If Boston is so nuts about U2, why didn't they film the DVD there?

[theu2fly]

Main Set: Love and Peace or Else, Vertigo, Elevation, The Electric Co., An Cat Dubh - Into the Heart, City of Blinding Lights, Beautiful Day - Here Comes the Sun, Miracle Drug, Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own, New Year's Day, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Bullet the Blue Sky - When Johnny Comes Marching Home, Running to Stand Still, Pride, Where the Streets Have No Name, One

Encore(s): The Fly, Until the End of the World, Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, All Because of You, Yahweh, Party Girl, Vertigo

Replace the closing Vertigo with 40 and that would be a gerat DVD to see. If there's so much energy coming out of Boston, it should have been filmed versus Chicago...

also, if Boston loves U2 so much, why was the Elevation DVD such a bomb?

 

[Utoo]

also, if Boston loves U2 so much, why was the Elevation DVD such a bomb?

Two reasons: 1) Nauseating directing, and 2) Poor Bono's vox

I haven't read any of the reviews from the most recent show, but the setlist looks pretty good...I'd love to have seen that one filmed...

 

[Hewson]

Isn't that setlist from May 28?

 

[phanan]

Sure is.

 

[nathan1977]

Have you seen Elevation: Live from Boston?

 

[Blue Room]

Have you seen Elevation: Live from Boston?

Exactly, I dont get some of the posts on here sometimes. The Boston DVD (FROM THE LAST TOUR) is regarded as fairly weak by some. I dont think its any better than the Chicago Vertigo one. Its nothing to do with the city, its the person directing and editing them that is doing the damage IMO. Chicago is a BIG U2 town and most shows they play there are VERY strong.

Maybe they should release that Croke Park III Vertigo show THEY DIDNT FILM instead!

 

[kakvox]

Because if they filmed boston, that dvd would have sucked, because whenever u2 chooses to film, that show sucks, that's all. Chicago was a fine choice, imo

 

[Liesje]

...because they already did film a DVD and the NBA halftime show there?

 

[Canadiens1131]

Because we don't need any more "Where The Screech Has No Name" lyrics?





Seriously though, film the damn tour DVD in MONTREAL. That crowd was fucking nuts and the band really enjoyed themselves.

I dunno, it just seems like they have to catch the band when they're in their groove, relaxed, and not nervous because of the Hamilton cameras whizzing around them.

 

[Neilz]

Because they already filmed Elevation there?

And U2 also loves Holland, why not filmed the DVD there?

U2 also loves Italy, why not release the Milan DVD right away...

I have these kind of discussions!

 

[bono_man2002]

If U2 are crazy about [Instert City] Why didnt they film the DVD there?

 

[Neilz]

If U2 are crazy about [Instert City] Why didnt they film the DVD there?

Exactly

 

[Dismantled]

why doesn't U2 just film at my house I am nuts about em too!

 

[Neilz]

why doesn't U2 just film at my house I am nuts about em too!

You're venue is not as beautiful as mine though... They should film at my house!

 

[Axver]

You're venue is not as beautiful as mine though... They should film at my house!

Your TV is too small ... they should film at my house!

 

[MrBrau1]

The Boston DVD is better than Slane or Chicago.

 

[gvox]

They have realized the error of their ways.

They will never film in the US again.

 

[Neilz]

The Boston DVD is better than Slane or Chicago.

No, the Boston DVD production was better than Slane and Chicago...

The Slane performance and crowd were better that both Boston and Chicago of course!

 

[WinnieThePoo]

first of all , , they filmed first two nights in 2001 , two very so-so concerts , audience was really not there , during the second concert , they chose people for the heart ( elipse ) , so fans in protest were sitting on the floor , rotten feeling , 3rd show without cameras was the best ever
they played 11 o'clock tick , ground beneath her feet and the sweetest thing
, and then diamond entered the building during night number 4

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

it doesn't matter where they film the damned dvd because someone will always complain.

my favorite concert dvd's are u2's slane and pearl jam's msg shows... both of which were done with minimal artistic camera work, and baisicly just rely on the greatness of the concert, not any special camera tricks.

u2 should just film every show and pick the best at the end of the tour... then they don't have to worry about having a bad day when it's time to film.

 

[Neilz]

u2 should just film every show and pick the best at the end of the tour... then they don't have to worry about having a bad day when it's time to film.

This can't be done of course! A DVD production costs a lot of money... What they should do, is film more than one city!

Furthermore, they should have released a European show as the first DVD this time around! It was very obvious that these shows were to be somewhat more special/fresh because of their first outdoor tour in 7 years and the completely different culture/country every night... Couldn't have gone wrong really if they'de done that!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

bullcrap it can't be done... pearl jam does it on every tour.

one year they decided to release a montage of songs from different shows, the next tour they decided that the first MSG show was good enough to be released on it's own.

and u2 certainly makes a hell of a lot more money per tour than pearl jam does.

it can be done... just not with hammish... who sucks anyways.

 

[Hewson]

True on the Pearl Jam factor.
They have their own crew film the shows, so perhaps the production values this way might be a little less than the Hammish way, but they'd have a whole tour archive to choose from and could release a phenomenal show, or as PJ did a collection of phenomenal song performances strung together in the form of a setlist.
Plus they could have had Santa and Elvis dancing on the ellipse on the DVD if they had waited, that alone could have sold an extra couple million copies, cause I'm pretty sure last night it was the real Santa Claus and the real Elvis on stage, still not sure about the guitar player though, might have been Fake Edge.

 

[Neilz]

bullcrap it can't be done... pearl jam does it on every tour.

one year they decided to release a montage of songs from different shows, the next tour they decided that the first MSG show was good enough to be released on it's own.

and u2 certainly makes a hell of a lot more money per tour than pearl jam does.

it can be done... just not with hammish... who sucks anyways.

