Star Trek's on Blu-ray available for pre order on amazon!

[tacomaprime]

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=amb_link...pf_rd_i=507846

[Ph4ZeD]

Only one I really enjoyed was First Contact, and theres no sign of that yet

[Stingercjc]

Wow, there are some angry Trek fans at Amazon. They are really basting the Blu-Ray movie collection and to a lesser extent season 1. I may hold off on the movies until I hear how the video quality is across the board, however I don't get all the complaints about the price of season 1 on Blu. 77.99 is pretty much the cheapest any season of Trek has debuted on a home video format. Heck, I think the HD-DVD version (which unlike the Blu-Ray didn't have the original episodes included) was usually 99.99 (on sale) or above.

[Indyjones]

Originally Posted by Ph4ZeD

Only one I really enjoyed was First Contact, and theres no sign of that yet

From what I read over at the bits, we might see TNG films in the fall along with ST:X.

[DC_Street]

what is the point of releasing them not re-mastered and not the directors cut? these will only be rentals for me

[P@t_Mtl]

I am skipping the movies but I am getting TOS Season 1 however. I just the movies will come again later with the director's cut. I've learn my lesson with Paramount, they did the same with the DVD releases

[CaptainYoda]

Originally Posted by Indyjones

From what I read over at the bits, we might see TNG films in the fall along with ST:X.

Star Trek X was Nemesis. The new film is technically number 11.

[Jaguar007]

Only availabe in sets??? Too bad, I would consider picking up TWoK, just to have Shatner yell "KKKKAAAAAAAAAAHHHHNNNNN!" in high def!

[Red Hood]

man there is a lot of negative reviews on amazon for the movie set thats not even out yet. I may cancel :s

[simpspin]

Wow, the original series set has the unaltered version and the HD enhanced versions along with the original mono and the 7.1 surround option.

[edelgiud]

Hmm, I was under the impression that the original series was filmed in 35mm and therefore I thought these remakes would be in 1.78:1 widescreen? 4:3 with new sound and new CG effects only would probably not cut it for me to rebuy....

[Blu-Jawa]

Originally Posted by Stingercjc

Wow, there are some angry Trek fans at Amazon. They are really basting the Blu-Ray movie collection and to a lesser extent season 1. I may hold off on the movies until I hear how the video quality is across the board, however I don't get all the complaints about the price of season 1 on Blu. 77.99 is pretty much the cheapest any season of Trek has debuted on a home video format. Heck, I think the HD-DVD version (which unlike the Blu-Ray didn't have the original episodes included) was usually 99.99 (on sale) or above.

My guess is they already got the seasons sets twice before and now they have to buy the blu-rays because they want every version. and those fans that buy the special box sets with the same episodes that are in the full seasons sets. those IMO are a waste of disc's if you own the full season sets. unless it's because of any new extra's the studio makes. and I think any new extra's made for shows that have already made it to season sets should be released as a single disc to us that own the shows already.

But I am still glad the blu-ray version is coming soon.

[ryoohki]

Originally Posted by Blu-Jawa

My guess is they already got the seasons sets twice before and now they have to buy the blu-rays because they want every version. and those fans that buy the special box sets with the same episodes that are in the full seasons sets. those IMO are a waste of disc's if you own the full season sets. unless it's because of any new extra's the studio makes. and I think any new extra's made for shows that have already made it to season sets should be released as a single disc to us that own the shows already.

But I am still glad the blu-ray version is coming soon.

Yeah like it wasn't 50$ for 2 EP on LD anyway LOL! then they make a couple of VHS, then they release 30$ Disc for 2 Episode on DVD that look like crap, then they re-release the same ep but cheaper in Seasons Set that still look like crap (same master), then they remaster it and release it last year on DVD.

Yeah, like nodoby KNEW that the blu-ray would come eventually. If someone knew their Stuff, they would have waited a year...

[Batman1980]

I will get this set, depending on price, hoping for about $150. Will also get the unnumbered set afterwards -
Generations
Nemesis
First Contact
Insurrection
Wow and I see the 6 movie set is already selling for $97.99 on Amazon.Com, definitely worth a buy then.

[Kyo28]

The two most recurring complaints of the fans seem to be:

• why only a thorough remaster for Wrath of Kahn and not all movies?
• why only include the director's cuts and not the theatrical cuts, with seamless branching?

To some extent, I can certainly understand these complaints but I think it doesn't warrant giving the box set a score as low as 1/5, especially considering it's not out yet and we've yet to see the quality of the final product.

[LuckyKnight]

Originally Posted by Kyo28

The two most recurring complaints of the fans seem to be:

• why only include the director's cuts and not the theatrical cuts, with seamless branching?

To some extent, I can certainly understand these complaints but I think it doesn't warrant giving the box set a score as low as 1/5, especially considering it's not out yet and we've yet to see the quality of the final product.

I for one want the option of a directors cut. The box set is likely to be expensive and I don't like the idea of double dipping. It's a shame as I am a big trekkie.

[Kyo28]

Originally Posted by LuckyKnight

I for one want the option of a directors cut. The box set is likely to be expensive and I don't like the idea of double dipping. It's a shame as I am a big trekkie.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that it's the Directors cuts that will be included and the theatrical cuts will be absent.
So at least we get the 'superior' cut for each movie, but it would have been nice to be given the choice.

[monkeyjb1988]

Originally Posted by Pyre

man there is a lot of negative reviews on amazon for the movie set thats not even out yet. I may cancel :s

Those "reviewers" are just b******* because the Director's Cuts of some of the films aren't in the set. Don't cancel your order unless you want to wait for a 10 or 11 movie set. The Wrath of Khan is the only getting a through remaster because the other films are probably in decent to good condition. Remember, Wrath of Khan was the first ST film that was actually good, so Paramount may've had to make more prints than they thought they needed.

The first movie made a ton money, yes, but it wasn't that well received critically, so theaters may not have been begging for more prints. For Khan, Paramount may've made less prints, but had to make more when it became really popular. Thus, the print may've had worse damage from all the extra printing. For the films after, Paramount would've knew better and took better care of the negatives so that they weren't beat up as bad as Khan.

The above is just speculation. However, I read in an article about the restoration of the Godfather trilogy, and I quote:

The original negative for Part II had far fewer problems than the negative of the first film. “It was filthy from continuous wet-gate printing, and the recut had created havoc, but overall, it was about 75 percent better than the negative of The Godfather,” says Harris. One reason for the disparity is that Paramount did a much larger initial print run for Part II because the first film was so popular. “The initial print run on the first Godfather was short,” explains Harris. “Many more dye-transfer prints were produced on Part II and survived, so the studio didn’t need to go back [to the original negative] to make more prints as quickly or as often.

source: http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynam...ocus/page1.php

I'm thinking the same happened with Wrath of Khan, which is why it needed the extra loving care that the others did not get. (At least The Undiscovered Country is in 2:35:1 now).

Originally Posted by edelgiud

Hmm, I was under the impression that the original series was filmed in 35mm and therefore I thought these remakes would be in 1.78:1 widescreen? 4:3 with new sound and new CG effects only would probably not cut it for me to rebuy....

Why would a show from the 60's, where there weren't even widescreen TVs (there were barely even color TVs) be composed for widescreen? The show was made for fullscreen and that's where it should remain. The fact that they cropped Seinfeld for widescreen makes me angry and I appreciate Paramount for not doing the same to Star Trek. If you want widescreen Star Trek, the movies will work fine. I don't mean to sound nasty, but I'm happy that Star Trek is being shoehorned into an aspect ratio it wasn't meant to be shown in.

[edelgiud]

Originally Posted by monkeyjb1988

Why would a show from the 60's, where there weren't even widescreen TVs (there were barely even color TVs) be composed for widescreen? The show was made for fullscreen and that's where it should remain. The fact that they cropped Seinfeld for widescreen makes me angry and I appreciate Paramount for not doing the same to Star Trek. If you want widescreen Star Trek, the movies will work fine. I don't mean to sound nasty, but I'm happy that Star Trek is being shoehorned into an aspect ratio it wasn't meant to be shown in.

No, you didn't understand what I was saying is that I had heard (at the time of HD-DVD Season 1 release), that when they filmed the shows in the 60s, it was filmed with cameras like cinemascope, etc. But then for cost reasons or other had not showed them in widescreen same as some old movies were shown in widescreen (by that I mean with black bars at the top). Hence, I thought that the HD-DVD at the time or these newer Blu-Ray were going to be re-edit from film which had possibility of wider frames.

I am not saying that I wanted them to do what they did with Seinfeld, which I agree, is a waste.

I guess that they were filmed with regular TV cameras then like the ones used on older shows like Seinfeld and most 4:3 footage.

[Zaranyzerak]

Originally Posted by edelgiud

No, you didn't understand what I was saying is that I had heard (at the time of HD-DVD Season 1 release), that when they filmed the shows in the 60s, it was filmed with cameras like cinemascope, etc. But then for cost reasons or other had not showed them in widescreen same as some old movies were shown in widescreen (by that I mean with black bars at the top). Hence, I thought that the HD-DVD at the time or these newer Blu-Ray were going to be re-edit from film which had possibility of wider frames.

I am not saying that I wanted them to do what they did with Seinfeld, which I agree, is a waste.

I guess that they were filmed with regular TV cameras then like the ones used on older shows like Seinfeld and most 4:3 footage.

A film frame is a 4x3 frame. The frame is either cropped for 1.85:1 or converted to 2.35:1 anamorphic for Cinemascope movies (I used to work in a movie theater as a projectionist).

Yes, older TV shows were often filmed with Panavision cameras - but in 4x3 aspect ratio. Simply USING a Panavision camera doesn't automatically mean it's going to be widescreen. There's a lot of post-processing that needs to be done to create a widescreen image.

Converting the original Star Trek series to 16x9 would mean cropping off the top and bottom and thus losing a significant portion of the original image. You are getting the full image, as it was originally filmed and as it appears on the original film prints with this Blu-ray set. You're losing nothing, no image area is missing, you're just gaining a helluva lot of quality since these are sourced from the original film prints! That's something I imagine we won't see very often for old shows like this.