|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW5abat5NEU As could be expected, it didn't take long.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:30 |
|
Giedroyc posted:I'd say the one utterly fantastic bit is the torch, it's amazing. Best bits: Shireland, INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION BREAK DOWN, rememberance for the wars, Queen Parachuting from a helicopter with Bond, 7/7 Memorial/general attitude and closeness of the performers/ MR BEAN OF CHARIOTS/Harry Potter SAVE THE NHS/ Beckham and the TRON speedboat/The Cauldron. Worst Bits: Commentary, social messenging theme, some of the wanky dance bits and choices of music.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
Right-o chaps, it's been lovely doing a bit of liveposting with you all. Hope to do it again in the near future, preferably when the Great British Bake Off starts again soon (don't mean to mock the Olympics or anything, but GBBO is clearly a better test of strength, intelligence and nerves than sport events, plus at the end of it you get yummy cake instead of drugs-testings and silly medal)
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
That cauldron really was brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Got to say I didn't really have much expectations for this and it was great. Especially the forging of the rings and the cauldron. Excellent stuff. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
I'm definitely going to need a .gif or video of Beckham on the speed boat
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19022259 Skip to 3:42 for Beckham in a speedboat looking very happy with himself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 01:16
|
|
Paperhouse posted:I'm definitely going to need a .gif or video of Beckham on the speed boat Choice of music to play with it, Gold by Spandau Ballet.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Sod that namby pamby bollocks about 'the next generation', those spotty teenagers should make way for Sir Steve loving Redgrave. The man's spent two decades winning enough medals to double the country's gold reserves, he's far more deserving of lighting the flame than some kids that might be good at some sports one day. Other than that, thought the ceremony was great! Bond and the Queen was such a great  moment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19022259 yesss also, apparently this story was an April Fools article by The Sun this year... or was it 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Semprini posted:Paul McCartney's performance only reinforced my belief that Mark Chapman simultaneously shot the wrong half of a marriage and the wrong quarter of The Beatles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
Even all us misanthropes enjoyed it, so it mqakes me wonder what the Mail will be moaning about tomorrow (or their readers)
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:Even all us misanthropes enjoyed it, so it mqakes me wonder what the Mail will be moaning about tomorrow (or their readers) 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Getting into Dads Army at the moment, good laugh but I really wish they'd stop using that offensive term for North Africans when it comes to Jones past. Just comes out of the blue and spoils it for a few minutes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
I thought the opening ceremony was pretty loving good, I have to say. I was pretty meh about the whole thing, but from Bond's entrance to the athletes, I had a massive grin on my face. Could have done without the Arctic Monkeys and the CGI Paul McCartney, and I did get a bit 'PUBLIC MONEY GRRR' at the five seconds of fireworks, but whatever, it was generally pretty amazing. I never thought I'd see the day the Queen got cheered twice in an Irish pub in Cardiff. All that money though and they still couldn't afford Sir Roger Moore. Oh, and how could you have a scary segment with Mike Oldfield literally RIGHT THERE and not do some sort of Exorcist reference. Junkenstein fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Jul 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 11:52
|
|
|
I was honestly expecting something incredibly cringe-worthy. 'Oh look there's a ROUTEMASTER, and if you'll look over this way there's a VILLAGE BOBBY riding his bicycle to a RED PAYPHONE to order some FISH AND CHIPS to bolster his BLITZ SPIRIT,' etc. Instead we got something vast, inclusive, slightly silly, but most importantly it was tasteful. Besides the slip-up with the London Symphony, of course. Can't believe they let that blundering idiot with the keyboard broadcast fart noises to an audience of millions... They should have had Blackadder conducting the orchestra, and Baldrick on the synthesizer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 12:22
|
|
so I could say that I finally figured out what this god damned cube is doing. Get well Lowtax.
