Third Window Films Discussion Thread

[fatboyslim142]

Originally Posted by thirdwindowfilms

Bluray? How many distributors will put out a 45 minute film on bluray, and how many people will actually buy it?

BFI released the British film The Orchard End Murder & that was 50 mins long. They also released Jean Renoir's Partie de campagne & that's ONLY 40 mins long.

Anyway couldn't the 45 min film have been released as a double bill with another of the director's films?

[mmarczi]

To be fair, that Jean Renoir film is a massive, massive exception as an iconic piece of world cinema, which is also fleshed out with extensive additional footage. The point is, 45-minute films as standalone Blu-Ray releases are incredibly rare to the point of virtual non-existence. I understand Adam's point the way he lays it out, but I can see it being included in some future release, as you suggest, as part of some double bill.

[Rutger Lundgren]

Originally Posted by thirdwindowfilms

I don't know why you think this way limits the film's reach.

Regardless of the film's length and other potential factors, the way they chose to distribute it definitely limits its prospects in at least two ways:

1 - by making this the exclusive way of seeing the film going forward, and

2 - by limiting the number of available copies.

There's no need for either of those. They could've easily chosen to distribute it over this platform, giving it all the benefits that you mention, while leaving options to distribute it in other ways in addition to that on the table. And likewise, they could've not limited the amount of available copies - just let everyone who wants to buy the license simply buy the license!

The latter is probably inherent to the platform, a move designed to attract buyers at a higher price point and protect their investment. Even presuming that it actually works like that (and the way that countless similar NFT schemes have crumbled suggests that it doesn't really), that decision is obviously slanted toward benefitting the platform itself and the limited number of "investors" (seemingly 1000 of them in this case), to the detriment of everyone else potentialy interested in owning a copy of this film (or hey, even distributing it to other people, which means that it's detrimental to creators as well). And let's face it, it's likely that only a small number of buyers will actually rent it out to other preople - a good portion of licenses are likely to go to fans with deeper pockets who will just sit on them. In reality people are inert like that, and not everyone redistributes the physical copies that they don't use anymore either, even when they could make some money back (honestly, I'm one of those).

Aside from that, you make some valid points, and it would be foolish of me to suggest that I know more about the actual business than you do, but I believe that what I said still stands. Exclusivity is limiting by definition.

Oh, and what you said about piracy of potential Blu-ray releases - I'm pretty sure that this DVT platform won't prevent pirated copies from appearing, if they haven't appeared already. People share shoddily recorded screeners all the time, so no amount of DRM will really help in that regard.

[fatboyslim142]

Originally Posted by mmarczi

To be fair, that Jean Renoir film is a massive, massive exception as an iconic piece of world cinema, which is also fleshed out with extensive additional footage. The point is, 45-minute films as standalone Blu-Ray releases are incredibly rare to the point of virtual non-existence. I understand Adam's point the way he lays it out, but I can see it being included in some future release, as you suggest, as part of some double bill.

I know it's just that was one of ONLY two examples I could think of when I wrote what I did. Double bills are best way of getting some films out that would either never get a release.

[thirdwindowfilms]

Originally Posted by fatboyslim142

BFI released the British film The Orchard End Murder & that was 50 mins long. They also released Jean Renoir's Partie de campagne & that's ONLY 40 mins long.

Anyway couldn't the 45 min film have been released as a double bill with another of the director's films?

You're thinking of this from the point of a distributor.

I'm trying to explain this (playing devil's advocate) from the side of the people who made the film and have decided on this course of action.

You say it can be released as a double bill, but the people who made this film only made this film. So, who is responsible for the 2nd film in that 'double bill'?

It's the job of the distributor to find that 2nd film to fit this double bill, and all the complexities around that (legal issues of combining 2 films from different companies onto the same disc, accounting issues arising from that, plus extended costs of buying the rights of 2 films yet being sold in 1 package, etc).

So, should the creators just assume that all distributors will find another film and have all that planned ahead of time before this film is ready to be sold? And how does that work across each territory? One of the 'double bill' titles may be available in some territories, but not others.
All these things need to be planned ahead of making the film so they can decide how they plan on selling the rights to this film (so that they can adjust the film's budget to work with their plans).

They obviously thought this strategy would work best with this film instead of hoping that distributors will be able to find other films to create 'double bills' and went with this way.

[thirdwindowfilms]

Originally Posted by Rutger Lundgren

Regardless of the film's length and other potential factors, the way they chose to distribute it definitely limits its prospects in at least two ways:

1 - by making this the exclusive way of seeing the film going forward, and

2 - by limiting the number of available copies.

There's no need for either of those. They could've easily chosen to distribute it over this platform, giving it all the benefits that you mention, while leaving options to distribute it in other ways in addition to that on the table. And likewise, they could've not limited the amount of available copies - just let everyone who wants to buy the license simply buy the license!

The latter is probably inherent to the platform, a move designed to attract buyers at a higher price point and protect their investment. Even presuming that it actually works like that (and the way that countless similar NFT schemes have crumbled suggests that it doesn't really), that decision is obviously slanted toward benefitting the platform itself and the limited number of "investors" (seemingly 1000 of them in this case), to the detriment of everyone else potentialy interested in owning a copy of this film (or hey, even distributing it to other people, which means that it's detrimental to creators as well). And let's face it, it's likely that only a small number of buyers will actually rent it out to other preople - a good portion of licenses are likely to go to fans with deeper pockets who will just sit on them. In reality people are inert like that, and not everyone redistributes the physical copies that they don't use anymore either, even when they could make some money back (honestly, I'm one of those).

.

I think limiting the amount of copies keeps the price to a decent point where the owner of each copy will be incentivized to try and recoup that cost by renting it out, making it more available for more.

If it's an unlimited number of copies, available for an unlimited amount of time, then nobody will buy it at first, making it very hard to recoup the initial costs of making a film.
For example, how many people buy standard editions of blurays and how many people buy limited editions? The amount of people who watch the films immediately are very low, but limited edition blurays are made to recoup the distribution costs as soon as possible. Standard editions may sell the same amount of units in the long-run, but because they're easily available buyers won't rush out to buy them, and in the end might even forget to buy them. Happens all the time, and I tend to sell the most amount of standard editions when they're going or have gone out of print, 7 years after they went on sale.

So having this limited number (which is pretty big to be honest) balances the fact that people will buy them quickly and at the same time keeps them at a good price point to make those buyers want to rent them out to recoup that inlay.
I'd say the amount of people who will spend 15,000yen on a 45 minute, minor Japanese film just to watch it once is very much the minority of people who are a part of this. The majority will buy it to rent it out, making it accessible for all the people who want to see it and not need to pay 15,000yen.

[Rutger Lundgren]

Originally Posted by thirdwindowfilms

I think limiting the amount of copies keeps the price to a decent point where the owner of each copy will be incentivized to try and recoup that cost by renting it out, making it more available for more.

If it's an unlimited number of copies, available for an unlimited amount of time, then nobody will buy it at first, making it very hard to recoup the initial costs of making a film.
For example, how many people buy standard editions of blurays and how many people buy limited editions? The amount of people who watch the films immediately are very low, but limited edition blurays are made to recoup the distribution costs as soon as possible. Standard editions may sell the same amount of units in the long-run, but because they're easily available buyers won't rush out to buy them, and in the end might even forget to buy them. Happens all the time, and I tend to sell the most amount of standard editions when they're going or have gone out of print, 7 years after they went on sale.

So having this limited number (which is pretty big to be honest) balances the fact that people will buy them quickly and at the same time keeps them at a good price point to make those buyers want to rent them out to recoup that inlay.
I'd say the amount of people who will spend 15,000yen on a 45 minute, minor Japanese film just to watch it once is very much the minority of people who are a part of this. The majority will buy it to rent it out, making it accessible for all the people who want to see it and not need to pay 15,000yen.

I understand that's the theoretical reasoning behind it, but I'm not convinced that it's really going go work that way in reality, especially since the price is not that high - I regularly pay similar prices for importing a couple of Blu-rays from Asia.

(Just as a side note, how is renting out such videos covered in legal terms? Don't you have to be formally registered for such endeavours, pay taxes to your country and so on? In which case you're again limiting the potential reach because not everyone who buys it will be legally able to rent it out.)

The problem of incentivizing initial sales is solvable in multiple other ways. One you mention yourself, offer more tantalizing packages to early buyers, but then let everyone else who is interested get standard editions. No reason not to have a similar thing in digital form. Or you could offer early bird prices to the first x buyers, then sell the rest at an increased price point. Both solutions that are far more consumer-friendly that tying your product to an NFT scheme which puts a hard limit on the number of available copies.

And once again, there's no reason to completely shut down potential additional revenue streams by making this the only way of seeing the film. Even big streaming companies are starting to realize that locking things down to a single distribution model doesn't always work in their favour.

[Yami]

While we wait in hope of more Obayashi releases from Third Window, followers of this thread might be interested to learn that Kani have picked up Obayashi's Beijing Watermelon for US release - undoubtedly there'll be a Blu-Ray down the line but they're giving it a limited theatrical release before that

[Official Trailer] Beijing Watermelon - YouTube

[Daedolon]

Talking about licensing, does anyone know why neither of the Nightmare Detective films have yet to receive either UK or US releases?

I feel like I heard an explanation years ago but I can't recall, plus an update on this would nice anyway. Further Tsukamoto releases would be amazing to see, regardless of the film.

As far as Obayashi goes, I'd be all over anything TWF puts out.

[Cinematt]

Originally Posted by Daedolon

Talking about licensing, does anyone know why neither of the Nightmare Detective films have yet to receive either UK or US releases?

I feel like I heard an explanation years ago but I can't recall, plus an update on this would nice anyway. Further Tsukamoto releases would be amazing to see, regardless of the film.

From way back in 2021 when I asked the same thing:

Originally Posted by thirdwindowfilms

Nightmare Detective is a super complicated situation, but similar to why VITAL has not been possible to release in the UK (and also for titles like 2LDK). The situation with those titles is that the company who originally bought the rights (Nightmare's case it was WEINSTEIN COMPANY and in Vital/2LDK it was TARTAN), bought the rights for a very long period of time and then went bankrupt. That puts the rights in limbo as Japanese companies (whom I've tried pushing for these cases) are reluctant to retrieve the rights without getting permission from people connected to the companies which went bankrupt (which is obviously impossible due to those companies being bankrupt) so things stay in limbo until the original contract expires.
In the case of NIGHTMARE, Weinstein bought English Language rights, which means North America, UK, Australia (hence the German bluray being ok), so no luck on an English language physical release any time soon. It would seem like Lionsgate must have taken over some of the catalogue, such as Nightmare, to continue exploiting as such (internet), but they won't re-release it on any other formats as it's probably pretty automated in regards to exploitation of rights.
I spent about a year trying to get answers myself (including speaking to the original sales agents, japanese production company, etc) and unfortunately the above is what I found out.

Wish I was able to somehow make a 'sticky' post on google which would allow all people who ask about this to find out easily!

[Daedolon]

Hopefully they didn't get the rights perpetually, but who knows. That's really sad.

[Crispy Noodle]

Originally Posted by thirdwindowfilms

I don't know why you think this way limits the film's reach.

First off, remember it's just 45 minutes long. So for film festivals, it falls out of the boundaries of both short and feature films, making it hard to program.

Theatrical screenings? How many cinemas near you will play a 45 minute film?

Bluray? How many distributors will put out a 45 minute film on bluray, and how many people will actually buy it?
So, using a 'classic model' you could sell the entire license of the film to one company in the US and they could possibly put out a bluray, Region A, which then people in Region B territory would complain about. And if it were to make it out on bluray, maybe you'd sell 1000 copies at max, but it would instantly be pirated and how would that help the film's creators?

But even if a US company bought it, they'd probably just put it on VOD and then just people in the US could see it, and would still need to pay a rental fee to watch it, which is exactly what is being offered here, except here it will be possible to rent it worldwide (after May 13).

And if a US or whatever distributor were to buy exclusive rights, then the creators would just get a small fee from that compared to a much larger amount they'd be making from this model.

Plus, in regards to 'reach', bringing back my previous point, but if 1 distributor with 5,000 followers on Twitter took it and had exclusive control, then how many people would even know about the release? With this model, you have up to 1000 people with licenses, each who would want to recoup the cost they paid for their license and therefore try to reach as many people as they could to rent it to. Maybe some would just have 10-100 contacts, but you could have people like myself who have much more, and the total number of people reached through all license holders would be exponential. And, each sale benefits the creators (including the director) in multiple ways, from the original license sale to a percentage of each rental.

Remember his last feature length film WIFE OF A SPY? How accessible has that been? That was released in a typical distribution model and look what happened with that. And that's a feature length film, not a 45 minute one.

So I think it's a pretty decent idea from the creators, considering the length of the film. Remember the director will get a share of all sales, something which won't happen with a 'classic' type of distribution model.

Not disagreeing with your point, but puzzled about the Wife of a Spy example, as this was released in the US on bluray by Kino and is readily available. I have it.

[Yami]

Originally Posted by Daedolon

As far as Obayashi goes, I'd be all over anything TWF puts out.

Same. Very happy with all the titles that TWF are putting out at the moment but hopefully they're not finished with Obayashi yet.

[Yurakucho]

Wife of a Spy was unbelievably drab-looking. I believe it was made for TV but - for some reason - received a lot of international attention. If Tadanobu Asano has made a career out of a rich variety of interesting roles, Yu Aoi is like the anti-Asano.

[thirdwindowfilms]

Originally Posted by Crispy Noodle

Not disagreeing with your point, but puzzled about the Wife of a Spy example, as this was released in the US on bluray by Kino and is readily available. I have it.

but not as readily available as what CHIME could be as WIFE was distributed in a limited numbers of territories only, with region locked discs and on VOD available just to the licensed countries.
I'm sure the US bluray barely sold any copies.

For example, if you were in the UK, and with a locked player and no VPN, how could you watch it?

Chime is essentially available either to rent or buy worldwide

That's my point (and I'm playing devil's advocate to the Chime model - just trying to explain it)

[fatboyslim142]

Originally Posted by thirdwindowfilms

Nightmare Detective is a super complicated situation, but similar to why VITAL has not been possible to release in the UK (and also for titles like 2LDK). The situation with those titles is that the company who originally bought the rights (Nightmare's case it was WEINSTEIN COMPANY and in Vital/2LDK it was TARTAN), bought the rights for a very long period of time and then went bankrupt. That puts the rights in limbo as Japanese companies (whom I've tried pushing for these cases) are reluctant to retrieve the rights without getting permission from people connected to the companies which went bankrupt (which is obviously impossible due to those companies being bankrupt) so things stay in limbo until the original contract expires.
In the case of NIGHTMARE, Weinstein bought English Language rights, which means North America, UK, Australia (hence the German bluray being ok), so no luck on an English language physical release any time soon. It would seem like Lionsgate must have taken over some of the catalogue, such as Nightmare, to continue exploiting as such (internet), but they won't re-release it on any other formats as it's probably pretty automated in regards to exploitation of rights.
I spent about a year trying to get answers myself (including speaking to the original sales agents, japanese production company, etc) and unfortunately the above is what I found out.

Wish I was able to somehow make a 'sticky' post on google which would allow all people who ask about this to find out easily!

Odd that Unearthed Films, in the US, ONLY released 2LDK on BD instead of doing both halves of The Duel Project in the same release like it should always be presented.

[Cinematt]

Originally Posted by Yurakucho

Wife of a Spy was unbelievably drab-looking. I believe it was made for TV but - for some reason - received a lot of international attention. If Tadanobu Asano has made a career out of a rich variety of interesting roles, Yu Aoi is like the anti-Asano.

It was first shown on TV, and then they changed the aspect ratio from 1.78:1 to 1.85:1, regraded it and gave it a 5.1 mix, and put it into competition at Venice. I think it's only the theatrical version that has been made available on disc (the Kino is 1.85 and 5.1) but I couldn't find any comparison between the two so I don't actually know what was changed with the colour grading.

[xiiidan]

Has anyone given buying or renting Chime a go yet?

[Rutger Lundgren]

Originally Posted by xiiidan

Has anyone given buying or renting Chime a go yet?

Last week I registered on the website because I wanted to learn more about the platform (because of course you have to register just to access even the most basic info). After I had entered the code sent to me by email, the registration process got stuck on this screen:



Now most pages that I try to access give me this message:





And I'm also getting spam from Blocto, which seems to be the provider of the blockchain tech that Roadstead is built on.

Any glimmer of desire to give this a try is gone, yuck this shit.

[rapta]

Err...Mermaid Legend is incoming?!

https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/merma...pwwc0xmdixmtq2

Will definitely be getting this one! Wasn't as sure with the recent batch of Director Company titles (though The Crazy Family does look fun), but Mermaid Legend is more like it. Glad they managed to sort the rights out in the end!