Top Gear seeks to recover cars from controversial Argentina episode

Terrex said:
Do you really think, that Top Gear is going that far, to get more entertainment/dramatic in there show ? I mean the recent Episodes showed, that Top Gear obviously is putting moe and more effects in to become more and more entertaining (sometimes a bit rediclious for my taste), but I don't think they would go that far ...
Click to expand...

Both the State Department and several users on this site investigated. While you can discard individual investigations, the State Department found they lied (the attack never happened and was indeed apparently created in post production) and restricted their visas as a result.

This is why so many are so very skeptical about the production crew's claims of innocence in this matter and not very sympathetic.
 
Terrex said:
Do you really think, that Top Gear is going that far, to get more entertainment/dramatic in there show ? I mean the recent Episodes showed, that Top Gear obviously is putting moe and more effects in to become more and more entertaining (sometimes a bit rediclious for my taste), but I don't think they would go that far ...
Click to expand...

Yes, it was faked. For one the "boy" in the back of the pickup were Hispanic, not white...
 
Cavi Mike said:
I'm still amazed they got away with their lives when they were in the confederate southern US and started getting pelted with rocks.
Click to expand...

Terrex said:
Do you really think, that Top Gear is going that far, to get more entertainment/dramatic in there show ? I mean the recent Episodes showed, that Top Gear obviously is putting moe and more effects in to become more and more entertaining (sometimes a bit rediclious for my taste), but I don't think they would go that far ...
Click to expand...

Think about everything that's happened around the Argentinian incident . . . police called, authorities involved, news stations reporting on the story in a timely manner while it can still be fact-checked, third party and unedited video of the attackers available . . . that is what the Alabama incident would have looked like had it really happened.

This very topic killed the other thread:
http://forums.finalgear.com/top-gear/top-gear-in-argentina-58545/page-11/#post2239267

IMO the best way to convince someone that the Alabama attack was fake is to make them go watch it.

Better yet, here again is the animated gif I made of the attack:

i6Pve5zHK58EV.gif

And I (again) challenge anyone to make a better gif of the attackers actually attacking--I don't think I've set the bar terribly high. An animated gif should be the perfect format to prove your point and showcase the pure savagery of the rednecks . . . no time to show the boring build up and denouement, no jokes, no filler, no distracting voiceovers: just 100% raw, unadulterated ROCK-THROWING ACTION!!!
 
Actually it makes me kind of sad, that they seem to use such methods to get the best entertainment factor. I realy prefer the older Top Gear challenges, where the fun/entertainment was more made by Richard, James ans Jeremy and not huge explosions and so on. Best example is the "Who got the best 80s hot-hatch" from S21. How unnessarie was the police chase with that tank in the end !?
Well that's just my opinion.
 
Tzarrim said:
No, what killed it was your empty black "gif" showing nothing, and everyone else in the thread went "wtf?".
Click to expand...
I think the gif made a very compelling point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWF
Terrex said:
Actually it makes me kind of sad, that they seem to use such methods to get the best entertainment factor. I realy prefer the older Top Gear challenges, where the fun/entertainment was more made by Richard, James ans Jeremy and not huge explosions and so on. Best example is the "Who got the best 80s hot-hatch" from S21. How unnessarie was the police chase with that tank in the end !?
Well that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

The Alabama episode WAS an 'older' TG challenge...it was the first trip like that they had made abroad and has an innocence about it that they haven't ever quite managed to capture since. I don't think that they would have dreamt up a 'fake' attack at that point..the show hadn't gone down the real 'cocking about' route it was going to take from 2007 onwards. Hammond put a lot more meat onto the story in his second book and I don't think he would have included it at all if the attack had been manufactured - it's not as if he was short of material to include.

As to Argentina I am firmly of the opinion that it was an accident - the fact that no-one noticed the 'reference' doesn't make it a deliberate act. I think that the Argentines behaved appallingly and continue to do so...no legal offence was committed by the crew or the cars so what grounds do they have to hold onto the cars except to use them for political postering.
 
I wasn't trying to shout down or intimidate anyone, and I'm sorry if I did. I was trying to humorously mock the dramatic voiceovers in the gas station segment, and illustrate how the content of the voiceovers (and sound effects, and overall hyped panic) had nothing to do with what was happening on screen . . . especially when, uh, literally nothing was happening on screen. And so far, no one has come up with a better vidcap of the action.

You said "wtf" at the empty black rectangle; well, TG broadcasted that same black rectangle and tried to pass it off as thrilling content. Yet several people still believe the attack happened, which I personally find shocking.
 
kunedog said:
I wasn't trying to shout down or intimidate anyone, and I'm sorry if I did. I was trying to humorously mock the dramatic voiceovers in the gas station segment, and illustrate how the content of the voiceovers (and sound effects, and overall hyped panic) had nothing to do with what was happening on screen . . . especially when, uh, literally nothing was happening on screen. And so far, no one has come up with a better vidcap of the action.
You said "wtf" at the empty black rectangle; well, TG broadcasted that same black rectangle and tried to pass it off as thrilling content. Yet several people still believe the attack happened, which I personally find shocking.
Click to expand...

I find it more shocking that you think the lack of footage on the attack is such damning evidence, as if the crew were going to stand around getting perfect coverage of the attack while having some angry rednecks go after them with rocks. The events may not have seemed all that intimating to the viewer seeing a shot of the road ground as the camera man flees but It's quite easy for me to imagine that the actual experience of being there would be very different.
It is possible that they hyped the event to seem more threatening then it actually was in reality is one thing but to say they outright staged it because the footage wasn't that good is silly.
 
OK, I'll settle for a gif of the rednecks picking up rocks then. You know, before the attack started.
 
Do you really think that, given the circumstances they were in, someone would have taken the time to film rednecks picking up rocks before the attack? That doesn't make much sense to me...
 
Given how they like to keep cameras rolling, someone should have caught *something* on camera. Yet they didn't.

Further, every gas station in America runs surveillance cameras. According to the lady at the gas station, both the local sheriff and the State Department came and looked at the recordings and quickly concluded no attack ever occurred there. This can be verified by how the State Department then restricted their visas to 'factual recordings only,' a fact the Top Gear crew admitted on camera the next time they were in the US.

The only place the 'redneck attack' occurred was in the editing room, not reality.
 
Last edited:
ladyblue said:
Do you really think that, given the circumstances they were in, someone would have taken the time to film rednecks picking up rocks before the attack? That doesn't make much sense to me...
Click to expand...


I really think that. The supposed circumstances were thus:

  • They had decorated their cars to provoke the locals, so they expected a reaction (the more spectacular the better).
  • They had a professional film crew on site, with multiple cameras and microphones, including at least one camera across the street.
  • A woman became angry towards them and "called the boys." Everyone then waited for "the boys" to arrive. This "attack" was not sudden or stealthy in any way.
  • It was broad daylight.

Everything they had wanted to happen and expected to happen, supposedly actually started happening right before their eyes and, crucially, their strategically placed camera lenses. Yes, under those circumstances it is (literally) unbelievable they don't have good footage of the whole attack, much less the beginning of it.
 
Last edited:
I won't argue that what happened, to a degree, was manufactured, obviously painting the slogans they had on the car was designed to produce a reaction.

What I disagree with is the question of the attack being faked because of the lack of raw footage. To be honest, I'd be crying foul if the whole attack from beginning to end had been filmed. The fact that there isn't good footage suggests to me that the attack did indeed happen and not in a way they had expected it to happen.

With regards to the security cameras not picking up on the attack: Do we know this is true, I just question the source if it just came from the lady at the gas station.

To be honest, I would need to see news articles or reports from a reliable source before I am to believe the attack was faked
 
ladyblue said:
Do you really think that, given the circumstances they were in, someone would have taken the time to film rednecks picking up rocks before the attack? That doesn't make much sense to me...
Click to expand...
As a veteran crew member with over ten years of experience in film and TV production, I can assure you that yes, these people are trained to keep their cameras rolling and pointed in the right direction no matter what. Remember Hitchcock's "Rear Window"? The backstory of Jimmy Stewart's pro photographer character is that he got run over by a crashing racecar cause he took a photo instead of jumping out of the way.
Without that kind of work ethos you won't get anywhere in film production, especially not in a position of operating a camera on a flagship program like Top Gear.
 
If it was faked, wouldn't 60 Minutes have picked up on that or at least questioned it when they did their piece on Top Gear a few years ago? ?Would the three of them have talked about the incident the way they did, James in particular, (starting around the 11:00 mark) on an investigative journalism programme like 60 Minutes if it was fake?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1sy_8rQksA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
 
Last edited:
Top Gear seeks to recover cars from controversial Argentina episode

You have only to look at the absolutely sh**ty treatment of Ben Collins (former Stig) to realize that yes, they would do exactly that.

Not only would they do it, they already have in other matters. The lies about Teslas, for example. And then again about the Leaf: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/aug/05/top-gear-bbc
 
Last edited:
Lines like: "It derides attempts to protect the environment, and promotes the kind of driving that threatens other people's peace and other people's lives." Should be an indication that this article is written by someone who has a personal grudge against TopGear. It's easy to portray them as speeding maniacs who punch little baby trees, and while they have indeed been bashing battery powered cars, they had only positive things to say about hydrogen fuel cells and start to embrace hybrid technology. They aren't anti-environment. TopGear promoting reckless driving is just as stupid of an argument as video games promoting violent behavior.
 
Last edited:
Oh, the guy who wrote the article *hates* Top Gear. No arguing that, just using it to provide a cite about how Top Gear has lied about many things, including the Leaf's range, then lied to cover up the initial lie - he is correct about that and he does provide links which is why I used his article. I didn't want to have to deal with all the links myself.

As for the author, I wouldn't mind if someone took him out back and shot him. He's that annoying.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top