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