Why "U2 3D" is only disappointing ...

[BVS]

Re: Re: Re: Why "U2 3D" is a disappointment ...

No, my eyes are fine. Catherine Owens herself admits, that the whole movie was originally shot in 2D (!) – and afterwards everything was worked over in a complicated postproduction, so that a "3D" effect is built artificially on the computer.

Watch yourself the interview on www.log.com – and you may get my point ...

I'm not sure what that link was suppose to be, but it doesn't work...

What are you talking about shot in 2D? There's been a lot of information about how it was shot and the special cameras they used for this project.

I think you really need a new album, this thread is very similar to your overreaction in the Where The Album Has No Name.

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why "U2 3D" is a disappointment ...

I'm not sure what that link was suppose to be, but it doesn't work...

What are you talking about shot in 2D? There's been a lot of information about how it was shot and the special cameras they used for this project.

I think you really need a new album, this thread is very similar to your overreaction in the Where The Album Has No Name.

u2log.com

 

[diamond]

I thought it was wonderful each of the five times I saw it. Sure, it slows at times, but so does a U2 concert.

me too 6 times.

 

[4U2Play]

This is not a typical show (22 tunes plus x), but a let down with nearly getting only half of that number.

I'd guess that every one of us here would love to see an entire U2 concert with "22 tunes plus x" in 3D, including all the snippets and the fans dancing and playing onstage, etc.

However, I'd wager that most of us here also knew ahead of time that the film could not possibly show that many songs in its allotted 83 minutes, and, therefore, were not as disappointed as you were that numerous personal favorites were left out.

It sounds like you did not realize the film was only 83 minutes long and could not possibly include 22+ numbers. Or, if you did know it was less than 90 minutes, maybe you went in with a naive attitude... otherwise, why would you feel "let down"?

Perhaps your post reflects a case of reality not meeting expectations. Did you feel the same way about the UABRS video when you first saw it?

I find your opinions refreshing, actually, though I disagree with them. It gets a bit boring when U2 fans universally agree that something the band does is "great".

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why "U2 3D" is a disappointment ...

u2log.com

Ok, so I watched it and you really misunderstood her.

I agree with 4U2Play you either didn't know what was going on, or just a little naive.

Maybe try and approach things with less pre-conceived notions.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

You write, that this movie resemble a typical show. Sorry, but both statements are wrong:

sorry, i wasn't aware opinions could be wrong. and i never said it resembles a typical show.

 

[waynetravis]

- the always played 'block'
(shown in its entirety, from ""Sometimes... to "One", with no snippets)

Maybe they couldn't do snippets due to licensing?

I thought the movie was excellent. I've never seen them live at all, so this was a appetizer for me.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Yeah, I also figured it might be a bit difficult with all those copyright laws etc. to include snippets in the movie.

 

[Mr. V]

i'm still trying to figure out how some people can call some of U2's warhorses 'boring' or 'bathroom breaks' when you're at a show... i mean, for god's sake, it's U2 playing metres from you! are you honestly going to divert your attention someplace else?

 

[coolian2]

Three Diamonds for this thread, aka One Star.

 

[wolfwill23]

U23D is a documentary of the Vertigo Tour in South America.

During their shows there, U2 played BTBS, NYD, SBS, One, WOWY etc nearly every night. This is why those tunes were in the film. Not because they wanted to make a separate "political statement" in the film, but because the political statements made at every single Vertigo Tour show during the Heart Of Darkness section of the setlists were part and parcel of the whole experience.

One cannot make a representative documentary of that tour without including those songs, can they. What songs would you have used instead, wolfwill? COBL and maybe Elevation are the only two obvious choices, and maybe Bad, but not to the exclusion of other songs in the film. As Vincent Vega said above, the only problem with the film is its short length. Another 15 minutes would have been perfect.

I totally understand how burned out everyone here is with all the hits. But, you'll notice, most of the fans in the South American audiences are ecstatic for SBS and Streets and WOWY, because most fans there have maybe seen U2 perhaps only one or two times. Us lucky fans up north are spoiled to have seen U2 as many times as we did, and we should appreciate that, rather than whine about songs we've heard too many times.

Besides, I think the 3D effect was so well done that songs everyone is here is tired of became fresh and exciting again.

COBL and Bad would have been good replacements for NYD and SBS.

 

[wolfwill23]

what i'd be interested to know is those who didn't like the movie, if you saw a vertigo show, did you like it? or alternatively, how many people didn't like the movie and also didn't see a vertigo show. i wonder if there's any correllation, or maybe if those who don't like the movie were somehow expecting it to be drastically different than a typical U2 concert.

I saw the Vertigo tour both nights in Vegas. Night 1 was good but Bono seemed a bit off. Night 2 WAS AMAZING! The energy was UNBELIEVABLE.

