Amazon Gold Box Deal of the Day: Star Trek - Original Motion Picture Collection Blu-ray
Posted September 20, 2013 05:13 AM by Webmaster
Amazon's Blu-ray Gold Box Deal of the Day affects Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection, which includes Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984), Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986), Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989), and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991). The seven-disc Blu-ray box set is available, today only, for $29.99 (a 65% markdown from its SRP).
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Admiral Kirk reassembles his old crew on the newly refit Starship Enterprise and is sent out to investigate a mysterious cloud-like entity heading towards Earth.
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
Kirk's midlife crisis is interrupted by the return of an old enemy looking for revenge and a potentially destructive device.
Star Trek: The Search for Spock
Kirk reassembles his crew and seizes the Enterprise on a quest to bring the missing Spock back to existence after he finds out that the latter's living spirit may be extant in another form. Complicating matters is a Klingon warship chasing after him.
Star Trek: The Voyage Home
In the 23rd century a mysterious alien power threatens Earth by evaporating the oceans and destroying the atmosphere. In a frantic attempt to save mankind, Kirk and his crew must travel back in time to save the Earth and its people from total destruction.
Star Trek: The Final Frontier
The crew of the Enterprise encounter a renegade religious Vulcan named Sybok who needs the starship for a dangerous quest.
Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country
Peace talks between the Federation and the Klingons go awry while Kirk is accused of murder.
Are we even sure they'll remaster these films? This set might be it for a long while. Our hope is that 2016 is the 50th Anniversary of the franchise. If they don't do it in 3 years, they might never do it.
And yeah, I'd love a remaster of the other 5 films in this set as well, along with the alternate versions of The Motion Picture, II and VI. I'd like to see Shatner's cut of V, but I'm sure that's a pipe dream at this point.
I'm surprised that a director's cut of ST:TMP hasn't been proposed. Some studios double-dip every chance they get. These movies have been out for four years, and I haven't even heard a whisper about the director's cut on Blu.
There is not Director's Cut on Blu because the effects that were added in were not produced in HiDef. Yeah, I know, it is weird that they did it that way. I do not imagine you will see that on Blu unless they go back and do the effect a second time, which considering the cost, is not too likely. In my opinion the original cut is better.
I am not sure what people are looking for here when the talk about remastered. It says right on the back of the box that there were remastered. So what is it that you are looking for, a remastered/remastered? The print quality on these is probably as good as they get except for some quibbles about DNR. Overall I think that this set looks pretty good to exceptional. The standouts in this set as far as quality are TMP1 TFF5 TVH4 and TUC6.
Paramount not only remastered, but re-did all of the FX shots for every episode of all three seasons of TOS. There's no reason they can't redo the added FX shots to TMP Director's Cut. Too expensive? Please! Lame excuse if that's the reasoning. Paramount has the money, and the franchise (even TOS) still has the draw.
@leeb: Totally disagree with you about TMP. The Director's Cut of TMP is far better by way of pacing, editing, FX, and overall cohesiveness. Even Robert Wise admitted that the theatrical cut wasn't finished. It still had shots in it with lines that were added on the set during the shoot because they weren't sure if they were going to get the FX shots finished in time. A classic example is Sulu saying, "The new screens held!" after V-ger's first attack on the Enterprise. In that instance, the FX shot was mostly finished and presented in the theatrical cut, but Sulu's line remained because they didn't have time to edit it out of the cut before the film's release. That's just one example, but the theatrical cut had a lot of excess air in similar scenes for similar reasons. All of that fluff was taken out when Wise had the opportunity to do the Director's Cut.
I'm hoping Jumpman is right in that Paramount is planning something truly special for the 50th anniversary in 2016 (which should technically be 2014 as the original pilot, "The Cage," first aired in 1964). Hopefully for Star Trek's 50th, we'll get an HD remaster of the Director's Cut of TMP along with full remasters of the rest. Maybe even UHD or 4K, but that may be pushing it. Untill we see what Paramount's going to do in the next couple of years, I'll stand with redxrebellion and tvine2000 and hold off on upgrading for now.
1. Wrath of Khan director's cut is NOT on the Blu-ray--it is the 113 minutue theatrical version--the director's cut is 116 minutes long.
2. So they will have to re-render TMP new FX--big deal--not a huge problem. The SD files exist, ready for upgrade to 1080.
3. The Undiscovered Country Blu-ray is the theatrical cut only--- the 110 minute version. It was never on home video before the 2009 Blu-ray release NEVER EVER.
The Extended 113 minute (director's cut) of TUC was the ONLY version of the movie available on home video from 1992-2009. So they took a version of the movie that was available for 17 years and REPLACED it with the theatrical version only. That is NOT what Blu-ray is supposed to be about--it is supposed to be about choices and features that other formats didn't provide, such as SEAMLESS BRANCHING---not about poo-pooing alternate versions of movies because they aren't YOUR favorite.
4. Lastly, Wrath of Khan was the only one of the six original movies that was properly restored and the other have a fair amount of dirt and other defects as well as too much DNR. They have NOT been "remastered and remastered"---the other 5 movies were simply TRANSFERRED to HD and covered with DNR---they were NOT restored OR remastered.
Your lack of knowledge is disturbing. And your arrogance about only your preferred version of a movie being worthy of Blu-ray treatment is just sad.
Oh yeah the Undiscovered Country Blu-ray was proved to have been taken from a 1080i master yes 1080 ( i ) ----that is not the definition of a 'nice print'.
And there are 3 versions of Undiscovered Country
1. the theatrical
2. the extended (By 3 min 22 seconds) 'Home video version' from 1992
3. the extended 'version 2' (by an additional 4 seconds) from 2002, that included a couple of alternate shots of Kirk and McCoy and flashes of the faces of the conspirators during the meld and an additional shot of Scott looking at the plans of the Enterprise in the Officers dinning room.
All 3 versions deserve Blu-ray treatment and could have easily been included.
Oh yeah the color timing of Wrath of Khan is waaay off with the blue turned up to '11'
If you think these HD Blu-ray screencaps provided by Trekcore is the way Wrath of Khan is supposed to look there is no hope for you.
It was assumed that the Undiscovered Country was from a 1080p source but a poster an another site proved ot was NOT. Of COURSE the Blu-ray is in 1080p---that's not what I was saying---I am saying the SOURCE the transfer was taken from was NOT a 1080p master but a 1080i master
And on the subject of remasters vs. restorations vs. transfers---yes the packaging claims they are remastered---big deal---they also at the time of release made a big deal of boasting the Wrath of Khan was restorted from the original camera negative--the other were not restored--period---they were transferred and then cleaned up and covered with DNR to CREATE something they call 'remastered.
And you keep saying YOU prefer the non director's cut----so what? So you got lucky they offered the theatrical version and tough sh!t to the folks who prefer the Director's cuts?
Wow---you're a nice guy.
If I had gotten the Director's cut that I wanted in the 2009 release I STILL would have thought, "why didn't they include the theatrical versions? It would have been easy and decent to do so."
But that's me---who hopes that all fans will get the cuts they prefer in a format like Blu-ray.
And the guys who created the new FX for TMP have stated that all that would be required to re-render the FX in 1080P is a fairly modest amount of money.
But that's my point Paramouint is cheap and lazy and doesn't figure the fans deserve proper restorations, features (like deleted scenes for movies 2, 3, 4, and 6) and multiple versions of the movies that were ALREADY created before 2009.
Here is how Regula looked on TV in 1985, on VHS starting in 1983, on Laserdisc in 1990, on DVD in 2000 and 2002 and in every poster, publicity photo, still image and promotional iten from its debut in 1982 until the ridiculous over blue transfer in 2009 on Blu-ray.
Scroll down the page to see the color it is supposed to be as seen on 1982 tie-in material. Then compare to the Blu-ray screencaps a couple of posts above.
Also I realize the lone restoration of the 6 movies Wrath of Khan got pretty good reviews from several sites--as it should--since that was the only one they handled with care. But if you read all the reviews from 2009--several reviews DID note the color timing seemed too blue.
