Have they lost the essence of the old series?

pandogti

New Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
2
I dunno it just feels a little to scripted to me as opposed to the UK version which just comes across a little more naturally, like you can tell that Clarkson, May and Hammond have a genuine interest in the shows while the US guys it seems a little put on. Not saying the show is terrible and this isn't a trolling thread but I was just wondering what everyones thoughts on that were?
 
Its brand new, new hosts, etc.

Its not supposed to be as good as TGUK right away. TGUK sucked for a long time before it got good.
 
i think it would help if the usa guys wrote the script like the uk guys do. or at least sat in on the writers
 
Part of the problem is that they're kick-starting the show by recycling bits from the UK series. It's unavoidable that the recycled bits are going to feel stale to anyone who is familiar with the originals. Who here could watch Rutledge bounce along in that cigarette boat and not remember when TGUK ran the speedboat to Oslo? It's not their material, and it shows.

It reminds me of the first half-season of the US version of The Office -- "Yeah, yeah, stapler in jello?" Now the Office is in its seventh season, it's gone off on its own proper direction, and it's fantastic.

I'm still optimistic that eventually the show will find its voice and begin to present its own, original material. Then I'll decide if they pulled it off.
 
Last edited:
To me it seems a little dumbed down compared to the UK version. Not to mention they don't make the stig seem so awesome weird or mysterious, just some guy in a racing suit!
 
Last edited:
To me it seems a little dumbed down compared to the UK version. Not to mention they don't make the stig seem so awesome weird or mysterious, just some guy in a racing suit!
They do want to attract a new audience. Much more that don't know about TGUK than do. And after the TGUK Stig problems, maybe they don't want to build him up too much.
 
But even in early UK eps, there didn't seem to be a lot of Stig build-up. Apart from the fact Black Stig was into easy listening, there wasn't much mystique; he was just a guy in a racing suit. That didn't really start up until around Series 4 or 5 with White Stig Mk1, and the "Legend of Stig" (if you like) built up even more when Jeremy started doing the Stigtros ("Some say...") in S6.

Beyond that, in regards to "copycatting" the UK challenges, only those of us familiar with TG would recognize various challenges. Newbies wouldn't. Besides that, even TG Australia lifted some from the UK parent show in the beginning.

i think it would help if the usa guys wrote the script like the uk guys do. or at least sat in on the writers

Richard Porter, TG UK's script editor, was there for the US studio filming. I imagine he had a hand in helping out with the scripts.
 
It's only been six episodes - how can you possibly make that determination? And besides, I find the TGUK series to have a very heavy scripted feeling these days.
 
I don't understand the argument that some of you guys put, essentially saying TGUK stuttered initially too. Of course it did; TGUK was the pioneer of this new car show format. They didn't have any point of reference or comparison so they have to do sections that work. Saying TGUK is heavily scripted now is pretty blind because why bring this subject now when the show has been scripted since day one? You telling me they only just doing rehearsals recently? They're just having fun. It is not a live performance. You have to script some sort of structure or else it'll be chaos. I remembered Jeremy saying something to this effect in an interview some time ago.

TGUSA and TGAUS already have that framework laid down for them. The reason they stutter is because even though you can copy all the technical bits (sets, format) you can't really replicate the characters or the chemistry that made TGUK awesome. The more TGUSA and TGUK try to emulate TGUK, the more they look like a lame imitation of the original because frankly, we have seen it all before. If it weren't for the Top Gear brand, we would've thought it was Fifth Gear trying to be Top Gear.
 
Last edited:
^ You answered your own issue. It still takes time for the chemistry of the hosts, no matter if the script/pieces are in place, therefore this is still a work-in-progress, but has started from a decent point. Also when new things come around for TGUS it will help them in the eyes of TGUK fans, right now rehashing things for those that are TGUK bias hurts their judgement.
 
