"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

So, I believe it is a safe assumption to conclude that the consistency of the release prints for Minority Report around the world also varied quite a bit. The digital re-mastering for the Blu-ray edition should allow all hi-def home theater enthusiasts to see the movie (in terms of contrast and colors) exactly how Steven S. and Janusz Kaminski intend you to……..something that you couldn’t really be guaranteed of unless you saw specially selected answer prints in a private screening or perhaps at an Academy screening back in the day.

Another tidbit was the directive given to Industrial Light & Magic was to do all their effects photo-realistic and unprocessed, so the effects had to look good even if the film wasn't processed. This made it easier for Kaminski to grade the film as a whole and not have to do the effects sequences separately or pay them special consideration.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

It doesn't matter how good or bad the acting is, it only matters that it's not the film as intended to be originally exhibited. Subs only take you out of the picture if you're not practiced watching them, and while subs may be limited by the text you put on screen, a dub is always far more limited by the lip flaps available.

so are you telling us that Hollywood films are intended to have foreign writing at the bottom? Subs or dubs the film was not intended to be shown that way, it is a limit that we don't all speak the same language. Is it exactly the same film with a dub? no, the same way that you did not read Jules Verne's words if you read Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea in French , Or Homers word's in the Odyssey in ancient Greek. But if you limit yourself only to stuff that was created in a language you can understand because translating it is evil then you are a sad person indeed

I would also say that America spends just as much on their dubs as any other country, because just like France or Germany, or Quebec (that has "watch a movie dubbed in French and see how much better it is" day, and might have 1 in 3 theatres playing the English version despite the fact that the vast majority also speak English) we're pigheaded when it comes to such things.

Yes, here every movie plays in theatres in French and in English, what is wrong with that? people get to choose what they want, I like it better then the one time where the person in front of me was asking every few words for a translation because they did not understand English (man did I feel like telling them off because they could have gone to the room next door and I could have enjoyed my movie). But I disagree, take my BD collection, I have roughly 500 movies, most are "English" I have around 20 "international" including 5 that are from here (French) the numbers are no where near the same. Every Hollywood movie, like you pointed out, is shown in English and in dubbed French, Hell we even dub French movies some times because people in France speak funny. While in the US people might be pig headed, very few none US movies are shown there and a very small % will watch a movie that is foreign. On the other hand US movies make it all over the world and every US movie you see in the US I can see here at my normal cinema. I won't bother to say how many US movies played in 2009 at the theatre down the street, you can find out that number because all of them did, now how many none US from None English speaking countries played in the theatre that you usually go to? How many TV shows play on the normal networks that need translating?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

ADR is not dubbing, and is done, except on incredibly rare occasion by the original performers under direction from the original creative staff

still it is someone saying something that might not match exactly as the image would look? right? if I repeat the same thing 100 times there would be very few and maybe none that are exactly said the same way.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Cinema Squid

It's your prerogative to dislike the sometimes misguided extrapolations made from raw and context-free information, but it seems fairly wrong-headed and short-sighted to me to oppose the information itself.

You are absolutely correct, that would be misguided, and I tried (if unsuccessfuly) to divorce the facts (specs, codecs) from the conclusions.

My argument is not with those keeping track, or for the uses you list above (keeping track of various versions is indeed relevant), but for those that extrapolate from these raw figures and draw conclusions without regard to context. (bare with me) If I tell you film A was Mpeg2 and 17gb, and film B was 48gb, which one would look better?

Well, naturally, the length of the film comes into question. Plus, the condition of the master. etc., etc.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, I'm suggesting that, at times, people extrapolate from these data points to make broad generalizations about releases, studio intent, etc. (heck, derogitory references to "HD-DVD quality transfers" are just a couple posts above).

I did say I thought people should be licensed in order to have a bitrate meter - based on your post, I think you'd pass the exam (where I, certainly, wouldn't even think to take the test... )

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Of course you will. You have subtitles, which inform you of what they're saying, and context takes care of the rest.

your point was that with a dub the person looses the inflections of the original performance, in other words exactly how the actor said what they said. right? But if the person is reading the subs while trying to listen to what is said it is just as lost. Words don't always fall in the same order, subs are limited by what can be read and what fits on screen. The inflections are lost to the perceived gibberish spoken by the character. The subs that are read have no inflections. On the other hand if the dub actor/writer/producer are any good then they can emphasize the words so the same meaning is past like the original performance.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

If you ever watch Jesus de Montreal (it is a movie about a bunch of actors that are hired to portray the way of the cross at St-Joseph’s but their view and portrayal is a bit too modern for the Church) there is a small clip where the actors are dubbing for a movie so you see a bit of how it works.

yes, it's comical and rediculous. And to watch "Jesus of Montreal: The Dubbed version" would be a travesty, ruining the (dare I say) "nuance" of the language and diction.

I find it more than a bit amusing that someone from the Belle Provence is suggesting that Dubbing is the way to go, when Quebec culture has worked for generations to have their own artwork appreciated in the language of origin.

Hien?

I assure you that the issue is not the quality of non-English dubbing actors versus those that have to do it more often, the issue is one of artistic intent.

Heck, forget Anime (without lypsynch) or the latin languages... To dub a Kurosawa film is to cram into the (shortened, highly masculinized) vocal performance all the poetic meaning of the scene. With subs, one is allowed to provide not only a clear translation of the scene, but also the intention, without need for a 1:1 relationship between the open mouth of the actor. Subs can continue past cuts, can lead into cuts, clearly giving a better overview of the actual original intent of the performance in almost every case.

Given all that, subs are a compromise, clearly subservient to the goal, namely, comprehension of the original language of the film (complete with idiomatic phrases and other localizations).

Dubbing is an even greater compromise, truncating the original script, forcing it to fit, broadly, into the verbal performance of the actors in another language.

My French is downright, well, "merdique", and having learned in both Ontario schools and France, my Quebequois is downright shite. That said, if I watch =and= listen to an Arcand masterpiece such as the one you reference, I get the comprehension =between= the written and spoken work, picking up, in part, the subtleties that lie between translation and comprehension of the native tounge. Even the most capable dub is incapable of doing this, as you've rid the film of all inflection from the original performance. Hell, even the way a character screams, or sings, or cries out will be replaced by an entirely unique performance, covered up entirely by the dub.

Some filmmakers go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that their dubs correspond with their artistic intentions (Lucas comes to mind, and Peter Jackson, to name two mainstream directors), yet in the end the most delightful dub is not, ever, the orignal intent of the soundtrack, the mixers, etc.

You may have your reasons to prefer dubs, so be it. But, respecfully, don't for a moment say because you like the voice of a particular dub actor that the original language track is in any way, be it technical or aesthetic, somehow "less" than the version you feel is most comfortable to your ears.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It's art, not competition. How can someone be "better" at entirely subjective expression? A dub actor may give a performance that you, as an audience member prefer to the original actor's performance, but the filmmakers chose to create and present that original actor's performance, not the dub actor's performance.

yes, and I see them as two separate works of art, right when you read Plato in English (since he was mentioned by shark and Plato was the main source for what we know of Socrates who was mentioned by PM) part of what you read is from Plato part of it is from the guy doing the translation. One translation can be better then an other.

Helen Mirren might be a better actor than Drew Barrymore, but she's not a better Drew Barrymore than Drew Barrymore.

but if you are watching Drew Barrymore then (you or) she did something wrong, you should be watching the character she is playing, if the dub is more convincing then yes they are doing a better job. If the writing and portrayal in the dub is more entertaining then yes it is a better job.

Like Gorkon said "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon."

same thing with Slap Shot and the Quebec dub from the 70's

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

your point was that with a dub the person looses the inflections of the original perf

Yes, and not only do good subtitles reflect this, but you are still hearing those inflections, even if not comprehending the language. You are hearing the music of the orignal performance, as it were, rather than the coverband that has shifted keys, changed instruments, rescored different parts to fit in with what's on screen.

Dubs aren't Johnny Cash reinterpretting NIN, they're Musak, elevator music. Sometimes this background music was performed by remarkable musicians, with top notch studios. But even they wouldn't suggest that they somehow trump the orignal.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

You may have your reasons to prefer dubs, so be it. But, respecfully, don't for a moment say because you like the voice of a particular dub actor that the original language track is in any way, be it technical or aesthetic, somehow "less" than the version you feel is most comfortable to your ears.

But I am not forcing anyone to watch a dub, right? the issue is there are people here complaining that the dubs exist or that Sony might choose to offer them in lossless because they are not interested in them. If a person prefers subtiles with original language (for a language they don't understand)then they should do that but it is not anyones place to decide that because they do understand the main language that the person that does not should not have the ability to see the movie with dubs if he so pleases.

And why is it so hard to believe that yes, sometimes (rarely) the script or performance coming from a different sources can be better. I am not the only one that from the time I have seen slapshot in French have never gone back to the English version, most people I know are that way, is everyone wrong because a handful of people on a forum who probably don’t understand French and never saw it refuse to understand such a simple fact?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

so are you telling us that Hollywood films are intended to have foreign writing at the bottom? Subs or dubs the film was not intended to be shown that way, it is a limit that we don't all speak the same language. Is it exactly the same film with a dub? no, the same way that you did not read Jules Verne's words if you read Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea in French , Or Homers word's in the Odyssey in ancient Greek. But if you limit yourself only to stuff that was created in a language you can understand because translating it is evil then you are a sad person indeed

I don't mean to attack, but this, of course, is an argument for subtitles over dubbing. Yes, Homer in Greek would be preferred, the compromise is an educated, nuanced translation done with great expertice to capture the wit, poetry, and subtext of the orignal. One can do that with writing only so far, and every translation is inevitably a failure on some level in conveying the real meaning of a given work.

But Dubbing? Imagine trying to translate Homer, but you're limited to using the same number of words per sentance?

Yes, here every movie plays in theatres in French and in English, what is wrong with that? people get to choose what they want, I like it better then the one time where the person in front of me was asking every few words for a translation because they did not understand English (man did I feel like telling them off because they could have gone to the room next door and I could have enjoyed my movie).

That, unfortunately, is a reflection of English education in parts of Quebec. I can only assure you that a non-subtitled French film in Toronto, even at the Film Fest, would have a far greater percentage of incomprehensibility (as you well know). Save for small pockets, Trudeau's dream of a truly bilingual nation is far from realized.

But, again, why is that an argument for that person to go see a dub film rather than encouraging them to either a) learn the language that's being presented, or b) learn to read subtitles correctly (it's indeed a skill that's learned, like comprehending quick edits or jumps in time... thank you Nouvelle Vague! )

Hell we even dub French movies some times because people in France speak funny.

heh, what I said above regarding the Arcand.

I won't bother to say how many US movies played in 2009 at the theatre down the street, you can find out that number because all of them did, now how many none US from None English speaking countries played in the theatre that you usually go to? How many TV shows play on the normal networks that need translating?

Again, this may be (forgive me) a "provincial" outlook. I assure you that every cineaste in France would demand, to the point of riot, that any serious film be shown "V.O." The thought of something playing at a Cinemateque, or at the Palais in Cannes in a dubbed fashion would be...inconceivable. For historical reasons that are beyond this thread, there's been a push to "Frenchify" certain cultural artifacts to appease the majority French speakers in your province to the detriment of original intent (I only have to look for the removal of the apostrophe in Schwartz's for a taste of that).

I'm a lover of all things Montreal, my father was born there (Je suis un autre, bien sur), but I just can't get behind your defence of dubbing, and I shudder to think of those in the outer regions beyond the cultural centre of Montreal that see real, artistic films dubbed for the sake of convenience, just as I weep for those in far, far greater numbers in the English speaking world that avoid all things "foreign", and demand for even the most straightforward work (say, Discovery's Planet Earth) that a new soundtrack be produced to placate unchallenged ears.

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^
I’ll put on my Instructor’s cap……..”You're a lot like he was. Only better…..and worse.”
Anyway, it’s good to see you guys don’t mind my Socratic method of teaching.

The *look* of Minority Report (bold contrast with particularly rich blacks but subdued colors) is not really the same exact technique as “bleach bypass” but rather is a proprietary (Technicolor) silver retention process originally designed for Vittorio Storaro, ASC back in 1980 or ‘81? It is a very common over-simplification/error to refer to all the different types of silver retention processes as “bleach bypassing”. It is true that this particular proprietary process yields a final effect similar to “bleach bypass” but, the steps in getting there are different and most importantly, with the former, one can adjust the intensity of the effect (Saving Private Ryan is super ‘intense’, i.e. .70 value) by varying the concentration of the chemistry. With the “bleach bypass” technique, essentially you either bypass most or all of the bleaching function, so it's inherently less adjustable.

Anyway, this photochemical process is a color positive developing technique….which is applied to the positive release print stage. Clint Eastwood’s people found that when they used this on Mystic River, it was difficult to maintain the proper print consistency on all the release prints……not to mention, very expensive, when you’re making a couple thousand or more release prints for a global release with this *look*. Technicolor invented a digital emulation of this *look* which locked in the print consistency and thusly didn’t suffer from chromatic shifts like the photochemical process can. So, subsequently, Clint E. used the digital intermediate process rather than the photochemical on his later films in which he desired to achieve this same *look*, i.e. - Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, Changeling and to a lesser extent Gran Torino, as I said above.

So, I believe it is a safe assumption to conclude that the consistency of the release prints for Minority Report around the world also varied quite a bit. The digital re-mastering for the Blu-ray edition should allow all hi-def home theater enthusiasts to see the movie (in terms of contrast and colors) exactly how Steven S. and Janusz Kaminski intend you to……..something that you couldn’t really be guaranteed of unless you saw specially selected answer prints in a private screening or perhaps at an Academy screening back in the day.

Cinephiles who like the *look* of these various silver retention processes always comment about the deep, rich blacks and the desaturated colors it produces, but something which is rarely mentioned and should be recognized is that the silver retention process used on Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan, etc. makes the colors (and stuff in the shadows) appear sharper and more detailed than they would be without it…..sort of like a photochemical edge enhancement, if you will. It is believed that silver physically in the film provides a tad of an edge effect around/along the textures of the image. Hmm, I wonder if this type of EE would be considered kosher by ‘screenshot scientific videophiles’ because it is au naturale (photochemical) rather than EE produced synthetically (digitally).

Anyway, this is one heck of a long post so I'm bleached out on this topic for awhile.

Penton, this should be your "Post of 2010." Excellent description!

[sharkshark]

We're leapfrogging posts here..

Originally Posted by Anthony P

same thing with Slap Shot and the Quebec dub from the 70's

OK, I gotta ask... Since a heap of the comedy of the film relies upon the "Out-ra-ge-ous ac-cent" of the goaltender ("First you got da hooking...den da slashing... and den you go to da box for five minutes and feel shame"), how did they deal with that in the dub?

ps. OK, I'll throw some other stuff... How do you feel about Pan and Scan (even, say, 2:35 blown up to fit 16:9 TVs)? How about Colourization? Where's the line drawn?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

If the writing and portrayal in the dub is more entertaining then yes it is a better job.

So, if you and I are big Picasso fans and Picasso were to paint on top of the Mona Lisa, would we have a "better" Mona Lisa?

Appreciating something, as an audience, is not the same thing as giving filmmakers the opportunity to present their message to you.

I like Lawrence of Arabia more than Ishtar, but do you think, if I'm going to watch Ishtar, I should watch it with the Lawrence of Arabia soundtrack? Yes, maybe, to me, it would be "better", but it's no longer Ishtar.

[Jeff Kleist]

still it is someone saying something that might not match exactly as the image would look? right? if I repeat the same thing 100 times there would be very few and maybe none that are exactly said the same way.

When did I say that was a requirement? You're trying to invent an arguement for me. I said that the film should be shown as intended and created by the original team. End of story. I did say that dubbing was limited by the lip flaps available.

your point was that with a dub the person looses the inflections of the original performance, in other words exactly how the actor said what they said. right? But if the person is reading the subs while trying to listen to what is said it is just as lost. Words don't always fall in the same order, subs are limited by what can be read and what fits on screen. The inflections are lost to the perceived gibberish spoken by the character. The subs that are read have no inflections. On the other hand if the dub actor/writer/producer are any good then they can emphasize the words so the same meaning is past like the original performance.

So you perceive all languages you don't speak as monotone? Human beings share universal modes of expression. You're talking about nuance, some of which may be lost in translation, but the number of dubs I've seen that would even take such a thing into account I can count on one hand with lots of fingers left over. No one doing professional dubs has the time or the money to research and teach the nuances behind every spoken line. The closest you usually get is someone using a southern accent to represent a regional dialect or something (or whatever is the regional equivalent)

I am not the only one that from the time I have seen slapshot in French have never gone back to the English version, most people I know are that way, is everyone wrong because a handful of people on a forum who probably don’t understand French and never saw it refuse to understand such a simple fact?

You're not wrong you prefer the movie dubbed in French. You are wrong that it is anything approaching the original. The script is the script. The movie is the movie, and it's not up to Joe Dub Director to change that.

Oftentimes when dialog is translated, there may be a joke that makes absolutely no sense when translated, so a good translator will usually find a similar joke in the target language. Perhaps that's the case you're experiencing here.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

How do you feel about Pan and Scan (even, say, 2:35 blown up to fit 16:9 TVs)? How about Colourization?

Cans and worms and playing and fire!

[Jeff Kleist]

I'm a lover of all things Montreal, my father was born there (Je suis un autre, bien sur), but I just can't get behind your defence of dubbing, and I shudder to think of those in the outer regions beyond the cultural centre of Montreal that see real, artistic films dubbed for the sake of convenience, just as I weep for those in far, far greater numbers in the English speaking world that avoid all things "foreign", and demand for even the most straightforward work (say, Discovery's Planet Earth) that a new soundtrack be produced to placate unchallenged ears.

The re-recording (especially doing it AGAIN for the movie version) mystifies me as well.

