Olympic Opening Ceremony Fireworks Were (Partly) Faked 488
A complete newb writes "London's Telegraph newspaper reports that some of the fireworks which appeared over Beijing during the television broadcast of the Olympic Opening Ceremony were actually computer generated. But — hold on — it's not necessarily as bad as you think. The faked fireworks were actually set-off at the stadium, but because of potential dangers in filming the display live from a helicopter, viewers at home were shown a pre-recorded, computer-generated shot." To me, the reasoning behind the faked display is no consolation or excuse — it seems hard to swallow that NBC was unaware of this televised deception. I'm glad that it was good-naturedly "revealed" this weekend (according to that Telegraph article), but it's disheartening that such a large crowd can watch (in person, and around the world) such a display and have no reason to realize they've been duped. What about when weightier events are at issue? There's also a slightly more detailed story at sky.com.
Only a small part looked simulated (Score:5, Informative)
I watched the opening ceremony on NBC here in the U.S. There was a part of the ceremony called something like 'A walk through Beijing'. It showed a fly-through video of Beijing with "footsteps" made of fireworks popping up along the street/path. Those footstep fireworks looked pretty obviously computer-simulated. All other fireworks shown did not have that simulated appearance.
It sounds to me like these footsteps part were all that was simulated.
Does anyone know if the footage we saw on NBC (of the whole ceremony) was from an International common video feed or did NBC have their own cameras there? I ask because at large International events like this, there is often a common video feed and the commentators simple talk about what they see on their screen (which is the same thing we see, minus the fancy NBC info graphics and overlays.)
(I wrote this looking at the subscriber early-post version. A link to a sky.com article was later added to the summary which answers my question.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bet that the fireworks weren't the only computer-generated portion of the opening ceremony -- The part at the beginning with the rising and falling blocks looked a little suspect. The narration also reeked of classic propaganda, but I'm glad to see that a lot of the symbolism in the show advocated a more progressive China.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The blocks (allegedly symbolic of wind, water, etc.) looked real (I mean physically existing), but controlled by hydraulics. The "unveiling" of the fact that they were supposedly operated by people inside them, and the info-bit from the announcers that it wasn't hydraulics or motors, etc., seems obviously false.
At a few points, I though I could see the hydraulic pistons moving up and down. Especially near the end when the blocks were raised very high and you could see underneath them.
I would ask, "Do they t
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:4, Informative)
It looked like legs to me, not hydraulics. Add to that the slightly inconsistent motion and it seems like you are just making things up.
It can be both.. kindof. (Score:3, Insightful)
I definitely saw legs, but I also saw some sort of supports. I imagine that the blocks had some kind of contraption to make it easier for the people to lift them up and down with such fluidity. Not to mention that they would all have to be constrained to move up and down; I didn't see them wobble at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people are saying that having it human powered was impossible. I really disagree... I've seen some amazing work from Chinese (and other Asian) performers that make it entirely credible. Someone pointed out that they may have been getting signals...
Look, they obviously used a computer when choreographing it, then each "block" got a "Script", and all they had to do was count, each script told the "talent" how high at that count they needed to be. Add in months of practice, and there you go.
I'm not imp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:5, Informative)
The hydraulic pistons were the actor's legs.
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5306/peoplebn2.gif [imageshack.us]
At the end of the act the tops were removed so the actors could wave to the crowd (or else robotics were really, really advanced).
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:5, Insightful)
I could see the hydraulic pistons moving up and down. Especially near the end when the blocks were raised very high and you could see underneath them.
I would ask, "Do they think we're that stupid", but alas, many folks are willing to ignore facts observed by their own eyes if a credible TV person states something different.
Anyone who was paying attention during that part of the show could see that it was people inside the boxes. The only "obviously false" thing is the disinformation you're posting here. I just can't figure out what your purpose is in doing so.
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:4, Informative)
While I hate to be a "me too", I distinctly remember hearing the announcer talk about how CGI was used during the opening ceremony, and it was discussed during the footsteps. I found it quite clear that the footsteps were "faked", but I think all the uproar over is a bunch of people who didn't pay attention to the announcers, or perhaps I was watching another station with the opening ceremony other than NBC.
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:5, Interesting)
The NBC announcer said something about " virtual flythrough" or somesuch as it was shown, which made my wife and I discuss why they were showing us simulated film. Those steps looked obviously faked up until the few near the stadium.
I'd get the exact wording, but we've already deleted it from the DVR.
I don't know why this is news. It was said on air and obvious at the time.
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:5, Interesting)
The NBC commentator specifically said, as the footage was being shown, that the event's producers were using a cinematic interlude to convey the concept of the fireworks. The actual firewoks WERE going off at the same time, and in much the same way... but there was simply no way to be sure they could show it well on TV - since . . .
the notional ground speed of the POV of that FX shot was faster than anything short of military jets.
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:5, Insightful)
The main goal of the ceremony is to entertain millions (perhaps billions?) of people and in my very humble opinion they succeded at that pretty damn well.
Hell, the first 1.5 hrs of the opening was one of the most magnificent shows ever to put on the face of the earth.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but they could have computer generated a lot more parts of the show and they didn't. The people in the boxes for instance?
I don't really care what was real or not.. All I know is that I frequently had to pick up my jaw from the ground. And that was the ultimate goal. Period.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
exactly. It's show business, people, not news reporting. This whole discussion is like a moviegoer saying "What?! you mean John McClane didn't really blow up a building, they used computer effects? It's a conspiracy!"
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:5, Informative)
In reply to whether or not you the footage you saw was from a International Common Feed, the answer is: Yes
NBC and the other rights holding broadcasters use the feed that is originated by the "Host Broadcaster" in this case Beijing Olympic Broadcasting. NBC and the other rights holding broadcasters can pay to have extra cameras in the stadium/venue. Those cameras are typically used for close ups of dignitaries and athletes from that Broadcaster's country in addition to "Beauty Shots" (scenic shots of landmarks or landscapes that are not covered by the International Feed). However that footage is generally less than 5% of the total footage, the rest of it comes from the International feed. The Host broadcaster will add their own commentary over top the International feed and in some cases their own graphics (or additional graphics specific to that network/broadcaster). The Host Broadcaster originates all the of the TV footage for the Games including the Opening and Closing Ceremonies.
I worked on the crews of three Olympics (2002, 2004, 2006) with my spouse working for the Host Broadcaster for each of those games.
What struck me as odd about those 'footprints' (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, the fireworks in the 'footprint' sequence themeselves looked suspiciously rendered, but what really made me question it as I watched it was that as they flew towards the stadium, the roads were busy - plenty of cars.
After 7 years waiting, I guess most Beijingers would have been at home watching on TV.
Other shots outside the stadium later showed the roads virtually deserted (and totally deserted in the immediate vicinity of the stadium, of course).
Jolyon
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:5, Insightful)
Perfectly appropriate considering the kid's city was jut flattened don't you think?
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:5, Funny)
Libya's flag [wikipedia.org] has been upside down every time I've ever seen it - They must be a very distraught country.
Japan [wikipedia.org] seems to be pretty panicky too...
The definition of ironic (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only a small part looked simulated (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But eh, George W. is an idiot and messes up everything American anyway.
Whom do we petition for "Line Item" Flamebait moderation? I was with you as "Informative," till this point.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
Hey if they can fake a moon landing why are people upset about some fireworks.
If the fireworks are tape delayed anyhow, exactly what is is about them being "live" that makes them better than CG.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, congratulations on that. With 60% more people you produce 21.5% more stuff. Nice job, guys!
Fireworks on TV (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try dealing with traffic in my area after the show is over. There's plenty of reason to watch them in hi-def.
But they seem to film those from a helicopter just fine with no problem, so it seems to me this is BS justification for misleading. You're NEVER supposed to misrepresent the truth in journalism and this should have been disclosed clearly as "simulation" or similar, and not presented as actual fact. I've been through photojournalism courses and it was drummed into our heads to never, ever fake a shot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I want to feel the bang, so I don't even bother watching them on TV. I love that feeling of like a sonic boom going through my chest.
(cue Street Fighter 2 jokes)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So what... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Your what?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm trying to find a way to do the same in return. I got the visuals working via CGI, but the rest is still lacking.
sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey captain obvious, I vividly remember the NBC announcer stating they were computer generated as it was happening.
Off your high horse please.
Re:sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, the summary makes it seem like some part of the fireworks were 'faked'.
In fact, what we're talking about is the fireworks view from above. Rather than being a helicopter shot it was CGI matched to the fireworks.
There were still actual fireworks in place, they just did the CGI to give viewers an idea of what the fireworks looked like from different angles.
This is such a non story. The MSM is obviously playing it up because of insufficient olimpic drama but really, does Slashdot have to do the same?
