Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
msp2032

NHS segment

Recommended Posts

I enjoyed the queen throwing herself out of the helicopter but is have preferred a smile.

Meant to type "I'd have preferred a smile".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the queen throwing herself out of the helicopter but is have preferred a smile.

Meant to type "I'd have preferred a smile".

How do you know? There wasn't a camera close-up when "she" jumped out. A "smile" might've been there. ;)

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that ANY attempt to consider Mr. Bean's Chariots of Fire performance a nod to London's previous Olympics is totally baseless to the point of being ridiculous.

A bit harsh - especially since what you wrote was mistakable. I didn't know that you meant London's previous Games with "GB's previous brushes with Olympic history".

It's true - bearing in mind that London was the first three-time host of the senior Olympic Games, it was pretty poor to have the cauldron's final position (which wasn't even unveiled until after the ceremony) as only reference to the 1948 Games. The interesting thing was, though, that they had the suffragettes' march and the Windrush in the Pandemonium segment. Those took place in 1908 and 1948. I wonder whether those were deliberate references at least to the two previous London Olympic years. One might ask then why they didn't have at least athletes in contemporary costumes run along the suffragettes and the Windrush in order to have at least a small reference to the 1908 and 1948 Games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit harsh - especially since what you wrote was mistakable. I didn't know that you meant London's previous Games with "GB's previous brushes with Olympic history".

It's true - bearing in mind that London was the first three-time host of the senior Olympic Games, it was pretty poor to have the cauldron's final position (which wasn't even unveiled until after the ceremony) as only reference to the 1948 Games. The interesting thing was, though, that they had the suffragettes' march and the Windrush in the Pandemonium segment. Those took place in 1908 and 1948. I wonder whether those were deliberate references at least to the two previous London Olympic years. One might ask then why they didn't have at least athletes in contemporary costumes run along the suffragettes and the Windrush in order to have at least a small reference to the 1908 and 1948 Games.

I didn't make that comment about "previous brushes". Baron did. It did sound as though you saw Mr Bean's Chariots of Fire comedy sketch as representative if Britain's storied Olympic history and I don't see that at all. I also think its quite a stretch to argue that the cauldron was any kind of reference to 1948.

Matygs, I agree that the London OC was short on Olympic connections.

I don't agree that it was stadium theater. Beijing and Athens were stadium theater. London relied so heavily on close-ups and details captured only on film that it did not have the large scale impact and clarity that stadium theater needs. I felt Danny Boyle's biggest problem was an inability to understand the scale and nature of his medium -- a live stadium spectacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think its quite a stretch to argue that the cauldron was any kind of reference to 1948.

Well, Thomas Heatherwick himself mentioned that:

Heatherwick continued: “There is a precedent of the 1948 Games of the cauldron set within the stadium, to one side with the spectators, and with the technology we now have that didn’t exist in 1948 it can be shared with everyone in the Olympic Park with screens."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-2181002/London-2012-Olympics-Cauldron-moved-view-outside.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But 1948 was certainly not the only Games to do that.

Even if it were, are you really going to argue this is sufficient acknowledgement of London's previous two Olympics? One interview seen by a tiny percentage of Olympic viewers in which Heatherwick mentions that the 1948 cauldron was low and off to the side as well? That's enough acknowledgement of London's Olympic history? Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does there have to be acknowledgment of London's Olympic history?!

Everyone knows we've hosted it three times.

1. I dunno. Why did the Queen mark her Jubilee Year? WHy do people celebrate their 25th, 40th 50th, etc., etc., anniversaries? Because it is customary.

The IOC is a very history-conscious organization. The Greeks like to recall the ancient roots of the Games. Why do they do the flashbacks of previous Games?

It is a historic milestone that the modern Era Games have returned for a 3rd time to a city because the iOC, as an int'l organization, likes to spread the Games around. So it is quite a feat that London (well, in my book, the 3rd city to have had 3 Games).

2. No. Not everybody knows that. Only Olympic followers who sort of know what the hosting histories have been. I'm sure on your first exposure to the Olympics, there were may things you didn't know until later.

Heatherwick's reference as to its placement is sooooo weak. As Athens said, it wasn't the ONLY time that it was placed on the stadium floor. A few others followed.

Plus, without a reference to the war, the Paralympics might never have happened. At least this was referenced properly in the Paralympics Opening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it was acknowledged in the speeches. If it wasn't acknowledged enough other than then it seems everyone survived this terrible oversight!

That wasn't enough. That's why Boyle & team are being taken to task in this post-mortem. It was a wasted opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it was acknowledged in the speeches. If it wasn't acknowledged enough other than then it seems everyone survived this terrible oversight!

It would've been less bothersome if the rest of the OC had seemed more Olympic. Instead it focused on less familiar details of British culture, tried to cover way too much territory and did so in a confusing, disorganized way that seemed pretty independent of the Olympic Games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't enough. That's why Boyle & team are being taken to task in this post-mortem. It was a wasted opportunity.

Yes, but my point is that this "post-mortem" is by a bunch of Olympic obsessives, while back in the real world no one has a problem! Perhaps everything was actually fine, and you're making something out of nothing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but my point is that this "post-mortem" is by a bunch of Olympic obsessives, while back in the real world no one has a problem! Perhaps everything was actually fine, and you're making something out of nothing!

Perhaps; perhaps not. Do films not get reviews? Do you even read critical reviews? The next Olympic Opening is not for another 16 months; so we won't have anything to discuss until then. Besides, it's NOT your thought and energy that goes into it. So what;s your problem?

Yeah, everyone thought that Hitler was going to be satisfied with having the Sudetenland. It's that "everything is ok..." that is the problem. So you'll accept anything dished out to you? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha Yeah, and you'll continue to find unimagined holes and pointless flaws in the London opening ceremony for ever, while the rest of the world enjoyed it and moved on with their lives. Have fun with that :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha Yeah, and you'll continue to find unimagined holes and pointless flaws in the London opening ceremony for ever, while the rest of the world enjoyed it and moved on with their lives. Have fun with that :-)

Yeah, funny, but you continue to hang around and kibitz. :rolleyes:

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, conversing with you really doesn't take much time or effort. I've had more taxing encounters with a cheeseburger.

Don't worry, conversing with you really doesn't take much time or effort. I've had more taxing encounters with a cheeseburger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×