Like I said if you read to the end of my post... There are generally better devices for any of the secondary (i.e. non-gaming) functions of the different consoles.
And personally, I'm not a fan of new hi-def movies. They completely destroy the illusion the way they enhance the foreground while leaving the background alone. I was in a Microcenter and they had Dark Knight playing. I honestly thought it was the video game version of it the way the foreground and background failed to mesh properly. It took me a good minute or so to be absolutely certain that it was actually the movie. And it's the same with every other bluray movie I've seen. If they're going to destroy the illusion the special effects people try so hard to create, then I'll pass.
But again, the question was about which GAME console was better, not which console was the better movie player. I have nothing against the PS3, except that most of the games I want to play are either on the 360 or both, and the 360 has been cheaper up to now... But I look at them as a GAME console. I don't give two craps which one plays what kind of movie or any of the other pointless non-gaming functions they have. The 360 has one of the sorriest excuses for a media player I think I have ever seen, and from the sound of it, the PS3 requires you run a special media server to stream content. I cobbled something together with a cheap open box system from Microcenter and a copy of XBMC that works infinitely better and only took me a few minutes. I care even less about Xbox Live and Sony's PlayStation Network. I have no interest in listening to a bunch of prepubescent kids wax idiotic, or dealing with people who have absolutely no social life, they just spend their entire day playing some game. I'm not going to waste the finite life of my console's laser playing movie discs, because that is normal wear and tear and not subject to a warranty claim. Not to mention that if the PS3 craps out, and it's also my movie player, I can't play games OR watch movies. If I have two devices, if one goes down I can still use the other. Maybe because I work in IT I'm a big fan of redundancy.
Of course what really matters is the original question, which is about which system is better for the whole FAMILY. The 360 and PS3 are for the people who are serious about their gaming, while the Wii is more about people who just want to be able to enjoy a quick game of something. That makes it MUCH more FAMILY friendly. Odds are mom and dad aren't going to be big gamers, and if you want something both mom, dad, and the kids can all enjoy TOGETHER then the Wii is a great option. It won't be for everyone... I don't have one because there just aren't many games out for it that interest me. Maybe when the next Zelda title shows up... But that doesn't mean that when you do the analysis the Wii comes out the clear winner in this case.
So please do check your fanboi-ism at the door. I know sometimes I may make it seem easy, but I do actually go through a rather complex analysis before putting up an answer. It's not just, "The PS3 has a bluray player so everyone should want it." Not everyone gives a crap about bluray movies. And not everyone cares about eye popping graphics in a game. Some people just want a game that they can pick up and play for maybe an hour a week, then put down. I like RPGs with deep stories and lots of character development. I consider Final Fantasy X to be probably the single greatest RPG of all time (to date). But not everyone is interested in devoting 35-40 hours to a single game like that.
So if you don't have more to offer than a fanboi's perspective, you might want to go hang out in Sony's PlayStation forums or something where you can surrender to groupthink.
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic