Olympian2004 Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 They're not official or anything; just posted on some other forum. On which forum? Could you give us a link? And did the person who originally posted those pictures comment on them -- whether it's only his personal guess how the cauldron will look like? If so, then she or he has the same idea like me: A ball-shaped cauldron suspended above the centre of the field, looking like a fireball when lit. But are those wires she/he has drawn as the cauldron's suspension? Well, of course that's not going to happen -- the cauldron needs gas supply. So, if that concept would ever be realised, the cauldron could only be suspended from the gas pipes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 (edited) is that a meteorite? That's what I thought. Oh God, I can hardly wait to see where they will hang the cauldron. Well, of course that's not going to happen -- the cauldron needs gas supply. So, if that concept would ever be realised, the cauldron could only be suspended from the gas pipes. Not to mention, 1 - It's not visible to those outside the arena. 2 - It's not going to hang there for the 11 or 12 days of Athletics 3. They would be hanging other rigging in that space; and 4. It's going to be a large empty space they'll set aside in the middle (i.e., no athletes standing underneath it) for safety reasons. Edited February 11, 2008 by baron-pierreIV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 1 - It's not visible to those outside the arena.2 - It's not going to hang there for the 11 or 12 days of Athletics 3. They would be hanging other rigging in that space; and 4. It's going to be a large empty space they'll set aside in the middle (i.e., no athletes standing underneath it) for safety reasons. 1 - Berlin's, London's, Montreal's and Seoul's cauldrons weren't visible from the arena's outside either. 2 - We already had that before: No javelin, no discus and no hammer in the world flies that high that it reaches the roof level and thus the altitude in which the cauldron would be suspended. 3 - Didn't I already say that wires are impossible to be used for such a cauldron? Or what did you mean? 4 - I suppose that it's practically impossible for sparks to fall down from the cauldron. The cauldron burns clean gas and not wood or magnesium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 2 - We already had that before: No javelin, no discus and no hammer in the world flies that high that it reaches the roof level and thus the altitude in which the cauldron would be suspended. No, I'm thinking other cables for the OC, like cables for mobile overhead cameras, etc. But I still think this is some artist's fancy. It's really too complicated and risky to carry off. And I don't think the IOC would sign off on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 But I still think this is some artist's fancy. It's really too complicated and risky to carry off. And I don't think the IOC would sign off on it. The IOC also signed off on the lighting of the Torino cauldron by an artificial firework instead by the original Olympic Flame. And the IOC signed off on the highly risky (as we all know, it almost went wrong) lighting concept in Sydney. I suppose that the IOC is far more open-minded about innovative and venturous concepts than we assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 (edited) The IOC also signed off on the lighting of the Torino cauldron by an artificial firework instead by the original Olympic Flame. And the IOC signed off on the highly risky (as we all know, it almost went wrong) lighting concept in Sydney. I suppose that the IOC is far more open-minded about innovative and venturous concepts than we assume. Oh, the Torino fireworks are nothing. Fireworks close to performers have been used before. Sydney was pretty sound structurally. The glitch in the ascent was not a safety issue (there was a lot of water close by in case that was needed); nor was its sitting above the stadium as had been done in many a past Olympiad. Nope, I don't think BOCOG is going to light it that way. Besides if this were truly a secret, I don't think BOCOG would let loose a few of its renderings. So, these I believe are rogue renderings which can be done by anyone -- certainly not from official sources. If anything, this could be a red herring to throw people off the scent of the real scheme. Edited February 11, 2008 by baron-pierreIV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY20?? Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 On which forum? Could you give us a link? And did the person who originally posted those pictures comment on them -- whether it's only his personal guess how the cauldron will look like? I originally saw these pics at Skyscrapercity.com. The one who posted them mentioned that they were originally posted on a Chinese forum - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.p...068&page=14. He later gave a link to that Chinese forum - http://tieba.baidu.com/f?kw=%C4%F1%B3%B2. So, I suppose if anyone can translate for us we may be able to learn more about their authenticity, if any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 Oh, the Torino fireworks are nothing. Fireworks close to performers have been used before. I didn't mention Torino as an example for a risky cauldron lighting -- but as an example for the fact that the IOC is willing to be innovative and even accepts the breaking of traditions (such as that the original Olympic Flame should light the cauldron or should at least enter the vicinity of the cauldron -- I say that because at least in Albertville, Barcelona and Lillehammer it probably wasn't the original Olympic Flame which actually lit the cauldron). Sydney was pretty sound structurally. The glitch in the ascent was not a safety issue (there was a lot of water close by in case that was needed); nor was its sitting above the stadium as had been done in many a past Olympiad. OK, it wasn't risky in terms of safety for the viewers and athletes. But it was risky in terms of the mechanism. Nope, I don't think BOCOG is going to light it that way. Besides if this were truly a secret, I don't think BOCOG would let loose a few of its renderings. So, these I believe are rogue renderings which can be done by anyone -- certainly not from official sources. If anything, this could be a red herring to throw people off the scent of the real scheme. No one has ever said that those are official BOCOG pictures. NY20?? already stressed that when he posted the pictures. But although they probably only depict the personal guess of some random guy -- it could turn out that his guess was correct. I still can't imagine your scenario with some kind of ceremonial cauldron and then with the whole Olympic Flame being shifted to a cauldron outside the stadium after the opening ceremony. (That was your most recent guess, wasn't it?) The symbolism of the cauldron lighting is always that the Olympic Flame stays at that place, creating a continuity for the Games by constantly burning there for the whole course of the Games. But if you shifted the Flame's locaction meanwhile, that symbolic continuity would be destroyed. So I'm 99 % certain that there'll be only one cauldron. And I don't expect it to be a tower outside the stadium -- BOCOG won't do bland and simply copy Torino's cauldron concept. So, just like they want to amaze us with bombastic arrangements in the cultural programme of the opening ceremony and with lavish fireworks, they'll most likely want to amaze us with the cauldron lighting as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 I originally saw these pics at Skyscrapercity.com. The one who posted them mentioned that they were originally posted on a Chinese forum - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.p...068&page=14. He later gave a link to that Chinese forum - http://tieba.baidu.com/f?kw=%C4%F1%B3%B2. So, I suppose if anyone can translate for us we may be able to learn more about their authenticity, if any. Thanks for the information. Wow, skyscrapercity.com has some great pictures of the stadium. I especially like this one (although I'm actually not very fond of the stadium's exterior design): Very impressive. And here are two closer looks at the hole in the centre of the field: Looks like it will contain a lot of goodies for the opening ceremony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.x Posted February 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 maybe they're keeping a dragon inside the hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY20?? Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 A big, surprising, Sydney-esque cauldron-finale would be my best guess for what that hole will be used for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 maybe they're keeping a dragon inside the hole. or chinese labourers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 (edited) or chinese labourers or white sex slaves... Oh, confirmed. Those renderings are just one guy's idea -- vs. what we're seeing from photos. So, again, that 'floating' cauldron is a no-go as far as I'm concerned. Edited February 12, 2008 by baron-pierreIV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 1 - Berlin's, London's, Montreal's and Seoul's cauldrons weren't visible from the arena's outside either. So that's it, the last time was 1988 (which would be 20 years ago). So it appears that the succeeding Org Committees seem to be adhering to the IOC's stipulation that the main cauldron must be seen from outside the Ceremonies stadium; and/or the IOC has really become firm on that rule since 1988. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 So that's it, the last time was 1988 (which would be 20 years ago). So it appears that the succeeding Org Committees seem to be adhering to the IOC's stipulation that the main cauldron must be seen from outside the Ceremonies stadium; and/or the IOC has really become firm on that rule since 1988. The IOC also requires the Olympic Flame to be visible for everyone in the stadium -- but accepted Torino's cauldron (which was invisible for those in Stadio Olimpico having it behind their backs or sitting right below the stadium's roof) nevertheless. When there are architectural restrictions, you simply can't have everything. And maybe the suspended cauldron would have a flame high enough to be seen even from outside the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 O2004 - how was Lillehammer's not lit by the original flame? The Nordic flame idea was trashed by the IOC