Old old old old TopGear

[stwat]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8ukxnGaeLg&ab_channel=grodvin
And many complain and want this style of Top Gear back?

[YOUTUBE]D8ukxnGaeLg[/YOUTUBE]

I do love watching these old shows and remember watching them back in the day, but my god, they ain't half boring at times.

 

[carat 3.6]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Wheelsnuts]

Too right.

 

[Deleted member 113659]

And people say tv ain't what it used to be eh?


Thank goodness.

 

[Lotiman]

How can anything that includes a Lotus be boring???

I'd never realised either, just what an epic comb over Mr Woollard had.

 

[sjmaxwell]

2 star fuel for the Corolla in 1983 . I can just about remember my dads Triumph 2000 Mk2 using 5 star fuel

Here's a short history of Cranfield Institute - in case you wondered....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranfield_University

 

[grober]

Perhaps episode 3 is a better bet with Tom Walkinshaw's JAGUAR RACING TEAM and William Woolard experiencing the Prescott Hillclimb in a Ferrari Dino!

[YOUTUBE]rSnfS7UmAuU[/YOUTUBE]


When reviewing programmes from 1983 it should be remembered these would have been made with film or video tape with nary an autocue in sight outside the studio. The presenters were tasked with giving an "off the cuff " explanation of some pretty technical stuff ----cue early versions of active suspension and variable valve lift technology and because of this their delivery without autocue is pretty turgid stuff. Indeed in the second part on vibration analysis William Woolard is obviously referring to notes just below camera shot. This sort of technical explanation approach to program making back then still retains vestiges of LORD REITH's approach to broadcasting in that it should educate as well as entertain.
vis:-
The term "Reithianism" describes certain principles of broadcasting associated with Lord Reith. These include an equal consideration of all viewpoints, probity, universality and a commitment to public service. Audiences had little choice apart from the upscale programming of the BBC, a government agency which had a monopoly on broadcasting. Reith, an intensely moralistic executive, was in full charge. His goal was to broadcast, "All that is best in every department of human knowledge, endeavor and achievement.... The preservation of a high moral tone is obviously of paramount importance. Reith succeeded in building a high wall against an American-style free-for-all in radio in which the goal was to attract the largest audiences and thereby secure the greatest advertising revenue.

The modern Top Gear is of course free from that early BBC influence, but I'm not sure which is worse-- making programmes that endeavour to educate the viewer from some moralistic paternalist viewpoint or ones which constant insult the majority of their viewers intelligence with mindless lowest common denominator pieces masquerading as "entertainment "
I know lets hitch up 3 trailers/caravans to three old cars------ drive them over unsuitable unmade roads in the UK or if the budget stands it to some third world country where we can poke fun at the natives----- till inevitably they break appart when the accompanying posse of mechanics off camera can no longer sort them. Commentary can consist of a sort of bullying/ pick on the guy who is down/ prepschool dorm interaction between three grown men who should know better as they proceed to destroy the very thing that justifies their existence on our screens-----------------ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

 

[leef44]

wow! Thanks for that. A real blast from the past.

All of this would have been well over my head at the time but having studied engineering at uni, it's all very interesting now. Especially seeing how that technology has now taken off.

This is typical British research and innovation which the Japanese became so good at applying in the second half of the '80s, making Japan one of the powerhouses of the world back then. ...if only the Brits were as good at applying its own ideas back then

 

[renault12ts]

2 star fuel for the Corolla in 1983 . I can just about remember my dads Triumph 2000 Mk2 using 5 star fuel

Here's a short history of Cranfield Institute - in case you wondered....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranfield_University

My first car used 2 star in the mid 70s.

 

[Dryce]

And people say tv ain't what it used to be eh?


Thank goodness.

I'm going to disagree with you. Yes the old stuff is quite dry and dead pan but it generally carries a much denser level of information. Most documentaries today are very ephemeral and concocted and dumbed down by comparison.

I find a lot of modern 'factual' TV quite frustrating. You basically have such low density of real information that you waste much more of your life for very little substance in return. At times I find it unwatchable even when the topic is one that interests me.

Modern TG under Clarkson and May was quite clever in that in among the japes they could manage to distill information quite effectively *when they chose to* (which ironically made their generation of TG a bit more intellectually subversive than many of the audience and the Guardian realised).

 

[TheFoX]

I'm going to disagree with you. Yes the old stuff is quite dry and dead pan but it generally carries a much denser level of information. Most documentaries today are very ephemeral and concocted and dumbed down by comparison.

I find a lot of modern 'factual' TV quite frustrating. You basically have such low density of real information that you waste much more of your life for very little substance in return. At times I find it unwatchable even when the topic is one that interests me.

Modern TG under Clarkson and May was quite clever in that in among the japes they could manage to distill information quite effectively *when they chose to* (which ironically made their generation of TG a bit more intellectually subversive than many of the audience and the Guardian realised).

I agree wholeheartedly that modern factual TV is quite condescending to the audience, treating us all like ignorant idiots unable to retain even the most basic information. Watch any factual program on one of the commercial channels and you will notice that after every commercial break, the program will spend five minutes recapping what happened prior to the commercial break.

I know that any program needs to address a wide range of intellects, but why are these programs aimed at the lowest intellect, with the rest of us being taught how to suck eggs.

Programming has definitely gone from educating a reasonably intelligent audience to educating a nation of retards. Have you even noticed that the vocabulary used is almost child like?

 

[Dryce]

Watch any factual program on one of the commercial channels and you will notice that after every commercial break, the program will spend five minutes recapping what happened prior to the commercial break.

Notional 60 minutes =

41 to 42 minutes of running time + ads + anouncements

Of the 41 to 42 minutes running time - probably about 3 to 4 minutes lost to recaps all in. However the story structure where there is a build up and some false trails with a sort of denouement at the end probably wastes at least 10 minutes more.

So 1 hour to get maybe 25 minutes of substantial content at best.

Now this is compounded by the actual material they will cover. They won't normally try and deal with anything that can't be handled as a topic within that already constrained unit of '1 hour' viewing. Even if there is a series they won't really join it all up - it has to be separate distinct sub-topics.

There is also a tendency these days to 'humanise' the delivery. This doesn't always work well and just wastes precious time.

 

[stwat]

Did you enjoy typing that rant? It sure brought a smile to my face and I respect you for your views on this subject. Many I agree on

What boils my blood is people who watched the Clarkson Top Gear only to complain how bad it was. If you don't like it then don't watch. It's that simple.
But we still got people who would only watch it to then exclaim their despair. They would hound all the Top Gear threads. Threads started by fans to discus the latest shows. Totally taken over by haters who say they will never watch it as it is crap.
Okay, fair enough. You don't like it. So stop fecking watching it! Its that simple. Or am I missing something

The modern Top Gear is of course free from that early BBC influence, but I'm not sure which is worse-- making programmes that endeavour to educate the viewer from some moralistic paternalist viewpoint or ones which constant insult the majority of their viewers intelligence with mindless lowest common denominator pieces masquerading as "entertainment "
I know lets hitch up 3 trailers/caravans to three old cars------ drive them over unsuitable unmade roads in the UK or if the budget stands it to some third world country where we can poke fun at the natives----- till inevitably they break appart when the accompanying posse of mechanics off camera can no longer sort them. Commentary can consist of a sort of bullying/ pick on the guy who is down/ prepschool dorm interaction between three grown men who should know better as they proceed to destroy the very thing that justifies their existence on our screens-----------------ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

 

[sjmaxwell]

I thought the OP was discussing the old shows not the new ones so it appears this thread has degenerated in to a Clarkson rant again!

 

[grober]

I for one did not mention the " C " word merely commenting that while the Old Top Gear had its faults the New Top Gear program was far from perfect in recent years either. Both simply reflections of their time perhaps.