The benefit’s of hosting the Olymic

when it is announced that a country will be hosting The Olympic Games, the usual responce is celebration. But how much does hosting The Olympic Games actually benefit the country?

Many people think of hosting The Olympic Games to be beneficial, so what does it benefit in particular. One thing would be that the games will bring in 10,000s of visitors from abroad, not only will they pay for the games, they will also increase hotel business, local shops’ income, restaurants etc. This will benefit both the local area and the rest of the country. Another benefit would be that it will create more jobs. This is because the preparation of the games will require lots of work to be done. The idea of ‘The Olympic Effect’ is that hosting The Olympic Games will cause economic growth in the country hosting it. This is because of the foreigners visiting, and higher investment. These are all valid reasons as to why hosting The Olympic Games would benefit the country hosting.

With that said, what is the cost of hosting the games? not all countries benefit from the games, and the amount of money needed to host them is rather large. It has been shown that in the last few years the cost has risen quite a bit. One example would be The Sochi Winter Olympics, which costed around 50 billion USD. This could mean that in future, hositng the games will cost a much greater amount of money, and it will seem idiotic to want to host them. Another thing is overbuilding and future use issues. In many Olympic Games there have been many extra facilities built, which not only adds to the cost, but also has almost no future purpose. Many of the stadiums built for past games have been left almost unused after the games. This is a large loss to the hosting country as it will seem like a lot of money used on nothing. And about the visitors and jobs mentioned before, what happens to that after the games are over? The visitors are only there for the games so after the games finish the visitor rate will most likely drop significantly. As for the jobs created, there wil no longer be any use for the workers, so those who had those jobs will lose them and that could lead to unemployement for some, which is not good for the economy of the hosting country.

From what I have found out about the benefits and costs of hosting The Olympic Games, it seems that hosting the Olympics is a bit of a gamble but is more likely not very benefitial. My final conclusion would be that it is best not to host the games becasue of things such as the cost, future use and the dropping of visitors and employement. Though some countries do benefit greatly from hosting the games, it would be best not to as the outcome is not always positive.


“Costs and Benefits of the Olympics.” Economics Help. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

“Is It worth the Cost to Host the Olympic Games?” Is It worth the Cost to Host the Olympic Games? N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

Zeffirelli vs. Lurhmann: Romeo and Juliet

One of Shakespeare’s most well known plays, “Romeo and Juliet”, has been adapted to the screen many times since the year 1908. But the focus now is on two of the more successful, or well known, adaptations, Franco Zeffirelli’s “Romeo and Juliet” (1968), and Mark Anthony “baz” Lurhmann’s “Romeo + Juliet” (1996). Some people prefer one over the other, and they have some significant differences, but the question is which one is better? Some may argue that Lurhmann’s film, being set in a modern day (or dystopian futuristic) version of verona, is not a very good adaptation as it is not so faithful.

In 1968 Franco Zeffirelli released the movie “Romeo and Juliet”. This movie followed the play very accurately and many people watch it when studying the story. The characters all seemed to match the ones in the play and the setting matched as well, being 1300’s Verona, Italy. The plot followed almost exactly accoriding to the original, only leaving out a few parts but still leaving the movie seeming complete. Overall the movie followed the original story very well and is of course the more faithful adaptation of the two movies.

Many other Romeo anf Juliet film adaptations were created after Zeffirelli’s one, but in 1996 Mark Anthony “baz” Lurhmann released a more modern version of the story as “Romeo + Juliet” which had a slight twist at the end, and may be a better movie. This modernized version did not have swords but instead had guns, despite guns seeming more powerful than swords, there was not as mutch tensions during fights because swords are close quarters and there is lots of parrying and dodging, which are things you can’t to with guns. The characters in this version were similar to those of the original play and the only main differences are the setting and the end. The thing that makes this movie a slightly better one than Zeffirelli’s one is that the end, and the events leading up to it, seem more serious. There are many small things that Lurhmann put into this movie, that when noticed, make a lot of sense and make the story a bit more interesting to think about. Something that he changed that improved the story a lot was at the end, when Romeo drinks the poison Juliet wakes up and they see each other, she then shoots herself and they both end up dead, just like the original. What this did was it “broke” the dramatic irony of the story when Romeo saw that Juliet was alive, since the audience knew she was alive the whole time this gives them hope that the story might actually end well, but this is not what happens. The effect of this is that it seems almost like a new story because the audience would have expected the same ending as all the versions of Romeo and Juliet, but this plot twist made it more exiting and unexpected, which is why it may be considered a better movie than Zeffirelli’s.

The question is not which movie is more faithful to the original story, but which is a better movie. Zeffirelli’s movie is no doubt the more faithful of the pair, but the way that Lurhmann made his version made it better as a movie. It did have strange scenes that were not very well done, but near the end it is more exiting, and the very end is shocking to anyone who has not seen the movie. Lurhmann’s version of the story is more creative, and despite being a bit weird, is a better movie than Zeffirelli’s


Top 4 visitor nationalities

  1. Korea 316868 people visited from Dec 2014 – February 2015
  2. Taiwan 235529 people visited from Dec 2014 – February 2015
  3. China 258458 people visited from Dec 2014 – February 2015
  4. Hong Kong 101112 people visited from Dec 2014 – February 2015

The number of foreign tourists to Japan on average from Dec 2014 – February 2015 1280491


  1. Increase the economy
  2. Strengthens international bonds
  3. Brings cultures closer together



  1. Culture loss
  2. Tourist spots will become overcrowded
  3. Tourists may pollute (litter etc)
  4. Cultural misunderstandings/offensive behaviour etc


The Bystander Effect

When researching the bystander effect I found a list of bystander effect cases here. Number 7 on the list is about the electrocution of Topsy the elephant by Thomas Edison.

Topsy of Luna Park Zoo, Coney Island, New York, had killed 3 handlers on 3 different occasions, because of this it was decided she would be electrocuted by Thomas Edison. Edison used 6,600 volts of AC and filmed the “execution” of the animal (video here).

This event was witnessed by 1,500 people, none of whom said anything in complaint. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) only said that hanging of the animal would be cruel as it would not break the neck, but just strangle it. Aside from that they had no problem with how the elephant was treated which includes cyanide poisoning as well as the main electrocution.

This happened in 1903 so if a similar thing happened today the reaction would certainly be different, but the fact that none of the 1,500 people watching showed no sympathy towards the elephant.

I think of this to be a good example of the bystander effect, and I think out of the 3 reasons as to why people do not react appropriately,  social influence would probably be the most fitting. Though all three do apply, this seems to be the main reason as there were many people watching so someone going against the crowd in such a large group would not have been very possible.