This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U2, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.U2Wikipedia:WikiProject U2Template:WikiProject U2U2 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Has anyone heard any further info about a DVD release? I know that the producer originally said that it wasn't going to be released on DVD, but I find that a little hard to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.30.8 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Director Catherine Owens stated that she wants to release the film exclusively in a 3-D format. It's not that there are no plans to release it on DVD, but there are no plans to release it on DVD as a 2-D film. Since a 3-D home video is not yet possible, the film is not planned to be released outside of theaters until such a format becomes available. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing the future film tag from the article. The fact that the article states it is an upcoming film is irrelevent. The tag is still appropriate for use, as all other future films are tagged with this template regardless of whether the article states it is an upcoming film or not - • The Giant Puffin •10:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a screen cap from U2 3D that is clearly from their Live 8 preformance. 2 ways to know, Bono is wearing a jean jacket because Paul McCartney stole his leather one before the show. And the screen is a solid screen. U2s Vertigo tour set up used spaced LED like screens, not solid. It needs to be changed back to the screen cap from the trailer that simply says U2 3D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.34.133 (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done to User:Dream out loud for continuing to maintain and building this article to a high standard – others should be thanked too, but mostly DOL. Also, the consistent use of in-line cites is a great example for the rest of wikipedia. Nice one. --Merbabu (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate the recognition. This article has sure come a long way since I first created it in April 2007 (link). I really hope to get this article to GA-status soon, and eventually turn it into a featured article. I've covered just about every topic related to the film in the article, except for its reception, which anyone is welcome to do. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was at IMAX Melbourne yesterday to see U2 3D. We were told that the 3D projector wasn't working and that the film would be shown in 2D instead. So I, along with about 150 others, watched the movie in a normal 2D format, so obviously a 2D version exists. I don't know how this info would fit into the article itself, but it at least lets you know that the film is available in 2D. Joelster (talk)
Every source I've read states that the film was only released in 3-D, and there is no 2-D version available. I'm not doubting that what you say isn't true, however based on all the sources, I've yet to see any mention of the film in 2-D aside from the first half of the film editing process. If you can find an article, press release, or some other source thats states that there is a 2-D version, which may be used when 3-D theater equipment is not properly working, let me know and I'll look into it. Unfortunately, without any sources I can't implement that into the article at all as per WP:OR. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am an IMAX projectionist at Canada Place in Vancouver, and we are currently showing U2 3D. To run a film is 2D mode is simple. IMAX 3D technology is based on two separate reels of film being played with their frame counts exactly in sync: each reel is filmed by special IMAX cameras that are the same distance apart as the human eyes, one reel is for the left eye, the other the right eye. Polarizers ensure that the left eye receives the left image and the right eye the right image. To show the film in 2D merely requires not running one of the reels, and switching from a polarized lens to one that is not polarized. This is true of U2 3D or any other 3D IMAX film, and is a very simple process. Screening 3D films in 2D is generally frowned upon by the distributors so it is only done if there is some sort of failure in the system (either mechanical or human). Jsafrase (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember hearing anything about the film being rereleased in March 2009. It didn't play near me and nothing was annonced on u2.com. What's the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starman15317 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a very small re-release, and was only shown in a few theaters in the US. There was no announcement made on U2.com, but there was one made at the U2 3D official blog.[5] –Dream out loud (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This review is transcluded from Talk:U2 3D/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Wow! What a great article. The only thing I think needs improvement is that the lead needs to be expanded a bit. Perhaps, add a bit about critical response and distribution to better comply with WP:LEAD (summarizing all the main points of the article. That's about it...the article meets all the GA criteria otherwise. The article will be placed on hold for seven days to allow for the minor fix. Nikki31102:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article is currently at GA-status and has undergone two peer reviews since its creation. I believe that every aspect of the film has been covered to an extent in the article and it is written very well according to Wikipedia standards. I would like to see the article promoted to A-class before perfecting it for its FA nomination, of which it is not too far off. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see much that could be improved on, and Dream out Loud has done a fantastic job over the months getting it to this standard. A couple of nitpicky things I'm noticing.
