Jump to content

GamesBids' London 2012 Opening Ceremony Live Chat


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

London completely throws the OC guidebook out of the window and the traditionalists can't cope with it. I found it to be totally emotional and thought provoking. It was unlike any other opening ceremony I have ever seen, it was absolutely British. The only bit I didn't like was the bit with the music clips. It was just a little disjointed and thrown together for me. The beginning had me mesmerised. Cauldron lighting was off the scale. Really enjoyed Emeli Sande singing, very emotional moment. Loved the coming together of the rings, the humour, the joy. There was a little too much music for me personally and could have done without McCartney at the end. Everything else made me so proud. I don't care for some of the comments on here becuase they are just ridiculously negative and sometimes crass. I will just ignore them and put it down to the fact that some people just found the British way a little too far removed from their own way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some really cool parts... The highlights for me were Mr Beans appearance and the lighting of the flame. The lighting effects inside the stadium were really cool as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Loved the artistic segment - you don't expect it to make you laugh at times, but the tone was perfect. The athletes parade though long was well short of the usual two hour mark, so full marks.

The cauldron - no quibbles with the youngsters nominated by legends concept, but am annoyed that David Beckham had such a prominent role with Steve Redgrave the only other torchbearer bar the youngsters. If he'd been leading it towards 5-6 Olympians it would be quite cool, but he wasn't - though it's definately the best arrival of the flame in years. I'd rather it climax with a permanent cauldron too - a temporary fixture just doesn't seem right.

Also disappointed that the Olympic Flag segment was hijacked by do-gooders, especially with our Olympic legends not directly involved in the final stage of the torch relay. For me though the Olympic Flag is a great way to acknowledge sports stars like Beckham who are national figures but not through Olympic success.

All in all though a brilliant night and any complaints about the formal proceedings towards the end is completely overshadowed by the brilliant artistic ceremony in the first half.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, it is NBC's turn to broadcast the ceremony, while the athletes prepare for their games/matches the next several days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

my streaming just went out.

Well, I was right about it coming out of the hole. Missed on the city/river burning.

Good job, United Britain!! Too bad Boyle messed up on most of the Artistic portion. But the Protocol parts seemed to have gone well.

No one could've guessed the whole pass-on-to-the-generation idea. Why 7?

OK; re the Artistic portion. Green & Pleasant was an OK idea to open with...but its spirit and energy barely got going into anything joyful...when it was immediately aborted and everyone started dismantling the set. And then, quickly turning it over to the Dark, Satanic Mills was laborious to watch. It was a mish-mash. There was too much activity going on. It was like being at Kings Cross or Victoria stations at rush hour. The TV cameras could not seem to do justice to the rushed change-over. Who was where? What was happening? And before the various sections were getting introduced, it was cut to another one. It was just too turbulent.

NHS section was cute; I liked the bedtime-story idea...but I still don't understand why the NHS was singled out? I mean Danny Boyle's quirky idea? yeah, it was nice to see the Childcatcher character there from CHITTY CHITTY, but where was Food Glorious Food? Why could it not have been a salute to the British nanny instead? The doctors and nurses doing the jitterbug on the side was...uhmmm...a little too wacky?? (My cousin's wife once worked at that Greater Ormond Hospital.)

The one moment that got me was the First one-minute of silence for ALL the fallen (I guess that would've included the victims of 1972). I quite choked up on that. But then they had to have a 2nd moment of silence?? Kinda too much.

Now, the Contemporary bit. Lousy; been there; done it. One has seen that in a dozen TV shows, rock concerts, etc.,etc. And seemed such a try-too-hard attempt to honor the internet. Yeah, I guess mod/rock/grunge Britain or whatever just isn't my scene. Hated the grunge-Quebec segment in Vancouver, too.

Did like that song & ballet just before the Parade of Nations. Who was that singer & what was the song?

When the O flag came in, there was no synchro of who was who and the cameras. And Ali's presence was completely unnecessary. What for???

