Cycling on Top Gear

[unkleGsif]

180 and still riding the clutch :roll:

 

[Koupe]

Seriously though, I think 99% of what Clarkson spouts on TV and gets printed is just a fabricated image - he knows that an unhealthy number of people see him as a far-right icon, and plays up to it. It's not very socially responsible of him, but it's made him plenty of money. I suspect that if you spoke to him away from the media, he'd turn out to be a fairly ordinary, unassuming bloke with rather inoffensive ideas.
Hammond, on the other hand, is an odious twunt with very few, if any, redeeming features. I'm afraid that in his case, I'm 100% behind Mr Lee.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I see redeeming features in all three of them. One of my faults is I love everyone. My gripe is the unfulfilled potential. They could really take the show somewhere interesting if they engaged overdrive.

 

[Neil]

Seriously though, I think 99% of what Clarkson spouts on TV and gets printed is just a fabricated image - he knows that an unhealthy number of people see him as a far-right icon, and plays up to it. It's not very socially responsible of him, but it's made him plenty of money. I suspect that if you spoke to him away from the media, he'd turn out to be a fairly ordinary, unassuming bloke with rather inoffensive ideas.
Hammond, on the other hand, is an odious twunt with very few, if any, redeeming features. I'm afraid that in his case, I'm 100% behind Mr Lee.

I think that's why I've found it irritating in recent times.

It wasn't always this way, there was a period were it was just daft, yet entertaining exuberance - but it's what's evolved, in recent times, to be the cynical contempt JC thinly disguises, for what has become his demographic fawning acolytes.

On a largely unconnected tangent, I just noticed the subject line for this thread, did a double take, and half expected it to be Lance's latest tale of humbleness.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Now that, for the uninitiated, is humour!

 

[legrandefromage]

No-one mentioned that the Brand/ Sachs incident was funny, his live radio show was erudite and articulate - Its what happened afterwards that I whined about.

The same happens with Top Gear - no-one complains after a shows screening yet the press pick it up and it snowballs from there. These days, if you fart the wrong smell in the media you can be accused of xenophobia, racsim and anything else you care to think of (other 'isms' are available).

The original Top Gear was very dry, the regenerated version tapped into a 'something' that made it very popular. Popularity always attracts critics and scrutiny so anything that anyone said is taken out of context.


It was a dig at you personally Mr Highlandsflyer the most vocal on the thread - the Scottish Independence thing was also a poke.

My kettle is cream btw - no reference to creed, race, colour, just what the missus decided the kitchen needed. I do not wear the trousers around here.

 

[David B]

I see redeeming features in all three of them.

I'm actually a big fan of James May's non-Top Gear work, which proves TG isn't really him at his best; I suppose being on such a popular show helps pay the bills though. In much the same way that Bob Monkhouse carried on doing all of those naff, cheesy but very bankable BBC game shows despite being a brilliant and under-rated stand-up.

David

 

[Neil]

No-one mentioned that the Brand/ Sachs incident was funny, his live radio show was erudite and articulate

Then if not humour, what purpose did it serve? Satire?

You flatter them to deceive. They thought they were being funny, but really, it was just the excess of ego. As you say, Brand can be very eloquent, and quite humourous - no denial from me. Unfortunately, this instance was rather tragically absent of any of that, or any true humour, it was merely replaced by a certain detached arrogance and ego.

And if nothing else, that was the test, there - not that it may have been a bit naughty - but it wasn't even funny.

Its what happened afterwards that I whined about.

I'm completely happy with what happened next. Both Brand and Ross were writing cheques with their egos, but in this instance, it was intellectually, morally, and humourously bankrupt.

Despite your claims that it was merely placating the hand-wringing, Daily-Wail-inspired, vocallly unrepresentative minority - that's not the point, nor why the Trust would have waded in.

The BBC put their house in order, because Brand and Ross had lost the plot whilst they were waving their wangs around. And worst aspect of it all? It wasn't even funny.

The same happens with Top Gear - no-one complains after a shows screening yet the press pick it up and it snowballs from there. These days, if you fart the wrong smell in the media you can be accused of xenophobia, racsim and anything else you care to think of (other 'isms' are available).

Top Gear has plenty of detractors as well as supporters - probably partly by design.

And it's problems, are it's excesses of ego, led on by what you claim is it's strength or redeeming characteristic - popularity. The problem isn't the subject matter, irreverence, nor perhaps irredeemably the presenters. The problem is the contrived machinations, which are the huge design, scriptedness, and sneering contempt of their demographs.

This isn't a programme simply trying to be not bowed by political correctness - this is a programme that's become caricature-like in it's self-serving need to try and outdo itself with bolshy bobbins that I suspect most of the time JC and the help don't even believe / buy into - they just know that their demographic, slavering "apes" will lap it up, because they haven't realised the punchline.

All the while, they can trust their fans to say bobbins like this - it's detractors hate real-speak, down-to-earth, unpolitically correct, yet somehow correct outbursts - when they seem to be blissfully unaware that most of the time, it's quite unlikely the people spouting it, actually buy it.

The original Top Gear was very dry, the regenerated version tapped into a 'something' that made it very popular. Popularity always attracts critics and scrutiny so anything that anyone said is taken out of context.

That's not the problem. The reboot and for a fair while afterwards, were where they were at their best.

Where it's gone wrong, is the Spinal-Tap-esque turn-it-up-to-11 that's been where it's at for the last few years. That's the same, life over - actors, musicians, TV-show-presenters - they all jump-the-shark when they buy into their own hype.

 

[David B]

No-one mentioned that the Brand/ Sachs incident was funny, his live radio show was erudite and articulate

Then if not humour, what purpose did it serve? Satire?

You flatter them to deceive. They thought they were being funny, but really, it was just the excess of ego. As you say, Brand can be very eloquent, and quite humourous - no denial from me. Unfortunately, this instance was rather tragically absent of any of that, or any true humour, it was merely replaced by a certain detached arrogance and ego.

And if nothing else, that was the test, there - not that it may have been a bit naughty - but it wasn't even funny.

Its what happened afterwards that I whined about.

I'm completely happy with what happened next. Both Brand and Ross were writing cheques with their egos, but in this instance, it was intellectually, morally, and humourously bankrupt.

Despite your claims that it was merely placating the hand-wringing, Daily-Wail-inspired, vocallly unrepresentative minority - that's not the point, nor why the Trust would have waded in.

The BBC put their house in order, because Brand and Ross had lost the plot whilst they were waving their wangs around. And worst aspect of it all? It wasn't even funny.

The same happens with Top Gear - no-one complains after a shows screening yet the press pick it up and it snowballs from there. These days, if you fart the wrong smell in the media you can be accused of xenophobia, racsim and anything else you care to think of (other 'isms' are available).

Top Gear has plenty of detractors as well as supporters - probably partly by design.

And it's problems, are it's excesses of ego, led on by what you claim is it's strength or redeeming characteristic - popularity. The problem isn't the subject matter, irreverence, nor perhaps irredeemably the presenters. The problem is the contrived machinations, which are the huge design, scriptedness, and sneering contempt of their demographs.

This isn't a programme simply trying to be not bowed by political correctness - this is a programme that's become caricature-like in it's self-serving need to try and outdo itself with bolshy bobbins that I suspect most of the time JC and the help don't even believe / buy into - they just know that their demographic, slavering "apes" will lap it up, because they haven't realised the punchline.

All the while, they can trust their fans to say bobbins like this - it's detractors hate real-speak, down-to-earth, unpolitically correct, yet somehow correct outbursts - when they seem to be blissfully unaware that most of the time, it's quite unlikely the people spouting it, actually buy it.

The original Top Gear was very dry, the regenerated version tapped into a 'something' that made it very popular. Popularity always attracts critics and scrutiny so anything that anyone said is taken out of context.

That's not the problem. The reboot and for a fair while afterwards, were where they were at their best.

Where it's gone wrong, is the Spinal-Tap-esque turn-it-up-to-11 that's been where it's at for the last few years. That's the same, life over - actors, musicians, TV-show-presenters - they all jump-the-shark when they buy into their own hype.

For my money, Ross and Clarkson are both from the "Fairy Liquid" school of broadcasting talent - a little seems to have gone a long way. +1 to the "buying in to their own hype" comments in both cases. Likewise, based on telly viewing of recent months I'm getting hints that Stephen Fry seems to be falling prey to this and actually playing up to all that "national treasure" guff bestowed on him....

David

 

[Neil]

Likewise, based on telly viewing of recent months I'm getting hints that Stephen Fry seems to be falling prey to this and actually playing up to all that "national treasure" guff bestowed on him....

David

Think I know what you mean, there.

For quite a while, Fry has been quite entertaining on QI - but it seems to have transcended, in recent times - there's a certain something, not always easy to put your finger on it, but it's there, nonetheless, where some seem to manifest this supposed institution.

Have to say, I'm no fan of false modesty or humbleness, neither - but as you point out, seeing people that appear to be assuming the mantel of their own hype, does start to grate.

I find Hugh Laurie more entertaining, anyways - there's something rather quintessentially charming and English about an actor playing a misanthrope (even if it's presented as being an american misanthrope), and although some have questioned his authenticity to be making blues records, he is an exceptional musician.