Dear Top Gear,
In thinking of how to address this I considered; “Gentlemen”, or “Colleagues”, but I’ve come to think of you as Friends, given that I see you on a weekly basis, enjoy your company, and always take your advice over that of my parents.
I write to you with a cry for help, over the last few months I’ve found myself at the mercy of my wife’s Ford Streetka.
Firstly, let’s gloss over the general embarrassment of being a man seen driving one, and that when turned upside down it clearly says “Matchbox Hairdresser Series 2003”. Let’s start with the visibility for example, it has one of those flexible plastic rear windows, so the rear-view mirror is useless – which is lucky, considering mine fell off. Then there’s the turning circle, under a full lock it will scuff the kerbs performing a turn in the road, and is only capable of “swinging” into a car parking space, when three are available side by side. This leads me to think that rather than model it on the sprightly, 1.3i standard Ka, which corners like a Mini in the Italian Job, they’ve somehow based it on the Transit Van. Then there’s that constant pain that drives through your left leg whenever you’re in the car, what is that? Oh that’s right, the dashboard.
The 1.6 zetec engine has no bottom end torque, is full of flat-spots and generally feels sluggish, get to 50mph however and the power comes and takes you to 85 in a heart beat, which is useful given the speed limit on most UK roads is 60. If you do choose to take it on the motorway, I recommend you take a member of your family that normally bores you senseless, as they’ll be able to witter endlessly at you, without you hearing a thing. Don’t look for fuel economy out of this small 2 seater either, it returns about 24 miles to the gallon.
I recently tried to change a headlight bulb, and it took the best part of an hour due to the keyhole surgery I had to perform to get to the old one. Although it would have been fine if I’d had hands the size of a child, and the ability to see through metal.
In short I’m asking you to help me, I’m currently looking for a new car and the plan is to part ex this one. I don’t know what your process is for the cars you use, whether they’re donated or you purchase them. But if you do see fit to furnish me with the current part ex value for this car, I would be more than happy to see this one blown up, shot at, smashed to pieces, played conkers with, drowned, driven off a cliff, crushed, burned, inserted into the rectum of a larger equally frustrating car, catapulted, pelted with caravans and or buried in a time capsule so that people of the future may learn from our mistakes.
Thanks in anticipation.
Tuesday 12 January 2010
Directors Cut
Everyone's heard of a Directors Cut, Bladerunner, Terminator 2, Aliens. Funnily enough usually films that James Cameron is the Director. They usually contain a longer cut of the film, including previously cut scenes that the studio didn't like, were under pressure to meet a desired rating or were dropped due to time constraints.
The concept is that it represents the Directors' Original vision before various parties became involved in the edit and hacked it to pieces. I get that and understand it when a directors cut is released a decade or two after the original, technology has advanced in such a way that a director is able to improve on that original concept and get closer to their first imagining. What I don't get however, is when a theatrical cut is released at the cinema, and the Directors Cut is released on DVD. There is no other excuse other than to make money, by doing that you're cheating people by changing the film and having them pay to see it on two different mediums. If the film is good enough, they'll buy it on DVD anyway. The films are made at the same time, edited together, there simply isn't enough time to edit a separate cut between the cinema and DVD release.
My case in point, Terminator: Salvation was released on two separate DVDs at the same time, the original and the Directors Cut. Avatar, is making millions at the cinema and is supposedly the best film in the world, has the most cutting edge technology, taking the movie world by storm and has been between 4 and 6 years in the making depending on the source. Then why has it already been confirmed that the Blu-Ray release will feature the Directors Cut? Is 4 years not enough to get it right James Cameron? Has the technology advanced again in 3 months? Is it outdated already? Or was all that about creating his masterpiece and a modern day spectacle all just bollocks? Well obviously, cos now he's done a better version. Unless of course he's just playing everyone for a mug and milking this cash cow for all it's worth. My prediction is shortly after the Blu-ray release, there'll then be a 3d version released, probably with an additional scene, they forgot about the previous two versions. While we are on Avatar I have to point out another thing, that Mr Cameron said it was the perfect film for a 15 year old boy and had everything they would want. Rubbish. 15 year old boys want a cross between Taken, and Emmanuelle, somebody running round killing everyone they see for revenge, pausing every 2o minutes to watch women getting undressed and taking a shower in a communal changing room, not a big blue cartoon alien version of Dances with Wolves.
Anyway, back to Directors Cuts....
Here's an idea James Cameron, GET IT RIGHT FIRST TIME!!
The concept is that it represents the Directors' Original vision before various parties became involved in the edit and hacked it to pieces. I get that and understand it when a directors cut is released a decade or two after the original, technology has advanced in such a way that a director is able to improve on that original concept and get closer to their first imagining. What I don't get however, is when a theatrical cut is released at the cinema, and the Directors Cut is released on DVD. There is no other excuse other than to make money, by doing that you're cheating people by changing the film and having them pay to see it on two different mediums. If the film is good enough, they'll buy it on DVD anyway. The films are made at the same time, edited together, there simply isn't enough time to edit a separate cut between the cinema and DVD release.
My case in point, Terminator: Salvation was released on two separate DVDs at the same time, the original and the Directors Cut. Avatar, is making millions at the cinema and is supposedly the best film in the world, has the most cutting edge technology, taking the movie world by storm and has been between 4 and 6 years in the making depending on the source. Then why has it already been confirmed that the Blu-Ray release will feature the Directors Cut? Is 4 years not enough to get it right James Cameron? Has the technology advanced again in 3 months? Is it outdated already? Or was all that about creating his masterpiece and a modern day spectacle all just bollocks? Well obviously, cos now he's done a better version. Unless of course he's just playing everyone for a mug and milking this cash cow for all it's worth. My prediction is shortly after the Blu-ray release, there'll then be a 3d version released, probably with an additional scene, they forgot about the previous two versions. While we are on Avatar I have to point out another thing, that Mr Cameron said it was the perfect film for a 15 year old boy and had everything they would want. Rubbish. 15 year old boys want a cross between Taken, and Emmanuelle, somebody running round killing everyone they see for revenge, pausing every 2o minutes to watch women getting undressed and taking a shower in a communal changing room, not a big blue cartoon alien version of Dances with Wolves.
Anyway, back to Directors Cuts....
Here's an idea James Cameron, GET IT RIGHT FIRST TIME!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)