]{
Yeah, no kidding. (Score:5, Informative)
Unaware? obviously weren't listening during th broadcast. The NBC announcers were talking about how some of the effects were computer enhanced. They specifically said there were "digital pyrotechnics" used during the camera shot that zoomed across the city showing fireworks exploding all around.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Not to mention that this is the opening ceremony - it is supposed to be a grand spectacle and, in this day, that means stuff like CGI. It is ENTERTAINMENT - not news, not sports. The only sports are the events themselves and the only news is the reporting of the medals won and the likes. (Oh, and the people jailed and the stabbing incident - those too are also news but hopefully people get the point.)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
... and the stabbing incident - those too are also news but hopefully people get the point.)
Now that was uncalled for (emphasis added for emphasis).
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the problem? You want a series of impressive images on your screen. What's the issue with having them in CGI instead of real-life fireworks? The end result is the same. I could get your argument if we were talking about some olympic discipline being duped, with doping, corruption or otherwise, but fireworks are just eye candy. How it gets to your retina is quite irrelevant.
And by the way, doing it in CGI is also more environmentally friendly: compounds used in fireworks are not always of the most benign sort.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if the faked images had been associated with real news -- war, human rights, natural disaster, etc. -- then there would be grounds for a scandal. But this? It was a spectacle even without the "digital pyrotechnics."
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a just slippery slope argument. NBC News has violated an important rule for any news organization. It knowingly presented falsified images as true.
True, the harm it does to viewers is trivial. The party that is harmed is NBC news. If NBC did not issue a disclaimer while showing the images in question, what it tells us is that NBC News is willing to mislead us if in their opinion the viewers are better off believing the falsehoods.
So, if NBC doesn't subscribe to the theory that fictionalized representations of the facts ought to bear a disclaimer, then we must wonder exactly what they think the boundaries of their license to tinker with reality are.
Naturally, I think this is just a stupid gaffe. But if I were in charge of this particular NBC operation, I'd be issuing an apology and promise not to do it again.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about sporting events? If you watch NFL, a lot of what you see is faked. From the artificial lines, to the CGI projections of the field. Even the advertisements along the sides are not real - the banners are resold to local broadcasters so that people watching will get local (or regional) advertisements. This is easy to see when you watch the same NFL game on Canadian and American channels - two completely different advertisements. Even the blimp is digitally altered.
None of that gets a disclaime
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
False. As others have pointed out here, the NBC announcer did say just before the "footsteps" video that it was computer enhanced.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it's a slippery slope. First they're faking the fireworks, then they're faking the torch run, eventually the gold medal will go with whoever can render the fastest while the athletes relax back at the club.
It seems to me the OP is mad because he feels lied to. He feels they didn't do enough to say that they were creating the spectacle artificially and thus perpetrated a fraud which sets an unpleasant precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if they are going to ok the use of CGI then why bother with something as mundane as fireworks? Why not have spaceships buzzing the city and Jedi nights swinging light sabres on the rim of the stadium?
I think the issue isn't what you saw but the impression that you were seeing something real that required amazing effort, cost, and creativity. To find out it was just some guys sitting in front of a workstation is a bit of a dissapointment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well -- let me try to put the problem to you in a reasonable way.
No, there's nothing wrong with using CGI to goose up an entertainment show. And sports are entertainment. But sports broadcasting isn't just entertainment, it's journalism. If you see film of a fantastic baseball play, you expect you can trust it hasn't been enhanced to make it better. When two rival teams meet, you expect the statitics cited on their past performance are accurate, not ginned up to make things more dramatic.
But of course
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of the point of an eternal flame is that it does cost.
And regardless of the cost, we shall pay it in thanks for what was done.
Electronic Fakes (Score:2, Interesting)
This isn't a first for the networks. They have fudged the painting on a building in NYC (as seen by home views) during the New Year's Eve celebration.
Worry about them fudging the actual events. For that matter, worry about them broadcasting someone stepping out of a hotel room an 2AM.
Slippery slope, fallacy or harbinger of doom? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slippery slope, fallacy or harbinger of doom? (Score:4, Funny)
In other news, last year's Super Bowl was actually two guys playing Madden '08.
Yeah, sorry about the Patriots guys...
My wife wouldn't stop nagging me to "stop playing that stupid game."
Heh (Score:2)
It blows my mind that people aren't more concerned about this type of stuff in the real news. They have watched all manner of modern special effects and other kinds of impressive visual trickery in the movies. Hell, even the weather map thing is a greenscreen type trick. Yet, noone believes that this type of thing would happen
NBC said it was CG (Score:2)
The Olympics are a SHOW (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok? The idea is for the entire world to be entertained at which should be a truce among the nations of the world bringing its best athletes to the tables. Putting on a good show for the olympics is part of the drill.
