![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ivyficI have been watching a lot of Top Gear lately. (I can't help it--it's perfect television. It's entertaining and doesn't require you to use your brain at all. And sometimes things catch fire.) What has been interesting is to see the evolution of the show, as I've been watching it in order from series 2. In the first few series, it is mostly reviews of cars. Witty, sardonic reviews, but reviews nonetheless. About the only time the presenters got into arguments was when they were evaluating three different cars in the same class, but even these segments were more car reviews than arguments, and the arguments usually ended with a drag race.
As the show wears on, though, they clearly develop stage personas. Jeremy Clarkson becomes the uber-macho idiot, who never thinks things through or plans ahead and faces all problems by yelling or smashing things with hammers. James May becomes the stuffy one, who overthinks everything and bores people with his explanations, then still fails. Richard Hammond becomes the scrappy one, the butt of continual jokes about his vanity and his stature. And these personality traits were always evident, but they become notably more pronounced. All three have clearly made the decision to play into the archetypes and always, always come into conflict with each other (because that's entertaining).
Somewhere in series 4 or 5, they had their first challenge whose sole purpose was to make the presenters look like idiots. This was to buy a used car for less than 100 pounds, then run it through tests. As this was clearly popular, they repeated that idea with variations several times. Then they started introducing new types of challenges--races between cars and public transportation (which Jeremy always won), or between cars and something ludicrous, like luge, or skydivers, or parkour experts (which Top Gear people always lost). Then they started just having random challenges for the presenters--launch a car off a ski lift, turn a van into a convertible, make a stretch limo out of a Renault.
By series 9 or so, almost the entire show is made of these challenges. The change in format is even more evident, when you look at the Stig. In the early series, the show always ended with the Stig racing some sports car or other around the track. That was the most exciting thing in the episode. But series 9, the review of the sports car is always first in the show, then the Stig races it about ten minutes in. That leaves the end of the show to the most entertaining bit--like watching the presenters almost drown in the English Channel.
There's a clear metamorphosis from a show that is actually about cars to a show that is about three buffoons making asses of themselves, in the grand tradition of Three Men in a Boat. This leaves me with a question, though. The bits in the studio are clearly scripted, as are the reviews. But the challenges always have the impression of being spontaneous. Planning goes into the parameters, obviously, but the humor comes from believing the presenters are honestly giving their best effort to succeed. While the story arc necessitates that they fail. Spectacularly.
So I'm left wondering--how much is actually planned? And how much is them just leaning in to the stupid? For example, there's the episode where they go on a caravan vacation. At one point, Clarkson sets fire to a pan while cooking in the caravan. He then leaves the caravan, without turning off the gas, which gives the fire enough time to spread--eventually to a neighboring caravan. I was left thinking, really? I have a hard time buying that that fire was a total accident, if for no other reason than, if it was, it was a dangerous one that put all three presenters at risk and destroyed someone else's property.
Or there's the Arctic special, where they drove a 4x4 to the North Pole. And I have to believe far more planning and precautions were taken in making that trip than they'd like you to believe. Because that's a situation where their very valuable presenters really could die.
I guess I'm used to Mythbusters, where they always tell you what precautions they've taken, and what they can't do because their insurance won't let them. (Despite appearances in early seasons--they do have safety standards there.) In Top Gear, a lot of the joke is the belief that these three guys really are that stupid. But I don't know if insurance is different in Britain, because there are some things they've done on that show that I genuinely don't believe you'd be allowed to do here. Like have their very valuable presenters crash unmodified used cars into barricades at thirty miles an hour. And of course, Richard Hammond was in a very serious auto accident. (Though I can't see the episode that they talk about it in, because that is the ONE EPISODE Netflix does not carry. I guess standards in the US or something.) And in the episode before that accident, he rolled a van.
I don't know, though, if I'd rather believe that it's all fake (like the laughing on Car Talk) or that it's all real. If it's fake, that takes away a lot of the humor, because you want to believe in the earnestness of their efforts. But, like with Garrison Keillor, it's hard to believe such succesful amateurishness could be anything but deliberate. But if it's all real--than they really are being remarkably, dangerously stupid much of the time.
One last note--as I discussed with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jethrien, these guys really are dicks. I mean, look at the episode where they drive from Miami to New Orleans, where they paint each other's cars in slogans to try to get them beaten up. And someone does try to beat them up. Not because the slogans are offensive, per se, but because the idea that these three British fops have made a bet over getting locals to beat them up is offensive. (And going back to the earlier point--I don't know if I believe that encounter. Or, if it was real, how many gas stations did they go to without incident before that one?)
But they are foreign dicks. Their douchebaggery is of a different sort that I meet on the subway or that hits on me. So I can be amused by them where I don't think I'd be at all amused watching Americans pull similar stunts. Occasionally they do cross that line into familiar douchebaggery, though, and very suddenly stop being funny. Like, in that same episode, when they are so moved by the destruction of New Orleans that they donate the piece of shit cars they've been sabotaging and putting rotting cow in for a few hundreds of miles to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Yes, thank you so much for being so generous to the deserving poor of New Orleans. And when the people you're making a donation to get pissed at the quality of it, that's all good fun, right? *glares*
As the show wears on, though, they clearly develop stage personas. Jeremy Clarkson becomes the uber-macho idiot, who never thinks things through or plans ahead and faces all problems by yelling or smashing things with hammers. James May becomes the stuffy one, who overthinks everything and bores people with his explanations, then still fails. Richard Hammond becomes the scrappy one, the butt of continual jokes about his vanity and his stature. And these personality traits were always evident, but they become notably more pronounced. All three have clearly made the decision to play into the archetypes and always, always come into conflict with each other (because that's entertaining).
Somewhere in series 4 or 5, they had their first challenge whose sole purpose was to make the presenters look like idiots. This was to buy a used car for less than 100 pounds, then run it through tests. As this was clearly popular, they repeated that idea with variations several times. Then they started introducing new types of challenges--races between cars and public transportation (which Jeremy always won), or between cars and something ludicrous, like luge, or skydivers, or parkour experts (which Top Gear people always lost). Then they started just having random challenges for the presenters--launch a car off a ski lift, turn a van into a convertible, make a stretch limo out of a Renault.
By series 9 or so, almost the entire show is made of these challenges. The change in format is even more evident, when you look at the Stig. In the early series, the show always ended with the Stig racing some sports car or other around the track. That was the most exciting thing in the episode. But series 9, the review of the sports car is always first in the show, then the Stig races it about ten minutes in. That leaves the end of the show to the most entertaining bit--like watching the presenters almost drown in the English Channel.
There's a clear metamorphosis from a show that is actually about cars to a show that is about three buffoons making asses of themselves, in the grand tradition of Three Men in a Boat. This leaves me with a question, though. The bits in the studio are clearly scripted, as are the reviews. But the challenges always have the impression of being spontaneous. Planning goes into the parameters, obviously, but the humor comes from believing the presenters are honestly giving their best effort to succeed. While the story arc necessitates that they fail. Spectacularly.
So I'm left wondering--how much is actually planned? And how much is them just leaning in to the stupid? For example, there's the episode where they go on a caravan vacation. At one point, Clarkson sets fire to a pan while cooking in the caravan. He then leaves the caravan, without turning off the gas, which gives the fire enough time to spread--eventually to a neighboring caravan. I was left thinking, really? I have a hard time buying that that fire was a total accident, if for no other reason than, if it was, it was a dangerous one that put all three presenters at risk and destroyed someone else's property.
Or there's the Arctic special, where they drove a 4x4 to the North Pole. And I have to believe far more planning and precautions were taken in making that trip than they'd like you to believe. Because that's a situation where their very valuable presenters really could die.
I guess I'm used to Mythbusters, where they always tell you what precautions they've taken, and what they can't do because their insurance won't let them. (Despite appearances in early seasons--they do have safety standards there.) In Top Gear, a lot of the joke is the belief that these three guys really are that stupid. But I don't know if insurance is different in Britain, because there are some things they've done on that show that I genuinely don't believe you'd be allowed to do here. Like have their very valuable presenters crash unmodified used cars into barricades at thirty miles an hour. And of course, Richard Hammond was in a very serious auto accident. (Though I can't see the episode that they talk about it in, because that is the ONE EPISODE Netflix does not carry. I guess standards in the US or something.) And in the episode before that accident, he rolled a van.
I don't know, though, if I'd rather believe that it's all fake (like the laughing on Car Talk) or that it's all real. If it's fake, that takes away a lot of the humor, because you want to believe in the earnestness of their efforts. But, like with Garrison Keillor, it's hard to believe such succesful amateurishness could be anything but deliberate. But if it's all real--than they really are being remarkably, dangerously stupid much of the time.
One last note--as I discussed with
jethrien, these guys really are dicks. I mean, look at the episode where they drive from Miami to New Orleans, where they paint each other's cars in slogans to try to get them beaten up. And someone does try to beat them up. Not because the slogans are offensive, per se, but because the idea that these three British fops have made a bet over getting locals to beat them up is offensive. (And going back to the earlier point--I don't know if I believe that encounter. Or, if it was real, how many gas stations did they go to without incident before that one?)But they are foreign dicks. Their douchebaggery is of a different sort that I meet on the subway or that hits on me. So I can be amused by them where I don't think I'd be at all amused watching Americans pull similar stunts. Occasionally they do cross that line into familiar douchebaggery, though, and very suddenly stop being funny. Like, in that same episode, when they are so moved by the destruction of New Orleans that they donate the piece of shit cars they've been sabotaging and putting rotting cow in for a few hundreds of miles to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Yes, thank you so much for being so generous to the deserving poor of New Orleans. And when the people you're making a donation to get pissed at the quality of it, that's all good fun, right? *glares*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 06:28 pm (UTC)James and the Hamster are actually lovely fellows, and have other TV shows that are quite good - James's in particular. Jezzer...well, I'm really unconvinced whether his persona has outgrown him or not. Man can't do anything other than be Jezzer.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 06:44 pm (UTC)The persona is particularly striking to me with May. Because it's clear earlier on in the series that he is not an idiot. He was always less flashy than Hammond and Clarkson, and his car geekery is clearly of a different sort. But they've made him into the last kid picked in the dodgeball line up. And that sort of consistent failure has to be the result of playing into it. Like with Keillor and his very professional approach to being an amateur. I'm not a Keillor fan, but I have read about how good he is at creating that facade, and I feel like May's doing the same thing.
The problem, though, is it just makes Clarkson into a bully. Him and Hammond, they snap back and forth. But him picking on May just makes you feel bad for him.
(Also, EVERY TIME he talks about global warming, I want to punch him in the face. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GO TO THE ARCTIC IF YOU THINK THE FACT THAT THERE'S STILL ICE THERE MEANS THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS CLIMATE CHANGE.)
no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 06:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 07:03 pm (UTC)And then there are things like him spending forever looking over manuals and control panels (like in the tractor episode) where I'm just like--he's not that stupid. He really isn't. It's one thing, I think, to design a situation so that it will be baffling. It's another to have him always be baffled, whether the situation warrants it or not. It's like that with the slow thing, and the getting lost thing--clearly he has a tendency to get lost. But in some episodes, it's no longer at all believable that he isn't deliberately driving the wrong way.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 07:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 07:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 07:40 pm (UTC)