New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2010 - reissued or repackaged?

post #1 of 17
3/21/05 at 10:27am
Thread Starter 
I see that 2010 has two different covers - one with the fetus in a snapper and another with Jupiter and a keepcase with MGM logo. Is this a reissue or repackage and is the disc quality any different?
Reply
post #2 of 17
3/21/05 at 11:13am
The only difference between the two versions is that one in the snapper case has a pan & scan version on one side of the disc. However, the widescreen versions are identical for both covers. There is no difference in quality and both have identical special features. Just so you know, the movie is non-anamporhic widescreen despite the snapper case stating that the movie has been enhanced for widescreen TVs.
Reply
post #3 of 17
3/21/05 at 11:21am
The MGM keepcase version also has an 8-page booklet, which is actually pretty cool. I'm glad I snagged a copy of that version instead of the Warners snapper.
Reply
post #4 of 17
2/22/06 at 5:53am
Not having read through all of the Warners chat yet, I searched the transcript for 2010 and didn't see anything on it. Which is surprising considering 2001 is getting its third dvd release. Any word on 2010 getting a new edition?
Reply
post #5 of 17
2/23/06 at 1:05am
more releases than that for 2001 if you consider the mgm disc, 2 seperate cover arts from warner, and the big silver box set.
Reply
post #6 of 17
2/23/06 at 2:55am
We could only hope that the release 2010 together with 2001, even though the chances are small.
Reply
post #7 of 17
2/23/06 at 7:26am
Quote:
We could only hope that the release 2010 together with 2001, even though the chances are small.
Not to begrudge 2010 fans, but I don't want these films tied together in any way. Separate releases in the same time period... fine. But not bundled together.
Reply
post #8 of 17
2/23/06 at 7:34am
I don't think anyone actually wants the films bundled together...surely not....but getting a new release of 2010 at the same time as the new 2001 makes sense.
Reply
post #9 of 17
2/23/06 at 9:04am
I am in complete agreement with Mr. Rich Malloy. Sorry, had to crash this. Carry on.
Reply
post #10 of 17
2/23/06 at 12:47pm
Wow, it's not every day you see an administator thread crap!
Reply
post #11 of 17
2/23/06 at 12:49pm
I know there are those who felt that 2010 was not a very good follow up to 2001. I like 2010 and 2001 for different reasons.

I admire and respect Kubrick's 2001 for it's purity and use of visuals to tell the story. It's highly intellectual. And I like 2010 for it direct transfer from Clarke's book. And I like Schieder in the role of Dr. Floyd and the rest of the cast. It's a fine literal film of the book. 2001 is visual art, it pushed the medium of film and innovated in many ways. It cannot be topped. 2010 is a straight forward science fiction film. Hyams probably did the right thing and not try to follow Kubrick. And I'm a sucker for the ending of 2010. :b
Reply
post #12 of 17
2/23/06 at 1:25pm
All these worlds... for you to fuck-up.

(And, oh yeah, sorry about all that evolving into pure thought stuff. Heh. We only did that for Dave. You suckas remain corporeal. And what is meant by phrase "former Soviet republics"? Oh! Well, color us embarrassed. Monolith went on blitz and we sorta missed last couple decades of earth history.)

(And we heard complaints about "pure cinema" and noted confusion, and so now everything will be spelled out via trite and purplish narration delivered in comforting baritone. Easy to follow and oozing with sentimental hoo-haw! What grannie used to call "happy happy horseshit"! This is part of reason we decided human race not ready for non-corporeality.)

(Also noted how much you loved HAL. Good ol' HAL! Second act only part of movie most monkeys respond to. So we did a little two-step and redeemed him (good machine! bad humans!), even though that completely undermines primary metaphor of second act. Oh well, we still have Jupiter, my little hominid droogies!)
Reply
post #13 of 17
2/23/06 at 10:02pm
So you didn't like it then?

I like it fine as an adaptation of Clarke's book, which was really the last book in the series I enjoyed.
Reply
post #14 of 17
2/24/06 at 9:01am
Oh no, I really don't think it's so bad at all, just not among my favorites. There's so much indefensible crap that masquerades as "science fiction", and 2010 certainly is not part of that pile.

I just can't consider it a sequel to 2001 (not even an unworthy one). Not simply because it's a lesser film in terms of cinematic quality (as most films are), but because it trivializes the ideas of the first film, even altering some fundamental themes to suit its own dramatic conceits. I alluded to the "pure cinema" of 2001 being replaced by the force-fed, voiced-over platitudes of the second, but it goes beyond a mere stylistic choice. That quiet and immense sense of awe that the first film engenders is replaced by the manufactured wonder and gooey sentimentality of the second. And where 2001 dared to speak to the entirety of human evolution (from Moonwatcher to the Star Child), 2010 constricts its focus to a single geopolitical drama played out in a mere slice of human history, a wink in time, and even reduces this to the banal drama of a mere personality conflict.
Reply
post #15 of 17
2/24/06 at 9:53am
It's been a long time since I've seen this film. It's most unfair of me, but ever since seeing Outland, I'm reluctant to revisit 2010.

Why?
Outland incorporates explosive decompression as a major plot element.

In 2001, however, Dave is exposed to vacuum for a short period. He closes his eyes, the explosive bolts go off, and he's hurtled into the airlock. He does not explode.

This is not a bit of fanciful license on Kubrick's part. It's scientifically accurate.

I'm just afraid that Hyams will take the rigorous, beautiful 2001 universe, and inject ever so much nonsense.

Imagine, if you will, that Hyams (instead of Kubrick) was given the opportunity to direct 2001 Could he have come up with a cinematographic vocabulary for describing the vast vacuum of space? No twinkling of stars, no sound? Kubrick did, but he was a genius.
Reply
post #16 of 17
2/24/06 at 12:30pm
Rich Malloy strikes again, and eloquently at that, with added effects by JeremyErwin. It would be a pleasure to screen Mr. Kubrick's tour-de-force with both of you.
Reply
post #17 of 17
2/25/06 at 3:40am
2001 is visual art, it pushed the medium of film and innovated in many ways. It cannot be topped. 2010 is a straight forward science fiction film. Hyams probably did the right thing and not try to follow Kubrick. And I'm a sucker for the ending of 2010.


This is so funny. I just mentioned 2010 as a footnote in my Master's thesis about 2001 and how it subverts every principal of classical Hollywood cinema in order to say something much larger than a movie conforming to the rules of traditional Hollywood film theory. I wouldn't just say 2010 is straight forward science fiction but also a film made from the mold of classical Hollywood cinema, including its pat endings.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD