Is U2 3D U2's biggest "release flop"?

[gvox]

I think it is. The numbers speak for themselves, and the biggest cinema company in Canada decided not to carry the movie in any significant fashion because of how soundly Hannah Montana kicked U2's ass at the box office. I have that in writing from corporate.

This is ridiculous, really. This is U2's biggest failure in terms of releases, imo. I'm sure National Geographic has a large share of the blame, but let's face it, anyone with a brain in their head must know what sort of minimalist marketing campaigns NG puts on for it's other IMAX films. U2 must've known what they were getting into when they signed on with NG.

Should U2 have waited to release this until they got a major distributor to back it??

 

[65980]

Well, let's see -- I'm in Canada too, and I saw it at my local iMax, several days after it opened and it was a sold-out house. It seems to have gotten rave reviews in publications. I thought it was fantastic 3D, and a very solid concert performance(s).

So, no, they shouldn't have waited for a major distributor. There's been a LOT of U2 product in the past four-five years, what with DVDs, tours, albums and compilations, books, etc., so I don't think another over-exposed 'Rattle & Hum' film is what they need right now.

 

[BVS]

How can we even talk numbers when it's been a very limited release?

 

[waynetravis]

http://forum.interference.com/t183648.html

 

[gvox]

Well, let's see -- I'm in Canada too, and I saw it at my local iMax, several days after it opened and it was a sold-out house. It seems to have gotten rave reviews in publications.

I'm not talking about the quality of the film, I loved it too. U2 did not intend this to be a limited release, I can't believe that for one minute. What other movie do you know that only stays in theatres for 12 days? I can still go see movies that were out before U23D!

As a matter of fact, U2 was one of the examples that were quoted in the major press release touting Digital 3D as being the next best thing:

Those releases typically do three times more business than 2-D versions, said Michael Lewis, chairman and co-founder of Real D, whose digital-projection 3-D technology was used in most theaters showing "Hannah Montana" and will be used in an upcoming wide release of another concert film, "U2 3D," now playing in limited release.

The 3-D technology eventually could expand turn theaters into venues showing live concerts and sporting events, Lewis said.

"There are a lot of places, a lot of small towns where we have Real D in place where U2's not going to go, Hannah Montana's not going to play there," Lewis said. "They'll be able to see it in theaters, and in my view maybe with a better seat and better experience than if they were actually there live."

taken from http://www.cineplex.com/Movies/CineplexNews/February 2008.aspx?CineplexArticles=13482

So I have a hard time believing that this is panning out the way Cineplex had intended, but as I was informed (and copied the forum on in the other thread), it is not up to Cineplex to market the film, it's up to the distributor mainly. The simple fact is that Hannah Montana was marketed, U2 3D was not, relatively speaking.

 

[Joey788]

I think that U2 mainly created this film for us, the fans. I don't think they created this film to make a large profit. It's just a gift to the fans for sticking by them and a chance for those who missed them on tour to get a taste of what it felt like.

 

[U2democrat]

I think that U2 mainly created this film for us, the fans. I don't think they created this film to make a large profit. It's just a gift to the fans for sticking by them and a chance for those who missed them on tour to get a taste of what it felt like.

I agree. I don't think it's meant to expand their fanbase or something like that, I think it's for those of us who truly do love them and know that their element is live, and want to experience it in a new way...and it's glorious

 

[Aardvark747]

I think that U2 mainly created this film for us, the fans. I don't think they created this film to make a large profit. It's just a gift to the fans for sticking by them and a chance for those who missed them on tour to get a taste of what it felt like.

 

[Canadiens1131]

I agree with Joey.

That said, whoever decided to release with a teenie-bopper 3D film also in IMAX should lose their job immediately.

 

[Bono's shades]

So the Hannah Montana film is in 3D too? I just assumed it was in regular 2D and could be played in every movie theater in every small town in the country, unlike the U2 film which would require an iMax theater, which are usually only located in big cities.

I'm not sure if you can blame the marketers of U23D. It's just that the Disney marketing machine is a huge, merciless, evil beast, and no one can hope to compete.

 

[Dorian Gray]

no, Rattle n Hum is.
U23D is not exactly an expensive film. It required no actors, writers, sets, etc. Nearly everything it takes in is going to be profit

 

[MrPryck2U]

I think it is. The numbers speak for themselves, and the biggest cinema company in Canada decided not to carry the movie in any significant fashion because of how soundly Hannah Montana kicked U2's ass at the box office. I have that in writing from corporate.

This is ridiculous, really. This is U2's biggest failure in terms of releases, imo. I'm sure National Geographic has a large share of the blame, but let's face it, anyone with a brain in their head must know what sort of minimalist marketing campaigns NG puts on for it's other IMAX films. U2 must've known what they were getting into when they signed on with NG.

Should U2 have waited to release this until they got a major distributor to back it??

I COULDN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU MORE!

You easily have no idea what you're talking about!

Please do your homework before you post such foolishness.

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

where are the actual numbers to back up this thread??? Making a statement without sources doesn't lead me to believe anything that is said.

to Joey... I agree with ya.

 

[bathiu]

(...) The numbers speak for themselves (...) Hannah Montana kicked U2's ass at the box office (...)

1.
- U23D - $15,808/theater - new

2.
- U23D - $11,720/theater -25,9%
- HM - $45,560/theater - new

3.
- U23D - $12,093/theater +3,2%
- HM - $14,986/theater -66.9%

4. (estimates)
- U23D - $10,714/theater -39.0%
- HM - $4,801/theater -68.1%

 

[rileybug]

I don't think you can compare a movie that was released on 61 screens with practically zero promotion to a movie that was released on nearly 700 screens with tons of promotion. Also, according to Cinema Blend:

"The comfort in the midst of this madness might be that U2's recently released concert-on-film out performed Hannah Montana when compared at the per theater level. Last weekend when it debuted in only 61 theaters it pulled in a solid $15,000+ per theater total. Hannah Montana is sitting at $12,000+. I don't wish Miley any ill will, but given U2's musical legendary status it's nice to see them stay atop of the flavor-of-the-month teen performer."

 

[ramblin rose]

The numbers are in the link provided by Waynetravis earlier in this thread.

It will be interesting to see what the movie really does when/if its widely released.

Every showing I went to (with the exception of opening day afternoon showing) was packed.

Last night was the last showing at the IMAX in Dallas and it was only showing at 11:30PM. I was afraid there would be no one there and that it might be cancelled. I arrived at 10:45 and the line was huge , a lot of buzz in the air and it turned out the show was sold out,

The majority of the crowd stayed until the end of the credits, it was a very pleasant surprise.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Well, take solace in the fact that this film is aimed more directly at U2 fans as a nice present and innovative technical achievement instead of at the general public as a wide release. I think this could have gone the other way and we'd have more U2 market oversaturation complaints.

 

[Utoo]

All I have to say is that when I went to the opening night show here in DC, we got there an hour early and there were 10 people in line. At 20 minutes before the show started, there were maybe 50-60 people in line.

When I went to the show two weeks later, at 20 minutes before start there were about 200 people in line.

 

[Got Philk?]

You all underestimate the power of 8-10 year old children.

My wife went to see it in Chicago and I think the line was down the street...

For some reason, it wasn't in Grand Rapids, MI where I live so I went to go see it in Lansing Michigan on the 3rd to last night it was showing and it was pretty empty.

However, it was Lansing, Michigan, and it was on a night where there was a winter storm warning with heavy snow and 30-50 mph winds. Yes, I drove 25 mph in a 70 mph zone home.

 

[gvox]

I think that U2 mainly created this film for us, the fans. I don't think they created this film to make a large profit. It's just a gift to the fans for sticking by them and a chance for those who missed them on tour to get a taste of what it felt like.

Nah. No way they would have gone to the trouble, this was a huge undertaking. In addition, when you say 'us', do you mean hard core fans? Or fans in general? Because if you mean fans in general, you're inadvertently supporting my argument. There are literally millions of U2 fans around the world, and if this release crap keeps up, hundreds of thousands if not millions in Canada alone who will not see the film either. The film that was supposed to be for them, right? This film was specifically supposed to be show in markets where U2 does not play. That is NOT the way it is panning out in Canada.

 

[gvox]

Well, take solace in the fact that this film is aimed more directly at U2 fans as a nice present and innovative technical achievement instead of at the general public as a wide release.

