There you go... Genius.

OFFICIAL NOMINATION FOR POST OF TWO THOUSAND TEN

I don't see an attack it is a healthy debate

now I think we are getting somewhere, dub or subtitles is a necessary evil (for the most part) it is when someone can't understand the work. But like you kind of pointed out (and is my point) "One can do that with writing only so far, and every translation is inevitably a failure on some level". I would not use those words, but we are human, right? you make a post, I read it, someone else reads it, someone else sees it as an attack, I don't (and even if it was, then it is irrelevant), you might not have meant it that way.... the translator is influenced by what is written/said, and what he perceives as the message will show in any translation. To me a translation (like a remake) becomes a new work because you can't judge what was there originally, you did not read/listen/see it.

learn the language? works if there is only one, but I am fluent in three languages, going by what is in my collection, should I learn Korean because I want to see The Host? Russian for nightwatch ( and daywatch)? Dutch for Black Book? Mandarine for Warriors of Heaven and Earth? Mongoloian for Mongol?Japanese for Letters from Iwo Jima ... I can't possibly know so many languages (just to mention some of the BDs off the top of my head) and especialy understand every nuance in all of them.

either your life is less rich because you limit yourself to the languages you know or you choose to live with the ramifications.

As for reading subtitles, why is it better. The issue is some here frown on dubs, and I have seen some bad ones so I can understand why, but there are also a lot of good one and in some markets (like French here, French in France, Germany from what I hear from a poster earlier...) where a lot of dubbing is done they have the experience and can do them well. It is not that I have anything against subs, in Apocalypto I thought they worked well, I hate it when in films everyone speaks the "mother tongue". I just don't see it in B&W like some here. For me Sub or Dub something was changed, the minute it is changed it is not the original arguing that something is closer is just nuts. Why is it closer to the original when people are saying soething different because I read it instead of listened to it. If the movie is dubbed, the listening might be different but I am looking at the moving pictures as much as someone that is watching the original and that is not lost (and both the term movies and cinema come from "moving" pictures.)

I don't know what they do at Cannes or what some cineastes think. But like here everything in France is dubbed, They don't only dub TV shows and movies from English, but also TVshows and movies from Here. I was there many years back and it was funny to watch shows that where made here speaking with a Parisian accent because they where dubbed. The whole dubbing war started in France (France enacted rules for dubbing there, which then led to Quebec enacting rules to entice companies to dub here, and so most films get dubbed in both places for their respective markets)

:eek: That's the second nomination in as many days and we're still in January! I guess it's shaping up to be a banner year for the internet. ;)

but the filmmaker does not have that option. I don't speak Russian, I can't get what the filmmaker is presenting in Russian when I watch Night watch. That is why the monalisa/picasso argument does not work. A better example would be if I can't go to the Louvre and see the Mona Lisa is it better if I see a picture of it or an amateur that recreated it. Neither is the real thing and each has its pros and cons. The photo will lose the richness of the pain, the amateur will not have Leonardo's talent.

not at all, where did I say all other languages are monotone? My point is that unless you understand what someone is saying, tone and accenting is uselss. French and English are very similar in sentence structure so it could work better but get into languages that are more dissimilar (like Greek) and it is more useless. Because you can't tell where the tone/ accent is supposed to be applied. Let's say something is said and someone is surprised, you hear that inflection, surprise is relatively universal, if it is dubbed the surprise will be at that point, but if it is subbed you can't tell what part of what you are reading should be the surprise by the inflection in the actors voice, the sentence structure can be different.

As to your other point, y'all pick up the difference between someone in the south and someone in New York city axing you a question or a Bostonian in his cah on the way to the pahck. But would you be able to tell the difference of someone speaking Montreal French or Saguney French? No because you won't pick up on the vernacular.
it is a bit different, it was a matter of timing and honestly a bit of freedom in the dub. In the end it was done in a tumultuous time here (or just after to be more precise) and the wording and accent of all the characters was picked to bring in the "class struggle" that was happening at the time (if that makes sense.)

but the integrity is lost no matter what, right? did citizen Kane or Battlefield Earth have French or German writing at the bottom of the screen when shown in the US? No

could it be because the people saying dubs are bad never saw good dubs because in their country there is very little dubbing that is done so they never had a chance to see it done well?

Now you're just getting desperite.

There's a lot of dubbing that goes on in this country, and I deal often with an industry where the dub actors will draw 2000 people to their Q&A sessions,while the people who actually created the show and originally performed the characters will often draw only a tenth of that (or less). Why? Because the dub actors put on a show and are "funny", and they'll be your buddy.

So yes, I have EXTENSIVE knowlege of the subject bridging multiple nations, and I don't see the need to repeat the facts to you. Especially in Canada where the population who don't speak English/won't buy it without French is incredibly small, yet because they have a powerful political party continues to insist that all of the DVD covers carry French (even the reverseable ones, yes on BOTH sides)

I have seen "good" dubs (aka ones where the voices fit the characters and the acting doesn't make your ears bleed) . The Disney animation ones are usually excellent in the 4-5 languages I've experienced them in. I have never seen a dub mill like the ones used for movies and TV crank out a "good" dub. But seriously, if you can't find basic emotional expression not in your mother tongues, I don't think you're a very good judge of overall performances to begin with.

Ok, I give up. While I speak German (100%) and English (90%) and watch lots of movies in both languages all the time, my observations on german dub quality are obviously wrong because in Japan they have the same guy do all Bond actors and because you (a Cinéaste and purist) know a guy in Vienna (where what they speak is quite different to normal German) who is also a Cinéaste and purist, I'm sure, thinks they're crap. :itsnice:

Honestly, Jeff, I really admire thedigitalbits and Bill's and your work there, but at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree... :)

Sorry, I don't agree to disagree. It's a matter of personal policy.

I accept your surrender though :)

And Dan isn't a purist, I'd say far from it, he just can't stand the bad acting any more, and his English is virtually native. He's one of these rare people that can pick up a language and sound like they were born there. He even taught me all the differences between Austrian and German German, which in the end still aren't any more different than New England vs the Mid Atlantic, certainly nowhere near Cockney vs standard London (now that one fascinates me, a slightly exaggerated version can be found in Austin Powers 3 for the unaware)

For the two that I looked at, yes. It is annyoing enough to see that I have the PC set to a frame rate of 23.976 and seeing that there is a frame rate mismatch again so I do not always bother to look for this. of course I would not mind for a movie to be shot at 25fps to be that way on the disc but as this happens not very often it would be great to get some kind of note somewhere in the menu or on the back of the disc that states this.


It was obviously 24 frames per second but as you know the vast majority of these movies is now put on Blu-Ray with 23.976 fps it would be nice to know that 24 fps in shooting is gonna be 23.976 fps on Blu-Ray. In an ideal world I would prefer all these movies to be on Blu-Ray at the original 24 frames per seconds but after probably over thousand releases with a framerate of 23.976 it is a bit too late for that.


This is not what I meant – when the movie is already done at 24 frames it is not desirable to release more than 95% of them on Blu-Ray with a 23.976 frame rate and but then have some releases at 24.000 and some others at 25.000 – it makes no sense.

And I am aware of limitations with existing equipment in the US but this does not apply to the question of what to do with movies shot at 24 fps.


That’s a valid question and I can sympathize with you there - before Blu-Ray virtually 100% of movie releases on European DVDs were being distributed with a 4% speedup :( I am glad we finaly got rid of that problem, for the most part that is.

Last year I saw a premiere 70mm print of the infamous Krakatoa East of Java (I doubt we will ever see new prints of this monstrosity) and it clearly had outlines around high contrast edges that with some additional digital work could easily mistaken for the dreaded EE we see on many DVDs and some Blu-Rays, too. Now I have seen outlines in other prints before, for example the prints of the RAH/katz restoration of Lawrence of Arabia, but with Krakatoa it was much more pronounced and obviously the whole movie was somehow 'photochemically sharpened'. A very interesting effect and most viewers seemed to like the result although I found it mostly distracting.

Interesting analogy. I'm not sure if I agree with its use here, but it says something to me.

Subtitling is (99%) an additive layer. Dubbing is a substitutive layer. With subtitling, you lose a handful of pixels worth of detail "under" the printing at the bottom of the screen. With dubbing, you lose the entire original audio performance.

I hope he speaks the Vienna version of Austrian German, which I find very charming. The rest of Austria speaks quite differently, sounding almost like Swiss German – for which I'd almost need subs... :)

One thing that has not come up in the subtitles vs dub discusion: Subtitles affect only the visual part of a movie while dubs only affect the sound so one has to decide which part of the movie one chooses to impair in case the dialogue cannot be understood.

I always prefer subtitles to dubs as dubs to me have always been lacking in dynamics and ambience and once you have heard an actor speaking with its own voice it is hard to go back to seeing him with the voice of somebody else no matter how good it might be.

But don't get me started on big subs in general or especially big and possibly very bright subtitles in very dark scenes - they completely ruin the mood. And I have to say that I always enjoy the cinematography more when I do not have to read and watch a movie simultaneously - it is just not the same.

Apologies for replying to a relatively old post, but I think this got lost a bit when the conversation spun into a different direction.

I'm a bit baffled by the arrogance (for lack of a better word) that comes from assuming that you'd be qualified to force your personal preference onto potentially millions of other people.

Not watching a movie if you didn't speak the language is your choice. Removing dubs from all movies to prevent others from choosing differently is oppressive.

I'm sure there's an artistic integrity element to your beliefs, but to me it's also an issue of the winner setting the rules (if you had Gates fortune). How would that be any different than someone who hates subtitles with Gates fortune removing all subtitles from movies because the words on screen distract from the visual integrity of the image?

Penton & Jeff,

As you have in the past with films like Dracula and Ghostbusters, I was wondering if there is anything *technical* you can share now that the cat is seemingly out of the bag re: Jurassic Park.

What should our expectations be for any future blu? I had read that the first film was in fairrly bad shape and needed some work. I would assume that since it's a classic Spielberg film that it will get what it needs to be brought up to snuff for release on Blu.

Just curious on any thoughts/personal expectations you may have. We already know the Indy Trilogy had some MORE work done recently too, so it would be nice to know if the same special treatment has been given to this classic, JP.

-Esox

My studio, my rules. I'd bet a large faction of SAG and the DGA would support me to, but that's pure speculation. If I bought Paramount or Universal, there would also be a large shredder and a public burning of certain films that offend me. My fantasy, I can do what I want :)

As some people are uncomfortable with their personal choices, so uncomfortable they refuse to engage people directly, I'd end my part of this discussion here, but you're welcome to PM me. I don't bite :)

It's safe to assume that anything Spielberg will be handled with the utmost care

My studio, my rules. I'd bet a large faction of SAG and the DGA would support me to, but that's pure speculation. If I bought Paramount or Universal, there would also be a large shredder and a public burning of certain films that offend me. My fantasy, I can do what I want :)

As some people are uncomfortable with their personal choices, so uncomfortable they refuse to engage people directly, I'd end my part of this discussion here, but you're welcome to PM me.

It's safe to assume that anything Spielberg will be handled with the utmost care. The biggest problem I see with Jurassic Park is that they had to use a lot of cheats because this was brand new technology, and CG tended to be done at the lowest res they can get away with. Therefore unless they redo a bunch of shots (not out of the question, but I have no direct knowlege of that) I'd expect there to be a lot of accusations of softness.

No major studio film from the last 20 years should be in "fairly bad shape", now that we have low-to-no fade stocks, digital compositing and negatives no longer being used for direct printing the need for traditional restoration diminishes rapidly once you get past 1985.

All JP needs is a new HD transfer from a decent quality master element and some clean-up. Obviously if Universal are going to reissue it theatrically at some point they may go down the DI route, so that they can chop in any CGI enhancements that Spielberg feels are necessary.

M

Please toss Smokin' Aces in the shred/burn pile. ;)