Setlist: There's quite a bit of whitespace between "All titles written by U2, except "Miss Sarajevo" written by U2 and Brian Eno" and the actual listing. Anyway this can be reduced/removed?
Editing: The article says "the final film was cut to a length of 85 minutes—seven minutes short of its originally announced run time of 92 minutes." I don't know if it has ever been revealed or not, but I'd certainly be interested in knowing which track was removed if it could be found anywhere.
Screenings and Release: The article briefly mentions the 3D glasses and how they were polarized differently depending on which format was viewed. It was a while ago, but I seem to recall that this was one of the first (if not the first) films to use 3D glasses that advanced (though I may be wrong on that). If it is true, is there any way to add in another sentence or two regarding this?
As far as the whitespace goes, I don't see any when I look at the article on my computer, so maybe its just your browser? The film's run time was shortened from 92 minutes to 85 minutes, but I could not find any sources stating which single song was removed, although several songs that were filmed and left out were listed in that section. Polarized 3D glasses have been around for a while, so this wasn't the first movie to implement them, just the first movie to be filmed and screened exclusively in digital 3-D. The glasses used to view the film were the same type of glasses used to view other IMAX 3D or Real D films. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by PC78
A well-researched and well-written article. I can't find much to fault, so the following may seem a bit nitpicky, however....
"The project was created to experiment with a new type of 3-D film technology..." -- A bit vague; can the lead elaborate a bit more on the "new technology"?
"The film was praised for its 3-D technology and innovation." -- Sentence is a bit short and seems out of context; praise for the 3-D technology is mentioned again later in the lead, so I think this is unnecessary here.
"Following its release, U2 3D became the..." -- A bit too wordy; "U2 3D was the..." should suffice.
"John Modell had a connection with U2..." -- This sentence doesn't sit right with me. Having looked at the original source, might I suggest: "David and John Modell had been involved in the design of what would become the Ravens Stadium at Camden Yards during the 1990s, for which they were interested in using LED display video technology." Also, the article suggests that John Modell toured with U2, but if I'm reading the source right it was actually David Modell.
"The fourth leg of the tour featured eight shows..." -- Redundant to the previous sentence.
"During the filming period, one of the cameras was destroyed by water, and the remainder of the cameras were later waterproofed." -- A bit clunky. Again, having looked at the source, might I suggest: "The cameras were all waterproofed after one of them was inadvertantly drenched with water."
"The film also became the highest grossing documentary to be considered for an Academy Award nomination in 2008" -- Unclear; was it the "highest grossing documentary to be considered for an Academy Award nomination" period or just for the 2008 awards?
I've edited out some of my more trivial concerns, and I don't have the issue with the whitespace mentioned above. I'll wait until my concerns are addressed before commenting futher, but I don't see any real reason why I wouldn't support this nomination. Regards. PC78 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed up the article using most of the suggestions listed above. I feel as if the "waterproofed" sentence is ok, and changing it around to the suggestion listed above messes up the flow of the rest of the sentences in the paragraph. As far as for the Academy Award nomination, I think it's pretty straightforward that the film was the highest grossing just for the year 2008, otherwise it would have been more clear, such as "In 2008, the film also became the highest grossing documentary of all time to be considered for an Academy Award nomination." –Dream out loud (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a slight issue with those two points, so I'll have another go at trying to resolve them. The "waterproofed" sentence has one too many commas and with the repetition of "cameras" doesn't flow particuarly well. How about: "One camera was destroyed by water during the filming period, which led to the remaining camereas later being waterproofed." For the latter point, "...considered for a nomination at the 81st Academy Awards in 2008" might work better, as well as providing a more specific link. PC78 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I used Checklinks to update some URLs in the article. I have two suggestions regarding the article's references. First, if you are interested in cutting down the KB size of the article, you do not need the publisher= for works that already have their own article, such as The New York Times or Variety. (This rationale is from Template:Cite news, where under the "publisher" description, it says, "The company or organization that publishes the news source. Not necessary for major publications like The New York Times, but may add credibility for local papers that are part of a family of publications like The McClatchy Company." My other suggestion is to write out the dates in the references in full since there is no auto-formatting these days. I believe that readers can more quickly read the date when fully written out and not in ISO formatting. May also help to use WP:NBSP for the dates (between month and day). Below are some so-called "nitpicky" suggestions:
Last two sentences of lead section use "stated" twice; perhaps just use "said" or use better/more varied verbs
In "Synopsis", is there a better section heading that can be used than "Personnel"? Why not "Musicians"?
"While waiting to hear from the league, 3ality executives Jon and Peter Shapiro proposed the idea of creating a 3-D concert film, after having produced the 2-D IMAX concert film All Access in 2001." This sentence feels clumsy. Not sure how to rewrite it; any thoughts?
"As U2 had experimented with video technology in the past, the band was mainly interested in the 3-D film project as a technological experiment rather than to make a profit." The first part of the sentence does not seem to relate to the second part. Can this be clarified or rewritten?
In the "Filmed concerts" table, the flag icons seem unnecessary to include. Review MOS:FLAG to see if they need placement or not.
"Instead of directing the band in how to perform, the band indirectly directed the crew as they performed each of the concerts as usual, with the filming crew capturing footage in real-time for 2½ hours during each concert." Who was supposed to direct the band in how to perform? (I assume the crew, but it needs to be said.) Not understanding how "the band indirectly directed the crew" and really recommend a different pairing than "indirectly directed".
"...since they felt that those songs were out of place with the rest of the film." Who is "they" in this instance?
"Many of the transitions in the film were justified created by layering several frames of footage on top of one another." "Justified created" is off here, but not clear enough on the technology to fix myself.
Do we need to link to "U2" again in the "Screenings and releases" section? Seems like they would have been linked enough by this point.
"pulled from theaters" sounds like something negative happened. Seems from what I have read so far this film was always going to receive a short run. Which is the case?
I nixed "overwhelmingly positive" as non-neutral wording since Rotten Tomatoes says nothing like that. It's best to present the figures neutrally.
"even better than the real thing" is not attributed; too many works mentioned before this to know what to reference for attribution
I performed general copy-editing for each section in the article; hopefully the separate copy-edit for each section makes review easier. Most changes are minimal, but I rewrote the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic sentences in their entirety to provide better clarify to readers, since not all may be familiar with the so-called "Fresh" rating. Please respond to my suggestions above or my copy-editing, both of which I am happy to discuss. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the article based on most of the suggestions listed above, with few exceptions:
I checked MOS:FLAG and I feel that the flags in the table are appropriate for the article because they are all listed in a table (that isn't an infobox) and do not offset the flow of the rest of the article body.
The sentence "As U2 had experimented with video technology in the past, the band was mainly interested in the 3-D film project as a technological experiment rather than to make a profit." seems fine to me. It basically states that the film was a video technology-based experiment for the band, and they had experimented with video technology in the past as well.
The "even better than the real thing" reference is attributed. The point of that sentence is that all 5 of the sources listed said the film was "even better than the real thing" in one way or another.
Okay, I'll concede the flag matter. I also slightly rewrote the technological experiment sentence to be clearer. For "even better than the real thing", you are using quotation marks, so there has to be someone to attribute. If you wrote these in your own words to consolidate the reviews' consensus, it should be paraphrased and not explicitly quoted. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also leery of the quote box with the quote from The Edge. It does not belong in the "Critical response" section, and it is a bit on the promotional-sounding side. It is ideal to avoid opinions from those involved with films unless they are specifically illustrative. For example, a director saying, "I think this is the best film I've ever done" vs. "I aimed to explore a combination of so-and-so genres to produce something new" -- which is more substantive, you know? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issue with the quote sounding too promotional, though I do agree that it is misplaced in the article. It would seem more appropriate in the "Filming" section, though there isn't much room for it. PC78 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Girolamo Savonarola
It was also the first live-action film to be shot, produced, and screened exclusively with both 3-D and digital cinema technology - some of the sources clearly indicate that particular shots were filmed in 2D and then turned into virtual 3D.
surpassing the film's budget - "making it profitable" sounds like awkward.
