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

[ponkine]

I attended to Santiago 2006 gig (one of the gigs featured on U2 3D) and I must admit, from what I've seen, that ZOOTVTOURist is absolutely right. Every single word he wrote makes sense.

U2 3D is nothing but a marketing machine product, just made for the bucks and for the "WOW!" factor among fans. It's not even a U2 concert experience, it's intended to show the fans the rotten claim "U2 IS THE BIGGEST BAND IN THE WORLD!"

U2 3D is just a shame, a disposable product. At least Rattle & Hum was a musical journey

 

[Mr. V]

I attended to Santiago 2006 gig (one of the gigs featured on U2 3D) and I must admit, from what I've seen, that ZOOTVTOURist is absolutely right. Every single word he wrote makes sense.

U2 3D is nothing but a marketing machine product, just made for the bucks and for the "WOW!" factor among fans. It's not even a U2 concert experience, it's intended to show the fans the rotten claim "U2 IS THE BIGGEST BAND IN THE WORLD!"

U2 3D is just a shame, a disposable product. At least Rattle & Hum was a musical journey

ok then, so every DVD the band has of a concert they've recorded is also a big marketing corporate generated by the giant system machine thingo, because that's made for both money and the "WOW" factor with fans.

honestly, they're trying to be innovative with this new technology, they're doing something that hasn't really been done before, and they're copping flak because it's not Rattle & Hum II, some fantastic movie directed by Scorsese that tells us how the band ate, slept and shat in South America.

i still don't understand what the OP is trying to say with this statement either:

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 ...

i'm sorry, did you want a 3D autobiographical representation of each of the 70,000 fans in attendance or something? seriously, the DVD is a U2 concert, do you want the camera on the crowd the entire time? i mean, i understand that you need to sort of capture the vibe and the energy of the crowd at that particular time, but what more do you want? for all you know, it could have just been a flat concert!

seriously, say what you want about the setlist, the crowd's reaction, the stage, Larry's pants, whatever - but the fact of the matter is that they're experimenting with this new technology, doing something that in the scheme of things is just as innovative as any album they put out in the 90s. it's not some giant soulless corporate machine created monster that sucks the money straight from your wallet without needing to remove it from your trousers. and it's definitely not just U2 trying to stamp their claim on being the biggest band in the world, either.

 

[martha]

and they're copping flak because it's not Rattle & Hum II,

I know.


So many people on this board want U2 to repeat itself forever. "Make Pop II!" "Make R&H II!"

God forbid U2 should move forward.

 

[ramblin rose]

I attended to Santiago 2006 gig (one of the gigs featured on U2 3D) and I must admit, from what I've seen, that ZOOTVTOURist is absolutely right. Every single word he wrote makes sense.

U2 3D is nothing but a marketing machine product, just made for the bucks and for the "WOW!" factor among fans. It's not even a U2 concert experience, it's intended to show the fans the rotten claim "U2 IS THE BIGGEST BAND IN THE WORLD!"

U2 3D is just a shame, a disposable product. At least Rattle & Hum was a musical journey

What I find hysterical is that you haven't seen the film, I guess you've seen a few trailers and your making these claims?

And I'm not really sure what the "bucks" you're referring to is, as I don't think with the low budget marketing campaign that this film had, their intention was to have a blockbuster film.

I agree with whoever said this thread is really pointless. Why couldn't this be discussed in the main U23D film review thread?

 

[BVS]

I attended to Santiago 2006 gig (one of the gigs featured on U2 3D) and I must admit, from what I've seen, that ZOOTVTOURist is absolutely right. Every single word he wrote makes sense.

U2 3D is nothing but a marketing machine product, just made for the bucks and for the "WOW!" factor among fans. It's not even a U2 concert experience, it's intended to show the fans the rotten claim "U2 IS THE BIGGEST BAND IN THE WORLD!"

U2 3D is just a shame, a disposable product. At least Rattle & Hum was a musical journey

You mean, you haven't even seen it?

What a joke, your posts have become such a cliche.

Made for the bucks? You really have no clue what you are talking about, but then again, it hasn't stopped you before.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I know.


So many people on this board want U2 to repeat itself forever. "Make Pop II!" "Make R&H II!"

God forbid U2 should move forward.

I think Rattle and Hum 1 was more than enough for even the most hardcore fans

 

[last unicorn]

Hmmm, I kind of agree that U2 is about the WOW factor.

Doesn't seem like a negative thing to me.

In fact, Bono says WOW during U23D several times himself.

Wow.

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

ok then, so every DVD the band has of a concert they've recorded is also a big marketing corporate generated by the giant system machine thingo, because that's made for both money and the "WOW" factor with fans.

honestly, they're trying to be innovative with this new technology, they're doing something that hasn't really been done before, and they're copping flak because it's not Rattle & Hum II, some fantastic movie directed by Scorsese that tells us how the band ate, slept and shat in South America.

i still don't understand what the OP is trying to say with this statement either:

i'm sorry, did you want a 3D autobiographical representation of each of the 70,000 fans in attendance or something? seriously, the DVD is a U2 concert, do you want the camera on the crowd the entire time? i mean, i understand that you need to sort of capture the vibe and the energy of the crowd at that particular time, but what more do you want? for all you know, it could have just been a flat concert!

seriously, say what you want about the setlist, the crowd's reaction, the stage, Larry's pants, whatever - but the fact of the matter is that they're experimenting with this new technology, doing something that in the scheme of things is just as innovative as any album they put out in the 90s. it's not some giant soulless corporate machine created monster that sucks the money straight from your wallet without needing to remove it from your trousers. and it's definitely not just U2 trying to stamp their claim on being the biggest band in the world, either.

well said.. thanks for that.. I agree with ya!

 

[BrasilLovesU2]

Me??? Well...I have been looking forward to this film for months....(in April U23D will come to South America...).

I must confess that I was very, very excited about it as a U2 diehard fan but now I´m worried about many friends and relatives who will watch THIS movie invited by me in order to see U2 for the first time in theirs lives.

I mean, I´m sure I will love the movie the way I love everything related to U2. My idea is just to have fun with friends and not to criticize some points on it. But how about those who never saw U2 playing ?

I just have a doubt: I don´t know where I read about it (I just can´t remember now...) but some scenes in this movie were created just for this movie and they´re not parts taken from the live shows in South America. Am I crazy ??? Am I wrong??? or this is TRUE ? or a lie?



If it´s true.... it makes sense ....

 

[Vincent Vega]

That must be the girl running in the beginning, and after One the guy that cleans the camera.
Apart from that, everything happening on stage happened at a concert.
Nothing to worry about.

 

[Pamelakellett]

seriously, say what you want about the setlist, the crowd's reaction, the stage, Larry's pants

Someone said something about Larry`s pants and I missed it - do I have to go back over the past few pages or can someone fill me in.........

Sorry.....I`ll go back to Pleba now

 

[Zoots]

I haven't read thru most of this thread or even the OP properly. I just want to say that U2:3D was disappointing for me only because they could've done so much more with the 3D factor. Like I mentioned in one of the other gazillion U2:3D threads before, they could have made it a lot more interative with stuff like actual water splashing on the audience or ...the one thing I thought would surely be there, actual confetti falling. How hard is it to feature a show with COBL and have confetti fall? Little things like that would have made the 3D experience more enjoyable. It was okay but not great IMO. Oh and for the record, I don't give a shit about whether they made a ton of money out of it or not, money grubbing corporate band blah blah blah etc.

 

[Rob33]

I attended to Santiago 2006 gig (one of the gigs featured on U2 3D) and I must admit, from what I've seen, that ZOOTVTOURist is absolutely right. Every single word he wrote makes sense.

U2 3D is nothing but a marketing machine product, just made for the bucks and for the "WOW!" factor among fans. It's not even a U2 concert experience, it's intended to show the fans the rotten claim "U2 IS THE BIGGEST BAND IN THE WORLD!"

U2 3D is just a shame, a disposable product. At least Rattle & Hum was a musical journey

DUDE, you're over analyzing this waaay too much. Just accept the movie for what is- a ground-breaking concert film of U2 in South America, that's it, it sounds like you and ZOOTVTOURist are just looking for pointless, minute bullshit to cry about...

"at least Rattle & Hum was a musical journey" ????

The goal was not to re create a R & H Part 2, in fact, the goal was practically opposite of that... and isn't the "WOW!" factor a good thing?!

sorry you and tourist just confuse me

 

[ramblin rose]

How hard is it to feature a show with COBL and have confetti fall?

Considering they never dropped confetti at any stadium show, I'm not sure how that would have fit into the movie.

 

[Zoots]

Considering they never dropped confetti at any stadium show, I'm not sure how that would have fit into the movie.

Oh they didn't? My bad then, I only attended arena shows. But you know what I'm saying, right? They didn't seem to push the 3D factor to the next level. I remember Terminator-2 3D at Universal Florida being a lot more interesting and thrilling... more interactive with the audience. U2:3D was not terrible though, I'd give it 3 or 3.5 stars out of 5.

 

[Zoots]

Oh and... not saying I agree with the original post or anything but.. I like how the thread has a bad rating just cos it's a negative opinion on something U2 related. It's like people here are not allowed to have negative opinions. Haha Interference never changes!

 

[Rob33]

Oh and... not saying I agree with the original post or anything but.. I like how the thread has a bad rating just cos it's a negative opinion on something U2 related. It's like people here are not allowed to have negative opinions. Haha Interference never changes!

well i'd hardly call interference the Land of Positivity if you know what i mean

 

[BVS]

Oh and... not saying I agree with the original post or anything but.. I like how the thread has a bad rating just cos it's a negative opinion on something U2 related. It's like people here are not allowed to have negative opinions. Haha Interference never changes!

Or it could have been just because it was a poorly executed, rambling, and downright inaccurate at times idea...

 

[Zoots]

Or it could have been just because it was a poorly executed, rambling, and downright inaccurate at times idea...

Judging by bad ratings for negative opinion threads in the past, I doubt it.

 

[BVS]

Judging by bad ratings for negative opinion threads in the past, I doubt it.

Yeah, I think people take the star system a little too seriously around here. The only threads I vote stars in are the ones that somehow mysteriously start at 5 stars*clears throat*and I like to see how quickly they get down to one.

 

[diamond]

 

[BVS]

 

[martha]

I remember Terminator-2 3D at Universal Florida being a lot more interesting and thrilling... more interactive with the audience.

Maybe because it's at a theme park and not at movie theaters?!

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

I haven't read thru most of this thread or even the OP properly. I just want to say that U2:3D was disappointing for me only because they could've done so much more with the 3D factor. Like I mentioned in one of the other gazillion U2:3D threads before, they could have made it a lot more interative with stuff like actual water splashing on the audience or ...the one thing I thought would surely be there, actual confetti falling. How hard is it to feature a show with COBL and have confetti fall? Little things like that would have made the 3D experience more enjoyable. It was okay but not great IMO. Oh and for the record, I don't give a shit about whether they made a ton of money out of it or not, money grubbing corporate band blah blah blah etc.

it isn't a ride at universal studios.. umm.. It's a movie.. That kind of stuff is a tad cheesy and over the top.. even for U2's standards..

 

[Harry Vest]

I haven't yet seen this film but based on the reviews I've read (mostly all positive) I still know what this review is trying to get at. With all the money U2 have why couldn't they shoot several concerts on the tour and then compile the most exciting parts i.e. Toronto "Bad" with Danile Lanois or when the Arcade Fire joined them in Montreal for a lively version of Joy Divisions "Love Will Tear Us Apart" . The problem with U2 these days is they play everything way too safe...whatever happened to the band that wrote angry and truly emotional songs like Bad, Exit, I Threw A Brick Through A Window, Like A Song, Mothers Of The Disappeared, Gone, Love Is Blindness, Acrobat...you get the point.

 

[BVS]

I haven't yet seen this film but based on the reviews I've read (mostly all positive) I still know what this review is trying to get at. With all the money U2 have why couldn't they shoot several concerts on the tour and then compile the most exciting parts i.e. Toronto "Bad" with Danile Lanois or when the Arcade Fire joined them in Montreal for a lively version of Joy Divisions "Love Will Tear Us Apart" . The problem with U2 these days is they play everything way too safe...

Yeah the cost of using a technology that hasn't really been used and then release it in a limited theater release sounds really safe to me. Because everyone's doing it.

 

[coolian2]

Oh and... not saying I agree with the original post or anything but.. I like how the thread has a bad rating just cos it's a negative opinion on something U2 related. It's like people here are not allowed to have negative opinions. Haha Interference never changes!

Really? All Interference seems to serve as is a place to complain about everything U2 has done post-1998.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I haven't yet seen this film but based on the reviews I've read (mostly all positive) I still know what this review is trying to get at. With all the money U2 have why couldn't they shoot several concerts on the tour and then compile the most exciting parts i.e. Toronto "Bad" with Danile Lanois or when the Arcade Fire joined them in Montreal for a lively version of Joy Divisions "Love Will Tear Us Apart" . The problem with U2 these days is they play everything way too safe...whatever happened to the band that wrote angry and truly emotional songs like Bad, Exit, I Threw A Brick Through A Window, Like A Song, Mothers Of The Disappeared, Gone, Love Is Blindness, Acrobat...you get the point.

With all the money they made from the first legs of the tour they filmed several shows in South America and one in Melbourne to compile this concert movie.

Really? All Interference seems to serve as is a place to complain about everything U2 has done post-1998.

All Interference? No. There is a little subforum called Pleba that still resists.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Oh and... not saying I agree with the original post or anything but.. I like how the thread has a bad rating just cos it's a negative opinion on something U2 related. It's like people here are not allowed to have negative opinions. Haha Interference never changes!

i know. i gave it five stars just to kind of cancel it out a bit. it didn't work

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

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?

...hm, hm, hm. So finally you know me better than I know myself, don't you? You know, that some people here love to get the attention? And you estimate this thread rather useless?

Please do me a favour: Analyze yourself before you do with others, alright. A good starting point: Ask yourself, why you post SIX TIMES here, when you claim on the other hand, this thread might be useless ...

I don't like, that somebody, who doesn't know me at all, somebody, who doesn't even come close to, what U2 means to me – that somebody like you tries to put me in a corner like that and calls me an advocate of negativity. It's a question of respect. Because I'm not labelling you neither. Okay?
This thread, I did open, because of not doing a simple review – but for a bigger picture of what this impression does mean to me. There's no duty to post in here.

By the way: Nice reflections until now, from the ones who might share my feelings, from the ones, who try to understand, what I wrote and those, who can't share and feel the opposite. Thanx for all your contributions 'til now ....