Top Gear / The Grand Tour

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Top Gear

#51 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:59 pm

I've heard about this. And just seeing it, and not really being familiar with the rest of his comedy, it's an okay bit. It's kinda too negative for me, because it's clearly more along the lines of character assassination than a good comic beat-down. I wish more American comics had this kind of gall to go after our conservative personalities. I'm sure that guy's head would explode if he saw 5 minutes of Fox News.

User avatar
kaujot
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Austin
Contact:

Re: Top Gear

#52 Post by kaujot » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:51 am

Minkin wrote:They then slowly adapt to the personalities of the three (except for Kaujot) and enjoy every part of the show.
I used to absolutely love Clarkson, but he just grates on me now. His outlandish bullshit about global warming, the fact that he only has two types of car reviews (one for negative, one for positive, and you could really just put the audio of a video of a car driving), and domineering personality. I dunno what changed about me (grew up even more in my mid-20s, maybe?), but god he's the worst thing about the show, and from the amount of screen time he gets, may as well be the only thing on the show.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Top Gear

#53 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:46 pm

I can honestly never get tired of Jeremy's schtick, I don't know why. You raise very good points, but I'll never get tired of "POWER!", or "...in the world", or his biographical information about the Stig. If I had to say why I don't get tired of him, is because of the other hosts. He is the one leading the whole thing, but the chemistry of these three seemingly different personalities, all joined at the hip by their love of speed is in my mind what makes the show so special in the first place.

Hammond is starting to grate on me a bit now. Mostly because of the last segment of the last episode of this prior season, about a racing team comprised of (British) soldiers who lost limbs in Afghanistan trying to qualify for a race. He does fine reviewing sports cars and making himself look the fool, but not so good at doing a serious segment. The other two have done some great ones in the past, so I guess it was his turn but it did feel a bit heavy-handed, even though one has to applaud the effort of those soldiers.

And James...well, James still rocks. Even in that anti-TG clip a few posts back, that comic clearly shows he's a fan of May's. It'll be interesting to see what he cooks up for BBC America since both he and Richard have signed on to do original programming for the network.
Last edited by flyonthewall2983 on Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kaujot
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Austin
Contact:

Re: Top Gear

#54 Post by kaujot » Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:45 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:And James...well, James still rocks. Even in that anti-TG clip a few posts back, that comic clearly shows he's a fan of May's. It'll be interesting to see what he cooks up for BBC America since both he and Richard have signed on to do original programming for the network.
I hadn't heard this, and it's very exciting. I fucking love James May. Probably won't watch Hammond's stuff, but James May has yet to disappoint me.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Top Gear

#55 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:53 pm

It's an American version of the Man Lab program he did last year. You can read about it and Richard's new show here.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Top Gear

#56 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:51 pm

The Christmas special will air on 12/28, and takes place in India. Keep any Darjeeling Limited references to yourself :P

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Top Gear

#57 Post by matrixschmatrix » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:23 am

So, has Jeremy Clarkson always been a monstrous idiot, or is that recent development?

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Top Gear

#58 Post by TMDaines » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:15 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:So, has Jeremy Clarkson always been a monstrous idiot, or is that recent development?
Because he meant they should literally shot one by one...

There's plenty of people out there who agree with him so a few trade unions getting their knickers caught in a twist isn't going to mean anything. Utterly hilarious to read that they are trying to get police involved: arrested for use of metaphorical statements.

Hell even half the of the lecturers at my university think those few who went on strike were wasting their time and had a good laugh at the few people huddled on a street corner protesting.

User avatar
A man stayed-put
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:21 am

Re: Top Gear

#59 Post by A man stayed-put » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:15 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:So, has Jeremy Clarkson always been a monstrous idiot, or is that recent development?
The man has always been a twat of the highest order. it used to be fairly amusing as it seemed like an adopted persona. However the more this country (Britain) edges worryingly towards the Right, the less funny it is as people seem to actually agree with the fuckwit.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Top Gear

#60 Post by matrixschmatrix » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:32 pm

TMDaines wrote:Because he meant they should literally shot one by one...

There's plenty of people out there who agree with him so a few trade unions getting their knickers caught in a twist isn't going to mean anything. Utterly hilarious to read that they are trying to get police involved: arrested for use of metaphorical statements.

Hell even half the of the lecturers at my university think those few who went on strike were wasting their time and had a good laugh at the few people huddled on a street corner protesting.
What exactly is the 'metaphor' in saying protesters should be shot, pray? What is representing what, there?

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Top Gear

#61 Post by TMDaines » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:04 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:
TMDaines wrote:Because he meant they should literally shot one by one...

There's plenty of people out there who agree with him so a few trade unions getting their knickers caught in a twist isn't going to mean anything. Utterly hilarious to read that they are trying to get police involved: arrested for use of metaphorical statements.

Hell even half the of the lecturers at my university think those few who went on strike were wasting their time and had a good laugh at the few people huddled on a street corner protesting.
What exactly is the 'metaphor' in saying protesters should be shot, pray? What is representing what, there?
So you believe it was a literal expression? If "metaphorical" is the wrong term here then I hold my hands up but I couldn't think of a better description of the top of my head.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Top Gear

#62 Post by matrixschmatrix » Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:23 pm

Hyperbole, I suppose. I think what he's actually doing is what Al Franken once described as 'kidding on the square'- he's expressing his real feelings, but couching it as though it were a joke so as to have an out when called on it. It's a pretty common tactic, and I see no reason not to treat such things as real statements.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Top Gear

#63 Post by TMDaines » Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:43 pm

I'm pretty sure "he/she/they should be taken out and be shot" is an expression that long entered the English lexicon (5.9M hits on google will show you that) and most people would recognise by now. I use it regularly enough and have heard others use it too without a slight hint of anyone taking any sort of offence ever. Hell, Alan Hansen uses it often enough on MOTD. Oh well, some people need to find something to get offended about on a weekly basis.

User avatar
A man stayed-put
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:21 am

Re: Top Gear

#64 Post by A man stayed-put » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:18 am

"Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families."

Is exactly what he said. Not really a "figure of speech", just an unpleasant statement by an ignorant idiot. Clarkson and his ilk would be the first to get into a lather if somebody said similar about one of their sacred cows- the monarchy, the armed forces, etc. So i'm glad to seem him getting raked over the coles. Unfortunately the damage has probably already been done and yet more people have taken on face falue the idea that strikes are for people to skive off work and whine about nothing.

Napoleon
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 am

Re: Top Gear

#65 Post by Napoleon » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:37 am

Lots of things sound bad if you take them out of context. He was just fooling around.

User avatar
A man stayed-put
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:21 am

Re: Top Gear

#66 Post by A man stayed-put » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:48 am

How exactly has it been taken out of context?

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Top Gear

#67 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:51 am

Napoleon wrote:Lots of things sound bad if you take them out of context. He was just fooling around.
And again, that's frequently an excuse people give for vomiting bile all over the place without taking responsibility for it. Responding to a situation in which marginalized people fight for their rights by suggesting violence against them is vile, and the context does nothing to alter the intent of what he said- he didn't mean it ironically, it wasn't a paraphrase of something someone else said, he was asked his opinion and that was what he said.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Top Gear

#68 Post by TMDaines » Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:56 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:
Napoleon wrote:Lots of things sound bad if you take them out of context. He was just fooling around.
And again, that's frequently an excuse people give for vomiting bile all over the place without taking responsibility for it. Responding to a situation in which marginalized people fight for their rights by suggesting violence against them is vile, and the context does nothing to alter the intent of what he said- he didn't mean it ironically, it wasn't a paraphrase of something someone else said, he was asked his opinion and that was what he said.
I'm presuming you're American judging by your spelling. Presumably you've spent a lot of time in England or even live here to know enough about Clarkson and his statements and how they are usually taken? If you do, then fair enough. If not then how are you any sort of judge on this? The majority of people on Question Time last night rightly couldn't really understand why this was a talking point and the trade union member who referenced trade union members in Columbia being shot was made to look an idiot for even trying to draw the comparison. The Labour party member, who then asked why the BBC even employed Clarkson, looked an even bigger fool. Perhaps because he is the lead figure behind Top Gear, arguably the most popular TV programme in the world?

It was another overreaction to something said on the BBC: nothing more, nothing less.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Top Gear

#69 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:10 pm

I understand that being an obnoxious boor is part of Clarkson's shtick. I have no idea of why that's considered acceptable generally, and I'm very happy to see people taking exception to it now. I think it totally appropriate to point out that having striking workers killed is a horror that happens in the real world- it underlines with whom Clarkson is aligning himself, and how horrible the 'joke' really is.

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Top Gear

#70 Post by Brian C » Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:11 pm

TMDaines wrote:I'm presuming you're American judging by your spelling. Presumably you've spent a lot of time in England or even live here to know enough about Clarkson and his statements and how they are usually taken?
I hesitate somewhat to inject myself in this conversation ... but we have yahoos over here in America too, you know. The type is not hard to spot, especially when they start "joking" about killing lots of people for no reason.

