Nope.

WTF, are you all saying that this movie was made without being it in English? OMG!

Although I haven't seen it yet.. not my cup of tea... for an American movie I'm shocked!

I'm just hoping that the subtitles are player-generated and not burned-in. I'd like to be able to turn them off.

And what, you don't speak Aramaic or Latin?

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO EDUCATION IN THIS COUNTRY?

No way. This film is basically the closest thing you'll get to a documentary about those times without actually going back in a time machine with a movie camera. Dubbing it into English undermines that completely.

no

First off, you're dreaming if you think there's ANY chance that this movie will be dubbed in ANY language. Face it, the director made a film using languages that NOBODY IN THE WORLD actually speaks. The whole point of the movie is to show how Christ died as realistically as possible. Part of that artistic vision was to use historically accurate language. These is absolutely no way that this movie will (or should) have English (or any other language) dubs.

Don't worry, they're going to have multiple language subtitles, so they can't be burned in.

ahhh no.

Aramaic is still spoken in various pockets of the Middle East.

Actually, it's generally considered *inaccurate*. Greek was the language spoken in Jerusalem at the time, though some of the Jews would've spoken Aramaic (and Hebrew).

It's not historically accurate in that sense, Gibson wanted it in Latin because whatever sect of Catholicism he belongs to things that all masses and other church services should be performed in Latin, and he sees this movie as a sort-of church service. The Aramaic is wrong, but again, it's following church teachings instead of actual history. (Which is fine, except that it can't be said to be "historically accurate" in that sense.)

NO!

There is no need for a dubbed version.

It would ruin Mel's vision.

Look at Crouching Tiger. The dub job was horrible.

Actually, in terms of dubs, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is one of the better examples.

nope

No. No. No.

I think they should just not release this trash pile of a movie...they should put the subtitles to Mien Kampf on the alternate track, and a commentary with Hitlers grandson. All the jesus babies in america would love that Im sure...

please don't thread crap, if you don't like the movie, great... then say so constructively

Suddenly, I regard baracine's posts and well-balanced and reasonable.

Ladies and gentleman, we have now a textbook definition of a POOR Thread Crap.

Now, back on topic. Although I would personally love a dubbed option on the standard release, I understand why those here oppose it due to the issue of the director's vision.

Despite my understanding of this, can anyone tell me that EVERY time they have a DVD playing on their screen that they are DEDICATED to doing nothing but watching it?

A simple option would be nice, wouldn't it. If not, why?

-notrolls-

See, you're making it into an abstract question, but the folks who questioned the idea before (whom I agree with) asked "Why would you want 'The Passion of the Christ' running as a background movie?" Like, is it the type of movie that you'd pop in while you're doing other stuff?

I'm not saying that it flat out couldn't be, I'm just saying that nothing about it seems to be that type of movie, and none of the reaction I've seen from any of the people who liked it way more than I do (I don't consider it worth owning, personally, I thought it was a poorly made movie) would suggest that it's the sort of thing that they'd want to watch casually; they'd either be dedicated to watching it, because they want to feel His pain again, or because they owe it to Him, or other reasons along those lines, or they wouldn't watch it.

When I pop on a movie to have something going in the background (for instance, while I write, but there can be other things distracting me also), I generally pick a comedy, or a horror movie, or maybe a dumb action movie. Something which won't grab my attention or get my interest too high, but which also won't make actively be trying to make me feel bad.

So, yeah, I definitely pop stuff in, but the question is, is this REALLY a movie that you'd do that for, or are you just upset because they're eliminating the *option* to do that?

EDIT: Whoops, didn't see this part:

To answer your question, they'd have to pay the actors to come back in and re-record the dialogue (which also always looks bad), dialogue which was never written to be spoken in English, and, beyond that, dialogue which Mel Gibson's specific sect of Catholicism tells him *should* never be delivered in English. Don't forget, his religion tells him that it should be in the language that it's in. What you're suggesting would be akin -- in a certain zealous light -- to casting a blonde woman with big breasts as Jesus just because the grosses of the movie would be higher, or cutting out the anti-semitism just because it was "immoral". I'm not passing judgement on his sect, mind you, I'm just saying, since the *whole* movie is all about him molding specifics from the Bible into his view of his religion, why would you question that one specific aspect of his religion and not any of the others?

Besides which, if the movie were available in English, a lot of people would choose to watch it that way, which is the opposite of what Mel Gibson wants. [If you want my opinion, the movie being in Latin had the same effect as Spielberg shooting 'Schindler's List' in black and white; they were able to show things which were more horrible than most people wanted to see, but they were slightly removed from the immediacy that movies usually have; Gibson did so by having it be in another language, Spielberg by having it be in black and white, but the effect was, basically, the same. But that effect would be lost if the film were in English, to no discernible gain other than the ability to pop it on and not pay attention to it, which is probably something Mel Gibson wouldn't want you doing anyway.]

No, dubbing does a disservice to the original performance. Not to mention, reading subtitles is hardly a chore when the movie is good.

i say yes

Why ?

. . . . . .

Yes, it's true that most of the Jews of the time would've spoken Hebrew, and all of the educated Romans would have been speaking Greek, and the soldiers would have spoken either Greek or Latin, but hey, he couldn't mix things up *too* much, and Aramaic and Latin sound different enough that you can tell who's who just by vocal inflection.

I'm reminded of Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ" where all of the Romans were British. Works for me.

You've gotta be kidding me. The dub was horrid, I still wonder whose stupid idea it was to make Chow Yun Fat sound British.

I said yes, only because they do that to a lot of movies.
They a french, english audio on the dvd.

If they can put a damn full-screen, they can put english audio option.

yes

I don't know how many dubs you've heard, especially when it comes to martial arts films, but I maintain that CTHD is one of the best. I invite you to name some better English dubs if you can.

Not that I think it matters with regards to the question, but Yes, every time I have a DVD on, I dedicate my time to watching it. If I want something on in the background, I'll put on music.

I can see it now. "Mr. Gibson, I know you wanted this to be in Aramaic and Latin, but there are a small handful of people who would like to be able to listen to your movie in the background, and they'd like an English soundtrack. How about it?"