majbthrd
New Member
A recent study indicated that the younger generation has an attention span of 90 seconds before they become disinterested. So, the salient points of this post are:
1) Celebrity worship is nothing new at Top Gear
2) Jeremy Clarkson is a grandstander and manipulates the media for his own financial gain
3) Recent series of Top Gear are markedly inferior in quality to those of past
4) Terminating Top Gear could be the best thing for the program
Recently, the media has been a-titter about Jeremy Clarkson dropping increasingly less subtle hints that Top Gear would not return. Further gossip suggests that producer pressure to incorporate celebrities into the program is the cause for Clarkson's apparent discontent.
In this author's opinion, the celebrity worship incorporated into Top Gear (and Fifth Gear) is deplorable. (The antics in recent series of Fifth Gear show how much it can cheapen a TV program and the credibility of the presenters.) However, celebrity worship is nothing new.
Celebrity promotion has unfortunately been an integral part of Top Gear for many years. A film trailer accompanied Christian Slater's visit to the show. When Steve Coogan appeared on the show, a clip of his most recent show Saxondale was featured. When a Ferrari Enzo was loaned by a former Pink Floyd member for testing, his book was promoted in a faux-subtle manner. Every celebrity who appears on Top Gear has their current works cited and promoted. The weekly segment seems specifically designed to allow Top Gear to cash in on a given celebrity's status in a trade for promotion of the celebrity's particular cause.
One could argue that the Clarkson-era Top Gear is inherently steeped in celebrity worship in another way too. The new format relies heavily upon an overly eager audience who jockeys for position, each hoping for their five seconds of fame in front of the camera with the presenters. It is sad and pathetic.
So, when Jeremy Clarkson claims that "we don't normally do this" when shamelessly showing a trailer for a Hugh Grant film, you know that he is also contriving a situation. This pretend hiccup on that show is subsequently followed by his insinuation at the end of the series that the program might not be returning. Then, he escalates further with his piece in the ?The Sun'.
Is there truth to the notion that celebrity worship dilutes the quality of Top Gear? Absolutely. Is it Clarkson's altruistic aim to force an improvement on the program? Unlikely.
We've all seen this tired game before. A half-truth is increasingly blown out of proportion to be used as leverage in a negotiation ploy.
Take Clarkson's Ford GT. We all know that Detroit has had the misfortune of producing some of the most uninvolving, unpolished, and generally disappointing vehicles on the planet. So, Clarkson plays on that belief. First, he inserts increasingly disparaging comments about his GT into the scripted dialog of Top Gear. Then, he invites readers of the Times to vote whether to retain the GT. What's his beef with the car? The immobilizer added to the vehicle in the U.K. doesn't work properly, causing the car to not work or report it stolen. Does he disparage the company that makes the immobilizer or the company that installed it? No. Rather, he disparages Ford. He knows that he has strong influence over the car-obsessed public, and Ford has the biggest pockets and the most to lose by his negative comments. So, he uses that celebrity influence to force an 800lb gorilla to do his own bidding.
Want more examples of this "win at any cost" approach? Try any of the Top Gear competitions. Clarkson shamelessly skews results to win whenever possible.
Is that the duty of any person to use every tool at their disposal? Perhaps (albeit not at the cost of one's dignity).
So, rather than whine about the potential loss of Top Gear, more of you should take a sensible step back and appreciate that Clarkson has a strong financial interest in "turning the screws" in contract negotiations with the BBC (and perhaps a narcissistic desire to fan the flames of his own celebrity).
My own opinion (perhaps shared by others) is that the quality of Top Gear peaked around the sixth series of the new Clarkson-era format. Unfortunately, it has been a rocket-assisted Mini downhill descent ever since.
Top Gear, at its best, celebrates the euphoria associated with driving a performance car. It uses cinematic camera work and light-hearted, witty dialog to draw in petroheads and car-phobes alike. What is a visceral and exciting for the driver can become dry and one-dimensional on camera. The magic of Top Gear was to convey that experience directly to the viewer.
However, somewhere along the way, this was perverted into a forum for displaying ever more daft stunts and grandstanding. And, yes, increased celebrity worship.
Not all is lost. Look at the recent segment of James May taking a Veyron past 200 mph and back again. With less deft hands than those at Top Gear, that segment could have been a disaster. Speedometer needle goes up; background whooshes past. Big deal. However, by setting the scene at a Cold War facility, adopting Germanic configuration procedures, some flashy 2001-esque special effects of reflections on James May's helmet visor, and a frank relation of his thoughts during the event make the segment work, and work well.
Sadly, such segments are now the exception to the rule, rather than the heart of the show, but we can live in eternal hope that such quality returns.
So, what's my argument for terminating Top Gear? Personally, I would almost rather see it end than further dilute itself. However, I'm not going to make a concerted argument for such (although I do think the overburdened British license fee payer certainly deserves better).
So, why telegraph at the beginning of this post that Top Gear should be terminated? Unfortunately, the School of Clarkson teaches us that exaggeration and misstatement bring about a heightened interest in a half-truth to draw attention to a personal cause. Gotcha.
To any of the Top Gear production staff reading: make Top Gear better. You know that you have it in you.
1) Celebrity worship is nothing new at Top Gear
2) Jeremy Clarkson is a grandstander and manipulates the media for his own financial gain
3) Recent series of Top Gear are markedly inferior in quality to those of past
4) Terminating Top Gear could be the best thing for the program
Recently, the media has been a-titter about Jeremy Clarkson dropping increasingly less subtle hints that Top Gear would not return. Further gossip suggests that producer pressure to incorporate celebrities into the program is the cause for Clarkson's apparent discontent.
In this author's opinion, the celebrity worship incorporated into Top Gear (and Fifth Gear) is deplorable. (The antics in recent series of Fifth Gear show how much it can cheapen a TV program and the credibility of the presenters.) However, celebrity worship is nothing new.
Celebrity promotion has unfortunately been an integral part of Top Gear for many years. A film trailer accompanied Christian Slater's visit to the show. When Steve Coogan appeared on the show, a clip of his most recent show Saxondale was featured. When a Ferrari Enzo was loaned by a former Pink Floyd member for testing, his book was promoted in a faux-subtle manner. Every celebrity who appears on Top Gear has their current works cited and promoted. The weekly segment seems specifically designed to allow Top Gear to cash in on a given celebrity's status in a trade for promotion of the celebrity's particular cause.
One could argue that the Clarkson-era Top Gear is inherently steeped in celebrity worship in another way too. The new format relies heavily upon an overly eager audience who jockeys for position, each hoping for their five seconds of fame in front of the camera with the presenters. It is sad and pathetic.
So, when Jeremy Clarkson claims that "we don't normally do this" when shamelessly showing a trailer for a Hugh Grant film, you know that he is also contriving a situation. This pretend hiccup on that show is subsequently followed by his insinuation at the end of the series that the program might not be returning. Then, he escalates further with his piece in the ?The Sun'.
Is there truth to the notion that celebrity worship dilutes the quality of Top Gear? Absolutely. Is it Clarkson's altruistic aim to force an improvement on the program? Unlikely.
We've all seen this tired game before. A half-truth is increasingly blown out of proportion to be used as leverage in a negotiation ploy.
Take Clarkson's Ford GT. We all know that Detroit has had the misfortune of producing some of the most uninvolving, unpolished, and generally disappointing vehicles on the planet. So, Clarkson plays on that belief. First, he inserts increasingly disparaging comments about his GT into the scripted dialog of Top Gear. Then, he invites readers of the Times to vote whether to retain the GT. What's his beef with the car? The immobilizer added to the vehicle in the U.K. doesn't work properly, causing the car to not work or report it stolen. Does he disparage the company that makes the immobilizer or the company that installed it? No. Rather, he disparages Ford. He knows that he has strong influence over the car-obsessed public, and Ford has the biggest pockets and the most to lose by his negative comments. So, he uses that celebrity influence to force an 800lb gorilla to do his own bidding.
Want more examples of this "win at any cost" approach? Try any of the Top Gear competitions. Clarkson shamelessly skews results to win whenever possible.
Is that the duty of any person to use every tool at their disposal? Perhaps (albeit not at the cost of one's dignity).
So, rather than whine about the potential loss of Top Gear, more of you should take a sensible step back and appreciate that Clarkson has a strong financial interest in "turning the screws" in contract negotiations with the BBC (and perhaps a narcissistic desire to fan the flames of his own celebrity).
My own opinion (perhaps shared by others) is that the quality of Top Gear peaked around the sixth series of the new Clarkson-era format. Unfortunately, it has been a rocket-assisted Mini downhill descent ever since.
Top Gear, at its best, celebrates the euphoria associated with driving a performance car. It uses cinematic camera work and light-hearted, witty dialog to draw in petroheads and car-phobes alike. What is a visceral and exciting for the driver can become dry and one-dimensional on camera. The magic of Top Gear was to convey that experience directly to the viewer.
However, somewhere along the way, this was perverted into a forum for displaying ever more daft stunts and grandstanding. And, yes, increased celebrity worship.
Not all is lost. Look at the recent segment of James May taking a Veyron past 200 mph and back again. With less deft hands than those at Top Gear, that segment could have been a disaster. Speedometer needle goes up; background whooshes past. Big deal. However, by setting the scene at a Cold War facility, adopting Germanic configuration procedures, some flashy 2001-esque special effects of reflections on James May's helmet visor, and a frank relation of his thoughts during the event make the segment work, and work well.
Sadly, such segments are now the exception to the rule, rather than the heart of the show, but we can live in eternal hope that such quality returns.
So, what's my argument for terminating Top Gear? Personally, I would almost rather see it end than further dilute itself. However, I'm not going to make a concerted argument for such (although I do think the overburdened British license fee payer certainly deserves better).
So, why telegraph at the beginning of this post that Top Gear should be terminated? Unfortunately, the School of Clarkson teaches us that exaggeration and misstatement bring about a heightened interest in a half-truth to draw attention to a personal cause. Gotcha.
To any of the Top Gear production staff reading: make Top Gear better. You know that you have it in you.