Star Trek (2009)

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by ahurlburt4

Why in the hell are they charging $29.99 (Canadian) on Amazon.ca for Star Trek on blu-ray, and only $16.99 on Amazon.com ??? Where do they get off ripping off us Canadians like that??

Best Buy here in Montreal had this at $21 just before xmas. I don't know how much they are selling now however

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by ahurlburt4

Why in the hell are they charging $29.99 (Canadian) on Amazon.ca for Star Trek on blu-ray, and only $16.99 on Amazon.com ??? Where do they get off ripping off us Canadians like that??

Amazon.com has it for $16.99 because they are matching the price Best Buy is selling it for this week. Unless a big store such as Best Buy has it for that price in Canada, there's no reason for them to sell it for that on Amazon.ca.

[slick1ru2]

Just use the price tracker on here. I have a ton of movies just waiting for the price to drop.

[Ureh]

I noticed that the third party sellers often tag their prices lower than amazon's (sometimes they even take half off compared to the amazon price!). How are they able to do this? Is it because their shipping/handling quality is worse? Are their BD cases beat up? Are the discs scratched up? Are they, in reality, selling used discs but labeling them as new? Can anyone set this straight for me?

[blindcat87]

Even most of the sealed and new copies of films sold by Amazon sellers are secondhand. The third party seller market is strongly fed by doubleed gifts, mistaken double purchases, overstock deals, and sadly shoplifting. The used market is heavily supplied by the single view buy and then dump audience. I am sure there are some sellers that operate through low overhead, low margin bulk selling, but the majority come from giving people who bring the sealed copies to them a few bucks for an unwanted disc and making a profit by underselling other new item sellers including Amazon themselves. If you really look around though, you will find that a vast majority of new and used discs sell for around Amazon's price to a bit lower. I almost never buy used or new titles from third party sellers because, as a Prime member, I can rarely get much of a deal, particularly on recent releases, by the time shipping is added in. There are exceptions, serious bargains can be found on older releases and sometimes on new releases that are overlisted by a ton of sellers competing with each other, but for the most part you will find by watching third party prices, that they usually shift to match Amazon's price or beat it by a dollar or less. I have about 200 movies in the 'save for later' section of my cart at Amazon and I regularly watch the prices from third party sellers looking for deals. I've probably bought about a dozen or so this way in the past year, real deals on items in good shape are just that rare. Most of the deals I've gotten this way have actually been on box sets. For some reason deals appear more often on TV and series sets.

Chris

Originally Posted by Ureh

I noticed that the third party sellers often tag their prices lower than amazon's (sometimes they even take half off compared to the amazon price!). How are they able to do this? Is it because their shipping/handling quality is worse? Are their BD cases beat up? Are the discs scratched up? Are they, in reality, selling used discs but labeling them as new? Can anyone set this straight for me?

[Ureh]

Originally Posted by blindcat87

Even most of the sealed and new copies of films sold by Amazon sellers are secondhand. The third party seller market is strongly fed by doubleed gifts, mistaken double purchases, overstock deals, and sadly shoplifting. The used market is heavily supplied by the single view buy and then dump audience. I am sure there are some sellers that operate through low overhead, low margin bulk selling, but the majority come from giving people who bring the sealed copies to them a few bucks for an unwanted disc and making a profit by underselling other new item sellers including Amazon themselves. If you really look around though, you will find that a vast majority of new and used discs sell for around Amazon's price to a bit lower. I almost never buy used or new titles from third party sellers because, as a Prime member, I can rarely get much of a deal, particularly on recent releases, by the time shipping is added in. There are exceptions, serious bargains can be found on older releases and sometimes on new releases that are overlisted by a ton of sellers competing with each other, but for the most part you will find by watching third party prices, that they usually shift to match Amazon's price or beat it by a dollar or less. I have about 200 movies in the 'save for later' section of my cart at Amazon and I regularly watch the prices from third party sellers looking for deals. I've probably bought about a dozen or so this way in the past year, real deals on items in good shape are just that rare. Most of the deals I've gotten this way have actually been on box sets. For some reason deals appear more often on TV and series sets.

Chris

Many thanks for the info/tips! Good to know.

[blindcat87]

No problem. One tip for finding those deals that do pop up is to sort by price when browsing. The sorting will take into account the price of third party seller offerings as well and one can then find the good deals hiding among the cheaper titles.

Chris

Originally Posted by Ureh

Many thanks for the info/tips! Good to know.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

lol, All the intense action and you are talking lens flare? LOL. Wasn't there lots of lens flare in 2001?

Anyway, I thought it gave a more realistic look to the film and here is why JJ Abrams used it:

"I want [to create] the sense that, just off camera, something spectacular is happening. There was always a sense of something, and also there is a really cool organic layer that's a quality of it. They [lens flares] were all done live, they weren't added later. There are something about those flares, especially in a movie that can potentially be very sterile and CG and overly controlled. There is something incredibly unpredictable and gorgeous about them. It is a really fun thing. Our DP would be off camera with this incredibly powerful flashlight aiming it at the lens. It became an art because different lenses required angles, and different proximity to the lens. Sometimes, when we were outside we'd use mirrors."

Read more: http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/04/...#ixzz0bjCwokPv

This movie had far more than ten 2001's. I tried watching it again the other night and it's just off-putting, regardless of the intent. I didn't mind it as much as the first time I saw it but it's still something a lot of people have noticed. I mean, how would the crew even be able to see on the command deck? They'd be constantly blinded!

[Rinzler]

This was noted in the website review, but the features are fantastic on this BD, I love every second of it, watching the branching pods on spaceships, this is just fantastic stuff.

[Fighter]

Originally Posted by KennedyZL

This was noted in the website review, but the features are fantastic on this BD, I love every second of it, watching the branching pods on spaceships, this is just fantastic stuff.

Totally agree....fantastic film...awesome special features!!

[Ureh]

I watched this 10 times and I have a few very minor gripes about the quality of some scenes. Is it just me or did anyone else notice that a few scenes (especially close-ups) looked blurry/out-of-focus? One example would be a certain close-up

[Show spoiler]of Spock Prime when Kirk meets him in the cave.

another would be when

[Show spoiler]Spock's dad talks with him after his fight with another youngling

(the camera seems to be somewhat out of focus for a few seconds) and a third is when

[Show spoiler]Spock and Spock Prime meet each other in the shuttle bay

and Prime's face looked out of focus/blurry for a few seconds as well.

This has been irritating me for nearly all the BDs I have. Was wondering if it was my hdtv or intended by the director.

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by Ureh

I watched this 10 times and I have a few very minor gripes about the quality of some scenes. Is it just me or did anyone else notice that a few scenes (especially close-ups) looked blurry/out-of-focus? One example would be a certain close-up

[Show spoiler]of Spock Prime when Kirk meets him in the cave.

another would be when

[Show spoiler]Spock's dad talks with him after his fight with another youngling

(the camera seems to be somewhat out of focus for a few seconds) and a third is when

[Show spoiler]Spock and Spock Prime meet each other in the shuttle bay

and Prime's face looked out of focus/blurry for a few seconds as well.

This has been irritating me for nearly all the BDs I have. Was wondering if it was my hdtv or intended by the director.

Intended by JJ Abrams. I got to see the several 35mm prints of it and they are all shot intentionally out of focus there.

[42041]

It probably wasnt shot "intentionally" out of focus, they just missed focus and didn't feel like re-shooting it.

[Diesel]

The out of focus shots are one of the few nitpicks I have about this movie.

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by 42041

It probably wasnt shot "intentionally" out of focus, they just missed focus and didn't feel like re-shooting it.

Leonard Nimoy is not a spring chicken. Quite a few director's have used soft focus to help with hiding the signs of an aging actor and I would be very surprised if this isn't the case here. Personally, I don't think it does much at all to hide it, it just looks out of focus a bit. Still, it's been a common practice.

It's just one of many techniques, however the diffused soft-focus look was often used when filming women and was very prevalent in the 60's and 70's. It's more common now in daytime soaps to give them a glamour-photography-like "dreamy" look.

I would be very surprised if the focus puller fouled up that much on all those shots. I'm certain the majority were probably choices (close-ups for example, where camera to actor distance is easily determined) and maybe a few minor errors (if any at all).

[Ureh]

That's a relief. I thought it had to do with my tv. Thanks everyone!

Doesn't change my opinion about this movie one bit. Definitely looking forward to the second movie.

[ps3-user]

I think I could have a problem, but I want to make sure I don't first.

[Show spoiler]The scene when Kirk is dying while saving the rest of the people, my right rear/side left speaker sounded like it was frying.

This was the first time I have really used my new 30s, so I paused the movie and looked at my wire. Then somebody watching it said maybe it is supposed to be like that.

[Kryptonic]

Did you rewind it to see if it did it again at the same point in the movie? It's most likely a sound effect.

[ps3-user]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Did you rewind it to see if it did it again at the same point in the movie? It's most likely a sound effect.

No, I did not think to do that. But that was at the start and it did not do it again. It is probably supposed to do that, but if it does it on another movie I will start to worry about it.

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by ps3-user

No, I did not think to do that. But that was at the start and it did not do it again. It is probably supposed to do that, but if it does it on another movie I will start to worry about it.

The surrounds are pretty heavily in use in the scene at the start of the film with ship atmospherics and sparking/explosions etc coming through. I agree with Kryptonic that what you most likely heard was one of those effects. Replaying it would confirm this.

A silly question: You mentioned this is the first time you've used those speakers. Have you calibrated your receiver to ensure that distance, EQ, level etc are correct?

If not, it's possible that your surrounds may be louder and potentially EQ'ed incorrectly. That could make routine sounds effects stand out (in a bad way).