Cauldron lighting letdown

Agree 100%...they over thought it. Bannister was the best choice. Maybe they could've had the young kids surrounding him to show both old and young - but certainly not how they did it solo. Major fumble on that choice.

AxC wrote:

Big disappointment that Roger Bannister did not light the cauldron and even bigger disappointment it wasn't any British athlete of note.

I understand what they were going for with the kids but I feel like the cauldron lighting is the part of the ceremony that is most a celebration of host nation's athletic history. This was a celebration of what maybe, could be its future. Seemed like the crowd responded with a collective "ehh" while the lighting usually gets among the loudest cheers of all.

If I can;t figure out what I'm seeing. If the meaning so occult I need a talking head to guide me through it, it's just not good entertainment.

I was sure they were going to hand it off. The actual lighting was kinda cool, with the leaves and all. But it was a huge missed opportunity to honor a national hero. Bannister or the Queen would have been excellent choices. Heck really any national hero would have been fine.

Incredibly disappointing. What a big mistake by the organizers, you don't just let a bunch of scrubs light the cauldron. WTF

I thought the technical and visual aspect of the cauldron and lighting was amazing, and I think the choice of 7 (likely future Olympians, not just random kids) young sportsmen/women from a variety of sports and nominated by Olympic heroes from the past was inspired. It fits in entirely with the original pledge in 2005 that this would be a Games to inspire a generation of Youth and to leave a long term legacy.

It also solved the problem of having to choose between Redgrave, Thompson, etc.

Well done Danny Boyle!

deanouk wrote:

It fits in entirely with the original pledge in 2005 that this would be a Games to inspire a generation of Youth and to leave a long term legacy.

Mediocre PR claim at best. This games is about nothing but making money. Every games ever is about making money.

How their choice of cauldron lighters allows them to maximize profits, I have no idea. Maybe they don't either.

cauldron was cool, though having it in the middle of the stadium seems a bit weird; however, not having bannister light it is probably the biggest failure of any Olympic opening ceremonies i have seen (7), just absolute disgrace. rest of the ceremony was pretty lames as well. A whole section dedicated to NHS? moronic at best, somehow I don't see the opening ceremonies as a time to hold the world hostage to the directors political views...overall i'd give the whole thing a D+ and the lightning ceremony itself an F.

Nah, Doctor Who should have been the one.

Typical myopic distance runners. Bannister has NO Olympic medals, so let's shun all those who have? Only distance people care about the 4-minute mile, no one else gives a damn. If anyone should have lit the torch, it should have been Coe (but that would have been a huge conflict of interest). Good decision to have the real athletes (Olympic medalists) nominate future stars, including Desiree Henry, who won world Youth last year in the 200m. Ron Clarke lit the cauldron as a Junior athlete (1956) and went on to become a world-record holder and Olympic medalist.

The Olympics is about more than distance runners, in fact the general public doesn't really give a crap about the silly distance geeks anyway.

torchy wrote:

A whole section dedicated to NHS? moronic at best, somehow I don't see the opening ceremonies as a time to hold the world hostage to the directors political views...overall i'd give the whole thing a D+ and the lightning ceremony itself an F.

americans really don't understand the emotional attachment between the British public and the NHS - pretty much everyone in the UK thinks the NHS segment was magnificent

The lighting culminated in the playing of Eclipse. No future ceremonies will ever be able to match that moment.

>>Only distance people care about the 4-minute mile, no one else gives a damn.<<

A Google search of "Roger Bannister" will quickly disprove the above.

Bannister's sub-4 minute Mile transcended the sport and resonates to this day. For example, check out today's New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/sports/olympics/roger-bannister-won-track-immortality-but-not-olympic-gold.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

VoR wrote:

The lighting culminated in the playing of Eclipse. No future ceremonies will ever be able to match that moment.

That was definitely the best part of the entire ceremony.

Hiya Folks wrote:

VoR wrote:

The lighting culminated in the playing of Eclipse. No future ceremonies will ever be able to match that moment.

That was definitely the best part of the entire ceremony.

Not even in the same stratosphere at the flaming arrow lighting at Barcelona. That was awesome.

fly a kite wrote:

Typical myopic distance runners. Bannister has NO Olympic medals, so let's shun all those who have? Only distance people care about the 4-minute mile, no one else gives a damn. If anyone should have lit the torch, it should have been Coe (but that would have been a huge conflict of interest). Good decision to have the real athletes (Olympic medalists) nominate future stars, including Desiree Henry, who won world Youth last year in the 200m. Ron Clarke lit the cauldron as a Junior athlete (1956) and went on to become a world-record holder and Olympic medalist.

The Olympics is about more than distance runners, in fact the general public doesn't really give a crap about the silly distance geeks anyway.

typical uninformed moronic fu.ck tard

get a clue

Sp!kes wrote:

Not even in the same stratosphere at the flaming arrow lighting at Barcelona. That was awesome.

You mean then one where some guy shot a flaming arrow out of the stadium while the cauldron somehow lit itself as if by magic?

Yes, I suppose that was quite neat. No Pink Floyd though.