Overall, it could've been grander, more glorious...and still quirky and funny under a more traditional creative mind's tutelege...not an edgy, flavor-of-the-moment movie director. So what if he was from the area??

Oh well, it was OK.

Sorry for the boule-post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that they managed to get so much British pop of the past 50 years in it. Liked the music generally.

Yeah, definitely one that would frustrate the traditionalists. That's probably why I liked it a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

green and pleasent-amazing n beautiful,but it just happen less then 5minutes,

satanic mills- wow..love the chimney,look like real industry area

olympic ring- amazing cinematography, but old technic

kids dream (nhs)- so so

modern music- i dont like it,to 90'

love story- bad and booo..

cauldron- jawdroping,hair rising and blownaway..!

fireworks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it was an overload of British culture and was difficult for those who are not British to understand, and thats why you see this disconnect between British and International members.

Possibly so, but, given my long-held views about these events, I find myself wondering why it matters at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comic Book Store Guy: Worst Olympic opening ceremony ever! (Well to me it could have easily been better, much better!)

Augh, where to begin? It was good to present the artistic part (the first half) of the ceremony as a chronological concept, going from rural farming life (there was no real emphasis on the live animals! They should have shown more of them), to the industrial age, British literature (and the NHS), through to film, Television (and the British family), modern music and technology. But there were plenty of elements that just make you cringe. The transition from rural to industrial was a tad too slow, the so-called villains of literature only to be defeated by a swarm of Merry Poppins? There should have been more iconic British literary characters performed in costume wandering around the performance and such.

The love story was pointless and the bombardment of graphics on your TV screen (I know, echoing social media, innovative perhaps, but it gets annoying) seemed unnecessary. The references to film and TV are nicely projected, though there could have been more, perhaps even actual performers in costume. Rowan Atkinson's role in the Chariots of Fire segment was nicely done and a good example of British humor. The family story was nice, but as I pointed out earlier, the love story was really pointless.

Choice of songs, some good, most of which are bad. Oh, I forgot to mention the lackluster rendition of the British National Anthem (kudos to them deaf kids, but seriously, it should have been something grander!)? There was that part as a homage to Indian culture, augh. Then you have the moments silence and the memory wall deal, surely this could have been done more clearer and prior or after the "dove" segment? They could have had a reference to the Munich Massacre, not only due to it being the 40th anniversary (I understand that the organizers felt it didn't fit in with the ceremony), buy showing some footage and using the segment to denounce violence and call for world peace.

I'm sure there's plenty of little bits I missed, but I want to talk about the cauldron now and the final torchbearers. Sir Steve Redgrave was a good choice, as where the other key athletes present, but the use of kids was just augh. It should have been very dramatic, perhaps referencing the home nations with having a torchbearer coming from each, passing the torch along, then an iconic Londoner lighting the "cauldron". The cauldron itself IMO, was very ugly and lackluster compared to other cauldron lighting's in the past. I understand the supposed symbolism of it, but it seemed too hokey, corny and cheap. Certainly not the dramatic climax we expect from these things. Sir Paul McCartney's rendition of Hey Jude was nice, but it seemed too dragged along when the audience was supposed to participate.

On a side note, some other things I disliked were: The nations' "name boards", should have been the traditional placard, or heck, something high-tech, the LED around the stadium, though nice, was IMO vastly underutilized, the planting of each nation's flag on the green (which seemed to be in just any old order) and of course the cauldron itself.

7 years? Ok, so perhaps they weren't allowed to reference past bids, but in reality, it took them 27 years to get to this stage if one recall's Britain's first proper bid to get the games again for Birmingham, 1992.

All in all, it was pretty lackluster to me, I was expecting more, segments could have gone for longer or had more references in them, it should have been a real spectacle. Oh the initial countdown on the video screens was nice, using actual numbers found around London, how clever, the proper countdown with balloons seemed unnecessary.

Well, excuse this hastily typed review, given that it started 5:30 AEST here. If I were to give it a rating out of ten, then it would be 5/10. Something half baked, which could have seen much more. Those who criticized the Vancouver 2010 opening ceremony, forget about it, London has won first place in that department. I'm sure the Frenchies will be having a field day!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, catching the Queen at awkward moments, was...well, awkward.

Cauldron? I sort of thought it would be like some 360-degree flower. But it just seemed too much. 204 petals? 120 would've done the trick. And if the story's true, for that they had to get Cameron's permission?? What for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cauldron itself IMO, was very ugly and lackluster compared to other cauldron lighting's in the past.

You have got to be joking! That was far and away one of the best cauldron lightings I have ever seen!

Oh I forgot to mention, on a GOOD note, there was little to NO reference to that ghastly official London 2012 logo! :)

Tell me, is there ANYTHING AT ALL you find good about London 2012?? Why don't you start writing your review of the Games right now so as to assure us all how utterly awful it will be compared to previous Olympics?? I'm sure it will make you feel really good!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cauldron? I sort of thought it would be like some 360-degree flower. But it just seemed too much. 204 petals? 120 would've done the trick. And if the story's true, for that they had to get Cameron's permission?? What for?

You've got me puzzled too. Where did you read that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have got to be joking! That was far and away one of the best cauldron lightings I have ever seen!

Tell me, is there ANYTHING AT ALL you find good about London 2012?? Why don't you start writing your review of the Games right now so as to assure us all how utterly awful it will be compared to previous Olympics?? I'm sure it will make you feel really good!

I guess, the cauldron was down to mainly the choice of lighter(s) and the shape it ended up in the end. If it was to properly represent a flower, they could have done it as such. A great place to place the cauldron would have been where the uprooted tree was. They could have conceived a way for the "cauldron" to move from the center and head up where the flags are (which of course would have needed to have been arranged differently).

Umm, to answer your second question, I did mention something good. The lack of official logo (as far as I was aware of) anywhere in the ceremony. I never once stated that the games would be utterly awful, just that most elements (mostly related to branding, design and now ceremonies) just plain suck. On a side note, if it were Manchester 1996 (unlikely), 2000 (still unlikely) or heck even you guys hosting these games I'm sure it would be 10, no 100, no 1000 times better!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, to answer your second question, I did mention something good. The lack of official logo (as far as I was aware of) anywhere in the ceremony.

That's not mentioning anything good. That's merely approving the absence of something else you disliked. Not the same thing at all!

I never once stated that the games would be utterly awful, just that most elements (mostly related to branding, design and now ceremonies) just plain suck.

Well, you've clearly hated everything about London 2012 so far so I'm reasonably confident the Games themselves won't be far behind. I'm sorry for you that Paris didn't win the bid for 2012 which no doubt would have made you a lot happier. Anyway, as I suggest, get on and write that damning review about the Games in general and save yourself needless time in 3 weeks. We both know that it is never going to report anything positive.

On a side note, if it were Manchester 1996 (unlikely), 2000 (still unlikely) or heck even you guys hosting these games I'm sure it would be 10, no 100, no 1000 times better!

Who's we guys? I happen to be from Manchester and, sure, I would have liked for my city to have had an opportunity to stage the Olympics. But it was not to be. But if Manchester had been chosen, I'm reasonably sure it would have done as good a job as London will probably do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got me puzzled too. Where did you read that?

Oh, that was one of the story-clues raging here that it would be massively spectacular. Even with a translated story from an Italian press source and a mysterious Mexican woman who was the go-between and carrying either Cameron's, Coe's or Beckham's love-child.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you saw the Mexican outfit? :& It was the most horrible I've ever scene... Lack of elegance, that's not the way you should be dressing in the olympics and in London!

The queen's speech... That's what I call brief... Hahaha!

The latest segmente was pretty cool actually, also the "nightmare" part, I love how the used almost every Britisth thing it's famous... My grandpa and I really enjoyed th way you could know what could happen... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comic Book Store Guy: Worst Olympic opening ceremony ever! (Well to me it could have easily been better, much better!)

Augh, where to begin? It was good to present the artistic part (the first half) of the ceremony as a chronological concept, going from rural farming life (there was no real emphasis on the live animals! They should have shown more of them), to the industrial age, British literature (and the NHS), through to film, Television (and the British family), modern music and technology. But there were plenty of elements that just make you cringe. The transition from rural to industrial was a tad too slow, the so-called villains of literature only to be defeated by a swarm of Merry Poppins? There should have been more iconic British literary characters performed in costume wandering around the performance and such.

The love story was pointless and the bombardment of graphics on your TV screen (I know, echoing social media, innovative perhaps, but it gets annoying) seemed unnecessary. The references to film and TV are nicely projected, though there could have been more, perhaps even actual performers in costume. Rowan Atkinson's role in the Chariots of Fire segment was nicely done and a good example of British humor. The family story was nice, but as I pointed out earlier, the love story was really pointless.

Choice of songs, some good, most of which are bad. Oh, I forgot to mention the lackluster rendition of the British National Anthem (kudos to them deaf kids, but seriously, it should have been something grander!)? There was that part as a homage to Indian culture, augh. Then you have the moments silence and the memory wall deal, surely this could have been done more clearer and prior or after the "dove" segment? They could have had a reference to the Munich Massacre, not only due to it being the 40th anniversary (I understand that the organizers felt it didn't fit in with the ceremony), buy showing some footage and using the segment to denounce violence and call for world peace.

I'm sure there's plenty of little bits I missed, but I want to talk about the cauldron now and the final torchbearers. Sir Steve Redgrave was a good choice, as where the other key athletes present, but the use of kids was just augh. It should have been very dramatic, perhaps referencing the home nations with having a torchbearer coming from each, passing the torch along, then an iconic Londoner lighting the "cauldron". The cauldron itself IMO, was very ugly and lackluster compared to other cauldron lighting's in the past. I understand the supposed symbolism of it, but it seemed too hokey, corny and cheap. Certainly not the dramatic climax we expect from these things. Sir Paul McCartney's rendition of Hey Jude was nice, but it seemed too dragged along when the audience was supposed to participate.

On a side note, some other things I disliked were: The nations' "name boards", should have been the traditional placard, or heck, something high-tech, the LED around the stadium, though nice, was IMO vastly underutilized, the planting of each nation's flag on the green (which seemed to be in just any old order) and of course the cauldron itself.

7 years? Ok, so perhaps they weren't allowed to reference past bids, but in reality, it took them 27 years to get to this stage if one recall's Britain's first proper bid to get the games again for Birmingham, 1992.

All in all, it was pretty lackluster to me, I was expecting more, segments could have gone for longer or had more references in them, it should have been a real spectacle. Oh the initial countdown on the video screens was nice, using actual numbers found around London, how clever, the proper countdown with balloons seemed unnecessary.

Well, excuse this hastily typed review, given that it started 5:30 AEST here. If I were to give it a rating out of ten, then it would be 5/10. Something half baked, which could have seen much more. Those who criticized the Vancouver 2010 opening ceremony, forget about it, London has won first place in that department. I'm sure the Frenchies will be having a field day!

Agree and disagree. I wasn't a fan of the farm industrial revolution didn't find it related at all. I understand the whole idea transformation but it wouldve suited better if it was for 2000 olympics. What's happened in past millennium. farmland to rapid growth to technology to internet phones texting twitter random pop up's on a screen...

Didn't think it matched but least i understood the idea.

Highlights: Mr Bean was hilarious, i enjoyed the countdown in the stadium and balloons popping and am going to remember that 2 of them didn't pop. David Beckham, Daniel Craig, the queen and her corgies also funny and the parachuting. Loved the fireworks but my favourite was the cauldron. Great meaning and love that it's going back to each country. Also found random shots of the Queen looking extra bored hilarious too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...