The video excerpt seems to me to strongly fail our fair usage guidelines. It is purely illustrative and does not enhance understanding of anything in particular from the article, nor is it an authorized usage from National Geographic, nor is it sourced from anything of decent-enough quality. I would have strong objections to this in FAC as well were it to remain within the article.
The Focal Point source has extensive technical information within the article, and yet virtually none of this is used. Why? (If you need some "translation", feel free to let me know.)
they and the team - unclear antecedent
U2 frontman Bono also expressed interest in the project, and he convinced the other three members of the band to become involved in the project - "in the project" repeated
Upon completion of the film, U2 3D became the third concert film from the Vertigo Tour - huh? And if so, why is this being mentioned here, instead of in the Release section?
minus the first show - "with the exception of the first show"
Similar issues with the first three stills pics as with the video clip, although the "coexista" sign might be acceptable in the Synopsis section. I look at these and think, "that's great that someone was willing to upload their personal photos, but how is any of this directly relevant to the article in particlar, and how is it informative to the subject in a way that the article text isn't?" At the moment, I don't see anything to indicate this.
The filmed concerts table does not include any information about the filmed "fake concert" - as this was part of the finished film, shouldn't it? You could always include a comment or caption to indicate it was audience-less.
Carl Zeiss digital zoom lenses - usually referred to as Zeiss, not Carl Zeiss. Also, should not link to digital zoom. Digital zoom is a form of electronic pseudozoom which is used by consumer-based cameras. B4 mount cameras such as the F950 don't have lenses with digital zoom functions, since it severely degrades image quality and the systems can swap out for longer lenses where needed. The lenses this film used were [Zeiss Digital zoom lenses http://www.zeiss.com/C125756900453232/ContentsWWWIntern/8C5E1DDE818D1251C125756F0044B799]. In other words, Zeiss lenses designed for digital camera systems, but with fully optical zoom housings. So the correct linkage would be Zeiss digital zoom lenses, or to be clearer, digital Zeisszoom lenses.
which captured video in a 70 mm film format onto HDCAM SR recording decks - I don't even know what this means. You can't capture video in 70 mm film format. If this is referring to the aspect ratio, it's still wrong, since the 70mm format is a 2.20:1 ratio, while IMAX is a 70mm gauge, but has a 1.43:1 aspect ratio. In either case, the ratio would be incompatible with HDCAM SR, which records a 1.78:1 (16:9) ratio.
requiring the cameras on each rig to be welded together - again, unclear. Welding the cameras to each other, or to the rig? Do they mean "welded" literally, like arc welding, or just as in "intensely secured together"? Welding the cameras together would destroy them - they're not that rugged. Welding them to the rig is possible if you're counting particular accessory plates underneath, but again, this is questionable...
Five operators - operators or camera crew members? Camera assistants (who deal with focus usually) are not operators usually, and vice versa.
Owens had little film directing experience, she was involved with every aspect of the film except for the live shoots - again, huh? What exactly did she do, then?
Editor Olivier Wicki was chosen to work on the post-production of the film, after previously working on U2's "Original of the Species" music video. Wicki worked closely - a bit too much "work"
Owens sought to have only 14–15 songs out of 26 would appear - grammar
"Vertigo" was selected to be the opening song. "City of Blinding Lights" was left out of the film though it was the opening song for all nine filmed concerts, as well as most of the concerts throughout the entire Vertigo Tour. - Perhaps better written as Although "City of Blinding Lights" was the opening song for all nine filmed concerts, as well as most of the Vertigo Tour, "Vertigo" was chosen to open the film instead."? Or something to that effect. Feels less perfunctory and staccato.
