The Business of Subtitles

Discuss internationally-released DVDs and Blu-rays or other international DVD and Blu-ray-related topics.
Message
Author
User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Artificial Eye

#26 Post by MichaelB » Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:57 am

swo17 wrote:I could also come up with 9 reasons about why I hate it when MoC locks its releases region B (yes, even though I have a region-free player). I might even not buy/keep a release primarily because of this. But it's an absurd thing to complain about. AE likely agrees with you in principle. They would just rather release the film slightly compromised in this way than not be able to release it at all. Furthermore, any other company that would have released it in the UK would surely have had to put up with this issue as well.
Of course they would, unless the distributor in question had sufficient clout to offer a persuasive alternative - for instance, if they were so powerful and had such a huge marketing budget that the mere act of them taking on the film might massively increase its revenue stream. Artificial Eye is certainly one of the heftier arthouse labels in Britain, but they're minnows compared with the big boys. But then again, the big boys might not be the slightest bit concerned about whether subtitles are fixed or optional!

Talking of which, we're assuming that it's Les Films du Losange behind this - it might just as easily be TF1 making it a contractual condition that all other Region B rightsholders have fixed subtitles, otherwise they won't take it on. And TF1 is a considerably bigger outfit than Les Films du Losange, and will almost certainly be responsible for the film's biggest revenue stream, since they're handling the rights in its native country. So it may well be the case that neither the rightsholder nor Artificial Eye had any choice - or at least not a choice that wouldn't leave them considerably worse off.

Obviously, this is guesswork, but it's reasonably educated and based on plenty of precedents - and it would also explain why Region A releases might not have the same restrictions, since TF1 presumably wouldn't care about them.
Last edited by MichaelB on Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
repeat
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:04 am
Location: high in the Custerdome

Re: Artificial Eye

#27 Post by repeat » Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:09 am

Honestly I don't even understand the issue here - it's just region coding all over again isn't it? That's the way the business works, and if you prefer not to dance to that beat, the only way to fight is to modify your system to circumvent forced subs (exactly as we've all had to modify ours to circumvent region coding) and encourage everyone you know to do the same, and eventually this too will be a non-issue. Of course it's frustrating, but I don't think there really is a realistic alternative solution.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Artificial Eye

#28 Post by MichaelB » Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:19 am

I'd hope that situations like this are comparatively rare.

For instance, I don't think Second Run has ever forced subtitles onto any of its releases* - but that's because they're deemed to have little value. In fact, the rightsholders might actively prefer the subtitles to be optional, since they may have failed to interest domestic distributors in taking on their films and would tacitly welcome purchases by people who speak the soundtrack language: I've personally seen loads of SR titles on sale in Poland and the Czech Republic, both online and over the counter.

But it's a very different situation with Amour, one of the highest-profile foreign-language titles in years. As with the region-locking deal that Kino and MoC made over Metropolis (another unusually hot property in its field), it may well be the case that distributors within the same Blu-ray region have formally (or even informally) agreed not to tread on each other's toes. And the easiest way of facilitating this is for the French distributor not to include English subtitles while the English distributor makes them compulsory.

(*UPDATE: I've just remembered that Gaea Girls and Shinjuku Boys has fixed subs, but from what I understand this was a simple budgeting issue - the only usable masters, originally created for TV in 1995/2000, had burned-in subtitles, the removal of which would necessitate the creation of entirely new masters. This was way outside Second Run's budget given the likely revenues from these titles - I'd hazard a guess that this disc doesn't rank high among the label's bestsellers - so I can see why they went down that route.)

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Artificial Eye

#29 Post by TMDaines » Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:31 am

Re: The TFI

Because I would like the option of the subtitles, hence why I am arguing for optional subtitles.
MichaelB wrote:Yes, but none of this impassioned itemising comes close to addressing my original question of what Artificial Eye could have done in this situation. As so often in these discussions (I recall a similar one with Nothing over region-coding), you're talking in generalities whereas I'm interested in specifics. How would you persuade the rightsholders in a situation like this to change their minds, given that the present situation presumably suits them down to the ground?
Why is it my job as a customer to tell AE how to successfully operate in their business, if, as you have pointed out, I don't work in the industry? All I can do is use my knowledge as a well-informed customer and outsider to analyse the situation and see that this goes against the grain. Where's this conversation supposed to go? Am I supposed to write a speech for a theoretical meeting, which you'll then grade or something? I wasn't aware this was a competency-based job interview!

