It's Back! And Why the New Top Gear Doesn't Work

 Well it's been offline for years, but here it is, it's back, My Life and the World blog!

So anyway, I have a master's and intend to pursue a PhD. And now, the next topic of this post:

Why the new Top Gear doesn't work...

I was never a big fan of cars. When people were talking about some brand of car, I was getting bored. But I enjoyed Top Gear. Not because of the cars, but because of the chemistry of Clarkson, May, and Hammond. Top Gear wasn't a car show - it was an entertainment show combined with a talk show that just happened to have some stuff about cars. It was three grown men behaving like children in a seemingly natural way. At times, they went a bit too far, especially Clarkson, but they also showed genuine sympathy for each other when they realised one was in trouble.

They may have interspersed that sympathy with insulting jokes and sarcastic comments, but it was there. A prime example was in Alabama, when rednecks threw rocks at the cars and James May needed some help to get his car going - the other two didn't drive off and leave him there; Hammond came to his aid and then they hit the gas. And when May knocked his head in one episode, even Clarkson seemed sympathetic.

The point is, there was an interesting combination of silliness, fun, wit, and sympathy when something was serious, that the three became icons even for many people who didn't give a toss about cars. So what could the BBC have replaced them with?

Here's what the BBC should have replaced them with: A guy doing a normal car show, with a few amusing comments. A couple of guys who either knew the first guy, or were only actually aired with him after they'd worked with him for a bit, to make sure they had chemistry and enough sense when needed, without forgetting the amusement. Basically, not a wholesale replacement for the first three, but a few people who clicked, who could be funny but not in a forced way, and had sympathy when needed. And people who, while they needn't have been posh Londoners, didn't sound like they'd spent years of university messing around rather than improving themselves.

What the BBC gave us was this: Three Northerners - nothing wrong with that - who sounded like they had spent years of university messing around, who had no genuine chemistry, and who went too far with "jokes" at the expense of others. The BBC seemed to just find some Northerners and lump them together based on that alone.

I've seen these types at university. Sadly, they're often the ones who manage to cheat their way into being elected to union positions. They're the sort of people who go way too far with what they do and say - and excuse it all as "just banter", which was a word first invented to excuse a bunch of vile people who were sexually harassing women on a bus. They're the people who frequently have house parties or flat parties and get their kicks out of harming others physically, emotionally, or sexually. Basically, they're psychopaths or sociopaths, or may have some compassion but don't care to think about what they're doing.

You can see this frequently with the new trio. For example, there's a segment where the taller one keeps giving electric shocks to another one - I don't care to know their names - and even after the one in the car says stop several times, the tall one keeps it up, with his bald short presenter laughing along with the tall one. There's another segment where the bald short one is holding a drink while he has some electric shock thing on him, and the others shock him over and over, even after his drink has spilled and, as we know, electricity and drinks do not mix safely. Yet in both of these events, the response is laughter even when they go too far. It's the sort of mindset associated with those who carry out humiliating hazing - people who show no sympathy for others and just enjoy hurting them.

But this sort of behaviour is only funny to people with the same immature mindset - and therefore, to most people, it's not amusing. It's lame and cruel. Yes there are times the original presenters laughed at each other getting hurt, but these were minor things such as bumps and usually brought on by the affected presenter himself. And the presenter tends to laugh it off himself. This is very different from a presenter intentionally harming another, who tells them to stop, and the presenter doing the harm just laughing and carrying on.

In short, the BBC has ruined what could have been a good programme by getting a bunch of chavs - not the kind who throw stuff at passers-by in the street, but the university chavs who get kicks out of doing stupid stuff that hurts people. Now you may be wondering why I even pay for the BBC, considering its history - the answer is, I don't. I either stick the TV Licence letters in the bin, or put 'Return to Sender' on them :)