Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!leeper From: leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: re: Subtitling vs. Dubbing Message-ID: <1196@mtgzz.UUCP> Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 14:31:01 EDT Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1196 Posted: Sat Sep 21 14:31:01 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 06:20:55 EDT References: <356@decwrl.UUCP> <6900001@labdjz.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ Lines: 27 >I, too, do not consider myself a "fan of cinema", however, I >must speak out for subtittling. In my experience I've must >agree that the a subtittled version gives you only enough >dialogue to know what is happening, but also gives you the >*feel* of the actor's voices. I am referring to the best subtitling vs. the best dubbing. We have all seen bad foreign films dubbed even worse. Dubbing is an art and if the only qualification for the dubbing part is being almost able to read English you will get a lousy job of dubbing. I certainly would prefer subtitling. But a really well dubbed film can give you everything you want in the subtitled version and give it over more plot because their is a greater band-width for the words to come on. If in the original film you have two people talking over each other with people in the background talking, there is no way you can render the scene with subtitling. You can with dubbing. If the actor is making an impassioned plea with pain in his voice, subtitling may be better. If the dubber is a really good actor, however, he can get much the same pain in his voice and the dubbed version can be very nearly as good, and conceivably better, though that would in some senses be a betrayal of the original film. A really good job of dubbing will sacrifice far less than it adds by letting the viewer know a lot more of what is going on. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com