20,000 square foot (1900 square meter) 3-D production facility, which opened prior to the completion of the filming - why is this relevant?
including the primary software 3action - needs a comma in front of 3action.
edited into a format - a format? Do you mean a manner?
The film was captured in a super image resolution of high-definition video, so each frame of the film used nearly 20 megabytes of data - I see nothing in the reference which mentions the resolution. HDCAM SR captures in standard 1080p resolution; large file sizes are comprised of more than just resolution - in HDCAM SR, the 4:4:4 chroma subsampling is the main reason for large file sizes, amongst several factors.
The entire video editing process took 17 months, and the final film was cut to a length of 85 minutes—seven minutes shorter than the originally announced run time of 92 minutes. - this (along with the prior sentence) makes it appear that the length of the cut had to do with the budget and the editing time. Is this actually the case? Since the length is dictated by the songs, surely the 7 minute difference was able to be determined as soon as they decided what the final setlist was going to be and picture was locked, which generally occurs long before complicated render processes.
You may also want to contact Hot Gears (www.hotgears.com), as I am aware that they had to design a completely new camera rig (which they subsequently named "the U2") in order to support the weight of the 3D configuration. While I can't find any sources for this online, my guess is that the company has access to several and can assist you in finding them.
so it coincided with - "in order to coincide with"
The first week of the film's wide release was the both highest-grossing week of its theatrical run, grossing $1,026,121, averaging $1,500 per theater. - both this and...?
Three weeks into its wide release, U2 3D was playing in less than 100 theaters internationally. At the time, the film had only grossed $6.6 million, while Disney's Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus 3-D concert film, still playing in many theaters since its February 1 release, had brought in over $60 million. - And why is this relevant?
The consensus was that - The site's consensus was - Rotten Tomatoes does not speak for the public at large.
while the final 85-minute cut - when the final 85-minute cut
I'm not sure that the Edge's pop-out quote needs to be there. Either summarize in the text (as you already have) or quote in the text directly, but having both is superfluous.
The month before the film's premiere, the extensive use of technology during production was featured as the cover story in the December 2007 issue of the high-definition video magazine HDVideoPro.[22] The film's usage of evolutionary technology also provoked Catherine Owens to be chosen as one of the featured guest speakers at the SIGGRAPH 2008 conference, which took place several months after the film's initial release - None of this should be in this section; the Siggraph detail is already covered in the article, while a major release being featured in an industry magazine is extremely commonplace and not worthy of mention in and of itself.
On the whole, though, the article looks strong - in essence, I just want to see more attention to particular sources, better usage and application of AV materials (notably in the context of relevance and fair usage requirements), tighter copy editing, and more accurate technical description. Good luck, and I look forward to seeing this continue to improve! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your input. I will definitely go through the article and touch it up based on your suggestions. I haven't had too much free time to work on Wikipedia lately, but I will work on it when I get a chance. Obviously, there is still work that needs to be done before FA-status, but is the article (in its current state) worthy of an A-class rating? –Dream out loud (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I expect comments to be acted on in some manner or another, not just heard. The fair use issues alone will quickly disqualify a support on my part without some compelling course of their being addressed. If you disagree with some of the comments, please feel free to explain why, but otherwise, I'm going to need more than just a confirmation of receipt. Sorry, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've finally gotten around to going through the article and making changes based on your suggestions. I agreed with most of them, and have comments to make about a few:
I feel as if the video clip does fall under fair use guidelines. Yes, it is of low quality, but all non-free content should be of low resolution anyway. I think that the video falls under the all the necessary criteria at WP:NFCC. It illustrates the article to give the reader an idea of the film's appearance and style in which is was shot; just the same way that a song article has a clip of the song, this film article has a brief clip of the film.
The Focal Point source does have lots of technical information, but I don't know how to implement that into the article. I was hoping to get some assistance from someone at the Film Wikiproject to assist with that.
The two images in the filming section were included as they show both the concert and the filming taking place, with cameras clearly visible in each image.
