What TGUS Presenter to Drop? [Part 2]

[Nugget]

I'm not the one trying to bully other opinions with negative rep.

Calling people "deranged apologists" simply because they don't share your opinion is not productive. You're going a lot farther than just voicing your opinion. Any negative rep you've earned from this thread is not simply a result of your opinions. Either own up to your words or tone down your invective.

 

[vaiol123]

As previously mentioned, I agree that none of them seem to be able to commentate on... anything. And atm, their personalities are too fake. Who is the real Rutledge? Who is the real Adam? Who is the real Tanner? Unless they stop acting like news anchors, the show will head to the drain.

 

[Diniboo]

I only picked Adam because if anyone were to go to pave the way for Mike Rowe to take his rightful place as a Top Gear presenter, I think it should be him.

 

[caesarbear]

Watch James during Series 2. "Deadly boring" is a pretty apt description of him at that time. It took until the middle of Series 3 for him to start exposing his personality.

I strongly disagree. I digged out Season 2 ep 1 after watch the new TG. I think James was excellent in his first appearance. He was witty, critical, and captive. In fact I'd suggest watching James' Bently T2 segment from Season 2 Ep 1 as a great example of the qualities a good presenter has over each of the three TG:USA presenters.

Here's the You Tube. There's some stiffness, they were still doing facts and figures back then, but otherwise, it's good stuff.

I don't get this from any of the TG:USA guys.

Calling people "deranged apologists" simply because they don't share your opinion is not productive. You're going a lot farther than just voicing your opinion. Any negative rep you've earned from this thread is not simply a result of your opinions. Either own up to your words or tone down your invective.

It's not anything close to invective. It absolutely is an apology to say Rutledge and company need more time. And my saying "deranged" is not a personal attack on anyone, it's called hyperbole. Are you honestly saying you were offended by that?

Go back and read over the thread and take notice of who launches specific ad hominems at other posters. I'm not saying it bothers me to get personal insults or otherwise read them, but please don't pretend one side of this argument has any moral high ground.

 

[Drummin003]

Just based on what I've seen from season 1, Rutledge & Adam seem to be the most "real". If anyone is most like a news anchor or is boring to watch, it's definitely Tanner.

 

[TC]

It absolutely is an apology to say Rutledge and company need more time.

More like recognizing a simple fact of life. How often are people able to enter into a new job and do their best work like a pro from day 1? Almost never. Even with cars, when an all new model is released, even by a huge car company that has been making cars forever, no matter how much real world testing it was put through, it will still have bugs to work out after it goes into production. It's just the way the real world works. You won't know how well you did until you start selling the product and wait for people to identify problems so you can fix them. The best thing TGUK has going for it is the chemistry between the 3 hosts. That's not something that magically appears out of thin air. They need to work on it a bit, loosen up, get to know eachother, get use to the cameras following them around all the time, etc. It's not an apology, it's being realistic.

 

[aikouka]

I don't think I'd necessarily drop any of them, but if I were to choose my least favorite, it'd probably be Tanner. He's certainly knowledgeable about cars and can drive them properly, but he needs a bit of work at presenting. He reminds me a lot of my college days actually... you ever have a class with a professor that's just absolutely brilliant. So smart, that you wish you could know even 10% of what (s)he does? But you also wish that said professor was even able to convey 1% of that knowledge to you.

Yes, Tanner is like one of those professors that knows his/her stuff, but is completely unable to teach it.

Also, I actually didn't mind Dawes. The segment was usually the least pertinent... especially if you didn't live in England or even watch it somewhat close to the time it originally aired, but it was alright. I recall one time when he had a Skyline GT-R R32 .

 

[caesarbear]

It's not an apology, it's being realistic.

I completely disagree and don't see why you think it's a simple fact of life. The opposite is a bit closer to the truth, no? People's habits and personalities don't radically change and if someone is insipid in front of a camera, they're not going to find inspiration, not any time soon. The awkwardness and uncertainty of a new project should have worn off after a few shows, and with one season now in the can, I think it's completely fair to judge it. I just argued earlier in the thread about chemistry being far more dependent on casting as well as arguing that James May had little trouble conveying his personality on his first day for the new Top Gear UK. Whereas Tanner, whose had a few years of television projects already, will not miraculously shake off his wooden presenting. It's far more realistic to expect more of the same from these guys with improvements limited to professionalism rather than chemistry, personality or articulation. Ask any casting director, chemistry is not something that you wait to boil, you find it or forget it.

 

[TC]

I think it's a fact of life because I witness it every day. I know in TV land you may think reality changes, but I don't agree. I've seen that Supercars show with Tanner and whatshisface competing against each other. I never liked it because the idiotic banter always seemed forced. And maybe Tanner isn't the kind of guy who gets into petty squabbling? I think that almost this entire first season was heavily scripted, to give the new presenters a clear direction for the show. I don't think they had a whole lot of creative leeway. They did a small handful of episodes in front of a live audience in the studio, which they might not be use to. And even in the challenges, they should be trying their best to win, but no doubt the producers want them to screw around and act childish, which may go against their better judgment. I don't think they should be trying to imitate TopGear UK, but it seems like that's what the producers want them to do.

I firmly believe that once they get alittle more experience with the format of the show, it will improve greatly. Even in the handful of episodes they already made, it started improving quite a bit.

 

[Nugget]

It's not anything close to invective. It absolutely is an apology to say Rutledge and company need more time. And my saying "deranged" is not a personal attack on anyone, it's called hyperbole. Are you honestly saying you were offended by that?

I'm not saying I was offended. My point is simply this: It's disingenuous for you to claim that you're getting negative rep simply because of your opinion. In fact, you are being neg-repped because you're being insulting, inflammatory, and full of needless hyperbole. That's all.

If the neg-repping bugs you, pull your head out of your attitude and find a way to participate in the conversation in a less combative manner.

but please don't pretend one side of this argument has any moral high ground

There aren't "sides" and I didn't make any claims about moral high ground at all. I just have an alternative (and more plausible) theory on why you're getting negative rep. It's not to "bully" you. Other people in this thread share your opinion and I'll bet they're not getting negative rep for it.

 

[tromoly]

Wood needs to go, badly.

He's too fake, I highly doubt he's that stupid or hillbillyish in real life, he plays it up like a huge act. "Hehe I'm a fat stupid American! I like beer, NASCAR, incest, and flannel!" It's so fake. And I have no idea where you guys get the idea he knows cars. Based on the show so far, I'd say he knows as much (or as little as it were) as Adam, probably less.

I'm sure he's nice, and a great NASCAR commentator, but he's just a bad fit.


However, the real answer isn't available in your poll. Fake American Stig needs to go. No point, have Tanner do the tests. They don't use the stig for anything, and haven't built his character up, so drop him.

Otherwise, the show keeps improving little by little. I'm cautiously optimistic about Season 2, despite the show still being in a "Rut" as it were.

God, that was an awful pun.....

Two things:

1. If/When you meet Rutledge you'll see he just likes to have fun and goof around, EXACTLY as he doesn on TGUSA

2. Show me in Season 1 of TGUK where they said the whole "Some Say..." bit about the Stig.

 

[caesarbear]

If the neg-repping bugs you, pull your head out of your attitude and find a way to participate in the conversation in a less combative manner.

I'm sorry, but I'm not the one calling other people douchebags or making character remarks.

I'm voicing strong opinions and I understand some people will react badly to that, but it's amazing to me that so many people are so complacent about the poor quality of the hosts. There's no other way to describe it. It's being apologists. I should take back the "deranged" comment as that was unnecessary but I'm certainly not being disingenuous. If anything, I'm being too sincere, but that's not a problem.

 

[shellygrrl]

but it's amazing to me that so many people are so complacent about the poor quality of the hosts. There's no other way to describe it. It's being apologists.

You. Don't. Fucking. GET IT!

You think the hosts are poor quality. But you constantly express this as if it's FACT and not what it really is: your OPINION.

You keep saying we, who don't agree with you, are "apologists". That's implying that you know better than we do, that you're right and all the rest of us are wrong. Personally, I find it disrespectful and patronizing. Of course you're going to get called out on it, and you have several times already, and it's driving you up the wall.

Maybe if you got off your high horse, pulled your head out of your ass, stopped playing the victim card and owned up to your actions, and expressed your views in a more mature, thoughtful way, you: 1) wouldn't have a negative reputation around here, and 2) would be able to carry on a better conversation with the rest of us.

And by the way, I have strong opinions, too.

I would lose Ferrara and offer Tim Allen a load of dough to be the shows Clarkson.

TG US doesn't need a "Clarkson". Or, for that matter, a "Hammond" or "May". Nor do I want a US version of any of the UK trio. I say TG US needs what it already has and will continue to have: an Adam Ferrara, a Tanner Foust, and a Rutledge Wood. And if that continues to make me an "apologist", kiss my ass.

 

[caesarbear]

And by the way, I have strong opinions, too.

You certainly seem to have strong ones about me. Why don't we try to bring it back on topic though. Tell me your specific strong opinions of Mr. Wood for starters. Why do you say he is what TG:USA needs. I find he typifies lazy analysis. When Tanner threw down his robotic proclamation-joke that NASCAR would be better served with Nissans, Rutledge had no counter. Isn't that his wheelhouse? Shouldn't he be able to speak about and defend NASCAR? Or at least be able to express an opinion on it?

 

[Wallio]

Two things:

1. If/When you meet Rutledge you'll see he just likes to have fun and goof around, EXACTLY as he doesn on TGUSA

2. Show me in Season 1 of TGUK where they said the whole "Some Say..." bit about the Stig.

Valid point, I have never met Rutledge, but I'd like to. I'd like to talk shop with him, find out if he really is a car guy. His background says yes, but he doesn't appear to be one, at least not on the show. Backgrounds are funny though, TGUK has a journalist, a pianist and a whatever the hell Hammond is, and there three undiputed petro heads.

As for the Stig, the some say bit started in season 5 or 6 IIRC. But black stig still had character "we don't know hkis name, really" "all racing drivers ae imbelices" and the bit about a race preped diesel being better than a lambo that's on wikipedia. Plus whenever Perry was in-studio (admittedly rare) he acted creepy, then bored, then left, like white stig still does. Has American stig even been in studio yet?

 

[Number 41]

The frontman host should have been Adam CARolla. He's the only person that could honestly speak his mind on cars, politics, sex without the worry of upsetting big brother.

Watching those clips, it does seem like he'd have been a natural for Top Gear -- though, there's no way of knowing if he'd have taken the gig if offered.

 

[Number 41]

Some chemistry forms over years, but it mainly comes from casting. Nobody casts a movie with actors that have no chemistry hoping that it develops in the sequel. Same thing here. If it's not there, it's not going to suddenly blossom, not in a few months.

Key word: Actors.

Last I checked, the only person on TGUS with acting experience is Adam Ferrara -- and he's more of a comedian that does TV than an actor. Chemistry for actors refers to something completely different than Chemistry for show presenters.

 

[Wallio]

Watching those clips, it does seem like he'd have been a natural for Top Gear -- though, there's no way of knowing if he'd have taken the gig if offered.

He hosted the pilot on NBC, and was most certainly interested. BBC took too long to finalize though, and he got a different gig.

 

[caesarbear]

Chemistry for actors refers to something completely different than Chemistry for show presenters.

How so? I think it's basically the same thing: how these guys' in-the-spotlight personalities interact. The difference with actors being that they are far more flexible and more savvy about good showmanship.

 

[shellygrrl]

Valid point, I have never met Rutledge, but I'd like to. I'd like to talk shop with him, find out if he really is a car guy. His background says yes, but he doesn't appear to be one, at least not on the show.

There's a video on the History site where Rutledge talks about a car he's modifying/rebuilding. It's something he does on the side, I believe. So I'd say he's very much a car bore.

http://www.history.com/shows/top-gear/videos/rutledges-project-car

Backgrounds are funny though, TGUK has a journalist, a pianist and a whatever the hell Hammond is, and they're three undisputed petrolheads.

Both Jeremy and James were on Old TG, though not at the same time; in fact, James replaced Jeremy. Richard presented on Granada's Men and Motors channel in the late 1990s to early 2000s; before that, there was local radio and a stint working in motoring-related PR. And James has also done print motoring journalism (he was famously fired from Autocar in 1992). (Also: fixed.)

As for the Stig, the some say bit started in season 5 or 6 IIRC.

Six.

I like to think they'll start building up the mystique this next season.

Plus whenever Perry was in-studio (admittedly rare) he acted creepy, then bored, then left, like white stig still does. Has American stig even been in studio yet?

No. But then, UK White Stig MkII has not set foot in the studio, either.