FYI, Best Buy is selling assorted DVDs for $5.99 and 2010 happened to be one of them.

You guys may know this already, but though it says "enhanced for widescreen TVs"? They lie. It's letter box and you'll either have to zoom your 16:9 TV or use the zoom function of your DVD player. All that wasted resolution! WARNING: NOT ANAMORPHIC, just like "Dune" and some other classics.

Whoever said previously that the term "formated to fit your screen" should be illegal, I also agree to that. The flip-side 4:3 formatted is "NOT" formated for my screen!

Arggghhhh!!!!!

Oh, I thought you were disappointed 'cuz its not a very good movie ...I was going to agree. Not a bit surprised it was with the $5.99 dvds.

John O.

Anything that has the Discovery in it, I love! BTW, I have had it for a while, but I haven't noticed the formatting, also haven't watched it on our widescreen!

OOOOh...I hate it when they screw up the labelling.

We have a company in Canada called "Alliance Atlantis" and I swear that they have about a 60% error rate with their labeling. They put "enhanced for Widescreen TVs'" on just about every disc they make. Less than half really are!

The last one that suckered me was HIGH SCHOOL CONFIDENTIAL. Says enhanced for widescreen TV. It ain't.

I'm the guy that always complains about the "Formatted to fit your screen" baloney. Man, that burns me.

The biggest insult is the Sony/Columbia disc of HOMICIDAL. I have it right in front of me. It says on the case: Anamorphic Video, remastered in High Defintion, Full Screen Presentation. What the hell is that supposed to mean? So I bought it because I wanted the movie. Sure enough, there's that nasty little warning, "This movie has been altered from it's original theatrical presentation. it has been formatted to fit your screen".

Lousey S.O.B.'s. I'm looking at this freaking little boxed in image on my 16x9 set and they have the nerve to say it's formatted for my screen? And they make it sound like they have done you a favor! It's like, "Don't worry, pal. We took this big old movie and made sure it would fit YOUR screen".

Brent, et al,

I still don't have "Dune" in my collection because of that reason -it's letterboxed and not anamorphic. For those of you that don't understand the difference, don't worry about it because you probably don't have 16:9 sets. Or if you do have 16:9 sets and don't understand, you're like Brent's parents (or whoever it was) that will watch anamorphic movies on your 16:9 set with "normal" selected and everything squeezed into the middle. There's more than not "getting the Matrix" in your lives to worry about ;-)

Until "Generations" or "STTWOK" came out in director's cut, I didn't own them on DVD too. Here's a question? Why can some transfers facilitate both pan and scan and anamorphic on the same disc? "Blade Runner", "Napolean Dynamite" and others comes to mind.

Joe "It has NOT been formatted to fit MY screen" D

Here's a question? Why can some transfers facilitate both pan and scan and anamorphic on the same disc?

Brent could probably tell you for sure, but some DVDs are dual layered (I don't understand the technicalities, but it's how they fit the 10 hours of extras you get with some deluxe DVD packages on a single disc). I would assume they either use that process, or the film may be encoded in such a way that when you select pan and scan or anamorphic, your DVD player knows the difference and processes the signal accordingly.

BTW: Though 2010 isn't the greatest sci-fi movie ever made, I have seen worse.

Still like to see 2061 made into a movie...

Why can some transfers facilitate both pan and scan and anamorphic on the same disc?
On the ones I've seen, they've been double-sided discs, with the widescreen on one side and the butchered version on the other. The only drawback is a fairly minor one -- it means the only label on the disc is a tiny circular one along the disc's inner rim.

If I am ever crowned Super King of the World, my first royal edict will be "No more 'Fullscreen' abominations of widescreen productions, period!" At that point, those of you who object risk having your heads on a pike! ;)

Qapla'

SSB

I always liked "2010", tho a sequel to "2001" was probably a bad idea to begin with, it wasn't the movies fault. It was remarkably faithful to the Arthur C. Clark book and the special effects were pretty impressive on the big screen. I liked the cast, particulary John Lithgow and Helen Mirren, and while I know Bob Balaban as Chandra rubbed some people the wrong way, he wasn't bad. I thought Roy Schneider did a good job, the first scene with him and Keir Dullea is genuinely creepy when HAL instructs him to turn around, IMHO.

