2010 - multiple releases - which newer, better?
07-22-03 | 12:20 PM
#26
DVD Talk Legend
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 18,544
Received 446 Likes
on
315 Posts
From: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Originally posted by laserdogg
Cool, another local!
Sadly I don't go to MHM Cinema much. The theater is an independent and I didn't care for the "ambiance" the last couple of times I was there.
I'll admit I haven't visited in a while as the only movies I can recall seeing there are (gasp) ConAir and Some Like It Hot. Seems the seats were a little old fashioned too.
Have they improved it much?
Cool, another local!
Sadly I don't go to MHM Cinema much. The theater is an independent and I didn't care for the "ambiance" the last couple of times I was there.
I'll admit I haven't visited in a while as the only movies I can recall seeing there are (gasp) ConAir and Some Like It Hot. Seems the seats were a little old fashioned too.
Have they improved it much?
They're showing Pirates of the Carribbean right now, which I have yet to see, but plan to. Hopefully they'll have ROTK this winter, they got The Two Towers last Christmas.
10-09-04 | 04:13 PM
#27
DVD Talk Legend
In the upcoming release artwork section of The Digital Bits, there's a 2010 release (with the old MGM artwork). Any idea if this is finally 16x9? Release date was supposedly 05 Oct.
10-09-04 | 09:11 PM
#28
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Originally posted by Frank S
The stance of No Anamorphic=No Sale really does not have much meaning any more since all the studios are releasing their DVD's Anamorphically enhanced (sans the very few exceptions). Whenever Warner re-releases 2010 it is a given it will be Anamorphic! Boycotting this disc will not push forward a re-release but may in fact delay it if sales of the first DVD are so low that they deem it not worth the trouble of re-releasing. I would prefer Warner concentrate on releasing films not out at all first and then release titles like 2010 when they have time.
If you a a fan of the film do yourself a favor and buy the current release (which goes for next to nothing) and enjoy the film until the studio re-releases it.
The stance of No Anamorphic=No Sale really does not have much meaning any more since all the studios are releasing their DVD's Anamorphically enhanced (sans the very few exceptions). Whenever Warner re-releases 2010 it is a given it will be Anamorphic! Boycotting this disc will not push forward a re-release but may in fact delay it if sales of the first DVD are so low that they deem it not worth the trouble of re-releasing. I would prefer Warner concentrate on releasing films not out at all first and then release titles like 2010 when they have time.
If you a a fan of the film do yourself a favor and buy the current release (which goes for next to nothing) and enjoy the film until the studio re-releases it.
Restaurant A made a second rate soup today. You really love that variety of soup and when someone else asks whether they should order it you say to them "please do - it not really good but if we don't support this soup they may decide to never put it back on the menu."
10-10-04 | 11:06 AM
#29
DVD Talk Legend
You know, this is why people don't use the search function to pull up old threads. That or my posts are in "inviso-mode" again.
10-10-04 | 12:33 PM
#30
DVD Talk Hero
Well, I was just hoping someone would chime in since I have no idea. It'd be nice if they finally re-released it in 16x9 since I'm getting a widescreen TV next week.
10-10-04 | 08:56 PM
#31
Banned
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: So. Illinois
Originally posted by Johnny Zhivago
Well, I do subscribe to this attitude... 2010 should be issued again with a nice new 16X9 transfer. The current disc is suck. $5.88 or not, it is suck. Sure, I'd like to have 2010 in the collection, but I'm with highdef here 100%... No 16X9 transfer = no sale. A letterboxed transfer may be OK if you still have a 4X3 set, but for those of us with HDTVs it is completely unacceptable. Yeah, yeah, I know what you're going to say... "but it's better than not having it all! and I'm a film collector/lover!"... Hey, whatever makes you happy, doesn't change the fact that the MGM and WB DVDs of this title are suck. Suck is suck and this disc is suck.
And yes, I do own letterboxed films, but I haven't picked one up since the day I bought my 16X9... That was over a year ago... If the studios would re-issue Psycho, Vertigo, etc with new 16X9 transfers, I would upgrade in a heartbeat.
Well, I do subscribe to this attitude... 2010 should be issued again with a nice new 16X9 transfer. The current disc is suck. $5.88 or not, it is suck. Sure, I'd like to have 2010 in the collection, but I'm with highdef here 100%... No 16X9 transfer = no sale. A letterboxed transfer may be OK if you still have a 4X3 set, but for those of us with HDTVs it is completely unacceptable. Yeah, yeah, I know what you're going to say... "but it's better than not having it all! and I'm a film collector/lover!"... Hey, whatever makes you happy, doesn't change the fact that the MGM and WB DVDs of this title are suck. Suck is suck and this disc is suck.
And yes, I do own letterboxed films, but I haven't picked one up since the day I bought my 16X9... That was over a year ago... If the studios would re-issue Psycho, Vertigo, etc with new 16X9 transfers, I would upgrade in a heartbeat.
Let's see...some examples:
1) "The current disc is suck." -- Should be "The current disc sucks."
2) "$5.88 or not, it is suck." -- Should be "$5.88 or not, it still sucks."
3) "doesn't change the fact that the MGM and WB DVDs of this title are suck." -- Should be "doesn't change the fact that the MGM and WB DVDs of this title suck."
and finally,
4) "Suck is suck and this disc is suck." -- Should be "Suck is suck and this disc sucks.
Last edited by Mike Lowrey; 10-10-04 at 08:59 PM.
10-10-04 | 09:06 PM
#32
DVD Talk Legend
Maybe what the kids are using is the latest version of a very similar noun/verb/adjective/adver/proposition/preposition/conjunction/interjection/plural/singular/definite-indefinite article/first-second-third-person word.
10-10-04 | 09:09 PM
#33
Banned
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: So. Illinois
Originally posted by Bill Needle
Maybe what the kids are using is the latest version of a very similar noun/verb/adjective/adver/proposition/preposition/conjunction/interjection/plural/singular/definite-indefinite article/first-second-third-person word.
Maybe what the kids are using is the latest version of a very similar noun/verb/adjective/adver/proposition/preposition/conjunction/interjection/plural/singular/definite-indefinite article/first-second-third-person word.
You're right! Damn, why didn't I think of that? Stupid me...
10-11-04 | 12:36 AM
#35
DVD Talk Legend
From mid-August tDB:
"By the way, we know that Warner Bros is quietly working on a 2-disc 2001: A Space Odyssey - Special Edition for release at some point in the future. Consider that Rumor Mill-worthy, but it's more good news for Kubrick fans." Supposedly it's meant for December.
I haven't heard anything on 2010.
"By the way, we know that Warner Bros is quietly working on a 2-disc 2001: A Space Odyssey - Special Edition for release at some point in the future. Consider that Rumor Mill-worthy, but it's more good news for Kubrick fans." Supposedly it's meant for December.
I haven't heard anything on 2010.