|
I've been puzzling over the TRON boat. Was it his? did he donate enough money, pimp it up and then casually ask to drive around the Thames around Midnight with the torch? what music was going through the mans head etc.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 12:23
|
|
|
Haha. Well done Danny Boyle. You know you did something right when stuff like this starts appearing. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2180124/Olympics-opening-ceremony-NHS-disgracefully-glorified.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 12:29
|
|
|
Junkenstein posted:Haha. Well done Danny Boyle. You know you did something right when stuff like this starts appearing. loving hell, this is one of the most repugnant articles I've ever read. Yes, the NHS does gently caress up sometimes, but surely you undermine yourself by then dismissing 'banana republics and far-flung destinations nobody has ever heard of or even cares for'. And then snorting with derision at the idea of being able to find an 'educated white middle class mother and black father living together in a happy family.' It literally makes me angry, and not even in the usual 'angry lefty forums poster' kind of way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 12:42
|
|
|
Do you have to be a smug piece of poo poo to write articles like that for the Daily Mail, or is there some sort of horrible secret organisation that quietly abducts people and brain washes them to think this way?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 12:50
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I've been puzzling over the TRON boat. Was it his? did he donate enough money, pimp it up and then casually ask to drive around the Thames around Midnight with the torch? what music was going through the mans head etc. I now imagine that Becks is going to spend the next two weeks smugly racing along the Thames, spraying water at everyone on the riverbank with a never ceasing smirk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 13:20
|
|
Rarity posted:I now imagine that Becks is going to spend the next two weeks smugly racing along the Thames, spraying water at everyone on the riverbank with a never ceasing smirk. I'll give him a break, he is married to Victoria Beckham after all.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 13:23
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Do you have to be a smug piece of poo poo to write articles like that for the Daily Mail, or is there some sort of horrible secret organisation that quietly abducts people and brain washes them to think this way? I used to work for a sub-editor of the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Times and then, later, Al Jazeera. He was my direct boss on a few things when I was just getting started doing writing gigs. Despite what his employment history might look like he was a fairly hardcore anarchist. He taught me something important. You don't read the Daily Mail because it's a deeply conservative news paper. You read the Daily Mail because that's your world view and it gives you the news you're interested in. Like it or not a newspapers first job isn't to tell the truth. It's not to inform, educate and entertain. It's not even to print a copy every morning. It's to make sure that it's shareholders get their money. A newspapers first duty is to its shareholders and if it knows that that'll sell and get page views (thus, advertising revinue) from outraged liberal students who tut and cluck and do nothing else it'll print it. Rant mode: It's one of the great (and sad) truths of the Levinson inquiry that everyone on the panel has forgotten this. Not a single person on that committee has worked in a job where they either ran something that made money or had to make money to survive. The FT is a loss maker, Liberty has never had to be concerned with making money, the director of Ofcom wouldn't know what a tax return looked like if it bit him in the arse, Channel 4 news is a (probably) a loss maker, the telegraph I have genuinely no idea about but even then it's represented by someone that used to be their political editor and a former police chief.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
gently caress me that article made me angry. quote:But it was the absurdly unrealistic scene – and indeed one that would spring from the kind of nonsensical targets and equality quotas we see in the NHS - showing a mixed-race middle-class family in a detached new-build suburban home, which was most symptomatic of the politically correct agenda in modern Britain. What the gently caress? Did this appear in print as well? This is absurd!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
Sion posted:He taught me something important. You don't read the Daily Mail because it's a deeply conservative news paper. You read the Daily Mail because that's your world view and it gives you the news you're interested in. Like it or not a newspapers first job isn't to tell the truth. It's not to inform, educate and entertain. It's not even to print a copy every morning. Do people in the news industry not understand that this point of view pretty much summarizes everything that is wrong with the industry? Every lovely practice in news happens because they prioritize money/sensationalism over truth/ethics. That may be the standard in the industry more and more, but I think if you want to make respected, important journalism as opposed to populist trash "journalism", that really, really shouldn't be your priority. It's like there's no longer any concept of building a reputation by being reliable and introspective as a publication, in favour of getting whatever they can out as soon as humanly possible, and to as many eyes as humanly possible, whether it's the truth or not. (See CNN recently immediately giving the wrong verdict on the US Supreme Court's health care decision.) thexerox123 fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Jul 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
A mixed race couple? Outrageous guardian propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:Do people in the news industry not understand that this point of view pretty much summarizes everything that is wrong with the industry? Every lovely practice in news happens because they prioritize money/sensationalism over truth/ethics. That may be the standard in the industry more and more, but I think if you want to make respected, important journalism as opposed to populist trash "journalism", that really, really shouldn't be your priority. Do people not in the news industry not understand that in order to stay in print you have to prioritize money and sensationalism? They're not being run as a loving charity. They're not being run on civil service handouts and government funded grants. They're private companies, held in private hands that deal in the public space. The Sun on Sunday has a higher circulation than the Guardian manages to pull in the rest of the week. It's not them that made it this way. It's us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
So are you suggesting perhaps we run the worst of Fleet Street out of the country with a torch and pitchfork mob and exile them to arctic floats? I'm in.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
Sion posted:Do people not in the news industry not understand that in order to stay in print you have to prioritize money and sensationalism? They're not being run as a loving charity. They're not being run on civil service handouts and government funded grants. They're private companies, held in private hands that deal in the public space. I think just because it's an easy way to print money doesn't mean it's the ONLY way to stay afloat. It's a much slower, tougher path to being a successful, respected source of journalism, but it's worth it for the benefits to a society that it brings. But, in our system of misprioritizing capital over human benefit, the ONLY way to do it seems to be to put money and sensationalism first. Basically, I think the only reason that that seems like a requirement is because that's the way people think it is. That's not something innate to the industry, it's just that so many shortcuts have been taken that it's just the convention now. It's more innate to our culture and economic system, but those things really need to change, and every person who struggles against a broken system helps to bring the chance of change. Basically, this is the result of the "invisible hand of the free market" having its way with the news industry. thexerox123 fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Jul 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
Leyburn posted:A mixed race couple? Outrageous guardian propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:So are you suggesting perhaps we run the worst of Fleet Street out of the country with a torch and pitchfork mob and exile them to arctic floats? I did strongly consider starting a petition to get the heads of Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds and crucifying them in the middle of The City as a warning to the others.  thexerox123 posted:I think just because it's an easy way to print money doesn't mean it's the ONLY way to stay afloat. It's a much slower, tougher path to being a successful, respected source of journalism, but it's worth it for the benefits to a society that it brings. But, in our system of misprioritizing capital over human benefit, the ONLY way to do it seems to be to put money and sensationalism first. Okay so let's pretend for a moment that the Guardian isn't (almost) as bad as the rest of them and that it's following the path that you're talking about here. They're doing a lot of good investigative work (no fake sheikhs) and turning up a lot of good stories. Sure they occasionally print some poo poo that they know is untrue before they print it (would Gordon Brown's sons medical files please stand up?) but for the most part they're trying. They're getting loving creamed out there. Everything they do they're doing it at a loss. For three years up until July 2012 it's parent company lost £100,000 a day. Circulation doesn't cover the cost of staples. It's advertising revenue more than anything else (if you do just so happen to be turning a profit) and the way you get advertising revinue is by printing utter bollocks like that. edit'd for your edit - Yeah, I'd agree with that. It's poo poo but, hey, what you gonna do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
Sion posted:They're not being run as a loving charity. The Guardian is...
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
Sion posted:Okay so let's pretend for a moment that the Guardian isn't (almost) as bad as the rest of them and that it's following the path that you're talking about here. They're doing a lot of good investigative work (no fake sheikhs) and turning up a lot of good stories. Sure they occasionally print some poo poo that they know is untrue before they print it (would Gordon Brown's sons medical files please stand up?) but for the most part they're trying. I think that's a separate issue, which is lack of innovation. The internet/smartphones/tablets should be vastly changing print journalism, but news organizations seem to make it an afterthought. Worrying about the cost of staples really doesn't need to be relevant anymore. The only real recent innovation in news that i can think of is livestreaming - being able to watch streams of the Arab Spring, or Occupy movements or whatever, live. AJE does this, and I watch them. Livestream also gave HD broadcasting backpacks to people for Occupy. That's just one example, though. A lot of news organizations lazily pull things from social media and twitter nowadays, and probably consider that innovation (along with holograms, basic paywall websites, intrusive facebook apps) but those are just gimmicks that pander to trends, not legitimate innovation. I don't know what the solution is, I just don't think that it should be loosening journalistic integrity in favour of advertising dollars. Honestly, I would be in favour of legal restrictions on what counts as 'news', even, at this point. (I'm a film and television production student, so I have similar issues with that industry, but at least there are a few more holdouts in the quality vs watered-down populism department, probably because the creator/studio setup is unlike anything in journalism, really.) thexerox123 fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jul 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 15:18
|
|
|
Junkenstein posted:Haha. Well done Danny Boyle. You know you did something right when stuff like this starts appearing. Jesus gently caress. That is one of the most appalling "news" stories I've ever read. I honestly don't know how they get away with such blatant racism and xenophobia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
Flatscan posted:Jesus gently caress. That is one of the most appalling "news" stories I've ever read. I honestly don't know how they get away with such blatant racism and xenophobia. Orwell got the thirty minute hate right, but didn't realise it would remain in the print media. It is impossible to read that newspaper without getting angry, one way or another. It's a blight on humanity and if they disapprove of the ceremony then Boyle got it absolutely right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
Flatscan posted:Jesus gently caress. That is one of the most appalling "news" stories I've ever read. I honestly don't know how they get away with such blatant racism and xenophobia. Oh oh oh, I know this one! Because this the PCC is a toothless loving shell run by their editor. Mispelling "Guadianista" is either wonderfully ironic or a really sneaky jibe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
Why has there been nothing in the press laying into sir paul for his cockup in hey jude?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
What because the backing track was out of time and he handled it like a pro? God this thread is making me sound like a Macca fan, an I'm not at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
Did people really like the bit with the Queen? I found it horribly embarrassing and awful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
Ahh that would make sence, i'd just about given up by then and only caught the first 30seconds or so before turning it off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 18:45
|
|