Jump to content

What did you think of Paris's Presentation?


Recommended Posts

I very much enjoyed the French presentation. It was of very high quality and appeared to be very slick and informative.

However, I do have a few observations:

1) The presentation in parts lacked gusto. Some parts merely felt time gap filling. For example, the '3 good reasons' section. All of those pictures falling off the walls and floating into the sky and the slow motion athletes running, jumping and throwing.  It felt more like gap filling. Surely a 30 minute presentation could have been better used in these sections ie. less style, more substance

2) This brings me to my 2nd observation. The presentation felt very over-stylised. The whole presentation reminded me more of an election party political broadcast, with men in suits making the presentation.

3) For a presentation promoting a bid for an Olympic Games, where were the Athletes? Did we get to hear their hopes and aspirations? Shouldn't a bid presentation ideally include the very people who help unify us every four years???

Let me reiterate, the presentation was excellent and very slick. I may support London, but Paris deserves to be congratulated on a high quality presentation.

Good luck all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was an excellent presentation - it moved along, it kept my interest and it provided me with information

Only after all five are seen, will we know how it compares and I won't be awake for any more

See you all tomorrow for the big announcement (unless it is already tomorrow where you live)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much enjoyed the French presentation. It was of very high quality and appeared to be very slick and informative.

However, I do have a few observations:

1) The presentation in parts lacked gusto. Some parts merely felt time gap filling. For example, the '3 good reasons' section. All of those pictures falling off the walls and floating into the sky and the slow motion athletes running, jumping and throwing.  It felt more like gap filling. Surely a 30 minute presentation could have been better used in these sections ie. less style, more substance

2) This brings me to my 2nd observation. The presentation felt very over-stylised. The whole presentation reminded me more of an election party political broadcast, with men in suits making the presentation.

3) For a presentation promoting a bid for an Olympic Games, where were the Athletes? Did we get to hear their hopes and aspirations? Shouldn't a bid presentation ideally include the very people who help unify us every four years???

Let me reiterate, the presentation was excellent and very slick. I may support London, but Paris deserves to be congratulated on a high quality presentation.

Good luck all

Yes, I concur with your observations. A very slick professional  production, but stage managed with a lack of flair any real passion. It followed the same tried and tested method of Paris 2012: safe, but without passion or vision

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Visually good, but needs more substance. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Visually good, but needs more substance. :)

I agree but the visuals do make up for the lack of substance......and I also have to say that the Paris 2012 isn't the typical final bid presentation video nor was their presentation a typical final bid presentation. I don't think there have been videos that long, lasting for half an hour. That must have costed millions to make!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do I think. Well, dispensing with the pleasantries (good show, gay Paris, etc...), this is what I thought: http://www.gamesbids.com/cgi-bin....9;t=431

No offense intended (and in any case, it would never compete with the offensiveness of that presentation, most of which was directed at London in the subtext).

'Crash and burn' would be an appropriate slogan for my sentiments around the Paris bid now.

There, I've been honest.

Roll on NYC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The small gesture of puting the hand on the heart is very symbolic, yet powerful and impressive. Even after Moscow's presentation in the China's CCTV live boardcasting a guest still mentioning it, saying that "to compare Moscow's presentation with Paris', I think Paris is better coz I can still feel the heart beating from their video!".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed Paris' presentation because it didn't waste time by trying to promote itself with phrases like "we have a unique spirit" or "everybody has a home here," with equally intangible quality-related videos to go along with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed the original airing of the Paris presentation, but just finished watching it on the IOC's site.

I see why London won.

While it was slick and very technical, and clearly demonstrated why the Paris bid was long considered the favourite (and why it was my preferred bid), it lacked three things.

1 - humanity - relied too heavily on video presentations.

2 - sport - almost no focus on athletes in the presentation.

3 - passion - dry presenters, old grey men in old grey suits.

Paris had a sound bid, excellent financial plans, pragmatism and sensibility.  But for a city that used a heart as their logo, where was that heart?

Oh, there it is!

It was in London.

The IOC is far more emotional than it is political or pragmatic.  That's how PyeongChang's weak foggy bid nearly won 2010.  This is how Montreal's Mayor Drapeau stole the 1976 Games from Moscow.  This is how Billy Payne out did the Parthenon.

This presentation lost the Games for Paris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, there were too many white men in suits everywhere, 99% of whom had clearly never broken into a run in their lives - unless you count sprinting backwards from the Maginot Line.   And those random old men standing round at the beginning and the end looked like disoriented escapees from a retirement home.  

I counted only two token women in the whole presentation, and both were consigned to video: Catherine Deneuve, peering out from behind a huge bunch of flowers (why??), and a woman in a suit who was something to do with transport.

I also agree with whoever said the "Three reasons" was a waste of space. We were told we had come to the "fun" part of the presentation but it seemed like pretty pictures and not much else - certainly I didn't feel like I was having fun.  

The worst thing of all, I thought, was that annoying song "We want the Games".  It just sounded petulant.  We are Paris, we want it, so hand it over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, there were too many white men in suits everywhere, 99% of whom had clearly never broken into a run in their lives - unless you count sprinting backwards from the Maginot Line.   And those random old men standing round at the beginning and the end looked like disoriented escapees from a retirement home.  

I counted only two token women in the whole presentation, and both were consigned to video: Catherine Deneuve, peering out from behind a huge bunch of flowers (why??), and a woman in a suit who was something to do with transport.

I also agree with whoever said the "Three reasons" was a waste of space. We were told we had come to the "fun" part of the presentation but it seemed like pretty pictures and not much else - certainly I didn't feel like I was having fun.  

The worst thing of all, I thought, was that annoying song "We want the Games".  It just sounded petulant.  We are Paris, we want it, so hand it over.

As a piece of cinematography art it was smart clever classy stuff, but the IOC wasn't looking for a piece of polished film editing and CGI effects, it was looking for a city to host the XXX Olympiad with vision and passion.

Paris, showed just how far out of touch it was with what was required. The film was just that, a film, and it was all staged managed from those shouting "we want the games" to the men in dark suits pretentiously shaking hands with each other at the beginning. Then we went from this romantic professional production to the contrasting several grim and uncomfortable, slightly slimy,  funeral directors/car salesmen trying to explain that the IOC could "trust France"

As I watched, I suddenly realised London was in with a greater chance than ever. In attempting to play it safe Paris had believed the publicity that the Games were theirs to lose. In actual fact the Games have to be won, however many times Paris has bid in the past, and winning requires passion, vision, genuine enthusiasm, humanity and reality. Technically, Paris scored highly, but in these areas it was pretty short of the mark. It's a hard lesson, but it has made me think the IOC has actually changed for the better -and it's not just because London won, it's because the IOC was prepared to be courageous rather than take the safe bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually thought the Paris presentation was not that bad. I loved the music that was used and the tune did stay in my head for a while....until the decision.

Basically, you can only judge the Paris presentation properly when you compare it to the London presentation...there really was no contest. I am trying not to be bias but I found the London presentation to be heartfelt and inspiring. The plan was dynamic and was delivered with passion and emotion. The Paris presentation lacked much of that although I did find it to be very slick but will little of the "kickass factor". I think they just decided to play it tooooooo safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the presentation had that sense of entitlement, it was just too cautious and was in fact the opposite of the kind of arrogance people accuse France of posessing.  It was competent and confident, but not overly so.

In the end, I think this demonstrates the power of the presentations.  I truly believe that many IOC members are undecided going into the vote and they are then swayed by emotionalism and passion.  They are only human, after all.

The two most passionate and emotional bids came from London and Madrid (although Moscow tried that card but came short due to the language problems).  And look at the result.  London won.  Madrid took the lead on the 3rd ballot.

And two years ago, PyeongChang nearly won the Olympic Games because of a sappy emotional presentation and Salzburg fell on the first ballot with a sad 16 votes because of a presentation that seemed like a recycled version of the 1964 Innsbruck presentation.

The bid has to be competent and technical, but the presentation has to be "WOW".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...