Beyond that though, is the fact that many diehard fans realized as soon as they watched it something was very wrong with the color and that proved to be the case. I don't fault reviewers who were casual fans or just Blu-ray reviewers in general not noting how off it was when seeing it. And side by side comparisons are stark and there is little doubt. Page one of the above link have side by sides of the Reliant and the Blu-ray version looks awful compared to the DVD.
I'll admit the red may have been a little high on VHS etc, but the true color of the movie is a lot closer to the 2002 DVD than the Blu-ray. Too bad after all the hard work they did restoring it.
Here's the side by side of the color difference--------tenth post down...........
leeb, the source for the info on Undiscovered country was a guy from Germany who does transfer for a living. He debated many folks at the time in 2009 and many thought he was wrong, but he showed technical proof that was frankly beyond me--LOL. And he persuaded the others who were also technically savvy. I know that doesn't count as proof in this arena though.
And I think the director's are very superior, but I'm glad we agree both should have been/ should be offered on Blu-ray.
2016 seems a long way off and it isn't guaranteed by any means anyway. Bummer.
yeah, bottom line is that these movies, imperfect as they are, were a big part of my childhood, I imagine for bolty too. I am not sure why we should feel pathetic that we care about our hobbies, be it blu rays, or specific genres, I mean if you are a user on this site and forum, you are probably a hobbyist too. If you love blu ray you love movies, and you probably like certain movies, and how they look on disc. You probably care about the cuts and all that. So what is pathetic about it, I really do not get it. For me I learned someone has a passionate perspective on the edits, and the color and all that. Well, that is somewhat interesting.
Well now we agree!
Been a Trek fan since 1970 when I was 10 and every one of these movies holds a special place in my heart. Now as a 53 year old man whose wife is also a lifelong fan I can honestly say this series is as important as any movie franchise out there to us. I would never begrudge any Trek fan liking a different movie in the series or different version of any movie, but the merits of any particular release are a fair subject for disagreement.
When they announced this current set in 2009 I was hoping for 3 main things in the release:
1. Pristine transfers
2. All the then current cuts of the movies TMP has 3, TWOK has 3 and TUC has 3 AND
3. deleted scenes
Unfortunately for me I didn't get any of those three and I could well have lived without any 2, but I feel this release didn't give any of those three in its entirety.
I applaud them for going back to the original camera negative for Wrath of Khan and I don't think any of the other 5 are terrible, but I am not as big a hater of DNR as some around here.
It was a rushed release to tie in with the theatrical premiere of the 2009 movie and I understand why maybe they couldn't have had it ready in time.
But now it's 4 years later and we're expecting 2016 at the earliest? That's very disappointing and since I really love the 2-disc DVD versions of TMP, TWOK and TUC---I can live with not having them on Blu-ray till they do better.
But anybody who doesn't care as much about those specific things I mentioned and simply wants these movies in the highest quality they have ever looked on any Home Video format---by all means get them at this terrific price!
I remember I bought this for $39.99 about a year back. I'm not stupid; I know it was thrown together at the time of production as a cash grab to capitalize on the new "Star Trek" film. That being said, I couldn't get that fact out of my head especially when EVERY movie started with the goddamn trailer, even the movies that weren't even AVAILABLE separately. This made me sick, and when someone offered me $35 for it, I sold it. I almost re-purchased it, but I do agree with the consensus that I'd like the extended cuts, though the scene in the original "Undiscovered Country" when they find out who the conspirators are is much superior than in the director's cut. Sometimes, I don't need to see the faces you're referring to; the names will do just fine. I also prefer the close-up of Bones in that scene rather than the master shot, but that's because Bones is my boy. Finally, Shatner can go take a shat - if he REALLY wanted his original "vision" to see the light of day, he'd pony up the money for it. When I received the box set V was the first one I put in. Man, you can really tell Shatner directed that one. I can't imagine him not being able to watch himself in that film with his pants down by his ankles and a vibrator set to "stun."
