4 Presenters?


Well-Known Member
Oct 9, 2008
Tampa, Florida but now in Casselberry for school
Ford Thundercougarfalconbird
OK, Lets think about this with an open mind. What if they brought back Cox? Just think on that for a few minutes. i think, with some real coaching he could be fine. the producers were trying to hard last year to be TGUK, we all know that, and they screwed the "pooch" as we say by forcing the guys to be something else and i think the main reason they got rid of him was the fact that they had to make a major change to show that they werent kidding about being better. Now, nothing against James Morrison (though he does look kinda like a troll at times;) ) but, after watching old shows, i think that Cox may have been better as a host. i guess its just that at the moment, morrison seems to be forcing it. i know its still early in the run of the show and im the first one to admit that they just need time to "gel", but, unless James gets a load of Tattoo's or grows his hair out, well, he looks funny.

so thats my side. keep in mind that im not from Australia so i have no idea what Mr. Cox is like on other shows so please go easy on me here! <_<
My...problem...with the show is not the number of presenters.

It's how those presenters interrelate with each other.

TG UK benefits from 11 (soon to be 12) series worth of comradeship, but even in Series 2 you could see they had chemistry and it's only built over the succeeding years and series. Top Gear Russia's three hosts also have chemistry, though it's far weaker.

IMO, TG Australia Series 1 had zero chemistry between the hosts. Series 2 is starting off better, but it is still reminds me more of TG UK Series 1 (which, again IMO, had weak "host chemistry") as opposed to TG R Series 1 or TG UK Series 2.

So I'd prefer to let the current three hosts try and find that chemistry and bonding as opposed to either putting in a fourth presenter or mixing them up again. There is a foundation to work from with these three, which in my opinion wasn't there in Series 1.
What Kiskaloo said. I think they need to leave the mix well enough alone and let the chemistry develop naturally. Also I just don't think that Cox would fit into this more relaxed, egalitarian vibe the hosts are giving off this season.
keep in mind that im not from Australia so i have no idea what Mr. Cox is like on other shows so please go easy on me here! <_<

He has never een on any other shows in Australia. He worked for the BBC over in England, which may be part of the reason that the Aussie audiences never took a liking to him. BBC Worldwide wanted Cox in the show, they asked him to audition. He was somebody they knew, somebody they trusted to do the job right. They really missed the mark. Warren and Steve went through the regular audition process without getting a free ride from the BBC and they have both worked out well.
OK, Lets think about this with an open mind. What if they brought back Cox?

I do not think that that would be a good idea.

The general opinion that I can find from various people, even in person, about season 1 is that they weakest part of it for them was Cox. And for me as well, I strongly disliked him.

Perhaps after an intense period of being taught how to suit the show he could be okay, but it would be too big a gamble to do that again, for the show could flop again.

I'm not trying to say your opinion is wrong, everyone is entitled to theirs of course, just that if they did bring back Charlie Cox, that most people would consider that a step or three backwards, myself included.

There are so many other options out there before they should ever consider putting Cox back on the show. How many people in Australia would love to have that job? I definitely would. How many people would be able to do a better job? I probably couldn't. But I don't have a problem with having 4 presenters, it could be a bit of a break from the regular Top Gear mould. Perhaps they could try me..... :)
It truly is just how individuals presenters interrelate jointly.

TG UNITED KINGDOM benefits from 11 (soon being 12) sequence value connected with comradeship, nevertheless actually inside Collection 2 you could potentially observe they had biochemistry and biology and it's only built in the succeeding several years and sequence. Leading Equipment Russia's three owners also have biochemistry and biology, though it's far lagging.

IMO, TG Sydney Collection 1 experienced zero biochemistry and biology between owners. Collection 2 will be starting far better, nevertheless it is reminds us far more connected with TG UNITED KINGDOM Collection 1 (which, yet again IMO, experienced weak "host chemistry") as opposed to TG 3rd there?s r Collection 1 or TG UNITED KINGDOM Collection 2.