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

[gvox]

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

Which would indicate that a good solid run would likely net better results as the word spread and people got to know that it was out, right? Well that's the way I would interpret that...

they barely even gave it a 2 week run here.

 

[corianderstem]

I think it aired for at least 3 weeks here in Seattle (I haven't checked to see if it's still at the IMAX or not) ... but then again, Hannah Montana's flick was playing at regular theaters, not the IMAX.

I'm glad you clarified the thread title - I don't think it's fair to call it a flop just because even the awesomeness of live U2 in 3D is powerless against millions of tween girls.

 

[coolian2]

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"

Excuse me while i play you a violin

 

[gvox]

yeah, I mean the way it was released up here. I might be bleating away for nothing, but from what I was told, that is it for Ontario. So, for me to take my kids now, I have to go to Buffalo.

I hope U2 reads EYKIW sometimes

 

[gvox]

btw, I was also told that Scotiabank IMAX was only approached 2 weeks from the release date by National Geographic, and by that time they had planned IMAX bookings well into the future. They made an exception and delayed I Am Legend just so they could squeeze it in. Nat'l Geo. fucked up, big time.

 

[doctorwho]

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??

Admittedly the Hannah Montana film opened huge. The opening was so big that it even beat out Hollywood releases. By your logic, all of Hollywood's films should therefore be embarrassed and none should ever be made again (which some might actually enjoy - but note, Montana beat out the Indies too).

After the big opening, Montana's film has nose-dived. She's a pop sensation that attracted a lot of attention that first weekend. Her show is free on TV and the marketing by Disney is huge. It should have surprised no one that the film opened big.

But after that, her audience dried up. The second week in U.S. and Candian theaters, Montana's film saw a 67% drop - the biggest drop in the Top 25 films that weekend. In contrast, U2's film saw a 3% increase. This current weekend (ending Feb. 17th - so not counting the U.S. Presidents' Day holiday), Montana's film dropped another 68% per estimates, which is once again the biggest drop in the Top 30.

One may argue that these drops, while huge, don't matter as Montana's film has dominated U2's. But U2's film is playing in a mere 42 theaters. My local theater has it - there's just one show a day!! Montana's film is in 685 theaters (and possibly more than one screen) with many showings a day. Despite this, U2's film made almost $11,000 per theater over the weekend. Montana's film averaged $4800 per theater.

In other words, given the few theaters and relatively few showings in those theaters, U2's film is really doing well. While it's not only an IMAX release, most of the theaters are indeed IMAX and U2's film is performing like a solid IMAX film. IMAX films have long shelf-lives and they could have U2's film play throughout the summer and even fall before it is pulled.

While U2's film will never have the big numbers of Montana's film, the two really can't be compared simply due to the fact that Montana's film is in 16x the amount of theaters (with many more showings per day). But what is true is that U2's film has not yet satisfied their audience as the numbers are holding up overall. This is clearly not true for Montana's film.

So is it a flop? Not by IMAX standards. And where will Hannah Montana be in 2 years? Most likely forgotten. Then, in 5-10 years, she'll do some sort of "comeback" ala the Spice Girls.

At $11,000 per theater, I doubt IMAX will stop showing U2's film any time soon. It's their biggest money-maker!! In contrast, Montana's film will probably fall from theaters in the next month.

 

[gvox]

Drwho I hear you.

I don't think Hannah Montana's movie is better, I don't believe her numbers are better, proportionately speaking, and I don't think U2 3D sucks. Hopefully that should cover the bases lol.

This thread title should be re-named, you guys in the States aren't going to understand the situation, because it's opening for you guys, your IMAX's were informed well ahead of time, they booked it in, and you're right, IMAX's won't stop showing it, at least down there. Would it surprise you if I told you that it's already finished it's run at our IMAX theatres? True story.

 

[gvox]

Excuse me while i play you a violin

No, no, I'm sorry for wanting to see U2 3D again, how selfish of me!

 

[tuwie]

don't have time to read all the replies in this thread, but i was talking to a friend about why there wasn't more promotion and why it was such a limited release, and he said that he read somewhere on u2start that the intention of making this film wasn't really to put themselves out there and make a profit. it was mainly for the fans and for having the honor of being pioneers with this new 3d technology. i think it's admirable =)

 

[gvox]

it was mainly for the fans

And how many U2 fans you figure there are in Canada, hmm? Maybe only enough in Ontario to warrant a poorly advertised 2 week run and then nowhere else?

