|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 327 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 257 of 327:
| 
Feb 25 02:02 UTC 2003 |
I hate dubbed films - they can never really get the voices right.
|
furs
|
|
response 258 of 327:
|
Feb 25 02:40 UTC 2003 |
I don't like dubbed movies either, I much prefer subtitles.
I also like listening to the foreign language and match what I know to
the english words. :)
|
bru
|
|
response 259 of 327:
|
Feb 25 03:45 UTC 2003 |
speaking of subtitles...
Just rented a "Dirty Pair" CD adn have been watching it tonight. What is
interesting is the voice over is in english, and the subtitles are in engish,
but they don't match.
The gist of the conversations are the same, but totally different.
"Come on, Do it."
Vs.
"This is stupid"
"Is anything wrong"
Vs.
"Is there a problem"
Of you don't know who the Dirty Pair are, they are an anime interga;actic
Trouble shooters.
|
janc
|
|
response 260 of 327:
|
Feb 25 13:17 UTC 2003 |
Accurate subtitles are extremely rare. Since I speak German, I notice
this mostly on German language films. Sure, sometimes things need to be
shortened to be readable quickly enough, but I often find I can come up
with much more accurate translations that aren't any longer. And I'm
hardly an expert translator. I don't know *who* they get to do these
things.
However, I like subtitles much better than dubbing, and don't think it
detracts from the experience at all. Plus it makes it easier to eat
crunchy food while watching the movie.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 261 of 327:
|
Feb 25 14:15 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 262 of 327:
|
Feb 25 15:16 UTC 2003 |
With the capabilities inherent in the DVD medium, dubbed versus
subtitled should be an old argument (as should letterboxed versus
pan-and-scan). However, it isn't. I've recently purchased two French films
that, for some bizaare reason, cannot be played with the original French
language dialogue and soundtrack, though they can be played in English with
somewhat dubious French subtitles, and one American film that I *can* play
in French with English subtitles. It just shouldn't happen like that!
|
edina
|
|
response 263 of 327:
|
Feb 25 15:42 UTC 2003 |
I came up one evening to find my roommates watching "Brotherhood of the Wolf"
on DVD, dubbed. I nearly fainted. The idea of watching a movie NOT in the
original language just seems wrong.
|
jazz
|
|
response 264 of 327:
|
Feb 25 15:45 UTC 2003 |
That's one of the ones that I bought that you *can't* watch in French.
It really pissed me off. Especially since I bought it after seeing it in the
theatre, in French, with English subtitles below the visible action.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 265 of 327:
|
Feb 25 16:00 UTC 2003 |
Re #260: another requirement for subtitles is that, when spoken, the
mouth movements are similar to what are the actor's mouth movements
and emphases. This is attained to various levels of versimilitude, in
my observation depending upon what "grade" is the movie. I find it
hilarious when the subtitle is a long sentence when the actor obviously
spoke just a couple of words...or vica versa. I think it takes a lot
of skill and effort to synchronize these patterns of speech. This is
obviously more important with dubbing as your attention is more on
mouths, but also makes a difference with subtitles.
|
edina
|
|
response 266 of 327:
|
Feb 25 16:02 UTC 2003 |
Re 264 What do you mean you CAN'T watch it in French. I have.
|
jazz
|
|
response 267 of 327:
|
Feb 25 18:02 UTC 2003 |
The DVD has no option for a French soundtrack.
|
edina
|
|
response 268 of 327:
|
Feb 25 19:08 UTC 2003 |
Ok - I must now rush home and test mine again.
|
gregb
|
|
response 269 of 327:
|
Feb 26 19:50 UTC 2003 |
Re. 253: Hey, I can mutitask with the best of'um. In fact, I'm do so
right now. I'm typing this and watching the screen AT THE SAME TIME!
And listening to Duran Duran to boot. Damn, I'm good! 8-)
Re. 255: Same sitch here, Twila. Except I got a 27" set 4' away.
DVD's are great for pausing to read the subtitles, if necessary.
Re: 257: Reminds me of Enter the Dragon. Weird hearing Chuck Norris's
voice dubbed by someone else.
|
lynne
|
|
response 270 of 327:
|
Feb 26 20:14 UTC 2003 |
I find it entertaining and a good use of language skills to watch an
American movie that's been dubbed into German. Also, the choice of voices
is often highly entertaining--DiCaprio in Titanic, for instance, was given
this whiny brown-nosing dork voice that was hysterical.
|
void
|
|
response 271 of 327:
|
Feb 27 08:03 UTC 2003 |
Finally saw "The Last Temptation of Christ" in its entirety.
|
clees
|
|
response 272 of 327:
|
Feb 27 11:52 UTC 2003 |
You guys are spoilt.
Anything coming from UK, France, US etc. has subtitles, overhere.
Convenient for you english speaking people if from anlgosaxon
counyries. (which dominate our tv stations and movie theaters)
Dubbing is rightout annoying.
On the other hand - if I can choose - I rahter watch movies on BBC.
Like Jan says, many subtitles are awkward at best, or wrong
misinterpreted etc. Mainly cause of work pressure there is no time for
decent jobs, or those typist persons aren't good enough in languages.
|
gregb
|
|
response 273 of 327:
|
Feb 27 14:44 UTC 2003 |
"Spolit." Is that a slang term? ;-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 274 of 327:
|
Feb 27 16:54 UTC 2003 |
(Of course, most Dutch speak four languages anyway - a slight advantage.)
|
arabella
|
|
response 275 of 327:
|
Feb 28 23:50 UTC 2003 |
When I was in the Czech Republic in 2001 I went to see "Chocolat"
subtitled in Czech. It was fun, and I think I learned a bit of
Czech that way.
Years ago I saw "Star Wars" dubbed into French on French TV. (The
French seem to prefer dubbing to subtitling.) The voice they
picked for Han Solo was high and whiny. Hysterical!
Actually, I've read that subtitling is common in smaller languages/
countries, because the audience isn't big enough to justify the
expense of dubbing. Thus, it's easy to find American movies
dubbed into French or German, but not Czech (or Bulgarian, or
Albanian, etc...) I did see "Notting Hill" subtitled in German
when I was in Austria, but it was at a special theater that
showed subtitled rather than dubbed movies.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 276 of 327:
|
Mar 3 17:09 UTC 2003 |
Has anyone seen " The Caveman's Valentine"?
|
janc
|
|
response 277 of 327:
|
Mar 4 04:21 UTC 2003 |
I recently saw a historical romance where a man and a woman were headed
of on a trip together. Since the kids were sleeping, I had the volume
turned fairly low and English subtitles turned on. The man, wondering
if sex was a possibility said something along the lines of "Shall we
lodge together?" The subtitle said "Shall we lunch together?" Half
died laughing.
|
janc
|
|
response 278 of 327:
|
Mar 4 04:51 UTC 2003 |
Recently saw on video, "The Fast Runner". This is a Canadian film, set
among Inuit Indians, probably some time in the past (certainly there was
no sign of any white men or modern technology). It apparantly won a lot
of film festival awards.
It's a bit hard to describe. "Really bad" might cover it for most
viewers. But, on the other hand, it just might be terrific. I can't
quite decide. Certainly one gets the strong sense that the film-makers
have somehow never seen any Hollywood films. The actors all appear to
be Inuits, none of whom approach Hollywood standards of beauty. To some
degree it doesn't matter, since most of the time most of them are
bundled up in furs, so you can hardly tell one character from another.
The story is full of love, sex, passion, murder, magic and revenge, but
it all rather drags, acted out by half-frozen people in an artic
wasteland. The cinematography is handicapped by the fact that most of
it is filmed outdoors in the snow, where the light is *never* right.
The fight scenes are odd. In Hollywood movies, fight scenes are super
choreographed. The ones in this movie look like...well, except for some
obvious fake punches, like people having a fight. You ever watch two
random guys have a fight? It doesn't look deadly and graceful. It
looks banal and clumsy and stupid. Two guys rolling around on the
ground, clutching at and hitting at each other. So, is this really bad
movie making or really good movie making?
The story is interleaved with lots of bits of life among the Inuit, so
it feels almost like a National Geographic documentary. All this feels
amazingly authentic. The equipment, the way it is used, the way people
behave makes it seem like a home movie taken among real tribal Inuits a
century ago. My strongest impression is that this is about the least
attractive way of life imaginable. Squeemish vegetarians will not be
delighted.
One comes away from this film having seen many things that one has never
seen before in a movie. Most of them things I could have lived without.
One does not come away feeling terribly entertained, but it certainly is
an interesting experience.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 279 of 327:
|
Mar 4 05:45 UTC 2003 |
It was a Cannes 2001 Winner Camera d'or for
Best First Feature Film. It's on my To See list. Lots of info at
http://lot47.com/thefastrunner/index.html
|
furs
|
|
response 280 of 327:
|
Mar 4 13:19 UTC 2003 |
We rented One Hour Photo this weekend. I really liked it. Robin
Williams was really creepy in it and as a bonus, he was watching a
MSU/Purdue game in his little fantasy. :)
|
tpryan
|
|
response 281 of 327:
|
Mar 4 13:46 UTC 2003 |
American editing is much more tight. We don't see it until
you see editing made up of each shot scene being spliced together.
Example: We see report being dropped emphaticly on a table. Camera
changes to character and he begins to speak, making his point. Hollywood
editing has the character starting to talk while the report is hitting
the table, then mid-sentence the camera switches to the character.
A second or two shaved from the film. But when such tranisions add
up, it can make a film feel choppy or slow.
|