There is no evidence of that statement, Canadiens, I'm sorry. There was a huge amount of hoopla made of it at Cannes. Take a look at the number of theatres in the US that are getting this film. This is NOT some limited release 'for the fans' movie. It was supposed to revolutionize the way music fans view live concert films. How can that be true if it was aimed more directly at U2 fans? I don't see that at all.

 

[Canadiens1131]

There's a quote from Bano floating around that supports my statement, but I'm too lazy to find it or continue posting in this thread, to be honest.

 

[gvox]

The numbers are in the link provided by Waynetravis earlier in this thread.

It will be interesting to see what the movie really does when/if its widely released.

Every showing I went to (with the exception of opening day afternoon showing) was packed.

Last night was the last showing at the IMAX in Dallas and it was only showing at 11:30PM. I was afraid there would be no one there and that it might be cancelled. I arrived at 10:45 and the line was huge , a lot of buzz in the air and it turned out the show was sold out,

The majority of the crowd stayed until the end of the credits, it was a very pleasant surprise.

This is exactly my point, thank you. In the markets where the release has happened properly, yes this is what is going to happen. This is U2, folks, cmon!

Apparently the brainiacs at Cineplex haven't heard reports like the one you just gave...they've got their heads buried under mediocre numbers that were a result of the debacle that was the "Toronto release"

 

[Utoo]

You realize that you're comparing numbers between a movie released in regular theaters nationwide to a movie released only in IMAX theaters in select cities?

I doubt that even regular movies that are simultaneously released in both formats do anywhere near as well per screen in their IMAX releases as they do in their regular releases. It would be more realistic to compare U2 & HM if both were released in the same medium. Wait until U2 is released in regular theaters, then compare.

Phil is right, though. HM has the power of teeny-boppers behind her. 10yo girls will see the damn thing 9 times in a day.

 

[BVS]

Someone's failing miserbly at trying to prove their point...

 

[gvox]

Re: Re: Is U2 3D U2's biggest "release flop"?

I COULDN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU MORE!

You easily have no idea what you're talking about!

Please do your homework before you post such foolishness.

\

I'm repeating what I was told in writing by someone at the executive level of the biggest cinema chain in Canada as to why the decision to not do U23D in wide release in Canada was made.

I repeat, I AM REPEATING WHAT I WAS TOLD. I was specifically told that because Hannah Montana did better numbers than U2 did, that, and I quote 'we have no plans for a wider release in the near future'.

And whether you want to believe it or not, yes Hannah Montana is pulling in bigger numbers EDIT: in Canada, which is because of this whole situation with the release.

 

[gvox]

There's a quote from Bano floating around that supports my statement, but I'm too lazy to find it or continue posting in this thread, to be honest.

Cmon man, I don't think he said that at all. He might have said 'this is for the fans' but for fucks sake there are millions of U2 fans! And I certainly bet he didn't mean 'to the exclusion of normal U2 fans in Canada' cmon.

 

[No spoken words]

Re: Re: Re: Is U2 3D U2's biggest "release flop"?

I repeat, I AM REPEATING WHAT I WAS TOLD.

I repeat, I AM REPEATING WHAT I WAS TOLD.

I repeat, I AM REPEATING WHAT I WAS TOLD.

 

[gvox]

You realize that you're comparing numbers between a movie released in regular theaters nationwide to a movie released only in IMAX theaters in select cities?

I doubt that even regular movies that are simultaneously released in both formats do anywhere near as well per screen in their IMAX releases as they do in their regular releases. It would be more realistic to compare U2 & HM if both were released in the same medium. Wait until U2 is released in regular theaters, then compare.

Phil is right, though. HM has the power of teeny-boppers behind her. 10yo girls will see the damn thing 9 times in a day.

Oh. my. god. The point is, I'm not comparing anything, the corpies are, and are using the same completely unfair comparison to decide whether or not to do a wider release in Canada!

There's no 'wait till it's in regular theatres', there are no plans for it to BE in regular theatres up here

 

[gvox]

Ok look I'll admit, my thread title sucks. It's a bit misleading, and it's totally out of frustration.

A more accurate one could be

"U23D - Canada's getting it up the ass, and here's why"

Sorry for the misleadig title.