Can't believe that I am coming to the defense of a band I haven't followed in over a decade, but ...
You didn't state that as though it were subjective, but as fact that the reason their setup was so expensive was because they "can't entertain". Setting aside the fact that U2 were able to build up to the level of a stadium act because evidently a lot of people thought they could entertain, you are comparing their current tour to the Stop Making Sense show (which, far from being just a bare stage, had costumes, props and other visuals). If Talking Heads had ever gotten to be as big as U2, that show wouldn't have worked nearly as well in the venues that U2 has to play due to their popularity, David Byrne would have to come up with even bigger visuals and set pieces that wouldn't get dwarfed by the stadia ... which may well be one of the reasons why he broke up Talking Heads before they got that big, because he had no interest in that scale of performance. And that is why I say the comparison is not apt.
Sure, these days I'd rather enjoy, say, Remain In Light or Stop Making Sense than the latest U2 CD/Tour, but you seem to be attacking them because of their success. You say they consciously pick their venues, are you seriously suggesting that at this stage of the game they go back to playing clubs and theatres? All that is going to do is upset a lot of their fans because they won't be able to get tickets. They are one of the most popular bands in the world (and are you really going to fault a band if they happen to like having a lot of fans?), that is going to end up requiring big venues and big staging. I just can't agree that all this means, by definition, that they "can't entertain".
Gah, gonna go wash out my brain with "The Great Curve" now ...