I assume that your comment is just a bit tounge in cheek. But truthfully, I'd rather have a dual disk set, with special features on disk two, and not cluttering up the movie disk. Just personal preference.
Actually, I think the specs say that the World Trade Center extras are in HD. I also seem to remember some comment when MI:3 was announced that it might not actually need to be 2 discs, but that Paramount had found that 2-disc sets sell better than single discs, even with roughly the same amount of content.
As far as whether dual disk sets sell better, I believe the answer is yes, which is exactly why so many dual disk special editions get released. Makes it feel like you are getting more, even if you are not. My personal preference is to have the SF separated onto a separate disk. IMHO, most are just a waste of space.
Ehh, there are Blu-Ray titles coming in December that use super-efficient AVC/MPEG-4 (are there already some out?). So I wouldn't get my panties in too much of a twist over early Blu-Ray discs relying on the old standby that is MPEG-2. As long as the quality is there and the future only holds more potential what's there to complain about? At least the extras are getting their own disc so they're not overcompressing. If you're not really losing anything.... It took YEARS for DVD to maximize its potential, and Blu-Ray has nowhere to go but up. It's already picked itself up after an early stumble out of the gates (it wouldn't have even tried to launch were it not for HD-DVD). HD-DVD pretty much has to increase the storage capacity (which they're working on) to drastically improve on what's already out. I don't know how fast that will really happen based on all the problems with initially producing multi-layered DVDs. The double sided multi-layer thing always seems to be a hurdle. And triple layer? HD-DVD was the quicker, easier path to HD and that has clearly helped in these early days. Where it goes from here is still open to debate.
It sure beats the first days of DVD when you got a 2hr+ movie horribly compressed onto a single layer, one-sided DVD, or maybe you had to FLIP it!! Then there were re-issues with no improvement but not flipping it (Stargate which crammed 2 versions of the film onto two layers, thus keeping everything at high compression).
Oh, my movie looks perfect, but they devoted 50 GB to it when they could have put the extras on there too if they used the more complicated, less tested/reliable compression scheme. Or just threw money at Microsoft! Waaah! How bad we've got it!
In the little I've read it seems pretty clear that Blu-Ray will try to avoid VC-1 and the royalties paid to MS if it can and use MPEG-4 instead, which apparently is a slightly more efficient scheme than even VC-1, but not as tried and true just yet. Harder to use. Which is why the early titles are maxed out MPEG-2. We should probably be glad they're not putting buggy VC-1 releases out too early, though there's still a chance that could happen. [Crosses fingers that won't happen]