss the cool wall that isnt on enough. Like the Celeb bit. Like the chitter chatter on the News. The bit I've started to switch off to is the silly staged road trips
I thought last weeks was good, seemed to be less Jibba Jabba plus it showed Chris Evans cars off and had a mini in it

I think they're best when just larking and chatting cars, they dont need the other stuff. Plus when the 14year old LOVES IT MORE THAN LIFE ITSELF I start to think the standard must of dropped for him to find it so funny

#34
Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:52 PM
Never want it to end. Staged or not, it is brilliant.
#35
Posted 16 March 2012 - 09:42 AM
But then I also liked the other old features, the sort of thing they don't do any more like car football matches and classic MPV racing. It has changed but they are concentrating on what people talked about most from past shows, and it still gets very good figures.
#36
Guest_TicTax_*
Posted 16 March 2012 - 09:53 AM
Direct away Im not easily offended
.....Like I said I still watch it
But its strayed down the too daft path for me (ironic I know)
Miss the cool wall that isnt on enough. Like the Celeb bit. Like the chitter chatter on the News. The bit I've started to switch off to is the silly staged road trips
I thought last weeks was good, seemed to be less Jibba Jabba plus it showed Chris Evans cars off and had a mini in it
I think they're best when just larking and chatting cars, they dont need the other stuff. Plus when the 14year old LOVES IT MORE THAN LIFE ITSELF I start to think the standard must of dropped for him to find it so funny
The problem that people have with it is that it's still billed as a motoring show from a broadcaster that is publicly funded through the TV license. People then see Clarkson, May and Hammond driving across Africa, America, wherever and the perception is that, especially in this climate, it's a chronic waste of license fee money and that the car is very much an afterthought these days.
I used to work for the BBC and used to know a few people associated with TG and that was always the criticism that they spent most of their time batting away
#37
Posted 16 March 2012 - 10:19 AM
And it seems they didn't really blow up a Lotus with a missile strike from an Apache Longbow.
Nor destroy a Range Rover Sport with a Challenger II tank

#38
Posted 16 March 2012 - 12:47 PM
It's way cheaper to send 3 presenters and a director to any country in the world for 3 days, hire some cars and a local crew and shoot them chatting than it is to produce 1/2 an hour of the exact same period costume drama they have already made 12 different versions of in the past. I understand what you are saying and that this is what people who complain about it think, but these people don't understand TV and if you've worked at the BBC you should do. People think that something like DIY SOS must cost a fortune because they build someone a house and all that but it's still way cheaper than drama. No sets, no costumes, a tiny crew, no props, shooting for a few days rather than months, minimal post production, it's all cheap. For their current series of commercials Tesco have brought a house to shoot them in, across the road from a store. Sounds expensive, but it saves a fortune in stage hire, set construction, travel, everything. At the end of the series they have a house to sell which will have increased in value, rather than a skip full of sets thay have to pay to dispose of. TV and film budgets are so large and unusual that they don't seem to make sense to anyone in the real world.
#39
Posted 16 March 2012 - 01:00 PM
http://www.topgearlive.co.uk/
#40
Guest_TicTax_*
Posted 16 March 2012 - 01:48 PM
Any show that regularly gets 16%-20% in a prime slot when there are literally hundreds of competing channels is patently not a waste of licence money. They could spend twice what they do and still be good value to the company. Given that TG is also I believe the single biggest sales product for the corporation in terms of overseas, repeat and DVD sales and merchandising rights, it brings in far more to Auntie than the amount of licence fee they spend on it. And it is a motoring show, it's just not a factual show as they say time and time again. It's paid for by LE I think, not by any factual department.
It's way cheaper to send 3 presenters and a director to any country in the world for 3 days, hire some cars and a local crew and shoot them chatting than it is to produce 1/2 an hour of the exact same period costume drama they have already made 12 different versions of in the past. I understand what you are saying and that this is what people who complain about it think, but these people don't understand TV and if you've worked at the BBC you should do. People think that something like DIY SOS must cost a fortune because they build someone a house and all that but it's still way cheaper than drama. No sets, no costumes, a tiny crew, no props, shooting for a few days rather than months, minimal post production, it's all cheap. For their current series of commercials Tesco have brought a house to shoot them in, across the road from a store. Sounds expensive, but it saves a fortune in stage hire, set construction, travel, everything. At the end of the series they have a house to sell which will have increased in value, rather than a skip full of sets thay have to pay to dispose of. TV and film budgets are so large and unusual that they don't seem to make sense to anyone in the real world.
If you actually read what I wrote you'll see that I merely stated the fact that the BBC and TG is criticised by people for what is perceived as a waste of license fee money and that is the criticism that they have to deal with the most - I didn't pass an opinion one way or the other. In terms of popularity and generating money for BBC Worldwide for programme sales, not merchandising before you get back on your high-horse, Only Fools and Horses sells better than TG.
#41
Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:39 PM
#42
Guest_TicTax_*
Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:45 PM
#43
Posted 18 March 2012 - 01:41 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users