baron-pierreIV Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ejaycat said: LA city limits didn't sit well with some LA city council people. Those guys on the LA CIty Council now won't be the same ones in 2025 when the decisions will have to be made. Also, I looked back on my notes. LA is NOT the "entertainment center of the world" that tRuffmp spouts about. LA is not like NYC, London or Las Vegas, where at the snap of the fingers, you can come up with a corps of 50 seasoned dancers/gypsies who can put out a knockout show in 48 hours! In that regard, LA is more like Sochi. Starting in 1973-74 when Warners was filming MAME, choreographer Onna White was already hard-pressed to find like 30 singing-dancing Anglo-Saxon southern-type beaus locally to fill the big MAME number. Flash-forward 10 years later for LA 1984 . David Wolper was similarly hard-pressed looking for professional dancers for the Opening, not even being picky for specific racial types. They had to import around 300 "professional" dancers from Las Vegas, New York and elsewhere. Because LA/Hollywood is a strong "entertainment" union town, Wolper & the LAOOC had to respect union rules which stipulate that musicians and those requiring specific types of movement, had to be considered "pros," have the proper credentials, and had to be recruited via the unions' rolls. What that meant was that if the LA local union could not supply them, LAOOC had to reach out to the sister Equity and AFTRA unions in Vegas, New York and elsewhere) and hire their available dancers. Those then had to be transported to LA; paid per diem; and housed as needed. So, like Sochi, the young, lithe performers who moved liked pros (the cadets, for example), were imported from Kazan, St. Pete and Moscow. And now they want to double-up the Ceremonies????? Also, BTW, LAOOC 1984 was headquartered in Culver City. OK, there was the satellite design office in downtown LA; but Ueberroth and the LAOOC worked out of Culver City, outside of LA City limits. So I don't know why the present LA CIty Council is suddenly so huffy about what happens where??? Edited January 17, 2017 by baron-pierreIV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 I think L.A. might be biting off more than it can chew here. Perhaps it's an effort on the part of L.A. to distinguish itself from the Paris bid, maybe to offer something different? Still, in the end, no matter how much spin is put on this, one stadium will be playing second fiddle. Why not just have the opening ceremonies in Inglewood and the closing ceremonies at the Coliseum or vice versa? Seems like L.A. would still be able to get their concept of linking past and present that way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, stryker said: . Why not just have the opening ceremonies in Inglewood and the closing ceremonies at the Coliseum or vice versa? Because they will have already "loaded" all the theatrical, production-related materiel at CofC -- which have all been vetted and certified by OSHA, the unions, etc., etc. Why would they have to duplicate that setting at the Coliseum? They don't need the track for Closing. The marathon winners can just as easily be medalled at CofC, as they would be at the Coliseum. Just a shot of the old cauldron going out. And that you can easily incorporate into the whole feed by just cutting to a camera at Memorial. Another reason, I suspect, that LA 2024/8 is now jumping at the chance to lock in Ceremonies at Inglewood, is precisely, so they can skirt around the STRICT union rules that govern such events in LA CIty proper environs. Inglewood might not be part of that union scene, therefore making it easier for a future LAOOC to stage their Ceremonies with less union hassle. Edited January 17, 2017 by baron-pierreIV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 26 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said: tRuffmp 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 And it's so silly and futile of LA City Council to "box in" the would-be producers of Ceremonies 2024/8. #1 - Will LA be back for 2028? #2 - For either year, all the Production company deputized to produce the shows, has to do is plead their case before the IOC (and IOC Broadcast Services) which will be most sympathetic to their plight. The IOC tells the Org Committee that it has to be done at Inglewood; and that completely neutralizes the LA City Council. So I don't understand these pointless resolutions of the present LA City Council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 8 minutes ago, RuFF said: The IOC can say hold the Olympic Ceremonies at the Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park and the LA City Council can say they won't guarantee the games. Nope. The "guarantee" is locked in when the Host City contract is signed. I mean "Los Angeles" is already in the name of the event. Why would a City Council jeopardize the whole shebang just for the venue of the Ceremonies? Also, the IOC owns the Games and the shows, so it has final say on how and where these are staged. I mean the LA mayor will be there to wave the flag. This is just early flim-flammery of the LA City Council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 12 minutes ago, RuFF said: Btw, you guys sure are stupid arguing points you think when it's in plain English why. Uhmmm . . . yeah. Said the one who can't read in-between the lines. Your toupee on too tight?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, RuFF said: Baron, you might think the IOC is this powerful entity who has all sorts of say, but we are talking about Los Angeles. Ask the NFL how that worked out for them. One by one the sporting organizations in LA have had to pay to play. The LA2024 committee is obviously not exempt, and the IOC ends up an afterthought, though nobody will ever say that. Ya know, it's the SOCOG that keeps knocking on the IOC's door; not the other way around. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 1 hour ago, RuFF said: The IOC can say hold the Olympic Ceremonies at the Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park and the LA City Council can say they won't guarantee the games. That's why this proposal is on the table and it's not hard to see why. And if what's going on in Budapest as far as Nolympia, the IOC moving in that direction may result on only 1 city, Paris, making it to the finish line. 35 minutes ago, RuFF said: Lord have mercy. I guess nobody ready the part about the notice of memorándum and that section where the city kept the ability to "veto" venue changes. Baron, you might think the IOC is this powerful entity who has all sorts of say, but we are talking about Los Angeles. Ask the NFL how that worked out for them. One by one the sporting organizations in LA have had to pay to play. The LA2024 committee is obviously not exempt, and the IOC ends up an afterthought, though nobody will ever say that. We saw the memorandum. That's between the city council and the bid committee. The IOC is not involved in that. You know what the IOC has the power to do? Not award Los Angeles the Olympics and give them to Paris instead. No one is talking about LA dropping out of the race (other than you, right now). If the IOC votes for Los Angeles, then yes, they have to work within the confines of these agreements that are being put in place. If something like this means that IOC voters are more inclined to work with Paris than Los Angeles (we don't know that 1 way or the other, nor am I speculating on what this means), then LA doesn't get the games and this agreement is a moot point. Los Angeles only gets the Olympics if the IOC gives it to them in the first place. In that regard, they are pretty darn powerful. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) 50 minutes ago, RuFF said: the SOCOG (?) IS NOT the City of Los Angeles. So you're right, the IOC can award the games to Paris as that is their ultimate trump card, but clearly LA has a trump card of their own. You don't know what the SOCCOG is? That's the So. Calif Committee for the Olympic Games. They are the ones who put up the bids and ask the USOC to endorse them. What is LA's trump card? The IOC makes all the major decisions. Whatever LA decides -- if it involves their (the IOC's) Games, they (the IOC) have the final say; NOT LA. tRuFFmp, you know far less than you presume to. Really La La Land. Edited January 17, 2017 by baron-pierreIV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 17 hours ago, Quaker2001 said: You think people are paying $800 a pop to sit in a stadium that's not actually where the Opening Ceremony is. $100 maybe if there's events and entertainment there, but even that's a stretch. If it's pitched as being part of the Opening Ceremony... I honestly don't think $800 is unreasonable. Maybe a bit high.... possibly even too low. But I'm sure the price would be way more than $100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejaycat Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) It's been a busy few days it seems, regarding LA2024's bid. From the LA Times: LA 2024 announces three more competition venues Archery in Inglewood next to CoC stadium: Modern Pentathlon at StubHub in Carson: Mountain Biking at Frank G. Bonelli Regional Park in San Dimas: Link: http://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-la-24-olympics-20170117-story.html Edited January 17, 2017 by ejaycat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 hours ago, zekekelso said: If it's pitched as being part of the Opening Ceremony... I honestly don't think $800 is unreasonable. Maybe a bit high.... possibly even too low. But I'm sure the price would be way more than $100. Depends what they plan on having there. If they can make it a full an integral part of the ceremonies, then they can sell it. But so far it sounds like it's a glorified viewing party once the torch is lit and heads to where the real ceremonies are going on. Perhaps people will be duped into paying for something like that. But $800 seems like a very steep price when at least 90% of the action is happening elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseSaenz Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 8 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said: Depends what they plan on having there. If they can make it a full an integral part of the ceremonies, then they can sell it. But so far it sounds like it's a glorified viewing party once the torch is lit and heads to where the real ceremonies are going on. Perhaps people will be duped into paying for something like that. But $800 seems like a very steep price when at least 90% of the action is happening elsewhere. The Coliseum ceremonies are not the formal ones and should therefore not carry with it the pricetag of the formal ceremonies or parade of nations. It should be a cheaper alternative for those who could not get into the CoC Stadium. Also, it would be almost a down right crime to not integrate the Coliseum as part of the opening or closing ceremonies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 3 hours ago, RuFF said: SCCOG? Idiot. Of course I know what it is, and the SCCOG is not the City of Los Angeles. and LA has a strong say, otherwise it wouldn't be writing veto power into a contract. Cretin!! You think LA is in control of the conversastion? Bwaaah-haha! Not since 1984, dumkopf!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 1 hour ago, JesseSaenz said: The Coliseum ceremonies are not the formal ones and should therefore not carry with it the pricetag of the formal ceremonies or parade of nations. It should be a cheaper alternative for those who could not get into the CoC Stadium. Also, it would be almost a down right crime to not integrate the Coliseum as part of the opening or closing ceremonies. Parade of Nations, speeches and the Olympic Hymn? No thanks, those are the boring parts I lose interest during and go and do chores till their over. I'd take the cheaper tix for the fun parts in that case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejaycat Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 12 minutes ago, Sir Rols said: Parade of Nations, speeches and the Olympic Hymn? No thanks, those are the boring parts I lose interest during and go and do chores till their over. I'd take the cheaper tix for the fun parts in that case. Yeah, the Parade of Nations is so tedious to watch. The 2-stadiums ceremonies proposal could be a logistical nightmare, or it could be an opportunity to get very creative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 3 hours ago, RuFF said: I am not talking about LA dropping out. It was in response to the comment that the IOC can make the venue change, but they can't. They may be influential and if indeed the IOC had that clout we wouldn't be discussing the Coliseum, we would have already moved unilaterally to the Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park. So if you're confident of your logic, riddle me why the Coliseum is still in the conversation and if the IOC can make things happen why haven't they? So you're right, the IOC can award the games to Paris as that is their ultimate trump card, but clearly LA has a trump card of their own. They *may* be influential? Again, there are no ceremonies at either the Coliseum or City of Champions without the IOC. LA may have *a* trump card. The IOC has *the* trump card. This MOU is in place to give the city council some oversight with the LA2024 committee. The city council can overrule the organizing committee from making unwanted changes and that's their protection from things like cost overruns, among other things. But once they present those plans to the IOC, now they're a part of the equation as well. It's been said that the IOC should work more with the bid cities to put together their plans and figure out what's best for everyone involved. But they don't do that and the IOC is not going to concern themselves with every move the respective cities make. So I'm failing to understand your logic here.. you think because the IOC hasn't nixed the 2 stadium idea, that means they don't have the clout to do so? Just because they haven't done anything doesn't mean they don't have the influence to do anything. But thanks for asking us to try and prove a negative. Again, they have the ultimate clout in this. If they aren't happy with what LA is doing, they can and will vote for Paris come September. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseSaenz Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 9 minutes ago, ejaycat said: Yeah, the Parade of Nations is so tedious to watch. The 2-stadiums ceremonies proposal could be a logistical nightmare, or it could be an opportunity to get very creative. Creative is where LA can come in strong. Logistically, it won't be easy, but it also won't be impossible. The Bid group has the luxury of focusing a majority of their time on the games experience since construction for them is ALMOST non existent. Shutting down major LA through ways/streets is also not a tough thing to do. It routinely shuts down entire sections of the city already for Marathons, 5/10/15K runs, the CicLAvia events and other large festivals. Of course integrating it into an Olympic ceremony is a first of its kind, but again, it has the luxury of 7 years. I am certain they can figure it out in less than a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 37 minutes ago, RuFF said: Just in opening and Closing my Ceremonies the LA 2024 plan eclipses the Paris 2024 plans by over double its ticket sales capacity. Taking into account that nearly all permanent venues in LA are for major sporting franchises it's looking as if LA will far outperform Paris in ticketing capacity. Am I imaging this or is there substantially more revenue potential coming from the LA bid? Didn't you say you dislike the idea? Why do I get this sense that if it was Paris who proposed something like that, you would be saying what a terrible idea it is and how it would be a logistical nightmare and LA has a much more sensible idea to just use 1 stadium. But since it's LA who proposed it, what a great idea it must be! Yes, you're imagining things again. You must be on some powerful drugs to think that everything is so awesome about LA's bid. They can do no wrong!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 I'm not one that would go out of their way for an OC ticket. I wouldn't knock it back if I was given one, but I wouldn't pay the big dollars for tix to a show I'm convinced you can watch better on TV. But I know people for whom the OC is THE big ticket item and would, and have, paid or done what it takes to get them. And frankly, if I was one of them, I'd be less than impressed by this arrangement. If you really wanna experience and see the full OC spectacular, here the best you can do is just get half of it, and see the other half no better, and less comfortably, than the billions who are watching it on TV at home. I'd feel a bit cheated, to tell you the truth. If you're so much into the OC, you probably want the full experience - artistic segments, parade, formalities and all. Not some chopped up "choose which half is more important you" compromise. As I said above, if I had to choose, I'd probably got the artistic half - but I'd be pissed I hadn't yet experienced a full, proper OC live. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseSaenz Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, Sir Rols said: I'm not one that would go out of their way for an OC ticket. I wouldn't knock it back if I was given one, but I wouldn't pay the big dollars for tix to a show I'm convinced you can watch better on TV. But I know people for whom the OC is THE big ticket item and would, and have, paid or done what it takes to get them. And frankly, if I was one of them, I'd be less than impressed by this arrangement. If you really wanna experience and see the full OC spectacular, here the best you can do is just get half of it, and see the other half no better, and less comfortably, than the billions who are watching it on TV at home. I'd feel a bit cheated, to tell you the truth. If you're so much into the OC, you probably want the full experience - artistic segments, parade, formalities and all. Not some chopped up "choose which half is more important you" compromise. As I said above, if I had to choose, I'd probably got the artistic half - but I'd be pissed I hadn't yet experienced a full, proper OC live. I have learned that almost everything is better on TV than in real life. NY Times Square Ball Drop, Macy's Fireworks Show, Basketball Games, some concerts, etc. With that said, I would very much like to be in the seats of either stadium TBH. I feel torn beause I love the history at the Coliseum and its open air design, but also want to see the actual cauldron being lit at the new Stadium. Parade of nations can be a bore, especially when the countries you cared to see already passed. But the spectacle before and after that is what has most people glued to the TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 12 minutes ago, Sir Rols said: I'm not one that would go out of their way for an OC ticket. I wouldn't knock it back if I was given one, but I wouldn't pay the big dollars for tix to a show I'm convinced you can watch better on TV. But I know people for whom the OC is THE big ticket item and would, and have, paid or done what it takes to get them. And frankly, if I was one of them, I'd be less than impressed by this arrangement. If you really wanna experience and see the full OC spectacular, here the best you can do is just get half of it, and see the other half no better, and less comfortably, than the billions who are watching it on TV at home. I'd feel a bit cheated, to tell you the truth. If you're so much into the OC, you probably want the full experience - artistic segments, parade, formalities and all. Not some chopped up "choose which half is more important you" compromise. As I said above, if I had to choose, I'd probably got the artistic half - but I'd be pissed I hadn't yet experienced a full, proper OC live. That's part of what I would question here.. are they adding to the experience by having it in both stadiums? Or are you short-changing everyone by splitting it into 2. I don't doubt there are people out there who would buy tickets to the Coliseum for the OC, but I wonder what exactly would be the draw to be there. And will those ticket-holders think it's worth the expense to be in the "other" stadium for the ceremony. Moreover, is this something that would get shown on TV around the world or would it be an afterthought to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 9 minutes ago, RuFF said: I can understand this perspective from the outside looking in, but if there was an event related to the Olympics I think Angelinos would come out to experience it with other Angelinos and visitors. Angelinos love the Olympics and it's not everyday that the Olympics come to your corner of the world. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity for many to take their kids to something like the Opening Ceremony in their very own city. Now I know that sounds rosy but I strongly believe if Angelinos fill the Coliseum for the USC Trojans, or even the Rams, they will fill it for an Opening Ceremony. Of course they would. An OC in any city is a guaranteed sellout. That's why they're always the most expensive and hardest to get tickets at any games. I have no doubt Angelenos would fill all the seats, even if it was for a OC-Half-and-Half. But for the travelling Olympic fanatics and fans, it would definitely be the lesser event for spitting it. And don't forget, the IOC membership are mostly pretty as passionate Olympic fans any anyone on this board. They love their games and its traditions as much as anyone, and probably wuldn't be too happy themselves to miss half the show (and for many, the good part). I think this would be the kind of idea they wouldn't say too much publicly about, but if LA were to win, they'd quietly have a word to the OCOG and organisers and tell them to re-think it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, RuFF said: If in Paris that favorite team will be early in the broadcast. Hopefully Paris would fare better than Rio because that caused a lot of US viewers to tune out. If in LA that favorite team would be later in the broadcast, and you would be more likely to stick around to watch the second half of the Ceremonies. Err, no. The favourite, ie, the home team, ALWAYS marches in last. Oh, I just figured it out. You're referring to where in the host's alphabet the US team comes. Oh come on! You're clutching at straws if you think any IOC member bases their vote on where in the alphabet Team USA would be seeded in any non-US OC. Edited January 18, 2017 by Sir Rols 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.