nordle wrote:9pm. What the hell is this. I was transfixed for the next 4 hours.
Yes there were cockups and sections I didn't appreciate, but speaking with others we all liked different aspects.
In short. Moments of cheese, followed by epic volumes of British madness, followed by moments of brilliance.
Surely the opening ceremony was our first gold
AndyBaxman wrote:And the lighting of the cauldron was totally inspired. A bit of it brought in by each team and then lit by the next generation of athletes (when everyone was expecting some celebrity sportsperson to get the honour) was a pure genius.
catgate wrote:I'm rather puzzled about it all.
Here we have this gigantic racist event, held every four years, with each nation that "stages" the farce trying to "out do" the last nation that wasted billions in trying proving their "superiority" in bad taste and lunacy, by spending record sums in proving their immaturity.
Why should a nation claim credit for the efforts of one of its citizens just because that citizen happened to be born with the ability to run/jump/row/throw/spit/fart better/harder/faster/higher than other members of the human race.
It really is a great big con.
Most of the world can get along nicely without any interest at all in "athletics" for the rest of the four year period, but then they are expected to feel obliged to scream and shout and wave the flag in this gigantic racist festival of incompetence.
Still it's good for the "sponsers" and the IOC committee.
Nuke wrote: It should not cost that much to promote sports, compete in them, nor to televise it.
nelz wrote:Nuke wrote: It should not cost that much to promote sports, compete in them, nor to televise it.
The sale of television rights is the largest source of income for the Olympics. TV needs the Olympics spectacle and the Olympics needs the TV money, even if some of it does go on the spectacle.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests