Opening ceremonies kind of tame---what think you all...who is watching the opening?
Choirs, Kenneth Brannagh, rural England, the first brittish Tour de France winner. I am admitting I was spoiled by Bejing and many other opening ceremonies. They showed a royal box with Harry, Wills and Kate looking less than impressed. Well, they have seen it all, Harry and Wills and not much impresses them I imagine.
Oh agrarian to industrial. Brits were the engine of it. Great drumming 10,000 volunteers they said? Today PBS had an awesome show about the Titanic. Awesome. Catch a rerun if you can. Great TV on PBS.
leave no stone unturned
I really liked the first part from rural to industrial and I love Brannagh, the 5 rings was spectacular.And thew whole tree effect looked awesome. Then the part with NHS I didnt get why it took so much time and then the trendy music facebook stuff I really didnt like it all, maybe in a closing ceremony that there is more party atmosphere it would fit better.And I think the fairy tales part with Peter Pan and Alice etc they could have used it better, it didnt have the big effect. I do not like Mr Bean anyway.
And I know I m biased but the flying man was sth I liked in greek ceremony and I dont like seeing it again in 2008 or now.
I too liked the opening theatrical scene and the set very much, like a live movie so I was glad to watch it on my neighbor's big screen. I didn't get the hymn singing memorial of audiences' loved ones at all. I didn't see what it had to do with the Olympics or its opening though a memorial of the Munich Olympics would have been more appropriate. The rock music segment through the teenage romance digital age was a big bore, just a club production though bigger. I like the biking birds.
Essentially the highlights for me were the beginning and the end, the period movie and the spectacular design of the cauldron.
Oh, it was a real negligence to not have the Queen wear the same dress as in the helicopter.
I missed the first bit! I had to work late. I saw the helicopter with Bond come in, and the Queen. Sporting of her to take part in a piece of optical illusion like that. My favorite part by far was the section with children's literature. This is a special love of mine, and to see J.K. Rowling read, even for a second, from Peter Pan was lovely. I wanted more, though I can understand that they wouldn't want to spend too much time on it. Britain has probably contributed more works of I loved the doctors and nurses, unlike you, Seniorita. But I agree with you that Rowan Atkinson practices a humor I don't appreciate. I happen to love Vangelis's music, so I would have liked it to be presented in a straightforward way.
My favorite part, though it's always very long, is the Parade of Nations. Seeing all the countries, large and small, athletic powerhouse or not, is very stirring. This year's parade apparently is moving very fast, so this is a speedier event than it's been at previous Games apparently.
Very disappointing opening ceremony. Most parts were "messy". I was hoping the real history telling. I was hoping to see the knights, the medieval time. But I loved several highlights - the making of the Olympic rings, and the lighting the Olympic flame.
The British are proud of their healthcare system. It's a National healthcare system, by the way. They dedicated a big chunk of time to perform about that, like showing off their system.
Last edited by Bluebonnet; 07-28-2012 at 12:32 AM.
Off the ice
Everyone likes the Parade of Nations, and it's what the Olympics are actually about - all the more reason to make that the main entertainment. Did you know that a lot of athletes couldn't take part because the ceremony started too late and they have to compete today? Could the ceremony not have been scheduled a bit earlier, or made shorter? I would have gladly given up the tribute to NHS nurses and the music/TV/social media thing and cut the history of Britain segment in half in order to facilitate this.
Originally Posted by Olympia
I'll be honest: I found very little to like in this ceremony. The James Bond/ Queen Elizabeth sequence was fun - good for her! - and I enjoyed Mr. Bean with the orchestra, though that was a joke that went on too long. The floating rings were also good, and Becks in the boat looking handsome. Otherwise, it was just a mess. The hill looked like a reject from the set of The Hobbit, every segment went on too long and looked disorganized, and why were kids in pajamas singing God Save the Queen? Also, the lighting of the torch - specifically, the people who did it - was a huge disappointment. Where was Roger Bannister? Why not have Derek Redmond and his dad help run the torch in? How can you relegate all the great Olympians to a spectator role while giving this huge honor to people who have accomplished nowhere near as much?
I don't often find myself in agreement with you, but this is spot on. The IOC won't pay tribute to actual Olympic athletes who were murdered at the Olympics, but a memorial to random people is fine?
Originally Posted by SkateFiguring
Bottom line: I expect better from Sochi. Hopefully there will be a lot of skaters involved - actually, just have Ilia Averbukh produce the whole thing!
I am very pleased with myself because (I'm not usually this astute in sports matters) I guessed that Steven Redgrave would be carrying the torch pretty close to the final group. My friends at work were impressed with me because my brain is usually such a sports-free zone that I can't remember who won the Super Bowl (American-style football) a week after it happens. (Except for skating, of course.) But I love Olympic history. By the way, was I dreaming, or did I see Christopher Dean in that final cluster at the lighting of the Olympic flame? It's interesting: one doesn't usually think of the U.K. as a sports power, but the relatively few legendary athletes they have are really impressive. I mean, Daley Thompson isn't just any old decathlon champ; he's one of the rare decathletes who's won twice. And Redgrave: five golds in five consecutive Olympics. Wow! It was great to see Sebastian Coe in the spotlight, too.
I don't know why the Queen looked so bored. She obviously thought it was important for her to be there (and to take part in that wonderful James Bond sequence), and she surely knew that the camera would find her throughout the proceedings. And when she smiles, it's such a lovely smile. I was glad to see William and Kate making up for it by looking as if they were enjoying themselves, though. And of course Beckham looked very fine bringing the torch up the Thames in the boat. By the way, wasn't it great that when Redgrave carried the torch toward the stadium, he was flanked by an honor guard of the construction workers who had helped put up the new buildings? By the way, I think one of the viewers in the Royal Box was the Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest-ranking prelate in the Church of England. (Though the actual head of the Church is the Queen.)
I was happy to see Paul McCartney at the end. He always makes me smile. Someone once called him the world's oldest cute guy, and to me he's all that. His voice sounded a bit worn, but even mileage looks endearing on him. For voice strength, I wish they had gotten Tom Jones to contribute a bit: he blew me away at the Queen's Jubilee, with the splendid condition of his voice at the age of 71 or whatever. He would have represented both Wales and the U.K. with distinction.
Last edited by Olympia; 07-28-2012 at 05:39 AM.