I'm always looking for a good shot at China but I think this time around we should cut these people a break. They've done a good job with the Olympics so far.
Some deficiencies (Score:3, Interesting)
They've got some catching up to do before they beat the US: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/08/09/olympics.murder/index.html [cnn.com]
I suggest increasing the number of victims using CGI.
Re:The Olympics are a SHOW (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, didn't work in Georgia, did it?
Look, clearly the modern Olympics is just silly and pretentious. The idea that is some kind of movement that unites humanity in sport is so bizarre it defies belief anybody could seriously pretend it is true. If that's true, why do athletes march, like troops, behind their national flags? Why is the big triumph standing on the podium and having your national anthem played?
The ancient Olympiad didn't have any of these kind of national (or city state) trappings. I'm sure that people had their home town favorites, but athletes traveled under the Olympic truce to compete at the games as individuals.
I think it's great that people look at track and field, archery, judo and badminton etc. every four years. But the shear pretentiousness of the whole enterprise is galling. The drawn out fiasco of the Olympic torch relay was the wages of misty eyed attachment to an absurdity.
It'd all be just as good, or better, without all the ridiculous hype. I think it's bad that it's a show, that it's become bread and circuses doused with saccharine political symbolism, like a political convention where red and white balloons dropping from the ceiling are supposed to mean something.
NBC Commentator *stated* part simulated (Score:5, Informative)
Welcome to China... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now shut the hell up and watch what they tell you to watch...or else. :)
But seriously, the level of paranoia here about the country "losing face" if things don't come off exactly as planned is simply difficult to describe if you're not here on the ground to see it first hand. I'm sure the environment in Berlin wasn't much different in 1936. The city is crawling with army, police (in uniform and plainclothes), and civilian brown shirt.....er...I mean "helpers" complete with red armbands (sound familiar)?
So
I suspected something was wrong (Score:2)
The fly-over of the city during the fireworks was way too fast for a helicopter. I remember thinking it looked weird.
I live in a place with an awful lot of fireworks (Valencia, Spain) so some of the fireworks looked odd, too - all the same weird shape.
It didn't occur to me that it was all computer generated though, I mean ... why would they?
All the same shape.... (Score:2)
Yep, the pic in the article is the suspicious one. Every firework which went up made *exactly* that shape in the air.
You can make shapes in the air (we do hearts, stars, etc). When I saw it I figured it was the shape of China or something.
It seems odd, precisely the sort of thing a computer artist wouldn't do.
Old addage? (Score:2, Offtopic)
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, did it make any noise?
If you weren't there in person, did it really happen? Apparently not. Seems like we should apply this to a lot of the news being reported by MSM these days. I don't care for sports and don't think the US Athletes, never mind the president, should be there in China. I *WOULD* have liked some coverage of the Russian fighting. I could only find that on the Internet. MSM? meh They seem like nothing but tosspots and whitehouse mou
Oh look, more anti-china propaganda. (Score:2, Insightful)
NBC said it was a "cinematic animation" (Score:5, Informative)
I watched the opening ceremonies twice and the commentators did state something to the effect of "They want this ceremony to be cinema in real time, but what you're watching right now is actually cinematic, it's all animation of these footsteps leading to the National Stadium." They did not outright say "hey this is prerendered CG" but they DID state that this was "true cinematics" and that it was animation.
They were well aware of it and did a poor job of communicating it to viewers. I can tell how most people would have missed it.
What Lauer and Costas actually said (Score:4, Informative)
I went back and looked at what NBC showed on television in the United States of America.
The following is exactly what the commentators, Today Show host Matt Lauer and NBC Sports broadcaster Bob Costas, said:
At the time, I fully understood that I was watching a movie. It's not "news" to me.
The 1992 torch lighting by flaming arrow was faked (Score:5, Informative)
Back in 1992, the Olympic torch in Barcelona was supposed to be lit by an archer shooting a flaming arrow. Yeah... no. He shot it towards the cauldron, but it was set to be lit on its own via pyros. The flaming arrow passed way over the cauldron, safe from setting any of the audience on fire or perforating them, and the torch lit anyway.
OR MAYBE IT WAS AN OLYMPIC MIRACLE AND HE HIT IT
Link: The Source of All Knowledge [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I shall summon the difference between revisions [wikipedia.org] for the 1992 Summer Olympics article, which shows the text as it looked when I referenced it compared to the text as it was edited roughly an hour later.
