Slashdot Mirror


The Ultimate Star Trek Collection

roelbj writes "For those Star Trek fans wondering what to ask for this Christmas, you may wish to consider The Ultimate Star Trek Collection to be released on November 15. For just (cough) $2499.99, you'll get 212, count them, 212 DVDs with everything ever produced under the name, including all seasons of all five telvision series as well as the ten feature films. Before loading up your disc changer and hitting play, remember to get up once in a while."

83 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. No figurines by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry, that's the deal breaker.

    Hardly "Ultimate".

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:No figurines by ElectricBrain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't forget about all the novels and cartoons.

    2. Re:No figurines by Golias · · Score: 5, Funny

      For an extra $500, could I get the same collection without any of the Voyager episodes?

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    3. Re:No figurines by Baricom · · Score: 4, Funny

      For an extra $500, could I get the same collection without any of the Voyager episodes?

      Absolutely. Please make the check payable to "Baricom."

    4. Re:No figurines by Forge · · Score: 2, Funny

      THEY ARE STATUES!!

      Men should act like men.

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    5. Re:No figurines by confu2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This doesn't appear to be anything more than amazon bundling the existing box sets. And here's a kicker. If you buy the box sets from amazon separately, it's only $2755. The Voyager box set is $810 with no discounts currently. So if you really wanted everything except Voyager, it woudl only run you $1945.

  2. Really... by bl4nk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It was only a matter of time. :)

  3. The Animated Series!? by AmicoToni · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It doesn't seem to contain Star Trek: The Animated Series!...

    1. Re:The Animated Series!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The validity of the events in the animated series in connection to the original series timeline is disputed.

    2. Re:The Animated Series!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > The validity of the events in the animated series in connection to the original series timeline is disputed.

      Someone's been spending too much time on Wikipedia

    3. Re:The Animated Series!? by Golias · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, let's see...

      The Original Series
      The Animated Series
      The Next Generation
      Deep Space Nine

      No, actually, that's only four. There were only four Star Trek TV series ever made. I don't see where you people are getting five, let alone six.

      LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    4. Re:The Animated Series!? by deetsay · · Score: 3, Funny

      Less tribbles... less troubles

      --
      "The looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand", or so I have read.
    5. Re:The Animated Series!? by cybpunks3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Enterprise also seems to contradict a lot of canon (Robert April was supposed to be the first captain of the Enterprise, as shown on TAS, BTW). TNG+ series dispensed with TOS canon whenever they felt like it.

    6. Re:The Animated Series!? by EtherealStrife · · Score: 2
      Four? I count three. ST: TOS, TNG, DSN. The "other" three were garbage...hell one doesn't even have Star Trek in the name.

      TNG was the true triumph of the entire saga...the only one that defied Captain Syndrome (the asinine tendency of scifi captains to put themselves in ridiculously hostile environments and/or situations out of boredom...and somehow survive).

      The only detractors from DSN were:
      1) the horrible acting on the part of Dr. Julian Bashir (everyone else was superb, especially the lovely Terry Farrell aka Jadzia Dax and hilarious Jeffrey Combs aka Weyoun aka Brunt)
      2) Sisko's uber captain syndrome...but atleast he plays a demigod of sorts so death isn't as much of an issue... :)

      And TOS was a classic, no matter how you spin it.

    7. Re:The Animated Series!? by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      5. Voyager.
      6. Enterprise.

      :-)

      --
      I think, therefore I am. I think?
    8. Re:The Animated Series!? by David_W · · Score: 4, Funny
      No, actually, that's only four.

      Picard: THERE... ARE... FOUR... SERIES!

    9. Re:The Animated Series!? by biglig2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      By such logic, TOS is also non-cannon as it includes a cross-over with another TV show, "Assignment: Earth".

      (Please don't post pointing out that Assignment: Earth never made it past it's pilot, or I will be forced to invoke Wold Newton, and you won't like that.)

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    10. Re:The Animated Series!? by Darth23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just beaucse DS9 was based on a space station doesn't mean they didn't 'trek' through the wormhole to explore the Gamma Quadrant.

      --

      -------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

  4. What a waste by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Funny

    I really don't see the point of this. Every true geek has already seen all of that anyway. It's not something they really need.

    On the other hand $2500 will pay for a lot of hookers.

    1. Re:What a waste by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I really don't see the point of this.

      Amazon was tired of sitting hundreds boxed sets of Voyager. They figured if they bundled them with other stuff people might accidently buy them.

      If this plan fails they'll hire Jeri Ryan to personally hand deliver every copy of a Voyager season bought. They figure that if she sold the series once, she can do it again.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
  5. No way by JudgeFurious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love Star Trek, hell I grew up watching it. I even love bad Star Trek. I can't justify spending $100+ per season on it though and I never will. Paramount needs to put the crack pipe down and get those seasons in the $49-$59 range. It's not worth what they're asking. At $49 bucks a season I'd probably own most of it by now.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    1. Re:No way by Fallingcow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, downloading it is not an option for those who want it now

      Yeah, just those who want it in a week or so.

      Like, the time it would take for a purchased set to be delivered.

    2. Re:No way by Fallingcow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed.

      I was so happy when they announced that DS9 was finally coming out on DVD. I hadn't even looked at any of the others, as I wasn't interested (though I've since come to enjoy the original series). It came out, and I was TOTALLY ready to fork out $40 for each season. They might even have gotten $50 or so out of me.

      They were something like $110 the first time I saw them. WTF? Those bastards can go to hell. Now I'm so pissed off at them that I'll likely never buy the seasons at all.

      It was the same thing with the X-Files. I don't know if it's changed, but it was about $100 when it came out. Totally crazy.

    3. Re:No way by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Paramount needs to put the crack pipe down and get those seasons in the $49-$59 range.

      EXACTLY!

      I am so tired of these morons trying to suck every penny from the franchise as they possibly can while ignoring simple facts. The truth is, if they cut the price in half, they would likely sell more than double what they are now. It has nothing to do with production or advertisement, it's all the greedy bastards at Paramount. X-Files was the same way until just recently when they dropped the price (at least at my local Costco) from $100/season to $40. Stargate SG-1 (owned by MGM) seasons have been $35-40 since they were first released, and they are already committed to 10 seasons. Hell, Enterprise is only 4 seasons and it's still over $100/season. Why can't others follow MGM's suit?

      The truth is that the people behind the Star Trek franchise are complete and utter fools. They embrace such asinine marketing such as this. They continue to allow the failures known as Berman and Braga to rape the franchise. They blame poor box office ratings for Nemesis on the fans and other big-name movies and not piss-poor writing and directing . They blame the failure of Enterprise on the fans and not piss-poor writing and directing.

      In reality it's probably a good thing the franchise is "resting". You can only screw something up so long before people give up on it. Hopefully when they try resurrecting it they'll have found people to produce it with something called talent.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    4. Re:No way by sdnoob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      purchased individually, though... what parts *wouldn't* you buy, even at 50 a season?

      at ahem, NORMAL pricing...
      28 total seasons @ 49.95
      10 feature films @ 19.95
      comes to a grand total of: 1598.10
      so they've over priced it by 900 bucks. they must still be trying to recoup losses from enterprise or something. if it (upn) wasn't on a pissy little low-power uhf around here, i would probably have watched it (reception lousy even on digicable). (btw, the enterprise dvd sets must be selling well if startrek.com only had 10 copies to give away in a recent promotion http://www.startrek.com/custom/exclude/giveaways/0 51004_enterprise/detail.jsp)

      a more fan-friendly company might even discount the whole set a bit over separate prices to encourage sales of it, otherwise people would just purchase the individual items periodically as sort of a payment plan to getting the whole set. 20 percent off "my" total would be about half what amazon's charging.

      the movies by themselves at amazon (se versions) is 122. which means at 2500 you're paying 85 for each and every season. a very generous discount from tptb, don't ya think? when mainstream tv series sell for 35-50 a season and have been spotted at 20 or less on sale lately.

      considering the cost to duplicate, package and distribute, they could sell for 499 and still be in the black. the star trek empire has already paid for itself many times over (and no wonder with the prices they charge).. so why not do something crazy like deep discounts on an "ultimate collection" for a holiday season.. star trek could even end up being more popular than elmo dolls instead of being something only a google shareholder can afford.

      they could even do it on hd-dvd or bluray instead and bundle a player. all for 399. that'd be one way to really get the new players on the market real quick. if this could get rolling and out the door before new format players hit the general market, whatever format they pick could very easily wind up being the "winner". even if priced at a loss, the future revenue for the hardware makers (& studios themselves by folks buying 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th formats of other movies they already have) over the next 20 years is huge and more than enough to subsidize a promo like this.

    5. Re:No way by PhotoBoy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You could always register your displeasure by buying some bootlegs on Ebay... ;)

      What annoys me even more about all the Trek boxsets is that they have virtually no extras. There are no commentaries to speak of, there's just one set of extras on the last disc of the season. Usually they are just a bunch of archived interviews and the occasional retrospective from the cast and crew. For the money they're asking I'd expect a lot more than that.

    6. Re:No way by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The truth is, if they cut the price in half, they would likely sell more than double what they are now.

      The thing is, that's almost certainly not true, because their marketing people almost certainly did some trials on what people would be prepared to pay and picked the sweet spot that maximises their income. As much as I'd like to believe what you wrote, and see various over-priced sci-fi DVDs brought down to the same level as everything else, I can believe that in the case of ST there are enough super-geeks willing to pay almost any price that the "normal" fans are not the deciding factor here.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    7. Re:No way by fdiskne1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was the same thing with the X-Files. I don't know if it's changed, but it was about $100 when it came out. Totally crazy.

      Actually, they are now selling them in mythology sets: Abduction Black Oil, Colonization, and Super Soldiers. I'm considering buying them this way. It might actually cost more per episode. I haven't figured that out but these sets are affordable and you only get the ones you want. Now if only they come out with the Lone Gunmen set. Not the Lone Gunmen series. I already have that. I want the X-Files episodes that feature them.

      --
      But why is the rum gone?
    8. Re:No way by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Keeping the prices on DVDs high also keeps the ability to license it out to brodcasters high. Getting rerun rights is going to be a pretty big payoff as well. If everyone owns the DVDs then noone will watch the reruns, thus less money from that point. Yet without any DVDs they don't get the buzz needed to get people to watch re reruns as well.

      That is where the sweet point is to be found.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  6. worth it? by fredistheking · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seeing that you will be paying more than $10 a disc is this worth it? Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for getting so many discs?

    Wait until it's at least 30% off.

    1. Re:worth it? by n0dalus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wait until it's at least 30% off.

      It already is 36% off! The original price was $3908.99.

    2. Re:worth it? by 6th+time+lucky · · Score: 5, Funny

      The sad thing is, it *is* at least 30% off...

      List Price: $3,908.99
      Price: $2,499.99
      You Save: $1,409.00 (36%)

      funnier... "You may also be interested in these items..."
      Above All Co. L74995CN Forearm Forklift Lifting Straps

      is it really that heavy???

    3. Re:worth it? by fredistheking · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So wait a little longer =)

      Seriously, who would pay this kind of money? There are the select few but I doubt their numbers are enough to keep this from getting clearanced at some point.

    4. Re:worth it? by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think I'll wait until the entire thing comes out on one single disc or cube or whatever it is data will be floating around on 5-10 years from now.

      Consumers are smart. They know this data isn't going anywhere, it'll be around for as long as they are (and then some). They'll hold out for as long as it takes to get a decent price before forking out any cash. Personally I don't think I'd consider paying much more than about $500 for this.

      Hollywood needs to provide better and cheapers ways of providing its content to consumers, if they don't they'll end up going the same way as the Music Industry. Whilst they don't immediately face the threat the music industry does (dvd quality video with 5.1 sound doesn't come down the wire that quick) eventually they will face it. Hopefully by that time (for their own sake) they'll think my offer is quite generous.

  7. My god! by Rhinobird · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's full of Star Treks!

    I swear, I hear angels singing right now. And is it possible for divine light to shine on a webpage?

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  8. Was the link necessary? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Haha! Let's make fun of sick people!

    It was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and serves no purpose but to make light of a seriously ill person (who subsequently died).

    There's something sickening here, and it's the editors' lack of respect for others and journalistic integrity.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:Was the link necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...says the 480lb poster fused to his couch.

    2. Re:Was the link necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps it is this mentality that obesity is some kind of external force acting upon a person that is leading Americans to become so incredibly fat. As long as you can keep denying responsibility for your own disgusting, highly irresponsible and self-destructive lifestyles, the problem will just keep getting worse.

      She was not 'sick', she was a typical member of the parasitic consumer society in which she lives, consuming what the rest of the world produces until they (literally) keel over and die.