I was really in the second generation of fans, at the end of Star Trek reruns, and in the heyday of TNG. The movies were always at the best in the original cast to me though. I got these blu ray a couple years ago, I had a few different copies of DVD and Laserdisc by then. Even after I got the blu I could not give up some of my old copies. I kept my silly old laser disc just because of the large scale art work.
In any case, I certainly do enjoy these blu - and for $30 it is certainly an excellent tide-over for a while till any more super premium versions that they make. Paramount is rather stingy sometimes with these pictures, while CBS lavished attention on TNG. Of course Paramount did lavish the dollars on these reboots, around $190 million for Into Darkness. Perhaps with these being successful they will put some more money back into these pictures. They are certainly a part of Paramount legacy.
Wow ! If this discussion has proven anything it is that even the old Star Trek can still stir up the passions of its extremely articulate and thoughtful fans. As someone who has been a fan of this franchise since the night of the premiere telecast of the original series on NBC, that is encouraging for the future of Star Trek.
If there are some here who do not get my point, have a look at the comments. Most are several sentences long. Some even know what a paragraph is. Most make an argument and some itemize their points for easy comprehensibility. There are very few spelling or grammatical errors. They do not just state, "yeh man I like/do not like it". Compare this thread so far to many of the other comment threads on today's popular movies. This thread is miles ahead in demonstrated intelligence compared to most others with their Twitter/text message inspired one-liners. Star Trek fans, you have just demonstrated once again how different you are from the rest of fandom.
The fact that so many people like different versions of these movies says so much about how, when even with who we first saw these movies.
I waited in an old fashioned line around the block to see TMP on Dec 7, 1979 and I am somewhat embarrassed to say I saw it a total of 7 times in the theater (it had been a looong time since I had seen any new trek and I certainly didn't know I would someday own the movie) and I loved it--flaws and all.
Then in Feb of 1983 I saw what became known as the "Special Longer Edition' when it first aired on ABC TV's 'Monday night at the Movies' with the 12 added minutes of footage--some of which I loved and some of which I didn't.
Then finally in 2001, I purchased the 'Director's Cut' on DVD and since that time I have felt it is the best compromise of the three despite certainly not being perfect.
Same deal with each of the other 2 movies that each have 3 versions. In most polls the fans are fairly evenly split as to which version of those movies they prefer and it will be sad if they don't get around to giving the other versions the attention they should have gotten the first time around.
One thing about the Undiscovered Country though...
Many people agree about not liking the faces of the conspirators being flashed in the 3rd (2002) version of the movie, but the replacement close-ups of McCoy and Kirk are only in the 3rd version---not the theatrical or the version that was available from 1992-2001. I agree though that the close-ups are better than the master shots where McCoy was way off to the side and Kirk was far from the camera. They also re-ordered and added a shot of Scott in the dinning room to eliminate a continuity error in that 2002 version--so overall I like that one the best of the three.
Anyway, it's very nice to see that people are taking advantage of this sale even 4 years after the release. I hope the sales will prove that their still is a market for the original movies 20+ years after the last one was made.
Truly wishful thinking, but 2014 is the 35th anniversary of the first movie hitting theaters in 1979 AND as an earlier poster mentioned it is the 'true' 50th anniversary of when the first pilot was shot in Nov 1964. So I'll keep on hoping the maybe next year there is a possibility of and deluxe set.
Well, I read pretty much this entire thread for this webpage and all I can say is that I wish there were more video distribution companies like the Criterion Collection, because could you just imagine how amazing the Star Trek movies would look if they restored the original negative and re-scanned everything in 4k and released the films in a beautiful box set with endless supplements including alternate cuts of each film (including director's cuts)? Man, I could just die and go to heaven if this ever happened (and I know it won't, but I'm just stating that if the right movie companies took their time to focus on quality over profit, we'd have some truly amazing Blu-ray releases). The original six Star Trek movies are so re-watchable for me, that I would pay top dollar if these films were all restored the right way.
