Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Von Marlon
I can understand you don't like subtitles but that argument is bullshit.
If you'd care about watching a film in the way it's intented you'd watch it with original audio.
|
Yes, subtitled, dubbed, or an audience that doesn't understand the language, it's not the way the director intended it. I considered that a given. I concede that was a poor choice of phrasing on my part; however, I explained what I meant by it, which was not the least bit bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Von Marlon
You'd hear the right dialogue in the right voice with the emphases at the right moment coming out of the right mouth.
English is my second language. I started learning early. After comprehending two languages you notice a lot goes lost in translation. Besides that words, sayings, expressions, banter, insults,... lose power and effect when translated.
Example: the insult "Cunt!" often gets translated to a word meaning asshole or bitch. Both offensive but a little different don't you think?
Dubbing is lazy. It decreases people's knowledge of other languages and therefore increases stupidity.
Subtitles are useful when it comes to learning more (even when loosely translated).
There's also a big market for bad drugs, shitty bands and useless gizmos.
|
You seem to forget subtitles are also a translation of the original dialogue. Dub or subtitle, it's the same translation, good or bad... the subtitle writer can get it right or wrong, same as dub writer. Or were you just on a tangent? You can't lump that one in on dubs over subtitles.
I love the voice as well, and the voice cast is important to me. I agree with you. But one tends to lose things in both cases: sub or dub. The question comes down to which film characteristics are more important to you personally.
To you, the voice of the actor cast is more important than missing other film aspects. That's great. I'm not disputing, nor insulting, that value. (Or, you read so fast and well, you never miss anything. That's great too. I'm happy you're that adept at it. Not everyone else is.)
For me, the most important aspects are the visuals, as it's a film; not a book, nor primarily an audio art form. It sucks that the voice is not the same as the actor, but that's one defect I prefer to the other option: missing a random mix of dialogue, facial expressions and background information. That sucks worse for me.
You can say watching dubbed films is lazy... but you should know that's a very cliche, inaccurate, uninformed, and thus, lazy statement. I read a wide array of subject matter all the time. Laziness it not my motivation. I've already clearly stated my reason. If you want to say I'm lying, you're wrong. Do you really believe I haven't studied an array of scholastics and have no interest in other cultures? Don't lump me in with the woefully uneducated and culturally uninterested, just because I prefer dubbed to subtitles. That's not a logical correlation.