Spoilers! Spoilers!

September 15, 2000 6:23 AM

Spoilers! Spoilers! See, with the ceremony over, and 10 hours to go before the "official" coverage, NBC are still asking "Who will light the torch?" We know, idiots. Isn't this just a bit silly?
posted by holgate (13 comments total)

And I know about the tape-delay agreements that NBC has signed, and you can imagine my opinion of them. What's interesting is that while CNN broadcast the relevant details on the front page, the BBC and ABC News-via-AP keep them on an inside page. Is CNN deliberately trying to piss off the "official" channel?
posted by holgate at 6:27 AM on September 15, 2000

Well, hope you're happy holegate. You just lost your rights to ever compete in the olympics.

Just what is the US supposed to do in 2004 for a weight lifter now?
posted by alana at 6:58 AM on September 15, 2000

I watched the last 15 minutes or so of the lighting ceremony this morning before coming to work.

I love how camera flashes in a large crowd of people constantly going off look like little shimmering stars scattered about.

And the actual lighting itself was very cool. Those Aussie torch-makers have done some phenominal work.

"How's she's going to get out of there?!

"Ahhh... pretty!"
posted by cCranium at 7:59 AM on September 15, 2000

I was pissed last night. My australian friend daniel was gloating about it over icq.

"It starts in three hours!"
"It starts in a half hour"
"It's on right now, can you see it on TV"

"No. Stupid NBC, Conan is on. I hate America."
posted by mathowie at 8:29 AM on September 15, 2000

It'll be fun to compare the efforts of the IOC/NBC to control news, with those of the MPAA and RIAA over DeCSS and Napster respectively. Just how free does information want to be, I wonder?
posted by holgate at 9:10 AM on September 15, 2000

Have the media rights to future Olympics already been purchased? I can imagine that this "sudden awakening" that the networks in America will have about how little control they retain over the flow of news information into our lives will be reducing those hefty fees the IOC has been capable of commanding...
posted by m.polo at 9:31 AM on September 15, 2000

m.polo: I think they have. NBC is supporting Toronto's bid for the 2008 Olympics. According to a quote in the Globe & Mail from a couple of days ago, it's strictly because of the time zone issues.
posted by cCranium at 9:35 AM on September 15, 2000

I assume that if the 2008 games go elsewhere, NBC will just make it part of the TV deal with the IOC that the venue runs on an American timezone for the duration.
posted by holgate at 10:33 AM on September 15, 2000

look, although i hate the tape delay, do you really want to be watching the games at 4 in the morning? would be cool if we held all the games in western hemisphere, but that would ruin the whole "international" thing :)
posted by owillis at 12:00 PM on September 15, 2000

why can't they just replay it? the news WILL get out, and those who love live sports can watch @ 4am, and those who just want to watch the games can watch at the regular time. I'm certain they'd make more money that way, no?
posted by chaz at 12:21 PM on September 15, 2000

look, although i hate the tape delay, do you really want to be watching the games at 4 in the morning?Western hemisphere? you mean "9 eastern, 6 pacific", don't you?I'm with Chaz: when I still enjoyed watching the Olympics, it was something really special to be allowed to stay up late, or get up early, to see the big events live (or even the little events: the BBC is great at covering the minority sports, especially in the early days before the athletics begins.) In fact, I think it added to the feeling that it was something special and unique, rather than just another piece of "prime-time entertainment", edited and homogenised to suit viewer demographics and advertising budgets.Some of my strongest sporting memories have come from late-night viewings of the Olympics or the World Cup: I viscerally remember watching the story break that Ben Johnson had failed his drug test in Seoul, from the first rumours at midnight London time, to the official announcement at 4am or so; the hat-trick scored by Gary Lineker against Poland during Mexico '86; Owen's goal for England vs. Argentina in 98, watched in a blazing afternoon in Athens, Georgia.For fuck's sake, NBC would time-delay the moon landing these days.
posted by holgate at 1:01 PM on September 15, 2000

And isn't half the fun of watching a sporting event *not* knowing the outcome? Of watching it as it unfolds? Hell yeah I'd watch at 4 am, because try as I will to avoid hearing the results before I watch the events, it's bound to happen.
posted by megnut at 3:20 PM on September 15, 2000

The thing is that NBC is delaying things by more than 24 hours in the interests of packaging up a nice taped summary so they don't have to show the whole event. Take the Women's Triathlon. It's on tonight (Saturday, EDT) in prime time. It's a huge, marquee event in the anniversary of the 100th year women have participated in the Games.

It started early Saturday morning in Australia at 10am - which is 8pm here in the Eastern time zone. Prime time. The event is usually (and was) 2 hrs long - a perfect TV event if the course is a good looping course (ie they do multiple laps, not just a long single-lap cycle and run).

And that's when it was on CBC. Live coverage of the whole event. Not a little 15 minute highlights reel. I have read that they purposely scheduled many events for the morning Syndey time just so it would also coincide with prime time (or earlier) in much of North America. And NBC still isn't showing the events.

It's not just about the time difference. Cause in a way, this particular time difference is perfect for North America.
posted by mikel at 1:33 PM on September 16, 2000