      Posted anonymously to avoid being modded as a troll ... people don't like hearing the truth.

    3. Re:Was the link necessary? by VirexEye · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently you missed the memo where laughing at dead people is now ok.

    4. Re:Was the link necessary? by Golias · · Score: 2, Insightful

      She was not 'sick', she was a typical member of the parasitic consumer society in which she lives

      Okay, look. A 4'10" woman hits 250 pounds, it's conceivable that she just doesn't get to the gym and maybe likes her bon-bons a little too much, but this woman was way over 400 pounds. You don't just get like that from Twinkies and soap operas. Clearly there had to have been some kind of nasty metabolic problem involved. Could she have maybe fended off such a syndrome with an active lifestyle? Perhaps, but for all we know the same forces which were making her prone to obesity were also sapping her will to do much about it. Once that woman reached the point that she spent an entire day or two on that couch, somebody should have addressed the problem with both medical and psychiatric care. Six years of just sitting there? Unable to even get up for the bathroom??? That ain't right.

      By the way (only slightly off the topic)... It's easy for somebody who never struggled with their weight to accuse fat people of some moral shortcoming, never mind that they themselves don't always lead perfectly healthy lives either. I know plenty of rail-thin people who couldn't run to the end of the block and back, while I know other people who are overweight yet can easily run five miles and enjoy it. Body shape may be a very visible metric of whether somebody is in good physical condition or not, and whether they have a good sense of discipline about taking care of themselves... but it's far from the most accurate indicator.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:Was the link necessary? by AthenianGadfly · · Score: 2, Informative

      For those who object to the parent as lacking a sense of humor, I think there's something key to remember: it's easy to laugh at fat people partially because there's a somewhat submerged belief that it's at least partially their fault - I mean, if they would just stop being lazy and get their act together, they'd be fine, right? And, I'm sure, for some of us the issue is indeed simply one of disciplining ourselves to take better care of ourselves - excercise once in a while, watch what we eat, etc - it's true that everyone who's overweight is not a helpless "victim."

      However, in a case like this, it seems extremely likely that this person struggled with mental health issues as well - I think that there almost has to be something more going on for someone's skin to graft into a couch - can you even imagine what that would be like? A mental health disorder is most certainly not anyone's fault and is not something a person can overcome by sheer willpower (anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly not overcome mental health issues themselves nor been close to anyone who has).

      While there's nothing inherently wrong with finding humor in illness and death (hey - we all have a morbid streak in us), if it's OK to point to the linked article as humorous, then to be consistent it has to be OK to find AIDS, cancer, MS, smallpox, dementia, leprosy, and a multitude of other debilitating diseases to also be funny as well.

    6. Re:Was the link necessary? by notany · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The link was OK. I understand that some people live in the land of Political Correctness where anything remotely fundamental like sickness, death or god can not be made fun of. Sorry about that. But we others like to do so. Why?
      Because the laugh enables us to handle difficult questions of life. Laugh reveals the empty rhetoric we use to cocoon death and sickness. Laugh goes against what authorities want you to believe. Laugh is serious matter.

      --
      Dyslexics have more fnu.
    7. Re:Was the link necessary? by WraithRealm · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is only in societies where even those considered poor can afford lots of food where other factors become decisive.

      Hate to say it, and knowing attitudes on /., I'll pay for it, but this is not a completely valid statement.

      Having *less* food can often impact you in the same way as having too much. Someone who eats very little food (and in the case of poverty, not always the most healthy food) and does very little exercise in any amount (walking instead of driving/bus-ing) will invoke a much ignored fact that an inactive lifestyle with small amounts of food intake reduces the usage of energy (in any format) in the body, storing said energy as fat. Your body sees lack of use and low intake of foods the same way an animal hibernates in the winter.

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    8. Re:Was the link necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Being overweight is a choice. Unlike any other physical abnormality, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to be overweight unless they choose to be overweight.

      A mental health disorder is most certainly not anyone's fault and is not something a person can overcome by sheer willpower

      Bull. Maybe not alone, but just like if someone with AIDS, cancer, MS, smallpox, or whatever else you can come up with refused to get help for their disorder, it's their fault. Yes, it may not be possible to overcome a mental health disorder on your own without outside help, but it's YOUR responsibility to get that outside help. If you don't, then it's YOUR fault.

      Just like, if you're moribidly obese, it's YOUR responsibility to go get help at a gym to lose the weight.

      Being overweight is, 100%, a personal choice. No one has to be overweight. If you're overweight, it's a choice. Talk to your doctor. They can get you the help needed to become healthy. NOT talking to your doctor is most certainly a personal choice.

    9. Re:Was the link necessary? by notnAP · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No the link was not at all necessary in a journalistic sense. But my guess, looking at the post in its entirety, is that the link was absolutely necessary for other reasons.

      Consider that the post as a whole has an accusatory tone. To my eyes, it smacks of What kind of person, after all, would feel the need to buy this collection and at this price?

      If indeed I am not reading too much between roelbj's well thought out prose, then the Hey look at the fat person link is not at all out of place. Indeed, it becomes not only on-topic, but also necessary to further the point of We're not like them. by forwarding what is obviously in his minds another example of a subgroup he wants to publicly separate himself from.

      Furthermore, one can read into roelbj's inclusion of the link a need to connect with his reader through a mutual separation from suspect subgroups. Could the need to drive home the point We're not like them been a subconscious justification of the inclusion of the fat person post? And if so, from whence the need to emphasize commonality with others? Is that connection somehow lacking in roelbj's life? Hey look everybody... let's all do something together! Please?becomes a search for a link that nearly everyone would surely look upon in the same light as he, and the need for contact is fulfilled.


      In the interests of full disclosure... Yes, I struggle with my weight, but no am not presently nor have I ever been bonded with my sofa. I also have a nagging, hard-to-let-go-of belief in journalism, and that even Slashdot may someday climb one more rung on the ladder up towards a journalistic ideal.

    10. Re:Was the link necessary? by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Posted anonymously to avoid being modded as a troll ...

      I love it. You post about personal responsibility, then refuse to be held personally responsible for the comment. Classic!

    11. Re:Was the link necessary? by Retric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even fat cells need energy. An extra 200lb's needs over 1000 calories each and every day to keep the cells alive. So if somone only eat's 1200 calories there is no way for them to get that fat. (And yes people can make it on 1200 calories they get extreamly thin but by doing so there are less cells to keep alive which help balance that out.)

    12. Re:Was the link necessary? by spaceorb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you are just way too sensitive in general. Don't like movies like Jarhead? Then you wouldn't like how grunts in the military act, because that is just the way we are. I have not run into one infantry Marine, present or former, that did not like what they did there.

    13. Re:Was the link necessary? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Actually, I just saw an episode of Nip Tuck recently where a lady was so fat and shat herself so much on the couch that her skin had fused to the couch and she was all infected. When they operated, she died.

      Now, is that a serious matter? Yes! Do I feel bad for people who are in that shape? HELL YES! Is it ok to laugh about it? YES!

      The reason why we joke about this is because it does several things...it helps us feel better about ourselves and all of the myriad of serious problems we all have going on in our lives...it encourages us to AVOID the kind of behavior that can potentially lead to being in this situation...and it stops us from getting depressed and angry about every single horrible problem in the world, because frankly if we did, we'd probably kill ourselves.

      If people don't like what was posted, avoid it. Don't push your morals onto the rest of us though.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  9. More like Penultimate by ErMaC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's missing The Animated Adventures, which Paramount has said they plan on releasing on DVD at some point next year.

    And I think it's sad that of the Star Trek stories to be posted, this makes the front page where as the passing of Michael Piller doesn't.

    --
    "I want to get more into theory, because everything works in theory." -John Cash
  10. Where's the torrent? by Werrismys · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's like CD's in 1994... the sheer amount of data works as a copy protection...

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    1. Re:Where's the torrent? by un1xl0ser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      PLEASE don't use XVID/DIVX!

      Without the multiple audio tracks it wouldn't be worth the download.

      Ogg/MKV please.

      --
      v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
    2. Re:Where's the torrent? by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Spoken like a true moron.
      What do you guess a ogg/Mkv container usually contains (besides h264, recently)?

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  11. Ironic! by SolitaryMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I was reading the article "480-Pound Woman Dies After Six Years On Couch" (second link) I had a "Breakfast Bistro Sandwich" ad on the top of the page. What an irony!

    --
    May Peace Prevail On Earth
    1. Re:Ironic! by MilenCent · · Score: 2

      When I was reading the article "480-Pound Woman Dies After Six Years On Couch" (second link) ...

