Warner Home Video has announced the technical specs and special features for the upcoming Blu-ray release of the popular sequel '2010: The Year We Made Contact', which is due to hit store shelves on April 7th. Coming on a BD-25, this release features 2.40:1 1080p VC-1 video accompanied by a 5.1 Dolby TrueHD soundtrack.
The only extras for this release is a vintage feature "2010: The Odyssey Continues" and the theatrical trailer.
While more "mainstream" than 2001, it was nonetheless a good movie. Not sure if this is Day 1 for me but a good catalog release and I'll pick it up when the costs go down.
AND ABOUT THAT- Studios, a lot of Blu-Ray players were sold this Christmas... everyone I know that's new to Blu since the 25th are bitching about ONE thing.. the cost of the movies. I tell people just to go to Amazon because they're cheaper than most B&M stores but that's not the fix... my parents won't buy movies online so they're "sticker shocked" by Best Buy's MSRP release prices. This needs to be addressed ASAP unless we all want to see those new Blu-Ray players be relegated to upscaler DVD players.
For the record I have a shade over 100 Blu's myself so no, I'm NOT someone who wants the format to die.
I'll get this eventually as well. Sure it's no 2001, but it's still miles ahead of the space-travel films of the past twenty-odd years. And Boss Film's effects haven't been bettered in the digital age -- just think of films like "Mission to Mars" as a point of comparison.
Glad to see lossless audio, and at least some extras, on what seemed to be a bare-bones release.
Amazon is so much lower in cost (especially if you are an Amazon Prime member) that you
should convince your parents to break their online bias. A Blu-Ray purchased online plays just like
one shipped to your door in two days.
As for 2010, I love my copy of 2001 (and all my other Kubrick classics) but won't watch this a
second time after viewing it originally in theater.
If anyone can tell me how to stop these breaks...please help. I am not hitting return at the end of
the line and I am on a MacBook.
@ mhussung: There using BD-25's because there arent enough BD-50's to go around & its also
cheaper for them.....But hey if it looks good & sounds good , who cares right? I personaly think they
should start doing away with BD-25's unless its for special features or what not...Main features should
all be presented on BD-50 & *BD-100's* :-) (one day they will!) Nice work on the lossless audio tracks
WB!! Thank you!
Thanks WB! I've long waited for the 2010 BD release! I have the superbly done 2001: ASO BD and very eager to add this one to my collection! WB still goes cheap releasing a 25 GB BD, LOL! 2001 is 50 GB! So why can't this one be also? Well, at least we're getting lossless audio this time. Fantastic!
BTW, to you guys posting unformatted text lines in your comments, I am using FireFox. I don't know if the browser matters or not. Just a thought.
Why does Warners continue to skimp on extras? I thought one of the biggest selling points of BD was to take advantage of the 50g storage capacity and yet companies continue to release bare-bones discs. I remember seeing the behind-the-scenes documentary on HBO or something but come on. Surely there must be other promotional material besides the trailer in the Warner archives they could include. I wish more companies would give us the whole enchilada with the film to make it feel like a definitive release.
Day 1 purchase! The aerobraking sequence at Jupiter should sound fantastic in lossless! This is an infinitely better film than more recent entries like 'Red Planet', 'Mission To Mars', 'Sunshine', or 'Solaris'. Now if only Warner could show some similar love for 'Contact'....
OK, Not blu related, but hey Warner Bros, why not remake 2001 & 2010 for a theatrical run, based closer to Arthur C Clarks novels, then do 2064 & 3001............get top director's to helm each pic. Spielberg for 2001, Cameron for 2010, R. Scott for 2064 and P. Jackson for 3001 or some senario like that.
This will be a first week buy for me. I might be the minority on the issue, but I really only
want to watch the movie anyway so using 25 versus 50 isn't a problem. But if you really think
about it not very many people watch the extra materials at all and would rather pay less to
get the movie than spend extra to pay the guy who made the coffee on the set to do an
audio track about who likes their coffee black or with cream. Some movies do scream for the
extra material just not all of them.
Demanding more extras from old catalog releases just isn't realistic. It's not like they're going to go out and make NEW extras for catalog releases. New movies being released on Blu have a significantly higher level of extras compared to DVD's (IMHO of course)... but you simply can't expect a ton of things with a 10+ year old release. Also, the use of BD25's for catalog releases does not bug me in the slightest... as long as it can help drive the price downward by using the smaller capacity media. PQ and AQ should NEVER be sacrificed, of course... that's Blu's mainstay... but BD25 vs BD50 and the extras issue? I say we be thankful the studios are releasing catalogs at this rate right now...
I agree not every film needs extras. Couple of standards I'd like to see in that dept. are trailers and TV spots, and maybe the equivalent of a press kit. That's pretty much what is available when a film is released, and having that material is always good. Everything else is icing on the cake. Commentaries are fun to have on your favorite films, but I can understand not getting one every time out.
I will never be happy watching it on a BD25. So what were we fighting the format war to get over the cheaper and larger capacity 30gig HD-DVD? Another Warner DUD. I am sure the PQ is fine, it just seems old hat now with this Warner thing.
While watching 2010, the movie buff of my generation must forget 2001, simply because these two movies cannot be compared: one is the real thing and the other is an attempt to interpret it, viewed by a confessed fan (i.e. Peter Hyams).
Personally, I have no problems watching 2010, and I must say that the BD version is quite welcome, in view of the previous 4:3 letterboxed DVD that I still own. The picture itself has a reasonable script, within the limits of a typical sci-fi flick. Some of the "interpretations" of the original novel are debatable, and in some instances a bit to the "odd" side, but overall the film is quite entertaining and sports a very good looking photography.
Craig Ruchman - So you'd rather have Warner use a more expensive BD50 and only use 50% of the space? Perhaps they're using BD25 because they only have 25gb worth of material? A little common sense could be very useful here... If you're going to say "there should be more extras, and thus use more than 25 gb", please see my earlier comment about the realities of expecting a ton of extras on a 10+ year old catalog release.
As for extras, they could include featurettes about Arthur C. Clarke and adapting his books to screen, a tribute to the late Roy Scheider, new interviews with Peter Hyams, Bob Balaban and Helen Mirren and an examination of the Cold War themes in the 80's and 2010, the different stylistic approaches between 2001 and 2010, and David Shire on scoring. A LOT of older films have new material produced. It all depends on how much effort the studios want to put into promoting the sales of the disc. Warner probably doesn't feel that 2010 is worth promoting and will not be a big seller thus the lack of extras.
Kretzj - sorry if I ruffled a few feathers. But the fact remains BD25 is a sub 30gig HD-DVD spec. 90% of HD-DVD (if memory serves me right) movies used the full two layer 30gig capacity. BD25 seems to be a Warner thing. Most others, it seems, found the money to do BD50. I also watch the extras, as I like to get into the technical aspects of the film. To each their own.
If a full-length movie fits on a BD25 a apposed to BD50, it means they applied more compression - suck out all the detail till it fits.
As Craig points out to each their own. However in DVDave's case I would point out that
Universal would be more likely to do a tribute to Roy Scheider with a release of Jaws
expecting it to be a bigger seller and probably a double disk release full of extras. Not that
the other possible extras might not be interesting, but I doubt it would be worth Warners
investment in doing it as a marketing boost expecting this movie to probably be selling in the
$10 bins by next Christmas. I do like 2010 and would like to see 2061 or 3001 come to the
big screen, but I'm just trying to be realistic.