Concerts are about energy and if you're doing a concert doc, it's got to have that energy too. It's your job as the director to stand up for the film and make sure it's as good as possible, not make sure 'all the old hits' or 'old political songs' are represented.

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why "U2 3D" is a disappointment ...

Maybe try and approach things with less pre-conceived notions.

Thank you Dr. Freud

All I'm saying is, that I do dislike the movie. I described in detail why and won't repeat myself (for anybody interested, read my two postings above).

This film has an artificial atmosphere (which I understand now is partly the result of Miss Owens' technival production process), it lacks the soul, I've loved in gigs and previous (real) concert films (UABRS, R&H, ZOO TV from Sydney) – and unfortunately "3D" leaves me bored at times, it does lack the energy and spirit, I search for in U2.

And – on the contrary of what many people here have stated – it doesn't capture "a typical VERTIGO show" and it is not a documention of the 4th leg in South America. It's cut, clustered, has no script, no dramaturgy – a plain picture. After the first three songs (that leave you exploring the new), nothing changes anymore, the film remains the same.
It's just an experiment to bring you the band closer via 3D (which is a nice idea and does work for me in some of the film's moments). Who enjoys the toy, fine. But the result is far beyond my hopes and expectations, that U2 really could capture the spirit of their shows for cinemas – and blow me away with such a revolutionary step.
That's why it is a let down, a disappointment for me, I might even call this in general lacklustre and not very inspired 'product' a failure by U2 – but, hey, it's not the last night on earth ...

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

i'm still trying to figure out how some people can call some of U2's warhorses 'boring' or 'bathroom breaks' when you're at a show... i mean, for god's sake, it's U2 playing metres from you! are you honestly going to divert your attention someplace else?

Yes, but I don't praise U2, just because they are metres away from me – when they would perform Hip Hop or do play a show not up to their standard.
U2's warhorses can be boring – when they are performed like that. It's not an event ("Celebrate U2, whatever they do") but a concert, a performance of music – where you have to talk and discuss about art, inspiration, challenge and things like that.

And when "Bullet The Blue Sky" is on a steady decline since the 80ies and the early 90ies with the '05/'06 versions surely being the low point (always performed the same way, same snippets, cut short of its original lyrics, sung without anger etc.), such a warhorse may seem pretty old, tired, uninspired.

That's why some people here – myself included – ask the question: Why leave such version in the set, where it's blocking other tunes to be refreshed or performed? Either "Bullet" rocks or it has to go ...

 

[Got Philk?]

Am I the only person who still likes "Bullet the Blue Sky"?

 

[MrBTH]

Let me add my utter disagreement with just about every point in the initial post... Wayyy off the mark...

 

[corianderstem]

i'm still trying to figure out how some people can call some of U2's warhorses 'boring' or 'bathroom breaks' when you're at a show...

Some of us don't have bladders of steel, and skipping a song I don't like as much anymore is preferable to peeing my pants or spending the rest of the show in vast discomfort.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Let me add my utter disagreement with just about every point in the initial post... Wayyy off the mark...

You don't have to agree, but there is no need to imply that any other opinion is ridiculous or stupid.

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

You don't have to agree, but there is no need to imply that any other opinion is ridiculous or stupid.

Thanx for the support in keeping this discussion up to a civilized standard ...

 

[waynetravis]

Am I the only person who still likes "Bullet the Blue Sky"?

Nope, I like it a lot.
I was chuffed to bits when I found out it was included in the film's setlist!

 

[corianderstem]

I like the way Sunday Bloody Sunday segues into Bullet, and I like the "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" snippets.

But as a whole, I would prefer that they kindly remove it from their setlists going forward.

 

[last unicorn]

OK, saw the movie three times now, on the regular screen and on the IMAX ... I must say I loved the "small screen" version more because the sound was better and in the IMAX the glasses were awful and the pictures wasn't always sharp; you could see many more details in the regular version.

I was aware of much of the critisism as well of the praise from fans and media when I saw the movie, but I must honestly say that, for me, there are only some minor things to complain about, all in all I see this film as a great gift from U2 and it soooo makes me want to see them live again.

I'm usually quite sceptical when it comes to over-hypred technical "innovations", but I must say I LOVE the movie. The only negative things I have to say are not about the movie itself but about the technical equipment of the cinemas and about the audience. The second and third time I went there were hardly any people in the audience and the silence afterwards was ackward! Of course you cannot expect this movie to feel like a concert because it's NOT, it's a movie, and it is NO WAY any substitute for a U2 live concert. Instead, I think it gives you a good opportunity to focus on things that you would have a hard time focusing on during a real concert. That's why I really enjoyed seeing it more than once, because I always noticed details that I hadn't noticed before.