      That's the most depressing thing I've heard in months!

      No, I've never been too interested in the Darwin Awards either. There is something about the death of an actual human being which I cannot laugh at. Call me a killjoy, maybe....

  12. What makes a movie worth watching over again? by Quirk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Most geeks must have good memories. The amount of info that has to be assimilated and managed is, to say the least, considerable. It follows most geeks would be able to retain a storyline and much attendant material from watching a movie once or maybe twice.

    What makes owning this set of dvds and, presumably, rewatching the material worthwhile?

    The only movies I've watched repeatedly are Casablanca, Apocalypse Now and to a lesser extent Alien and Blade Runner, but I've no idea why I can watch Casablanca and Apocalpse Now over and over. I know the material very nearly by heart, but have no idea what the mechanism is that hooks me in.

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen
    1. Re:What makes a movie worth watching over again? by Altima(BoB) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe because Casablanca is the greatest screenplay yet written (so sayeth Brian Cox as Robert McKee in Adaptation.) It's like saying that the only book you can read again and again is Ulysses and not being sure why. Casablanca is so perfect in formula that there are actually several plot holes of which few people notice, realize or care about. I feel the same way about Lawrence of Arabia, the full cut is four hours long, but I've watched it over a dozen times. It's just that good.

      But... the point of this kind of set is not to see something again and again. Hell, as one person pointed out, if you did one episode a day it would take you two years to finish. And when you've gone through the entire set, hell, there will be a new series on TV by then. After that new series finished, begin rewatching your set, after two years, you'll probably have forgotten most of the episodes. This set is about possessing it, having he capacity to watch ANY given episode on a whim at any given moment. To no longer be the slave of the fickle schedules of TV re-runs. All that jazz. It doesn't have to be Casablanca, very little of it ever comes close. All it has to be is A LOT of Star Trek.

      --
      Yup...
    2. Re:What makes a movie worth watching over again? by waynemcdougall · · Score: 4, Funny
      Maybe because Casablanca is the greatest screenplay yet written

      Ahh yes...Of all the space bars in all the worlds, you had to re-materialise in mine.

      The one starring Myra Binglebat and Peter Beardsley was definitive.

      --
      Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
  13. Does it include cool Yoda and Han Solo posters? by Neeth · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh wait... Star Trek

    That explains the 212 DVD's too.

    --
    Yes, I am the one with the legendary sig.
  14. Hard sell? by Altima(BoB) · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll admit that even a very casual fan like me finds that set rather attractive looking (though its presence in my house would remove any possibility of a date so long as it was visible). However there are a couple problems. I'm too lazy to do the math and see if buying the whole set at once is a bargain at all (I know that some would say the conveniance of having it all at once is worth it anyway.) Another problem is that if someone is hardcore enough of a fan to want all seven seasons of Voyager, well, they probably have it already, like the first user review on Amazon indicated. It is however a nice display of the great treatment Trek has gotten on DVD these last couple years.

    --
    Yup...
  15. Soooo.... by kisielk · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does anyone have a torrent?

  16. Too much for too much by Lifix · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is only worth it if: 1) You are a huge Star Trek Fan (no problem I'm sure these people are out there) 2) You are a fan of 4+ of the serries: It's cheaper to buy any 3 seasons individually + all the movies 3) You aren't already collecting the dvds. Now here is my POV: I am a huge tv on dvd collector but there is a limit to how much I am willing to spend (example: I'm going to pick up the BuffyBox when it comes out, even though I already have the first four seasons.) I am also a fan of all of Star Trek, and would love to pick this up, except for the fact that I bought TNG as it came out, DS9 as it out and voyager as it came out. I'm not saying that this is intended for everyone, infact if they sell more then say, a thousand of them, I will be impressed. Anyway just my $.02 oh and wtf is with Enterprise costing 120+ per season before discounts?

    --
    In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
  17. ALL of them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ooo, does it have the one where they modify the main deflector, meet a strange new lifeform, and have to make some crucial decision about ethics and/or sexy blue aliens? 'cause I think that's the only episode I missed...

  18. LOW PRICE by masterpenguin · · Score: 2, Funny

    i love the badge next to the price that says "Low Prices!"

    somehow $2,400 isn't that low of a price to me, given that's half of my car loan.

  19. It's not complete until it contains by SecureTheNet · · Score: 5, Funny

    a set of pointy ears!

    --
    SecureThe.Net - Practical Resources for Securing Systems
  20. Animated to be released on Dec 31st by jbridges · · Score: 4, Funny

    According to Amazon, the Animated Star Trek Series will be released on Dec 31st, 1969.

    Star Trek - The Animated Series (1973)
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005JN6D/002-75 16313-1096059?v=glance&n=130

    So find yourself a gateway into the past (and try to avoid saving any sexy pacifists by accident).

  21. referal fee by Celt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm curious how much trektoday get if somebody buys that set through their handy referal link in this slashdot story, nice that the editors left the link intact.

    --
    "WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
    1. Re:referal fee by bfree · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would you rather:

      • slashdot.org took the referer fees
      • amazon pocketed the extra cash
      • slashdot doesn't actually edit the submitted story for a change
      Another poster suggests each purchase through that link is worth around $125 btw.

      Perhaps slashdot should setup referer accounts for all the sites it pimps, and then publish and use the revenue to create some form of slash fund, perhaps paying lawyers to fight some of the laws slashdot readers seem to hate so much, or funding development on slash dependencies or ...

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

  22. Just over three weeks long by fmwap · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So...it's a very, very boring night at work...
    Here's the tally, this doesn't include any special features, commentaries, or otherwise useless filler:

    ST TOS:
    47 mins, 79 eps, 22 discs, 3,713min = 2days 13hrs 53mins
    ST TNG:
    45 mins, 178 eps, 48 discs, 8,010min = 5days 13hrs 30mins
    ST DS9:
    45 mins, 176 eps, 48 discs, 7,920min = 5days 12hrs
    ST Voyager:
    45 mins, 172 eps, 47 discs, 7,740min = 5days 9hrs
    ST Enterprise:
    42 mins, 98 eps, 27 discs, 4,116min = 2days 20hrs 36mins

    The Motion Picture (Directors Cut): 136mins 2 discs
    The Wrath of Kahn (Directors Cut): 116mins 2 discs
    III: The search for spock: 105mins 2 discs
    IV: The Voyage Home: 119mins 2 discs
    V: The Final Frontier: 107mins 2 discs
    VI: The Undiscovered Contry: 113mins 2 discs
    Generations: 118mins 2 discs
    First Contact: 106mins 2 discs
    Insurrection: 103mins 2 discs
    Nemesis: 116mins 2 discs

    Grand Total (Minus Commentaries, deleted scenes, additional features) :
    212 Discs
    32,638 minutes
    3wks 1day 15hrs 58mins

    References:
    Amazon.com product info
    IMDB Star Trek search

    1. Re:Just over three weeks long by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure, but if you're using MPlayer's '[' and ']' keys, you can view all the episodes at 10x normal speed. Then you only need 54 hours and a lot of tea to calm the nerves.

    2. Re:Just over three weeks long by KylePflug · · Score: 2, Funny
      SW freak

      Whoops. Now's the part where you run for your life.
    3. Re:Just over three weeks long by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Three weeks?... Well, I finally watched Gokuu and Uubu fly off into the sunset last night, so I'm kind of in the market for another ridiculously long bit of geek viewing. This is alarmingly tempting, though monstrously overpriced.

      The sad thing, though, is:

      TOS: 47 min
      TNG, DS9, Voy: 45 min
      Enterprise: 42 min

      ... those ad breaks just get longer and longer, huh?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  23. Im calling your BS out. by rootedgimp · · Score: 3, Insightful
    She was not 'sick', she was a typical member of the parasitic consumer society in which she lives, consuming what the rest of the world produces until they (literally) keel over and die.
    Uh, if that isn't 'sick', what is? Something you can see wiggling around under a microscope? The variation you described does indeed constitute sickness, and I'd say we can at least agree millions of Americans fall into its catagory. As you said, she was a 'typical member of...' -- just because it's commonplace, doesn't mean it isn't 'sick'.

    Posted anonymously to avoid being modded as a troll ... people don't like hearing the truth.


    No, actually you posted AC because you know your opinion is wrong, although you are entitled to it. If you look at all the replys to this "Was the link necessary" post, you will notice a strange phenomenon, all 5 of your type posted AC, only 1 posted such under his account. I don't call that watching your mod point karma, I call that being ashamed of your view, which you should be, the sad part is you don't know why you are ashamed of your view, so you try to justify it by your ability to proclaim yourself above it.
  24. i love subjects by Anthrox · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll wait a few years then i'll just buy it on one disc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile _Disc/

    1. Re:i love subjects by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bah. By the 24th century, if you want a holographic version you just tell the computer to generate you one, and it'll produce ST:TNG or whatever.

      Rumours that the technology to generate a complete ST episode using only a computer program exists today are, of course, wholly unfounded.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  25. 200+ dvds = a lot of space... screw that, use HD by cheekyboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now personally, If I had than many eps, id put em all on HD-converted to mpeg4 or something.
    One 600giger will take care of it, though a lof of CPU time to convert though, but more portable
    than 3 folders of 80 DVDs each.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  26. Also by blincoln · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's missing the theatrical cut of The Wrath of Khan, which I vastly prefer to the extended/alternate footage television version on the two-disc set - and I'm not even a big enough dork to own ANY of the television episodes.

    Over two thousand dollars and they can't throw in a second copy of the best Trek film evar? What a swindle.

    Man, I think the first Slashdot post I ever made was a complaint that the two-disc set didn't include the original release. What were they thinking? Extended is great. Replacing certain scenes - that I thought were great - with alternate takes, and then not including both versions a la the Terminator 2 DVD, that's lame.

    --
    "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  27. Borg Cube by E8086 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $2500!? Where's the cheap gimmick that makes it worth that much? How about TNG in the Borg Cube box? If I were to get all those individually at deepdvddicsount(dot com) I could get it for about $150 less, or $750 less if I leave out Voyager. Greedy Paramount wants to sell Star Trek at $100 a season, I guess they're going for PROFIT over total sales. SG-1 can be had for $30-40 a season, for those who don't like math, that's 60%-70% less, yes they're only 22eps/season while Star Trek is mostly 26eps, but even that doesn't make it worth the more than doubled price. If you want TNG and DS9 I suggest a cheap, or not so cheap, TV card or even a TiVo and SpikeTV, 2 eps of DS9 and 3 of TNG, you'll have the entire series in a couple weeks.

    --
    F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
  28. I wonder if there is an Easter Egg by hrieke · · Score: 4, Funny

    After watching all the DVDs, does William Shatner appear and tell you to "Get A Life"?

    --
    III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
  29. Re:Validity? by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Here are the answers to your questions. Note that they may be spoilers to some people:

    Romulans were officially known to Starfleet during TOS "Balance of Terror", although the Vulcans and Romulans had been engaged in minor disputes and actions for a long time before that, some of which were known to other races and Starfleet... the Vulcans hid the existance of Romans by shrugging them off as radical Vulcan splinter factions, although at least some non-Vulcan individuals knew of them.

    Klingons look like they do in TNG. During TOS they were Klingon-Human hybrids (well, technically Klingon-Engineered-human hybrids) due to an accident involving theft of military genetic enginering technology left over from the Terran Eugenics Wars. See Enterprise season 4.

    Stardates are a way of creating a system of time that accounts for differences in relativity. As a result they vary (and they vary in speed) depending on where you are in the galactic plane. The system was revised between TOS and TNG, at the same time pulsed warp made it necessary to revise the warp factor (to a logarithmic scale with 10 being infinite speed).

    There are some much nicer places of contradiction. Those are pretty well established.

    --
    Evan

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  30. ultimate? pfah! by option8 · · Score: 2, Informative

    from the editorial review:

    The only omissions from the set are the animated series (1973-75), which as of 2005 was not available on DVD, and the two officially sanctioned fan-focused documentaries, Trekkies and Trekkies 2. So perhaps The Ultimate Star Trek Collection isn't quite as ultimate as it could be...

    'nuff said.

  31. THE PRICE IS NOT THAT HIGH!!!! by joerdie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I dont think that 32 cents an episode for a good t.v. show is too much to ask. Is it expensive? Yes! Is this better than watching the garbage on today? Yes!! !!Golly Geepers!!

  32. Animated Series -- Boxed Set! by Zobeid · · Score: 2, Informative

    For whatever its worth (not much to most people, I guess), the animated series was released some years back as a boxed set of Laserdiscs. You remember Laserdiscs, right? They were just as good as DVDs in most respects, only bigger. And yes, I have the discs, I just don't have a working LD player at the moment.