The problem with TopGear Australia

[stiggie]

For quite some time now - since half way through series 1 in fact - I've been pretty sure that I have figured out what the makers of TopGear Australia are doing wrong. I haven't made a post about it because... well frankly, I'm lazy and I expect this to be a long, rambling post that will ultimately just make me look like a metaphor-happy idiot who has no idea what he is talking about. But here goes-

I think they are trying to capture the magic of TopGear as it looks on the surface, without truly understanding what needs to go on underneath. TopGear is a thin layer of cocking about covering a thick base of solid motoring journalism. Without the base,the cocking about seems meaningless and empty. Water cascading down a waterfall may look beautiful, but it wouldn't work without the rocks that the water is flowing over. It is the same with TopGear.

Jeremy, James and Richard all had a history of motoring journalism under their belts before joining TopGear, but it was Clarkson's many years spent on the old format of TopGear that really gave the new show a certain gravitas when it launched back in 2002. But even though their audiences already trusted that they knew what they were talking about, the boys still spent a few years building up their journalistic credentials by doing a lot of regular car reviews and keeping the silly stuff restricted to one or two small segments a week, such as jumping motorbikes in a bus, or teaching grannies to do hand-brake turns. Only after they completely built their solid base, did they start covering everything with the layer of cocking about. They started by making the reviews a little more abstract by putting the cars up against Apache helicopters, racing them against trains or using them to scale Scottish mountains. Eventually they started making their own amphibious cars and ended up trying to launch a car into space. But they could never have reached the point where people were willing to watch them try to turn a Reliant Robin into a shuttle if they hadn't first established themselves as the UK's most trusted authority on cars.

Yet even as the sillyness took hold and TopGear made the transition from an information programme to an entertainment show, they almost always held true to the mantra that TopGear guru Andy Wilman instilled from the beginning-

"The car is the star."

When they raced the DB9 against a train to Monte Carlo it was to see how well it performed as a GT car. When they put the Lotus up against the Apache it was to show off the car's agility. The car was always the star. Proving or investigating something about the car was always the reason they did things. Richard and James didn't just spend 24 hours living in a Smart car because it sounded like great television. they did it to test out the cars new "lounge concept" seating. Even in the cheap car challenges when they aren't actually reviewing a new car they still make cars the heroes of the story. Think of the heart-break of Oliver sinking in the river in Botswana. Think of the triumph when the Lancia Beta made it to the border.

The Aussie hosts doesn't have the journalistic credentials required to make the leap into fully-fledged cocking about. They need to build a sense of trust in ther audience by proving that they know what they are talking about with a series of good, usefull and very honest car reviews. They haven't done this. The UK boys cop a lot of flak for all the reviews they show of unattainable cars, but they test plenty of everyday cars aswell. The Aussie hosts needs to do a little more of this. They need to test some everyday cars (and not just Commodores and Falcons). There are plenty of Australians out there who would like to know how the Mazda3, Corolla, Swift and i30 compare to the Astra, Focus, C4 and Golf. They need to review more cars, build a base of credibility. Only then will their layer of cocking about seem like it has some substance.

As it is, they are trying to recreate the cocking about without a base and it isn't working. Because they have no credibility as hosts of a motoring programme. This isn't the boys' fault, they haven't been allowed to create any. The problem is, they aren't even getting the cocking about right. They are coming up with ideas for segments that sound like something TopGear woud do, without asking themselves why TopGear would do it. Why is this a problem? Because they aren't paying any attention to Wilman's mantra-

"The car is the star".

The Astra lawn bowling is the perfect example of this. On the surface it sounds like something the UK boys would do. It sounds like the Toyota Aygo football segment. But the car football was to test how nippy the new little car was, because that is important in a city car. It served a purpose. All the Astra lawn bowls taught us was that if you park one on a slope and take off the hand-brake, it'll roll. Most of us knew that already.

Please - if anybody from TopGear Australia is out there reading this - stop trying to come up with ideas that sound like something the UK show would do. Instead, take the car you want to review, decide what you want to find out about it, then think of an interesting challenge to test that quality in the car. I promise, the results will be better. And while your at it, cover the walls of your production office with posters bearing these five little words-

THE CAR IS THE STAR!!!

[SL65]

Originally Posted by stiggie

TopGear is a thin layer of cocking about covering a thick base of solid motoring journalism. Without the base,the cocking about seems meaningless and empty.[/SIZE]

Your absolutely right mate, thats the clincher right there!

