Anchor Bay Press Release: Roseanne: Season One (1 Viewer)

[MarkHastings]

WTF? First she says: Can you say "Double Talk".

 

[Malcolm R]

Given her blatant two-faced-ness, she's obviously a Carsey-Werner employee.

Did anyone report her review to Amazon? I'd think all the offensive name-calling would be against their rules.

 

[Dave Mack]

Good idea, Malcolm. I just did report her and urge others to do so. Disagreeing is fine, but using profanity and remarks such as "whining fairies", "alarmist skirt", "damn drama queens" and that we all need to "grow some grapes" implying her assumption of our sexual orientation in a negative way is WAY out of line. It's rather interesting coming from a woman too that all her insults are emasculating male ones, IMHO. The "nerd" one I'll let fly as yes, I'm a nerd, a geek, whatever...


This person needs SERIOUS help,
This line is hilarious, "Wake up nerds. Again, Im sorry to be rude..."

But what is at least heartening is that on most of our "reviews" the majority of people visiting found our reviews helpful, like 90-100%. For "reviews" like hers and the other guy's it's like 0-5%


And PLEASE, let's get some more poeple onto Amazon to call her on her hypocrisy re: her JACKASS review!

And bad news, the sales rank is going up... #218 now.


d

 

[John*D]

People are entitled to their opinions. Agree or not, there is no need to SPAM Amazon's review section or insult the people that post differences in opinions. The point has already been made by the Official AMAZON review for Roseanne that the episodes are CUT/syndicated.

Foward your displeasure to CarseyW/AnchorB as they are the one's providing the set.

Yelling at and insulting those who would purchase the set regardless of syndicated cuts will NOT get you anywhere.

:star: It definitely won't get you original broadcast episodes!


Enough already...

 

[Robert Cruz]

I posted my own review on Amazon, in the only way I can: pure sarcasm. I'll just wait for the other idiots to post crap. It looks like it's up to the intelligent folks to put some sense to these folks.

 

[Dave Mack]

hey John, if you had bothered to read all that I had wrote, the person I "yelled at" and "insulted" said some VERY insulting things herself FIRST. I never said ANYTHING on AMAZON knocking the people who wanted to buy this set at all. She on the other hand fired off an INCREDIBLY insulting and deragatory "review" aimed at we who were simply expressing our displeasure about the shoddy treatment this classic show had received on DVD. And that is the point of a "review". Indeed people are entitled to their opinions, aren't I?

"enough already" indeed...

You are more than welcome not to come back to this thread and/or hit the ignore button for my posts since obviously this issue annoys you.

d

 

[Alan_H]

Do we even know for sure whether "Heather" is really a woman? Isn't that just an Amazon username? Anyway, I doubt that review was written by a woman. As far as her (his?) "grow some grapes" line, I wasn't quite sure whether it was a euphemism for 'grow some balls' or if it was in reference to all us 'whine'-ers. No matter, looks like her review has been removed either by Amazon or by herself because she can dish it out but can't take it.

Dave, your 'homophobia' line in your review made me laugh out loud

 

[Dave Mack]

 

[Jay_B!]

I should be getting my review copy of Roseanne any day now. I am glad this is one I'm getting for free because I would be hesistant to fork over money for it.

Roseanne is my #2 favorite show of all time (behind Buffy The Vampire Slayer and tied with Sex And The City), and I will enjoy the episodes despite the edits (though my review will be severely critical of this), but still, I watched the show from day 1 on ABC, I remember watching it the night it premiered (my dad was a fan of hers from her HBO standup and got us to watch it together as a family). I have forgotten what a lot of the missing footage consisted of but regardless, I'd love to see it again. I am just hoping that things can be fixed in time for latter seasons, seasons 1 and 2 aren't among my favorite years. I love the show best when Roseanne and Tom were in charge. Say what you want about Tom, he was no actor and it was nice that he was written out eventually, but the show really hit its stride when he was in charge. When Roseanne and Tom divorced (end of season 6), the show really took a downturn in quality. I like the last three seasons more than a lot of people did, it still had it's charm, but it just wasn't as good as it once was. I plan on getting all 9 seasons though, but I hope to god that 3-9 will be uncut, it's probably too late for season 2 since AB's prepping it for a December release.

 

[ElijahS]

I found the most recent edit to the second spotlight review interesting. Just to pull a few quotes he quoted:

 

[MarkHastings]

Unfortunately for them, I'm only permitted to buy the non-syndicated version.

 

[Steve Phillips]

That contract excuse doesn't let them off the hook for not labeling the set as "edited/abridged versions".

Too bad Anchor Bay didn't simply choose to pass on the whole idea if they knew they'd only get the cut versions; but if the set was clearly labeled edited then they'd have a leg to stand on. That way at least there would be full disclosure and the consumer wouldn't be taken advantage of.

It isn't and they don't.

With all these lawyers making the studios add all those lame disclaimers about commentaries and such, you'd think the same lawyers would force them to start putting notices about sets containing edited shows on the packaging and menus too.

One classaction lawsuit is all it will take; after all look at the MGM situation over open matte movies!

Let's sue the @@##$$%%!

 

[TravisR]

Everyone always says "Let's sue!", I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you can win a case like that. However, if you think it's a slamdunk, stop talking about it and go to a lawyer. Not to be rude but I think I'm making a good point.

 

[Jay_B!]

well,I got it in the mail today. The first thing to irk me is that they have the "Roseanne Arnold" opening credits. We all know the story about her changing her name to Arnold in summer 91 and then the season 1-3 credits were altered to say "Roseanne Arnold" when it went into syndication in fall of 92.

Well, I got it for free and while I'll be critical of it, I will enjoy what I did get.

 

[Matt_Troop]

a kid posted this:

You Better Get This DVD Because I've Got Some Bad News, August 17, 2005
A Kid's Review

This maybe your last chance to see Roseanne because...
1. Nick at Nite loses the rights in 2008
2. Oxygen loses the rights in 2008 also.
3. Roseanne leaves syndication in 2012.
So you should by these sets even though edited no one cares so stop being freaks and buy these sets because this could be your last chance!

first of all thats six years away no where near our last chance to see it and does he not no that other networks can pick it up our TV Land can pick it up and air it after 2012...

 

[Dave Mack]

I would reply, "Hey Kid, that's why VCRs, TIVOS and DVD recorders were invented..."

 

[Steve Phillips]

Travis, I was being sarcastic......I'm certainly not going to sue.

The point is, if the studios lawyers think it is important enough to put disclaimers about commentaries on each DVD now, you'd think THEY would also be concerned that they should do the same regarding edited content. After all, labeling something as "complete" when it isn't leaves THEM open to be sued, not by me, but by some of those other people out there.

Are you aware of the suit MGM settled recently for "possibly misleading" packaging inserts regarding widescreen movies? If that one was considered worthy of going through the legal system, then frankly this one seems like a lock!

All anyone really wants is for truthfullness on the packaging. If Anchor Bay put a sticker on each "Rosanne" DVD set that disclosed that they were edited, well then, they'd have their legal bases covered. If they don't, then the possibility is there that they could have an issue.

 

[MarkHastings]

I agree Steve, if they have to put disclaimers on DVD's because they fear being sued over comments made in the commentaries, then WHY NOT put warning labels about cut content? Especially (as Steve pointed out) when it's something as bad as faulty advertising.

But I guess the real reason why is because most people who DO care about this kind of stuff (while we may be insane about our DVD's) we're mostly rational people who aren't a-holes about suing the crap out of everyone.

I'm with Steve, I really wish some crack pot WOULD sue them over something like this. At least it wouldn't seem (to most of us) like a stupid law suit.

 

[Dave Mack]

Hey y'all,

I just noticed on AMAZON UK that Anchor Bay is releasing ROSEANNE in late september. Now since the UK has weird-ass time slots anyways for shows and the set would be PAL encoded meaning it would either be transferred now or would be using older UK transfers, is it gonna be the EXACT same syndicated cuts? Maybe they are using older uncut PAL transfers for that set? Wouldn't it suck if they got the eps. uncut?

Anyways to check??? d

 

[Christian Preischl]

For what it's worth: The UK release of 21 Jump Street (also Anchor Bay) used the same cut versions used for the R1 release. So don't get your hopes up too high.

Chris