Simpsons Tree House of Horrors DVD.. What is on it? (1 Viewer)

[Dave Mack]

I got it for "The Shinning"...
Quality is so-so... And 1 annoying thing, it is flagged for FILM mode progressively so I have to manually force my player into VIDEO mode, (and on some players that is impossible.) In Auto (film) mode, it is unwatchable. Combing the ENTIRE time, not just on the edits like on most shot on Film, edited on video material...

And I do believe the Dracula Burns is false advertising as I assumed that was on it as well....


:frowning: D

 

[David Lambert]

And I do believe the Dracula Burns is false advertising as I assumed that was on it as well....

How so? Right above the shot is text describing every episode, and every story within every episode. A quick read tells you whether or not the Dracula Burns is on there on not.

Don't get carried away, man!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

How so? Right above the shot is text describing every episode, and every story within every episode. A quick read tells you whether or not the Dracula Burns is on there on not.

So if they'd put a photo of Brad Pitt on the cover but he doesn't appear in any of the programs, I shouldn't consider that to be false advertising?

 

[David Lambert]

Depends on how it's used, if you ask me. I'm no Damin, but if you're trying to suggest he's in a film when he's not involved at all, then yeah it's possible to construe it as false advertising. Especially if the back of the box doesn't explain one way or the other.

If you're showing an image of characters who appear in the feature, depicted in a way that is suggestive of the mood of the feature, and have text nearby that clearly states what IS included in the feature, then I think you would have a hard time making a good arguement in court.

Just my opinion, based on one small legal class around 15 years ago, that wasn't even completed. Beyond that, ask Damin. :wink:

 

[MarkHastings]

This reminds me of the Faulty commercials on Comedy Central for South Park season 1. When they talk about Cartmans rendition of O' Holy Night, they show and play, the newer version (with Cartman in a suit in the desert), but the version on the DVD is the 'old' one (where Cartman gets zapped with the cattle prod).

Not that this was a major reason for getting the set, but I was SO psyched when I thought that was the version that was on the DVD (because I LOVE the newer version), but much to my surprise, I was duped. :frowning:

 

[Jeremy Allin]

I *almost* picked this up. Saw it for $10.99 CDN, but decided against it since it's missing many of the classic halloween episodes. I'll just wait for the season sets. I agree the Dracula Burns image was a bad idea.

 

[Dave Mack]

Well, here's my take...

Although I completely respect and give MAJOR props to "The Simpsons", I am what you would call a casual fan. I watch the show, albeit not religiously and I love what the show is. However, I do not know the names of the segments, so when I picked up the DVD, I knew I wanted "The Shinning" but was a tad weary due to $10.00 for an 8 minute segment, (do the math...). When I saw Burns as "Dracula" I thought, no worries, it's a clinch. And even when I bloody LOADED the DVD, Burns as Dracula is on the freaking MENU page!!!!!! Yeah, I felt gypped, as I scanned through the whole disc twice thinking I missed it.... Where is it?!?! I thought!

So, Ummm, yeah I think that on the back of the DVD and on the BLOODY MENU SCREEN.......!!!!!




But, what do I know...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Depends on how it's used, if you ask me. I'm no Damin, but if you're trying to suggest he's in a film when he's not involved at all, then yeah it's possible to construe it as false advertising. Especially if the back of the box doesn't explain one way or the other.

If you're showing an image of characters who appear in the feature, depicted in a way that is suggestive of the mood of the feature, and have text nearby that clearly states what IS included in the feature, then I think you would have a hard time making a good arguement in court.

I didn't intend to argue the LEGAL definition of false advertising. I just think it's cheesy they put Vampire Burns on the cover when he's not in the show. Buyers shouldn't have to scour the text on the back cover to confirm his appearance - if you put the picture there, he'd damned well better be on the DVD!

 

[David Susilo]

I think I'm going package and sell my family video on DVD.

Title the video "My Family" and put a collage of noggin shots of Brad Pitt, Jennifer Garner, Shakira and Steven Spielberg on the cover and on the DVD menu.

Oh, put it in print stating that this video consist only individuals from my family and clearly states that nobody in my family is a famous artist.

That should not be considered as misleading, no? :rolleyes

 

[MichaelBryant]

If you're showing an image of characters who appear in the feature, depicted in a way that is suggestive of the mood of the feature, and have text nearby that clearly states what IS included in the feature, then I think you would have a hard time making a good arguement in court.

That doesn't sound like a convincing argument to me. How can you prove it was put on the box to suggest mood? The other side can just say the image was put on the box hoping people will not read the fine print and think the Dracula episode is on the DVD. This sounds like a definite out of court settlement case.

 

[Ryan Wishton]

This has turned into an episode of the Peoples Court...

 

[TonyD]

"Nightmare on Evergreen Terrace"

this one was animated in the very beginning as a classic warner bugs bunny cartoon.

it looked great. whish they did an entire ep that way.

 

[JonZ]

I picked it up because it was only $9 at Circuit City.

"Besides, my favorite one Treehouse 4. Donut Homer, Dracula Burns, and Bus Gremlin..."

Yes! My favorite as well.

I almost didnt buy Simpsons Season 3. I agree they have to get these things out quicker.One set a year just wont cut it.