Hi guys,

Once we know the winners tonight, someone please post them here once you get back from the display.

Enjoy the final show of 2007, guys.

~Travis.~

The official result is:

Gold Jupiter: England
Silver Jupiter: Germany
Bronze Jupiter: USA

Well, I'm a bit disappointed by the result, but it's not that bad! I would have preferred to see Canada win something at least. I still don't think Germany should've made the list, but still, all three of them were good.

About tonight's show, well, I have to say this was a good Panzera show. It actually felt longer than 30 minutes. I enjoyed many effects and pieces. It was enjoyable.

They improved the finale, and brought back those barrage of salutes. I was very very happy to see them again. They should never again neglect them in their finale. Although it was intense and loud, its length was too short! It was definitely better than last year, more like the finale of 2004 or 2003, but a bit less intense!

Oh, here's my final depressing comment: The fireworks competition is already over.

I can't believe how close I was with my personal predictions and choice. I said:

1st: England
2nd: Canada
3rd: USA

Instead it was:

1st: England
2nd: Germany
3rd: USA

I am however very delighted that I, and many of us, was correct about England for first place, especially considering that I stayed strong with them all the way since their night of presentation! I am, however, disappointed that Canada did not make it at all on the podium since I felt the theme was moreso well built than was Germany's, among other things.

As for the show in general, it was just as expected and I really enjoyed the mini display at about 9:50 since it was packed with salutes and a lot of noise, not to mention the traditional prior fireworks for the award presentations and ceremony.

The show had some very enjoyable music (I love a lot of the 60s songs as well) and a lot of them were indeed my personal favorites. I was particularly happy to see a James Bond (big fan of the series) soundtrack of Goldfinger in addition to other enjoyable preferences, such as California Dreaming, Viva Las Vegas (again), Pink Panther and the typical Clint Eastwood theme! The display was very impressive at most points, but could have been a little more intense with some of the music paces involved.

I loved the effect used, especially the brilliant and loud farfalle shells in combination of the shell of shells with the following titanium salutes (a common Spanish and Italian combo). The #40 illumination at the beginning was so cool, though it looked like an 04 from our side naturally, which also made me happy since 2004 was a favorite year of mine. Also, didn't you guys simply love that LOUD BANG? That must have been, as I told Enkil, the king of salutes!!! You can be sure that I'll always be referring to this for the years to come! I saw the flash associated with it, but I didn't expect to feel such a powerful force and corresponding echo from the effect; my whole body blew back and others shook! I wonder how far of a radius that was felt. I was screaming for more of it!

I completely agree with Enkil about the finale. I found it powerful and deafening at the end of the set of those salutes. I just wish the entire thing lasted just a little longer, but it was still good; better than last year and 2005 by far. The show did last well past 10:30, but who cares!

What a strong way to finish off the season. Thankfully the weather cooperated yet again! I'm sure you enjoyed it a lot, guys, especially you, Pierre! Hope you had a great evening full of nostalgia!

I had an absolutely wonderful evening, everyone. It was much more memorable than previous years perhaps because of such a great finale. I hope to see a video of it soon! I can't believe the competition is over....again (didn't I just say that last year?) I always get so emotional at this time, but I did take a final few moments to remember the environment that I'm used to around Notre-Dame and De Lorimier. At the same time, I couldn't help but wonder what 2008 has in store for us in terms of fireworks!

Trav.

Quelle satisfaction et quel soulagement j'ai éprouvés lorsque le lauréat du Jupiter d'or a été dévoilé! Satisfaction, parce que je suis d'avis que le feu de Pains Fireworks était le meilleur cette année (sinon des deux dernières années). Et soulagement, parce que je craignais fort que les Anglais soient relégués au bas du podium (ou pire, exclus) par un jury dont la mémoire néglige souvent les premiers concurrents.

À l'opposé, la présence de l'équipe allemande parmi les gagnants ne m'étonne pas, puisqu'ils ont été les derniers concurrents à faire la compétition. Le feu allemand n'était pas un échec, loin de là, il s'agissait d'une excellente prestation de facture plus traditionnelle et la présence de IP sur le podium, aux côtés de Pains et Souza, montre qu'il y a un espace à Montréal pour la reconnaissance de diverses conceptions artistiques. Néanmoins, je suis d'avis que si IP avait produit le même feu en juin, cette firme n'aurait pas obtenu de Jupiter. Le spectacle ne contenait pas de "punch" susceptible de s'inscrire dans la mémoire des juges (sauf le passage synchronisé sur les notes du xylophone, que beaucoup de gens ont trouvé trop long, par ailleurs) et n'exploitait pas pleinement l'espace mis à la disposition des concepteurs. Toute autre chose étant égale par ailleurs, un feu produit vers la fin de la compétition a plus de chance d'être récompensé qu'un feu produit au début.

Hier soir, une personne impliquée dans le concours montréalais me disait que la position des concurrents au calendrier n'avait pas d'importance dans l'attribution des prix. Or, l'association statistique est évidente.

Considérons toutes les éditions du concours depuis l'instauration d'un jury populaire (1992-2007). Sur ces 16 éditions, seulement 1 des 16 premiers feux (6%) a été récompensé d'un Jupiter. À l'opposé, 10 des 16 derniers feux (63%) ont été couronnés d'un Jupiter! Si nous considérons les trois premiers feux en compétition lors de chaque saison, nous obtenons alors 10 gagnants sur 48 feux (21%). Parmi les trois derniers feux en compétition chaque année, 27 sur 48 (56%) ont reçu un Jupiter.

(Aux fins de ces calculs, afin de standardiser l'analyse, les 3 finalistes de l'édition spéciale 2004 sont considérés comme des gagnants, même si un seul Jupiter était remis.)

Je pense que cette association statistique s'explique par le fait que les derniers feux sont plus "frais" à la mémoire du jury et qu'on tend à oublier les premiers concurrents. Une explication alternative est que les organisateurs choisiraient de positionner les meilleures firmes vers la fin du calendrier. Cette hypothèse peut être soutenue rationnellement, les promoteurs ayant intérêt à positionner les firmes ayant le plus grand potentiel lors des soirées les plus achalandées. Cependant, je suis porté à croire que cette explication alternative n'est pas fondée car la confection du calendrier est assujettie à d'autres contraintes plus importantes.

Il demeure que les concurrents ont un avantage indéniable à compétitionner vers la fin du concours. Le fait que Pains se retrouve sur la plus haute marche du podium révèle la pleine mesure de la performance des artificiers anglais. Guy Deeker et Michael Jones étaient ravis hier soir.

Par ailleurs, je suis également très satisfait que le jury ait réservé une place au podium à l'équipe américaine. Souza avait déjà offert un excellent spectacle en 2001 et il méritait d'accéder enfin au podium. Le feu sur le thème d'Elvis était une grande réussite. Espérons que la firme de Souza reviendra bientôt à Montréal. Mais ces gens sont très occupés: le fils de Jim Souza me disait hier soir que l'entreprise familiale produit, en moyenne, une quinzaine de feux d'artifice tous les week-ends! L'entreprise emploie d'ailleurs 75 personnes à temps plein, ce qui est considérable.

J'ai une pensée particulière pour l'équipe canadienne, qui a certainement le potentiel nécessaire pour obtenir un Jupiter. Considérant le problème technique survenu le soir du feu et dont La Ronde a assumé la responsabilité, je crois que Fireworks Spectaculars devrait être invitée à nouveau à court terme.

Fred

Bonsoir

J'ai vraiment apprécié ton commentaire Frédéric. Tout comme toi j'ai été vraiment impressionné par la prestation tout a fait formidable à tous les points de vue de la firme PAIN.
J'avais choisi le Canada en 2 ième mais je me doutais bien que le jury ne laisserait pas passer le temps perdu à régler un problème technique et avant même de savoir que la responsabilité était celle
de la ronde..Au fait que s'est-il passé??
OK avec toi..je les voyais dans les Jupiters...avec un spectacle original,rempli de beaux effets, de surprises, recherche de créativité..un rytme d,enfer bien dosé du début à la fin.
J'ai aussi aimé le feu classique de l'Allemagne qui m'a rappelé certaines prestations D'Erick Tucker. Une mise en scène très efficace
de belles pièces, une syncro vraiment à point à tous les niveaux mais pour les suprises , l'innovation, la créativité...on repassera.

J'aime bien tes calculs sur les possibilités de remporter un Jupiter en regard de l'ordre des présentations...Ta conclusion est évidente et mérite réflexion.Je crois que ceci devrait faire partie de la formation donnée aux jury.Néanmoins le feu de Pain était quasiment impossible à oublier tellement il était supérieur aux autres. Donc que les firmes y mette ce qu'il faut pour ne pas se faire oublier en cours de route.
J'ai pas vu les feux de la Chine et des USA. Je vais regarder ce dernier lorsqu'il sera disponible sur le site.

Mercredi je vais voir la firme ROYAL PYROTECHNIE à Québec.Bien hâte de voir comment ils vont négocier avec la chute.Je vois dans leur programme qu'ils reprennent des thèmes qui leur avait valu un Jupiter d'or en 2003. A Québec c'est un jury corporatif....Cà aussi c'est plein de surprises. L.an dernier Ricardo Caballer avait gagné. Pourtant j'avais jugé leur feu comme étant très ordinaire...Les autres étaient-ils si poches??Je sais pas.

Le 25 ième s'en vient. J'espère qu'on se retroiuvera sur le jury tous les deux.

Bon été FRED et Félicitations pour ton travail d'analyste.


Roger

Am a new member but have been lurking...

I just have an observation, I noticed that it's a very very big deal to some members that what ever was designed or created for the entire show just falls on how intense the finale was.

If the finale is that big of a deal, why not have a finale competition and not have a pyromusical competition at all?

I don't think that that's their point! People look at different things when they watch fireworks displays! For exampl some people looks at the choreography, some people looks at the quality of the fireworks materials but in this websites case they give a lot of importance in finale. I think that this is because a show's finale shows how much they want to be remembered in either that year's competition or the whole competition! Besides what they are saying are their opinions and no one said that we should all have the same opinions! As you can see they also give importance to the other aspects of the displays!

Vander

Thanks Vander. Am just saying that there is a lot of though that goes into a choreography i.e. how music is interpreted with fireworks... And yes there is even more thought and research put into creating a display shell... but to a finale, it's just barrages and barrages of similar shells... Lots of boom boom boom... Yes, I know it is important too, and sad to say, to a regular no pyro audience, it's usually what they remember the most... Whatever other thing, a critical pyro person remembers are usually not remembered by others..

You make a very good point Fuji. I agree that an evaluation of a pyromusical should not be weighted heavily on the finale itself.

However, you've got to admit, the rush felt during a long, loud, bright and intense finale - or at least a finale with meaning, with purpose - comes second to none.

As they say, "if you're going to go out, go out with a bang." If this saying should be true for anything, it probably ought to be fireworks.

Nice to have you on the forum by the way!
TRae

Ofcourse art could go into a finale as well just to say! Some examples would be portugal's finale in 2005 they used very good transitions in color! another one would be spain's finale in 2005! How they divided the sky there was ground effects which was the comets and ground salutes A.K.A mascleta pieces, and there was something going on above as well.
Just like what have been posted before here the overall presentation is still what it all goes down to. Spain's presentation in 2005 was so complex and the choreography with one shot's was nearly perfect! but they still didn't win! this is because people found it to be repetitive even though for pyros it probably wasn't repetitive specially with the colors, patterns, and how they used it with the music! Also portugal's 2005 show was something different and very unique specially the ritmo segment bu they still didn't win!

These things are the disadvantages of getting normal people to judge the displays!

vander

If I got a dollar for every time this finale topic came up, well let's just say that I'd get a steady source of cash on the side!

I am a huge finale lover, and it is indeed an important part of a display, but like others have already acknowledged, I too do not let it serve to influence my better judgement of any given performance. To over 90% of the audience, the finale is inevitably the most anticipated piece in any given show, and some attendees may argue that the finale is all they wait for. In fact, I always see many people walking around without a radio (TRae brought this up as well) for listening to the music, which gives the automatic impression that these individuals look for nothing more than the typical boom boom with nice colors in harmony with some intense pieces-in most cases it's just that.

When I look at a display, in addition to a strong finale, I search for good strength in creativity and originality, as well as concept. Music choice and quality are obviously critical factors in this competition as well. The finale in its entirety is possibly the most appealing area of the display because many look at it as a chance to be overly excited, go insane and to scream their lungs out in hopes that the final blow to a show will give them something huge to remember for the rest of their lives, or something to refer to. I honestly hold the same view to some extent, but I personally prefer to indulge in the entire 30 minute performance and attempt to infer, or use my imagination in trying to figure out what the designer is trying to deliver to us while bringing the sky to life. For example, it is important (and exciting) to always look for connections in both whatever theme is chosen and how heavily it relates to the rhythm, music, design, and the general framework of a particular display. One can certainly argue that this is where the most attainable levels of excitment are in conjunction to the general criteria of a typical finale.

And just to add to reflections_of_earth's list, USA 2003 was also a prime example in color transitions during the finale.

Trav.

That's just the point... The 30minutes presentation can be judged by a 30-60 secs of finale...

^^^

That may actually be truthful to some level. I know for a fact that many spectators, regardless of how good a display may have been prior to the final piece, forget about the rest of the performance should the finale be disappointing-in other words, they reflect on the finale as being the essence of the show. It's a feeling I can sympathize with, but it's also a little frustrating to me when people forget or neglect the other components of a display that otherwise may have made it successful altogether. For this reason, this is particularly why I (and others here) predicted England to be the winner of this year's competition.

Trav.