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

[corianderstem]

Editing out the tmi. Let's just say "unico, I hear you!"

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

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.

Hm, that's how legends are to be built. I've never criticized Bono's atage antics and the audience participation at U2's concerts in general. That would be absurd, because I do love U2 concerts.
I've criticized how in "3D" these elements are presented – in my opinion for a movie like that in a repetitive, not very inspired way. And the audience is a big mass of people, pretty anonymous being the (occasionally turned up) choir for crowd pleaser tunes. If that's what u2 is for you, fine. But I've expected more and I do demand more from my favourite band ...

 

[redhotswami]

oops! just saw your edit. i'll unquote it now
that was close!!

 

[Mr. V]

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]

And the audience is a big mass of people, pretty anonymous being the (occasinally turned up) choir for crowd pleaser tunes. If that's what u2 is for you, fine. But I've expected more and I do demand more from my favourite band ...

How would you make a crowd of 70,000+ not anonymous in a concert movie?
From all concert movies I've seen so far, it was pretty good crowd footage with even some recurring people, and sometimes the focus was on one person for more than two seconds, which is a lot.

 

[corianderstem]

Plus, I know audience footage and crowd's mood/reactions are a part of concert videos, but I don't watch a U2 concert film for anything from the crowd. Less crowd, more U2, please.

 

[BVS]

It's kind of funny to me. There are people on this board who always mention the audience in U2 concert films... Especially the "lame crowd of Chicago" DVD, I just find that very odd. I never pay attention to the audience, I mean I understand they can make or break a show, but if the show is good, it's good, why do you need to know or have a better audience?

 

[BVS]

How would you make a crowd of 70,000+ not anonymous in a concert movie?

Maybe nametags would help...

 

[martha]

And the audience is a big mass of people, pretty anonymous being the (occasionally turned up) choir for crowd pleaser tunes.

Which is why I no longer go to stadium shows.

 

[redhotswami]

Plus, I know audience footage and crowd's mood/reactions are a part of concert videos, but I don't watch a U2 concert film for anything from the crowd. Less crowd, more U2, please.

it was kinda cool though, bc i felt like i was there. down in the front row there was this one girl who was on this guy's shoulders. i kept trying to push her out the way. i tried to pinch a few cameras too but to no avail.

these sorts of things probably aren't good for someone like me who already blurs the line between reality and dreams.

 

[corianderstem]

I thought some of it was great - showing just the masses of people, and the giant wave of motion in GA as the crowd jumped to Streets.

But I have enough trouble seeing over people's heads in concerts - when I'm seeing a concert film, I don't care to have the experience of trying to peer over someone's shoulders or wanting to yell at the girl in front of me who refuses to get off her boyfriend's shoulders.

I know it's just all part of the 3D "You Are There" experience of this film, but I wanted to yell "Down in front!" way too many times.

But that's my own issue.

 

[redhotswami]

Hahahaha! Yeah that was tempting. I wanted to yell too. I'm surprised noone on here popped in to say they saw themselves in the movie. That'd be eerie huh? Seeing yourself in 3D. Your face in your face!

 

[martha]

I know it's just all part of the 3D "You Are There" experience of this film, but I wanted to yell "Down in front!" way too many times.

At the imax showings, more than once I thought the techs and cameramen onstage were in the movie theater.

 

[last unicorn]

I think that crowd scenes are an essential part of every concert movie, and in this movie more than anywhere else. I didn't think there were too many. These scenes are important for the atmosphere, otherwise you could also play a bunch of U2 music videos. But with a live concert, I also want a crowd, and this particular crowd was amazing. I can not understand how anyone can say they shouldn't sing along, because this is what a concert is all about. I go to a lot of live shows and my impression of the concert is also strongly depending on the audience participation.

And for the "ghost" effects, I noticed these only in the IMAX version, so it could be the glasses or the technical equipment of the cinema. I liked the small screen version better for details and sharpness, though the IMAX version is more impressive because of the large screen and the feeling of really being part of the whole thing. I found the ghost effects in the closeups a little annoying, especially during SBS, when Bono reached out his hand.

 

[Rob33]

I've criticized how in "3D" these elements are presented – in my opinion for a movie like that in a repetitive, not very inspired way.

ZOO, can you please explain what you mean by this? Now I'm a bit confused by exactly what annoyed you

you're saying Bono's onstage antics were presented in an uninspired way?

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

Which is why I no longer go to stadium shows.

Finally somebody understanding, what I'm writing, Thanx for following the discussion – while others here hold conferences about, how important an audience is for a (U2) show. Which is not a news to me and has nothing to do with what I wrote about the 'use' of the masses in the movie ...

Nice observing by the way, how some of you find everything terrific, what U2 and "3D" present. You even talk about the "ghost effect" – as if someone might have worked a lot for this optics, when producing the film – when it's just: The picture is not sharp!

 

[last unicorn]

OK, if you don't like stadium concerts, don't go to a U2 show and don't go into that movie, because U2 is a stadium band. What did you expect? An intimate unplugged session for this movie? It has all the ingredients an exciting concert movie needs, otherwise they wouldn't have made it a 3D movie, heck, they wouldn't have made a movie at all. This is not some music documentation, I think you have the wrong expectations about this thing. Seems like you want U2 to be another band, not the band that they are.

I have always felt that they are one of the bands who can turn a stadium concert into a really intimate show, so I don't have a problem with them playing for huge audiences. There are elements of pure stadium rock in there, but also intimate moments, Miss Sarajevo and Sometimes being the best ones.

And no, we don't find everything good that U2 does, but there are some people who find everything bad that U2 does, especially nowadays. Spreading nothing but negativity is very annoying.

 

[Aardvark747]

the fly was the best version I have heard.

I loved this performence too. The four of them were really rockin it out towards the end

 

[BVS]

Nice observing by the way, how some of you find everything terrific, what U2 and "3D" present. You even talk about the "ghost effect" – as if someone might have worked a lot for this optics, when producing the film – when it's just: The picture is not sharp!

That "effect" comes from your eyes, and how they react to the glasses nothing to do with the picture not being sharp.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I don't think anyone praised the ghost effect or the picture not being sharp, either.

 

[martha]

OK, if you don't like stadium concerts, don't go to a U2 show and don't go into that movie, because U2 is a stadium band.

Not in North America.

 

[corianderstem]

Just because I don't want to GO to a stadium show doesn't mean I'm going to avoid watching a concert film shot at one (despite what I posted about mild annoyance at some of the crowd shots - I still really enjoyed the film).

 

[diamond]

Not in North America.

they try...but that's what makes them more unique here.

dbs

 

[cristivox]

I think that crowd scenes are an essential part of every concert movie, and in this movie more than anywhere else. I didn't think there were too many. These scenes are important for the atmosphere, otherwise you could also play a bunch of U2 music videos. But with a live concert, I also want a crowd, and this particular crowd was amazing. I can not understand how anyone can say they shouldn't sing along, because this is what a concert is all about. I go to a lot of live shows and my impression of the concert is also strongly depending on the audience participation.

 

[BonoIsMyMuse]

Just because I don't want to GO to a stadium show doesn't mean I'm going to avoid watching a concert film shot at one (despite what I posted about mild annoyance at some of the crowd shots - I still really enjoyed the film).

I felt the same mild annoyance in places. But then I remembered it's the same mild (and occasionally not so mild) annoyance I feel at shows, and that somehow made me like the movie more. There's a level of realism to it--annoyances and all--that I feel like some people are missing.

I can't remember the last time I saw a stadium show. I think it's been at least five or six years.

 

[ponkine]

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

Two nights ago, I watched the movie in my hometown Munich. Me and my friends have been looking forward to this event for moths. The promoted ground breaking "U2 3D". The ground beneath my feet actually did break, but in another way than hoped for ...

The conditions were perfect: the top-modern cinema, spectacular seats and an excellent sound system. Of course there were some of the themselves calling U2-fans, who dring way too much beer, who stink (in narrow seats not that comfortable), who chatter during the film – and might fit better in Oktoberfest or Daytona at spring break. How I hate these stupid lads always behaving like human apes. But then there was the majority: Elder people, from their (mid-) 30ies upwards. In a cinema, even at the now premiere of "U2 3D" at its best a third-full. Hm, ..