Riduculous. People are saying, it's for the fans. Yes! Eureka, it's for the fans, but fer crissake there are millions of fans! I'd be willing to bet serious cash there are many times more U2 fans than Hannah Montana fans, even! Whodathunkit possible?

So....where can I go see it?

ETA: guess where IMAX was invented?

 

[Varitek]

No, no, I'm sorry for wanting to see U2 3D again, how selfish of me!

You are complaining to people on a continent where the release is months away, and you have already seen it, so you could be a little sympathetic.


When I went to a huge area mall 9 days after the release on a Friday, there were maybe 8 families, a few couples, and lots of empty seats. I'm glad to hear others' reports about full theaters, I was kind of surprised and got there really early.

 

[coolian2]

You're not even complaining about having not seen U23D without leaving your continental land mass, you're complaining that you can't see it again instantly?


Pissiest thread evah.

 

[Yahweh]

You obviously did not watch the interview that was done at the Sundance Film Festival last year where the director even said that U2 was not doing this for profit reasons they were doing it to expiriment with new technology that was given to them to play with.

I think the film is actually doing quite well for being in only 61 theatres compaired to Hannah Montana's 400.

I know a lot of people that arent even U2 fans that are looking forward to seeing this because of the technology it involves. It is far too early to comment on how successful or not this film will be. The true measure of success is what people will think and have to say about it when walking out of the theatre.

 

[perrypickwick]

don't get this discussion -

In the moment Hanna Montana is one the biggest succesd storys in film history. And it will push the 3D technology. But nobody outside america has ever heard of that girl. So the hype and the spectacular is nearly over. U2 3D is just going to start of - next week in 600 american theaters - now it's only running in 48. And then in march in europe and elsewhere - than you can discuss that topic. Till now U2 3D is a big success - has already earned more than 3 million by such a small amount of sreens and that is just great - and the critics are all for it and push this film.

 

[cobl04]

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 very much hope so. I can't agree 100%, but I very much like to think so.

 

[last unicorn]

The limited release and under-promotion is a clear sign of what has been said before in this thread: that this movie is not about U2 over-exposure but a special experience for fans and pioneering the medium. That's what I believe. Otherwise they could/should have chosen a different distributor. For a 3D release, the numbers are not bad.

I find a topic that has "u23D" and "failure" in the title a little disturbing considering the fact that the movie hasn't even opened in Europe. It's coming to mainland Europe mid March and he demand is already huge. It's playing in IMAX and reglar cinemas here, there are actually many theatres where the movie is scheduled, I was pleasantly surprised to find that out.

 

[4U2Play]

I totally agree with gabrielvox.

This just proves once and for all that U2 hates Canada.

And Australia.

 

[last unicorn]

Ah, yes. U2 hates basically every country besides the US. I'm actually surprised they are still playing concerts in these countries. And because U2 hates these countries so much they said to National Geographic: They won's see our movie because they don't deserve to.

Makes total sense.

 

[Cigar]

To show how bushleague the release in Canada is,here in Montreal we'll have to wait until April 23rd to see it..that's 3 months after Toronto and even later than Australia.

By then, U23D will look dated compared to The Rolling Stone's "Shine a light".

 

[gvox]

Never did I say anywhere that this is going to be a flop in terms of making money. So the statement "we are not doing this for profit" is not relevant, even more so because if it is primarily for the fans, then it needs to be made available to the fans. U2 does not sell out fouur straight shows in Toronto within minutes of the tickets going on sale without there being a huge fan base here. I'm not going to say this but once more: it's impossible for anyone in the US to understand this thread, and quite possible anyone in Australia for that matter. Take a look at U23Dmovie.com. Buttfuck towns in the US and in some shitty cities more than one theatre playing the movie. If I take everyone's claim 'this is a movie for the fans' at face value and then put that together with the evidence in terms of the number of cinemas hosting this in the US compared to other countries, seems to me a more accurate statement is 'this is a movie for U2's American fans'. Not trying to play the nationalistic card, but what the hell else is Canada SUPPOSED to think? And I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to be Australia will get more than a poorly advertised 2 week run at one cinema.

 

[gvox]

Ah, yes. U2 hates basically every country besides the US. I'm actually surprised they are still playing concerts in these countries. And because U2 hates these countries so much they said to National Geographic: They won's see our movie because they don't deserve to.

Makes total sense.

Well then what did U2 say, if anything? you guys are talking like U2 operate in some void where they hand over their material to distribution companies and let said company do as they wish without U2 giving any input or direction. Someone is fucking this up, this is a fucking movie for crying out loud, not a tour which costs millions and alot of planning, etc. It's a film. There is absolutely no logical reason why this movie is not being made available at 3D capable theatres across Canada, Europe, Australia, Asia, South America, the world, to the same extent it is in the US. Unless someone here is going to posit that there are more U2 fans in the US. Give me a break.
If this movie is truly about giving U2 to markets that don't get very many visits from U2, the reverse is what should be happening: the US should be getting a handful of theatres, and every country that U2 doesn't go to or go to regularly should be getting it, and in many theatres. This is not how it's working out, though.

I think other countries are getting a raw deal maybe too, I'm just on Canada right now because that's where I live. If 2 months from now it opens in one theatre in all of Australia, I would equally support someone with a thread saying 'wtf U2/Nat Geo.?? you don't think there are U2 fans in Australia', of course I would!

 

[Utoo]

I totally agree with gabrielvox.

This just proves once and for all that U2 hates Canada.

And Australia.

I think a lot of people have been saying "fuck Canada" for a long time. I guess that means U2 are just going mainstream yet again.

 

[BVS]

you guys are talking like U2 operate in some void where they hand over their material to distribution companies and let said company do as they wish without U2 giving any input or direction.

True, but I think you may be giving them too much say in what is going on in these markets. There are a lot of factors that are out of U2's hands right now, I'm not sure why you are finding this so hard to grasp.

 

[U2isthebest]

I think a lot of people have been saying "fuck Canada" for a long time. I guess that means U2 are just going mainstream yet again.

The next album is going to be called "America's Hat" and feature a song about Canadian beer and moose. So, don't feel bad.












*this is all true.

 

[gvox]

The next album is going to be called "America's Hat" and feature a song about Canadian beer and moose. So, don't feel bad.

The only thing they'd be saying about our beer would be that it was the major reason they kept coming back to Canada for pit stops during the Vertigo tour. The other rumoured reasons were just a front.

 

[U2isthebest]

The only thing they'd be saying about our beer would be that it was the major reason they kept coming back to Canada for pit stops during the Vertigo tour. The other rumoured reasons were just a front.

That's basically what the early drafts of the lyrics say. Bono's going to work out the kinks before it goes on the album, though.

 

[gvox]

True, but I think you may be giving them too much say in what is going on in these markets. There are a lot of factors that are out of U2's hands right now, I'm not sure why you are finding this so hard to grasp.

I'm not. But if you mean to say that their agreement with Nat Geo. didn't outline some specific terms about where the film would be released and to what extent, perhaps even down to which cities or how many theatres, I think thats being naive in the opposite end of the spectrum, to say the least.

 

[gvox]

That's basically what the early drafts of the lyrics say. Bono's going to work out the kinks before it goes on the album, though.

Yeah. Like Verti... A rousing call to arms rich in metaphor and poetry supporting Canada's rightful place as the best beer in the world will be reduced to some pithy 'hey hey hey, eh?"s

 

[U2isthebest]

Yeah. Like Verti... A rousing call to arms rich in metaphor and poetry supporting Canada's rightful place as the best beer in the world will be reduced to some pithy 'hey hey hey, eh?"s

and a-boot's

 

[BVS]

I'm not. But if you mean to say that their agreement with Nat Geo. didn't outline some specific terms about where the film would be released and to what extent, perhaps even down to which cities or how many theatres, I think thats being naive in the opposite end of the spectrum, to say the least.

Well your level of anger seems to demonstrate that you think that U2 could be in these markets "if they just wanted to".

Of course U2 wants to be in these markets, but they can't right now. They are limited right now, by technology, by theaters, and by the market. Of course you can outline specifics of where, but you can't outline the specifics for how long... That's just not how films work.