'Sides, I thought the dolphin house was pretty cool, and I was madly in love with Madelaine Smith (Floyds wife) thru most of the eighties!

They should fix the DVD tho, I'd buy a new anamorphic version.

You can put two versions of movies onto a disc in a couple of different ways.

Dual layers is one method. It sound almost like a technical impossibility but there are actually two layers bonded together with the outermost layer being semi-transparent. The laser reads the first layer and can then refocus and read the second layer just BEHIND the first. Quite amazing when I think about it. This method is used, for example, on some older versions of ARMY OF DARKNESS where you can select which version to watch...but the disc is single sided.

That type of DVD is called a DVD-9.

WB and MGM tend more towards the double sided DVD with, as you obviously know, one movie on each side of the disc which requires you to flip the disc over to watch both films.

That is called a DVD-10.

In both of those cases, two completely separate versions of the movie are encoded on the disc.

Interestingly, when DVD was first proposed, the idea was to have a single transfer with the DVD player providing which ever version ou entered. The idea being that a single, widescreen print would be encoded and the DVD player itself would pan&scan the movie if you requested it. It seems like a SUPER idea but nobody knows what happenned to it. It's one of those things like "seamless branching"...which is a great DVD idea but is virtually unused.

I always liked "2010", tho a sequel to "2001" was probably a bad idea to begin with, it wasn't the movies fault. It was remarkably faithful to the Arthur C. Clark book and the special effects were pretty impressive on the big screen. It wasn't the movie's fault? Right, it was Peter Hyams' fault for being too chicken to do anything more artful or dramatic with the material than a literal, far too chatty, exposition laden, interp of the book. Its shameful that the successor to one of the only sci-fi art movies should be nothing more than an obvious/glorified "movie of the week" …and just because its loaded with 2001’s tech doesn’t automatically make it good. No, 2010 should have been attempted by someone willing to be as risky in a modern context as Kubrick was in his time.

No, 2010 should have been attempted by someone willing to be as risky in a modern context as Kubrick was in his time.

But who would that be?

Since I'm Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking, it's really tough to say, isn't it? I mean, after Dr. Strangelove, who saw 2001 coming from Kubrick? However, looking over Peter Hyams' career, the look and feel of 2010 is no big surprise. None of his films have aged well and most are very straightforward story narrative, including what I still think is his high point Capricorn One. Even Outland, which I think of as a successor-in-kinship to Alien, hasn't really made it to classic or cult status. Hyams was the wrong guy, no matter who the right guy would have been.

The one drawback to putting two versions of a movie on the same side of a DVD-9 is that if they could double the compression quality by just putting the one version on the side. AVP looks excellant but there are two complete versions of the movie on the one side and the quality is the same as a DVD-5, actually it's less than that. I made a back up of AVP, removing the special features, and both versions of the movie fit on a DVD-5 at 100% compression of the original.

Since I'm Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking, it's really tough to say, isn't it? I mean, after Dr. Strangelove, who saw 2001 coming from Kubrick? However, looking over Peter Hyams career, the look and feel of 2010 is no big surprise. None of his films have aged well and most are very straightforward story narrative, including what I still think is his high point Capricorn One. Even Outland, which I think of as a successor-in-kinship to Alien, hasn't really made it to classic or cult status. Hyams was the wrong guy, no matter who the right guy would have been.

I think it's easy to knock Hyams version, I don't think any sequel to "2001" would be universally well-received.

Hyams was in a no-win situation, imho, if he made a faithful translation of Clark's book (which he did) he gets creamed for spelling everything out at the end(which Clark did in the book). If he had changed it to make it ambiguous more like "2001", everyone would have said he was ripping off Kubrick and it sucked because he didn't follow the great Arthur C Clark's book and ideas.

I'm no fan of Hyams, I thought "Capricorn One" was just idiotic, and "Outland" was idiotic and a blatent "Alien" rip off. But considering the book he was given I do think he did good with "2010", YMMV.

I think it's easy to knock Hyams version

Yes, he made it very easy


Hyams was in a no-win situation, imho, if he made a faithful translation of Clark's book (which he did) he gets creamed for spelling everything out at the end(which Clark did in the book). If he had changed it to make it ambiguous more like "2001", everyone would have said he was ripping off Kubrick and it sucked because he didn't follow the great Arthur C Clark's book and ideas.

This is the standard argument for Peter Hyams' problem in making this film. The real problem, in the end, is that we got a movie that isn't very good. The fault is always placed back on the predicament (of making a sequel to the greatest bla bla bla) and not the filmaker who decided to take it on. The standard argument assumes that there were only two exclusive ways to approach this project and I think that's BS. The guy is a mediocre filmmaker, just above the TV movie level, and his record shows it to be true. Why defend 2010 like it was just a problem child that no-one could have done well? I don't buy it.

And FWIW, I've read 2010 a few times and Hyams' 2010 is not completely faithfull to the book - or at least in my opinion the ways that were dramatically important to the book. Lots of little unimportant plot details are there, but none of the drama and energy that you take away from the book. It felt like he was trying to paint in all the small details first and forgot to pick up the broad brush.

John O.

Why defend [i]2010 like it was just a problem child that no-one could have done well?

John O.

Errrrrrr, because I like the movie. I was only pointing out it's an easy movie to dislike, and to knock for the reasons I stated.

I'm just pointing out if someone hasn't seen it because they've always heard it sucked, that it's a disgrace to Kubrick's vision, and because Peter Hyams is the talentless hack responsible for sci-fi drek like "Timecop" & "Outland", they might be pleasantly surprised.

I think it's by far his best movie, although that is very faint praise indeed.



And FWIW, I've read [i]2010 a few times and Hyams' 2010 is not completely faithfull to the book - or at least in my opinion the ways that were dramatically important to the book. Lots of little unimportant plot details are there, but none of the drama and energy that you take away from the book. It felt like he was trying to paint in all the small details first and forgot to pick up the broad brush.

John O.

I read it a few times too, and the point could be made that Hyams wisely trimmed some of the books hokier moments, like the ghost of Dave Bowman showing his ex scenes of them making love, the sexual shenanigans on the Leonov/ Loveboat, the walking seaweed monster, the moon that was really a giant diamond, etc, etc

We obviously disagree, as I said, YMMV:)

I liked 2010. Now, I wouldn't purposefully run over someone in the street to see it (although there are movies for which I might commit vehicular homicide, so the rest of you should watch your backs ;) ), but I did like it.

Maybe the difference is that I saw 2010 before I saw 2001.

Qapla'

SSB

I'd forgotten that he did Capricorn One. That wasn't a bad idea for a film (though it's just a retelling of the rumors that plagued the Apollo missions almost from day one), but the film itself was pretty bad...it had the look and feel of a made for TV Movie Of The Week.

Comparitively speaking, 2010 wasn't all that bad. I still watch it occassionally and enjoy it. Do I think it's a worthy sequel to 2001? On some levels, yes. We see what became of Bowman, HAL, Discovery, and learn the purpose for the monolith(s). On other levels, no. It somehow feels "flat" and dated. I suppose it's partly due to the fact that the story exposition is pretty straight forward (as opposed to Kubrick's more abstract vision in 2001), and the use of actors that were popular (or becoming so) at the time it was filmed.

Again, it never won any awards (and rightly so), but it's not a total POS either.

I'm no fan of Hyams, I thought "Capricorn One" was just idiotic, and "Outland" was idiotic and a blatent "Alien" rip off. But considering the book he was given I do think he did good with "2010", YMMV.

I looked up his filmography and was surprised how little of worth was in it.

However, I must disagree with previous posts. "Capricorn One" was pretty good. It did not age well but the story was good. "Outland" on the other hand is one of my favorites and apart from similarity of that desolate outer space mining colony look, there is no way you can consider it a rip-off of "Alien." Jeez, there aren't even any aliens in it.

Jim

"Outland" on the other hand is one of my favorites and apart from similarity of that desolate outer space mining colony look, there is no way you can consider it a rip-off of "Alien." Jeez, there aren't even any aliens in it.

Jim

... but you can consider it a remake of "High Noon" - which it is. I would say that stylistically it is similar to Alien in it's production design and the whole "blue collar workers in outer space" approach.

... but you can consider it a remake of "High Noon" - which it is.
IIRC it was, in fact, a deliberate and acknowledged remake of High Noon, although I doubt it goes so far as to say so in the credits. I certainly remember many references to High Noon in Starlog and such when it was released.

Qapla'

SSB

Well, I like 2010 fine, and I like Outland fine as well. I have no real beef against either, both being satisfying entertainment. Maybe they're not great art, but what the hell, they're fun to watch.

Capricorn One annoyed the hell out of me. The concept was daring, and it started off fine. But then it degenerated, as so many films do, into "just another chase movie." After paying lip-service to the Government Conspiracy Theory, there was nothing special at all about it.

Capricorn One annoyed the hell out of me. The concept was daring, and it started off fine. But then it degenerated, as so many films do, into "just another chase movie." After paying lip-service to the Government Conspiracy Theory, there was nothing special at all about it.

At the time it was in theaters, a famous science guy (Carl Sagan? It's been awhile) pointed out even the dumbest news and scientific obsevers would notice there was no lag in in the transmissions back and forth from Mars. And critics from Texas pointed out there are no mountain ranges a quick drive from Houston.

At the time it was in theaters, a famous science guy (Carl Sagan? It's been awhile) pointed out even the dumbest news and scientific obsevers would notice there was no lag in in the transmissions back and forth from Mars. And critics from Texas pointed out there are no mountain ranges a quick drive from Houston.]

I haven't seen it in years, so I didn't remember the lack of time lag you mentioned. I guess we'd have chalk that up to artistic license...if I remember right, when NASA was transmitting the reprograming instructions to one of the rovers, I think they said on the low powered narrow bandwidth they were using, it took 18 minutes for the relay to reach the rover and another 18 for us to receive the reply. That would've made for one helluva looooong movie! :p

That didn't bother me so much as a movie I thought was going to be a clever political mind game turned into an hour of three guys running through the desert.

My major recollection of the movie is a MOW flavor and one on the best helicopter chases ever photgraphed. The rest is kinda throw away.

Brent, thanks for the DVD education. I used to know the same stuff about CDs when I sold high-end audio back in the 80s. Now I'm just a end-user consumer electronics monkey and not part of the "biz" anymore so I have little time to get too into it.

John O. and Arronax. I won't judge your outright hatred of Hayams. I have to say though that I did enjoy 2010 and I'm glad someone did make it. It was faithful to the book and that's all I ask to start out with. The vision and feel of the pic could have gone a different way, but that's neither here nor there. With a few exceptions, like Bowman visiting the spring where his brother died, and others like that -the movie was complete. I feel the same hatred, which ironically you guys probably don't, for Daredevi, X-Men (1 & worse than one 2), The Clancy Adaptations, etc... Halle Berry as Storm, "Red" the USCG skipper in "Clear and Present Danger" recast from a prior enlisted man to a young politically agenda filling female skipper.... I could go on and on...

My major recollection of the movie is a MOW flavor and one on the best helicopter chases ever photgraphed. The rest is kinda throw away.

I thought "Blue Thunder" is the best helicopter chase scene to date.

Joe
1,500 hours in turbine rotary wing aircraft

I feel the same hatred, which ironically you guys probably don't, for ... The Clancy Adaptations... That's interesting because, I was going to refer to the Clancy films as fairly decent adaptations of books. I wouldn't argue that HFRO is flawed, it certainly is (don’t get me started), but it stands on its own pretty well in spite of the flaws and deviation from the book.

Starship Troopers is another film that is just barely has anything to do with its source material, but stands on its own anyway. I absolutely wish someone would make a faithful version of it, but not at the sacrifice of making an artful film. Do I expect every film to be art? No, but its gotta have that something that makes it special …I guess its honesty that transcends simple production values. If it doesn’t have some element of truthfulness in its storytelling, its forgettable. For that reason, adaption or not IMHO My Cousin Vinny is a better film than 2010.

John O.

I thought "Blue Thunder" is the best helicopter chase scene to date.Please note, I said one of the best. Blue Thunder is clearly the best. Also, BT is a helicopter movie so it better have damn good aerial photography. Capricorn One is a mediocre movie that happens to have a surprise hiding inside: a few minutes of outstanding aerial work which exceeds everything else in the film. Different ideas.

John O.

MHO My Cousin Vinny is a better film than 2010.

John O.

Well, that goes without saying. "My Cousin" has so many things going for it, where do you start? Cute Marissa, and the dialogue about deer hunting attire? Or how about memorable lines like the "..two yutes".

I watched that movie one too many times. I hated it the first time around and about the tenth showing it grew on me. It was a cruise tape (VHS) when I did a WESTPAC in the Navy. The squadron was running in continually in the ready room. That and "So I Married an Axe Murderer". When the ship pulled into San Fran once we joked about getting the yellow pages and finding "World of Meats" and Vicky the tour guide.

A fair portion of Hyams genre oeuvre (Cap1, 2010, Outland) is in Futureshop's dvds under $10 section (almost tempting) ... probably a lot cheaper stateside.

I thought "Blue Thunder" is the best helicopter chase scene to date.


Nope. Birds of Prey will never be topped. :) David Janssen in that little Cayuse chasing down that huge Gazelle through the desert....damn, that was magic.

Nope. Birds of Prey will never be topped. :) David Janssen in that little Cayuse chasing down that huge Gazelle through the desert....damn, that was magic.

Never seen it. I'm going to have to check it out. Thanks for the tip.

Nope. Birds of Prey will never be topped. :) David Janssen in that little Cayuse chasing down that huge Gazelle through the desert....damn, that was magic.I'll look for it too. Doesn't hurt that I always liked David Jansen.

I've worked on three or so movies with helicopters (painted two) and I've developed an appreciation for what goes into getting them on screen. Consider when you're watching two ships on screen as in BT or CO, there are really three working 'cuz there's a camera ship there too. These pilots are very skilled and very careful.

John O.

I'll have to chime in on where Hyam's version of 2010 fails.

It's hopelessly DATED now. I do not recall any of the major emphasis on US/Soviet relations threatening the mission blah blah blah. The major tension in the Clark story was Floyd's gnawing guilt, for the quieting of which he would sacrifice his wife and family. While that was touched on in the movie, it was quickly forgotten in place of a shallow moralistic tale of Russians are just humans too.

Watch it now. Now that the wall has fallen, the USSR is gone, Reagan is dead, the Cold War politics that were so terrifying in 1980 are but a shadow. How can that as a central plot point of a tale IN THE FUTURE be compelling today?

Had Peter Hyams done a FAITHFUL adaptation of Clark's work, we would have a much better movie. I would happily support a complete remake.

Peter Jackson should do it. ("Orcs in Space")

I'll have to chime in on where Hyam's version of 2010 fails.

It's hopelessly DATED now. I do not recall any of the major emphasis on US/Soviet relations threatening the mission blah blah blah. The major tension in the Clark story was Floyd's gnawing guilt, for the quieting of which he would sacrifice his wife and family. While that was touched on in the movie, it was quickly forgotten in place of a shallow moralistic tale of Russians are just humans too.

Watch it now. Now that the wall has fallen, the USSR is gone, Reagan is dead, the Cold War politics that were so terrifying in 1980 are but a shadow. How can that as a central plot point of a tale IN THE FUTURE be compelling today?



Errrr, you mean like in "2001", where hiding the information from the Russians is a major plot point? That hack Kubrick should have seen it coming!

As William Gibson points out in the 20 year aniversary copy of "Neuromancer", predicting the future is hard. He points out he had no problem envisioning an internet, orbital space stations as tax havens for the rich, etc, but that he didn't see AIDS or the collapse of the Soviet Union coming at all.

Errrr, you mean like in "2001", where hiding the information from the Russians is a major plot point? That hack Kubrick should have seen it coming!...and of course he did, because we still do...

The plot point being made was to establish that there is a secret. Long before we're told the secret, the Russians are almost forgotten. Quite different than in 2010 with the relentless beatings-over-the-head about Russian/US political/military tensions.

John O.

...and of course he did, because we still do...

The plot point being made was to establish that there is a secret. Long before we're told the secret, the Russians are almost forgotten. Quite different than in 2010 with the relentless beatings-over-the-head about Russian/US political/military tensions.

John O.

I see your point. I'm just saying a lot of people smarter and more talented than Hyams didn't see it coming either, including Arthur C Clark. Yes, the political tension wasn't as pointed in the book, but we were still hitching a ride from a ship from the Soviet Union.

but we were still hitching a ride from a ship from the Soviet Union....again, as we're still doing today. The future is not so hard to predict if you keep it general enough.