LIV
Active topics
  1. What did you people expect ? The Rose Bowl show just wasn't a very good one (Bono's voice screwed after a few songs / not a great atmosphere / band wasn't that inspired )
    So i think the editors actually did a good job in the end, it went from bad to ok...
    But it's quite impossible to make an exellent dvd from a bad concert...

    And still, everyone knows they're gonna buy the dvd/blue-ray and well... I saw the one-hour preview on my tv and i believe it will be enjoyable enough, don't make up your whole opinion just from a crappy audio-rip or a youtube-version
  3. Is that allowed here?
  4. no idea thought tv rips are ok, will edit it if thats the deal
  5. we'd prefer not to have it hosted so close to release
  6. Theres a lack of colour on this DVD. I was expecting real eye popping colour but it looks a little dull.
  7. Only pro compared to the Vertigo dvd is Ultraviolet and The Claw, in my opinion. But then again, not much to complain. If they did this during ZooTV or Popmart it would be a disaster, but now we can just pick a random European show from the show pages if we want a good quality show

    Think Wembley II would've made the best DVD.
  8. Originally posted by notcomingdown:I just saw the Blu Ray and single disc on sale at Target this morning. I thought June 3 was the release date. Would have picked one up but I already preordered online.


    Not at my Target....


  9. lol, I remember during the live youtube broadcast you wrote something like "it looks like the claw has her period". (i have a photographic memory, i can recommend everyone getting one).

    I only attended one show but I remember it had strong lights most of the time. But during the live youtube broadcast I indeed was flabbergasted seeing a rather dull and dark claw, just standing there in the dark.

    Am I wrong or were earlier shows far more a light spectacle? How does Rose Bowl compare to other (2nd leg) shows in that department?

    Maybe the relative darkness was done intentionally to create or suggest more intimacy, doesn't U2 state they want to turn every stadium* into a living room?

    (*or arena, i have no clue what the difference is: anyway I mean big oval building with lots of people in it)
  10. Originally posted by noiseless:[..]

    lol, I remember during the live youtube broadcast you wrote something like "it looks like the claw has her period". (i have a photographic memory, i can recommend everyone getting one).

    I only attended one show but I remember it had strong lights most of the time. But during the live youtube broadcast I indeed was flabbergasted seeing a rather dull and dark claw, just standing there in the dark.

    Am I wrong or were earlier shows far more a light spectacle? How does Rose Bowl compare to other (2nd leg) shows in that department?

    Maybe the relative darkness was done intentionally to create or suggest more intimacy, doesn't U2 state they want to turn every stadium* into a living room?

    (*or arena, i have no clue what the difference is: anyway I mean big oval building with lots of people in it)


    There is a certain compensation of lights for filmed shows; you'll notice certain lights not being used on the Chicago DVD if you've seen other Vertigo shows. This is because the light is sort of an overload for the camera, which has specific needs in order to capture the band in the highest definition possible. The wrong lighting completely screws up a camera print, so unfortunately, when you see a U2 show being filmed, you don't see a U2 light show- you see a U2 movie being filmed.

    It's most unfortunate on this tour- some of the amazing lights weren't used and therefore not captured so that the hi-def could be used the way it was with certain angles, and they STILL didn't turn out that great! Some of the birds-eye shots really would have benefitted from a heavily lit claw. Then again, you don't know when you're filming what you'll be editing together.
  11. Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:[..]

    There is a certain compensation of lights for filmed shows; you'll notice certain lights not being used on the Chicago DVD if you've seen other Vertigo shows. This is because the light is sort of an overload for the camera, which has specific needs in order to capture the band in the highest definition possible. The wrong lighting completely screws up a camera print, so unfortunately, when you see a U2 show being filmed, you don't see a U2 light show- you see a U2 movie being filmed.

    It's most unfortunate on this tour- some of the amazing lights weren't used and therefore not captured so that the hi-def could be used the way it was with certain angles, and they STILL didn't turn out that great! Some of the birds-eye shots really would have benefitted from a heavily lit claw. Then again, you don't know when you're filming what you'll be editing together.



    At least they have The Flash in Streets
  12. Ah, never thought of it, or actually I sort of assumed too bright lights would be filtered out by some camera filters instead of being turned off. Thanks for explaining.

    I haven't seen one of the recent one-hour-broadcasts and I haven't seen the YouTube broadcast since it was streamed live so my memory may deceive me, but in my memory none of the lights in the legs of the claw were used. So, the claw itself was hardly visible. Nothing I feel like bitching about but yes it's most unfortunate especially for this tour indeed: a tour built around a spaceship being invisible in the DVD.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.