Well, I've seen there's already been a few negative reviews of the opening ceremony, one even claiming that it was 'boring' and that London should be barred from hosting another ceremony for another 68 years. Full story here

Regardless, I agree, I thought it was incredible.

people have no right to complain that things are boring... if it's boring, then don't watch it! then you have nothing to complain about.

as zieg knows i didn't watch it, but have zero tolerance for people who watched it and thought it was boring.

Hear hear Josh. Not only is that article very condescending, but it's also incredibly uninformed. Abraham Lincoln? No. Try Isambard Kingdom Brunel, one of the greatest engineers the world has ever known.

Oh, but it must be Abraham Lincoln, ANYONE who wears a nice suit and has a top hat must be Abraham Lincoln. </sarcasm>

And I myself knew it was Isambard Kingdom Brunel. As you said, one of the greatest engineering minds ever known.

Well, I am not interested into the games at all (since I am not interested into sports in general), but I also watched the opening ceremony.
My favourite acts were Mike Oldfield (though I didn't like that jazz-style of Tubular Bells in the beginning) und the LSO with Mr. Bean.
And I was very impressed by the way they lit the Cauldron.

I had a feeling that the petals, which each nation brought out, would join up in some way. But I never foresaw how the actual Cauldron lighting would work. Quite spectacular.

I have no interest in the olympics, but I did think the first half of the opening ceremony was pretty damn amazing, I actually felt pride whilst watching it, but then I thought the 'story' of the second half was kind of bad, the whole night out thing.

Two points. First: think of how much this country has contributed to pop music in the last fifty years. A London Opening Ceremony couldn't have happened without a tribute to that. Second: look at how much the modern world has changed, even since Beijing. Particularly with the technology that we use. How many people had a smartphone four or five years ago, compared to today? And what about Twitter? Six years ago, that didn't even exist. That was the point of the 'night out' section: to show the modern side to Britain, and to showcase the technological age in which we live. Maybe they tried too hard. But it was still an integral part of the Ceremony. And to finish it off with a tribute to Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the man who made a vast proportion of this modern world possible, that was a stroke of genius.

i though it was really good the opening people just don't get it i guess that one that are hating but you are always going to get some from of hater the hole show was good all the way to the end it made me really wish i was there but what you going to do :)

I wish I was there too: the sights, the sounds, the sensations and even the smell. And when they mentioned 'smelling the smell of cordite', I could only imagine what it was actually like to be there, live, seeing everything coming together.

I enoyed the opening ceremony too, thought I would just watch the first 10 mins or something so i could say I'd seen some but ended up watching it all. First thing I've watched on my 3D tv where I kept getting tricked into thinking there were things flying infront of me none of the films have yet done that. Good show all round!

3D, I bet that was a spectacle! Hopefully they'll release a 3D version on Blu Ray so I can experience it too.

I would love that to but sky hold the rights evil sky tv baaa

Well I dunno who owns the rights it was broadcast on BBC HD in 3D so it might be the BBC who own the rights. It was amazing in 3D! Although I admit I took the glasses off for all the countries comming through and went and chatted for a bit XD

BBC hold the rights. Technically it's the European Broadcasting Union, of which the BBC is member for the UK.

well i herd that sky was playing it so i though it would be sky hehe i guess i am wrong

I don't understand the unwarranted criticism leveled by some toward the opening ceremonies, nor the senseless comparisons to prior ceremonies. Each are unique, and to compare and contrast them not only detracts from the hard work and creativity put forth by the various planners but is akin to suggesting a Monet painting is somehow superior to one by Manet which treats art as some quantifiable commodity (and in my humble view the ceremonies are more art than anything else). Also, the Olympics would never have been revived were it not for Englishmen of centuries past, and London has as much right, if not more, to host than any city other than perhaps Athens. The cauldron was spectacular in pageantry and symbolism (although I think the music selected to accompany the lighting could have been better, and I personally would have selected passages from "Music for the Royal Fireworks" by Handel as I do feel the rich classical music legacy of Europe might have been better represented). All in all, the fact that such a complex event went off without a hitch (as far as I know having only watched on TV) London and the UK are to be congratulated. Now Mr. Ziegenbock, I suppose you'll be following the fencing with keen interest – please let us know what you think of the events. There will be fencing I suppose - but I really know very little about the Olympics.

You are indeed right that the UK has contributed a great deal to the modern Olympic Games. The Much Wenlock Games inspired Baron de Coubertin to refound the Olympic Games in the first instance. London stepped in to host the 1908 Games after Rome was unable (due to Vesuvius erupting). Then, World War 2 might have finished off the Games completely were it not for the British people's determination to revive them for 1948. So to see the city hosting the Games for a third time is a spectacle, certainly.

There has indeed been fencing. It has finished now, but I did watch it with keen interest. British fencing isn't that strong, but it was stil exciting to see the world's best compete - in East London! And of course I watched the Athletics on Saturday evening: three olds in an hour.

On the music choice: I would say that Danny Boyle had to be careful not to alienate too many people. Many people's knowledge of British classical music would be limited (compared to Arctic Monkeys or Muse, or even Land of Hope and Glory). People recognise Elgar's Nimrod from Enigma Variations from countless Remembrance Sunday services, and little else. We had to strike a balance (especially considering all that Britain has contributed to music in the last fifty years). Also, using music from the Continent would be a dubious move. Despite a US tendency to construe 'Europe' as a single entity (which includes the UK), British people would be very quick to point out the differences between Britain and the Continent. Euroscepticism is often a strong part of British character.
(Although of course Handel would have been a perfectly appropriate choice, being a naturalised Briton and all.)