AE have released a flawed product, that has compromised on one of their usual standards. As a result, I, the customer, who surely has the right to have an opinion on a product that I may be interested in buying, am expressing my dissatisfaction. Due to the fact that this issue has never been a problem until now, and the fixing of subtitles is usually done based on the policy of an individual label, both in Britian and American, but even in France, I strongly suggest that other companies have encountred this issue on numerous occasions and have successfully navigated around it.

Do you have concrete evidence that the fixing of subtitles is due to a rights issue with the distributor, anyway? Looking at their website, their catalogue of films has been released all around the world, including by AE, with optional subtitles.
swo17 wrote:I could also come up with 9 reasons about why I hate it when MoC locks its releases region B (yes, even though I have a region-free player). I might even not buy/keep a release primarily because of this. But it's an absurd thing to complain about. AE likely agrees with you in principle. They would just rather release the film slightly compromised in this way than not be able to release it at all. Furthermore, any other company that would have released it in the UK would surely have had to put up with this issue as well.
Why is it absurd to complain about it? If I'm handing over my money, I'm entitled to an opinion, no? Again the issue of fixing subtitles has never proven to an issue on the level of region encoding until now.

Edit: Just revising my figures. Looking at my spreadsheet:

I own 868 films on DVD/Blu-ray, 368 of which are from Britain or America, 309 of which are foreign language affairs.

Of that only 3 have fixed subtitles. That's 3/309 or 0.97%.

I've checked the region locking of 216 of them. 75 are region free; 141 are region locked. That's 141/216 or 65.28%

The proliferation of the two practices simply cannot be compared. I haven't updated the spreadsheet for a few weeks and nearly all my domestic purchases have been region-locked with optional subtitles.
Last edited by TMDaines on Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:53 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Artificial Eye

#30 Post by MichaelB » Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:46 am

TMDaines wrote:Why is it my job as a customer to tell AE how to successfully operate in their business, if, as you have pointed out, I don't work in the industry? All I can do is use my knowledge as a well-informed customer and outsider to analyse the situation and see that this goes against the grain. Where's this conversation supposed to go? Am I supposed to write a speech for a theoretical meeting, which you'll then grade or something? I wasn't aware this was a competency-based job interview!
I was merely asking if you had any practical suggestions that I could then pass on to Artificial Eye, or to an independent distributor faced with a similarly intractable-seeming situation involving stipulations laid down by the rightsholder or distributors in other territories. I'm guessing from your reaction that the answer is a pretty conclusive "no".
AE have released a flawed product, that has compromised on one of their usual standards. As a result, I, the customer, who surely has the right to have an opinion on a product that I may be interested in buying, am expressing my dissatisfaction. Due to the fact that this issue has never been a problem until now, and the fixing of subtitles is usually done based on the policy of an individual label, both in Britian and American, but even in France, I strongly suggest that other companies have encountred this issue on numerous occasions and have successfully navigated around it.
How can you "strongly suggest" this without providing actual examples? Surely the strength of your suggestion is, by definition, determined by the weight of supporting evidence?
Do you have concrete evidence that the fixing of subtitles is due to a rights issue with the distributor, anyway?
No, not at all - as I said, this is educated guesswork based on:

1. Artificial Eye's usual policy with subtitles (and indeed region coding);
2. The unusually high commercial value of this particular property, and the likelihood that its licensees would want to protect their presumably hefty licensing investment within their territory;
3. Previous known instances of distributors agreeing, either formally or informally, to make their releases unattractive to territories whose rights they haven't cleared - for instance Metropolis, or indeed a three-way UK/US/French agreement that I was myself involved with negotiating a few years ago over the Quay Brothers collection that I produced.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, and it could be Artificial Eye capriciously deciding to force subtitles off their own bat - but this seems much less likely to me. After all, what would be in it for them, given that vociferous complaints have already started even before the official release date?

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Artificial Eye

#31 Post by swo17 » Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:31 am

TMDaines wrote:Why is it absurd to complain about it?
1. Because this isn't a signal that AE don't know what they're doing and are going to rampantly ruin every future release that interests you, but rather this is something that was likely forced upon them and that would have been forced upon any UK distributor of the film.
2. Because they likely agree with you on every point other than your implicit one about forced subs being a dealbreaker.
3. Because there are at times issues that are legitimately worth complaining about, but when every single possible area in which a release might be considered less than ideal prompts these kinds of complaints, the legitimate complaints are drowned out with noise. In this environment, it is understandable that a DVD distributor might just throw his hands up in the air, say "well, we'll never please these guys," and ignore even the legitimate complaints.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Artificial Eye

#32 Post by MichaelB » Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:59 am

swo17 wrote:Because there are at times issues that are legitimately worth complaining about, but when every single possible area in which a release might be considered less than ideal prompts these kinds of complaints, the legitimate complaints are drowned out with noise. In this environment, it is understandable that a DVD distributor might just throw his hands up in the air, say "well, we'll never please these guys," and ignore even the legitimate complaints.
Oh, it's certainly worth complaining about, but I'm prepared to cut AE plenty of slack in this instance because it's unlikely to be a coincidence that their two recent forced-subs releases came from the same rightsholder, and that they're both titles of unusually strong commercial appeal.

On the other hand, the Bresson titles will have come from elsewhere (they're not in Les Films du Losange's current catalogue, at any rate), so if those have fixed subtitles, then we really do have a problem. And I won't be buying them.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Artificial Eye

#33 Post by zedz » Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:20 pm

swo17 wrote:I could also come up with 9 reasons about why I hate it when MoC locks its releases region B (yes, even though I have a region-free player). I might even not buy/keep a release primarily because of this. But it's an absurd thing to complain about. AE likely agrees with you in principle. They would just rather release the film slightly compromised in this way than not be able to release it at all. Furthermore, any other company that would have released it in the UK would surely have had to put up with this issue as well.
But don't you get it? TMDaines is sure this could have all been negotiated. And he's on the internet! What more proof do you need?

Image
"Oh, Daines, if only you ruled the world!"

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Artificial Eye

#34 Post by swo17 » Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:32 pm

MichaelB wrote:Oh, it's certainly worth complaining about, but I'm prepared to cut AE plenty of slack in this instance because it's unlikely to be a coincidence that their two recent forced-subs releases came from the same rightsholder, and that they're both titles of unusually strong commercial appeal.
I think we essentially agree. I wasn't referring to complaints about forced subs in general, just in this particular case. It seems to me a bit like the difference between complaining about film censorship in general vs. the removal of certain scenes of animal cruelty from DVDs distributed in the UK.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Artificial Eye

#35 Post by TMDaines » Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:57 pm

MichaelB wrote:How can you "strongly suggest" this without providing actual examples? Surely the strength of your suggestion is, by definition, determined by the weight of supporting evidence?
No, it literally means I suggest something strongly.

I know you're playing the devil's advocate but, correct me if I'm wrong, you're line of thought is that the licensor wanted AE to have mandatory subtitles on these releases because they are (apparently) relatively lucrative in their home market and they wished to ensure that they had the least competition possible in their home territory? These are the box office figures: really? If they only took this much money then why is it inconceivable that other labels have requested forced subtitling in the past, with similar reasoning, and other labels have negotiated around it? Why is it so inconceivable that the likes of Criterion and MoC have been faced with a licensor who wants them to force the subtitles on a particular release?
swo17 wrote:3. Because there are at times issues that are legitimately worth complaining about, but when every single possible area in which a release might be considered less than ideal prompts these kinds of complaints, the legitimate complaints are drowned out with noise. In this environment, it is understandable that a DVD distributor might just throw his hands up in the air, say "well, we'll never please these guys," and ignore even the legitimate complaints.
Oh dear! Now forced subtitles aren't a legit gripe and complaints about them are just "noise". Silly boy. Just because you yourself might not be able to speak any language other than English, which is what your comment is suggesting (although you may well do), does not mean that other people aren't capable of it and simply would you like the option to turn subtitles off. Just because I live in England does not mean that my mother tongue is English and I'm only capable of speaking that language.

Come over to my house and check out the variable quality of the DVDs on my shelf and the video files on my computer. You'll soon realise that I'm pretty much willing to support everyone who goes about things the right way and makes the best of what they have. I own several hundred releases that are far "less than ideal". What I'm not willing to support and turn a blind eye to are bad decisions that unnecessarily compromise a product, whether the licensor or the DVD label are to blame.

I know I'm very vocal in criticising labels when they get it wrong, but you'll find I'm pretty consistant on these things. I hate fixed subtitles and I hate unnecessary pictureboxing.
swo17 wrote:
MichaelB wrote:Oh, it's certainly worth complaining about, but I'm prepared to cut AE plenty of slack in this instance because it's unlikely to be a coincidence that their two recent forced-subs releases came from the same rightsholder, and that they're both titles of unusually strong commercial appeal.
I think we essentially agree. I wasn't referring to complaints about forced subs in general, just in this particular case.
Well, no. You were disagreeing. You were alleging that complaining about fixed subtitles wasn't a cause worth legitimately complaining about.
zedz wrote:But don't you get it? TMDaines is sure this could have all been negotiated. And he's on the internet! What more proof do you need?
Why do you feel the need to keep making personal attacks on me? You've contributed nothing to this discussion apart from attempting to belittle and mock me. I thought we were above that kind of thing here.

And considering you've decided to mock me by referring to post that draws a comparison to region locking and fixing subtitles, if you had had the courtesy to actually read this thread, you'd have seen that I attempted to provide some proof of the proliferation of the two practices as being incomparable.
Last edited by TMDaines on Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Artificial Eye

#36 Post by swo17 » Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:15 pm

TMDaines wrote:Oh dear! Now forced subtitles aren't a legit gripe and complaints about them are just "noise". Silly boy. Just because you yourself might not be able to speak any language other than English, which is what your comment is suggesting (although you may well do), does not mean that other people aren't capable of it and simply would you like the option to turn subtitles off.
I literally just got through saying in the previous post that I was only referring to forced subtitles in the particular case of these two AE releases, which I consider an illegitimate (or more precisely, pointless) gripe given the presumption (well covered by MichaelB) that AE have no choice in the matter and so couldn't address your complaints even if they wanted to.

And for the record, I can speak more than one language.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Artificial Eye

#37 Post by TMDaines » Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:25 pm

Then I presume that you don't need, or want, English subtitles on a Spanish film? Wouldn't it annoy you if a couple of Spanish films you wished to own had fixed subtitles? Wouldn't you want to air this gripe?

Sorry, but I think we just fundamentally disagree on whether pigs would be more likely to fly than or this licensor would be willing to allow AE to release these films with optional subtitles. My position is that I'm sure other labels have faced similar resistance and dealt with it. Of course, I can't prove that. You can't prove your stance either. What I take exception to, is being trolled (not by you or MichaelB) and being made to feel like I should just remain silent, simply because there is the mere presumption that AE were "forced" to fix the subtitles - and because of this presumption any grievances, towards either AE or the practice itself, are unjust.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Artificial Eye

#38 Post by swo17 » Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:50 pm

I have a number of DVDs in my collection for which I would kill to have the only thing wrong with them be that there were forced subs. It's just not as much of a concern for me, even for a Spanish-language film. But this discussion probably shouldn't be about personal preference.

If we're all to the point now of arguing primarily based on speculation about AE's ability to negotiate on this issue, then perhaps this discussion would best be shelved until we find out how the Bressons get treated?

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Artificial Eye

#39 Post by TMDaines » Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:18 pm

Sure. I'm contented now that I think I've better made my point.

Personally, I really don't have too many discs with forced subtitles, as I'll be importing them if the English-friendly releases are like that. It's not as if I've been avoiding buy certain films as there is no release without forced subtitles. I've got 834 films in my database, which needs updating, that shows I have three with forced English subtitles (all from labels that always do it), two with burnt in English subtitles (two documentaries) and one with forced French subtitles (Wild Side, who always do it). I thought I had more, because I will buy a release with forced subtitles, if the overall package is otherwise fine and there's no better alternative.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: Artificial Eye

#40 Post by Finch » Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:10 pm

Fixed subtitles are among the things that I agree are unnecessary but they are also not a dealbreaker for me. If a film is released in seveal editions, I take other things into consideration: A/V quality being the most important, quality of the subtitles, bonus features or the lack thereof etc. Other than English, I only speak German fluent (my French is appalling), and even with a film like Amour (which I frankly didn't care for), I'd rely on subtitles to get the gist of what's happening. Even with a German film release, I wouldn't especially hold it against the disc if the English subtitles were forced: personally, I always like to see how the official translation compares with mine, and my husband and my friends all don't speak German, so they'd be reliant on subtitles. I'm not contesting that ideally they should be optional (although, with German films, I often leave them on for the reason above) but let's say

We have a UK and US release of a foreign language title, both of which feature comparable or identical bonus features and equally good subtitles but the UK disc has forced subtitles. In this situation, I'd go for the cheaper disc, even if that disc were the one with fixed subtitles.

If I had had any interest in Amour, the fixed subtitles would not have deterred me from potentially buying the Artificial Eye BD although I'd probably have waited to see how the forthcoming US BD would have fared in a PQ/AQ comparison. I'd agree to wait and see if fixed subtitles remain an issue on the Bresson discs. Did you ever contact AE themselves about the fixed subtitles, TMD?

User avatar
manicsounds
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: Artificial Eye

#41 Post by manicsounds » Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:30 pm

I dont see why an average French person would buy a UK or any other version of "Holy Motors" besides the French disc, since none of the others have French subs for the English scenes. Again, AE doesnt have to worry about parallel French exports, except for the minor population of French who wouldn't mind a non-french subbed version of it.

Is that clearly said? Maybe it isnt...

David M.
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm

Re: Artificial Eye

#42 Post by David M. » Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:46 pm

Burned-in subtitles are a strange issue.

When it comes to foreign language titles, I wouldn't be happy with discs that feature them - even although, given the chance to turn off player-generated subtitles, I would likely never do so. The point is that I don't want to be denied the option.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's how it is.

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

Re: Artificial Eye

#43 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:25 am

Cinema Interior:
A packed house. Hushed anticipation as the credits for 'Amour' roll. A subtitle 'Love' pops up, as does the silhouette of a figure in the middle of the audience who pushes agitatedly along the row and storms up the aisle.
Interior Projection Booth.
Urgent rapping on the door which opens to reveal a glowering T.M. Daines
T.M.D. "This is a digital projection right?"
Projectionist. 'Yes"
T.M.D "So you can remove the subtitles, right?
Projectionist (incredulous). 'You want me to remove the subtitles?"
T.M.D. "NO, but i want to know if you can".
Projectionist.(curtly) Well I can't.
T.M.D."I want my money back".

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Artificial Eye

#44 Post by TMDaines » Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:41 am

If only you knew how I spent yesterday evening dealing with customers' complaints and knocking on the projectionist's door at the cinema where I volunteer...

I didn't contact AE as I've tried twice before and never even got a response. Has anyone ever been able to get in contact with them for questions?

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Artificial Eye

#45 Post by Tommaso » Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:13 am

David M. wrote:It doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's how it is.
It makes a lot of sense, if only in re-watching. I watched large chunks of Kurosawa's "Ran" again without subtitles even though I don't speak a word of Japanese, only to take in those amazing images without distraction. The same if you watch a foreign-language film and play the audiocommentary, for example. I'm still angry at Second Sight about the burned-in subs on "Lola Montes".

User avatar
vsski
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: Artificial Eye

#46 Post by vsski » Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:22 pm

Something tells me that if AE is reading this thread they'd still be sleeping well even in the knowledge that they have lost TMDaines as a customer.

While amusing to read, I honestly don't fully understand the argument, unless TMDaines is trying to alert the masses to be aware of this potentially becoming a widespread issue, which clearly at the moment it isn't.
Everyone here agrees that they prefer to have subtitles be optional rather than burned-in. TMDaines is the only one I can see who on principle will not buy a disc with burned-in subtitles if an English friendly alternative is out there that has them optional, the majority of folks don't seem to see this as a dealbreaker.
While MichaelB's reasoning seems plausible, no one knows for sure why the AE disc has burned-in subtitles.

I'm certainly with Finch that A/V quality of a release trumps everything else and I wouldn't buy an inferior quality release just because the subtitles can be removed, but interpreting TMDaines' argument that would be his logical conclusion (although in fairness to TMDaines, he didn't express his opinion what he would do if the alternative with removable titles would be inferior quality wise).

So what are we arguing about here, the danger of burned-in subtitles becoming the norm? The need to stick it to a label if they don't release something the way we want it?

User avatar
AidanKing
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:22 pm
Location: Cornwall, U.K.

Re: Artificial Eye

#47 Post by AidanKing » Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:06 pm

TMDaines wrote: I didn't contact AE as I've tried twice before and never even got a response. Has anyone ever been able to get in contact with them for questions?
They used to be pretty good before the sale to Curzon. They did a replacement deal when Mirror originally only had a 5.1 remix of the soundtrack and they replaced Lady of Musashino when some of the discs froze up near the end.

They'll still deal with things that they see as a problem, such as two discs on the first Angelopoulos set freezing, where they got internet retailers to contact all purchasers so they could send replacement discs directly to them. However, if they don't see it as being a problem (e.g.the Mizoguchi DVD set being formatted as if it was widescreen), they are less interested, although they did reply about this saying that they didn't intend to re-do the discs. With regard to Angelopoulos again, they never responded at all to the issue of The Hunters supposedly being cut.

So, a bit of a mixed bag all in all, with preparedness to answer questions not being absolutely terrible, but not being as good as it was.

I would imagine that they would not respond to the issue of fixed subtitles on Amour, not because they're not bothered but because Michael B's view that this is probably a condition imposed by the French distributor (rather than the production company) is clearly the most logical reason, not least because it would be much cheaper to import a copy of the AE disc to France than it would be to buy the French disc in France, so a lot of potential sales could be lost. If this is the case, AE's deal would possibly not even allow them to mention the issue as it would be seen as commercially sensitive information.

The opposing view that AE aren't too concerned about the fixed subtitles seems unlikely to me, particularly bearing in mind their track record. Having said that, I don't know whether they would have negotiated because they would have known that they would be unlikely to be successful because of the effect removable subtitles on the AE disc would have had on sales of the French disc in France.

By the way, does anyone know why French discs are more expensive? Is it because cinema is more valued as an art form in France? It may sound odd but I often see DVDs in HMV etc for £3.00 and think that that's a ludicrously low price.

User avatar
perkizitore
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:29 pm
Location: OOP is the only answer

Re: Artificial Eye

#48 Post by perkizitore » Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:19 pm

AE are unreachable, they are not even picking up the phone! I haven't tried writing them or going to their offices, but I might try that in the future if they really piss me off with something.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Artificial Eye

#49 Post by TMDaines » Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:33 pm

vsski wrote:Something tells me that if AE is reading this thread they'd still be sleeping well even in the knowledge that they have lost TMDaines as a customer.
For a start, other people have said they've cancelled orders, so it's not like I'm the only one. Also, I've made clear that I just won't be pre-ordering from AE in future and may even still buy their release if a better alternative isn't available.
vsski wrote: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?
vsski wrote:Everyone here agrees that they prefer to have subtitles be optional rather than burned-in. TMDaines is the only one I can see who on principle will not buy a disc with burned-in subtitles if an English friendly alternative is out there that has them optional, the majority of folks don't seem to see this as a dealbreaker.
I haven't been talking about burnt-in subtitles. Fixed and burnt-in subtitles are two entirely different things and usually happen for two entirely different reasons. Furthermore, I already noted that I own discs with both kinds of subtitles, but that I don't appreciate the practises and I'll look to avoid them, especially when they need not be there. If you're going to patronise me and what I've said, then at least be accurate.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Artificial Eye

#50 Post by zedz » Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:48 pm

TMDaines wrote:
zedz wrote:But don't you get it? TMDaines is sure this could have all been negotiated. And he's on the internet! What more proof do you need?
Why do you feel the need to keep making personal attacks on me? You've contributed nothing to this discussion apart from attempting to belittle and mock me. I thought we were above that kind of thing here.
Because every single time you strike a release that displeases you for some reason (usually it's the price, which you feel should be tailored to your wallet regardless of the production circumstances), you immediately pontificate about the terrible business acumen of the label, or the infeasibility of their business model, and you do so from a position of ignorance. I'm sure the complex licensing negotiations you've been involved in can be counted on the fingers of one knee, but nevertheless you will bray long and hard about what all the professionals did wrong that you would have magically done right, while ignoring the calm corrections and explanations of people who actually do have some life experience. You're not adding anything to the conversation but meaningless bluster.

Post Reply