When 'live' doesn't really mean live...

By any standards, yesterday's Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing was spectacular. An awesome display of imagination, excellent choreography and attention to detail. My son and I were up early to watch it live from Beijing... only to find it wasn't to be broadcast on NBC (the only network available to us it seems) until 7.30 in the evening! Even weirder, this was listed as a 'live' broadcast. Huh? Disgusted, I tried to find other viewing options on the web, but those we tried were blocked. Other fans apparently faired slightly better, due to their greater tenacity and ingenuity (see the New York Times article linked from the post title above). But for most US viewers, a wait for the 'live' ceremony was required.

When it came, it certainly had some trappings of a live broadcast. An attempt at a suspenseful build-up... and much more annoyingly the constant peppering of advertisements causing viewers to miss bits of the ceremony! Each time the commentators brought us back with 'while you were away...'. Was this really necessary? Since they'd dedicated such effort to ensuring we waited to see what most other viewers across the world saw 14 hours or so earlier, could we not have had some benefit from it being pre-recorded?

Even with these annoyances, it was an attention grabbing opener to these games. London 2012 sure has an act to follow! (Yikes!) My favourite bit of the evening? Had to be when the camera trained on President Bush, who was looking bored and then checking his watch - when Laura Bush also checked hers, the camera gave up. It seems even truly live action can't please everyone.