Besides which, it's not like over-the-top hostility towards labor - or social defiance in general - is particularly rare or requires a decoder ring to identify across nationalities.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Top Gear

#71 Post by TMDaines » Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:14 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:I understand that being an obnoxious boor is part of Clarkson's shtick. I have no idea of why that's considered acceptable generally, and I'm very happy to see people taking exception to it now. I think it totally appropriate to point out that having striking workers killed is a horror that happens in the real world- it underlines with whom Clarkson is aligning himself, and how horrible the 'joke' really is.
But the majority isn't taking any offence, though. People don't write newpaper stories to confirm that something hasn't offended them, do they? It's a vocal minority, who were probably part of an organised campaign to generate official complaints. Most people don't really care much either way, as was shown on Question Time last night.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Top Gear

#72 Post by TMDaines » Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Brian C wrote:
TMDaines wrote:I'm presuming you're American judging by your spelling. Presumably you've spent a lot of time in England or even live here to know enough about Clarkson and his statements and how they are usually taken?
I hesitate somewhat to inject myself in this conversation ... but we have yahoos over here in America too, you know. The type is not hard to spot, especially when they start "joking" about killing lots of people for no reason.
"They should be taken out and shot" is a common expression of speech nowadays. No-one was suggesting anyone should literally be shot. It's used regularly enough during sports commentary for sure.

The English language wouldn't have much left if we expressed everything in literal statements.

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
Location: East of Shanghai

Let them eat cake ...

#73 Post by Lemmy Caution » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:51 pm

TMD with some of the least persuasive arguments I've seen in a while -- ranging from Nixonian (the silent majority supports this); to it's a Brit thing you wouldn't understand; to harsh false choices (if this rancid exaggeration isn't allowed everyone will have to talk 100% literally -- not that literally literally means literally anymore, but ... ).

Calling for the murder of political protesters and then laughing it off deserves condemnation in my book. Just an awful thing to say in public. You can lamely try to re-contextualise it to sporting events (where it still seems pretty inappropriate, but the hyperbole is at least clear). But there has been a history of violence against the labour movement, and people protesting their gov't are being shot and beaten these days (in countries the Brits used to control), and even peaceful US protesters being pepper sprayed and tear gassed and arrested.

Sorry if your favorite Tv star decided to sound fascist in public.

User avatar
A man stayed-put
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:21 am

Re: Top Gear

#74 Post by A man stayed-put » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:53 am

TMDaines wrote:
Brian C wrote:
TMDaines wrote:I'm presuming you're American judging by your spelling. Presumably you've spent a lot of time in England or even live here to know enough about Clarkson and his statements and how they are usually taken?
I hesitate somewhat to inject myself in this conversation ... but we have yahoos over here in America too, you know. The type is not hard to spot, especially when they start "joking" about killing lots of people for no reason.
"They should be taken out and shot" is a common expression of speech nowadays. No-one was suggesting anyone should literally be shot. It's used regularly enough during sports commentary for sure.

The English language wouldn't have much left if we expressed everything in literal statements.
You still aren't engaging with the full quote of what he said, which i quoted earlier- it wasn't just a figure of speech. I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to say stupid things or make bad jokes but i'm heartened to see a lot of people calling him out for it. We have a recent history of press led witch hunts in Britain which have all, bar none, been overreactions and i hope this doesn't go the same way but the man certainly deserves any criticism he gets.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Let them eat cake ...

#75 Post by TMDaines » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:12 am

The stupid thing is no-one here who is condemning him, and who has therefore presumably seen the discussion in full, has even addressed how the comments were said. It was all part of a bigger joke about how the BBC has to be balanced (and how this has turned into a cliche anyone in Britain would be all too familiar with). After he said how great the strike was for him (streets empty, no queues, etc), he then proceeded to make the shooting statement "in the interests of balance" i.e. present an a point of view that is so ludicrously the opposite of the previous one to mock this practise in the BBC. Satire, everybody.
Lemmy Caution wrote:Calling for the murder of political protesters and then laughing it off deserves condemnation in my book. Just an awful thing to say in public.
:roll:

Jesus Christ, it's a figure of speech. He didn't call for anyone to be shot. This isn't China.

Clearly both he and I overestimated how many people have a decent grasp of the English language and realise just how much of it is made up of idioms, metaphors and figures of speech.
Last edited by TMDaines on Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:30 am, edited 4 times in total.

Post Reply