Why do people get upset about dubbing?.. (1 Viewer)

[Nils Luehrmann]

Hmm.. and yet they offered dubbed versions of the Simpons. I guess the Director is just “wrong”.

The point being is that most directors want their films to be enjoyed by as many people as possible and thus generally support various editions.

It seems there is a growing hostility against anyone who might prefer a choice that is some how considered inferior or different from their own. Instead of being HT enthusiasts, some of the rants make it sound like they are HT elitists.

I personally prefer subtitles, but I certainly do not have a problem with those that prefer dubs, and who knows, if more attention went into quality dubs I might even prefer them. Most importantly, like many others, I am grateful that in some cases we are given multiple choices.

 

[Ryan L. Bisasky]

question, this is more of a dvd question but still logical. I have read rumors that the crouching tiger dvd and the amilie dvd here in the states are actaully dumbed down subtitles that are not a 100% accurate translation as they were in the theaters. I saw crouching tiger in theaters and didn't notice any difference on between the two, and i haven't seen amilie in its entirtey. Now, i have seen parts of Amilie on one of the starz networks, full frame but subtitled. Now, i know a few french words here and there, and that translation seemed accurate, so is that version the same as the dvd.

 

[Holadem]

I don't know about "dumbed down" (especially Theater vs DVD) but it is common for english subs of english flicks to be more or less accurate paraphrases of the actual dialogue. Seth mentioned dropped phrase, it happens fairly often, and that's not even counting other languages.

Thing is, bad dubs can be immediately spotted, while bad subs will fly right over your head unless 1- you understand the original language or 2- the subs are so horrible they are grammatically, logically or contextually faulty.

This is what gives the illusion that subs are better, while "safer" is what they actually are.

--
H

 

[Yee-Ming]

Spot-on. And not just fluent in the language, but aware of the idosyncrasies of said language or nuances as well. Too often many subtle wordplays get completely lost even before translation.

 

[george kaplan]

Agreeing with some of the excellent above points.

The anti-dubbers often make the claim that subtitles are always or nearly always more accurate than dubs.

While that may be true, it is, frankly, unsubstantiated. It's true that the dubs and the subtitles are usually different, but why the automatic assumption that it must be the dubs that are inferior?

The Criterion Throne of Blood has two, very different subtitles. I don't know which is more accurate, but if either one were dubbed, you can be certain that would be accused of being less accurate.

I suppose that those who speak both languages fluently can tell which is better, but that would seem to be very few of the people who watch films with subtitles. If they were so fluent, they wouldn't need the subtitles.

And, as has been alluded to above, just watch any film with close-captioning. Even in English, where no translation is needed, the 'subtitles' lose a lot. Dubbing may or may not be even less accurate, but to just assume that the subtitles must be more accurate is just specious.

I'd welcome those making the claim that the subtitles are more accurate to share with us which languages they are proficient in, and which films they have personally compared the dubs to subtitles, and not just found that they were different, but can verify through their excellent bilingualism, that the subtitles are more accurate.

 

[TheLongshot]

Nor is it for dubs either. If I have to hear another bad southern accent as a placeholder for an Osakan accent, I'll have to beat someone. The problem is a cultural one, and the conotation of an Osakan accent is different than what we associate with a southern accent. Neither subs or dubs can solve this problem.

Puns are also a problem, and don't translate well. I at least like that they try to explain what it means in liner notes. The dubs try to make it work somehow, with mixed results.

I'd also never claim that subs are always accurate. I know a guy who had a field day with the subs for Crest Of The Stars. That being said, they are rarely so bad that they change the meaning for a scene.

Jason

 

[TheLongshot]

Actually, the essays in the "Throne Of Blood" DVD is quite interesting in talking about dubs and some of the challenges.

From the description (I've only watched one of the subs so far.), one is a pretty straight translation in modern english. The other is a more stylized translation, to reflect the archaic Japanese in the film, and to reflect the source material, Shakesphere. My understanding, from those essays, is that "Throne Of Blood" was a difficult film to translate.

Jason

 

[Cees Alons]

Generally true, of course, but I explained in an earlier post why I often LOVE to have subtitling on ('The Sopranos' being a perfect example).


Cees

 

[george kaplan]

Less damaging to the audio, more damaging to the video, and of course, irrelevant to the accuracy of the translation, which is what I was posting about. Aside from the acting peformance (which is a different issue), I fail to see much advantage to having the original text there, since I don't understand the original text.

 

[Cees Alons]

No it wouldn't. And I wasn't trying to contradict you.

What I meant to add was this: if you have a bad translation (dub or sub), you no longer have access to the original dialogue in case of a dub, while you do (but with some difficulty of course) in case of a sub.

The fact that the dub replaces the original makes people more critical (they sort of expect a 1-1 translation), while subs tend to look more like a helpful addition to the intact dialogue.


Cees

 

[Richard Kim]

While that may be true (since dubs are supposed to match the lip movements of the speakers), I've heard that subs are often shortened/abridged from the original language, so it can be readable as quickly as possible for the viewer.

 

[Cees Alons]

And they may be shortened to match a defined width and number of lines (given a certain letter font).


Cees

 

[Kenneth]

I think this is missed in the accuracy discussion. A line in Princess Mononoke comes to mind for this. In the English subtitled version when the Monk is first encountered they eat and he comments,

"This soup tastes like water."

In the dubbed version version the line becomes,

"This soup tastes like Donkey Piss."

Although less accurate linguistically, it is a more accurate translation thematically, since for an American audience watery soup wouldn't carry the same connotations as it would for a Japanese audience. A subtitled or dubbed version should consider the thematic elements if it wants to remain faithful to the director's vision, not just the linguistic elements.

Another point on subtitles versus dubs is for children. Although there are many children with excellent reading skills at young ages, many have better verbal skills than reading skills. This makes a dubbed version more accessible to a younger audience and an older audience. Also, my significant other who is Thai generally prefers movies dubbed in Thai (unless they are really poorly done) since she is more used to listening to movies than reading them.

Kenneth

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Numerous people have mentioned that certain words and concepts do not translate well (or at all) from one language to another. I agree that this is true. However, this is an irrelevant argument, for purposes of this discussion. Both dubs and subtitles are translated versions of the original script -- the issue of untranslatability affects both methods, and does not help us answer the question of which method is more desirable.

On the issue of translation accuracy, these are the reasons why I believe the subs are usually more accurate:

1. Dub dialogue must be shortened. According to Wikipedia, humans can read (for comprehension) at a rate of 200-400 words per minute. This is faster than most film characters speak. Therefore, if a transalted line of dialogue is longer in the translated language than in the original language, the subtitle can present the whole translated line, while the dub must shorten the line to match the duration of the original, untranslated line of dialogue. I have never see a disc where the dub script contains more information or more subtlety than the corresponding subtitles -- the reverse is always true, at least in the examples I have seen. I suppose there may be a disc somewhere in the world with the hypothetical "crappy subs and good dub" on it, but I am not aware of the existence of any such disc. Cees suggests "And they may be shortened to match a defined width and number of lines (given a certain letter font)" but again, I am not aware of any examples of this. Surely, the duration of the original spoken line provides a greater limitation on dub translations than font size does on sub translations.

2. Dub dialogue must not sound awkward. A translated line that sounds awkward when spoken in the new language, will often "read" just fine as a subtitle. In other words, a dub translation is more likely to be "Americanized". Disney's Miyazaki films are a great example of this: the subbed dialogue often has a slightly "formal" or "archaic" sound, sort of like the way Shakespeare sounds to the modern ear -- Clare Danes would sound silly trying to speak like that. Therefore, her dialogue in the dub was modified to sound like the speech patterns of a normal 20th century American girl. Again, there may be some DVD somewhere in the world with an accurate dub and Americanized translation in the subtitles, but I am not aware of any.

3. Subtitles can include footnotes to explain difficult-to-translate foreign words and concepts. I admit that not many discs use this technique, but the anime series Urusei Yatsura comes to mind, as do a few other anime titles. The first time a difficult-to-translate word appears in the script, the subtitle will include the original word, with an asterisk, referenced by a "supertitle" (at the top of the screen) with a brief, 3 or 4 word description of the unusual word that helps get the meaning across. The dub dispenses with all this and simply substitutes the "closest" English alternative, with no attempt to explain the subtlety of the difficult-to-translate concept. I agree this technique can be awkward if overused. I also agree that this technique is not used very often at all -- perhaps it should be more widespread.

All of this ignores the most important fact, that subtitles leave the original performances by the original intact, while dubs remove part of the original film. Even if I don't understand the foreign language the dialogue is spoken in, the emotional content of the lines comes across, just the way the director intends it. When watching subs, I have no problem discerning whether a character is being sarcastic vs. sincere, or concerned vs. apathetic, or truly angry vs. mildly annoyed. Dub actors sometimes take it upon themselves to change the delivery of the lines, which subtly changes their meaning, and in drastic cases, changes the development of their character. This cannot happen with subs, because the delivery of the dialogue has not been changed. Because of this fact alone, I would say that dub supporters carry the burden of demonstrating that any given dub is superior to the corresponding subtitle.


You almost make it sound like being an elitist is a bad thing.

While everyone is welcome, and all opinions are accepted, the HTF is elitist in nature. The membership here (generally! not universally) tends to be more knowledgable, has more disposable income, and has better taste in film than the general public. We are also more civilized when posting to a public forum than the general public. Check out the IMDB forums or Aint It Cool News if you would like to see this demonstrated!

It was not the general public that bought laserdisc players and Pro-Logic decoders and $125 Criterion box sets in the late 80s and formed the foundation of the market for the products that we now enjoy. It was not the general public that demanded OAR presentations, and they certainly did not demand anamorphic transfers, which we now enjoy on practically all releases. The general public did not boycott Circuit City because of DivX. The general public does not care whether Blu-Ray and HD-DVD merge into a single format. We, the elitists, are responsible for these things. That doesn't mean we are superior, morally or otherwise, to the general public. Having well developed taste in film does not make one a "good" person. But it does lead to an informed audience who demands quality products.

I wish this were not so. I wish every man, woman, and child had a high regard for film as an art form, but in fact most people see film as disposable entertainment to enjoy on the weekends and nothing more.

Does everybody see, now, what I mean by a "double standard" on the forum? If the topic of this thread was "Which should I buy, Widescreen or Pan & Scan?" or "Which is more desirable, original theatrical cut, or edited for the airlines cut?" there would be NO debate. No one would suggest it is a matter of personal preference and that the director's intent is not a factor. And I would not have to keep coming back to the thread to defend my opinions.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, the director's intent was likely for you to see it in a crowded theater without translation being required. Subtitles and dubbing are both compromises, with subtitles in many cases being the less painful one - it costs less, gives fewer people a chance to screw things up, and doesn't remove part of the original work. In theory, a well-executed overdub could work better, but that good dub is so difficult enough to do well and so rarely seen that it's seldom worth considering.

 

[Juan C]

I worked in that field for some years, and it is a very complex job, which can be best described as "simultaneous written interpretation".

If you are at all interested in the stringent conditions a subtitler works under, check here. It's by no means a definitive guide but you get the picture.

Other than that, the main reference at the time was Subtitling, by Jan Ivarsson and Mary Carroll. Worth reading.

 

[george kaplan]

No. You've convinced yourself, but you haven't convinced me.

Yes, people are not as upset about dubbing as they are about pan&scan. That's not a double standard, that's a different issue altogether. A double standard would be getting upset about pan & scan for dramas, but not for action films. A double standard would be getting upset about dubbing for German films, but not for Italian films.

Frankly, the double standard is accepting subtitles as OK. Why not go learn the language of the director, and live in the culture he does? Then you could understand his intent. Eisenstein's intent for Alexander Nevsky was to send a specific message about WW2 to a Russian audience, and subtitles in English are no more accurate a derivation of his intent, than dubbing would be.

I watch a lot more films subtitled than I do dubbed, but again, both are compromises. To say that subtitles are to dubs what OAR is to P&S, is an insult to our intelligence. It's like saying Filet Mignon is to a Big Mac, what a fleet of limousines is to a crummy pair of shoes.

 

[Gregory Vaughan]

Another personal preference reason I far prefer subtitles is that it gives me the feeling of the country where the film is located. I travel a lot, and when I see Paris or China or whatever, I want to hear them speaking the proper languages. Forget dubbing, I even prefer American films to use subtitles for people speaking in different languages (something that never used to be done, but at least sometimes happens now). Given the world we live in, many movies have people speaking different languages at different times. It's hard to convey people not understanding each other if they all appear to be speaking english.

Again, for DVD I think it's fine to give people choice, but in the theater I will always support a subtitled version with my dollars, and will avoid any dubbed movie with the hope that I can get a subtitled DVD. I accept that other people may hold different opinions, but that won't stop me from trying to show them the error of their ways.

(One other thought. I believe shortening of subtitles has a lot more to do with limited space on the screen, rather than the speed of reading the subtitles. As many people have pointed out, you can read the subtitles in a fraction of the time it takes people to speak the dialog. I would assume that's why subtitles work. You quickly glance and scan the subtitle, and the process the information while watching the actor speak. I remember watching an american comedy in Mexico, and people would start laughing the second a funny line came up on the subtitle, preventing me from hearing the punchline when it was finally spoken.)

 

[TheLongshot]

Unfortunatly, so do subtitles. The essays in "Throne Of Blood" explain this. You still only have so much you can put on the screen.

Now, your second point, the fact that dialog doesn't have to be rearranged to sound good in english in subtitles. Subtitles are usually a pretty good, neutral, summary of what was said.

As for your third point, I'd rather have that stuff in liner notes that I can look up, rather than have a subtitle explain it for me.

Subtitles aren't about it being a more accurate translation for me. Subtitles are about hearing the original actor act his lines as the director intended. When I see Toshiro Mifume, I want to hear Toshiro Mifume.

While subtitles are a slight compromise that covers up some of the picture, I think it is far less of a compromise than replacing actors voices with guys who are not the actor. I don't care that I may not be able to understand a word they say. There is a lot more to an actor's performance than just what they say, like how they say it. It matches up with their facial expressions. It is, to me, the whole package.

Jason

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Not true! Even on the so-called "good" dubs (the ones that even dub-haters acknowledge as being "not terrible") such as Disney's Miyazaki films, suffer from this. Phil Hartman's performance as Jiji in KIKI'S DELIVERY SERVICE is the perfect example. I love the man's work on SNL and on THE SIMPSONS, yet his performance as Jiji creates an entirely different character than in the Japanese original.