Last edited:
I dunno it just feels a little to scripted to me as opposed to the UK version which just comes across a little more naturally, like you can tell that Clarkson, May and Hammond have a genuine interest in the shows while the US guys it seems a little put on. Not saying the show is terrible and this isn't a trolling thread but I was just wondering what everyones thoughts on that were?

ok, the prodution staff have said that the first season wold be very scripted. the design is to help the show and the hosts find thier chemisrty or some shit like that. its on purpose. thats the bottom line, season 2 will be better.
 
The biggest problem with the American variant of Top Gear, to me, is that the hosts don't seem to want to go all the way with things. The first episode I happened to catch of the US variant was the one that featured the "which GM car to revive" test... and...

Well. For one thing the whole thing was a recycled British episode, and that shouldn't be a problem if only things weren't so ridiculously toned down! The best example I can give you is the segment where the guys were in wet suits, waiting to have the cars filled with water. Snorkel holes drilled thru the roofs and everything.

In the UK version this was done for real. The cars were totally filled, leaving the hosts actually having to use the snorkels to breathe. In the American show it was ridiculous. Why would they even need to put on wet suits, goggles and a snorkel when the cars were only filled up to the top of the steering wheel? That's sort of slightly below the shoulders...

The water thing is just an example, but actually it's a very good example of what was wrong with the show. Throughout the whole episode every single segment felt like it had started out with a funny and rather spectacular British script, but then they had to do a really lame job of it all due to the usual American "insurance issue" / "risk of a lawsuit" / "family entertainment" - induced television wimpiness.

All in all it was utterly disappointing and I didn't bother to watch any of the other episodes.

/Magnus
 
I agree that the presenters are not up to standards.

Tanner is trying too hard to be sarcastic and mean. But what he does it different is that there is no sense of humour, making it offensive. It is not a good idea to let people dislike you so soon. If he says anything about more sensitive issues, I'm afraid he'll be bombed. He's not eric cartman.

Wood is something like just another bloke.

I find Adam the best of the 3 and should be kept.
 
TGUK has been scripted from day 1. JC has stated this many in interviews. Everything you hear and see on TGUK except a serious accident has been planned to happen. They leave nothing to chance.
 
I find Adam the best of the 3 and should be kept.

I have to disagree with this... completely.

I finally got around to watching the episodes, and Adam is... boring. I find-myself fast-forwarding through segments where he's solo. Sure, he gets some good one-liners in, such as Champion of Moron's on the drifting episode... but that's it. When it came down to the interviews, once again, I found myself fast-forwarding through Adam's segments, but watching Rutledge's.

I guess what gets to me is that Adam Ferrara is supposed to be a comedian, but so far he's been about as funny as wallpaper paste. Maybe that's down to the scripting of the show and entirely the fault of the writers. I somewhat doubt that since there are no writers credited for the show, indicating that Adam might be writing his own material for the show. If that's the case I have some bad news for him. He isn't funny.

I can kind of forgive Tanner if he's a bit a dry, or awkward in front of a camera, kind of for the same reason I gave Steve Pizzati a pass on the first season of Top Gear Australia. They're racers trying to be actors. Steve really started to shine through TGA S2 and the few awesome TGA S3 episodes that Channel 9 bothered to show when he stopped trying to be an actor and just was himself. I suspect that Tanner will wind up much like Pizzati, he'll be much more enjoyable to watch as he gets more comfortable being himself in front a camera.

So far I like everything Rutledge Wood has done with the show. He's managed to be funny, and his slightly off-kilter behavior (case in point: hugging a truck then threatening to lick it), makes him far more interesting in front of the camera.

Given the progress of the current series, if History Channel and BBC decide on a casting change, Adam's the one that should go first.
 
I agree with Zerias.

Rutledge feels the most comfortable over all to me. He's just being himself, while the other two seem to be trying too hard. I'd like to see where it goes in season 2 tho. I feel like they can all do better. I actually have no idea who won the three way race because I fell asleep, and have skipped over some of Tanner's solo reviews.
 
+1000 to this. The guy cannot drive, doesn't know much about cars, is not entertaining, and frankly just makes New Yorkers/guidos/italians look bad

really? Adam Ferrara is the only one that makes New Yorkers/guidos/italians look bad?

:?
 
Last edited:
Top