I'm ten years behind you, Bolty, but definitely consider Star Trek an integral part of my formative years as well. Like leeb, TOS was introduced to me through syndicated re-runs, but I watched them every chance I got. Some of my first memories are of staying up late with my dad on Saturday nights to watch Star Trek after the local news. "Devil in the Dark," "Day of the Dove," "Balance of Terror," "Charlie X," "The City on the Edge of Forever," "The Doomsday Machine," and many, many others. Great times!
I owned several episodes on VHS and later the complete series on DVD. I've since upgraded TOS to BD and consider that set one of the best produced BD collections available. Every episode is remastered with pristine PQ and AQ and presented with both the original and newly enhanced special effects. Technically, any BD fan would have to respect their quality. For Star Trek fans, they're glorious! I'm waiting for all seven seasons of TNG to be released on BD before upgrading my DVD collection of that series, but, from what I've read, just as much care and passion has been shown to TNG's BD release as with TOS's.
This is what really confuses me about Paramount's treatment of Star Trek's various sub-franchises. TOS and TNG have definitely gotten (or are in the process of getting) the love and respect they deserve, but Paramount has treated the Star Trek films like barely-remembered B-movies from yesteryear.
Several lifetimes ago, when I lived in LA and worked in Hollywood (briefly), I attended a seminar by one of the FX technicians for TNG who explained that all of the FX shots for the show were composited on D-1 digital videotape. Years later, after Blu-ray had found its footing and people began clamoring for TNG to be released on blu, I recalled that factoid and understood it to be at least part of the problem keeping the series from being upgraded to HD. Several posters even spoke to that fact at the time, stating that porting those low-rez, SD video effects to HD would yield terrible results. They cited the difficulty and expense of upgrading those FX as justification for the belief that it would be a long time before TNG made it to BD, if ever.
Well, it was a long time, but that technical hurdle's finally been surmounted for TNG, and, going by the reviews, the series has never looked better than it does now on BD. I see no reason Paramount can't do the same for TMP (all versions) and all the rest of the Star Trek films (TOS and TNG casts). Though there have been several releases already, a 50th Anniversary Ultimate Collector's Anthology of all of the films would definitely sell. Fans have proven time and time again that they would double-, triple-, quadruple-, even quintuple-dip (Blade Runner) depending on the title. I just don't accept that expense, technology, or lack of demand are valid reasons for not treating these films with the respect they deserve. I agree with jw007, Criterion would do wonders with this franchise! Unfortunately, they would probably only ever get a shot at that in one of Star Trek's alternate realities.
Clearly we all have our favorite films in the franchise, even our favorite versions of particular films, but we all seem to agree that virtually all of them are almost infinitely re-watchable. As I mentioned earlier, next year would be the true 50th anniversary of Star Trek, but I think it's overly optimistic to expect a major Star Trek BD release next year, especially without a tie-in to another J.J. Abrams Star Trek sequel. 2016 is the more realistic expectation for the next major Star Trek push from Paramount. The next Star Trek sequel could possibly be ready by then (even if J.J. isn't involved due to his commitment to Star Wars Episode VII) and it would be the 50th anniversary of TOS's "successful" television premiere. So there's reason to keep our fingers crossed for something special. Just have to wait and see.
Until then, as tempting as this low price is, I'm definitely going to pass. My BD player is pretty great at upscaling DVDs. I'm willing to stick with my 2-Disc DVD editions of the Star Trek movies for a few more years.
Can't find a single thing to disagree with in that post--including 2016 as being "our last best hope" for a deluxe edition.
If they can recreate every single 'space shot' and refine scores of live action shots for TOS AND re-do every single phaser, transporter and planet shot for the TNG sets---then I agree--they can re-do or upgrade the FX for TMP.
The TOS and Next Gen season sets are absolutely stunning and a great achievement.
So yeah, 2016 seems a long way off, but it will come and I will be waiting.
Not sure what you mean by owned
I still assert that this is a good set, and I still say that the theatrical cuts are better.
This thread came down to a difference of opinion. These films in this set are very nice.