And the length just seems about right to me. Maybe not for a diehard fan, but for the casual fan or "normal" audience, who won't sit through a 2 hour U2 show in a cinema. Commercially, the choice to make a 85 minute movie makes total sense to me.
That's also the reason why they decided to play it safe with a lot of classic songs, but IMO, they worked! The movie just wouldn't have been the same without those songs and they totally represent what U2 are - not only the Vertigo tour, but their live shows in general.

I missed Elevation and COBL, apart from that the setlist was fine and representative of the Vertigo tour. I loved that they started with Vertigo, so there would have been no place for COBL at all, because I only would want to see it as an opener, but Vertigo just seemed the better choice here. All the songs were fine, I didn't see any real weaknesses and I loved that the camera concentrated a lot on every single band member. I was actually quite surprised at how good Bono's voice sounded and the emotion coming from the South American audience was amazing. I really loved the band's reaction to it.

Miss Sarajevo and Sometimes were giving me goodbumps, and I can clearly see the "politicel" theme they wanted to convey buy keeping the typical Vertigo sequence of those songs. I am glad they didn't break the sequence.

I thought it was a very good movie, not only for die-hard fans. It's natural to get used to the 3d effects. When I saw it the very first time the effects were really breathtaking, later on I got used to them. Some scenes were still amazing. I actually think it's cool they didn't use the "in your face" 3d technology.

Btw, I thought the beginning was really cool and built up some tension.

To the initial poster: While I accept your opinion, I really think you miss what U2 is really about in your post.

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

To the initial poster: While I accept your opinion, I really think you miss what U2 is really about in your post.

So, in your opinion, what is U2 really about – related with "U2 3D"?

 

[Vincent Vega]

last unicorn, I wished they would still show U23D here in May, the sound in the Berlin IMAX is just perfect.

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

I too, completely disagree with the original post too for the reasons posted by others.. I am not gonna go into why either because I can't add anymore than what has been said...


Everyone has a right to their own opinion and so I respect that of the initial poster but I just don't see it the way this person does..

 

[last unicorn]

So, in your opinion, what is U2 really about – related with "U2 3D"?

You were critisicing U2's performance, Bono's stage antics and the audience participation ... in fact exactly what U2 is about as a live band, and not just since the Vertigo tour, please.

And Vincent, I had the pleasure of being in a cinema with a very good sound system, just the IMAX I went to for the second night wasn't that great.

Did you notice any unsharp scenes or strange "ghost effects" in your IMAX as well? Maybe it's just about the glasses. They were awful, btw.

 

[65980]

I don't know why everyone keeps saying the glasses were 'awful.' I saw the show here in Vancouver at Canada Place and the visuals were spectacular --- I've no complaints whatsoever. I was dodging my head a few times to get out of the way of Adam's bass-neck.

I couldn't get tickets to U2's two Vancouver shows in 2005 (I'm not a fan-club member, and they sold out 40,000 tickets in about 3 seconds, 1/2 of which went to scalpers), so all I can compare U2-3D to is the 'Vertigo' concert film. And the 'Vertigo' concert film was largely rubbish --- U2-3D is MUCH better. So I'm very satisfied, you could say.

I do agree with some of the setlist criticism --- 'Pride', 'New Year's Day,' 'SBS' could all have been dropped and replaced with more contemporary stuff --- but we also need to understand that by taking up the 3D format for a limited-release film, the band are obviously expecting to target a lot of non-U2 fans and casual fans whose only knowledge of the catalogue is '18 Singles.'

For a particularly pathetic example, consider that of one of my students in Vancouver who went to see the film on a friend's recommendation. I asked her if she had liked it, and she said, "No." I asked why not, and she said, "Because U2 are so old." She had never even heard of them before she saw the film.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I didn't notice anything being unsharp that wasn't deliberately so. Only thing was starting with SBS I think, the close-ups of Bono etc. had these ghost effects.

The thing here is, you have the IMAX 3D experience and perfect sound.

 

[corianderstem]

I've noticed some ghosting effect each time I saw it, usually towards the end of the film.

I thought it was mildly annoying, but didn't detract from the overall film. I didn't know if I could blame the film or the glasses.

 

[redhotswami]

Some of us don't have bladders of steel, and skipping a song I don't like as much anymore is preferable to peeing my pants or spending the rest of the show in vast discomfort.

girrrrrl! you gotta just sweat it out like i do

I've noticed some ghosting effect each time I saw it, usually towards the end of the film.

I thought it was mildly annoying, but didn't detract from the overall film. I didn't know if I could blame the film or the glasses.

I think it might be a bit of both. I noticed it too, but I also noticed that some of those times it blurred my head was tilted a bit. I guess you gotta sit perfectly straight and still...I'm sure those behind me wished I had. That's why I think it probably shows up better on the other theaters than it would IMAX. Too bad it only lasted here for that first week.