The "fake concert" or "phantom shoot" purposely was not included in the table of concerts shot as it wasn't a "real concert".
I haven't read any sources stating that the final run time being shorter than intitally announced had anything to do with budget or time. I couldn't find any sources stating why the times were different.
I didn't find any information on Hot Gears' camera rig and I feel that even if they did send me information via email or something, I would not be able to cite it properly.
The Hannah Montana concert film's gross is relevant because its inital extended release delayed the release of this film. I thought it would also be good to compare to the grosses of two 3-D concert films released at the same time in theaters, since there aren't too many 3-D films in existance.
I think The Edge's pop-out quote fits in nicely because it expresses his feelings and emotions about shooting the last few concerts, and that his emotions would not have the same effect if they were simply rewritten into a summary sentence. Despite this, several other editors do seem to disagree with me on this, but I'm open to suggestions for any other type of quote that would fit in that section.
I think that the film's appearnce on the cover of a magazine is relevant because the main article in that issue was all about the movie's technology and filming, as opposed to just featuring a review of some sort. I also included the SIGGRAPH info again to note how Catherine Owens was chosen to speak because of her work done with the film and its technology. The previous mention of the SIGGRAPH conference was to simply mention that it was screened there, but did not mention why she was chosen as the speaker.
These are just my opinions about the article and I'm sure there will be some disagreements on some and I hope that we can come to some sort of consensus on it to be able to promote this to A-Class, and eventually FA-Class. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The paragraph dealing with the specifics of production -- most notably the statement that the production exclusively used camera rigs built by Vince Pace -- is inaccurate. I represent the company that actually produced the film, 3ality Digital, and which built the bulk of the rigs and all of the technology used in the production. The source that has been cited in connection with the erroneous statements is incorrect, and information may have been provided to that source maliciously. I have edited this article once and it has reverted to its former state. I would like someone to contact me so I can provide the proper information and we can get this corrected, particularly since it deals with what is currently the world's biggest touring act -- U2 -- and with a highly-visible film director, James Cameron. I think both parties would not appreciate being associated with erroneous and perhaps fraudulent information. Thanks.
Looking over the article, it looks like it's very close to heading off to FAC. I have a few suggestions on further improving the article:
It's great that we have a video to include with the article, very few film articles use that feature. However, I think the minute-long length might be an issue for fair use requirements. It would probably be best to cut it down to 30 seconds or less. Otherwise, there might be some comments on wanting to remove the video from the article. In addition, it would be helpful to expand the fair use rationale on the video's page to specifically state why it is needed for the article.
"The band was quite hesitant at first to accept..." "The band was quite hesitant to accept"
"The film begins with a view..." Instead of describing the plot as "the film", just directly lead into "A voice is heard chanting "everyone" at the back of the stage..."
"It was intended to be used as an inexpensive and effective way to film live events like concerts and sports." Probably best to lose the wikilinks for concerts and sports. Go through the article and remove any other common links.
"According to producer Jon Modell, the film shoot had more technology than any other film shoot at the time." This should be reworded to avoid the repetition.
"A total of 18 cameras and nine camera setups were used in filming, with each camera rig weighing an average 200–300 lb..." "an average of 200"
"All of the concert footage was shot used the twin-camera setups, except for the final two shoots in Melbourne. Two camera setups were used in Melbourne, including..." This also sounds a little repetitive.
"When a camera was destroyed by water at one of the concerts, the crew waterproofed the remaining cameras." Are there any further details about how it was destroyed by water?
"Post-production on the film took two years to complete, and began in February 2006, the same month principal photography began.[13] The film's post-production continued..." Additional repetition could use rewording.
"To appeal to a mainstream audience, Owens sought to have only 14–15 songs out of 26 appear in the final cut, most being U2's most popular songs." Reword the "most".
"The film was edited on BOXX workstations running Windows XP, and converted footage from 2-D to 3-D using several software programs, including Assimilate Scratch, IRIDAS SpeedGrade, Shake, Nuke and Adobe After Effects." Since the serial comma is used throughout the rest of the article, make sure to add one after "Nuke".
