TV Home Forum

BBC 2012 - The Olympic Broadcaster

It's almost all over . . . (November 2011)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
SC
scottishtv Founding member
ashley b posted:
Some caps from the show. The BBC Three studio in the open air:

http://www.thisisfive.co.uk/olympics/1.jpg

In addition, Jake tweeted:
- a pic of Matt just about to do the above link
- a pic of behind the desk in the BBC studio
- and a look behind the scenes and in the BBC office/sport newsroom.
BA
bilky asko
dosxuk posted:
Blake Connolly posted:
presumably Perry Fenwick can count himself as a genuine torchbearer.


He's not listed on the website as a torch bearer - http://www.london2012.com/torch-relay/torchbearers/day=2012-07-23/index.html


Not all torch bearers are listed on the site.
CA
Cando
dosxuk posted:
Moz posted:
Doubt LOCOG/the IOC would have allowed a 'fake' flame to have burned in a replica torch.


Er, why?

More to the point, why would the Eastenders production team need the real flame to film their story?


What was the point of going live if they weren't using the real flame ? Every other place apart from Tv forum Rolling Eyes say it was the real flame
JO
Jon
Cando posted:
dosxuk posted:
Moz posted:
Doubt LOCOG/the IOC would have allowed a 'fake' flame to have burned in a replica torch.


Er, why?

More to the point, why would the Eastenders production team need the real flame to film their story?


What was the point of going live if they weren't using the real flame ? Every other place apart from Tv forum Rolling Eyes say it was the real flame

I don't think anyone representing the forum is saying that.

And judging by the placement of the emoticon you seem to have some kind of dislike of the forum, could you tell me why this is?
BR
Brekkie
bbcsport posted:
I know this has been discussed previously, but I'm now looking at next week's Radio Times and I've just got annoyed about it again. BBC Two's daytime schedule is filled with repeats of BBC One's daytime rubbish during the Olympics - hours and hours of Cowboy Trap, Cash in the Attic, Flog It! etc. Would it really have been so awful to give BBC Two over to Olympic coverage, even just until CBBC begins at 3pm? I know the daytime stuff "offers an alternative to the Olympics", but could the BBC really not just argue that these Olympics are a once-in-a-lifetime event, and realise that there are other channels showing alternative programming?

What has changed in the last 20 years? In the 1980s and 1990s the BBC regularly broadcast hours and hours of sports coverage simultaneously on BBC One and BBC Two during big events - at a time when there were only two other free-to-air channels. Nowadays, most viewers who don't like sport have a choice of dozens of other channels to watch. Is it really that big a deal for two weeks?

Ah . . . anyway. Sorry for the rant. I'll not be watching much of it anyway - I'm off to the Games today. I trust all of you will keep the Forum well updated with images, videos and info on all the coverage! Happy Olympics!


Absolutely agree - there is nothing on BBC2 during the day which is in anyway a public service and nothing other than Newsround which isn't a repeat - plus as I've said all along for Freeview viewers it would be better to have daytime coverage on BBC2, switching to BBC3 at 7pm - and then two 24/7 interactive streams.

BBC2 deserves better to than just to be used for the BBC1 news breaks, though the only slight complication is those newsbreaks where they'd need to decide whether BBC2 picks up where BBC1 left off or continues with their own thing - although with Wimbledon they're not afraid to move coverage to BBC2 for half an hour and then back again, dropping what BBC2 was showing, so it's not really an issue.

In many ways the schedules next week highlight the best of the BBC on BBC1 and the very worst on BBC2.
DO
dosxuk
Cando posted:
dosxuk posted:
Moz posted:
Doubt LOCOG/the IOC would have allowed a 'fake' flame to have burned in a replica torch.


Er, why?

More to the point, why would the Eastenders production team need the real flame to film their story?


What was the point of going live if they weren't using the real flame ? Every other place apart from Tv forum Rolling Eyes say it was the real flame


Same reason as doing it live for their anniversary - it creates a talking point around the programme.

If it was the real flame, I would have expected to see a lot more coverage of that fact, for example on the Torch Relay website, which is covering all the other stunts, like the trip on a train today, but which remains silent about either visiting the set of Eastenders, or appearing in Eastenders.
CA
Cando
Jon posted:

I don't think anyone representing the forum is saying that.
?

I was obviously talking about posters on here.

Jon posted:

And judging by the placement of the emoticon you seem to have some kind of dislike of the forum, could you tell me why this is?


Put the handbag away and stop overreacting to an emoticon Rolling Eyes
CA
Cando
Blake Connolly posted:
I thought it was part of the torch relay in the same way as the stunts like having the person stand on top of the London Eye with it the other day. .


This.

dosxuk posted:
Same reason as doing it live for their anniversary - it creates a talking point around the programme.
.

This deserves an eye roll but I can't or Jon will be ofended. So in your world they decided to go live for 7 mins to bring a fake flame through the square!!!!!!!!!!
dosxuk posted:
If it was the real flame, I would have expected to see a lot more coverage of that fact, for example on the Torch Relay website, which is covering all the other stunts , like the trip on a train today, but which remains silent about either visiting the set of Eastenders, or appearing in Eastenders.


Not everything is posted on the website. If you look back a few posts you'll see you were already caught out claiming all the torchbearers were on the site Wink
SC
scottishtv Founding member
Can't you take your argument to the Eastenders thread or Torch Relay thread? instead of filling a page with personal insults on an otherwise quite interesting thread on the forum.
DO
dosxuk
Cando posted:
Not everything is posted on the website. If you look back a few posts you'll see you were already caught out saying claiming all the torchbearers were on the site Wink


Would you like to post a quote of me saying that all the torch bearers are listed?

Until someone can post a verifiable quote from a recognised LOCOG official, we're all speculating.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no evidence pointing to it being the real flame. It didn't need to be, and nobody apart from a few forum users are claiming that it was.

scottishtv posted:
Can't you take your argument to the Eastenders thread or Torch Relay thread? instead of filling a page with personal insults on an otherwise quite interesting thread on the forum.


Quite. I shall say no more on the subject, because I couldn't care less about the officiality of the flame.
BA
bilky asko
dosxuk posted:
Cando posted:
Not everything is posted on the website. If you look back a few posts you'll see you were already caught out saying claiming all the torchbearers were on the site Wink


Would you like to post a quote of me saying that all the torch bearers are listed?


dosxuk posted:
Blake Connolly posted:
presumably Perry Fenwick can count himself as a genuine torchbearer.


He's not listed on the website as a torch bearer - http://www.london2012.com/torch-relay/torchbearers/day=2012-07-23/index.html


If you didn't think that, your post would have been irrelevant.
DA
David
Moz posted:
Doubt LOCOG/the IOC would have allowed a 'fake' flame to have burned in a replica torch.


They were rehearsing over the weekend, presumably with a 'fake flame' (i.e. a real flame that hasn't been blessed by Sebastian Coe) and either a real torch or one knocked up by the EastEnders prop team (I'd assume they would be allowed to use a real one). Why would they do it any differently on the night?

see here……..

WWW.BBC.CO.UK/BLOGS/
24-Jul-2012 @ 22:05

Newer posts