The Business of Subtitles

[TMDaines]

Apologies for wanting a better product instead of just blindly buying everything regardless of price and quality and then just grinning and bearing it. Sorry for complaining about licensing pratices that only serve to drive up a price point while lining the pockets of the majors. Why do you presume that DVD labels always act perfectly, never make a bad decision and always do things in the best interests of the customer? If people are willing to take my money, then surely I can air an opinion?

[zedz]

There's a difference between 'airing' and 'running into the ground with a bulldozer powered by hot air'. It's good to know the subs are forced on these releases, it's good to hear you don't like the practice, but does the discussion really need to run for page after page after page just so you can do your 'God's Lonely Man' routine?

[TMDaines]

Plenty of other people have contributed, agreeing and disagreeing with me to a various extent. The majority of the posts on these last couple of pages are not my own. Have the courtesy to step outside if you don't like the discussion, or the skillful rhetoric to move it in a diffrent direction. I agreed with swo to let the debate lie once it had run its course, but I'm certainly going to respond if you, or others, comment on me personally.

I'm not shitting all over your discussion of animation and experimental cinema elsewhere, which I have little interest in, with personal attacks and sarcastic remarks.

[zedz]

[vsski]

While amusing to read, I honestly don't fully understand the argument...

You don't understand people speaking a language other than the majority one of the country in which they reside? You don't understand people wishing to have the option to turn the subtitles off?

FWIW, I currently live in a country and for the vast majority of my life have lived in countries whose primary language is not my native one, so I fully understand that point and I already stated that everyone here would prefer to have the option of turning off the subtitles - we all agree with you on that point.

What I don't understand and don't agree with you is that you start attacking AE for presumably not having negotiated with the license holder hard enough without bringing forward any insights into the specific licensing negotiations nor any experience in this area. Furthermore, when someone like MichaelB states a plausible explanation based on his personal experience with similar situations, you berate him and insist that your position is the only correct one and in the larger interest of the consumer. And then you are surprised when people either don't take you seriously or patronize you? ](*,)

May I suggest to the moderators to move the last couple of pages of this thread to one more aptly named "The World According to TMDaines" where he can rant to his heart's desire based on his wishful thinking and lack of knowledge of the realities of the marketplace.

[swo17]

I'm not shitting all over your discussion of animation and experimental cinema elsewhere, which I have little interest in, with personal attacks and sarcastic remarks.

Are you seriously equating your numerous posts in complaint against various DVD labels with zedz "going on" about experimental cinema in the lists projects threads? The films he's covering may not be to everyone's tastes, but he's doing precisely what the lists projects are designed for and providing an invaluable resource for those interested in that realm of cinema.

[Finch]

Agreed, a thread split is overdue.

[knives]

May I suggest to the moderators to move the last couple of pages of this thread to one more aptly named "The World According to TMDaines" where he can rant to his heart's desire based on his wishful thinking and lack of knowledge of the realities of the marketplace.

To keep with the The Fallen Idol theme perhaps "Daines won't you tell me about the subtitles again".

[TMDaines]

Sadly, I think this thread just goes to show why so many labels, especially the majors, feel able to serve up such mediocrity - such as DVD-Rs, releases with a lack of HoH subtitles etc - because ultimately people expect very little and some even choose to berate others who dare raise criticisms. If every label chose to cave in to every demand of their licensors then we'd be much worse off. It's kind of sad to see this response, where people are just happy to presume that the evil licensor is to blame, the good label couldn't possibly do anything and that that would even make it OK, but anyway...

Furthermore, when someone like MichaelB states a plausible explanation based on his personal experience with similar situations, you berate him and insist that your position is the only correct one and in the larger interest of the consumer. And then you are surprised when people either don't take you seriously or patronize you? ](*,)

Erm? I took his point on board and extrapolated that it was very likely that other labels had encountered serious issues based on the limited reasoning he gave (that being the relative "success" (which is nothing extraordinary) of these two films and wishing to protect their potential value on the home video market).

Are you seriously equating your numerous posts in complaint against various DVD labels with zedz "going on" about experimental cinema in the lists projects threads? The films he's covering may not be to everyone's tastes, but he's doing precisely what the lists projects are designed for and providing an invaluable resource for those interested in that realm of cinema.