because of Greek protest and the lighting was just HRH Haakon standing beside it and lighting it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 O2004 - how was Lillehammer's not lit by the original flame? The Nordic flame idea was trashed by the IOC because of Greek protest and the lighting was just HRH Haakon standing beside it and lighting it? Take a look at the lighting moment again (at 7:36 in this clip): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EuYORVw4cA The fire erupts at the left side of the cauldron first, although Prince Haakon dipped the torch into the cauldron at its right side. So they obviously ignited the cauldron "artificially". I don't know why they did this, since the torch had direct contact with the cauldron (unlike in Albertville or Barcelona). But I guess that's one of many Olympic mysteries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 And you also can't explain that effect with the wind direction, so as if the flame has simply been blown to the left side of the cauldron first -- because in fact, the wind blew in the opposite direction, to the right. You can see that in the seconds before the lighting moment when Haakon lifts the torch for everyone to see: the flame is clearly blown to the right and also Haakon's condensed breath flies to the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 (edited) 1. When there are architectural restrictions, you simply can't have everything. 2. And maybe the suspended cauldron would have a flame high enough to be seen even from outside the stadium. 1. I agree with you on the architectural restrictions. Not much one can do about that. 2. So like one of those burning oilfields during Iraq-Kuwait I? It would kinda negate all the air-pollution efforts Beijing is doing to prepare the city for the Games, wouldn't it? And speaking of Seoul, their historic wooden gate burned down yesterday. So, I don't think Beijing will aim for a flame shooting up some 150+ ft in the air. This hanging idea is a risky fantasy fraught with danger. Edited February 12, 2008 by baron-pierreIV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 And you also can't explain that effect with the wind direction, so as if the flame has simply been blown to the left side of the cauldron first -- because in fact, the wind blew in the opposite direction, to the right. You can see that in the seconds before the lighting moment when Haakon lifts the torch for everyone to see: the flame is clearly blown to the right and also Haakon's condensed breath flies to the right. You would be surprised at how gas can lit by just heat, I have had enough experience with that. Barcelona's you can argue that the flame went over the cauldron but it did ignite the gas coming out of it. Albertville's and Atlanta's are sketchy and Torino's is blasphemous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 And you also can't explain that effect with the wind direction, so as if the flame has simply been blown to the left side of the cauldron first -- because in fact, the wind blew in the opposite direction, to the right. You can see that in the seconds before the lighting moment when Haakon lifts the torch for everyone to see: the flame is clearly blown to the right and also Haakon's condensed breath flies to the right. I agree. That lighting was a fraud. It should be struck/erased from historical record and categorized as an 'Intercalated' (i.e., fake) Ceremony -- thereby making the Salt Lake City 2002 OC the best and most authentic WOG Opening on record!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Mata Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 About Lillehammer, one could say the Olympic Flame actually lit the burners inside the cauldron and someone pressed the button to make the gas pressure higher, creating the big flame. Although i'm not convinced in that theory either. This was done in Athens, when the flame touched the cauldron and the burners were lit. The flame got bigger only as the cauldron rose to it's place, otherwise, Kaklamenakis would be hurt if the cauldron produced a fire breath as he placed the torch inside it. This wasn't the problem in Barcelona because Rebollo didn't had to be close to the cauldron to light it. The cauldron bursted as the arrow passed by it, remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 You would be surprised at how gas can lit by just heat, I have had enough experience with that. So why didn't the Lillehammer cauldron light up where the heat was the strongest, then -- at the side where the torch was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 So why didn't the Lillehammer cauldron light up where the heat was the strongest, then -- at the side where the torch was? gas may have come out on the side away from the cauldron first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 (edited) So why didn't the Lillehammer cauldron light up where the heat was the strongest, then -- at the side where the torch was? Because they didn't want a b-b-q'ed Crown Prince! That's why. Here's another image from the highest reaches of Bird's Nest Seems cozy and all you can see will be the action on the field -- but not the fireworks NOR the flame. Edited February 14, 2008 by baron-pierreIV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts