Songs of Innocence Promo Tour - Discussion Thread #2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
u2station said:
Well said, I couldn't agree more. :up:
Click to expand...

This discussion reminds me of all those shots of the VJ's during Live Aid - we interrupt this historical performance to show you Mark Goodman totally grooving to the Led Zep reunion.
 
Irvine511 said:
there shouldn't be a reaction shot of the host of a TV program featuring a band performing a song at all. they aren't singing for the host, they are singing for the audience. any good host knows this.

this isn't even about manipulation, it's about bad TV and poor producing.
Click to expand...

Isn't it about time for someone to come along and say "Who gives a fuck" or "Complaining about reaction shots: First World Problem".
 
Heaven forbid someone who actually knows what they're talking about when it comes to TV production give his 8 cents on the topic.
 
Nick66 said:
Isn't it about time for someone to come along and say "Who gives a fuck" or "Worrying about reaction shots: First World Problem".
Click to expand...



you're right. that probably would have been a more appropriate response from me to your earlier post.
 
Irvine511 said:
what are you even talking about?

there shouldn't be a reaction shot of the host of a TV program featuring a band performing a song at all. they aren't singing for the host, they are singing for the audience. any good host knows this.

one exception, that proves the rule, would be when Bette Midler sang *for* Johnny Carson on his last ever episode. that's appropriate, because it was a song *for* Johnny Carson.

from an editorial standpoint, the cut to the correspondant (twice!) was totally inappropriate for the context of the performance, and any reasonably talented producer would have known this and cut it.

this isn't even about manipulation, it's about bad TV and poor producing.
Click to expand...

Not sure about you but I actually like reaction shots and I don't care if they're real, fake, manufactured, poorly edited, poorly timed or poorly composed. Of course maybe the Jools Holland show is an anomaly in terms of a music show as the host is very narcissistic and self-absorbed and he probably prefers the camera to point at him every now and then. I think its all subjective and relative when you talk about "bad TV", because personally I think the Jools Holland show isn't all that bad.

How about a first class music program like Austin City Limits? Yes, I think that's far better produced than Jools Holland, and they've been doing that for 40 years now, so something must be going right there.
 
u2station said:
Not sure about you but I actually like reaction shots and I don't care if they're real, fake, manufactured, poorly edited, poorly timed or poorly composed. Of course maybe the Jools Holland show is an anomaly in terms of a music show as the host is very narcissistic and self-absorbed and he probably prefers the camera to point at him every now and then. I think its all subjective and relative when you talk about "bad TV", because personally I think the Jools Holland show isn't all that bad.

How about a first class music program like Austin City Limits? Yes, I think that's far better produced than Jools Holland, and they've been doing that for 40 years now, so something must be going right there.
Click to expand...



i've been talking about the Australian 60 Minutes.

and i'm now done with talking about that.
 
Irvine511 said:
i've been talking about the Australian 60 Minutes.

and i'm now done with talking about that.
Click to expand...

Ahh, now I would agree with you there that the 60 Minutes performances had horrendous reaction shots. Glad to know we agree on that.
 
Irvine511 said:
you're right. that probably would have been a more appropriate response from me to your earlier post.
Click to expand...

No reason to get testy now. This was the entirety of your initial post, that I responded to:

Irvine511 said:
Reaction shots are cheap and manipulative.
Click to expand...

I simply responded by agreeing that reaction shots were cheap and manipulative, and that in fact many aspects of these shows are "cheap and manipulative."

Then you revised, extended, and clarified your comment to mean your problem was with the way the reaction shots were done in THIS instance:

Irvine511 said:
Girl, I work in exactly this medium, and I love reaction shots and use them. They are always cheap and manipulative, and effective when done well. To cut to some host looking blissed out whilst listening to Bono sing is bad manipulation because it looks cheap (not because it is cheap).

One can cheaply manipulate and do it well, that wasn't done here.
Click to expand...

So great girl, you explained what you meant...but my initial comment to you was based on what you initially said, so there's no reason to have a fit about it. What exactly are we disagreeing on?
 
Keep in mind, 60 Minutes is cheap and manipulative, only a hair above other gutter journalism shows on Australia's commercial networks, so this is pretty much par for the course.
 
Axver said:
Keep in mind, 60 Minutes is cheap and manipulative, only a hair above other gutter journalism shows on Australia's commercial networks, so this is pretty much par for the course.
Click to expand...


and that's what i'm talking about.

there's good TV and bad TV, and what we got in this particular instance was bad TV.

reaction shots are cheap -- it's a simple shot from the B camera -- and are manipulative -- that person is telling you how to react via their reaction -- and they can be awful (in this case) or they can be powerful (certain noted Oscar acceptance speeches, for example) and sometimes even entire series of television can be created around them (Real Housewives).

it's a lot more sophisticated than, "it's all manipulation, man."
 
rennowba said:
Yeah its only us diehards that watch every promo, people would have only heard the song once.

I really dont think Bono's struggling with EBW either. Infact he sounds amazing
Click to expand...

He's been pretty consistent sounding on this promo tour.
 
I'm sure this has been covered, but I saw the Graham Norton replay on BBC America on Saturday...wow! Miracle was good, but SFS awesome! Great Q&A and just a fun show over all...when does the US Promo Tour start...:hmm:
 
I hope during the next promo appearance they retire Every Breaking Wave and play Window In The Skies. And the Claw returns to crush the audience. And then U2 fly away.

Uh. Sorry.
 
The promo stuff has been cool, but I'm starting to feel teased. They need to drop into a club and rock out for an hour, Irving Plaza style. That's what I want!!
 
Nick66 said:
Isn't it about time for someone to come along and say "Who gives a fuck" or "Complaining about reaction shots: First World Problem".
Click to expand...

I would like to but I hold back. I've found for the majority of the time people that say this type of stuff have hate-filled lonely lives with too much time on their hands. I actually shed a tear each time they say this type of stuff because I feel sorry for their tortured soul. Lets say I have cried an ocean reading to posts on this site.
 
Moser said:
...for her age.
Click to expand...

2nlspqu.gif
 
I really quite enjoyed watching U2 perform on such a tiny scale in that venue in Oberhausen, Germany a few days ago. That's about as intimate as it could get to see them live. It makes the band appear "human" after all. No special effects, no massive video screens, no gigantic stage production... just 4 guys, some musical instruments, a few amplifiers and a stage. Quite amazing actually that U2 can still play in such a raw setting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom