Talk:U2 3D

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's Feb 2011 and a 3D HD format exists. But I still haven't heard anything about this coming out on 3D Blu-Ray. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD

message: 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)
thread_title:  future film tag 

message: 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)
thread_title: Picture

message: http://www.imax.com/minnesota/films/u23d.htm That has some songs not listed in the article, more than 2 others as the article says.--64.161.57.81 (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  songs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nice work... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah I kinda knew that. But I though I may as well let you know. Joelster (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make a post about this on a U2 forum and see if anyone else has information about this and can possibly refer me to a source. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  2D version 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  rereleased? 

message: 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.  
--Angela Wilson Gyetvan 
˜˜˜˜  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awgyetvan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia uses what information is verifiable; not necessarily what is true. What you need to provide for this is a reliable source which contains the information you mention above. An article on the 3ality website with correct information would be the best place to get it from. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous content in this article  

message: The video at the below link has some great info about the film.  I'll incorporate it into the article soon. 
http://www.scribemedia.org/2008/04/11/u2-3d/
–Dream out loud (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New video found 

message: 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)
thread_title: Review comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  3D vs. 3-D 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copy edits 

message: I'm going to be reverting back to using Box Office Mojo for the box office data, as I believe there are some issues with the information that The Numbers 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Box office data 

message: 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)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104021458/http://archive.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2008/01/listeningpost_0121?currentPage=all to http://archive.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2008/01/listeningpost_0121?currentPage=all
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717125606/http://www.u23dmovie.com/images/multimedia/downloads/U23D_poster.pdf to http://www.u23dmovie.com/images/multimedia/downloads/U23D_poster.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927015019/http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=139520 to http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=139520
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified