Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: Star Trek: Motion Picture Trilogy (1 Viewer)

[Dan Keliikoa]

I think at THOSE prices, even the six movie set is a no brainer, double-dip or no! lol

 

[Mark-W]

Yep, I just came here to eat some crow.
I visit Fry's every Friday evening or Saturday morning to see which
Blu-rays that they have on for $9.99.

Well, count me as taken aback to see Star Trek: Motion Picture Trilogy
for $27.99!!! At 9.99 each for those three, double-dipping will not be painful
in the least, too cheap not to own, and now I don't need to clog my Netflix queue with these.

I also picked up Dark City (in spite of its mediocre picture quality on Blu)
and Interview With the Vampire for $9.99.

They also have Risky Business and a few others...they usually
aren't advertised; one just has to go see what is there. Good thing
Fry's is less than a mile from my home.

Thanks again for the great review of the set. Knowing PRECISELY what
was there compared to the entire film series made this an easy decision
to make

 

[David_B_K]

I stopped by Fry's on the way home and picked up the trilogy set for $27.99 and L.A. Confidential for $9.99. I intend to watch the Trek films this weekend.

 

[RickER]

Good to see even the critics of the set can be had, for the right price.

 

[Mark-W]

I think it is the fact that more of us are savvy to studios and their M.O. now
and are pausing before we buy a "bare bones" Blu-ray titles, particularly
when we know bonus content, already available on SD-DVD versions
of catalog titles, is not being included for no apparent reasons.

Now on to a wonderful evening with Khan, Spock, and a couple of
whales.

 

[Michael Rogers]

I got these three movies in the larger 6 movie set. WOK looks fine but it has a jarring change (for me, at least). As far as I can remember the Regula one planet was beige or brownish in color. In this latest transfer, they made it gray. It's the planet surface shown when during the echo of Kirk's famous "KHAN!!".

It was not gray in the recent showings on HD Cinemax.

 

[Phil Iturralde]

For those that missed the $27.99 +tax Fry's sale due to being out of stock, ... can now get it @ Amazon for $32.99 +SH or w/FREE PRIME SH.

"The Voyage Home" was definitely superior vs. the Special Collector's Edition SD DVD, ... bar none!!!

The updated colors, picture clarity, sharp details and dynamic 7.1 seamless surround (Audyssey 2EQ & Dynamic EQ Calibrated) just made watching one of my favorite Star Trek Movies more enjoyable on my 62" 1080p DLP screen!!!

Spot checking my Blu-ray The Motion Picture & Wrath of Khan (I have the Motion Picture Collection) PQ & 7.1 Surround Sound vs. my Director's Edition SD DVDs convinced me that the purchase was completely justified!!!

So my Star Trek Movie #1 - #6 ...

THE 2-Disc DIRECTOR'S EDITION:
1) STAR TREK: The Motion Picture
2) STAR TREK II: The Wrath of Khan

2-Disc SPECIAL COLLECTOR'S EDITION:
3) STAR TREK III: Search for Spock
4) STAR TREK IV: The Voyage Home
5) STAR TREK V: The Final Frontier
6) STAR TREK VI: The Undiscovered Country

... SD DVDs is on eBay for those interested.

Star Trek Fan??? Check out my Star Trek Starship(s) & MISC Collectables here!!!

 

[sestamuch]

I might have to get the Star Trek Trilogy too.

 

[Xylon]

Wrath of Khan is the only movie I will recommend owning. Unfortunately you have to import the movie.

 

[BillyFeldman]

I enjoyed the comment about "double-dipping" on Blu-Ray. I think it's become pretty clear that people aren't single-dipping on Blu-Ray, so I don't think double-dipping is going to be much of an issue in the scheme of things.

I'm a recent Blu-Ray owner and the quality is amazing on the best transfers - beyond amazing. However, none of my long-standing opinions on the success of the format have changed - I've been ridiculed and called a fool from the beginning for saying this will never be more than the niche that laserdisc was, because they moved too soon for the majority of the people who bought into DVD to care. Even when it was obvious that sales were disappointing that didn't stop the Blu-Rayettes from either ignoring that information or subverting it. I wish it were otherwise, but I went to the store to buy a bunch of Blu-Rays and the selection, even now, is just not for me. I don't care about new films, and the classics simply aren't there and aren't going to be there for the most part, because I've heard what they're selling. I talked to someone at one of the studios last week and was told numbers on any number of the small amount of classic releases, and you would not believe how pathetic they are. Once again, one can't be fooled by these forums, which are populated with early adopters, fanatics, and zealots for the newest thing. I'm a fan, certainly, now that I finally have it, but the fact that it took me this long to get into it is telling - it's an amazing format, but it's failing and I just wish that it weren't because only the new films are selling at all, and even those numbers would surprise you.

 

[cafink]

That's because it's a ridiculous statement. Blu-ray is already far more successful than Laserdisc ever was.

Home Media Magazine just published an article about sales of Blu-ray discs, citing figures from "the latest Nielsen VideoScan charts." More than a quarter of the sales of Quantum of Solace, for example, were on Blu-ray. Yes, QOS is the kind of film that one would expect to sell especially well on Blu-ray, but did any mainstream title ever come anywhere near selling that much on Laserdisc in proportion to VHS?

Blu-ray discs are available not just at specialty shops, but at ordinary retail outlets like Best Buy, Target, and Wal-Mart. Did Wal-Mart ever carry laserdiscs?

Blu-ray still has a long way to go if it's going to supplant DVD (something that I am not even convinced will occur). But it long ago moved from "niche" and into the mainstream, something Laserdisc never did.

 

[Mark-W]

And let us not forget that Blu-ray players can play DVDs;
LD players could not play VHS tapes (obviously).

I suspect as folks replace their DVD players when they die,
they will upgrade to Blu-ray players now that they can be
had for $300...and then start getting Blu-ray discs, particularly
once prices start to fall on the media.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Would you consider that sales of under 6000 units on a well-known and well-loved classic catalog title is a good thing? Because that's the reality - and that's why classic titles are so slow in coming. Sorry, but Quantum of Solace isn't going to make Blu-Ray into a winning format, nor is The Dark Knight, nor is the new Star Trek. That's not what made DVD a winning format. I wish it were otherwise, and I hope it IS otherwise, but right now it is not otherwise, no matter how people would like to spin it.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Prices falling on the discs is the only chance this format has - and the gluttony of the studios thus far seems to be winning out - and yet, not winning out, not in the scheme of things.

 

[cafink]

I'm not trying to "spin" anything. I'm not arguing that Blu-ray is a "winning" format, only that it is, despite your claim to the contrary, already more successful, popular, and financially lucrative than Laserdisc ever was, by just about any metric.

 

[TravisR]

Reading the last few posts, I think I've gone back in time to late 2007.

 

[Brian Borst]

I don't think you're right. As was stated many times before, the early DVDs cost even more than a new Blu-Ray now would, so they're already less expensive. You can't compare the prices for BD with DVD now. DVD has been around for a decade, of course those prices are going to be lower.

 

[Tim-H.]

Just in case you have, can you PM me in 2007 and tell me not to buy that HD-DVD player and all those discs? Oh, and maybe suggest I cash out my 401K...

 

[BillyFeldman]

Funny, I began buying DVDs right at the beginning and I just don't recall any that cost above thirty bucks, and even the 29.98 list prices were very few and far between - most were between 19.98 and 24.98 back then with ten to twenty percent discounts from many retailers.

It doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that if the prices don't drop this will never grow - ever. Cannot happen. And how long has Blu-Ray been available? Either the studios will figure it out or they won't. But the lack of classic releases was my real point - without them, you're just pandering to little boys and young men who have to have the latest and greatest. I believe that what brought DVD into the mainstream was the incredible array of titles - both new AND classic. I'm telling you I went shopping and was prepared to spend quite a bit to get wonderful classics on Blu-Ray. I came home with about twenty-five discs. There simply weren't any others I was interested in.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Really, the only thing that hasn't changed since 2007 is people living in Fantasyland. That will never change.