Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Ultimate Star Trek Collection

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the just-plain-scary dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 414

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."

cancel ×

414 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No figurines (5, Funny)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967894)

Sorry, that's the deal breaker.

Hardly "Ultimate".

Re:No figurines (2, Insightful)

ElectricBrain (452147) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967932)

Don't forget about all the novels and cartoons.

BUT You Save $1,409.00 (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967997)

HOT DAMN! I can use the extra cash for my spock ears!

Re:No figurines (5, Funny)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968031)

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

Re:No figurines (4, Funny)

Baricom (763970) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968058)

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

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

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967895)

fp

So fat she graphted herself into the couch (0, Troll)

CyberBill (526285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967896)

Now -THAT- is fat.

I cant even come CLOSE to that... She has so much dedication. We can only strive to be more like her.

Was the link necessary? (2, Insightful)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967914)

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.

Re:Was the link necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967935)

What do you expect from somebody who STILL spams freeipods in their sig?

Re:Was the link necessary? (1, Insightful)

myspys (204685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967938)

Or maybe there's a problem with your lack of humor?

(yes, this is a bit of a troll, but hey, it's monday morning)

Re:Was the link necessary? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967987)

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

Re:Was the link necessary? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968014)

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.

Re:Was the link necessary? (2, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968075)

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.

Re:Was the link necessary? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968124)

There is something bizarre in US culture causing problems like this. Nobody hears of these problems in France, germany, africa, australia, russia, china, india... it's just the US.

Unless the US is suddenly the only place where people have "metabolic disorders" or "catch obesity" or obestity is a "disease" then the culture of the fat people is to blame, not their bodies.

Laziness and lack of personal responsibility, and little more.

Im calling your BS out. (3, Insightful)

rootedgimp (523254) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968123)

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.

Re:Was the link necessary? (2, Funny)

VirexEye (572399) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968035)

Apparently you missed the memo where laughing at dead people [darwinawards.com] is now ok.

Re:Was the link necessary? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968041)

Fat people are fat because they eat too many burgers and don't exercise. Any other 'excuses' are just bullshit, and to be taken as the excuses they are, worthless people's explanations of why they refuse to take responsibility for being fat.

Exercise and eat less, and you won't get fat. That's all there is to it. It's not a 'sickness' to just be a lazy shit who refuses to take care of their own body.

Re:Was the link necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968117)

Fat people are fat because they eat too many burgers and don't exercise.

Fat people are fat because they ATE too many burgers and DIDN'T exercise. Past tense. Fat people who are no longer eating burgers and are now exercising don't magically turn into thin people overnight.

Re:Was the link necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968057)

..make light of a seriously ill person
Methinks he's got more of a sense of humour than he's letting on.

Possible urban legend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968068)

Seems very similar to this one:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/emergent/couch.htm [snopes.com]

Ha ha aren't fat ppl funny :-/

Re:Was the link necessary? (1)

rootedgimp (523254) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968087)

Sadly that is what this world has come to, the line between humor and decency/morality has been completey demolished.

I remember my rule of thumb a few years ago was "if something is more offensive than it is funny, don't say it.", I would take notice of just how many people would have something that was just too 'funny' to hold back, and they would throw it out in front of everyone, normally at someone elses expense (especially if it is directed at the least popular person in any given clique), the 'funny' part IMHO is that the person that throws the derogatory joke out would never have said such a thing had himself and the 'unpopular' person been the only 2 in the room. This is why I've termed this collective usage of 'humor' - "Social Points".

Over time I've learned that my rule of thumb is sometimes not enough, you really do have to go the extra mile not to offend some people these days, it seems some people are downright determined to be offended and to be overly dramatic. I never thought I'd say this, but I believe that all of this does in fact stem from our forms of 'Entertainment' nowdays. People want to act like they are on some sitcom, they want to make fools of people, and they just love drama.

I see the downfall already in motion, and it was started way before I was born. Look at how far it goes nowdays, though. Shows and movies like "Over There" and "Jarhead" -- If I had any family in the military right now, I'd be even more offended than normal when I see previews for movies and shows like those. Honestly, there are people getting killed, and we're sitting here watching reinactments of that fact while drinking sodas and eating popcorn. The line between entertainment and common sense regarding humanity has been thoroughly eliminated. I can guarentee you this fact in our backwards world - if I made a graphic movie about me running around slaughtering animals, like domesticated dogs and cats, although all of it would be special effects and no animals would be injured, it would be extremely controversial and I am positive that people, especially animal rights activists, would hold my movie responsible when some deranged kid goes nuts on the family pets-- and you know what? there could be a shred of truth to their claim. explain then, why movies with people killing people are totally overlooked in our days?
Shows like 'The Sopranos glorify 'organized' crime, I had an aunt that was murdered by the mafia, case of mistaken identity/wrong place wrong time, there is nothing glorious about a defenseless woman getting stabbed 40+ times, but our kids are being brought up in an era where these types of figures are not only acceptable, but commended. Mankind is becoming more and more base by the hour, and noone is doing anything to stop it, moreover, they are profiting by accelerating it.

Re:Was the link necessary? (2, Informative)

AthenianGadfly (798721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968116)

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.

Really... (2, Insightful)

bl4nk (607569) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967897)

It was only a matter of time. :)

Brilliant!! (-1, Troll)

saurabhdutta (904490) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967900)

Now I gotta go n order my captain kirk dress n thenget teh collection.... not to mention I'd shave off my head too...

How long would it take to watch all that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967901)

Assuming around 3 hours per dvd...thats 636 hours, now assuming you wouldnt watch them all in 1 hit, lets say an hour a day, thats enough star trek to last you nearly 2 years.

OUTGOING (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967902)

HELLO WORLD
62196 62196
HELLO WORLD
70403 70403 21412 21412 75469 75469 40961 40961 01991 01991
54365 54365 43019 43019 38629 38629 57723 57723 48667 48667
10290 10290 29438 29438 67962 67962 41157 41157 87260 87260
22885 22885 46565 46565 71841 71841 16243 16243 20693 20693
33664 33664 45970 45970 54901 54901 37876 37876 96614 96614
03432 03432 11092 11092 47201 47201 90457 90457 13181 13181
68429 68429 19420 19420 25664 25664 85633 85633 37863 37863
69873 69873 57644 57644 93830 93830 21668 21668 14730 14730
57157 57157
K-BYE

The Animated Series!? (5, Interesting)

AmicoToni (123984) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967905)

It doesn't seem to contain Star Trek: The Animated Series!... [startrekanimated.com]

Re:The Animated Series!? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967976)

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

Re:The Animated Series!? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968017)

> 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

Re:The Animated Series!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967980)

Exactly my thoughts. What kind of a Star Trek nerd are you, if you can be sold "all seasons of all five television series"? I know there are six series, and I haven't even seen two of them!

Re:The Animated Series!? (5, Funny)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968100)

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!!!!!

Re:The Animated Series!? (1)

nath_de (535933) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968110)

ST:TAS is non canon as it contains lots of things from other sf universes, for example Known Space (Ringworld).

What a waste (5, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967906)

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.

Re:What a waste (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967925)

$2500 will pay for a lot of hookers.

It's sad to see a sick puppy like you degrade women even with your poor taste jokes.

Oh wait, it is male hookers you use. That makes it alright then.

Re:What a waste (4, Funny)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968081)

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 [google.com] 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.

Oh no (1)

Uukrul (835197) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968093)

On the other hand $2500 will pay for a lot of hookers.
So there is another fan on Futurama make fun of Star Trek.

Re:What a waste (1)

Schemat1c (464768) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968162)

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

Or 1 really nice hooker.

No way (5, Insightful)

JudgeFurious (455868) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967907)

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.

Re:No way (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967918)

On the other hand, downloading it is not an option for those who want it now. Face it guys, the MPAA won this one.

Re:No way (4, Insightful)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967943)

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.

Re:No way (5, Insightful)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967957)

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.

Re:No way (4, Informative)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968049)

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 [nyud.net] . 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.

Re:No way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968051)

Come to China: 7 yuan/DVD. 212 * 7 = 1484 yuan, or at current exchange rates about = $185. heh. You could fly here, buy it, and still save $1000.

Re:No way (1)

tooth (111958) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968104)

I'm with you, they have to match what the other box sets are going for. Anymore and they're just going for extra profits.

worth it? (5, Insightful)

fredistheking (464407) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967908)

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.

Re:worth it? (4, Informative)

n0dalus (807994) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967926)

Wait until it's at least 30% off.

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

Re:worth it? (2, Insightful)

fredistheking (464407) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968004)

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.

Re:worth it? (5, Funny)

6th time lucky (811282) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967929)

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 [amazon.com]

is it really that heavy???

My god! (5, Funny)

Rhinobird (151521) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967912)

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?

More like Penultimate (5, Insightful)

ErMaC (131019) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967915)

It's missing The Animated Adventures [wikipedia.org] , 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 [startrek.com] doesn't.

Re:More like Penultimate (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967960)

It's missing The Animated Adventures [wikipedia.org], which Paramount has said they plan on releasing on DVD at some point next year
Of course there's something missing. Later they will release another Ultimate Collection, which includes this animated series but will be missing other crucial material. So you'll have to buy both series to own it all.

I thought this was common practice these days.

Re:More like Penultimate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968042)

I'm pretty sure they also didn't post anything about George Takei officially announcing that he's gay. [cnn.com]

Where's the torrent? (5, Funny)

Werrismys (764601) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967919)

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

Re:Where's the torrent? (1)

cablepokerface (718716) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968139)

True. But they can make this collection magnitudes smaller by just removing the cutscenes.

oh, wait ...

never mind.

Re:Where's the torrent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968155)

That's no deterrent to the determined fanboy.

Believe it or not, you can collect all (all that remains at least) of Dr. Who's 27 seasons, plus 4 movies, plus just about every interview on TV or radio in the UK about Doctor Who over the last 30 years (and most of the remaining 10 years or so), from BitTorrent sites. That's a similar scale, if not greater, and there are a hell of a lot more Star Trek fanboys than Dr Who fanboys.

My Doctor Who folder is 216 GB, all collected inside a few months. You can bet that you can collect all of Star Trek the same way... all it takes is patience and broadband.

And when you're looking at patience vs. $2500... that's worth a lot of patience.

Ironic! (5, Funny)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967924)

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!

Re:Ironic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967949)

How the fuck is that irony?

Re:Ironic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968148)

i think it's interesting that with as many fat fucks as read slashdot most of you are still laughing through your pudgy cheeks

What makes a movie worth watching over again? (4, Interesting)

Quirk (36086) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967930)

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.

Re:What makes a movie worth watching over again? (5, Insightful)

Altima(BoB) (602987) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967982)

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.

And I thought those Spike TV marathons were long! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967939)

Someone please beam me up before it's too late!

Does it include cool Yoda and Han Solo posters? (5, Funny)

Neeth (887729) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967940)

Oh wait... Star Trek

That explains the 212 DVD's too.

Hard sell? (2, Funny)

Altima(BoB) (602987) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967945)

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.

Re:Hard sell? (1)

ne0nex (612727) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968158)

I did the math, and you actually save a couple of hundred bucks getting the "ultimate" set...

and by doing the math i mean amazon did the math [ne0nex.com]

HD-DVD or Blu Ray Version. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967955)

212 DVD's? I'll passed and wait for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray version!

Re:HD-DVD or Blu Ray Version. (1)

John Nowak (872479) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967978)

Yes!! Just imagine, 10x the resolution on 212 conveinient blu-ray discs!

Soooo.... (3, Funny)

TheVoice900 (467327) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967967)

Does anyone have a torrent?

Re:Soooo.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968066)

Or at least a mirror. The fat woman won't load normally.

Too much for too much (4, Informative)

Lifix (791281) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967969)

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?

Re:Too much for too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968060)

I'm just disappointed they don't have an uber-sexy box!

From the picture it just looks like a collection of ordinary box-sets tossed in together, without any special effort to make it look nice, etc. For $2000+ I'd expect a new design at the very least.

No fat woman??? (1)

Twisted64 (837490) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967971)

What's with this redirect? http://www.netauthority.org/ [netauthority.org] looks like a hilarious website, but why ban real stuff as well? I WANNA SEE THE FAT WOMAN!

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968005)

Are you using iiNet? I got the same redirection.

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

Twisted64 (837490) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968027)

Yes. Good lord, it's a conspiracy? I'll never upgrade to the DSLAMs now...

Re:No fat woman??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968029)

Same here. I beleive we use iinet at work

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

Zilch (138261) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968040)

iiNet here too - same redirecton. I had no idea they censored the internet! Let me ask Whirpool!

Zilch

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

narkotix (576944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968164)

did you start a thread up yet? Im awaiting yours!!

Re:No fat woman??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968056)

I'm on Optus and get redirected.. the conspiracy grows bigger...

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

Zilch (138261) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968065)

So it's just us Aussies that are being protected from blasphemy then? (John Howard, are you listening?)

Zilch.

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

AussieJimbo (885695) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968109)

Yeah, WTF is going on here?

Who the hell are Net Authority and how are they censoring my internet use?

The pic probably isn't worth looking at but that's not the point. I do not appreciate some unknown entity interfering with my connection.

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

Zilch (138261) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968077)

Can someone how isn't behind some sort of national firewall mirror the link? Not because I want to see a fat lady, but having someone decide to block it for me kinda bugs me.

Zilch.

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

Twisted64 (837490) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968098)

The site itself is obviously meant for a laugh, but not being able to click "view banned sites" and have it disappear is beyond a joke. It works for other sites, but not this one, dammit.

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

Zilch (138261) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968134)

Yeah the register has this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/21/reg_victim _of_blasphemy_hoax/ [theregister.co.uk]

Still not sure how they are doing it though... or if it's done by the fat lady website why they only choose to redirect Aussie IPs/

Zilch.

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

imroy (755) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968174)

Ok, so the Reg got an email. But why are some of us being redirected when trying to view this supposedly blocked web site? I tried getting jengajam.com using JAP [tu-dresden.de] and it came up fine. So who is redirecting us and why? Is it an upstream ISP, or something that jengajam.com has somehow setup? This is really puzzling.

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

narkotix (576944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968161)

optus here too....same page...hmmm...

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

imroy (755) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968157)

Not iiNet, Dart/Hotkey here. Does iiNet go through connect.com.au as well? I don't know who this so-called net authority is. It seems to run by some fundamentalist kook [netauthority.org] . Their database listing [netauthority.org] though is a hoot. The Walmart site is listed for containing pornographic material, hateful material, blasphemy, offensive political material, and bestiality and/or interracial relationships. In lots of mainstream sites are listed, every one having those five same traits. It looks like people can submit sites and the admin is so extreme in his religious views, he'll list almost any site.

Re:No fat woman??? (1)

MooUK (905450) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968119)

It's hard to tell whether that site is a joke or not... The examples they throw out suggest they are. That, and the stupidity of the comments on some of the banned sites.

No!!! (1)

mrselfdestrukt (149193) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967977)

Everything was all cool and peachy until I read the bit about the woman that became one with the couch. Damn!

ALL of them? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13967984)

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...

LOW PRICE (2, Funny)

masterpenguin (878744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13967989)

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.

what in the (1, Offtopic)

soniXX.noob (922440) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968033)

what in the hell is this 'Net Authority' bullshit? I WANT TO SEE A FAT WOMAN DAMMIT

It's worth 11.80 per disc, depend on qualtiy (1)

Sleeping Kirby (919817) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968047)

It's on the border line of being worth it for me. It all depends on how well the quality is. I know I can't get HD quality for the old stuff but if it's all direct copy from a bad VHS... then I don't think it's worth while.

It's not complete until it contains (5, Funny)

SecureTheNet (915798) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968069)

a set of pointy ears!

Animated to be released on Dec 31st (4, Funny)

jbridges (70118) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968073)

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 [amazon.com]

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

referal fee (4, Interesting)

Celt (125318) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968092)

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.

Just over three weeks long (5, Interesting)

fmwap (686598) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968103)

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 [amazon.com]
IMDB Star Trek search [imdb.com]

OSCon WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968105)

Maybe somone should have submitted news that there was an OSCon in my vincinity to begin with???!?

BASTARDS, now i missed it!!

HAHAHA fattys! (2, Funny)

bazmail (764941) | more than 8 years ago | (#13968106)

HAHAHA fatpeople crack me up!
They are natures clowns.

Anyway it works out at about 12 bucks per DVD which ain't so bad. Not much of
a bulk discount though.

REFERRAL LINK! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13968115)

Everyone on slashdot seems to SCREAM when people post referral links in book reviews and the what not. Now there's a blatantly OBVIOUS REFERRAL LINK in an article submission, and no one gives a damn. WTF???
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>