I also don't understand why Death at a Funeral, a film barely 2 years old, directed by an American (Frank Oz), and starring 2 hilarious and wonderfully talented Americans (Alan Tudyk and Peter Dinklage, who is also in the remake) needed to be remade either, from all appearances simply trading a white upperish middle class British people for Black upperish middle Americans and using a nearly identical script from the trailer.

How do you feel about Pan and Scan (even, say, 2:35 blown up to fit 16:9 TVs)? How about Colourization?

hey stop stealing the next stage of my arguement

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Eternal_Sunshine

To be fair, according to this list there have only eight (8) 50i Blu-rays with film-based content been released in Germany, all from minor/independent publishers.

Well, I happen to have suffered through 3 of these titles from Germany and a few more from the rest of Europe- it is a stupid practice that has got to stop.

Also it is annoying how many titles have a 24.000 instead of 23.976 framerate - especially with a HTPC the frame rate has to be adjusted for all these titles and it is just not necessary to have 24.000 framerates when the vast majority of titles is 23.976 - get with the program and use 23.976 already !

@Penton:
Is there some kind of organisation or annual meetings where smaller companies can be reminded to use the same framerates for movies as all other studios ?

[Eternal_Sunshine]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I don't mean to attack, but this, of course, is an argument for subtitles over dubbing. Yes, Homer in Greek would be preferred, the compromise is an educated, nuanced translation done with great expertice to capture the wit, poetry, and subtext of the orignal.

Excuse me, but LOL.

If you think movie subs are done with only a fragment of the care and nuance that goes into a faithful translation of literature, you're very wrong.

To be quite clear, I watch most movies of US/UK origin in English because I understand it well enough, but I often add English subs for the relatively rare occasion when I do not get what is said (some actors like to mumble...) – and not even the English subs are verbatim! Sentences are simplified and shortened all the time, especially when there is a lot of fast dialogue. And when I use german subs, the translation is mostly very bad, and usually absolutely worse than the translation done for the german dub – which, again, is usually very sophisticated and done with great care.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

And the French Candian dubs are pretty terrible. Seriously, and yes I have plenty of French exposure to make that determination. All of the other dubs are done on "state of the art equipment" too, pretty much no matter where you go, but a 5 million dollar studio won't help poor acting/directing etc. They aren't trained for the job, like most people in that line of work they are willing to come in and say the lines as cheaply as possible so they use them. Casting sessions are whirlwind affairs where you're auditioning on tuesday and you're in the booth on Wednesday. While you certainly will have experienced voiceover artists, there are no dubs on this earth that are the artistic endeavor you describe. Disney are the only ones who habitually put a lot into their foreign casting for their animated features, and for those only.

No matter how often you repeat it, it's just not true (at least for Germann dubs). How can there be "whirlwind casting sessions" like you describe when all major actors (and most minor actors) have always the same dub artist do their "german voice"? It's an industry, it's highly professional, and while from a purist point of view it may be kinda wrong, it just feels weirdly right...

Also, I would question how many of the movies that are done (or have been done) actually have the artistic merit to justify this purism, let alone comparisons to Homer, the Mona Lisa et al. that have been brought up in this very thread. Trust me, G.I Joe in German is just as good/bad/hilarious as in English. FWIW, some actors' performances gain from a different voice... believe it or not, but in German, Keanu Reeves does not seem that wooden after all...

[Jarfa]

Originally Posted by Eternal_Sunshine

Excuse me, but LOL.

If you think movie subs are done with only a fragment of the care and nuance that goes into a faithful translation of literature, you're very wrong.

Very true.

Btw, check those stats...

Sony is the only BD company that cares generally for subs in every release they do...
21% in Mandarin; 39 in spanish; 10 in russian 0,3 in russian | 12 in arabic and 33 in portuguese

Guess it is a good marketing policy

Fox and Disney are the worst marketing BD publishers... they don't know that those languages are spoken by more than 3000 millions of people.
(English is spoken only by 600 millions of people).

I don't buy BD editions without subtitles of my mother language... if every buyer in the world do it ... guess what

Excuse my english.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I also don't understand why Death at a Funeral, a film barely 2 years old, directed by an American (Frank Oz), and starring 2 hilarious and wonderfully talented Americans (Alan Tudyk and Peter Dinklage, who is also in the remake) needed to be remade either, from all appearances simply trading a white upperish middle class British people for Black upperish middle Americans and using a nearly identical script from the trailer.

... which serves to remind me... I suspect that the original English soundtrack (the Australian one) will henceforth be a fixture on any further North American video releases of Mad Max while the rights are where they are today. However, if somebody over there neglects to put it on the forthcoming BD (and stranger things have most definitely happened), I'm going to be one very frustrated monkey. Does anyone have any inside word on the likelihood I'll be flinging poo in the near-term?