The citation for the Wikipedia article is (was) from the BBC: "Ceremonial hall of shame [bbc.co.uk]."
Barcelona restored dignity four years later with an archer dramatically lighting the Olympic flame with a burning arrow flying through the night sky.
Billions of people around the globe gasped in admiration as the archer bravely found his target with unerring accuracy.
Or so it seemed.
In reality, he had not actually landed the arrow in the middle of the cauldron - he had fired it way outside the stadium as instructed.
Organisers dared not risk his aim failling short and landing into the grandstand and instead told him to fire it directly over the target area... some pyrotechnics-helpful camera angles would take care of the visual effect.
There you have it.
It goes to credibility... (Score:4, Insightful)
...and eventually, this kind of deficit spending will bankrupt the media.
I do wonder why they keep pushing the edge of the envelope like this, though. The urge to alter reality doesn't really resonate with me. Just show it how it really happened. People are tuning in to experience a real event, not some imagined account of what the fireworks might have looked like.
If things continue to trend this way, the media will eventually find it far easier to simply fabricate all the news. They'd never have to leave the studio, and could script out events over and over until they got just the right shot. I mean seriously, if they're not going to have 100% journalistic integrity, why have any at all?
Who said the Olympics is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Real sports are the ones you do yourself.
What about NBC's "live" coverage? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because it's entertainment that you know is produced for effect. Yet somehow, you've convinced yourself that the opening ceremonies aren't ceremonial displays done for entertainment purposes, and then complained about it.
Again, where exactly is the line drawn? If the opening ceremonies can be fake, why not the competitions as well?
Who's metric is better for judging the issue, yours or mine? Or that guy over there, perhaps? His brother maybe?
By your only guideline revealed thus far 'entertainment produced for effect' is fair game. Are not the games themselves entertainment as well? If not, why have audiences at all? Why award the medals on podiums, why not just by mail?
The entire 'games' event is an entertainment spect
How about this (Score:5, Funny)
To me, the reasoning behind the faked display is no consolation or excuse
Then next time, Timothy, we'll let you fly the helicopter while fireworks are being shot at it.
Unmanned drone time... (Score:2)
If it took a year to simulate the fireworks, it would have been cheaper to put the camera in a remotely piloted vehicle.
Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"A standard disclaimer of "this televised broadcast contains elements that are computer generated etc etc" would have been appropriate."
THEY SAID IT WAS CG SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE BROADCAST.
"I think it is good for some outrage here."
Ok then, I'm outraged that so many of you are too stupid to educate yourself about a subject before shooting your mouths off.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well I watched the broadcast and I did NOT see that announcement.
Sorry I am an idiot.
But I'd rather be a moron than a raging asshole.
Footprints (Score:5, Insightful)
DoD producing propaganda for foreign (wink) audiences. Good evidence just came out that the White House forged a war-justification document. Stovepiped intelligence. Hush money to truth-tellers. Known-false public WMD claims. "This isn't about intelligence, it's about regime change." "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out." Facts fixed around the policy. Leaks to "billboard" media to punish truth-tellers' families. Embedded reporters, sent home for publishing actual war photographs. Talking points piped from the White House to the top news corporations, often repeated as directives to the "journalists" who frame each day's news. Seven years of lapdog media pundits laughing along with the right-wingers who call for their assassination while they seriously discuss whether the 60% of Americans who still somehow hold political beliefs at odds with the ruling administration are traitors.
But the fireworks show China is deceptive.
Re:Footprints (Score:4, Insightful)
DoD producing propaganda for foreign (wink) audiences. Good evidence just came out that the White House forged a war-justification document. Stovepiped intelligence. Hush money to truth-tellers. Known-false public WMD claims. "This isn't about intelligence, it's about regime change." "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out." Facts fixed around the policy. Leaks to "billboard" media to punish truth-tellers' families. Embedded reporters, sent home for publishing actual war photographs. Talking points piped from the White House to the top news corporations, often repeated as directives to the "journalists" who frame each day's news. Seven years of lapdog media pundits laughing along with the right-wingers who call for their assassination while they seriously discuss whether the 60% of Americans who still somehow hold political beliefs at odds with the ruling administration are traitors.
1964, Vietnam War: Gulf of Tonkin incident.
1917, First World War: Zimmerman telegram.
1898, Spanish-American War: "Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain!"
1846, Mexican-American War: The Thornton Affair.
1774: First Continental Congress: Persistent rumors in Philadephia that the British had burned Boston to the ground.
Dude, entering a war under false or misleading pretenses is a proud and patriotic American tradition. Get a grip.
It all makes sense, now (Score:3, Insightful)
If this is the standard of reporting NBC employs to bring purportedly "real-world" events to its viewers, I'm starting to understand how the US wound up in Iraq, why so many people believe evolution is "just a theory" and why huge corporations unblushingly stand in the welfare line while homeless veterans beg on street corners.
What's the harm in a little "enhanced reality" if it helps to keep people glued to the television, comfortable and distracted and plumply satisfied with their lot?
Is this the same NBC (Score:2)
Meh. (Score:2, Informative)
I watched on live YLE 1 in Finland, and the commentators explained as the fireworks were let off that part of the footage of of the giant footsteps before they reached the stadium were generated, but the fireworks at the stadium were live.
Seems to me someone is trying to sensationalize a non issue.
They did tell you... (Score:4, Informative)
Slashdot replaced by anti-NBC site? (Score:2)
The Chinese Olympic officials fake some fireworks and slashdot immediately turns it into "what did NBC know and when did they know it?"
What the hell is going on here?
Opening Ceremony On Steroids... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as long as the ATHLETES are NOT on steroids, and the COMPETITION ITSELF is real... that's all I care about.
erm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this just a vain viral attempt to drum up interest in the World's singularly most overrated sporting event?
Or simply yet another attempt to discredit the Chinese to distract US and UK readers from caring about the human rights and privacy abuses committed their own countries. Just remember, anything bad that happens in China in 2008 is going to be blown out of the water by the the London Olympics -- it'll make the 1936 Olympics look like Woodstock.
Remember the bow and arrow torch? (Score:2, Interesting)
In one of the past olympics, one guy lightened his flamable arrow with the olympic torch. Then he pointed to the big - whatever its name - and blam! There was the olympic fire.
According to my sources, the arrow flew over the whole stadium, and that the olympic fire was lightened electronically. The archer said he could actually aim at the exact spot, but he was ordered to shoot the arrow over it so that people wouldn't be disappointed if the arrow didn't make it. :-/
Come On... (Score:2)
So that explains... (Score:5, Funny)
...the coziness between China and Iran. China shares advanced missile technology with Iran who reciprocates with advanced computer-generated rocket-launch capability.
Fake? (Score:4, Funny)
Wah, wah, OMG OMG the fireworks are fake. Cry me a river.
Bad Link (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe the computing power required (Score:3, Funny)
caused the Blue Screen of Death?
http://gizmodo.com/5035456/blue-screen-of-death-strikes-birds-nest-during-opening-ceremonies-torch-lighting [gizmodo.com]
Not the first Olympic fake-out (Score:4, Funny)
The first Olympic fake-out was back at Olympics 776 BC. In 720 BC it was discovered that olympian Ephorus Pausanias was actually wearing "artistically enhanced" tights.
It was obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
"weightier events"? We already KNOW what happens (Score:3, Interesting)
The media prints the fake material uncritically. Happened time and time again in the leadup to Iraq invasion, is happening again with the Ivins anthrax story, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
If Leni Riefenstahl was filimg - (Score:4, Informative)
Two sides of the same coin (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope all you "left-wing liberal freedom fighters" who are infuriated and want "something done" about this dastardly deception and corruption of our human rights recognize the similarities you share with those "right-wing religious zealots" who have the _exact_ same reaction to harmless nudity, language, or sexual situations on television.
And, as it usually the case, the "facts" are completely wrong here as well: the CG simulation WAS disclosed and nobody was "duped". This is just more of the up-in-arms reactionary BS coming from people desperately in need of something to get worked up about.
Maybe if the two sides would see how similar they really are, this kind of idiocy will stop.
But thanks, Slashdot - this is like the third story today that was either deliberately misleading or completely fabricated. Seems like the only people getting "duped" are those who believe Slashdot story summaries.
It's about the sports (Score:3, Insightful)
The Games have been rigged for years, and we're pissing about the firecrackers?
Re:If "it doesn't matter," why not disclose it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There were 29 real 'big foot' fireworks firing at 2 seconds interval. The first firework began at the Wing Ding gate, spanning a distance of around 13500 meters. So for a helicopter to cover the filming of firework, it has to fly some where around 225 meters per second. A tough job for the helicopter pilot.
I think, if the smog and cloud wasn't much a problem that night, there might be some crazy Chinese guy filming the process high above.