1. Forgive me, I'm new to bootlegging. What exactly is a pro-shot bootleg? Was it professionally filmed and put on TV?
  2. Originally posted by digitizeForgive me, I'm new to bootlegging. What exactly is a pro-shot bootleg? Was it professionally filmed and put on TV?


    yes it is
  3. The TV part is not always true from what I understand...but it generally means it was shot by various cameras, with cameramen onstage, etc...generally speaking, "professionals".
  4. Bit of a bump here but it’s just to ask a question to those in the know. I’ve often mentioned that I hope the band release shows that were broadcast on tv as we know they have been filmed to a professional standard. However I know the band have access to lots of audio and video but would they have access to shows like vertigo São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Popmart Santiago, zoo tv Washington and actually one of my main examples zoo tv Basel? I mention Basel because that’s one of the weaker quality of the proshots but is it likely the band would have access to the footage and be able to turn it into something as good as official release quality? Basically wondering as well if something broadcast on tv is the tv stations property or the bands to use?
  5. Originally posted by deanallison:Bit of a bump here but it’s just to ask a question to those in the know. I’ve often mentioned that I hope the band release shows that were broadcast on tv as we know they have been filmed to a professional standard. However I know the band have access to lots of audio and video but would they have access to shows like vertigo São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Popmart Santiago, zoo tv Washington and actually one of my main examples zoo tv Basel? I mention Basel because that’s one of the weaker quality of the proshots but is it likely the band would have access to the footage and be able to turn it into something as good as official release quality? Basically wondering as well if something broadcast on tv is the tv stations property or the bands to use?
    Mexico 97,Sydney 93,Paris 2015 were all broadcast Live on TV and were then officially released so yeah they probably do own the footage and could use it .
  6. Originally posted by popmarter:[..]
    Mexico 97,Sydney 93,Paris 2015 were all broadcast Live on TV and were then officially released so yeah they probably do own the footage and could use it .
    I wonder if they could be different arrangements though. With they shows it seems like the band always planned on releasing them and likely would have had their own full production, with the shows that haven’t been released and weren’t planned to be released at the time at least are the tv companies more involved with the filming and therefore own that coverage or is that all the bands team on the camera work and they are essentially giving the tv company the footage to broadcast? It would be good to know the ins and outs of how a u2 show like one of the ones I mentioned ends up on tv in terms of any financial terms and who approaches who etc. I do suspect the same as you though that the footage is there in the vaults and could be used but I just wonder if there is such a thing as footage that wasn’t really done by the band. I guess Glastonbury is an example, I know that’s not just a u2 show but it is footage of the band that I assume the bbc own and the band would need permission to use rather than just being able to release.
  7. Pretty sure the band demanded full control of the Glastonbury taping. All their own team. When you watch it, it really doesn’t feel like watching a normal a Glastonbury weekend show.
  8. Originally posted by germcevoy:Pretty sure the band demanded full control of the Glastonbury taping. All their own team. When you watch it, it really doesn’t feel like watching a normal a Glastonbury weekend show.
    One of their worst big gigs....flat as a pancake
  9. Originally posted by germcevoy:Pretty sure the band demanded full control of the Glastonbury taping. All their own team. When you watch it, it really doesn’t feel like watching a normal a Glastonbury weekend show.
    That’s probably true in fact. Rings a bell actually did the Rolling Stones not do something similar having initially not been wanting the gig shown in full on tv but then they did allow it all to be shown but I think it was still them in control of the setup etc. So u2 would likely have been the same. Probably the broadcast stuff they have just demanded the footage is their’s and the tv stations are just getting to broadcast it. Things like this always interest me just to know the ins and outs but I guess we’ll never know how it’s all arranged unless you work for the tv station or the band.
  10. There was definitely news of it round the time that U2 took full control of the broadcast. All the unique visuals by Damien Hirst as well. Just when the needed to rock up and play the set they still had to go all U2 on it and they never managed the hype.
  11. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    I wonder if they could be different arrangements though. With they shows it seems like the band always planned on releasing them and likely would have had their own full production, with the shows that haven’t been released and weren’t planned to be released at the time at least are the tv companies more involved with the filming and therefore own that coverage or is that all the bands team on the camera work and they are essentially giving the tv company the footage to broadcast? It would be good to know the ins and outs of how a u2 show like one of the ones I mentioned ends up on tv in terms of any financial terms and who approaches who etc. I do suspect the same as you though that the footage is there in the vaults and could be used but I just wonder if there is such a thing as footage that wasn’t really done by the band. I guess Glastonbury is an example, I know that’s not just a u2 show but it is footage of the band that I assume the bbc own and the band would need permission to use rather than just being able to release.
    Those Popmart gigs in South America that were broadcast were part of covering the costs of bringing the tour there, at the time U2 had no sponsorship so bringing the production there costs them a fortune McGuinness talks about it in the book "U2 Show" they probably didn't release any of them because they specifically filmed Mexico for commercial release and anyway they are up on YouTube if fans wanna watch them.