I enjoyed watching the opening ceremonies.
I didn't like the Voldemort vs Mary Poppins thing, and the giant sleeping baby. Plus Meredith Viera is a [i]terrible[/i] commentator on these things.
The Queen as a bond girl....? That's all I'm gonna say on that, lol.
I liked when the deaf/hearing impared kids sang God Save the Queen though, that was great.
I also sort of liked when they were playing all the British music cause they played lots of my favourite bands there (Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Queen, etc.), that's the only reason I liked that segment though.
I didn't watch the Beijing Olympics at all, but my mom said she didn't like the opening ceremonies, she found it too militaristic, whereas London was more about the culture and history of the UK.
[url=http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/07/28/nbc-michael-phelps/]NBC criticized for not airing Michael Phelps race live[/url]
[QUOTE]There’s little reason NBC would change strategies midway through the Olympics … NBC just better get used to getting skewered every time something like this happens.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/london/story/2012-07-28/nbc-fail-nightly-news-ryan-locthe-michael-phelps-result/56565870/1]#NBCfail: Olympics lead-in spills results ahead of broadcast[/url]
[QUOTE]NBC's Olympics lead-in, the Nightly News, led off with anchor Brian Williams announcing the results of the much-anticipated men's swimming 400 IM final, without even providing a spoiler alert.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nbc-sees-strong-ratings-for-first-night-of-olympics-competition/2012/07/29/gJQAr2d7HX_story.html]NBC sees strong ratings for first night of Olympics competition[/url]
[QUOTE]Preliminary estimates show that Saturday night’s NBC telecast scored the highest ratings for the first evening of an Olympics competition outside of the United States.[/QUOTE]
I'm not exactly an Olympic expert, but did NBC used to air the events shown live? I think it's mostly because of the time difference, but I don't think NBC or any shows on TV should spoil who wins or not. If people want to know they can just go online.
[QUOTE=arilicious;313097]I'm not exactly an Olympic expert, but did NBC used to air the events shown live? I think it's mostly because of the time difference, but I don't think NBC or any shows on TV should spoil who wins or not. [B]If people want to know they can just go online.[/B][/QUOTE]
The problem is that some people don't want to know, but shouldn't have to avoid social media and the rest of the Internet for hours until NBC decides the time is right to show us.
[QUOTE=molds13;313098]The problem is that some people don't want to know, but shouldn't have to avoid social media and the rest of the Internet for hours until NBC decides the time is right to show us.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying people should avoid going on the Internet or anything, but I think maybe the Olympics could get higher ratings if people weren't spoiled about who won or anything. Ratings have been down for the past few Olympics right?
So tonight, we will be seeing the following according to NBC:
Men's 4 x 100 Freestyle relay (which will be live at 4pm EST)
Women's gymnastics qualifying (which was live at 4:30am EST) [spoiler]and thanks to ESPN, I already know Jordyn Weiber didn't qualify, which is a big surprise[/spoiler]
Women's synchronized springboard diving (which was live at 10:00am EST)
There are at least 15 medal events, including 5 swimming events.
I need to start putting a note on my computer to not go to ESPN (as I do every morning) because I really don't enjoy hearing about the high-profile matches before they happen.
[QUOTE=arilicious;313100]I'm not saying people should avoid going on the Internet or anything, but I think maybe the Olympics could get higher ratings if [B]people weren't spoiled about who won or anything.[/B] Ratings have been down for the past few Olympics right?[/QUOTE]
Well the problem is that there are many different countries and many different time zones. An Australian paper could report about their team winning over the US in a swimming event and it would only be a matter of time before it got back stateside.
Social networking allows people like Bill Simmons, who are in London, to live tweet about the games and events and with thousands like him in London, it's impossible to keep everyone in the dark until it airs live.
[QUOTE=molds13;313102]Well the problem is that there are many different countries and many different time zones. An Australian paper could report about their team winning over the US in a swimming event and it would only be a matter of time before it got back stateside.
Social networking allows people like Bill Simmons, who are in London, to live tweet about the games and events and with thousands like him in London, it's impossible to keep everyone in the dark until it airs live.[/QUOTE]
But has it always been like this though? I didn't start getting into the Olympics til Vancouver and I think those were shown live in NY because it's only like a 3 hour time difference.
[QUOTE=arilicious;313103]But has it always been like this though? I didn't start getting into the Olympics til Vancouver and I think those were shown live in NY because it's only like a 3 hour time difference.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I really don't remember. Obviously in 96, things must have been aired live. Sydney, Athens and Beijing probably had significant delays. But delaying an event that would have been live at 4pm on a Saturday? Not necessary at all.
Even some of the events in Vancouver were delayed though.
[QUOTE=arilicious;313103]But has it always been like this though?[/QUOTE]
For the Olympics in Beijing, they literally changed the entire schedule so that big events would air live on the east coast (thus having them in the AM in China.) It did cause some outrage being European markets then got stuck with the less than stellar times for medal matches - but in the end it is the North American market which is most important to the IOC.
Prior to that, it mattered less. In 2004, Facebook was only a few months old and Twitter didn't even exist. There was no iPhone and this was considered a cutting edge smart phone:
[url=http://vevmo.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14336][img]http://vevmo.com/imagehosting/15015621d47568.jpg[/img][/url]
(I had one and while cool, it displayed web pages in ***, it was slower than a 56k modem and data was at that time was charged by the kb - also known as the arm & a leg data plan.)
The internet as a whole was a desktop experience and thus not as accessible as it is today.
I think [URL="http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1276502-the-perils-of-tape-delay-in-the-social-media-age"]this article[/URL] does a good job at making the case for the death of tape delay.
[QUOTE]I wonder who won that 400 IM race with Phelps and Lochte," said no one with a Facebook or Twitter account.[/QUOTE]
I do disagree with his conclusion that ratings will go down because of the maturing internet age. NBC has a broadcast monopoly and patriotic Americans are going to watch, tape delayed or not.
If news outlets are going to report on the events of the day, it would be nice if they wouldn't have LOCHTE WINS GOLD with a picture of Lochte with a smile on his face on their front page. Instead, say 400 IM GOLD MEDAL RESULTS HERE with maybe just a picture of them diving into the pool at the beginning of the match. That way, someone clicking the link knows what they are getting into, and those who want to remain unspoiled can still look at news sites for non-Olympics information.
I believe in the past news coverage, gave a warning or something on the air, if they were going to announce spoilers. ESPN has to show results, as that would be awful if they did not. At least events like basketball is live.
Certain things in strange timezones would be aired live and then aired later again at a better time. Four years ago, the basketball finals started at around 4 in the morning and were shown live for anyone who wanted to watch, but were also then shown later in the day at a more normal time for anyone who wasn't awake at 4 AM.
[QUOTE=molds13;313114]Not having any difficulty watching the feeds for the swimming medal events on the live feed today. Hopefully it stays that way.[/QUOTE]
Probably because women's swimming is absolutely nowhere near as popular as men's swimming so less people were watching it.
I doubt the majority of Americans had a clue who was swimming in the race that just ended.
[QUOTE=Nightwolf;313115]Probably because women's swimming is absolutely nowhere near as popular as men's swimming so less people were watching it.
I doubt the majority of Americans had a clue who was swimming in the race that just ended.[/QUOTE]
I suppose, but it's popular enough to be shown in prime time 6-7 hours from now...
Dana Vollmer is someone even casual watchers of swimming should know. Same with Natalie Coughlin.
Meanwhile, a men's water polo qualifying match is on NBC and I am completely lost as to how it works. It's interesting to watch, but difficult to follow when you don't know the rules.
Women's 100 butterfly:
[spoiler]1. Dana Vollmer - USA *WORLD RECORD*
2. China
3. Australia[/spoiler]
Men's 100 breaststroke:
[spoiler]1. South Africa *WORLD RECORD*
2. Australia
3. Brendan Hansen - USA[/spoiler]
Women's 400 freestyle:
[spoiler]1. France *OLYMPIC RECORD*
2. Allison Schmitt - USA
3. Great Britain[/spoiler]
[SPOILER]you got to be kidding me Lotche. Phelps looked real good there. Lotche though was racing his third race of the day, while this was Phelps first.[/SPOILER]
Well, at least NBC is doing spoiler alerts on their news broadcasts now.
[spoiler]Seeing FAILED TO QUALIFY in huge letters above Jordyn Wieber's name is a bit rough, no?[/spoiler]
[QUOTE=molds13;313127]Well, at least NBC is doing spoiler alerts on their news broadcasts now.[/quote]
TDMEL already ruined my TV viewing night, so I just went straight to ESPN and said the heck with it.
[QUOTE=TDMEL52;313123][SPOILER]you got to be kidding me Lotche. Phelps looked real good there. Lotche though was racing his third race of the day, while this was Phelps first.[/SPOILER][/QUOTE]
[SPOILER] I don't think you can put the blame on Lochte, as his split time wasn't terrible, the credit goes to the French swimmer had the fastest split of anyone in the entire race by about a half second which happened to be about the difference between the two teams.[/SPOILER]
Here you go B (and any other male with a pulse)!
[url=http://www.stltoday.com/sports/olympics/blogs/dutch-field-hockey-gains-worldwide-attention-for-reasons-beyond-field/article_11a8b7a9-cbbb-5082-a531-9d259f4331b8.html]Dutch field hockey gains worldwide attention for reasons beyond field hockey (PHOTO GALLERY) : Stltoday[/url]
[QUOTE=molds13;313200]Here you go B (and any other male with a pulse)!
[/QUOTE]
I actually watched USA v. Germany today. I [I]love[/I] field hockey. Now I know which team I really need to watch. :D
[QUOTE=Esquire;313139][SPOILER] I don't think you can put the blame on Lochte, as his split time wasn't terrible, the credit goes to the French swimmer had the fastest split of anyone in the entire race by about a half second which happened to be about the difference between the two teams.[/SPOILER][/QUOTE]
Still not as good as Lezak in 08 though!
Pages