TG used to be amusing because it abandoned the predictable approach of other car shows and embraced the a little anarchy. Now it's tired because everything that was new has been endlessly repeated (which is not a reference to Dave).

When they describe a fast car they, invariably do so in terms of which bodily organs it rearranges while accelerating, braking and cornering.
When they talk about a rubbish car, they compare it to a better example of the same thing, then they astonishingly turn out to prefer the bad car because the other one is too perfect, and the bad one has soul.
Or else it reminds them of a cheerful dog that they like.

All of those, and many other formulaic maneuvers, come courtesy of Clarkson, but have been increasingly aped by the other two. Hammond, in contrast, has pretty much never said anything that the other two feel the need to rip off. I can see how it is hard to avoid resorting to formula when reviewing a lot of the same thing (especially given that they slavishly lap up every new Aston Martin even though they are all minor variations of the same thing), but perhaps somebody who can provide a few new metaphors would relieve some of the tedium. Maybe they could even hire a poet of such gift that Clarkson would let him introduce the Stig occasionally!?

Worse still, although their antics have always been choreographed, everything they do now is so artlessly contrived. The banners on the side of the Indian train were terribly set up, and the joke was one they have done far more subtly before, making the punchline visible beyond the horizon. Hammond's absurd pretence that he was leaving the engine in that car for any reason other than to make it humorously front-heavy was a horribly cack-handed way to announce which fake fubar was coming next. Not to mention the film director who uses words that have to be bleeped out when shouting at Hammond, but carefully uses ones that can be shown on TV when writing on his car.

Perhaps it's time for them to abandon this transparently fraudulent anarchy, and allow a little of the real stuff. Hammond may be a regrettably dreary front man, but the director is the one who most needs to go.

Top Gear isn't going to change one iota while it's still drawing in massive audiences both in the UK and via international syndication. As far as the makers are concerned, that alone is all the validation they require (although the humungous income from merchandising probably helps too).

The best and most obvious way to make Top Gear change is to watch something else. Ignore it completely. While even the people who claim to hate it still watch it (if only so they can then have a good old moan) there is absolutely no likelihood whatsoever of it changing to any significant degree.

The people who watch it then complain about it? You're part of the problem, not part of the solution. That's the great fallacy of the 'I watched this again and it's still rubbish' complaint. By doing so, you're making it less likely to improve.

Jon

I enjoyed the Fisker section - it's the first electric car I'd actually consider buying, although I'm not sure I'd pay extra for fossilised ethically harvested leaves and fire-logged wood inserts.

Matt Smith is the star in the reasonably priced car today.

Mark

O rly?

Mark