I'm just making the point that people shouldn't feel the need to contribute to every section on the forum, if they have nothing to say, as per the rules of the forum. Suggesting that I'm seventeen, and not even dignifying me with a response, for simply not sharing someone's interpretation of situation shouldn't be tolerated. I was on topic discussing AE and I'm on topic here.

[David M.]

Sadly, I think this thread just goes to show why so many labels, especially the majors, feel able to serve up such mediocrity - such as DVD-Rs, releases with a lack of HoH subtitles etc - because ultimately people expect very little and some even choose to berate others who dare raise criticisms.

Nicely put - this "you be satisfied with what they give us" mentality is terrible. There seems to be a section of people who are happy with anything put out on Blu-ray provided that it's "better than DVD", like that's the standard to aspire to.

[vsski]

Sadly, I think this thread just goes to show why so many labels, especially the majors, feel able to serve up such mediocrity - such as DVD-Rs, releases with a lack of HoH subtitles etc - because ultimately people expect very little and some even choose to berate others who dare raise criticisms.

Nicely put - this "you be satisfied with what they give us" mentality is terrible. There seems to be a section of people who are happy with anything put out on Blu-ray provided that it's "better than DVD", like that's the standard to aspire to.

Reading the responses of many people on this forum I highly doubt that we are dealing with folks who are simply satisfied with what they get. The number of posts scolding companies for commiting digital atrocities on BD is countless as are complaints about lack of extras (especially if a DVD exists that has more extras than the BD), not to speak of the posts dealing with DVD-Rs. For me this is a very outspoken bunch.

However, I think it is also fair to say that the group of people here constitute a minority of film enthusiasts, many of which have a knowledge about the medium that the average consumer doesn't have - so the forum is hardly representative of the wider audience.
Nevertheless, I think it is important for this group to stay vocal and make their displeasure known, as we know that many of the labels we are interested in read the comments here.

I for example have to this day not bought a single DVD-R as I object to the practice and see the best way of voicing my dissent by voting with my wallet (besides complaining to the labels themselves through the appropriate channels).
I also think it is more than fair for someone like TMDaines to clearly state that he doesn't like the practice of fixing subtitles and therefore will likely not buy AE's disc - and I'm sure he is not the only one. And I hope he makes his opinion known to AE directly as well.

What I took objection to is not the fact that he complained about the subtitles, frankly, I don't like them any more than he does, but the subsequent style of his e-mails that made unsubstantiated and imo not very helpful remarks against the label and another forum member, who equally voiced his displeasure, but did so in a calm and factual manner while also trying to take the likely realities of the marketplace and the label into account. All I believe he achieved with this is to discredit himself and the argument he wanted to make.

[David M.]

Oh, I wasn't talking about anyone in particular. I'm not actually aware of the story behind this situation, it's a general comment on consumers as a whole.

[MichaelB]

FWIW, I currently live in a country and for the vast majority of my life have lived in countries whose primary language is not my native one, so I fully understand that point and I already stated that everyone here would prefer to have the option of turning off the subtitles - we all agree with you on that point.

Yes, absolutely.

What I don't understand and don't agree with you is that you start attacking AE for presumably not having negotiated with the license holder hard enough without bringing forward any insights into the specific licensing negotiations nor any experience in this area. Furthermore, when someone like MichaelB states a plausible explanation based on his personal experience with similar situations, you berate him and insist that your position is the only correct one and in the larger interest of the consumer.

As I already highlighted, TMDaines is arguing from a general consumer perspective, whereas I'm arguing from a specific distribution/marketing one. Which is why this discussion is going round in circles, because the rightsholder generally doesn't give two hoots about "the larger interest of the consumer" - their only job is to license the rights to the distributor that they think can plausibly secure them the best financial return. And with the same end in mind, distributors often talk to each other beforehand as well. (Assuming, of course, that the rightsholder is in a position to pick and choose - they often aren't - but I think we can safely say that this was true in the case of Amour!)

One thing we've neglected to mention (and which of course may not apply in the case of Amour, but it's worth mentioning anyway) is that DVD and BD extras often aren't generated by the rightsholder - they're often created by individual labels and then sometimes licensed to other labels abroad, but often with strings attached that affect the whole package. For instance, I was personally involved with a deal whereby I made available a number of extras that I'd personally produced to French and US labels. I don't have the paperwork any more, but I broadly remember that the deal was that:

1. All three labels would region-code;
2. The French label could release at the same time as the UK one, but menus and booklets should be exclusively in French (and, by the same token, the UK release wouldn't offer a French-language option);
3. The US label would be required to delay its release by six months, to allow the UK label to have a stab at recouping its greater upfront investment.

Of course, in agreeing to (3), the US label was given the opportunity to improve on the original UK release, which they duly did (albeit surprisingly slightly), but the UK label was primarily interested in short-term gain.

And I'm afraid that's how things often play out in this business, and no amount of complaining about "a general consumer perspective" will make the slightest difference. As a producer, I'm obviously very keen indeed that the consumer should be delighted with my work - but upfront restrictions are upfront restrictions, be they financial, logistical or contractual, and usually can't be got around no matter how strongly you suggest that they can be.

[TMDaines]

The occurrence of situations like the above doesn't surprise me for a minute. It's only natural that licensors would want to shape a deal to best suit them (often at the inconvenience of the consumer). However that may be, MichaelB, surely labels are responsible for what they put out and put their name to? The licensor may have insisted that AE fix their subtitles but it was ultimately AE that agreed to do so, whether they believed there was no room for negotiation or not. It's their name on the box and I'm guessing the subtitles are not marked as fixed on the packaging, in the same way labels like to note that their subtitles are optional, to let people know what they're buying. I simply refuse to believe that other labels having faced a similar situation will have not been able to negotiate around it, having made clear the terms of the deal are unfair. I simply find it impossible to believe that the likes of Crit and MoC haven't also faced similar situations, that would compromise their standards, yet they would have handled it differently and come out of it in a different manner.

[AidanKing]

I simply find it impossible to believe that the likes of Crit and MoC haven't also faced similar situations, that would compromise their standards, yet they would have handled it differently and come out of it in a different manner.

I suspect the difference is that Amour and Holy Motors are current films that the various distributors hope to make a relatively substantial profit from and don't want to lose any share of that profit to imports from other countries. Criterion and MoC's business is largely with older films where the rights holder can't secure as much profit because sales are unlikely to be as high and so the DVD/BluRay label is in a stronger position in negotiations.

Obviously, everyone agrees that removable subtitles would be better in an ideal world, but the disagreement here is over whether AE could have acheived this in a non-ideal, commercial world, which we can't know. I also suspect the deal may prevent AE from commenting on the subtitles issue.

The forthcoming Bresson BluRays should settle the argument, though, as they are directly analogous to a Criterion/MoC type of release: if these have forced subtitles too, something has changed at AE.

Buying the French disc probably isn't going to do anything to resolve the situation either, although I understand why people will do this. If the deals have been set up to protect the primary market of the films' original languages, people from the UK importing the French discs won't do anything to prevent this happening again as it only benefits the company who have probably insisted on forced subtitles in other Region B/2 countries.

[MichaelB]

I simply refuse to believe that other labels having faced a similar situation will have not been able to negotiate around it, having made clear the terms of the deal are unfair. I simply find it impossible to believe that the likes of Crit and MoC haven't also faced similar situations, that would compromise their standards, yet they would have handled it differently and come out of it in a different manner.

But MoC did "compromise their standards" when they agreed to accept region-locking after claiming that their Blu-rays would all be region-free - a promise that they had to backtrack on very very quickly when it became clear that this simply wouldn't be possible without massively reducing the range of titles available to them (their Universal deal would have been a complete non-starter, for instance). And the Medium Cool thread is well worth a read if you believe that Criterion wouldn't compromise a product for licensing reasons - we don't yet know for certain if the original soundtrack music has been altered, but it's just been revealed that Paramount have censored some of the extras.

The problem with arguing that the terms of the deal are "unfair", as you put it, is that the rightsholder will immediately point out that the licensee is not technically in competition with anyone else, since they only have the rights to a single territory and are explicitly barred from selling their discs elsewhere - just as labels elsewhere are barred from selling their product within the UK. Obviously, we all know that that's bollocks in terms of what actually happens on the ground, but when you're negotiating around legal niceties that cuts surprisingly little ice.

I suspect the difference is that Amour and Holy Motors are current films that the various distributors hope to make a relatively substantial profit from and don't want to lose any share of that profit to imports from other countries. Criterion and MoC's business is largely with older films where the rights holder can't secure as much profit because sales are unlikely to be as high and so the DVD/BluRay label is in a stronger position in negotiations.

Absolutely correct. With older material, the rightsholders are usually only too happy to strike any kind of deal! But with recent releases of titles with a very high profile and potentially strong commercial appeal, it can be a seller's market with a vengeance.

I also suspect the deal may prevent AE from commenting on the subtitles issue.

This may also be the case. In fact, I raised the issue on AE's Facebook page, and while it's had people "liking" my comment, AE have yet to respond. (Though, to be fair, my comment was made less than 48 hours ago and the working week has only just started).

Buying the French disc probably isn't going to do anything to resolve the situation either, although I understand why people will do this. If the deals have been set up to protect the primary market of the films' original languages, people from the UK importing the French discs won't do anything to prevent this happening again as it only benefits the company who have probably insisted on forced subtitles in other Region B/2 countries.

The absence of English subtitles on the French disc suggests that there may well have been some quid pro quo deal with AE, either negotiated through the rightsholder or via a gentlemen's agreement between each label. Informal agreements are far from unknown in this business, usually between people who have a good working relationship that both wish to maintain, so there's no conceivable reason for one wishing to screw the other over. For instance, I know of some BDs that have been region-locked when this wasn't contractually necessary, purely to keep certain distributors in other territories happy - and therefore create a negotiating advantage in the case of trickier deals later on.

[repeat]

I simply find it impossible to believe that the likes of Crit and MoC haven't also faced similar situations, that would compromise their standards

Just out of curiosity, whence exactly springs this idea that AE has or aspires to comparable "standards" with MoC or Criterion? With all due respect to the great work they've done, and not to slight them at all, but personally I have never ever considered AE in any way equal to either. Criterion and MoC are boutique labels expressly dedicated to releasing deluxe editions of handpicked films (mostly older ones, which as noted above already puts them in a different situation) - and while in some ideal world everyone else should surely aspire to a similar standard, I don't think it's fair to shit on other, differently operating labels if they "fail" to meet them.

[tenia]

one with forced French subtitles (Wild Side, who always do it).

And they just released Red River with optional subs.

However, on the whole thing, I understand how sometimes, you need to compromise in order to release something, and how the eagerness to do the release can be higher than the sadness to compromise. I'd rather have to buy a Region A BD Player than Criterion not being able to release stuff because they sit on their position and said "No, we won't region lock our disc, we prefer then not to release it at all instead".

Or the other end, I find it extremely sad, and I remember what Nick was saying at the time, that in 2013, in an era of globalisation and digital piracy, instead of trying to open their market the most globally possible, independants and labels are still stuck in an overly split market, with everyone working on their side, on their small market, and the right-holders not understanding how their policy of over-abusive contracts "Region lock this, fix the subs there" are damaging the capacity of a good release to go beyond its market frontier. A disc like Gaumont French Cancan exported well because it's Region Free and has english subs on the movie. At the time, 300 of its sales was outside of France ! For a BD that won't sell much more than 1500-2000 copies, it's something that shouldn't be overlooked.

Region lacking and subs fixing are 2 practices that should be deemed anti-concurrential, abuse of position and downgrading the end-user quality of the products. And I remember that either Australia or New Zealand had a close look on Region locking as anti concurrential.

This being said, MichaelB and others involved in movies releases have already explained extensively why consumers expectations and the reality of the market don't always meet. It is sad, but movie releasing is not a charity (though I would love to see more crowfunded restoration or releases projects).

However, I'd like to challenge TMDaines figures on region locking, because on the contrary of their former DVD releases, almost all studios releases are now region free, while independants were region locked and now usually still are.
For me, if a trend is disappearing, it is the region locking, not the subs fixing.

And I'm saying this while not really being disturbed by forced subs (in fact, I'm more annoyed on a release like Tess not because the French subs are forced, but rather because there are no english subs available, or, most specifically but because I'm French, by the pure lack of subs).

Just my 2 cents.

[MichaelB]

However, on the whole thing, I understand how sometimes, you need to compromise in order to release something, and how the eagerness to do the release can be higher than the sadness to compromise. I'd rather have to buy a Region A BD Player than Criterion not being able to release stuff because they sit on their position and said "No, we won't region lock our disc, we prefer then not to release it at all instead".

On the other hand, Criterion certainly isn't contractually obliged to lock all their releases, and yet this has been company policy since the mid-2000s, after previously maintaining a BFI/MoC-style policy of only region-locking when compelled to. I suspect they've cynically calculated that hardcore importers - and therefore those most likely to buy their releases in substantial quantities - will be multi-region, and therefore they'll lose little while gaining a negotiating advantage when dealing with other labels. (For instance, they do a fair bit of business with the BFI and MoC.)

And I'm saying this while not really being disturbed by forced subs (in fact, I'm more annoyed on a release like Tess not because the French subs are forced, but rather because there are no english subs available, or, most specifically but because I'm French, by the pure lack of subs).

The BFI release has the same transfer, and optional English HOH subs.

Although HOH subtitle provision is often the subject of considerably more controversy, simply because many labels don't do it at all - perhaps the stupidest example being Optimum's original release of Mandy, a film with obvious appeal to the hard-of-hearing community given its subject-matter. Although in this case the tsunami of negative publicity compelled them to reissue a subtitled version later.

But in cases like this it's almost invariably down to the individual label and whether or not they want to spend the extra money - I can't imagine how HOH subtitles would ever be a bargaining chip in licensing negotiations!

[peerpee]

But MoC did "compromise their standards" when they agreed to accept region-locking after claiming that their Blu-rays would all be region-free - a promise that they had to backtrack on very very quickly when it became clear that this simply wouldn't be possible without massively reducing the range of titles available to them (their Universal deal would have been a complete non-starter, for instance).

This isn't accurate, Michael.

I don't think I or MoC ever claimed or promised that all MoC Blu-rays would be region-free. It certainly was my intention to fight very hard against region-coding, we were indeed trying to release everything region-free, and I had many draining conversations with many licensors and other labels.

So no promise was ever made? and thus no promise was ever "backtracked on very very quickly". At the time (2008-2010), Artificial Eye were releasing lots of Region Free Blu-rays too, and it looked very likely that MoC could also continue to release many more region-free Blu-rays.

Instead, what happened was that other labels started complaining about it. Whereas before contracts not stipulating region coding were quite common, they now started stipulating Region B and forced subs. So I spent a lot of time arguing against forced subs instead.

We had contracts that stipulated that "Blu-rays must be released on PAL format" etc, and I'd just push ahead with region-free, because the contract was so badly termed it wasn't legally binding. This led to arguments further down the line, with licensors saying "no, but you know what we mean!", etc.

I grew tired of it all, and this was one of many reasons why I chose to leave – so I'm keen that what actually did happen isn't mischaracterised to make us look like over-promising fools!

[TMDaines]

I simply find it impossible to believe that the likes of Crit and MoC haven't also faced similar situations, that would compromise their standards

Just out of curiosity, whence exactly springs this idea that AE has or aspires to comparable "standards" with MoC or Criterion? With all due respect to the great work they've done, and not to slight them at all, but personally I have never ever considered AE in any way equal to either. Criterion and MoC are boutique labels expressly dedicated to releasing deluxe editions of handpicked films (mostly older ones, which as noted above already puts them in a different situation) - and while in some ideal world everyone else should surely aspire to a similar standard, I don't think it's fair to shit on other, differently operating labels if they "fail" to meet them.

Sorry, my intention wasn't to give AE a backhanded compliment, in comparing them to others, then insisting that they fell short. I'm a big fan of them, hence my annoyance here, and they do a great job of getting contemporary cinema out at a great price, usually with some form of extras. They're one of the best labels out there in terms of value for money.

My point was merely that I'm sure other labels, who always make their subtitles optional, have faced similar resistance from licensors, and that they have overcome it, and haven't had to cave in and change their policy.

Instead, what happened was that other labels started complaining about it. Whereas before contracts not stipulating region coding were quite common, they now started stipulating Region B and forced subs. So I spent a lot of time arguing against forced subs instead.

I'm glad you bought this up because I've been given short shrift on my speculation that labels, such as your former one, would regularly be dealing with issues with a licensor, such as forced subtitles, and have successfully dealt with it in the past.

Can I ask whether it was a regularly request or not, and whether it ever proved to be such a sticking point that you felt that you had no alternative but not to release a particular film?

[peerpee]

Can I ask whether it was a regularly request or not, and whether it ever proved to be such a sticking point that you felt that you had no alternative but not to release a particular film?

The more successful a label gets, the more that other labels in other territories start moaning about this and that to the licensor. So, yes, we did start getting asked quite regularly to force subs. It just appeared in contracts suddenly, and I had to fight each one and get it removed from the contract. Oftentimes threatening to pull out of the deal if it wasn't allowed.

It's easier to *not fight*, and I would guess that's what has happened with Artificial Eye.

I demolished the licensor's argument each time by: i.) Highlighting that ex-pat French/German/Japanese/Italians living in the UK have the right to view the film as the director intended (ie. without ingrained/forced English subtitles), ii.) We've never, ever done it before, so we're not doing it now, and iii.) Criterion have never done it either.

This sort of shit needs constantly fighting against, and I did constantly fight and win.

[MichaelB]

I grew tired of it all, and this was one of many reasons why I chose to leave – so I'm keen that what actually did happen isn't mischaracterised to make us look like over-promising fools!

Fair enough - sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "promised".

I suspect I got that impression because in late 2008/early 2009 so many people round these parts were using MoC as a club to beat the BFI with because of the unfortunate coincidence that the BFI's first Blu-ray releases were region-locked and MoC's BD debuts were region-free - and were using your much more generalised statement of intent as "evidence" that MoC cared about its customers and the BFI didn't, or some such bollocks.

As we both knew perfectly well at the time, and which has amply been backed by five years' worth of supporting evidence, the BFI and MoC had and still have identical views on region-coding, which is to avoid it whenever possible.

It's easier to *not fight*, and I would guess that's what has happened with Artificial Eye.

I imagine their main concern was getting the disc out a.s.a.p.! The crucial difference between current and back-catalogue releases is that new releases can take advantage of what might be a huge amount of favourable coverage - and, in the case of Amour, an implausible number of Oscar nominations for a foreign-language film. And I doubt they'd want to delay the release with legal wrangling given all the opportunities that that presented.

[peerpee]

It's easier to *not fight*, and I would guess that's what has happened with Artificial Eye.

I imagine their main concern was getting the disc out a.s.a.p.! The crucial difference between current and back-catalogue releases is that new releases can take advantage of what might be a huge amount of favourable coverage - and, in the case of Amour, an implausible number of Oscar nominations for a foreign-language film. And I doubt they'd want to delay the release with legal wrangling given all the opportunities that that presented.

It's a phonecall. It's someone at AE needing to identify this as a big issue which requires them to get on the phone and not let this one slip by.

AE never used to force subs. What's changed? Nothing, except AE didn't think it mattered enough to fight for.

The overriding point is: "ex-pat French living in the UK have the right to view the film as the director intended (ie. without ingrained/forced English subtitles)". This kills it dead.

[TMDaines]

That's one of the arguments that I made, but sadly they don't appear to feel about it as strongly as you and I do.

I would love to get in touch with AE and hear what they have to say from their perspective, but they don't seem to respond often these days.

On a personal level, I at least feel that my line of thought wasn't asinine and I feel somewhat vindicated now that you've shared your experience, coming from a background where you were one of the few labels to always try and deliver your product to the highest standard for the end viewer. I'm certain that battling against restrictive and unfair licencing deals is par for the course when it comes to running a home video label.