1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NBC skips tribute piece in Olympics Opening Ceremony

Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by phrelin, Jul 28, 2012.

  1. Aug 1, 2012 #121 of 154
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Do you believe that every word that came out of the announcer's mouths was approved or supported at a higher level? Yes, they are responsible for the people they hire but the off the wall comments (inane babble at times) were certainly not a well managed scripted presentation.

    I believe (as previously reported) Mr Costas felt strongly about the lack of an official IOC tribute and he mentioned it during the program. But when the time came for the Israeli athletes to enter Bob started his "moment of silence" and the network went to commercial.

    Does that sound like a network that tightly scripted their announcers or one that let their broadcast team work without a script? Was their any on screen graphic honoring the 1972 team? Any hint that this was part of NBC's presentation beyond the action of one host?

    NBC did not cut Mr Costas' comments from the program ... but at that point it would have been difficult as they were turning around a nearly four hour presentation just taped and trying to fit it into the time allotted between commercials and other content they intended to air.

    I wonder if the announcers on site even knew what was eventually cut from the program. Who knows what inane babble we missed because the tribute was cut?
     
  2. Aug 1, 2012 #122 of 154
    Fraaaak

    Fraaaak Legend

    145
    0
    Jul 13, 2009
    In any event, there is a very nice torrent available of the BBC broadcast - no commercials, weighs in at about 3 1/2 gigs at 720p. Worth the download - it was awesome - you also get 2 songs performed by the Arctic Monkeys.

    The BBC announcers also had the occasional case of verbal runs, but not the verbal explosive diarrhea of the NBC announcers. And the stadium announcers specifically mentioned the fact of the tragedies that followed the excitement of learning at the 2005 IOC meeting in Singapore that London would get the 2012 games, so the tribute was for 7/7 - and the pictures were those that died in the bombings, not those that "couldn't make it" to the 2012 games.
     
  3. Aug 1, 2012 #123 of 154
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Incorrect. The clip is available at the beginning of this very thread. It was the BBC's announcers who mentioned the sadness "the very next day" - not the stadium announcers. The stadium announcers followed what was in the media guide ... "people who could not be here tonight".

    If that isn't enough, why not go to the person responsible for the segment? As noted in the Deadspin article from the first post: Metro reporter Cassandra Garrison told me the segment's choreographer Akram Khan did not mention 7/7 in his press conference on the performance, explaining it instead to be about "mortality."

    And as a reminder, from the media guide:
    Memorial Wall
    Spectators have been invited to present images of loved ones who couldn’t be with us tonight. In a moving moment, those who are absent from us are digitally present.

    Akram Khan and Emeli Sandé
    Emeli Sandé sings ‘Abide With Me’. Fifty dancers, including the choreographer Akram Khan, dramatise the struggle between life and death using such powerful images of mortality as dust and the setting sun.​

    Calling this a 7/7 tribute is revisionist, intended to evoke the emotions Americans have for 9/11. "How dare they cut a 7/7 tribute" comes across much stronger than "how dare they cut a tribute to spectator's family who couldn't be here because they died for one reason or another."

    When the choreographer doesn't call it a 7/7 tribute before the show and the media guide makes no 7/7 reference it seems odd to call it a 7/7 tribute after the fact. But it makes nice fodder for tabloids.
     
  4. Aug 1, 2012 #124 of 154
    majikmarker

    majikmarker AllStar

    90
    5
    Feb 27, 2005
    Arlington, WA
    This is my favorite response from NBC, explaining why the Opening Ceremonies were not broadcast live in any form in the US:

    “We are live streaming every sporting event, all 32 sports and 302 medals,” an NBC spokesman wrote in an email to Show Tracker. “It was never our intent to live stream the Opening Ceremony or Closing Ceremony. They are complex entertainment spectacles that do not translate well online because they require context, which our award-winning production team will provide for the large prime-time audiences that gather together to watch them.

    I read this as, "you, the American public, are too stupid to understand what is going on in this "complex entertainment spectacle",and it takes Matt Laurer and Meredith Vieira to explain every last detail in the most vapid manner possible for you to grasp this performance. Also, we will decide for you what is important for you to see and only show you those parts of the perfomance"

    I feel sorry for those that attended in person...they must have been hopelessly confused with no one to explain what was going on in this "complex entertainment spectacle".
     
  5. Aug 1, 2012 #125 of 154
    Maruuk

    Maruuk Hall Of Fame

    1,951
    9
    Dec 4, 2007
    ANNOUNCER: "The excitement of that moment in Singapore seven years ago when England won the games was tempered the next day with sorrow from the events of July 7 that year. A wall of remembrance for those no longer here to share in this event." The pictures then include the 53 souls lost on 7/7.

    Right, it had nothing to do with 7/7.

    And NBC just cut it out, precisely, to the frame...randomly. Or just out of "convenience" to air some irrelevant canned garbage in the middle of the most-watched segment of the entire games.

    Whatever guys, convince yourselves of whatever you like. Logic need not apply.
     
  6. Aug 1, 2012 #126 of 154
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Out of 120+ posts, there only seem to be a small handful of people (5? 6? ) complaining over and over again. Hardly a mass outrage.

    The bigger issue is the censorship of Twits (journalists and private UK citizens) not only by the main TwitCorp, but by the UK government.

    Some teen over there got arrested for his opinion.
     
  7. Aug 1, 2012 #127 of 154
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    NBC's response was "We tailor our broadcast for an American audience"

    John Stewart's response (paraphrasing again): "You're NBC - last in the ratings. You DON'T KNOW how to make something for the American audience".
     
  8. Aug 1, 2012 #128 of 154
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    Yes, thank you. People complain about NBC's Olympics coverage every time. This is hardly anything new. The only difference now is that Twitter has made all that complaining more vocal and public. Doesn't mean there's that much more of it than before. NBC is not ruining the Olympics for EVERYONE. Some people are actually enjoying the coverage. I managed to avoid spoilers all day yesterday and didn't know the results of the Phelps races or the gymnastics. That was extremely compelling television last night and I enjoyed every minute of it. I've seen a couple of websites where people (mostly female, for what that's worth) are following and treating the coverage as if it's live, full well knowing it isn't. I know some hate the idea of hearing about the ratings, but what it proves conclusively is that people are watching. And no one here or anyone else can say whether or not it's because they want to or because they "have no choice."

    We've turned into a society that everyone wants what they want, when they want it, where they want it. So that NBC is not delivering is seen as a failure. And to those people, then nothing to do is right. You have every reason to be pissed at the coverage. But the IS plenty of coverage on the cable nets. There ARE events being covered live. And in spite of less than solid quality, everything is being streamed. There are positive aspects to NBC's Olympics coverage that are some people are enjoying. Not every one of those 40 million viewers last night were watching because they had to and were only sticking with NBC in spite of their efforts.

    In short.. the Twitter crowd doesn't speak for everyone and only paints part of the picture. The ratings tell a story too and they wouldn't be as high as they are if NBC wasn't at least doing something right.
     
  9. Aug 1, 2012 #129 of 154
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    This forum is frequented by a "special" :D kind of people. That is, people mostly interested in DBS Technology and related issues. Polls, for instance, to get some insight in what kind of stations should be carried in HD next on your favorite DBS providers seem to be vastly different than the national polls.

    Basing the "outrage" on this forum alone..... is probably not a great plan. ;)

    In the media in general, and on social media like Twitter, the outrage is more spread. Also, don't forget this forum is almost exclusively Americans, and NBC is "tailoring the opening ceremony to American audiences", so most of us have been lulled in a sense that this 7-7 was something we didn't need to see, nor do most of us know and/or care about it.


    Yep, ever since terrorism has hit the U.S. (and the U.K.) very hard, laws have been introduced that allow this in both countries, and in a fair amount of other western countries. Initially designed to find terrorists, under the guise "if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about", these laws are now abused by authorities to crack down on a lot more than just terrorism. In the United States, certain provisions of the Patriot Act allow this, in the United Kingdom, similar laws allow this.

    Experts and analysts have warned us about these things, but people were more worried about finding Mohammed-with-the-Home-Depot-bomb than the potential side effects of such laws. Obviously, plots have been foiled over the years, but that had MUCH more to do with good intelligence than combing through social media. Because guess what.... a terrorist isn't going to tweet to the public about where he might find a potential ingredient for is garage-built bomb. But it is too late for that, the law is on the side of the governments now in this regard.

    Corporations have a lot of power in its own right, they have the right to refuse any customer for any reason. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" basically. If they don't like person A for whatever reason, they can just jank person A's account without any legal recourse. And of course, it actually SHOULD be this way, if I was running a company I would want to be able to remove accounts, and Twitter, Facebook remove many thousands of accounts every day, 99.99% of them being spammers.
     
  10. Aug 1, 2012 #130 of 154
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    I managed to avoid spoilers till the east coast broadcast. Not that hard anyways when you are busy at work and only visit a site or two - like this one - in breaks. On social media such as facebook most of my friends don't comment on anything Olympics until they see the broadcast.

    But as soon as the east coast broadcast was going everything went mad. So again, I got the results spoiled about 2 hours before I watched it because an east coast friend just had to talk about the swim races.

    Whether you are affected by spoilers is also something personal. I personally don't like it, you don't seem to care much about it if you do get spoilers. But we here in the west coast really get double-shafted.

    No option to watch it live. And while 75% of the country watches it and fills the internet with their comments on every site you can think about, 25% of us have to wait another 3 hours. And THAT is big BS.
     
  11. Aug 1, 2012 #131 of 154
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Perhaps NBC should not have cut ANYTHING and show it live.
     
  12. Aug 1, 2012 #132 of 154
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Behold the power of the local affiliates, right? NBC has 4 years to figure this one out.... if they can't show THAT opening live to the entire United States, they just don't give a dam.
     
  13. Aug 1, 2012 #133 of 154
    anleva

    anleva Icon

    568
    1
    Nov 14, 2007
    Ah, there we go, the NBC talking points of 'its just a small twitter fringe minority that are unhappy with NBC's Olympic coverage' and 'because ratings are high everything is fine, nothing to see here'.

    Funny, all the social media sites and forums and blogs I visit (not just twitter) are filled with folks who feel differently than that.

    I hope you are getting hazard pay.
     
  14. Aug 1, 2012 #134 of 154
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    You got that right. Affiliates (many of which are not owned by NBC) are chipping in to help pay for the Olympics, so they get some say. And if you read the articles about 2002, they asked their viewers what they wanted and the viewers responded saying they want a delay. That was for an Olympics held in this country. So yea, blame them for that one.

    Nope, just highly amused that everyone bitching thinks they're in the majority when the ratings say otherwise. Again, this happens EVERY Olympics. Social media sites and blogs and forums like this one are representative of the people who use them. Everyone else not blogging and discussing the coverage seems to be watching and Twitter can't speak for them whether they like what they're seeing or not.
     
  15. Aug 1, 2012 #135 of 154
    anleva

    anleva Icon

    568
    1
    Nov 14, 2007
    Ratings don't equate to customer satisfaction scores in the absence of competitive alternatives.

    No you can't jump to the conclusion that everyone not blogging or tweeting is happy. Yes they are watching because NBC has exclusivity.

    If it happens EVERY Olympics perhaps instead of being defensive and combative NBC should try to give the viewer more of what they want.
     
  16. Aug 1, 2012 #136 of 154
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    So in other words, you think NBC with more than 2 decades of experience covering the Olympics doesn't know what they're doing? After they've made millions on the Olympics before the economy crashed? And that 40 million viewers dropped into their laps when all but the biggest of football games and maybe they Oscars couldn't even dream of hitting that number. The exclusivity argument is BS. ABC has exclusivity for the Oscars, but I guess if it's a bad telecast, we're all forced to watch it because we absolutely have to know who won the award for best foreign language film.

    Again, Twitter is a subset of potential viewers for the Olympics. Even if every single person there hates NBC's coverage, that doesn't mean there aren't others out there who are content. And like I said earlier.. unless a value can be put on customer satisfaction, NBC and the advertisers are under no obligation to care if you're still watching. That sucks if you're a viewer, but it's the same thing as if there was only 1 Italian restaurant in your area and you really like Italian food so you kept coming back even if you hated it there. Enough with this nonsense about only having 1 rights holder for the Olympics. That's the way it's ALWAYS been in this country and I believe it's that way in many other countries as well.
     
  17. Aug 1, 2012 #137 of 154
    anleva

    anleva Icon

    568
    1
    Nov 14, 2007
    NBC knows how to serve and maximize their bottom line and their advertisers. It does not dismiss discussion from how they treat their viewers.

    One billion dollars, exclusivity and monopolistic coverage of a high demand event allows them the privilege of not giving people what they want.

    No exclusivity is not a BS argument to make. No it is not nonsense. It is the right economic model through which to understand the situation.

    Yes it does suck to be a viewer of an Olympics that is covered by NBC.

    Your analogy would make more sense and be appropriate to the situation if you were on the road and there was only 1 place to eat, you disliked the food and the service, yet you were hungry and couldn't go without food, so you ate there anyway.

    I get it. So just because it is the way it has always been you just want people to shut up about it.
     
  18. Aug 1, 2012 #138 of 154
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    How many other countries have 1 exclusive provider for the Olympics though. Isn't that what Canada has? NBC paid for that exclusivity. Are they abusing it somewhat in an effort to make money? Absolutely they are. But they're a business and it's not like they're breaking any laws. And they wouldn't be the first country or the first industry to profit off of people's misery. In no way does that make it right, but your/my/everyone's wants and desires are not a priority for them unless they need to be.

    And no, people don't have to shut up about it. But people need to give NBC a reason to change the formula in order for them to change the formula. Where the message is "we hate this coverage, it sucks" and 40 million viewers are tuning in, the message gets lost. But that's a big difference from "we have this coverage, it sucks, and we're not watching.. give us something better and we'll watch." If that was the message, NBC would be responding in kind to the situation.
     
  19. Aug 1, 2012 #139 of 154
    anleva

    anleva Icon

    568
    1
    Nov 14, 2007
    Yes exclusivity exists in other countries but for many they seem to be able to better serve their viewers wants and needs than NBC in addition to meeting their financial targets and serving their advertisers (if they are private). Some of it is due to public vs private, some maybe has to do with amount paid.

    No people are fans of the Olympics and will still watch. You know that and NBC knows that. Some will vote with their feet, but most are just willing to take what they can get even if they want more.

    Yes, I understand that people not watching would send a stronger message, but I would hope that NBC is not so callous towards its viewers that that is the only way to bring about improvement.
     
  20. Aug 1, 2012 #140 of 154
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    Don't forget, NBC has changed some things since the last Olympics. Online streaming of all the competition. Heavy increases in cable coverage. The primetime show is pretty similar to Beijing (minus the live events, of course), yet everyone wants you to believe all of a sudden it's now a major travesty. And in the process, they're not realizing that NBC has made positive strides since the last Olympics. There is plenty more room for improvement, no doubt, but the argument has to be made that if they did it another way, more people would watch. If that's not the case, then who is NBC really serving?
     

Share This Page