I'm a Pearl Jam fan too and have a lot of their DVD's too, but you can't compare a U2 DVD production with a Pearl Jam DVD production now can you!

Furthermore, Pearl Jam do all of these things on their own without the backup/finance of a record company! Same thing with releasing their bootlegs themselves and touring without a promotor...

Of course it can be done, but you wouldn't have a U2 quality show production and a U2 quality DVD production, cause face it... Pearl Jam's shows are back-to-basic and their DVD's are not that special either (even though Pearl Jam themselves kick serious ass!)

It's one way or the other, quality or quantity... U2 goes for quality, Pearl Jam for quantity... U2 goes for one big ass polished up double DVD, Pearl Jam for their best performance, but back to basic DVD...

 

[westendgirl]

Because we don't need any more "Where The Screech Has No Name" lyrics?


Seriously though, film the damn tour DVD in MONTREAL. That crowd was fucking nuts and the band really enjoyed themselves.

Exactly...

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm a Pearl Jam fan too and have a lot of their DVD's too, but you can't compare a U2 DVD production with a Pearl Jam DVD production now can you!

Furthermore, Pearl Jam do all of these things on their own without the backup/finance of a record company! Same thing with releasing their bootlegs themselves and touring without a promotor...

Of course it can be done, but you wouldn't have a U2 quality show production and a U2 quality DVD production, cause face it... Pearl Jam's shows are back-to-basic and their DVD's are not that special either (even though Pearl Jam themselves kick serious ass!)

It's one way or the other, quality or quantity... U2 goes for quality, Pearl Jam for quantity... U2 goes for one big ass polished up double DVD, Pearl Jam for their best performance, but back to basic DVD...

i much prefer the Pearl Jam: Madison Square Garden DVD to the U2: Chicago DVD.

i think the overall consensus amongst fans is that U2 are currently wasting the huge amounts of money they spend on hammish because he fails to capture the true feel of a u2 concert.

the production is in the show, not the filming.

when you have a show with a huge production, you don't need a huge production on the dvd.. just let the show stand for it's self.

 

[tryan101]

first of all , , they filmed first two nights in 2001 , two very so-so concerts , audience was really not there , during the second concert , they chose people for the heart ( elipse ) , so fans in protest were sitting on the floor , rotten feeling , 3rd show without cameras was the best ever
they played 11 o'clock tick , ground beneath her feet and the sweetest thing
, and then diamond entered the building during night number 4

I had totally forgotten about that. We'd been there since maybe 11am, so were maybe #200. I'd have been pissed if I got jumped over (and we did to some degree), but the whole sitting in protest with backs turned seemed silly. I mean sh*t happens, sometimes you just gotta roll with it and enjoy it for what it is. Anywhere on the inside is phenomenal. Life could be worse.

 

[Muad'zin]

Because they already filmed Elevation there?

And U2 also loves Holland, why not filmed the DVD there?

U2 also loves Italy, why not release the Milan DVD right away...

I have these kind of discussions!

Go wash your mouth. I don't ever want U2 to film in the Netherlands. A film shoot means having the same standard setlist for multiple nights and U2 playing for the cameras instead of the public. I'm perfectly happy with U2 filming in Boston or Chicago, cause then I'm not there.

 

[hpantazo]

Go wash your mouth. I don't ever want U2 to film in the Netherlands. A film shoot means having the same standard setlist for multiple nights and U2 playing for the cameras instead of the public. I'm perfectly happy with U2 filming in Boston or Chicago, cause then I'm not there.

This was the first smart statement I have read regarding this subject. Every time they film a concert it's no longer spontaneous or energetic. U2 plays for the cameras and the guys get nervous about screwing up.

p.s. Montreal sucks, you guys are lucky they played there at all.

 

[Neilz]

Go wash your mouth. I don't ever want U2 to film in the Netherlands. A film shoot means having the same standard setlist for multiple nights and U2 playing for the cameras instead of the public. I'm perfectly happy with U2 filming in Boston or Chicago, cause then I'm not there.

Well; The original plan of the Rolling Stones was to film Amsterdam for their Four Flicks DVD on their second night there. I was there the first night (reheasal, but filmed), and I must say that it ís something special to be part of something like that! The performance was just as good as other nights and the production and lightning was breathtaking... Mick Jagger got sick the second night so the shoot was moved to Twickenham, but all the wideangle shots are still from this Amsterdam rehearsal gig...

And if you feel that U2 performs for the camera's instead of the fans on these DVD shoots, than that's U2's flaw! If you have a good show/performance, there is no need to 'act' in front of the camera's!

i much prefer the Pearl Jam: Madison Square Garden DVD to the U2: Chicago DVD.

i think the overall consensus amongst fans is that U2 are currently wasting the huge amounts of money they spend on hammish because he fails to capture the true feel of a u2 concert.

the production is in the show, not the filming.

when you have a show with a huge production, you don't need a huge production on the dvd.. just let the show stand for it's self.

I agree with you that U2 failed with this DVD and that Pearl Jam : Madison Square Garden is a fine DVD... But U2 always had great performances on film that were big shows, and big DVD productions (Sydney, Mexico) where Pearl Jam had a disappointing 'Touring The Band 2000'...

U2 should simply go back to their good old David Mallet (who won a Grammy for the Zoo-TV Sydney production) and kick some ass on the music DVD market! Keep the filming a little more low-key, but film more nights... That would certainly help!

On the other hand, Hammish had made some kick-ass music DVD's you know... He should just stop with U2, as he want's to film U2 in a very aggressive way (in your face filming?) where the Peter Gabriel 'Growing Up' DVD is a piece of Art (also filmed by Hammish)...