Subtitles or Dubbing? - A POLL

Both have their drawbacks:
Subtitles can be a task to follow (and for folks like gbg without good vision can be even tougher). Sometimes they don't stay on screen long enough (for us Evelyn Wood Speed-Reading dropouts) or are too big, too small or in an uncomfortable font or color.

But some dubbing can turn a wonderfully acted film into a joke when it's not done well. (I think we've all experienced that - not that Japanese monster movies are sophisticated, but we all remember how they turn super goofy with the dubbing.)

So, my vote is subtitles over dubbing because just hearing the intonation in an actor's voice, even if you don't understand the language, (i.e. the acting,) can make or break your perception of a film.

That would be my guess although equally I suspect you might have some dubbing of less mainstream films outside the US simply because its more part of the culture.

In the US/UK you simply don't have very many non English language big films imported so its really not part of the industry. In other countries the dominance of Hollywood means that cinema in a foreign language will have a much larger presence. You often get situations were a certain voiceover actor becomes "the voice" of a big Hollywood name.

Equally I suspect that's why dubbing tend to have a had rep in the US/UK, most peoples experiences of it are limited to very badly done dubs of genre cinema like Kung Fu films.

See, I don't understand that personally. If it's live action and someone says something, then I have to ignore what's happening to read it?

I personally loathe both options, but I'll suffer through dubbing if I'm forced to choose.

Subtitles are for serial killers and people who advocate for using 1 square of toilet paper a sitting.

In fact, there are many times when I see a series or movie on netflix and because I didn't check carefully before playing it, I'll only discover that it's a foreign piece part way in (Some movies have no dialog in the beginning).

I punt the entire thing, every time.

__________________
Rules:

When women have a poet, they want a cowboy.
When they have a cowboy, they want a poet.
They'll say "I don't care if he's a poet or cowboy, so long as he's a nice guy. But oh, I'm so attracted to that bad guy over there."

Understand this last part, and you'll get them all.

Because it's easier to hide the dub in animation than live action? It's more off-putting and distracting to me when someone's mouth isn't moving to the words they are "speaking". In animation it's so much easier to get away with that.

As for you not watching things that have subtitles? Your loss. You're missing some of the best films cinema has to offer because of ignorance. Doesn't matter to me though, you be you.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Someone saying something is what's happening.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Yes, but in an action scene there is always something going to be said. In most scenes I can move my eyes to the words and not miss anything. In action movies, the moment something is said and I move my eyes, I've missed the action.


You're apparently grossly ignorant of what a personal preference is.

In a live action sequence, there is by definition a lot of stuff visually going on, almost always quickly.

In such sequences, the people aren't always mute. They're often saying *something* in between the action.

So in such cases, to see what little they do say, I have to move my eyes /away/ from the action to read it. I can miss a lot of action that way, or at the very least not experience it right.

And it's a disaster for me for non-action movies as well. I analyze the acting in a movie when I watch it. If their acting is of high quality, it's the whole point of watching to me....the nuances that they're able to pull off.

As much as I liked the original Das Boot, the subtitles took away something big for me.

Try this experiment: Try watching a regular english speaking movie sometime (one without subtitles) and forcing your eyes to the bottom the screen every time they talk and gauge your distraction from the scene. You'll better see what I'm trying to say, and as distracting as that may be, it's not as bad because you can still hear what's being said.

This coming from the person who also wrote this sentence:

Anyway...

Or I could just turn on the English subtitles that tend to come packaged with most DVDs/streaming services. In any case, the fact that I'm even arguing for subtitles in the first place should make it clear that I don't consider them a distraction - if anything, this experiment you propose would be more distracting simply because I'd have to consciously make the effort to stare at the blank space where subtitles should be rather than observing them as they appear naturally. It's just like reading in general - a skill that needs to be practised.

That's right Iroquois. Coming from a person who wrote that sentence.

There's a difference between hyperbolic humor and being serious.

You understand that much, right?

Let's say I said: "Steak tartare is for serial killers and people who advocate for using 1 square of toilet paper a sitting."

However to in a calm tone state that a person who loathes subtitles is ignorant in some way, is just ignorance in itself. I loathe oysters too. I suppose that's ignorance as well. {eyes roll}

So it took a year for this to start another "calm fight".

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Long before my time here. So this is one of those gasoline threads?

It would've been fine if you just said you didn't understand how people could watch subtitles, which is a simple question that any of us could've answered (and we did). Following it up with that joke (which still aligns with the overall anti-subtitle point of your post anyway) and saying you shut off movies once you realise they'll involve subtitles is what combined to give us an impression of wilful ignorance regarding subtitled movies. Perhaps that impression of you was wrong, but you can see how someone can reach that conclusion based on that initial post (especially when it involves bumping an old thread about the subtitle-versus-dubbing debate just to say you hate both subtitles and dubbing).

1. Iroguois, ignorance is not knowing something, facts or information.

What I was talking about was clearly personal preference.

We should at least start with that.


2. I didn't "just bump it to say" anything. I responded to an older thread. Don't try that arguing technique, it's a joke.

If I had started a new thread, you might have responded with "We have a thread about that very subject".

Dude, "live action" ≠ action scenes or refer to the action genre. "Live action" just means real people/animals/sets/etc. as opposed to animated ones. A movie can be nothing but quiet scenes of people talking and still be live action.

And I'll second Iro's opinion about who the ignorant person is in this situation.

As to the original question, I typically watch foreign films with subtitles because I find having to read the dialogue far less distracting than the mismatch between the words and (typically lack of) inflection and the movement of the actors' lips. I will sometimes watch animated films with dubbing because, like Suspect said, that mismatch is not as apparent - but I still usually choose subs.

__________________

Tell me what kind of food you dislike then Vicky.

Then I'll call you "ignorant". And then see if the word is being used correctly, hmmmmm?

As already pointed out, you are being willfully ignorant - that is, choosing to lack knowledge - of a vast array of films and programs because you refuse to even give them a genuine try.

I dislike certain foods because I ate them and the taste of them didn't suit me.
This is a false analogy.

No, sorry, it's not. I came to this conclusion BECAUSE of having tried such films.

If you say, loathe garlic, then I could say that you refusing any food that had garlic in it was being ignorant?

Answer that, and only that.

Like not knowing that a movie has subtitles and quitting it the moment you know it does?

And I could respond to an old thread about Martin Scorsese to say that I don't like his movies*, but what good would that do?

*I actually do like his movies

Yes, you could say that and you wouldn't be wrong. But I don't refuse to eat new foods that contain ingredients that I despise. Why? Because there could always be an exception and because tastes and preferences change over time. I loved mushrooms when I was a child, but I don't like mushrooms now. Except on pizza. They're delicious on pizza.

The same applies to film. I'm not usually big on foreign films. The language barrier and cultural differences often leave me struggling to connect to the stories being told and with the characters in them. Subtitles are distracting and dubs are even more so. But I've found a few that I love and that wouldn't have happened if I'd done as you do and refused to watch them.

Apply my garlic question that I gave Vicky to yourself. Could I call you ignorant if you loathed garlic and as a result refused food with garlic in it.

Or even more apropos: If you ordered a food and after a few bites liked it but THEN hit the part of it with garlic, would you finish the entire thing?

You're really oversimplifying this and trying to mask it with some kind of high-brow flurry of words.



Excuse me, but what on Earth are you talking about.

In a thread asking which you prefer: Martin Scorsese or (say) Stephen Spielberg, you AREN'T supposed to be able to say you don't like either but hate Martin Scorsese???????????????????????????