Grand Prix: The Killer Years
- Thread starter Phil W
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Think I've seen it before... or something with the same name?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 May 2008
- Posts
- 4,104
- Location
- North Wales
Yeah been on before, same guy that did the Group B documentary that's just been on the iPlLayer again, a bit of a snuff film really but a very good watch non the less.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 961
- Location
- East Sussex
was told about this a couple of hours ago, not a chance of me having the telly tonight, so got it on record, in the hope i can watch it soon
seen the rally one before but got that on record also
seen the rally one before but got that on record also
Everyone raves about this documentary but this review might make u think otherwise
I have to admit that I was far from impressed when I first watched Grand Prix: The Killer Years when it originally aired on BBC4 earlier this year. I am, however,*somewhat*aghast that what was nothing more than an hour’s worth of sensationalism will shortly be committed to DVD. Profiting through on-screen misery doesn’t sit well with me.
Killer Years, for those that missed it the first time around, is a made-for-TV documentary that focuses on grand prix racing during the early 1960s and 70s – a horrific period where death was all too commonplace.
And with that, we are dealt a series of heart wrenching, ghoulish, crashes that are interspersed with talking heads such as Jackie Stewart, Emerson Fittipaldi and John Surtees, all of whom played vital roles in pioneering driver safety over the years.
These extraordinarily candid interviews are wholly impressive. Listening to Stewart and other luminaries narrate the long struggle to making racing safer for friend and rival alike is certainly a depressing affair. It never fails to astound how expendable driver’s lives seemed to be just a few decades ago.
Unfortunately, that’s about all the positives I can possibly conjure up as far as Killer Years is concerned because, quite frankly, I find it to be nothing more than a load of gratuitous, exploitative, nonsense.
Firstly, it is littered with inaccuracies. It’s not even a minute old before the first howler rears its ugly head: was the 1961 world championship really a fight between Wolfgang von Tripps and Jim Clark as they lined up on the grid at Monza? Really? And, if my eyes don’t deceive me, why is Clark sat in an F2 Lotus?
The gaffs don’t stop there. There’s random Indianapolis footage, mixed with snippets of F2 and F3 races for some bizarre reason. More inexcusable is the implication that some drivers were killed during a grand prix when they actually weren’t.
Jo Bonnier, for instance, died in a sportscar, Mike Spence was killed during testing for the Indy 500, and Ludovico Scarfiotti perished during a hillclimbing event.
These errors are unforgivable. If you are going to produce a documentary on such a serious subject matter, at least get your facts right, and don’t just use them as an excuse to serve up grim footage to shock the audience.
And that’s where I take issue with Killer Years. Be honest, do you really want to see someone die in a ball of flames or be cut to pieces? On-track fatalities of the nature included are nothing short of distasteful and are totally unnecessary to get the point across that grand prix racing was once a highly dangerous pursuit. And ask yourself this: would anyone in their right mind produce a documentary on deaths in other sporting categories?
As a documentary it’s neither innovative, nor is it the most informative you’ll ever see. It seems to lack focus and aimlessly plods along – you never really know what its intentions actually are. It’s a wasted opportunity that fails to educate and inform on how safety has evolved in the sport. Instead it seems to revel in how deadly it once was.
I have to admit that I was far from impressed when I first watched Grand Prix: The Killer Years when it originally aired on BBC4 earlier this year. I am, however,*somewhat*aghast that what was nothing more than an hour’s worth of sensationalism will shortly be committed to DVD. Profiting through on-screen misery doesn’t sit well with me.
Killer Years, for those that missed it the first time around, is a made-for-TV documentary that focuses on grand prix racing during the early 1960s and 70s – a horrific period where death was all too commonplace.
And with that, we are dealt a series of heart wrenching, ghoulish, crashes that are interspersed with talking heads such as Jackie Stewart, Emerson Fittipaldi and John Surtees, all of whom played vital roles in pioneering driver safety over the years.
These extraordinarily candid interviews are wholly impressive. Listening to Stewart and other luminaries narrate the long struggle to making racing safer for friend and rival alike is certainly a depressing affair. It never fails to astound how expendable driver’s lives seemed to be just a few decades ago.
Unfortunately, that’s about all the positives I can possibly conjure up as far as Killer Years is concerned because, quite frankly, I find it to be nothing more than a load of gratuitous, exploitative, nonsense.
Firstly, it is littered with inaccuracies. It’s not even a minute old before the first howler rears its ugly head: was the 1961 world championship really a fight between Wolfgang von Tripps and Jim Clark as they lined up on the grid at Monza? Really? And, if my eyes don’t deceive me, why is Clark sat in an F2 Lotus?
The gaffs don’t stop there. There’s random Indianapolis footage, mixed with snippets of F2 and F3 races for some bizarre reason. More inexcusable is the implication that some drivers were killed during a grand prix when they actually weren’t.
Jo Bonnier, for instance, died in a sportscar, Mike Spence was killed during testing for the Indy 500, and Ludovico Scarfiotti perished during a hillclimbing event.
These errors are unforgivable. If you are going to produce a documentary on such a serious subject matter, at least get your facts right, and don’t just use them as an excuse to serve up grim footage to shock the audience.
And that’s where I take issue with Killer Years. Be honest, do you really want to see someone die in a ball of flames or be cut to pieces? On-track fatalities of the nature included are nothing short of distasteful and are totally unnecessary to get the point across that grand prix racing was once a highly dangerous pursuit. And ask yourself this: would anyone in their right mind produce a documentary on deaths in other sporting categories?
As a documentary it’s neither innovative, nor is it the most informative you’ll ever see. It seems to lack focus and aimlessly plods along – you never really know what its intentions actually are. It’s a wasted opportunity that fails to educate and inform on how safety has evolved in the sport. Instead it seems to revel in how deadly it once was.
Thats the only part i saw, and i agree, how they let the race go on is nothing short of cruel. He thoroughly deserved that bravery medal for his part in the event.
I only went to one race in the seventies and it was later (about 1978) for the BGP at Brands Hatch. We were very close to the track, seated on a grassy bank not far from the barriers although I seem to remember a mesh fence had been erected to prevent access onto the track. I do not remember being marshalled to that area, it was very informal.
Of course since I was eighteen in 1970 and used to get Motorsport magazine on subscription, I read of many of the tragic losses and the debates on whether drivers were lacking courage etc. for not racing.
I watched The Killer Years and was not too impressed at the content. It could have been very good in detailing the safety improvements, engineering, civil and automotive, that so changed the formula. Touching on the tragedy but not revelling in it.
Of course since I was eighteen in 1970 and used to get Motorsport magazine on subscription, I read of many of the tragic losses and the debates on whether drivers were lacking courage etc. for not racing.
I watched The Killer Years and was not too impressed at the content. It could have been very good in detailing the safety improvements, engineering, civil and automotive, that so changed the formula. Touching on the tragedy but not revelling in it.
Who wrote that? I think they need to reassess their priorities. The documentary is dealing with far bigger issues than ensuring the images and narration are 100% correct. Damming a documentary dealing with the very real and very serious issue of safety in motor sport because it has footage of IndyCars and F2 in it is utterly pathetic.
I don't agree. The subject matter is serious, so they should get their facts straight. What is the benefit to viewers of adding unrelated material to a documentary, but passing it off as relevant?
This would be like an documentary on the 9/11 event showing someone dieing in completely unrelated a light aircraft crash.
I fall between Skeeter and Dogbreath on this one.
Giving the impression that drivers died during a F1GP when they didn't is misleading (and it certainly gave that impression).
However, the three drivers he used as examples still died on track, even if it wasn't Formula One, so I can see why they were included.
If I were making a factual program I would want to make sure it was as accurate as possible, so I can see the point about using footage from other events and trying to pass them off as F1 races. Having said that, I didn't feel any of the points the reviewer raised were detrimental to the message the documentary was trying to convey.
Giving the impression that drivers died during a F1GP when they didn't is misleading (and it certainly gave that impression).
However, the three drivers he used as examples still died on track, even if it wasn't Formula One, so I can see why they were included.
If I were making a factual program I would want to make sure it was as accurate as possible, so I can see the point about using footage from other events and trying to pass them off as F1 races. Having said that, I didn't feel any of the points the reviewer raised were detrimental to the message the documentary was trying to convey.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,321
- Location
- The Land of Roundabouts
I thought it was quite obvious the clips were library footage than trying to be passed off as actual footage.
Footage from that era is extremely limited so you cant blame them for using what they did!
Footage from that era is extremely limited so you cant blame them for using what they did!
Exactly. Its not like they tried to claim that someone who died of a heart attack on a boat was killed due to the lapse safety standard in motor sport.
The safety issues were not confined solely to F1, so neither should the documentary have to be. But my biggest issue though is that the guy seems to be dismissing the whole thing as worthless on the grounds of a few massaged facts. He's missing the bigger picture.
The safety issues were not confined solely to F1, so neither should the documentary have to be. But my biggest issue though is that the guy seems to be dismissing the whole thing as worthless on the grounds of a few massaged facts. He's missing the bigger picture.
I think extremely expensive more than limited.