The running girl and suddenly "Vertigo" crashing in with full power. The band, U2 are on stage. Or maybe not. In fact they are only on screen, taped, in my glasses, a kind of ZOO TV moment for everyone, everyone and so for my brain, that – strange impression after the first minutes – didn't get there.
On the contrary, I really witnessed myself observing all of this, from the outside – and not being into it, being part of it. There was no real soul, neither on screen with the band posing for the cameras (with Bono being more professional, while thinner than ever Larry didn't give a smile until the bitter end ...) neither from myself. Flashes of fascination for the technical aspects, yes, but very often all of it looked like a 2D rather than 3D. Yes, Bono close, Larry close, Edge on fire, Adam and his instrument close, fine. But after three songs choreograohed like this, you have it, it becomes the U2-clichee for critics: Bono the self-loving missionary man leading a singing mass with no real individuals – you only get to listen to them, when during the too many crowd-pleaser songs in the film their volume has been (artificially) turned up by the film makers or completely turned off (artificially).

And you feel & name it: This is not a U2 gig, this isn't even the experience of being moved to tears like when having watched "Rattle And Hum", a movie with a message creating images being icons until today.
This "U2 3D" is far from such an artistic quality and emotional experience, it is becoming lacklustre – not worthy the nice idea presenting the band in 3D. I really felt alienated from this, you name it 'product'.

Unnecessary cuts even inbetween the same song, the crowd jumping like hell in one second, while the next picture showing them all sleeping ("Streets"), too much band, band, band, while the crowd is only a huge anonymous mass (of welcomed ticket payers?), who seem to celebrate every coughing on stage. Bono obviously having restrained himself not to let out any little snippet as part of the songs – which made tunes like "Vertigo", "B-Day", "WOWY" and others at its best nice or o.k. performed, but far from the energy these songs had on many, many nights of the tour.
A tune like "SYCMIOYO" didn't develop its full chilling glory with too many cuts, a way too short "sing" by Bono in the middle. And who advised the band to put a low-energy, rather pointless version of the once "Bullet The Blue Sky" in such a short movie – preventing another tune to be performed?

This leads to another point: In "U2 3D" you get the image of the band's 'Greatest Hits'/ live war horses performed for the masses, as mass sing alongs, damaging tunes like "WOWY" or "One" – "oh-oh-oh-oh ..." And, yes, there is the near silence of "Miss Sarajewo", there is a bit of what could have been in 3D during a (pretty boring) version of "The Fly" and a brutally butchered studio-live version of "Yahweh" – but that's not saving this film, not at all.

What you get is an obviously mislead project from the early beginning: A pretty short movie. A film wanting to bring the band closer to you, which is only a few times fascinating, the most part only boring (no backstage scenery, no hotel rooms, no city walks, no nothing – only the same moves, that only the most blind hardcore fand might praiss as "awesome!"). A film wanting to be a document of the tour, which it is not. A film wanting to present you some tunes, clustered together with no real concept, no surprise. And a real director is missing: Phil Joanou, Anton Corbijn or Martin Scorsese – why didn't you do it? Please, Miss Catherine Owens, if all or most of this falls into your responsibility – please stay out of the next tour!
Where's a storyboard, a frame? One of a zillion ideas: Why not take the girld pumping in the inner circle at the beginning, following her in the show and letting her wave good-bye at the end. Why not show some of the cities, show the band, present some onterference during the so-called concert footage? It should have been a movie, no?
A missed opportunity, a creative let-down and a commercial flop too, I do fear. Because who out there, apart from the most hardcore fans cares for such a mistaken film?

As a real hardcore fan, I really have to admit: We may need three chords & the truth – but I don't need this movie. Sorry.

You said it all

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Not in North America.

This is why the rest of the world luuurvvvveeesss the US when it comes to U2 tour time

 

[4U2Play]

Stop crying and fly out here next time.

You don't see me whining about all the amazing dates Olivia Newton John does in Australia, while completely ignoring us here in North America.

 

[diamond]

i think this was a "bait and bitch" thread -hoping to draw attention-like jick's m/o.

<>

 

[last unicorn]

Considering the fact we have about three hundred threads about U23D, this one here is rather useless .... I don't see the point in opening another topic just because you want to whine about something you don't like. I know some people here love to get all the attention they can get to spread negativity, but why not post your opinion in the U23D review thread?

As for the movie, I must admit it made me go and see another U2 live show so bad. I've experienced both stadium and arena shows and both can be awsome - or not so much. I'm going back tomorrow to see the movie and I know I'll be leaving with the same feeling: I like it, but I'm not satisfied, simply because it's not - and can never be - the "real" thing. So yes, the movie got me excited about U2 as a live band again.