Originally posted by JohnSkelton
View Post
Olympinonsense
Collapse
X
-
amateur51
-
Anna
It was far too long, the first part seemed very flat and boring. Hate to say it but The Spice Girls did spice it up moodwise. Best bits were Eric Idle and John Lennon.
Worst bits were parade of fashion models, Liam Gallagher, Darcy Bussel. Kaiser Chiefs were good as were the light shows and fireworks.
Comment
-
Northender
If John Lennon and Eric Idle were the best bits, why didn't they devote the whole evening to dead British pop stars plus Graham Chapman (with commentary by Richard Burton - a suggestion of which I hope you approve!)?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anna View PostWorst bits were parade of fashion models, Liam Gallagher, Darcy Bussel. Kaiser Chiefs were good as were the light shows and fireworks.
& Russell Brand - why? (and I am making a general comment here)
Who were the four people fronted by a ginger-haired moppet that the commentator was raving over as a wonderful combination & co-operation? They sang a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, dull song.
Hate to say it but The Spice Girls did spice it up moodwise.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostYes, faiths ... by the simple law of averages, a significant number of athletes will be believers including Jews, Christians and Moslems. The Games are supposed to be inclusive of every race and creed and those of no particular belief. To be scrupulously neutral in such matters is not exactly rocket-science. I would be just as much against the singing of Christian hymns on such an all-embracing occasion. If that is being 'sad', I am perfectly content to have the tag.
A 'North-South Korean flag' moment, I'm afraid ... careless, sloppy and, indeed, quite stunningly amateurish!
Unlike the Koreas incident, which I agree was utterly careless, I'd be very surprised if many, if any, were offended by the inclusion of Imagine. I did wonder, though, what Lennon would have thought of it being used on such an occasion - Yoko Ono is the guardian of all such things, of course.
As a party, it did get better the longer it went on and most of the acts played their part very well. I couldn't help being carried along by it in the end.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
Who were the four people fronted by a ginger-haired moppet that the commentator was raving over as a wonderful combination & co-operation? They sang a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, dull song.
I'm with Caliban's comment earlier - #1122 - It's as if someone took out of the bin all the crap ideas which Danny Boyle threw away for the opening ceremony, and said "Hey girls, we can still use these!"....and then added some others that they hadn't thought of!
Comment
-
-
Anna
Originally posted by pilamenon View PostI did wonder, though, what Lennon would have thought of it being used on such an occasion - Yoko Ono is the guardian of all such things, of course.
Comment
-
Lateralthinking1
I felt duty bound to wade through it and did so this morning, now that the hysteria has died down. As a piece of theatre, it was much better than I expected and far more of a companion piece to the opening ceremony than the reviews have implied. Yes, it was 45 minutes too long. The lighting could have been sunnier. There is only so much you can stand of people gurning and biting their medals and who among the sane would want to see Coe and Rogge ever again? Still, there was an offbeat quality that was appealing; there was a good use of video with live material; and it had some regular interest and decent movement. In fact, it flowed with the same loose yet oddly appropriate choreography that was seen in the opening ceremony. And thematically, while it was considerably less subtle and never even close to being high art, most of it had relevance to London, both past and present.
These events really need to be assessed for what they are rather than being compared with personal ideals. On that basis, the music was a mixture of the quite good and the very so-so. Certainly we could have done without preposterous Muse. Similarly, The Who may have been great until the late 1970s but they have been annoyingly bombastic ever since. Elsewhere, there were at least reasons for dubious inclusions. Ed Sheeran, Tinie Tempah and Jessie J are not who I would choose but they were there to please the young. Annie Lennox, Madness and Brian May seemed boringly predictable but they did link back to the Jubilee celebrations. The models were obviously a sales pitch. The Spice Girls were only as good as they ever were but they were right for a fortnight where girl power was to the fore. Take That were included because Gary Barlow is probably now a Windsor.
And I have to say that I was surprised how much better this concert came across than the one outside Buckingham Palace. Elbow took their place at last, albeit with Hazel Irvine talking over them; Ray Davies sang "Waterloo Sunset" remarkably tenderly; the Pet Shop Boys were creative and amusing; the Household Division Ceremonial State Band covered "Parklife" effectively; the increasingly lopsided Liam Gallagher didn't totally mutilate "Wonderwall"; while "Running Up The Hill" and particularly "Here Comes The Sun" worked very well with the accompanying material. George Michael and the Kaiser Chiefs did just enough. I guess Fatboy Slim also did what was expected of him. Inadvertently, One Direction managed to convey something of the atmosphere in an Essex night club. If sadly the Delboy joke failed, the well-orchestrated humour around Eric Idle was terrific; the Dhol drummers and the Stomp musicians added flavour; and the glimpse that we had of Brazil, Seu Jorge and BNegão included, was pretty good.
In view of the difficult economic climate, I would like to see a zero budget next year for fireworks. They are a sinful waste of money and so much can now be done with lasers. The spectacular Heatherwick cauldron though will be a genuine loss and it is a shame it had to be a temporary structure. I remain firmly of the view that London 2012 was an indulgence that this country could not afford and that fundamentally it was - and is - immoral. However, that is not to take away from the artists who contributed to the ceremonies, especially the designers and the unknown. Some of the content didn't work and quite a lot was not to my taste but it was so very pleasing to see for once a bit of imagination, particularly in a context which largely required conformity.
Comment
-
scottycelt
Originally posted by pilamenon View PostOne thing about the Games that did strike me was how many athletes crossed themselves and/or seemed to be praying, though I don't recall any from Team GB doing so.
Unlike the Koreas incident, which I agree was utterly careless, I'd be very surprised if many, if any, were offended by the inclusion of Imagine. I did wonder, though, what Lennon would have thought of it being used on such an occasion - Yoko Ono is the guardian of all such things, of course.
As a party, it did get better the longer it went on and most of the acts played their part very well. I couldn't help being carried along by it in the end.
I also thought Danny Boyle's Opening Ceremony was excellent in its genuine attempt to be all-embracing with just about something for everyone. That was admittedly almost an impossible act to follow and the description of the Closing Ceremony in Caliban's post sums it all up beautifully for me ...
Enough moans! These were magnificent games as far as I am concerned and I certainly do not wish to now find myself belatedly joining our tiny band of Olympics 'miseries'.Last edited by Guest; 13-08-12, 11:42.
Comment
-
amateur51
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostI agree with much of that but the inclusion of Imagine was more ignorantly discourteous than 'offensive' to people of faith. Many of these athletes will have been believers so it was an insensitive and silly inclusion if nothing else ...
Comment
Comment