As much as people complain about how much cocking about they do and how little they do serious reviews of cars - the TG UK hosts have built-up credibility which they can now spend on having a bit of fun. Think of the earlier seasons of TG and some of those truly memorable car reviews which made very valid points - all wrapped up in a fun way.

Then they started getting into challenges and to appeal to a greater audience, and they could afford to do such a thing because they had that journalistic integrity; something the Aussie version totally lacks.

Laugh at the UK hosts for being idiots at times, but really they are very intelligent people. All you need to do is read anyone of their newspaper articles which they do. All excellent, IMO.

Aussie TG have hosts that in general, try to hard and do not make sound conclusions. They're basis for judging cars is also questionable. They need to prove to us all that they know what they're taking about and can review a car properly. And give it a fun twist which makes TG the entity that it is today. Until they do that, the cocking about just doesn't make sense!

Originally Posted by stiggie

The Astra lawn bowling is the perfect example of this. On the surface it sounds like something the UK boys would do. It sounds like the Toyota Aygo football segment. But the car football was to test how nippy the new little car was, because that is important in a city car. It served a purpose. All the Astra lawn bowls taught us was that if you park one on a slope and take off the hand-brake, it'll roll. Most of us knew that already.

I don't believe the car football was really to do test the most agile car. Maybe I'm wrong. But I believe that was pure fun. It just happened to test the cars agility

The Astra lawn bowls segment was actually a strong point I thought! Genuinely fun to watch. Obviously it would've been better had we of known the hosts a bit better and warmed to them. Thats why that segment should have been a few series' later on when we knew the hosts a bit better and they're personalities. But it was still a good effort from the boys, even if it did show they're lack of respect for perfectly new cars.

[stiggie]

Originally Posted by SL65

I don't believe the car football was really to do test the most agile car. Maybe I'm wrong. But I believe that was pure fun. It just happened to test the cars agility

Quite possibly, but even still, they clearly said before-hand that they were doing it to test whether or not the car was nippy enough. True or not, it is important that those type of segments be placed into that sort of context.

Originally Posted by SL65

The Astra lawn bowls segment was actually a strong point I thought!

I enjoyed it too. It was very funny. But when it was over I hadn't learnt anything new about the Astra. Even Warren's review before the bowling wasn't very informative. Richard's review of the Aygo told me how cleverly the car was built to cut costs without compromising on quality and the soccer showed my how nimble they were and how well they could take some pretty hard knocks.

[Austere]

Originally Posted by stiggie

TopGear is a thin layer of cocking about covering a thick base of solid motoring journalism.

I disagree.

It used to be top notch motoring journalism. I'm talking back in the days of Old Top Gear. From the 1990's and earlier.

Problem was, it was too dry and boring. There was no sense of fun or passion or any of those other kinds of words.

With New Top Gear they kept the excellent motoring journalism but they just lightened it up a bit. Gave it a bit more zing and pep.

Occasionally they'd have a segment which is just meant to create amazement. Like when they played conkers with caravans or darts with cars. The sense of scale and the enormity of the destruction were a sight to see.

But!! they always kept the two separate and the stuff that was just there for you to stare at and say "Wow!" always took a back seat to the proper motoring journalism.

It was proper motoring journalism with a bit of fun OR cocking about.

That was all there was for the first 6 or 7 seasons.

Then, right around the Winter Olympic Special they changed the formula. The cocking about was invited to sit up front and the reviews traded 'wit' and 'fun' for 'stupid' and 'loud'.

When they tested the Audi TT... RX8 and... Ooooh. Anyway, they went and played golf. That's the bit that sticks in my mind. That's the bit I remember. That was cocking about mixed right in with the motoring journalism where it doesn't belong.

That was a minor annoyance but it got worse...

When they tried to repair a road in under 24 hours that was cocking about at the absolute forefront of the show. Same with the tractors and the limo's and the car/boats and the car/boats again and the Renault Espace into a cabriolet...

No one was chanting "The Car Is The Star" when that stuff was going on. This is where the show just completely jumped off a clif as far as I'm concerned.

Now, many seasons later, it's just as bad - if not, worse - than any piece of shit on TV. It's just as insipid and mindless as Fatty Loses Weight. It's just as unfunny and stupid as American Mid-Season Replacement Sitcom. It's just as vapid and lazy as Car Chases Caught On Film.

This is all because of the "Cocking About" which has infected the show like a cancer. They appealed to a mass audience - an audience that turned out to be idiots - and then started to pander to them.

Seeing cars being flung into a quarry and onto a giant dartboard is epic, inspired cocking about.

Seeing Jeremy try to drive up a grassy incline in a 20 year old Volvo is mindless garbage for people who's hobbies include 'watching television'.


In my opinion, Top Gear Aus should steer as well clear of the cocking about as they possibly can. They shouldn't work on it or practice or try to do it better; They just shouldn't do it at all. They haven't got the budget - nowhere near the budget - to do it properly and I doubt they have the creativity either.

I think your comparison is dead-on. The Aygos Football had a sense of purpose. The car was new and they did use the game as an opportunity to test the cars handling so it had that going for it. Also, it was very well choreographed so there was a level of skill and effort to appreciate.
The Astra Bowls had nothing going for it. The cars are old and boring and nothing was learned from seeing them get dented.


I think the main thing that's wrong with TGAU is the cocking about but I don't agree that the remedy for bad cocking about is improving it. I believe the remedy is removing it.

As you've said, they don't do it well. And even if they did it would still be a stupid waste of time like it is on Top Gear now.

What I think they should do to improve the show is focus on the motoring journalism. It's a noble pursuit and I think they're already pretty good at it.

To improve I'd advise them to be a little more lighthearted with it and to just relax a little. They also need to be more subjective. I mean, really just way, way more fucking subjective. I mean, who wants to see some nobody driving around and giving no opinion in a nothing car? If I wanted to see that I'd watch Fifth Gear!

They need to show more emotion and they need to let that emotion drive the final opinion of the car they're testing. That's what made Top Gear such an excellent, excellent show back around season 2 to season 7.

The recent review of the GTHO Phase III was quite good. It was simple & basic but in a good way. It looked good seeing it drift around a few corners, what's his name was enjoying himself... I'd dare say it was better than anything that's been on Top Gear over the last few seasons!

If they'd play their strengths and avoid their weaknesses the show would improve... I just hope it gets a chance.

[hbriz]

I must say I disagree with Austere, the cocking about is what makes the show appeal to a wider audience, not just idiots. I know many people who would have trouble describing the colour of a car who absolutely love Top Gear. This is important for it to become a popular show, deserving of a prime time slot. Although I would watch something that is just factual about cars, it would likely the sort of thing that you would get up in the middle of to make a cup of tea or go to the toilet or something. They need the humour, the entertainment factor, to keep people attracted to the television.

IMO, the latest episodes of Top Gear UK are the best yet and are getting better and better as time goes on.

I realise the point of useful and useless cocking about; I think one of the better mixes was when the mums tested hatchbacks - it was a good mix of humour that made you want to keep watching it, and factual consumer advice that you could use in the purchase of a car.

That said, I think the Australian version has a very long way to come, but look at the UK versions 2nd series. I would not, however, trade the current Top Gear UK ways for anything else.

[Austere]

Originally Posted by hbriz

I realise the point of useful and useless cocking about; I think one of the better mixes was when the mums tested hatchbacks - it was a good mix of humour that made you want to keep watching it, and factual consumer advice that you could use in the purchase of a car.

I'd classify that as motoring journalism lightened up and made fun rather than the 'cocking about'.

I think that the superminis mum test is a good example of the kind of creativity that TGAU doesn't have.

I'd like to go on and mention a few more of the points you've raised but this conversation is meant to be about Australian Top Gear and if I replied to you any further I'd be way off topic.

[stiggie]

Austere, while you started off by saying you disagree with me, I think you underestimate just how similar our points were. That part you wrote about the Audi TT, Brera, RX-8 review and the roadworks challenge illustrate my point well. The UK boys strayed from the "the car is the star" idea and ended up with two of the least popular segments they have ever made. They took away the base, leaving only the cocking about layer and it didn't work. This is what TopGear Australia is doing wrong.

[Austere]

Originally Posted by stiggie

Austere, while you started off by saying you disagree with me, I think you underestimate just how similar our points were. That part you wrote about the Audi TT, Brera, RX-8 review and the roadworks challenge illustrate my point well. The UK boys strayed from the "the car is the star" idea and ended up with two of the least popular segments they have ever made. They took away the base, leaving only the cocking about layer and it didn't work. This is what TopGear Australia is doing wrong.

My bad. I meant to come back around at the end of the post to say I agree with you overall but I must have forgotten to quote that last bit of text.

Anyway, yes, I do agree overall that the more Cocking About the Top Gear Aus boys do, the less good the show is.

The opener, with the Mini Moke in the shark water was really bad and completely pointless. It wasn't a good way to start.

They should have started - like you said - by doing motoring journalism. Gain our trust and show us you know what you're doing...

[stiggie]

Well it isn't too late to start doing that now if they get a third series.

They have some damage to undo, but it isn't a lost cause.

[the Interceptor]

Stiggie, I think you've nailed it perfectly there. When watching TGA, I almost always find myself thinking: "Uhhhmmm oookay, so they did that. And they tried to tell me ... what?". Even the supposed-to-be proper reviews often left me baffled and unsatisfied. They do not only need a proper basis to start cocking about, they also need to pay more attention to giving the things they do a context. They need to take a step back, read the script again and ask themselves whether the viewer will understand this, and whether the viewer will see any kind of point in it.

[Triborough]

Other than the problem of the reviews don't seem to be reviews, the writing is so bad it seems obviously staged and less organic than the original version. Let everyone off leash and say what they think about the cars and everything else.

[wikkedsnaab]

Top Gear Australia's main problem is that it starts with "Top Gear..."

What people have said about TGUK's initial development is completely true. It took at least 3 series' to get the show into the form we now enjoy today, and that was with 3 very experienced motoring journalists, 2 of whom had been on the old show, and with the BBC's substantial budget in toe. Slowly but surely a show was built around three rather different characters each brought together by a shared passion of cars and of course, having fun. Many series' later and that pokey motoring show on BBC 2 is one of the most watched TV shows in the world. And probably the only one watched by girls too.

What TGA has tried to do is create a localised version of Top Gear based on what it is known for NOW, after 12-odd series' worth of hard work and development. I'm sure at the time the concept sounded like a nobrainer to the telly execs... "people like a car show with lots of cocking about, jokes, the Stig, and supercars no viewer can ever afford being thrashed around a track".

Unfortunately for TGA, "Top Gear" is much, much more than a formula, logo, the Jessica theme song and some anonymous, bad tempered guy in a white race suit. As we all suspected the moment TGA was announced, the bulk of Top Gear's success is centered around Clarkson, Hammond and May, and - as Charlie Cox so ineloquently proved in the first series - that kinda thing just can't be licensed and injected into a new show.

Then there's the money thing. Now, we like to think that Clarkson and co could still make us laugh if it was just them dicking around in an N-reg Vectra and Andy Willman filming them with a handycam. That's probably true, but let's be honest, part of what makes Top Gear so spectacular is the incredible production values, the exotic locations, and the huge stunts and projects. No way around it - it costs big bucks. I remember watching the Reliant space shuttle episode thinking "f**king hell, how much of the BBC's budget is about to crash into the earth?!" TGA will never have this kind of cash to play with. Also, the scope of doing segments overseas is much more limited... driving from Melbourne to Devonport is longer and more expensive than driving from Dover to Calais, for example. To TGA's advantage though, we are a big country with lots of different scenery and environments. We don't need to go to Africa to play in the desert, for example - we have our own.

For the first series, TGA was trying much too much to be a carbon copy of TGUK with some Australian flavour. It failed miserably, thanks to a poor mix of first-series nerves, green presenters, Charlie Cox and unreasonably high expectations from an audience expecting regular British Top Gear with Aussie accents.

I was pretty scathing about series 1. I knew that they didn't have the cash and great things don't happen instantly, but I thought because knew what the winning formula was they could hit the ground running, rather than the 3-4 series it took TGUK to hit full stride.

In hindsight, that was probably an unrealistic exception.

Because of how poor series 1 was, I wasn't in any rush to watch series 2... eventually I got around to downloading the first 7 and was pleasantly surprised. First, no Cox - good move. James Morrison was very green but at least he hasn't been in a rush to be something he's not. Steve calmed down a little and grew into dare I say the lead host role, and Warren took over the SIABSC role as comfortably as Ray Martin (shame SBS ruined it by parading non-car-nut stars). They nuked WWTT (and spectacularly!) realising it was comedy death. They addressed the issues and criticisms about the track and its filming. The old car ads bit was fantastic - it was unique to TGA, uniquely Australian and rather hilarious most of the time too.

In short, it started feeling like its own show.

Strangely enough, the only really big thing I think the show needs now to improve is just time for the presenters to settle into their own skins and make their mark. I'd want to see the hosts doing more their own writing. One of the things that's great about TGUK is that the reviews that guys do are unmistakably their own - even if a review written by Clarkson was then done by Hammond or May, you'd know it was a Clarkson review. At the moment the TGA reviews are a little too generic and lacking in personality. But I'm confident that will come with time.

Here's hoping SBS give it a third series.

[Dsemaj]

While I agree with you somewhat Austere, I'm standing further back from "it's crap and appeals only to idiots now". Hammond's accident was the main reason why it got so stupid, showing cheap stuff like reviews made no sense after they were given a shorter run. It was only made worse by the degree of effort, money and time that went into some of the larger, more ludicrous stunts/challenges. After the ratings, you can hardly blame them for letting their egos inflate and playing towards (but not completely) to the lowest common denominator. I recall a blog by Jeremy where he mentioned it was impossible "not to run to the bathroom with the ratings", being that the whole thing was just as unintended as Hammond's accident, after all.

It's almost like the show lost it's innocence by cocking about so much. With coming back towards a more car orientated show (though it'll never get close to the perfect balance in Series 7), it's like some of the original magic has been killed by the ratings peak from Series 9. That said, from Series 8, it's not like you couldn't have noticed it was gravitating towards the way that it did. It's just that the balance merely got thrown out and hasn't been able to find it's way back since.

[Austere]

Originally Posted by Dsemaj

While I agree with you somewhat Austere, I'm standing further back from "it's crap and appeals only to idiots now".

I wouldn't flat-out say it only appeals to idiots. A lot of the people on this forum who like the show are clearly not idiots.

But the show is really far from being as clever and witty and subtle as it used to be... Its appeal is far more broad now. Kids can watch it, old people can watch it, people who know nothing about cars can watch it... How can it have so much content for those people and still be appealing to me...?

And I do maintain that even the more focused segments aren't quite working as well as they used to. I think they're just running low on ideas... Which is another reason why Australian Top Gear shouldn't try to follow them too closely. Aussie Top Gear should try to blaze its own path as much as possible in my opinion.

[Reckoning]

Originally Posted by Austere

I wouldn't flat-out say it only appeals to idiots. A lot of the people on this forum who like the show are clearly not idiots.

But the show is really far from being as clever and witty and subtle as it used to be... Its appeal is far more broad now. Kids can watch it, old people can watch it, people who know nothing about cars can watch it... How can it have so much content for those people and still be appealing to me...?

And I do maintain that even the more focused segments aren't quite working as well as they used to. I think they're just running low on ideas... Which is another reason why Australian Top Gear shouldn't try to follow them too closely. Aussie Top Gear should try to blaze its own path as much as possible in my opinion.

I could not have summed it up any better, my exact thoughts!

[Icedvovo]

Here's the real rub. There is a deep underlying problem that is almost impossible to fix. And it is...

- The Producers don't understand the problem. -

Because if they did, they'd fix it.

They don't understand what really makes TGUK successful.
They don't understand that TG is about stories, not production values.
They don't understand how to do long-lead pre-production.
They don't know how to make Top Gear.

I don't think they have it in their culture to get it right.

[STIG_mata]

Originally Posted by stiggie

Well it isn't too late to start doing that now if they get a third series.

They have some damage to undo, but it isn't a lost cause.

No its not a lost cause, its a great cause as we all love TG.
But as Icedvovo says above, if the producers dont see that the ship is sinking, then we cant save it, they have to do it, they have to respond to the criticismand the ratings and head in a totally different direction.
I ask people I meet if they watch the show, but theyre few and far between.

After a few series, a show that doesnt perform just gets left to die.
Come on producers ! Do something !

[Kiskaloo]

Originally Posted by Icedvovo

They don't understand that TG is about stories, not production values.

I think production values have a good bit to do with TG, personally.

Just finished TGUK 13x03 and the cinematography during one of the segments shot in California really enhanced the presentation. Then you have the various specials (Polar, Africa, Vietnam, the second America) where the cinematography played a central role.

Then there was the Greatest Driving Road in Europe filming...

[Dsemaj]

Originally Posted by Kiskaloo

I think production values have a good bit to do with TG, personally.

Just finished TGUK 13x03 and the cinematography during one of the segments shot in California really enhanced the presentation. Then you have the various specials (Polar, Africa, Vietnam, the second America) where the cinematography played a central role.

Then there was the Greatest Driving Road in Europe filming...

Yes, but the Cinematography (and direction) is completely secondary to the story. The only reason it is there is to aid the story. TGA, especially to begin with merely made pretty pictures with not much meaning.

[the Interceptor]

Originally Posted by Dsemaj

Yes, but the Cinematography (and direction) is completely secondary to the story. The only reason it is there is to aid the story. TGA, especially to begin with merely made pretty pictures with not much meaning.

QFT!