I do this a lot as well, but try and cut down on the occurrences of "in the film". Since the article is about the film, the additional mention is a bit redundant.
"The film's European premiere took place on February 20, 2008 at the Jameson Dublin International Film Festival,[59] and on February 22, 2008, the..." Remove the year from the second occurrence.
In the "Recognition and legacy" section, the list should be converted over to prose.
Hopefully these are helpful, and if you need any clarification on these, please let me know. It would be best to get more people to take a look over the article before nominating. Excellent work on the article so far, I think it's very close to FA. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to restore the article's formatting from "3D" back to "3-D". I figured that "3D" is good for referring to the film's title, but "3-D" should be used to refer to the technology itself. After researching this a little bit, it seems that "3D" is more so used in film titles, but not as much when referring to the technology. In addition, the article 3-D film uses the hyphen and has had several failed move requests, as many editors want to keep the hyphen intact. With that being said, I'm going to be "3-D" back in the article, which will fix some redirect links and a broken category. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if most 3-D concerts used "3-D", we'd have to use 3D for the title because the official name of the film is "U2 3D". Although there's an article named 3-D film, there are also two other articles called 3D computer graphics (yes, I know that U2 3D isn't animation, but still) and 3D television. The article on stereoscopy says that one of stereoscopy's alternate names is "3-D imaging". I'm not completely certain, but atm, I think that we should go with "U2 3D" for the article name and "3-D" for talking about 3-D technology in the article. Just my 2 cents. —Waterfox(talk)17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was only referring to changing "3-D" to "3D" when not referring to the film's title. Obviously, we can't just reformat a proper title like that, but I do want to use "3-D" in the article when possible. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed a round of copy edits and de-linked commoner terms. Please review and make sure no techical material was inadvertently changed in meaning. Good luck with your next FA nom! Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be reverting back to using Box Office Mojo[6] for the box office data, as I believe there are some issues with the information that The Numbers[7] is reporting. Both sites seems to be consistent in terms that the total US gross is listed as $10,363,341, and the total worldwide gross (as of December 2, 2010) is listed as $22,730,842. December 2 is the most recent date that BOM has reported data, and knowing that the film is still in theaters, I decided to instead use The Numbers data, which has been continually reporting. There was one week where the total gross was lower than the week prior. I thought it was strange, so I switched to BOM, and once The Numbers fixed that error, I went back to their source. Well it seems that The Numbers has screwed up again somehow. The most recent report lists ~$360,000 from 103 theaters during the week of March 31, 2011. This is odd because the prior week lists eight theaters, and every week for several months before that has no more than three theaters listed. Additionally, this is even more odd given the fact that no data has been reported from The Numbers since March 31.
I have emailed The Numbers and informed them of this issue and am awaiting a response. Until then I am going to use BOM's data because there is clearly an issue, citing how there was over a 1,000% gross increase in one week, then no gross listed afterwards. I wanted to inform any editors working on this article as to why the information is being reverted (once again). I will also try and contact BOM as to why they have not reported data since December. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just heard back from The Numbers this morning, and they double-checked their data and confirmed it was correct. They suggested the large increase of theaters may have been due to a special screening that week. Well I looked into it, and sure enough, Brazilian film distributor Mobz released the film into 100 theaters throughout Brazil prior to U2's concerts in the country. Don't I feel a bit stupid. I found tons of articles about it, although they were all in Portuguese and I had to translate them all. Although it is strange that there was no mention about it on the film's website anywhere. I'll be updating this data (eh, once again) later tonight sometime. So The Numbers is correct, although they said they would be contacting National Geographic as to why they have no received any box office data since then. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article has now reached FA status and all items in the to do list (at the top of this page) have been crossed out, should the to do box be removed? Perhaps the content could be pasted into a regular section for reference? (By the way, congrats on Featured status and the Main Page appearance!) --Another Believer(Talk)02:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on U2 3D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on U2 3D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on U2 3D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
